Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
New Scientist ^

Posted on 06/10/2008 12:07:34 PM PDT by mnehring

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: 48to46chromosomes; apologistfordarwin; belongsinreligion; crevo; crevolist; evolution; lamarckwasright; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; spammer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last
To: GunRunner

It’s not a matter of the Greek texts; it’s that Luke’s genealogy seems to be trace natural descent through Mary, and Matthew’s His legal genealogy through Joseph.


101 posted on 06/10/2008 2:28:30 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling; BibChr
"Except, the Bible doesn't say six 'normal' days, it uses the term Yom which can translate as a 12 hour day, 24 hour day, or an 'age' of indeterminate amount of time"

Wrong again. The Bible uses the phrase "the evening and the morning were the ___ day" to make it clear that it was normal days. Tough for the propagandists.

102 posted on 06/10/2008 2:28:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I don’t share your high opinion of Hanegraaff, but would be surprised if he actually said Genesis was “allegorical.”

As to the other, it’s simply that I’m at work. Easy to do; I’ll bring the references later, and we’ll see whether yours was an honest question.


103 posted on 06/10/2008 2:30:41 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: shineon
On the other hand. Here's proof that Pancakes are not flat.

Those look good. I make mine with blueberries.

104 posted on 06/10/2008 2:32:36 PM PDT by Hacksaw (I support the San Fran tiger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
"Are you saying the Bible is infallible, and that Creation happened in exactly 6 days because the Bible says so?"

I'll say that as loud as I can. The word of God is shielded in numeric perfection that transcends all attempts to unravel it. Learn about it, and you won't look this foolish again.

105 posted on 06/10/2008 2:32:46 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; mnehrling
That is a startlingly widespread misconception; very sloppy Hebrew.

yom is never unambiguously used with an ordinal or cardinal number in reference to anything but a normal day. Or, put positively, whenever yom is found in conjunction with a number, the reference is always to a normal day.

106 posted on 06/10/2008 2:38:23 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
That's certainly one explanation, although that would make Matthew's also a little contradictory; since he was not the father of Jesus, why would his lineage matter?

Then again, Mark, John, and Paul's books don't specifically mention the virgin birth.

107 posted on 06/10/2008 2:40:17 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: patton
"That’s how calculus works - you add up a bunch of zeros, and get a non-zero answer (as in lim dx—>0)."

Nope! Linear expression; all derivatives are the same.

108 posted on 06/10/2008 2:40:56 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Note that I said legal genealogy. As Joseph's adoptive son, Jesus shared Joseph's lineage.

The virgin birth is alluded to in John and Galatians, as I take them; not that it matters. BY WHICH I MEAN, if someone isn't persuaded by accounts as unambiguous as Matthew's and Luke's, 475 other allusions wouldn't make any difference.

109 posted on 06/10/2008 2:42:42 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I guess you are referring to Genesis 1:8, (for example of morning) to the word Boqer (BQR) in Hebrew this word means morning (end of night), like the beginning of day but also refers to ‘light’ or even ‘the beginning of joy’. It does not necessarily have a direct definition to say ‘this physical morning’, just like we may say that our marriage was the ‘dawning of a new day’.

Limiting it to just the choice of English translation and interpretation we use often means we miss the beauty of the original language and we also limit ourselves to really understanding the deeper meanings in what we are reading.

110 posted on 06/10/2008 2:44:19 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
The virgin birth is alluded to in John and Galatians, as I take them; not that it matters.

Do you have the verse for John? I've read about the one in Galatians (although a stretch IMO).

111 posted on 06/10/2008 2:47:55 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"and plenty, from a guy that knows more than either of us (Hank Hanegraaff) stating otherwise"

If Hank the crank Hannegraaff knows more than you, I feel sorry for you! His hatred for God's word is depressing.

112 posted on 06/10/2008 2:48:42 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Um, I was discussing integrals - I thought that was obvious to the casual observer? An integral is, of course, the sum of a bunch of areas, each of which has some non-zero height, and width “0”. So an integral is the sum of a bunch of zeros, with a non-zero answer.

What are you talking about? Some vague lesbague trick in hilbert space, using non-euclidian geometry, which completely ignores reimann? Have you discarded the standard metric in your topology?

Or macroeconomics? Personally, I always thought macro e. is lower that socialogy, but that is just my humble opinion...


113 posted on 06/10/2008 2:48:47 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Micro-changes to DNA over millions of years = the 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference between humans and chimps = “macro” evolutionary change.

And this is testable, observable and repeatable, how?

114 posted on 06/10/2008 2:51:08 PM PDT by Nachoman (My guns and my ammo, they comfort me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Did you forget “evening?”

What then was being divided? And why was it repeated six times? You’re reaching, and you know it.


115 posted on 06/10/2008 2:53:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
From memory, I see it as background to the Jews' snide remark in John 8, "We were not born of fornication."

The other is (again, from memory) in Galatians 4, referring to Jesus born under the Law, born of a woman. This is an allusion to Genesis 3:15, which foreshadows the virgin conception.

116 posted on 06/10/2008 2:54:41 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
yom is never unambiguously used with an ordinal or cardinal number in reference to anything but a normal day.

Really, so in Genesis 1:5, when the same version of Yom was used in describing the '..light of day..' and '...were the first day', that 'light of day' was a normal day, not a general reference to daylight? Or in Genesis 8:22, when the Bible says 'day and night' shall not cease, using the same form of Yom, it was referring to that physical day, not the form of day as a general term? Or how about Psalms 96:2, when David sings to the Lord of his salvation from day to day, it was just a couple of literal days there and not a general statement of always praising God for salvation? Or when Obadiah proclaims "the day of the Lord" is at hand, he was making sure folks marked a specific calendar event and not a statement of an age. Or when Zephaniah proclaims to praise God on the day of the Lord, he really just told people to praise God one day?

Not sure where you get your information, but I would suggest in investing in a good Greek dictionary and Concordance.

117 posted on 06/10/2008 2:54:41 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: patton

Quit trying to reinvent zero.


118 posted on 06/10/2008 2:55:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

LOL - why? Mathamaticians must invent everything, before they believe it.


119 posted on 06/10/2008 2:57:16 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

You see, that’s what happens when you don’t read or think, but just kneejerk out a cut-and-paste answer. You make yourself look silly.

Now, read my statement (which you thoughtfully cut and paste), and then answer your own question.


120 posted on 06/10/2008 2:58:48 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson