Posted on 01/29/2004 3:08:06 AM PST by Ben Chad
You are correct. There are school boards outside the South that have been subjected to this nonsense.
I have to believe in the theory of evolution to understand bacterial resistance? Hardly! The resistance phenomenon is not that hard to understand, you give a population with an exponential growth curve a selective pressure, and watch said organism either (1) die or (2) adapt and live.
Why would I presrcibe an antibitotic for a viral dz?
Furthermore, if you have had any experience with DNA sequence alignment and homology search programs you probably have noticed that nucleotide sequences of "ancient" genes (rRNAs, cytochromes etc) diverge exactly as evolutionary theory would predict. Is it all a huge coincidence? Can a reasonable person examine all of this data and not conclude common ancestry? What other hypothesis could possibly explain this?
I don't find evolution completely irrational. Science works with what it can. No other pure scientific hypothesis can currently explain what is objective. Although as a believer in Creation, I do believe in common ancestors, only these were fully formed ancestors.
For instance at the prokaryotic level we see adaption to selection pressures, even mutations that encourage metabolism of a different sugar. What you do NOT see are changes in metabolism that convert an anaerobe into an aerobe, nor do you see gram+ bacteria becoming gram- or acid fast. When we see mutations in bacteria the bacteria does not become a new bacterial species. With the exponential growth of bacteria, and their ubiquitous nature, I find it high amazing we have not documented a single instance. And on a larger scale, the kind of mutations that will get you from one phyla to the next, or even from one class to the next. The more complex and longter the reporduction period of an organism, the more detrimental any given spontaneous mutation is. I cannot think of a single beneficial human mutation. Even the kind of mutation that happens at the prokaryotic (metabolism change) level cannot be documented in higher forms of life.
False analogy. Creating a cell from base organic molecules is not the same as a cell reproducing itself imperfectly.
I disagree it is those same biochemicals that you so flippantly disregard that run reproduction of the cell. Once again, if these chemicals cannot even get together to make a cell, why am I to believe they can run a cell, let along carry on genomic information to future generations. If this does not bother you - fine.
Appeal to ignorance: "I don't know how it could happen, so it must be a Creator that did it."
It's not crazy to pick up a watch and assume it was made. I look at what is objective. Why should I assume that life with all of its order came together randomly, and once randomly together managed to evolve into rational thinking human beings.
Like I said, I'm not trying to "prove" anything right or wrong. Your assumptions are really no better than mine. You've got a system together that you think works well for your understanding of life the universe (and everything), and so do I. No cognitive dissonace here.
" Probabilities that life could have risen by itself, and furthermore that life could have made its way from single cell creatures to what we see to day. It all so highly unprobable as to be rediculous [sic], but we're here so it must have happened (QED?)" [snip]282 posted on 01/30/2004 1:37:21 PM EST by realpatriot71
Welcome to the never ending "Festival of Restrospective Astonishment" .....
The history of England is also so highly improbable as to be rediculous. And it certainly can't be reproduced in the lab. So I guess it never happened. Now that I think about it, everything is so unlikely, one must conclude that nothing ever happened.
Oh Lordy! And how exactly do you think they "adapt and live"?
I don't find evolution completely irrational.
Well thats a relief. Still I get the feeling it isn't quite enough of a "rational" explanation for you. I am at a loss to understand why not.
Although as a believer in Creation, I do believe in common ancestors, only these were fully formed ancestors.
You agree that the genetic evidence supports evolution but you still believe in fully formed ancestors? This is a head scratcher. Are you trying to say the creator created fully formed bacteria? Do you believe that modern day prokaryotes and humans have a common ancestor?
I think what I believe is what is called Intelligent Design: I think evolution did occur, guided by God's hand. I know that makes me a heretic in some circles.
We know that evolution occurs now: that's how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and cockroaches become resistant to bug spray.
My question about the Bible version was only half kidding, though - I know which one is easiest for me to read, but which is the most accurate translation? And why are there books and verses in the Catholic Bible that aren't in the Protestant Bible? (When I was a kid, I stayed in trouble for asking too many questions...)
Wildly off-topic, but the reason is as follows: after the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity (about 500 BCE), they wrote a great many religious books (in addition to the pre-Exilic books of the Pentateuch and the Prophets), and there was no definitive ruling as to which of them were included in sacred Scripture and which were not. About 250 BCE, the Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt (then a Greek-speaking country) prepared a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and they included many of these then-recent books. Later, in around the year 150 CE, the Rabbis met in the town of Jabne in Israel and made a definitive (for Jews) ruling on which books would be considered part of the Jewish Bible, and which wouldn't. (Most of the post-exilic books were excluded, but a few made the cut.)
The Catholics accept everything in the Alexandrian Greek version (called the Septuagint) to be part of the Old Testament. Jews and Protestants accept only the books accepted by the rabbis at Jabne.
The mutation in feline leukemia virus that allowed the virus to sometimes infect dogs.
Thank you! Good explanation! There are also different verses in the New Testament, are there not?
I think so but, as a Jew, I am far more knowledgeable about the OT than the NT. I will let one of the Christians respond to that one.
Your heart heart, soul, and mind cannot fully develop while you have that gun.
Guns make people violent, evolution makes them socialists.
How odd. I wonder why a well-known creationist website (Institute for Creation Research) publishes this article:
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM.
The influence of the nutty SoCal anti-capitalist environment?
(Just to provide a change from the "Georgia-bashing")
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.