But SOME girls monkeys like THIS:
My girlfriend also gives it a very favorable review.
Posted on 03/28/2006 2:37:59 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
The natives can live in malarial zones that would kill us. This is hardly de-evolution.
The fact that 1/2 their children die horrible deaths (1/4 anemia, 1/4 malaria) shows that this resistance mechanism was not intgelligently designed. (So does the fact that there are similar diseases, the thalassemias, in other malarial zones)
You need to define higher order.
we aren't seeing any positive mutations to offset them.
I contend that Hemogloben-S is a positive mutation. If it weren't why is it selected for?
You could make the same claim about any disease. But in fact, scripture says that God allowed and some cases caused diseases as a punishment.
It's akin to the claim that because man can't run like a cheetah or see like an eagle that we must be "sub-optimal" and therefore unintelligently designed. It's a bogus argument, as can be demonstrated by man's own inventions which are often intentionally suboptimal in some respect or another. Example a volkswagen vs a corvette.
I can do Escherichia into Salmonella in about 6 weeks in the lab. Is that good enough for you?
"Salmonella by morning, Up from San Antone" placemark
Awesome placemarker < Placemarker >
Please outline the procedure; I wasn't aware of the possibility.
Almost 30 years later and everyone still thinks they were right.
What's your explanation for how this gene just Poof! came into existence? Spontaneous generation?
There are no examples of a mutating Staphylococcus aureus turning into a coagulase-negative staphylococcus, much less into a Pseudomonas, or even more for the purposes of Darwinism into a multicellular organism.
There are not even lethal mutants which show any changes in cellular structure suggestive of increasing complexity.
It took something like two billion years for the first eukaryote to evolve. Then it took about another billion years to get multicellular organisms. And you want this to happen again in a convenient period of a few decades?
Maybe (I'm agnostic).
But don't you think it odd to make the essence of science, for the purposes of instructing the young, something as untestable and unfalsifiable as the above statement?
longtermemmory -- I am at a loss to understand what you mean by "cracker jack box", except a really creepy one-shot slam. What do you find "cracker jack box"-ish about this article, providing something more than a one-shot slam, mabe sme facts, some analysis, something more fitting a person who is presumably college educated please?
I don't think I'd call eukaryote and prokaryote evolution the "essence of science" in instructing children. Most people hardly learn what they are until they're teenagers.
At any rate these processes are untestable if you mean doing a complete runthrough of the origin of life on Earth. However, we can have a high level of confidence for various reasons. The age of the Earth and the Solar System can be determined using a variety of methods that closely agree. The age of the oldest rocks can be determined using a variety of methods, and these ages are consistent with the age of the Earth (we don't have any rocks older than the planet!) We can find fossilized prokaryotes in rocks. Before a certain time period no fossilized eukaryotes are found, after that time period they are found frequently. And that's just the fossil evidence for the evolution of prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
See my post #12. They omitted discussion of the evolution of several genes and gene families that didn't fit with their "mutation and loss of function" paradigm. I hardly see how this could be accidental as MRSA and vancomycin resistance are the major antibiotic resistances of concern today. In compiling information on antibiotic resistance it would be impossible to overlook these unless one had purposefully swept them under the rug.
I guess we are ALL unfit, for surely we are going to die.
Flightless birds are good for what?
But SOME girls monkeys like THIS:
Don't let an emu hear you say that, it would kick you into next week.
But...
Does it have large talons?
"Flightless birds are good for what?"
Reproducing more flightless birds.
For the most part Salmonella is lacking features that Escherichia has.
1. Begin with an Escherichia strain that has the following characteristics:
arginine utilization +
ornithine utilization +
xylose fermentation +
Esculin utilization -
2. Make the following mutations:
formic hydrogen lyase (knocks out gas formation from sugars) - piece of cake.
knock out beta-galactosidase, but not lactase - piece of cake
knock out salicin fermentation - piece of cake
knock out tryptophanase (indole reaction) - piece of cake.
3. Find genes (not from Salmonella - that would be cheating!) and move them into Escherichia.
For Hydrogen Sulfide formation. This has been dome from Pseudomonas, but other enteric like bugs would also be good sources. I would use a plasmid, because I also need:
Gene for citrate utilization. I don't remember the exact gene Escherichia needs for this, but it is in the literature. Probable source: Citrobacter. Stick it in the plasmid with above. The plasmid can be an integrative one.
4.After you've made this critter, clean it up and dust it off and send it to any clinical microbiology lab and have it tested. It will come back unequivocally as Salmonella.
There's a lot of overlap in the antigenic structures of Escherichia and Salmonella, so nothing will have to be done there.
(BTW this is one reason why many microbiologists of the non-clinical persuasion think of Salmonella and Escherichia as the same bug, but clinical people will not agree with this - but don't tell anyone).
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.