A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria (semi-technical, but worth the read!)

AiG ^ | May 27, 2009 | Kevin L. Anderson, Ph .D. and Georgia Purdom, Ph. D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Abstract

Mutations alter the nucleotide sequence of the DNA. They may affect the organism’s phenotype, which can play a key role in bacterial adaptation and transformation to changing environments. Some of these mutations even appear to be beneficial to the organism. However, creationists have tended to offer an inconsistent or incomplete perspective of “beneficial mutations” within a creation framework. This includes the frequent denial that mutations can ever provide a beneficial phenotype, and the concept that “beneficial mutations” are merely an evolutionist exaggeration...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[brownsfan]

This whole debate escapes me. I know what the bottom line is for most, God vs. no God.

I think evolution is possible. But, IF there is evolution, it’s because that’s how God put things together.

Bottomline for me is God exists. I don’t care what others believe.

[LukeL]

I remember in highschool (this was sociology and explaining how different enviornments can cause radical changes in population) we saw a show on how after HIV patients are on drug cocktail for a prolonged period the ratio of drug resistant viruses to non drug resistant are something like 10-1. In an expirment some patients were taken off the drug cocktail and in a short period of time the ration reversed and the drug cocktail would then work.

The theory was that the drug resistant strains seem to benefit from the enviornemnt where the drug is present but can't function in a clean enviornment showing that there had to be a tradeoff for that mutation.

[blowfish]

Thanks for the daily laugh, especially one that’s dressed up in pseudo-science. They’re especially funny!

[GodGunsGuts]

Did you read it, BF?

[El Laton Caliente]

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[blowfish]

Yes I did. It cited a bunch of (apparently) real articles preformed by real scientists. Then at the end it basically stated “this all fits in with creationism” while omitting the slightest evidence for their claim. They also omitted the slightest positive evidence that creationism had anything to do with the phenomena described by the articles they cite.
In other words: typical “creation-science” bilge.

[GodGunsGuts]

Another Evo flat earth society! These societies are multiplying like bunnies. Darwin would be proud! Thanks for the invite though, I know you meant well. As a Round Earth Creationist, I’m definitely not interested. But if you ever fall off the end of the Earth and live to tell about it, be sure to ping me :o)

[GodGunsGuts]

What specific evidence that is better explained by design/creation than evolution did you object to?

[blowfish]

They didn’t offer any evidence at all, all they trotted out is the tired line of reasoning “many mutations don’t benefit the organism, and there’s a lot we don’t know about the genetic process - therefore God Diddit.”
If that floats yer boat, yer welcome to it.

[El Laton Caliente]

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view that the Earth remained motionless at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began supporting heliocentrism publicly, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[8] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei Sorry, the "flat earth society is in your likeness...

[atlaw]

Did you read it

Yes. And "semi-technical" is an appropriate description.

[GodGunsGuts]

As usual, the Evos are wrong:

The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.

http://creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography

[DoctorMichael]

Warning!
This is a Meta-article that contains
no site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever
and is produced by a member of an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific
internet group attempting to pass off his agenda as scholarly.
They are not constituted to provide proof of Creationism but instead
merely to snipe snidely and spam the internet with their Trollisms.
Buyer Beware!

[tpanther]

Yup...bottom line is life began somewhere, somehow, sometime. There had to be a beginning.

That it just occured out of thin air without purpose without some intelligent input is nosensical.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!