'Mommy, why are atheists dim-witted?'

Jerusalem Post ^ | 12-18-06 | JONATHAN ROSENBLUM

[jim35]

"How do you explain the ability of some bacteria to feed on synthetic material? (One example of many)."

Hey, if I can eat Cool-Whip, a bacterium should be able to also. That's not evolution, that's just adding to the menu.

[Pietro]

"witty opponents"

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes...."

Oh well you know the rest.

[grey_whiskers]

I think we're saying the same thing--my point was that for its time, scholasticism served a good purpose. When the major centers of your civilization are being sacked repeatedly--first by Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, what have you, and elsewhere by Vikings, and in other places by Muslims--and none of these groups have much use for orderly, systematic inquiry--acting to preserve as much as you can is probably the best you can do.

The re-discovery of empiricism in a large scale, to my mind, was as much a function of increasing societal safety in the West as anything else.

And in its own way, a lot of the the later medieval period was a hotbed of *applied* research. Horse collars, fletching, flying buttresses, etc.

The problem with the Greeks is they didn't *refine* hypotheses; try reading a translation of Aristotle's De Caelo.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

See any 'political view'? This post doesn't bother you. You manipulate, but badly.

We have many threads and discussions about various scientific theories. Most of these are hosted in New/Activism. I suppose such a discussion would be appropriatly hosted in a Science forum if there was one, but there isn't so I didn't see any particular reason to take exception to it. Judging by the title of the article, this is not a discussion of scientific theory, or political philosophy. It is purely theological. As far as being "uneasy" with your beliefs, let's just say that I'm a little concerned with the idea that the way to defend your religious beliefs is to attack other people for theirs.

[Elsie]

I already explained the observed evolution in fruit flies.

You did?

I missed it.

---

Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grampa!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Tree_of_life.jpg/722px-Tree_of_life.jpg

[Elsie]

They don't want to see DNA changes, they want to see a bacteria change to a lizard.

Now you understand!

We DO!!!

(Without the hand waving...)

[Elsie]

Discussions about science on FR lead to countless unexplained bannings....

OH?

There were countless warnings about bad behavior given to BOTH sides before the 'Unexplained' happened!

---

http://www.unexplainedmag.com/

[Elsie]

Or the Evolution creation story:

Stuff wuz, somehow - we really don't know....

then it changed

[westmichman]

Thanks for the short course. I guess then that the political party called the "Know nothings" from many years ago could have been called the "Agnostic" Party?
Regards,
WMM

[westmichman]

Thanks for the short course. I guess then that the political party called the "Know nothings" from many years ago could have been called the "Agnostic" Party?
Regards,
WMM

[betty boop]

No matter what scientists who work in this field tell you, you refuse to accept that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You refuse to accept that the only thing needed for evolution to work is life that can reproduce. No matter how much you try to widen the scope of the Theory, the definition will remain the same:

Not true; I know very well that Darwin did not deal with issues of origins at all. That is, the ToE does not consider either genesis or abiogenesis.

However, it is also true that many Darwinist scientists cannot resist the idea of abiogenesis, for it is a view that conforms very well with the Darwinist expectation that evolution is a purely natural development that is essentially random in character. Perhaps they recognize that you cannot say a theory of the evolution of life is truly complete without considering origins -- regardless of the fact that Darwin himself did not consider origins. Therefore their expectation is that the origin bottoms out in the material basis of life, "clever matter" or "clever chemicals" if you wish: This is what abiogenesis states.

You wrote: "All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."

I beg to differ. Evolution is not the "source" of the vast diversity of life; it is only the means, the mechanism, or process that facilitates increasing biological diversity in space and time. Do you see the distinction here? Anyhoot, you don't find many non-Darwinists arguing for abiogenesis.

FWIW

[hosepipe]

[ regardless of the fact that Darwin himself did not consider origins. ]

You mean he didn't consider "origins" in the/his "Survival of the Fittest" gambit....

O.K.... O.K... maybe Charles Darwin WAS stupid?... I can read tea leaves too.. Jeese..
Course that would make him pretty stupid.. I'm still hung up on that Finch (IN Galapagos) that turned from vegetarian to carnivorous(Charlies book)... I failed to see(at 13 years of age) how that proves anything... except that "life" is very tenacious.. Yet some people see evolution in that.. Evolution like..... one species producing another species kind of evolution.. Who knows.. maybe Darwin was ..ugh!.. mentally challenged..

I have a theory... That when someone goes to a lot of effort to appear "intelligent" in demeanor, clothing, and physical appearance the opposite is true.. call it Hosepipes Law...

Currently I'm batting about @90%(or so) true...
Albert Einstein however was not as dumb as he looked..
But Dawkins seems to be.. I saw him on pBS the other night..

[cornelis]

Evolution is not the "source" of the vast diversity of life; it is only the means, the mechanism, or process that facilitates increasing biological diversity in space and time.

Good point.

Biology textbook writers don't foget to do the origin question. It's usually discussed in the chapter on the origin of life with pictures. I have one in front of me with a chapter called "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists" An irresistible topic and carefully placed right beside Mr. ToE. in most textbooks.

So, does abiogenesis have anything to do with this? LiberalGunNut thinks not. Perhaps he would like to explain his meaning. I'm tempted to think that he wants to ignore the question and insist that textbooks do the same.

[betty boop]

Biology textbook writers don't forget to do the origin question. It's usually discussed in the chapter on the origin of life with pictures ... carefully placed right beside Mr. ToE in most textbooks.

"I am shocked, shocked, to learn there's gambling going on in this casino!!!" :^)

Sometimes I wonder what Charles Darwin would have thought of some of his modern-day epigones....

Thanks so much for writing, cornelis!

[Coyoteman]

Biology textbook writers don't foget to do the origin question. It's usually discussed in the chapter on the origin of life with pictures. I have one in front of me with a chapter called "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists" An irresistible topic and carefully placed right beside Mr. ToE. in most textbooks.

Broad-subject textbooks will include many theories. That doesn't make them all the same theory.

If you want to see what evolutionary scientists are really doing, go to a good university library and check out the technical journals. You might be able to get the contents and abstracts on line. Try the list of journals at this blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ (in the right column, down a bit).

[hosepipe]

LoL..

[cornelis]

That doesn't make them all the same theory.

I thought we had a question. Before you talk theory, you need a problem or question.

[LiberalGunNut]

It is impossible to argue with anyone here in an intelligent manner. There is a great amount of willful ignorance and muddying of a subject that is really quite simple.

[LiberalGunNut]

"Were they still fruit flies?"

Yes, but if you think you are making any debate points you obviously don't know what evolution is.

Evolution does not state that a fruit fly turns into a Thompson's Gazelle overnight.

[LiberalGunNut]

Cool Whip is composed of natural edible ingredients. THe Bacteris fed on NYLON. Read this:

The nylon problem

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.

The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from?

There are three possibilities:

* The nylonase gene was present in the bacterial genome all along.
* The CSI for nylonase was inserted into the bacteria by a Supreme Being.
* The ability to digest nylon arose spontaneously as a result of mutation. Because it allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new resource, the ability stuck and was eventually passed on to future generations.

Apart from simply being the most reasonable explanation, there are two other reasons that most scientists prefer the last option, which is an example of Darwinian natural selection.

First, hauling around a nylonase gene before the invention of nylon is at best useless to the bacteria; at worst, it could be harmful or lethal. Secondly, the nylonase enzyme is less efficient than the precursor protein it's believed to have developed from. Thus, if nylonase really was designed by a Supreme Being, it wasn't done very intelligently.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html

Please explain how this is possible? This is a clear example of observed evolution.