Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
"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.
"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes...."
Oh well you know the rest.
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!
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.
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
Now you understand!
We DO!!!
(Without the hand waving...)
OH?
There were countless warnings about bad behavior given to BOTH sides before the 'Unexplained' happened!
http://www.unexplainedmag.com/
Stuff wuz, somehow - we really don't know....
then it changed
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
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
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
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..
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.
"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!
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).
LoL..
I thought we had a question. Before you talk theory, you need a problem or question.
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.
"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.
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 nylonasethe actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nyloncome 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.
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.