Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
What kind of elitist crap is that?
Yes, my Masters Degree in Cell and Molecular Biology is signed by Arnold Swartzenegger because it was a state school; thanks for asking.
No I merely posited that “successful” is a relative term.
But it’s tough to argue such a concept with a group of people that are determined to cram human beings into a tree with great apes while at the very same time bending over backwards to ban intelligence.
Geeee...you really went all out on your handle!
Interesting...isn’t it the elitist liberal professors that won’t let HS kids go to public colleges now because they didn’t “learn” science the “right way” as enforced by legal action?
...and not American.
And trust me, I’ve seen people on all kinds of boards who claim to BE conservatives...who really aren’t, but not only that, they have no idea what the term even means because they’re just not old enough to know better or are so screwed up and brainwashed, or both.
After all gubmint screwels have already been doing their damage on mushy young minds for how long now?
Of course there are all kinds who really and truly are conservative on many levels but get it wrong on one or more...hell, we even have the log cabin republicans. :)
One of my old bosses was conservative, Republican was married, had grandkids and one day decided she was a lesbian but she NEVER tried to pretend that was somehow “conservative” in any way.
First, how about addressing this question:
Is nylon-digesting bacteria considered to be a different type/species/kind of organism than non-nylon-digesting bacteria?
(Seems to me they’re clearly the same kind of organism (i.e. bacteria), just as a person vulnerable to sickle-cell anaemia is as much of a human being as a person not vulnerable to that disease. But macro-evolution is all about one kind of organism leading to distinctly different kinds. Like a bacterium becoming a bumble bee or a gnat. THAT’s the kind of “significant” I’m talking about.)
As far as your question – “Why would a bacteria as part of its stress response increase its mutation rate?” – assuming this is true, I don’t know why.
What I DO know, however, is that your statement – “…a bacteria under stress INTENTIONALLY increases its mutation rate in order TO INCREASE ITS CHANCES of successful evolution” presumes not only a type of CONSCIOUSNESS, but both an INTELLIGENCE and a WILL…in the lowly bacteria. I know that a true-blue evolutionist would never entertain such an idea of an organism directing/orchestrating its own evolution.
Here’s a bonus question…given it’s late and soon time for sleep, could you tell us some bed-time stories from the ToE about exactly how those things – consciousness, intelligence, will – evolved?
Great.
What I do disagree with is the attempt to exempt those theories from having to provide evidence and being submitted for peer review by the scientific community before they are accepted as valid.
What's the difference between this and your previous statement that you don't want scientists to have to go through theologians for approval of their theories? Why should creationists have to submit to the requirements of scientists before their theories are "valid"?
You have a particular interpretation of the account of creation in Genesis, and you test theories and interpretations of evidence and data against that standard. You assume that account to be scientifically authoritative, and believe that should be acceptable to anyone else as a test of the validity of those theories - even in the absence of any physical evidence to support it, or the presence of evidence to the contrary.
I don't assume it to be "scientifically" authoritative at least by the standards of science today. A large part of science is experimentation and the theory. Scientific principles and theories once held to be truth are reevaluated and discarded (or should be) when sufficient evidence against them are presented. This has happened many times in the past, it's happening every day, and it will happen in the future. Nobody has presented sufficient evidence that a creator God did NOT create man. But I believe the bible to be an authoritative source of information on this subject so I'm just waiting for science to catch up.
Are you manipulating, or are you really that dense?
I was not trying to create a term called "special evolution;" I was using an adjective, special, as in resulting in the emergence of a new species. Since no new species has occurred since God finished his creation, this use of the word has to be taken hypothetically of course.
Your tendentious use of the word 'mutation' is a far leap from reality, since the adaptations so frequently vacillate, and thus are not true mutations. But then, you are here to sow confusion, so I guess we should not be surprised.
This has nothing to do with evolution but has everything to do with survival of the fittest!
Mutation: A change in the sequence of DNA.
I hope that clears up some of your confusion.
How about this link and an explanation?
Stress responses and genetic variation in bacteria.Foster PL.
Department of Biology, Indiana University, Jordan Hall, 1001 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. pfoster@indiana.edu
Under stressful conditions mechanisms that increase genetic variation can bestow a selective advantage. Bacteria have several stress responses that provide ways in which mutation rates can be increased. These include the SOS response, the general stress response, the heat-shock response, and the stringent response, all of which impact the regulation of error-prone polymerases. Adaptive mutation appears to be process by which cells can respond to selective pressure specifically by producing mutations. In Escherichia coli strain FC40 adaptive mutation involves the following inducible components: (i) a recombination pathway that generates mutations; (ii) a DNA polymerase that synthesizes error-containing DNA; and (iii) stress responses that regulate cellular processes. In addition, a subpopulation of cells enters into a state of hypermutation, giving rise to about 10% of the single mutants and virtually all of the mutants with multiple mutations. These bacterial responses have implications for the development of cancer and other genetic disorders in higher organisms.
Pull your hat up so you can see what you’re typing.
Thanks for the ping!
And for very good reason! LOLOL!
The day scientists create life in the lab will be the day that scientists prove that there were scientist in a lab that created the very first life.
That leaves only one question.
Where did the scientist come from?
Because religion is subjective, and science is supposed to be objective.
I don't think people like Dawkins have any business trying to pass their personal theology off as science, and I don't think it's reasonable to say the because he tries to, everyone else should get to do it too.
That's because you can't teach "creation" to everyone's satisfaction, or without conflicting with thier religious beliefs. Even the "creationists" can't agree on everything. The only way to teach "creation" fairly is to cover the various creation doctrines of every religion and denomination the students may already hold or belong to, and that simply isn't practical.
If we allow scientific theories based on theology, can we discard that theology if we find what looks to be evidence that theory is wrong? Scientific theories are subject to consensus in order to try and provide the hightest degree of objectvity. You can't do that with theology, and still maintain an individual right of freedom of religion.
It's true that nobody can produce evidenct the God did not create man. This is call "proving a negative" and is generally impossible in nearly all cases.
If we make that acceptable as the basis for validation of scientific theory then anyone who can come up with any hypothesis, no matter how improbable, they can get demand that it be accepted and taught as viable theory. We don't let people do that, for good reason.
Then I don't understand your arguments. Once you submit that something came into being and operates by divine intervention, where do you go from there? Dissecting God?
All religion is objective. Personal religious experience is subjective. I can demonstrate objectively the position that the scripture I hold to be authoritative states that God created man. I can also demonstrate objectively the impact that faith has had on my life. I can demonstrate objectively the existence of God by citing and accepting the authority of scriptural teaching on the question. Millions of people accept scripture as an authoritative source of information. About the only thing I can't do is force you to accept the bible as an authoritative source of information.
I don't think people like Dawkins have any business trying to pass their personal theology off as science, and I don't think it's reasonable to say the because he tries to, everyone else should get to do it too.
I haven't read Dawkins book(s?) so I can't really comment on what he is or isn't trying to do. But it did bring up a thought. Why can't science accept religious theories on subject matter? Psychology is all subjective and there are scientists who study that. America has built an entire funding structure around psychological issues. Our court systems recognize psychological issues. Why doesn't science recognize religious thought as valid, or at least as a valid alternative, on evolutionary issues?
If religion is objective, why is there so much disagreement over theology? There should be very little if any disagreement on anything that is objetively verifiable.
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.