Is evolution as crooked as Hillary?

[Valjean]

New sections of DNA are also added by incorporating stray plasmids or viruses.
The genome gets sliced and diced; added to and detracted from, all the time.

But, again, it's not the size of the genome that determines the complexity of the organism.

 

[Ouroboros]

And one more thing, we have several examples where it's been possible to compare original DNA (ancient) with modern, like corn for instance, where we can see a growth in size and complexity (and added gene code) of the DNA. In other words, the information has increased (observed fact), so if it can't happen, and God is not creating anymore, where did the modern corn, banana, wheat, etc come from? (The expanded "added information" DNA that is) Did Satan create these new DNAs? Or did evolution? (Since God doesn't create anymore, he/she/it is out of the question.)

Another question is, where did bacteria and virus come from? If God created them, then he created them after the resting day, so the idea that God stopped creating must be wrong. If God didn't create them, but they came into being after the fall, then either Satan did it (which gives Satan a lot of power, being able to create like God), or the bacteria/virus evolved (changed) from something pre-existing (as according to evolutionary theory).

 

[Sapiens]

Antibiotics is more like gardening than evolution. The first one was cheese mold..penicillin. You give a person an infection their body can tolerate to kill the other infection. Like a gardener plants ground cover to crowd out weeds. It's not evolution, just finding things that work together. Evolution to me would mean a natural process of how the world came to be. but more an more I see the word evolution has changed into some Orwellian monster buzz word, possibly as an advertising gimick to sell medicine.

It appears that you are neither a biologist nor a physician. Penicillin does not grow in your body and "crowd" anything out, The mold itself (even when killed and purified, thus not an "infection" per se) interferes with the synthesis of peptidoglycan. This weakens the cell walls of dividing bacteria, so they burst. Penicillin is the evolved result of the advantage that molds that can inhibit bacterial growth enjoy. It is that simple.

 

[Kemosloby]

It appears that you are neither a biologist nor a physician. Penicillin does not grow in your body and "crowd" anything out, The mold itself (even when killed and purified, thus not an "infection" per se) interferes with the synthesis of peptidoglycan. This weakens the cell walls of dividing bacteria, so they burst. Penicillin is the evolved result of the advantage that molds that can inhibit bacterial growth enjoy. It is that simple.

Right, like some plants enjoy an advantage over other plants. How do they do that? Chemical warfare. Like I noticed that the peppermint plants which used to grow uncontrollably in the garden were halted simply by a horseradish plant. And the guy who developed penicillin noticed the mold halted bacteria. Nothing to do with evolution. It was simply noticing something that worked.

 

[Sapiens]

Right, like some plants enjoy an advantage over other plants. How do they do that? Chemical warfare. Like I noticed that the peppermint plants which used to grow uncontrollably in the garden were halted simply by a horseradish plant. And the guy who developed penicillin noticed the mold halted bacteria. Nothing to do with evolution. It was simply noticing something that worked.

Where you find organisms engaged in chemically mediated competitive interactions, that is where you will find the development (evolution) of antibiotics.

Do you really not think that there is a dynamic and changing "chemical warfare," knowledge of which speeds the identification of natural antibiotics?

 

[Kemosloby]

Where you find organisms engaged in chemically mediated competitive interactions, that is where you will find the development (evolution) of antibiotics.

Why does that suggest evolution and not nature keeping a balance? Nature keeps a balance by everything having advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Valjean]

Nature keeps a balance by means of an evolutionary arms race.

 

[Sapiens]

Why does that suggest evolution and not nature keeping a balance? Nature keeps a balance by everything having advantages and disadvantages.

Let's finish one issue before we move on. I stated that, "A knowledge of evolution is required to understand where to look for antibiotics ..." something you disagreed with. Do you now see your error?

 

[Kemosloby]

Let's finish one issue before we move on. I stated that, "A knowledge of evolution is required to understand where to look for antibiotics ..." something you disagreed with. Do you now see your error?

Nope no need to drag evolution into it, simple observation will do. But I know you believe what you believe and can't go against what you've been told. It's like if you had too many rabbits, you wouldn't need to know about evolution to control the rabbit population, Just that foxes eat rabbits and let some foxes loose.

 

[Sapiens]

Nope no need to drag evolution into it, simple observation will do. But I know you believe what you believe and can't go against what you've been told. It's like if you had too many rabbits, you wouldn't need to know about evolution to control the rabbit population, Just that foxes eat rabbits and let some foxes loose.

Your answer is, as I suspect you know, off topic, foxes (as you point out) eat rabbits and thus are embroiled in a complex and interactive set of feedback loops . Antibiotics, on the other hand, are not alive and preferentially and specifically "poison" certain cells, but not others. The immediate issue that divides us is, "Does a knowledge of evolution make the search for new naturally occurring antibiotics easier?" Now answer the question, yes or no!

 

[Kemosloby]

Your answer is, as I suspect you know, off topic, foxes (as you point out) eat rabbits and thus are embroiled in a complex and interactive set of feedback loops . Antibiotics, on the other hand, [preferentially and specifically "poison" certain cells, but not others. The immediate issue that divides us is, "Does a knowledge of evolution make the search for new naturally occurring antibiotics easier?" Now answer the question, yes or no!

No, it just adds an irrelevant and untrue premise to the equation, slowing the ability to draw correct connections.

 

[Sapiens]

No, it just adds an irrelevant and untrue premise to the equation, slowing the ability to draw correct connections.

That's obfuscation and gobble-de-goop, a claim with neither meaning or substance. The added premises are neither irrelevant, nor untrue, since evolutionary knowledge was used to predict the finds and is thus credited with the discovery a new and critically important antibiotic. That's what science is all about, making predictions and testing to see if the predictions are true or not.

 

[Kemosloby]

That's obfuscation and gobble-de-goop, a claim with neither meaning or substance. The added premises are neither irrelevant, nor untrue, since evolutionary knowledge was used to predict the finds and is thus credited with the discovery a new and critically important antibiotic. That's what science is all about, making predictions and testing to see if the predictions are true or not.

If the evolution theory premise is added to all science, any discovery at all could be credited to evolution theory. Antibiotics aren't a big mystery, many plant extracts have natural antibiotic properties. One would only need to test them as antibiotics.

 

[Sapiens]

If the evolution theory premise is added to all science, any discovery at all could be credited to evolution theory. Antibiotics aren't a big mystery, many plant extracts have natural antibiotic properties. One would only need to test them as antibiotics.

You can go test every plant (about 425,000) against every pathogenic species (about 100 bacteria alone) ... that's a matrix with more than 40 million cells. If each cell in the matrix took only a week to culture and test, that's over 7500 centuries. However, if the insights gained by an understanding of evolution are applied, you are no longer blindly trying to prick your finger on a needle hidden in a continent of hay stacks but rather you are looking for glowing spots (figurative speaking for the benefit of non-biologist types like yourself) that can be quickly and efficiently located and investigated. If you come down with either TB or MRSA you will be thankful for teixobactin and for the fact that no mutants of Staphylococcus aureus or Mycobacterium tuberculosis are resistant to teixobactin. That's just one example of how Ted Dobzhansky knew well what he was talking about and how little you resemble him.

 

[Kemosloby]

You can go test every plant (about 425,000) against every pathogenic species (about 100 bacteria alone) ... that's a matrix with more than 40 million cells. If each cell in the matrix took only a week to culture and test, that's over 7500 centuries. However, if the insights gained by an understanding of evolution are applied, you are no longer blindly trying to prick your finger on a needle hidden in a continent of hay stacks but rather you are looking for glowing spots (figurative speaking for the benefit of non-biologist types like yourself) that can be quickly and efficiently located and investigated. If you come down with either TB or MRSA you will be thankful for teixobactin and for the fact that no mutants of Staphylococcus aureus or Mycobacterium tuberculosis are resistant to teixobactin. That's just one example of how Ted Dobzhansky knew well what he was talking about and how little you resemble him.

It's not evolution, just give it up. It's the microscopic world which exists together with the rest of creation, always has and always will.

 

[Father Heathen]

13 pages and this kid is still trying?

 

[Kirran]

There are many varieties of pathogenic bacteria which have been successfully killed by certain antibiotics for decades. Then, bacteria of those species started appearing which weren't killed by those antibiotics, and before long they were everywhere and those antibiotics didn't work anymore. This has happened many times and is a major problem for the future of healthcare. What is this but a very clear demonstration of evolution in action? To ignore evolution (something which biologists fortunately do not do) would be to pretend this process wasn't happening.

 

[Kemosloby]

There are many varieties of pathogenic bacteria which have been successfully killed by certain antibiotics for decades. Then, bacteria of those species started appearing which weren't killed by those antibiotics, and before long they were everywhere and those antibiotics didn't work anymore. This has happened many times and is a major problem for the future of healthcare. What is this but a very clear demonstration of evolution in action? To ignore evolution (something which biologists fortunately do not do) would be to pretend this process wasn't happening.

Pugs come from wolves, superbugs come from puglike bugs. It's not evolution, it's crossbreeding. Evolution theory says over millions of years humans evolved from single cell organisms, which is just wild speculation.

 

[Kirran]

Pugs come from wolves, superbugs come from puglike bugs. It's not evolution, it's crossbreeding. Evolution theory says over millions of years humans evolved from single cell organisms, which is just wild speculation.

In what way did crossbreeding produce pugs from wolves? What was the wolf cross-bred with?

 

[Kemosloby]

In what way did crossbreeding produce pugs from wolves? What was the wolf cross-bred with?

It's an example, are you denying the process of selective breeding? I guess you breed a smaller and smaller wolf, picking the ugliest ones until you get a pug.