Conference on Evolution

[StAnastasia]

Nope. Scientists are finding bacteria in dirt that are already resistant to antibiotics, both natural and synthetic: Hopefully, they’ll wake up and make the connection. Bacteria can exchange genetic material with other bacteria, including other species. This is a built-in ability.Peace,Ed

They probably won’t Ed. It’s up to you to propose papers at conferences and tell the scientific world yourself. That’s how academe works.

 

[hecd2]

Nope. Scientists are finding bacteria in dirt that are already resistant to antibiotics, both natural and synthetic:

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/mu-rud011606.php

Hopefully, they’ll wake up and make the connection. Bacteria can exchange genetic material with other bacteria, including other species. This is a built-in ability.

buffalo:

I think you should really check this out. Bacteria have dormant antibiotic memories so to speak. Depending on the environment they simply turn themselves on.

I don’t suppose either of you guys have read the paper in question? No, I thought not. I have. If you can get to to a university library, this is the reference:

D’Costa et al, *Sampling the Antibiotic Resistome, *Science 311, 374 - 377 (2006)

Now this paper doesn’t claim to show that bacteria have “built-in” (presumably God-given) antibiotic resistance or “dormant antibiotic memories”. What it does show is that many soil-living bacteria have resistance to some antibiotics (whereas, most clinically important bacteria have not initially got that resistance but acquire it after exposure to the antibiotic). The process by which the soil bacteria and the clinically important bacteria acquire that resistance is the same: mutations which create novel capability, followed by selection for the capability; and in some cases lateral DNA transfer from organisms that have already evolved the resistance. But they can’t transfer the resistant allele by conjugation or viral transfer until they have acquired it; and in order to acquire it they have to go through an evolutionary process - mutation and selection.

Why is there such a rich reservoir of antibiotic resistance in soil bacteria? Well, as the paper makes clear, one very common soil living bacterium is the Streptomyces genus (and other actinomycetes) and this genus is a very rich source of antibiotics (Streptomyces coelicolor is the source of more than half of clinically used antibiotics - go to my article on its evolution here:
evolutionpages.com/Streptomyces.htm

• other soil living bacteria have to contend with these antibiotics and have evolved resistance. They are not “in-built” - they have evolved. People who are working on the clinically important problem of the development of antibiotic resistance understand that its an evolutionary process, but you misuse it as a debating point.

And if you still doubt the ability of bacteria to generate new functional alleles by mutation and selection, you are obviously unfamiliar with the work of Barry Hall, John Cairns and Patricia Foster who have demonstrated the ability of bacteria to evolve the ability to metabolise different sorts of food in the laboratory, isolated from any source of lateral transfer. I can give you the references to a dozen or so papers on this, but since you never actually read the primary literature, I think I’d be wasting my time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Nope. Scientists are finding bacteria in dirt that are already resistant to antibiotics, both natural and synthetic:
Hopefully, they’ll wake up and make the connection. Bacteria can exchange genetic material with other bacteria, including other species. This is a built-in ability.

Let’s see what knowledge you rely entirely on scientists for in this post:

• The existence of bacteria
• The fact that bacteria can cause illness
• The concept of antibiotics and the development of specific antibiotics
• The phenomenon of antibiotic resistance
• The mechanism of various forms of antibiotic resistance
• The existence of a genome
• The code of the genome and the structure of DNA
• The process of lateral gene transfer through conjugation
• The process of lateral gene transfer by the viral route
• The process of direct take-up of DNA in bacteria
• The fact that the majority of antibiotics are derived from a soil living bacterium
• The resistance of many soil living bacteria to antibiotics

In fact every true thing that you have stated in this post, you know only because scientists have discovered it. And you have the gall to claim that professional scientists are missing a connection that you, Ed, can see. That’s hubris.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

They probably won’t Ed. It’s up to you to propose papers at conferences and tell the scientific world yourself. That’s how academe works.

StA, I think you should summarize the heresies you post here at CAF and take them to the Magisterium and see if you can convince them.

 

[StAnastasia]

StA, I think you should summarize the heresies you post here at CAF and take them to the Magisterium and see if you can convince them.

Heresies, schmeresies. My bishop and I had an interesting talk in Rome (he was at the conference) about the theological significance of evolution. The word “heresy” never even came up in the conversation.

 

[buffalo]

Heresies, schmeresies. My bishop and I had an interesting talk in Rome (he was at the conference) about the theological significance of evolution. The word “heresy” never even came up in the conversation.

I am not surprised. However, that is not exactly to what I was referring to. Your whole approach to the interpretation is heretical. I am sure your good bishop did encourage “private” revelation. Perhaps you could ask your Bishop to weigh in here in support of your positions.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am not surprised. However, that is not exactly to what I was referring to. Your whole approach to the interpretation is heretical. I am sure your good bishop did encourage “private” revelation. Perhaps you could ask your Bishop to weigh in here in support of your positions.

I am not aware of any heresies.

 

[buffalo]

I am not aware of any heresies.

Good - then you are not obstinate, just ignorant and you can learn.

There are many here who can help you.

 

[StAnastasia]

Namesake, we have at present a bifurcated culture. On the one hand we have a scientifically educated part of the population who are involved in university education, medical and pharmaceutical research, the space program, etc. On the other hand we have a scientifically uneducated part of the population who are not involved in these activities. The odd thing is that while there is some relevance to the blue-state-red-state distinction (with blue states having a higher proportion of the scientifically educated people) this is not a really clear cut matter. The two sections of the population coexist quite peacefully until school board and text book issues arise, when all heck can break loose, as it may in Texas.StAnastasia

Important update on Texas: The State Board of Education yesterday preliminarily voted down an attempt to intrude Creationism II into science classrooms.

ncseweb.org/news/2009/03/strengths-weaknesses-nixed-texas-again-004700

There is a final vote on the matter today. At stake is the science education of millions of children not only in Texas, but also in other states where the creationist biology textbooks would have been assigned to teachers and distributed to their classes.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Important update on Texas: The State Board of Education yesterday preliminarily voted down an attempt to intrude Creationism II into science classrooms.

ncseweb.org/news/2009/03/strengths-weaknesses-nixed-texas-again-004700

There is a final vote on the matter today. At stake is the science education of millions of children not only in Texas, but also in other states where the creationist biology textbooks would have been assigned to teachers and distributed to their classes.

StAnastasia

And what would happen if Creationism was taught? The end of the world? Honestly, defending ideologies here is more important than defending science, so called, in any way, shape or form.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

And what would happen if Creationism was taught? The end of the world?Peace,Ed

Not quite.

 

[Namesake]

And what would happen if Creationism was taught? The end of the world? Honestly, defending ideologies here is more important than defending science, so called, in any way, shape or form.

Peace,
Ed

If creationism is taught as an alternative to science then the whole of US science education would be potentially degraded to a level that is unacceptable. The rest of the developed world will progress without such a violation of science.

Not the end of the world. That’s ridiculous hyperbole. Science education must remain science, not religion. Our children deserve better than bad science.

Do the religion somewhere other than in science classes. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

 

[StAnastasia]

And what would happen if Creationism was taught? The end of the world? Honestly, defending ideologies here is more important than defending science, so called, in any way, shape or form. Peace,Ed

It’s a justice issue. The concern is that the same would happen as in 1998 when Kansas abolished the testing of knowledge about evolution, when Kansas high school studnets were put at a disadvantage. Not being able to count on an applicant’s solid scientific education, major universities were known to bypass Kansas applicants in favour of applicants from other states that were on record as teaching biological evolution.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

If creationism is taught as an alternative to science then the whole of US science education would be potentially degraded to a level that is unacceptable. The rest of the developed world will progress without such a violation of science.

Not the end of the world. That’s ridiculous hyperbole. Science education must remain science, not religion. Our children deserve better than bad science.

Do the religion somewhere other than in science classes. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

You are dreaming. Philosophy has nothing to do with advancements in science. Empirical science taught in the classroom is just fine. Truth taught in the science class is better yet. And that includes absolute truth.

 

[Namesake]

You are dreaming. Philosophy has nothing to do with advancements in science. Empirical science taught in the classroom is just fine. Truth taught in the science class is better yet. And that includes absolute truth.

Your absolute truth is religion. Which absolute truth should be taught? There are many philosophies that claim truth. Science only claims one truth according to evidence.

Take your ideas to the religion or philosophy classroom, unless you can present scientific evidence that holds up under the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

Let science be science and let religion be religion. They are not in competition other than in your mind.

 

[buffalo]

Your absolute truth is religion. Which absolute truth should be taught? There are many philosophies that claim truth. Science only claims one truth according to evidence.

Take your ideas to the religion or philosophy classroom, unless you can present scientific evidence that holds up under the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

Let science be science and let religion be religion. They are not in competition other than in your mind.

Nope - I know absolute truth exists. It is what we know as God. If you are paying attention you will note that the philosophies of the 1930’s have been pretty much debunked. Living philosophers agree absolute truth exists. Get current, at least within the last 30 or 40 years.

 

[buffalo]

Your absolute truth is religion. Which absolute truth should be taught? There are many philosophies that claim truth. Science only claims one truth according to evidence.

Take your ideas to the religion or philosophy classroom, unless you can present scientific evidence that holds up under the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

Let science be science and let religion be religion. They are not in competition other than in your mind.

I have made this point many time here on this forum. Empirical science only in the science class. Philosophy and metaphysics in their own mandatory classroom.

I was just speculating as to why we would deny absolute truth to taught in any classroom.

 

[grannymh]

Let science be science and let religion be religion. They are not in competition other than in your mind.

I’ve only been here since November; but, I’ve seen so much competition on various threads, that my head is starting to revolve…

 

[Namesake]

Nope - I know absolute truth exists. It is what we know as God. If you are paying attention you will note that the philosophies of the 1930’s have been pretty much debunked. Living philosophers agree absolute truth exists. Get current, at least within the last 30 or 40 years.

You have your truth and lots of other people have different truths. Why should your truth be taught in science classrooms and not other truths?

 

[StAnastasia]

I’ve only been here since November; but, I’ve seen so much competition on various threads, that my head is starting to revolve…

Not like Elizabeth Blair’s head in The Exorcist, I hope…