Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[buffalo]

You keep saying “modern science,

When I emphasize “modern science” I am pointing out this is really recent research. Yes, it will have to displace some older research. But, that is the way of science, as so many point out, it is self correcting. Science, after all, is provisional. We are now witnessing a sea change.

 

[benjamin1973]

Wow, aren’t you a proud one?

The OP is specifically about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. I assumed that at least the OP and maybe a couple others would be interested in discussing it. However, based on comments in this thread, I’ve found little more than ignorance-- not only about Darwin’s work, but even about basic scientific terminology. Buffalo, for example, still has not demonstrated that he knows what the term “theory” means in the context of science.

I’m interested in talking about Darwin-- that’s why I’m here. But since you already know more about science than Darwin did, I suppose we can skip the part where we actually read anything he read and consider it intellectually.

I keep getting baited back into this thread, because I have an actual intellectual interest in the OP thread, at least in the title. But so far, there’s really nothing stimulating enough to hold me here. I will be proud of myself if I can scrape together enough discipline to just walk away.

 

[benjamin1973]

Fair enough. If, through science, some aspect of divine contribution or direct intervention can be established, then that would be the most important application of science in all history.

I suppose I’ll be alive another 30 or 40 years if I’m lucky. A lot may be discovered or disproven in that time. However, the ToE is so simple and eloquent that it will take some compelling evidence, indeed, to disprove it as a whole.

 

[buffalo]

However, the ToE is so simple and eloquent that it will take some compelling evidence, indeed, to disprove it as a whole.

Why do you think the top evo’s are calling for major revisions to the modern synthesis?

It is because of the latest findings of “modern science”.

 

[benjamin1973]

Okay good stuff.

I recommend you make a new thread for this, and I’ll be happy to take a look at it.

 

[benjamin1973]

Of course. Science itself is a product of evolution. Some ideas fail to adapt to new evidence and are dropped. Some are strong, but need some refinement in order to stay relevant.

This is precisely why science is of such great value.

 

[buffalo]

Of course. Science itself is a product of evolution. Some ideas fail to adapt to new evidence and are dropped. Some are strong, but need some refinement in order to stay relevant.

This is precisely why science is of such great value.

Yet, it is hard to drop old paradigms. Design is so resisted as a better explanation despite the growing evidence. It seems to me the evo indoctrinization runs very deep.

Why do you reject design even though it is all around you?

 

[Crusaderbear]

I was going to say google ‘evolution in bacteria’ 2,700,000 scholarly hits. Thats how antibiotic resistant bacteria come from…
Have a nice day!

 

[buffalo]

Thats how antibiotic resistant bacteria come from…

Uh no. Antibiotic resistance is not macro-evolution.

Start here:

Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome

Antibiotic resistance is a global challenge that impacts all pharmaceutically used antibiotics. The origin of the genes associated with this resistance is of significant importance to our understanding of the evolution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance in pathogens. A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. Resistance was detected to a wide range of structurally different antibiotics including daptomycin, an antibiotic of last resort in the treatment of drug resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Enzyme-mediated mechanisms of resistance were also discovered for natural and semi-synthetic macrolide antibiotics via glycosylation and through a kinase-mediated phosphorylation mechanism. Sequencing of the genome of one of the resistant bacteria identified a macrolide kinase encoding gene and characterization of its product revealed it to be related to a known family of kinases circulating in modern drug resistant pathogens. The implications of this study are significant to our understanding of the prevalence of resistance, even in microbiomes isolated from human use of antibiotics. This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome.

Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome

Antibiotic resistance is a global challenge that impacts all pharmaceutically used antibiotics. The origin of the genes associated with this resistance is of significant importance to our understanding of the evolution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance in pathogens. A growing body of...

journals.plos.org

 

[buffalo]

Superbugs abound in soil

Bacteria that live in soil have been found to harbour an astonishing armoury of natural weapons to fight off antibiotics. The discovery could help researchers anticipate the next wave of drug-resistant ‘superbugs’.

Researchers have long known that soil-dwelling bacteria make natural antibiotics, and that they have inbuilt ways to survive their own and other bugs’ toxins; in some cases, the genes that help them dodge antibiotics have transferred into infectious bugs that plague humans.

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/nature-news/superbugs-abound-soil/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes, special in the sense that only man was created with an immortal soul. In the sense of mud turning directly onto man, no, I reject that “special” interpretation.

Did Adam look as God planned?

Paul’s letter to the Romans assures us that everything works out according to God’s plan.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Metis1:

They’re going on all the time throughout much of the academic world, such as in a university 20 minutes from my home here, although they use mostly fruit flies. Indeed, new species have evolved without the use of radiation or chemicals. Maybe google “speciation” and check out the links.

The fruitflies? Grew an extra set of wings? And they die? No, fruitflies do not show evolution. Sure, speciation, means no longer to reproduce with each other. That is loss of a function once had.

The loss of that one function is accompanied by the gain of another function. Namely, the new species is able to reproduce with others of that new species, which is something the old species cannot do (and never could).

 

[Techno2000]

We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics.

Another nail in the coffin for Evolution , you would think no transitional fossils would be enough, but…noooo

 

[benjamin1973]

I don’t reject design. I reject your limited view of the mechanism of design.

 

[bobperk]

Another nail in the coffin for Evolution , you would think no transitional fossils would be enough, but…noooo

Well it only took about 50 years for a great number of Catholics to accept contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc. No wonder that 150 years of evolution has taken its toll as well.

 

[rossum]

Antibiotic resistance is not macro-evolution.

You are equivocating here, buffalo. Evolution is both micro-evolution and macro-evolution. This thread is about evolution – just look at the thread title.

You are like someone who can accept micro-creation: God made grains of sand, but not macro-creation: God didn’t make whole planets.

I have examples of macro-evolution (i.e. a new species) arising from a single genetic mutation and from three mutations. Are you now trying to tell us that a single mutation, or three, cannot happen?

Your using that quote shows that you have insufficient grasp of the word “random” in random mutation. That mutation in the cave bacteria was not directed or designed because it was not useful to the cave bacteria – those antibiotics were not present in the cave – it was random.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Bacteria that live in soil have been found to harbour an astonishing armoury of natural weapons to fight off antibiotics.

So, your designer wants to kill off all humans by designing immunity to human antibiotics into bacteria. All Hail the great Yersinia Pestis, designer of all bacteria and enemy of all humans!

rossum

 

[benjamin1973]

lol cheeky!

 

[Aloysium]

Lots’ to be proud about, and much to be ashamed and feel guilty over. That’s beside the point. I guess you don’t believe me though. Actually been there and done that, and beyond, so let’s just talk.

Here are some more of his famous quotes. Are there any that pique your interest? If you want to offer some others, please do? How would you want to discuss this topic which interests you?

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

“Nothing is easier than to admit in words the truth of the universal struggle for life, or more difficult–at least I have found it so–than constantly to bear this conclusion in mind.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

“Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

 

[Seagull]

Well - I’ll be - a monkey’s uncle !