Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
The mutation works through plasmid transfer from resistant bacteria to those who lack the necessary genomic material, a trait that was created with the first bacteria, to ensure homeostasis within an environment shared with molds, and was not lost by all, through random mutations.
Click to expand...
Yet it started with a bacteria that had a pre-existing trait. The transfer mechanism is merely the process how the trait was distributed. And each organism will do that process in the manner that its biological characteristics permits. In the bacteria case, its biological nature permits such a transfer, with or without the presence of the antibiotic since plasmids naturally exist in bacterial cells. Obviously those without the resistance trait will die off. That is different from the evolution story telling of how an organism mutated caused by the presence of certain stimulus and that the organism survived the mutation and subsequently reproduced and transmitted the mutated genes through the generations.
 
Ratio1, I’ve been looking for good general articles on the evolution of human enzymes, but I’m afraid the topic is too technical for easy reading. The most interesting I have found so far is “Reconstructed ancestral enzymes reveal that negative selection drove the evolution of substrate specificity in ADP-dependent kinases” by Víctor Castro-Fernandez et al, in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. It’s $75 to buy, and not really my particular sphere of research, so I’m afraid I’m not going to buy it, but I think it would go some way to answer your questions.
 
What am I dodging? Have you asked a question I haven’t answered? If so, please repeat it and I’ll do so.
 
Allow me to make an assumption or two:
  1. You believe religion is a bad thing for a number of reasons.
  2. You believe religious people are the primary causes of violence against other people.
  3. Dismantling religion would be a good.
 
IWantGod said:
Who is more likely to kill an evolutionary biologist
Click to expand...
We will all die and sometimes the cause is as ironic as it is tragic. If so, I’d go with cancer as the culprit, given its cause is random mutation of genetic material and the outcome, decided by natural selection, is forward to a glorious body.
 
Last edited:
So you are on our side yes? You are now an evolutionist.😉
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
You believe religion is a bad thing for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
Ignorance in religious attitudes is a bad thing for a number of reasons.
edwest211 said:
You believe religious people are the primary causes of violence against other people.
Click to expand...
I would say ignorance is the cause of a lot of ill in the world, but the primary cause of evil in the world is the human tendency to sin and nobody is off the hook in that department.
edwest211 said:
Dismantling religion would be a good.
Click to expand...
People would just find another excuse. Religion is not the problem. Willful Ignorance is.
 
Last edited:
“Willful ignorance.”? I find no basis to believe that. My reading about the reasons for criminal behavior do not include “willful ignorance” as being a factor.
 
edwest211 said:
Allow me to make an assumption or two:
You believe religion is a bad thing for a number of reasons.
You believe religious people are the primary causes of violence against other people.
Dismantling religion would be a good.
Click to expand...
Sorry, edwest211, this post wasn’t addressed to anyone - was it meant for me?

If so, then all your assumptions are wrong. I believe religion is essential, and that adherents are less likely to be criminal than none adherents, and that dismantling it would be terrible.

It may be that you are equating “the supremacy of individual conscience” with “religion”, which is terribly wrong. The whole point of a religion is that it is a collective, not an individual, experience. My earlier comment about “thoroughly committed Christians” who commit crimes on the basis of their individual conscience was ironic in the sense that although they may sincerely think they are following Christ, they are not, in fact, Christians at all. Perhaps that’s what confused you.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
It’s the middle of the night here in the UK,
Click to expand...
Tracking your gps signal now…ahhhhh, there you are. Want to go for a coffee. LOL.

Just kidding by the way. I am in the UK too.
 
Last edited:
In many articles I’ve read about interreligious dialogue and cooperation, I have noticed that the actions of the few are quickly expanded into “They’re all like that” thinking. Religion, Christianity in particular, has become what Americans call “the whipping dog” or the only remaining prejudice that is somehow acceptable.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Ratio1, I’ve been looking for good general articles on the evolution of human enzymes, but I’m afraid the topic is too technical for easy reading. The most interesting I have found so far is “Reconstructed ancestral enzymes reveal that negative selection drove the evolution of substrate specificity in ADP-dependent kinases” by Víctor Castro-Fernandez et al, in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. It’s $75 to buy, and not really my particular sphere of research, so I’m afraid I’m not going to buy it, but I think it would go some way to answer your questions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for trying.
I guess I’m just after some plausible hypothesis how it happened. So doesnt necessary have to be enzymes. Even just a rough estimate of the rate of speciation comparing across the different species relative to the genetic shifts etc would be nice.
 
You could try the Wikipedia article “Human Evolutionary Genetics”.
 
Whether the biblical accounts of God speaking to humans is done “spiritually” or audibly … what difference does it make? You’re splitting hairs.

When God spoke to me, I heard a loud voice, but those around me didn’t hear anything.
 
Last edited:
So perhaps it was not God, but it was a voice in your head? That might not be the same! Not at all. Just like in the Bible, a direct spiritual communication without language, words and sentences might very well be an internal realization of some inspired truth. This is a huge difference it makes!
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The Theistic Evolutionist has to do a lot of squirming to reconcile evolution with Scripture
Click to expand...
The first pillar of theistic evolution is: Twist, distort and deny Scripture to your heart’s content - because science (ie, origins science invented by atheists) trumps the Bible.
 
Last edited:
I’m making fun of the belief that inanimate matter + lots of time can not only produce a biological machine that can reproduce (ie, a living organism), but one that can also evolve into increasingly more complex and diverse machines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top