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.
Nowhere in that does he ever say evolution is not compatible with Catholic faith.
 
What is patently true is that evolution offers no guidance in new drug discovery. That’s why it’s so expensive to bring a new drug to market.
  1. Effect on infected tissue when exposed to test chemical combination. And the chemical is injected into hundreds of vials. If the effect is zero, they try the next one. If the effects are positive they move on to animal models.
  2. Animal testing. If the chemical kills the animal, it’s excluded and we go back to step one.
  3. If the animals survive with “tolerable” side effects, it is considered for human trials.
  4. If humans react in a mostly negative way, the drug may be declared a dead end. Or, it ends up being approved and you see commercials on TV like this: “WeirdName is good for anything. Certain side effects may occur, like liver damage, kidney damage, renal failure, stroke and my favorite, death. So ask your doctor about WeirdName.” I would never do that.
 
You should be concerned your teachers never told you this stuff.

Antibiotic resistance genes are essentially everywhere

There is a very good reason microbes would be armed with antibiotic resistance genes, the researchers explain. After all, most antibiotics used in medicine are isolated from soil microorganisms, such as bacteria or fungi, in the first place. That means that the resistance genes were available long before humans put antibiotic drugs into use. Bacteria lacking them to start with can simply borrow them (via horizontal transfer of genes) from those that are better equipped.

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com
 
Last edited:
Exactly. They are reverse-engineering the genome. Taking it apart with gene knock-out experiments. They observe what happens to the animal when gene Rb6799 is removed. A) It dies (write that down), B) It can no longer walk (write that down), C) No effect observed. So, they knock out another gene and repeat until they start to find out what all these genes actually do. But, there are other complications like mRNAs lurking in ‘Junk DNA’ that can and do affect a gene way over there, for no obvious reason. Then we have molecular switches which regulate certain processes. If a switch stays on too long, we might get cancer or Alzheimer’s or something else.

Trial and error followed by trial error, followed by “If we can find a drug that stops the overproduction of Hz135, we can stop or reverse this disease process.”
 
Last edited:
Right, claiming “we know” evolution is true ahead of an unsupported claim does not change the unsupported nature of the claim. … we agree 😀
 
Which is why I see the words “must have” and “maybe” in scientific articles related to this subject.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
edwest211:
There was not enough time.
Click to expand...
How far off do you think it will be till evolution is deemed by the mainstream to be yesterday’s Theory? And is there a clear front runner to replace it?
Click to expand...
Ed? How long do you think?
 
Rhubarb said:
Okay, so it’s more irreducible complexity arguments. Those are pretty routinely defeated.
Click to expand...
Even Behe has agreed that Irreducible Complexity can evolve, it just does so more slowly than for non-IC systems since the direct route is not possible. Evolution can use slower, indirect, routes.

rossum
 
Design does not need the time evolution does. It is a better fit with the data.
 
buffalo said:
Very consistent with man who is devolving 1-5% per generation.
Click to expand...
You are being lied to here. We have DNA sequences from 3,000 year old Egyptian mummies. That is about 150 generations. So, according to your lying sources, we have “devolved” by about 150% to 750% since those mummies were alive. Show us the DNA sequences, and where that much “devolution” has happened since those sequences. Did you never bother to do the simple calculation to check if what your sources told you was reasonable? You should. Sources that bad should not be trusted.

You are not doing yourself any favours by posting such easily refutable rubbish here.

rossum
 
A design process is far more reasonable than blind unguided chance plus randomly occurring ‘environmental pressures.’
 
The world was created good, it has been in a state of disease and death since the fall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top