Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Not everything we think we know is what we know.
 
I still believe… But if I talk to a cleric they’ll support it. If I talk to a shrink they’ll say I’m crazy.

Who can we trust other than ourselves? Once one starts doubting that there is like no end to it.
 
Aloysium said:
The article does not support what Rossum claims. There is no point repeating it. If you agree with him, please provide me with the specific reasoning behind the belief that random mutations are responsible for penicillin resistance, as demonstrated by that experiment.
Click to expand...
OK, now that you have read the experiment you know how each bacterium was grown into a colony, how some of each colony was started on another plate, and how the bacteria were exposed to penicillin on one plate and then the other plate in separate operations. So I don’t have to repeat the entire description, I will assume you know it well.

The bacteria initially were not a penicillin-resistant strain. But as is well-known, if you expose bacteria to penicillin, after some generations it becomes penicillin resistant. It has mutated. So now we have two competing explanations of this mutation. Your explanation and my explanation.

Your explanation goes like this: The mutation for penicillin-resistance arises from latent capabilities within the bacteria’s genetics that are activated by exposure to penicillin. These latent capabilities are expressed in a mutation that is inherited by future generations, which are also penicillin-resistant. The mutation itself did not originate from a random process but from the act of exposing the bacteria to the penicillin.

My explanation goes like this: The mutation for penicillin-resistance arises from a random process and not as a result of exposure to penicillin. So let’s see which explanation fits what happened.

…continued…
 
Continuing:

Now the facts of the experiment are that upon exposure to penicillin, some of the colonies died off and some did not. According to your explanation, all bacteria have the potential to be penicillin resistant, but some had the bad luck to not develop their latent mutation in time and they died off. Other colonies had better luck and were able to develop their resistance before dying off, and so they survived. But the choice of which colonies died off and which ones didn’t was just a matter of bad luck. Maybe the penicillin was just too strong for some of them. So your explanation means that which ones died out was just bad luck. So the colonies in plate #1 that died off would not have any particular correspondence with the selection of colonies that died off in plate #2. Remember that every colony on plate #1 had a genetic duplicate growing on plate #2.

My explanation of what happened is that the initial bacteria which generated the colonies were already slightly different because of random mutations. According to my explanation, the die was cast (as far as which colonies would survive) before the first exposure. According to my explanation, the selection of colonies that dies off in plate #1 ought to be exactly the same selection of colonies that died off in plate #2.

And you know what? The selection of colonies that died off in plate #1 was exactly the same selection of colonies that died off in plate #2. This fits my explanation. It does not fit your explanation. There is no way the colonies from plate #1 would know which colonies on plate #2 were going to die off so they could do exactly the same thing - unless the factor that made the difference between dying off and not dying off was already present in some of the colonies and not in others before the first exposure. It is not the result of exposure, as your explanation would have us believe. My explanation fits the data. So the mutation that provides penicillin resistance does not arise from exposure but is simply present in some bacteria and not in other - i.e. is random.
 
Also I thought this thread wasn’t supposed to be serious? I think we all lost.
 
Definitely not. It ignores another possibility: bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. This ability is built-in. It is not random. Bacteria found in dirt can survive exposure to natural and man-made antibacterials, not because of anything random but because bacteria have a built-in ability that is being ignored.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Is this better? Typos but no expletives. I didn’t read the fine print.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
We know…
  1. Q. Why did God make you?
    A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.
  2. Q. What must we do to save our souls?
    A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.
 
Example.

Logical positivism is still just philosophy.

Joan of arc and st Bernadette were persecuted for being mystics even by agents of the church.

People have had visions.

I’m not denying God…

I’m emphasizing that a lot of stuff is a mystery.

We can be told things… we can learn from others… But ultimately we only know what we experience for ourselves.

People have seen God… doubters will tell them they are nuts. Believers will support them… Even those that have the visions only really know what is in their own hearts.

That goes for the sciences and philosophies too.

Like… I think therefor. I am… well that is just what Descartes thought…

We are either hamlet or yorek…

And everybody dies.

Soo… Idk. Cause this is just stuff other people have thought.

And to quote the exorcist “I know what I experience and I’m not afraid.”

This stuff is probably real… But that it is often hidden is a fact of life.

Not everything is what it seems. And a lot of people have an agenda.

We also seem to disregard that a lot of things are simple but a miracle in itself and a paradox.

The very fact we exist is almost a logical impossibility of one is only relying on modern standards of logical deduction.

This is just not all there is to life.
 
"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:
Code: 
We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]
Commentary by the Practical Catholic:

Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy."
 
I wouldn’t want to hang out out with the guy who wrote the following:

“Out, out, brief candle. Life is nothing more than an illusion. It’s like a poor actor who struts and worries for his hour on the stage and then is never heard from again. Life is a story told by an idiot, full of noise and emotional disturbance but devoid of meaning.” Macbeth

That is just messed up. And I suffer from depression which has nothing to do with anarchist thought.
 
edwest211 said:
Definitely not. It ignores another possibility: bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. This ability is built-in. It is not random. Bacteria found in dirt can survive exposure to natural and man-made antibacterials, not because of anything random but because bacteria have a built-in ability that is being ignored.
Click to expand...
This explanation is not consistent with the outcome of the experiment. It does not explain why the colonies that died of on plate #1 were exactly the same as the colonies that died off on plate #2. Explain that your way, if you can.

Besides, while it is true that bacteria can exchange genetic material, that does not help to explain where the mutation for penicillin came from in the first place. If bacterium Joe says he got it from bacterium Sam, and Sam says he got it from Hector, at some point you have to explain how the first guy got it. And then you would be right back where we are now, trying to show it was not a random process, and the Lederberg Experiment showing you that it was.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The bacteria initially were not a penicillin-resistant strain.
Click to expand...
I’m slowly going through your explanation because I’ve got something else going on.

Here you got it wrong.

They spread a plate with a wash of bacteria. They grow in colonies. They took samples of all colonies and covered the initial plate of colonies with penicillin. Those colonies that did not die were found to have been resistant on both plates. Resistance was not conferred by exposure to penicillin. That’s all there is to it. No mutations happening. No randomness. That’s it - some bacteria are resistant and some aren’t. That’s why I didn’t understand what Rossum was talking about.

Will get to the rest later.
 
Last edited:
I love your icon. I’m gonna start reading the Aeneid soon.

I worry that alot of Dante and Virgil gets lost in English translations though and I don’t know much other than English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top