Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[o_mlly]

They might have evolved resistance in response to exposure to something in nature that was similar to penicillin.

You have just left the reasonable conclusion of experimental science and lept into mythology of evolution.

Also the mutation needed is small enough that the probability of it appearing randomly is reasonable.

Did you read the experiment methodology? That is exactly what Lederberg sought to prove via experiment. In doing so, Lederberg also demonstrated that the penicillin resistant genes were always present in the bacterial gene pool. Lederberg’s experiment is experimental data supporting the presence of a large and fixed gene pool.

Actually, this experiment supports evolution more that not. It has always been the premise that genetic variation exist, and this just shows that premise is true. From the very first line of your citation:

In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped to show that many mutations are random, not directed.

Evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). However, Lederberg experiment negates that notion. From the article cited:

Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

 

[o_mlly]

It didn’t confirm anything. By using a built-in mechanism called Horizontal Gene Transfer, bacteria can transfer genetic bits to other species of bacteria. Dirt was taken from a remote area and bacteria were found in it that were resistant to man-made and natural antibiotics/harmful substances. What this shows is, given a random sample of bacteria, you may luck out in the lab.

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

 

[edwest]

But… but… we can’t help it! It’s an automatic process! Please don’t hurt us…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It didn’t confirm anything. By using a built-in mechanism called Horizontal Gene Transfer, bacteria can transfer genetic bits to other species of bacteria. Dirt was taken from a remote area and bacteria were found in it that were resistant to man-made and natural antibiotics/harmful substances. What this shows is, given a random sample of bacteria, you may luck out in the lab.

All you have done is shifted the question of how the experimental bacteria got resistant to the question how some other bacteria got resistant. In both cases, evolution answers the question - random mutation. It even says so right there in o-milly’s citation.

LeafByNiggle:

Also the mutation needed is small enough that the probability of it appearing randomly is reasonable.

Did you read the experiment methodology? That is exactly what Lederberg sought to prove via experiment.

Let me quote for you what your citation says:

In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped to show that many mutations are random, not directed.

In doing so, Lederberg also demonstrated that the penicillin resistant genes were always present in the bacterial gene pool.

No, it does not show they were “always” present. It shows they were present as of the time of the sample. It did not show that this mutation was present in bacteria 2 million years ago.

Lederberg’s experiment is experimental data supporting the presence of a large and fixed gene pool.

That was not the intent of the researchers, and no serious scientist takes that conclusion from that experiment. Again, the purpose was to show that bacteria did not “become” resistant because of exposure. It shows that some of them already had that mutation. You are making a leap of logic to assume that particular mutation was there from the beginning. The experiment does not show that.

Actually, this experiment supports evolution more that not. It has always been the premise that genetic variation exist, and this just shows that premise is true. From the very first line of your citation:

In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped to show that many mutations are random, not directed.

Evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (with new information for new traits …). However, Lederberg experiment negates that notion. From the article cited:

Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

No, it only negates one notion - the notion that exposure to penicillin causes the mutation that makes for resistance to penicillin. evolution also negates that notion.

 

[rossum]

Then we add in faulty or incomplete human reasoning.

How many different Christian denominations are there? The Bible is not immune to faulty or incomplete human reasoning, or was Luther’s reasoning accurate and complete?

In the case of Revelation we have the protection of the Holy Spirit.

So, why did the Holy Office condemn Galileo for saying that the earth moved? How long did it take for the Church to condemn slavery? At least until Dum Diversas or Romanus Pontifex.

If the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and the Church allows acceptance of evolution for animals, and for the human body, then why do you fight against it so strongly?

rossum

 

[rossum]

There will always be at least one gap.

But that gap will get smaller and smaller as science works to close it. Do you want your God to get smaller over time?

“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

– Dietrich Bonhoeffer

rossum

 

[buffalo]

How many different Christian denominations are there? The Bible is not immune to faulty or incomplete human reasoning, or was Luther’s reasoning accurate and complete?

There is only one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church. The rest are devolved from the main.

 

[buffalo]

So, why did the Holy Office condemn Galileo for saying that the earth moved? How long did it take for the Church to condemn slavery? At least until Dum Diversas or Romanus Pontifex .

You need to understand why. You don’t. Dig a little deeper.

 

[buffalo]

If the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and the Church allows acceptance of evolution for animals, and for the human body, then why do you fight against it so strongly?

Because it is wrong.

 

[buss0042]

For someone who professes to following the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, that seems to be a pretty interesting position.

But that’s none of my business

 

[Aloysium]

shifted the question of how the experimental bacteria got resistant to the question how some other bacteria got resistant. In both cases, evolution answers the question - random mutation.

No proof is offered for this claim; all that is presented is an appeal to the belief system of evolution.

All creation is brought into existence, each individual moment emerging from God’s eternal Now. This world that includes us, had a beginning in simpler forms that were in turn utilized in the creation of ever more complex beings, all demonstrating an ongoing diversity.

At the bottomof this hierarchy of systems, just above the chemical, are bacteria and fungi, such as yeast. They are important constituents of the environment they share and allows for higher forms of life. In order to keep a harmonious balance within that global system, they possess and have possessed since their creation, capacities to limit the growth of each other, which includes the production of toxins. Bacteria can kill moulds who in turn produce antibiotics. We utilize these properties to defend ourselves from infection. These capacities have always been there but were lost, by some members of their kind, as a result of random physical activity, which affected the chemistry of cells and specifically their DNA.

Here’s an old article which delves into this relationship between bacteria and fungi and how it applies to infection of human beings:

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_02/fight_fungi.shtml

Repeated over and over again is the term evolution. A focussed reading of the paper will clearly demonstrate that there is no proof for such a process; what happens is that the data is woven into that mythos, which everyone in modern society is expected to believe.

 

[rossum]

There is only one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church. The rest are devolved from the main.

Irrelevant to my point. Both Catholic and non-Catholic interpretations of the Bible have had errors in the past. Some interpretations still do.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Because it is wrong.

So, the Catholic Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, allows belief in something that is wrong? You really need to rethink your position there, buffalo.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

shifted the question of how the experimental bacteria got resistant to the question how some other bacteria got resistant. In both cases, evolution answers the question - random mutation.

No proof is offered for this claim; all that is presented is an appeal to the belief system of evolution.

The claim is the claim that evolution is true. That claim has been supported at least 1200 times in this thread alone.

 

[Aloysium]

Repeating the same thing over and over again, 1200 times by your calculations, is by no means support for a claim that has no merit.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, the purpose was to show that bacteria did not “become” resistant because of exposure. It shows that some of them already had that mutation. You are making a leap of logic to assume that particular mutation was there from the beginning. The experiment does not show that.

You’re in denial, friend. If some of the bacteria were resistant to penicillin then the (fixed and large) gene pool always contained the necessary genes to achieve that permutation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Again, the purpose was to show that bacteria did not “become” resistant because of exposure. It shows that some of them already had that mutation. You are making a leap of logic to assume that particular mutation was there from the beginning. The experiment does not show that.

You’re in denial, friend. If some of the bacteria were resistant to penicillin then the (fixed and large) gene pool always contained the necessary genes to achieve that permutation.

That’s now what your article said. Your article called it a “mutation.”

 

[Aloysium]

Exactly, the scientific data, that which we know, is set within a story, a belief, a myth, an untestable theory that reflects the value system and philosophy, basically materialistic and utilitarian, of our times. Although we may label ourselves as such, mankind is no mutation of some primate.

 

[rossum]

mankind is no mutation of some primate.

Mankind’s physical body fits the definition of “primate” – just look at our dentition and fingers/toes, so we are primates by definition. If our physical bodies are not a mutation of an earlier primate, then the God who created us wanted it to appear as if that were so.

Do you believe that the God who created us is deceptive?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

mankind is no mutation of some primate.

Mankind’s physical body fits the definition of “primate” – just look at our dentition and fingers/toes, so we are primates by definition. If our physical bodies are not a mutation of an earlier primate, then the God who created us wanted it to appear as if that were so.

Do you believe that the God who created us is deceptive?

rossum

It is the definition of our times, an inaccurate understanding of who we are. Ultimately impacting on how treat one another, it will determine our destiny in eternity. It is difficult enough to discern God’s will when we work hard on that relationship, owing to our inherent sinful nature whose default is self-centredness. Realize that it does not appear at all that we are a mutation of an earlier primate, although that is what I saw, as much as anyone else here, because I accepted what was drilled into me since I could understand. That modern society has fallen for a distortion of the truth is readily seen when we place God at the centre of our lives. When we awaken, we cannot be deceived.