Originally posted by Proper KnobI always heard e-coli bacteria was harmful to man,
Anyone who seriously thinks that there is no such thing as beneficial mutations should read up on Richard Lenski's long term e-coli experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
not beneficial.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOk. Please explain to me how the scientific method can be used to obtain facts about say 'the origin of life' for example.
dj2becker
Every profession has some of its people deviate from the basic principles of the profession and unfortunately science is no exception.
There is plenty of scientific fraud but scientific fraud is NOT, I repeat, NOT science! So you must not confuse one with the other!
Science is knowledge gained through vigorous scientific method. ...[text shortened]... d hence science is the best tool we have for rationally gaining the facts about the universe.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe point you don't seem to get is that Science cannot provide definite answers for many important questions such as the origin of life or the origin of the universe. A scientist who is an atheist for example may interpret evidence according to his own worldview, and may reject any evidence that apposes his view and write it off as 'pseudo-science'. The reality is that this is being done. Some atheistic scientists would not even bother to read a scientific journal article if they knew the author was a creationist.
Why? Does it prove whatever I want? In what way?
[b]In your imaginary utopia maybe... Ever followed a scientific debate? Even when the work of two scientists work directly clashes, the debate is sometimes stamped out, and frequently heavily massaged as it passes through the research-and-publish pipelines. Debating somebody through scientific journal ar bateforum.aimoo.com/ForumID-20946/classicbbs.html
What am I meant to be looking for here?[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know what you want to call significant beneficial changes, you can breed
As always, you are being very vague. It is not at all clear what you are claiming and what you are not claiming.
Do you accept that mutations can be beneficial?
Do you accept that selective breeding can lead to a significant number of beneficial changes?
If so, then what are you actually claiming? The book analogy is just to vague.
dogs to be larger or smaller are those significant beneficial changes? You do
start and stop with dogs it isn't like you can selectively breed a dog to fly or live
in the water like a fish.
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd I dispute that point. I do not believe it is true. I believe that science can, and does provide definite answers and can and will provide definite answers for most such important questions.
The point you don't seem to get is that Science cannot provide definite answers for many important questions such as the origin of life or the origin of the universe.
A scientist who is an atheist for example may interpret evidence according to his own worldview, and may reject any evidence that apposes his view and write it off as 'pseudo-science'.
True. But the methodology of science helps us to test any such conclusions or interpretations. If we take science seriously we may end up with conclusions we don't like, but we must nevertheless make them. You seem to assume that all scientists solely follow their beliefs - this is obviously not true.
The reality is that is being done. Will you ever bother to read a scientific journal article if you knew the author was a creationsit?
I am sure I already have.
Now let me ask you something:
Are there Christian computers and atheist computers? Which group of scientists made computers? Which are the pseudo-science computers?
Or do you only claim science doesn't work when it conflicts with your religion?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd I dispute that point. I do not believe it is true. I believe that science can, and does provide definite answers and can and will provide definite answers for most such important questions.
Please share the definite answers I would love to have them.
You seem to assume that all scientists solely follow their beliefs - this is obviously not true.
Show me one 'Christian' scientist that has written an article proving abiogenesis theory. Also show me one atheist scientists that has provided evidence which supports the intelligent design theory.
Now let me ask you something:
Are there Christian computers and atheist computers? Which group of scientists made computers? Which are the pseudo-science computers?
Or do you only claim science doesn't work when it conflicts with your religion?
No but there are 'Christian' scientists and 'atheist' scientists. Scientists are not computers. At least not in the real world. Computers have no beliefs or philosophical pressupositions.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am sure you know many of them already. There are far to many to list. However, your computer would not work without many of them.
Please share the definite answers I would love to have them.
Show me one 'Christian' scientist that has written an article proving abiogenesis theory.
Show me an atheist that has written an article proving abiogenesis theory. As far as I know, it hasn't been proven by anyone.
Also show me one atheist scientists that has provided evidence which supports the intelligent design theory.
Show may any scientist, Christian or atheist that has provided such evidence. What did they do with the evidence, and what conclusions did they draw and why?
No but there are 'Christian' scientists and 'atheist' scientists. Scientists are not computers. At least not in the real world. Computers have no beliefs or philosophical pressupositions.
But computers work based on the scientific principles that scientists have discovered. If Christians and atheists were coming up with different sets of principles, we should have two types of computers, those that work according to Christians science and those that work according to athiest science. Why is this not the case?
To twhitehead:
"No but there are 'Christian' scientists and 'atheist' scientists. Scientists are not computers. At least not in the real world. Computers have no beliefs or philosophical pressupositions.
But computers work based on the scientific principles that scientists have discovered. If Christians and atheists were coming up with different sets of principles, we should have two types of computers, those that work according to Christians science and those that work according to athiest science. Why is this not the case?"
The bias atheist possess is not against manmade things.
Their bias is against things made by God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsBut we are not talking about bias towards things, we are discussing bias in scientific findings. If science found two different sets of laws of physics, electricity, chemistry, biology etc then we should have two separate groups of devices that each use one set of laws. A Christian made piece of glass would refract light one way and an athiest made piece of glass would refract it another. Why is this not the case? Do we all agree on how light refracts in glass regardless of our beliefs? If our religion implied glass had a different refractive index, would we find different results? If so, would we be able to make a new kind of telescope that takes advantage of this new finding?
The bias atheist possess is not against manmade things.
Their bias is against things made by God.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you will check it out, you will see all the important
But we are not talking about bias towards things, we are discussing bias in scientific findings. If science found two different sets of laws of physics, electricity, chemistry, biology etc then we should have two separate groups of devices that each use one set of laws. A Christian made piece of glass would refract light one way and an athiest made piece ...[text shortened]... f so, would we be able to make a new kind of telescope that takes advantage of this new finding?
laws of science were discovered by those that believe
in God. As far as I know, atheist have discovered
no laws of science. It appears to me that atheist
are trying to make up things they hope will become
a law in science through bias in their scientific findings.
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“.... If you will check it out, you will see all the important
If you will check it out, you will see all the important
laws of science were discovered by those that believe
in God. As far as I know, atheist have discovered
no laws of science. It appears to me that atheist
are trying to make up things they hope will become
a law in science through bias in their scientific findings.
laws of science were discovered by those that believe
in God. ...”
not in all cases and them believing there is a god generally had not much to do with their discovery/observations!
“....As far as I know, atheist have discovered
no laws of science. ...”
then what you think you “know” is very clearly false:
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm
“....I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ….”( Albert Einstein July 2, 1945 )
“It appears to me that atheist
are trying to make up things they hope will become
a law in science through bias in their scientific findings. ...”
if there was “bias” in their scientific findings then their conclusions would probably be all wrong in which case nuclear power stations etc would not work.
Can you give us just ONE example of an atheist that “made up” something in the “hope” of becoming a “law in science” through “bias in their scientific findings”? ANY example would do!
Originally posted by RJHindsThe e-coli your thinking of is the strain which causes food poisoning in humans. Most e-coli strains are harmless.
I always heard e-coli bacteria was harmful to man,
not beneficial.
But whether or not they are harmful or harmless to humans has nothing to do with the fact that genetic mutations can be of benefit to the organism itself.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobResistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification&rdquo😉. Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated. Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion. The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities. Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
The e-coli your thinking of is the strain which causes food poisoning in humans. Most e-coli strains are harmless.
But whether or not they are harmful or harmless to humans has nothing to do with the fact that genetic mutations can be of benefit to the organism itself.
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Originally posted by RJHindsBut do you, or do you not agree that if we got the laws of science wrong, it would become obvious when we tried to utilize them?
If you will check it out, you will see all the important
laws of science were discovered by those that believe
in God. As far as I know, atheist have discovered
no laws of science. It appears to me that atheist
are trying to make up things they hope will become
a law in science through bias in their scientific findings.
Do you therefore agree that the laws of science as discovered by scientists are not relative and dependant on the religion of the scientist as claimed by dj2becker?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2becker“....Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ...”
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification&rdquo😉. Rather, resistance resulting f ...[text shortened]... be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Actually, the evolution of Resistance to antibiotics occurred in THE REAL WORLD and not merely “evolution in a Petri dish.” .
“...However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification&rdquo😉. Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. ...”
can you give any web links showing that all the original gene for resistance to antibiotics occurred BEFORE any possible gene transfer and WITHOUT mutation? -answer, no. you are making this up.
“...Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated. ...”
Are you denying that mutations that are beneficial to the organism can occur?
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
-so beneficial mutations have been DIRECTLY OBSERVED in the lab AND in the real world.
“...http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp...”
it says:
“...MANY bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. ...” (my emphasis)
but “MANY” does not equate with “ALL” -what about those that don't! -the rest of their 'argument' (if you can call it that!) against evolution is flawed because it ignores this simple relevant point.