quote:
You would treat my statements differently. Rather than analysing them at their face value, you would respond with, "Well, of course you would say that. You're an X."
I know...I know...absolutely maddening to have to respond to someone without any preconceived notions about how he's supposed to behave. To have to consider his statements for their intrinsic value alone without extraneous prejudices coloring your opinion of them. Means you have to think on your own and not rely upon mental shortcuts.
Oh my God, you got me all figured out , now I'll leave. haha. You won't reveal yourself, because you are afraid I might get to the bottom of something. You are afraid of the truth? How would I know, you won't tell me. Babble.
quote:
Of course I can.
But then again, I'm not the one saying that you should change your religious attitude all the while refusing to take the same challenge myself.
If you cannot give up your god, what makes you think anybody else could give up theirs?
No one here has told you, that you should give up your belief's. They only presented a challenge, a good ont at that. Don't take it if you don't want to. But to come in here and try to figure me out and call me names, which is what you've done already, is wrong of you.
I told you already, I was with out God for a long time. I was raised to believe in God, I was raised by thiest's. When the Nun's at the CCD class were teaching us how to pray, they should us the "our father", then they showed us all the other prayers to saints.
Well me not being one to take someones word for it, I went and read alot of the Bible. It was written that Jesus told us how to pray, with the "our father". So being in 3rd grade, and not knowing much, I had figured out that the Nun was full of crap about all those other prayers. I later found out it was the whole catholic religion. (Not its people though).
This didn't sit well with me, and I refused to believe in God at that point. I used to feel anger everytime I stepped into a church.
So I started looking at the TOE, and other explainations of why we are here.
So for 20 years I didn't know what to believe.
Then at the birth of my first daughter, I felt that there was something more to life, that I was missing. I then started reading the Bible on my own. It took 13 years of casual study, and a spirit filled church before I got a baptism of the Holy Spirit. That was only 5 months ago. So I am still fresh.
So you see, I feel no need to give up my God at this point for purpose of this arguement/challenge. It would be impossible anyway to give up what I feel.
I found God throuigh faith, but it is no longer faith that keeps me in him. I feel him in me. I Love to follow his word, it brings me and all those around me great Joy, to share the true Love of Jesus.
I have not told you anything, I have only shared my deepest feelings, and testimony about God. The challenge worked for me, and I hope that it would work for you. It took me 13 years, I hope it doesn't take as long for others, but I am very stubborn, and maybe "too smart" for my own good. Thats what I mean when I say that knowledge can be mans enemy.
I hope this explains it better to you, where I'm coming from.
quote:
Because you expect me to smack my head in the style of the old V-8 commercials and say, "My word, you're absolutely right!" You are relating your experiences not because it's an interesting topic of conversation but because you're trying to convert.
That, by definition, is preaching and that, by definition, is obnoxious and rude. It is disrespectful to all other religious opinions.
This is America, and freedom of speech still reigns. You can preach all your science, while I share my testimony. I cannot convert anything, that is between you and God only.
What I have shared is purposful to the topic of this thread, so that gives me the right to speak on it.
you on the other hand are trying to say it won't work because of this or that, and are being hypocritical.
quote:
But there is no other way to view it. Since all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor, then they should all behave identically. If one is immune, all are immune. If one is susceptible, all are susceptible.
Without evolution, it is physically impossible for a colony of bacteria descended from a single ancestor to have differing results to the same stimulus.
Therefore, the fact that we do see differing results is evidence that evolution happens.
There is no other conclusion.
Isn't this narrow minded? Are you saying its proven, cause I missed those headlines. What about the flagellum? They do some amazing things, that others have tried to claim as evolution, but it was just little micro machines defending thier own organism.
I'm sorry rhain, but I think you are wrong on this subject, the way you are claiming it.
Let me also follow by saying, I am not in anyway qualified to argue this. I have no right arguing micro biology with you guys, because I did not study it, nor is it likely that I will.
I really really appreciate all that you have taught me. Yes I have gone alooked up on the whole subject and did some research about it. But that still doesn't qualify me.
I cannot argue about the bacteria anymore, I can only learn from you guys about it.
But I see many contradictions about it in here from various authors. The only thing that remains consistant is that some would use it as a reason to not believe in God.
I won't become a micro biologist off the internet, but if there are any links you can give me towards the topic, I would appreciate it.
I really didn't start writing in this thread to argue about evoloution with a bunch of "scientists" anyway. It's not my place. If I wanted to do that, I would have went into other threads, more catered to the subject.
I only wanted add some points to the challenge. The challenge is for those who want to take it. Why should it make you angry that someone preach's or makes these challenge's? I mean you probably have it all figured out? Please tell me I'm wrong about that.
quote:
Because bacteria reproduce by fission. Each daughter cell is a clone of the mother cell and is genetically identical.
Therefore, given that the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor, they must all contain the exact same genes because they are all clones of the first.
Therefore, if there is no evolution, their genetic abilities are all identical.
Therefore, if even one of them is genetically incapable of fighting off the phage, they must all be equally incapable of fighting off that phage and if one dies, they all die.
But the fact that not all die necessarily means that they are not genetically identical.
But how can that be since they reproduce by fission and each daughter cell is an exact duplicate of the mother cell?
Simple: Each daughter cell is not an exact duplicate of the mother cell. They evolve. The replication process from generation to generation is not perfect. Mutations enter into the process and the daughter cells are genetically distinct from the mother cell. Later on, a selective pressure may come along that will make some of those mutants more likely to survive.
Well, that's the definition of evolution.
I don't really want to respond to this, but I will.
It's more like ask questions at this point, and if you answer me, you are dedcating your time, and I thank you.
How does the bacteria defend itself from the infection?
Do genes tell the flagellum what to do?
2 people could be infected with west nile, and only one die. Is this something different than what is happening in the bacteria?
Is it proven that the mutation was permanent or are we only guessing that selective pressure will make it so?
More likely to survive? So that means that it still isn't proven, and that makes evolution not a fact? Correct?
Maybe this whole process you are witnessing could fit into another description or theory about life? (you better not say no)
quote:
Personally? No. But it is easily done. The genome of the E. coli bacterium was sequenced a long time ago.
Does infact the DNA change during this process?
Is that even required to prove evolution?
Does the DNA have to change for it to evolve?
quote:
Humans don't reproduce by fission. They reproduce by sexual recombination. Therefore, it is impossible for you to be a genetic duplicate of your parents.
Do I really have to explain this?
Sorry, yes you did, thanks. So the way bacteria duplicate is different. So is it then possible the way they evolove would be different, and natural selection might not apply to one or the other?
Doen't also mean that the processes are so different that witnessing something in one, would have nothing to do with the other? In this case?
In other words, because we some sort of mutation going on, that this wouldn't happen in humans?
Because, well I don't want to say this, because it might sound dumb, but sometimes you need a dumb persons view to find stuff out.
When I recieve a vacination, and I am then immune to something, how come it is not passed down like the bacteria? Did I mutate because of it? ( I think I understand about teaching the immune system to fight off desease, but probably not good enough)
quote:
It doesn't matter. All the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor. Since bacteria reproduce via fission, they must all have the same genetic makeup. It isn't like bacteria have a conscious will to commit suicide or an "I'll get to it later" attitude that would make them hesitate in the face of a viral infection. It's a genetic response.
And since they all have the same genes, they all behave identically.
The fact that they don't necessarily means they don't have the same genes.
But how can that be if they're all clones of the original cell?
It must be that they evolved.
Will to commit suicide, thats funny. Anyway how do you know that they don't. Or more specifically, that the complexity of a bacteria is far greater than one would know. And there was a fight for survival at a micro level.
How could you say it doesn't matter, it absolutly matters 100%.
quote:
Mutation.
It's a random thing.
This statement reinforces what I just said. There was some sort of a battle at a micro biological level, that we didn't understand. It wasn't just magic, or was it evolution possibly. they didn't just mutate because they felt the need too, or else they would have also felt the need to just die.
I would appreciate it if, you would admit to not knowing what really happened at all. I would then believe you. As is the case with science always.
The amazing thing about life/science is that the further we look, the more we see. The more we magnify, the more there is. When does it stop. Every discovery leads to a new theory about things that we cannot see. Saying that you know what happened in the dish is proof that you are going against the very nature of science.
Despite of all this we never really know why anything is here or how it got here. If you "found" God and the truth was revealed, you might fell different. This is why the challenge is a good thing.
quote:
But if I have two genetically identical bacteria, what unique property could one give to the other?
Ah, they are the same, but different, how interesting. Thats why some mutated and some didn't. Using genetically identical structures for purpose of proving evolution is mute, since genetically indentical stuctures don't behave the same.
Science vs. science, like spy vs. spy, that would be a funny cartoon.
quote:
If there is no evolution, yes.
The only way the daughter cells can possibly be different from the mother cell is if they evolve.
Mutation is the hallmark of evolution. If you allow mutation, you must necessarily allow evolution.
Isn't mutation common place in nature?
Don't many things mutate without evolving?
If so, then how could mutation be a hallmark?
™ Version 4.2
