Regarding the word "evolve" used by creationists.

In Message 46, Hangdawg13 said: I know that you, Hangdawg13, is a creationist. I would like to know what you mean by "evolve" in the first sentence there. Could you explain the mechanism(s) involved to allow such [i]evolution[i] of the parasites to occur? What is the smallest unit, would you say, that can evolve?This message has been edited by Lam, 07-23-2004 12:10 AM

---

The Laminator

​

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hello? Is anyone out there?

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

I think diseases resulted after the fall from accumulating mutations, and even more so after the flood from bacteria and viruses, which were forced to evolve new equipment in the new environment.

---

The only way for viruses to survive is to take over a host cell. Their only mode of reproduction is disease. Bacteria have a litany of toxins and proteins whose only purpose is to avoid being engulfed by the host organism, and in doing so they cause disease. It is a very simple and naive to believe that somehow bacteria and viruses used to be "nice". Especially when the creationist claim is backed by zero evidence. "The Fall" is the code word for the magical and untestable mechanism that we will never describe nor define, but magically makes all of our theories correct. Ask for evidence and you get "but it's written in the Bible."

I think there are elements of organisms genomes that are "loosely" bound where most mutations will be neutral and occasionally beneficial. There are also elements of organsims' genomes that are "tightly bound" where if the slightest element fails, the whole thing fails. I do not believe that "tightly bound systems" can evolve, but loosely bound systems allow for some changes.An interesting more in depth description of this can be read here:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
I'm still in the process of reading it.{Fixed some UBB code - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-24-2004 12:29 PM

People have mentioned many times here that there are more bacteria in our bodies than people in the world. Aren't many of them 'nice'? There are also ERV's which don't usually have much of an effect. I don't think nice bacteria suddenly became mean after the fall, although, who knows? I think they were shifted into new environments with death and the cataclysmic flood, which allowed some different evolved forms to arise.

You still haven't answered my questions.

---

The Laminator

​

regarding that site that you link to, the first line is: The theory of evolution explains the origin of all life on earth by ordinary physical and chemical processes. Since they got evolution wrong in the first sentence, I don't think they have much to say!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-24-2004 11:39 AM

I think that most evolutionists make the mistake of thinking that creationists disregard micro-evolution. Any person of any system of beleifs, in my opinion, is fighting a futile fight if they are trying to disprove something that has already be proven over and over again.
Organisms adapt. They change. They experience progress and they experience degredation depending on their current enviromental situation. Mutations in the genetic code appear quite frequently in EVERY generation of ALL organisms. The normal human has, on average, 50 to 100 mutations (99% are neutral). This is a proven fact, and this proven fact fits perfectly within the creationist proof. ORGANISMS EVOLVE.
Maybe there are no limits to which an organism can experience change within the genetic code. There have been little results from experiments that indicate that there is a genetic wall.It really doesn't matter to tell you the truth. All of this fits within the plan that was CREATED for this expansion of "reality."I do agree that most creationist try to prove their point of view by throwing the Bible at a typically atheistic evolutionist and expect them to accept it. Maybe they are just trying to escape a conversation to which they are unprepaired for.I want to challenge the creationists to actually delve into the world of science and make an unbiased search for wisdom. Most people will be suprised at how science actually supports the views of creationists. After all, science is merely uncovering God's thoughts of how his creation was going to successfully function.

Exactly so.And that is why most Christian Churces and religions, as well as many Judaic ones, have stated that the Theory of Evolution is the method that is best used to examine that question and that Creationism is both bad science and worse religion.

quote:

---

Religions Supporting Evolution

​

These churches and religious organizations have come out in opposition to teaching creationism in school:

​

* American Jewish Congress
* American Scientific Affiliation
* Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
* Central Conference Of American Rabbis
* Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
* The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
* Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
* The Lutheran World Federation
* Roman Catholic Church
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
* United Methodist Church
* United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.

---

quote:

---

Bishop Sims said in his Pastoral Letter speaking specifically of the story in Genesis:

​

"Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science."

---

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey jar, I think the only reason those religious officials came out in support of science rather than creationism is they didn't want to look like idiots.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

And I would disagree with you on that.They came out in support of Evolution and the ACTIVE opposition to teaching Creationism because they believe that they have a Moral Obligation to do so.Creationism is not just bad science. As Bishop Sims said, it is also bad theology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Aren't many of them 'nice'?

---

Yes, they are often called "normal human flora" or "commensal". However, if conditions are right, these same bacteria can cause serious infections, uncontrollable diarrhea, etc. Others, like syphillis, are not nice, and their only method of mutliplying is by spreading from host to host causing disease. Even ubiquitous obligate intracellular parasites, such as some species of chlamydia, are thought to be involved in arterial plaques. Gut flora can overrun drinking water supplies and cause disease. There are many examles of microorganisms whick cause disease in a consisten manner whose only host is the human or a specific species. Yes, there are "nice" species but there are also some microorganisms that are neither set up to be nice or are capable of being nice.

quote:

---

I think they were shifted into new environments with death and the cataclysmic flood, which allowed some different evolved forms to arise.

---

Quite a few people in my field (infectious diseases) actually look at a disease causing bacteria as an evolutionary maladaptation. What we might be observing is the beginning stages of a commensal relationship. After all, if you kill off your only host it is the end of that bacteria/virus. However, if you are able to set up shop among an entire population without any disadvantageous responses you are ensured a place to stay. On the same page, we also see resistance develop within the infected populations. It is a feedback relationship, usually with a decrease in virulence and an increase in resistance within the population occuring simultaneously. This isn't always the case, especially in viral infections, but it is a strategy that does make sense.Just to finish off this aside (we should get back to the topic), there are several genera of bacteria that have both virulent and commensal species. They are usually closely related, but they differ greatly in their ability to live in the host and cause disease. Sometimes it is the difference of a few genes, a few toxicity genes that are knocked out that prevent inflammation and an immune response.

You know, without some of these nice bacteria, we wouldn't be able to live, we wouldn't be able to digest certain nutrients without them. It is believed that many bacteria living in our body are welcome organisms with which we have had symbiotic relationships with for millions of years if not thousands. If we die, they die too. Ultimately, there are some bacterium that are working for us. I don't know which ones they are and i can't explain how, i just remember this tidbit from a biology class and I'm sure you could look it up on any human biology site or just ask a doctor. There are bacterium that we need exposure too in order to develop immunities to more powerful versions of them like when a mother feeds their child breast milk it's like giving the child a booster shot filled with small amounts of bacteria, everytime an infant makes contact with another human they are passing on trace amounts of skin diseases that if are not immunized to early on could cause serious illnesses in the child's future. In any case, the bacteria get to continue to survive if only to prevent the others from prospering.

---

Nihilism is the answer, and it's not what you think...
http://www.hatem.com