riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
I guess you will never tell us what your true convictions are, cause then what would happen?
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.
quote:
I keep telling you, I can only speak for myself, can you accept that?
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?
quote:
Please tell me how quoting scripture, and sharing my own experiences with you is preaching, and not respecting, and offensive to you.
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.
quote:
Sorry I don't find the fact that some bacteria can be immune to a plauge proof of evolution.
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.
quote:
Why should they all behave the same way?
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.
quote:
Did you actually extract DNA from each one of those bacteria, to see if they were exactly the same?
Personally? No. But it is easily done. The genome of the E. coli bacterium was sequenced a long time ago.
quote:
Me my brother and sister all came from my mother, but we act different.
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?
quote:
Did you actually find the reason why some of the bacteria wasn't affected?
Yep. They evolved.
quote:
What did the bacteria do to protect themselves? What did the others not do?
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.
quote:
Why would it be that only some would evolve. What determines that?
Mutation.
It's a random thing.
quote:
quote:
There's no other conclusion except that some of the bacteria evolved. And, in fact, if you do a genetic analysis of the bacteria that survived and compare it to the original genome, you will find discrepancies.
Was this done before and after the infection?
Yes.
Now, that part of it is beyond the scope of the average high school lab session. Most high schools don't have genetic sequencing equipment. But, it has been done and it only serves to nail down the specifics of what we already know: The bacteria evolved.
quote:
Do bacteria comunicate with each other? I wonder.
Why yes, yes they do. Bacterial sex is also well-understood.
But here's the thing: If you're all clones of each other, you're only passing around the same genes.
If I have two genetically distinct bacteria, one can pass its unique genes to the other.
But if I have two genetically identical bacteria, what unique property could one give to the other?
quote:
Is each sibbling an exact clone of the parent? down to the last DNA?
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.
quote:
quote:
So why is it the vast majority of the world's population is incapable of seeing this "chick" that you love?
Who are you to tell them that they were "miss guided"
Because the Bible tells us this will happen. Its of no surprise to me.
And the arrogance and disrespect show themselves again.
Have you considered the possibility that they have the same argument to make toward you?
Get over yourself and put yourself in someone else's shoes just for a moment. If you seriously accept the claim that people who don't believe in your god are willful people who cannot see the forest for the trees, what possible defense do you have against their identical claim about you?
Why are you incapable of feeling the power of Shiva? We're not surprised that you don't...not even Shiva expects everyone to do so.
So with you and Hindus making the exact same argument, how is a third party supposed to determine who is the one to listen to?
quote:
I am not telling anyone that they are misguided (I merely wonder if).
Incorrect. You are telling them, you are not merely wondering if. You said so, yourself:
Now are you willing to accept that those who don't believe in Jesus are just as sincere as you are?
I cannot accept any of that
So you can understand why I claim that you have no respect, no integrity, no decency. You cannot accept the possibility that other people who disagree with you are just as sincere as you are.
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2