Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Greg Jennings]

Haha.......
Read Stripes comment.

Greg you don't understand science. The development of penicillin and antibiotics have nothing to do with a belief in common ancestry nor common Designer. Many of the founding fathers of modern science developed their fields of science believing in the Biblical creator such as Joseph Listor (Surgery) Louis Pasteur (bacteriology) Georges Cuvier (anatomy) ETC. Fleming However did not believe in the Creator,

So you're telling me that the scientists who learned that some bacteria can incorporate loose plasmids of genetic info from other organisms into their own genome, then use that new info to code for production of a protective substance (e.g. penicillin) that gives them and their offspring a selective advantage, had nothing to do with evolutionary research?

I know you're a bit slow when it comes to this stuff, so I'll try to simplify it all for you. You see, microbiologists studying certain bacteria realized that some bacteria had the ability to incorporate foreign DNA into their own genome, then use the new DNA to code for production of a new protein or substance, an ability which the bacterium obviously then passes on to its offspring.
Using that knowledge, scientists took the right DNA sequence out of the fungus species that produces penicillin and set it in the same petri dish as a bacterial colony (E. coli if I'm remembering correctly). Predictably, some of the bacteria in the colony incorporated the penicillin-producing sequence into their own genome, and voila! You have a new strain of penicillin producing bacteria courtesy of evolutionary research on the ways that bacteria change their genetic information.

Understand?

So once again, what has young earth creationism contributed to science in the past 100 years?
(It's pretty clear from your dodging over and over that the answer is nada)

 

[alwight]

It is a famous fallacy to defy reasoning by saying that "because you are a student and that man is a teacher such that what the teacher says should be more correct".

A good teacher isn't a preacher, they will know just how to guide students to discover their own way to truth by using evidence, facts and experiment, not by being a supposed authority figure.
The actual fallacy here is to appeal to authority rather than being able to demonstrate what is the likely truth, evidentially.

 

[6days]

A good teacher isn't a preacher, they will know just how to guide students to discover their own way to truth by using evidence, facts and experiment, not by being a supposed authority figure.
The actual fallacy here is to appeal to authority rather than being able to demonstrate what is the likely truth, evidentially.

Yes..... Agree.
That is why Biblical creationists promote intellectual freedom in the classroom, rather than indoctrination. Perhaps that is why home schooled students score higher in college entrance exams. They have the freedom to explore... compare... challenge opposing ideas. (As opposed to boring indoctrination offered in most public schools)

 

[6days]

So you're telling me that the scientists who learned that some bacteria can incorporate loose plasmids of genetic info from other organisms into their own genome, then use that new info to code for production of a protective substance (e.g. penicillin) that gives them and their offspring a selective advantage, had nothing to do with evolutionary research?

The ability of bacteria to adapt has nothing to do with your belief system.
Biblical creationists and evolutionists both observe the same data. (Mutation rates/ selection/ DNA code/ adaptation/ genetic drift etc)

 

[Greg Jennings]

The ability of bacteria to adapt has nothing to do with your belief system.

You're right. But it does have to do with a bacteria population being manipulated to produce a valuable antibiotic, which was knowledge gained from evolutionary research (as I painstakingly laid out for you in my last post. Why do I try?).

Biblical creationists and evolutionists both observe the same data. (Mutation rates/ selection/ DNA code/ adaptation/ genetic drift etc)

They do, and somehow creationists come to conclusions that range from irrational to insane, likely because all creationists readily admit that they start from "In the beginning God created..." and gather evidence to fit that. Conclusions like a worldwide flood (not enough water) laid down layer upon layer of granite (which is impossible as igneous rock is volcanic; it doesn't form in a flood) and all of the sedimentary and metamorphic layers in the Grand Canyon. Obviously there are no YEC geologists because that is beyond crazy. And saying that rock layers are bent by water? The only person who would ever say such a thing is someone who had never set foot in a geology course.
You can't even explain why there are no dinosaurs above the KT boundary, and you think what creationists do can be called "science"? :doh:

For a fourth time, what has young earth creationism contributed to science in the past 100 years?

 

[way 2 go]

So you're telling me that the scientists who learned that some bacteria can incorporate loose plasmids of genetic info from other organisms into their own genome, then use that new info to code for production of a protective substance (e.g. penicillin) that gives them and their offspring a selective advantage, had nothing to do with evolutionary research?

nothing to do with evolutionary research.
evolution would be the bacteria writing brand new never seen before code
not incorporation...

the premise of evolution is complex code from nothing.

what you have is
code + code = new code

evolution would be

code + write its own new never seen before code = never seen before code

 

[6days]

You can't even explain why there are no dinosaurs above the KT boundary, and you think what creationists do can be called "science"? :doh:

So dinosaur bones found above ground are really below the KT boundary?

And.... You just moved the goalposts rather than admit C14 results of 30,000 years is closer to 6,000 years than to 70,000,000.

For a fourth time, what has young earth creationism contributed to science in the past 100 years?

You and Jose both suffer from obtuseness.
For the 5th time (at least)..... Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs... not science.
You have been shown numerous times how creationism has contributed to... and is responsible for modern science.
You also have been shown numerous times how evolutionism has hindered science and harmed people. We can discuss again how the false beliefs in common ancestry hinder science...if you wish.

 

[Greg Jennings]

nothing to do with evolutionary research.
evolution would be the bacteria writing brand new never seen before code
not incorporation...

the premise of evolution is complex code from nothing.

what you have is
code + code = new code

evolution would be

code + write its own new never seen before code = never seen before code

Umm....no. Evolution is the process by which organism populations adapt and change in response to environmental stimuli. Bacteria incorporating a plasmid into their own genome, receiving a positive adaptation from the plasmid, then passing on its plasmid-infused genome to its offspring is textbook evolution.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So dinosaur bones found above ground are really below the KT boundary?

Yes! It's called upheaval and erosion! Do you think all layers on earth are parallel to each other? Take a geology course damn it!

And.... You just moved the goalposts rather than admit C14 results of 30,000 years is closer to 6,000 years than to 70,000,000.

No, sorry. You're mixing up threads. It's ok. I know it's difficult being wrong on so many different threads

You and Jose both suffer from obtuseness.

At least it isn't ignorance.

For the 5th time (at least)..... Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs... not science.
You have been shown numerous times how creationism has contributed to... and is responsible for modern science.
You also have been shown numerous times how evolutionism has hindered science and harmed people. We can discuss again how the false beliefs in common ancestry hinder science...if you wish.

Ok, well since I just gave you an example of evolutionary research contributing to science and society as a whole, and you have just effectively said that creationism hasn't contributed anything in the past 100 years, we can conclude that creationism is literally useless.

Oh yeah....and despite you saying over and over that science hinders science, it's actually you and your ilk that have held our knowledge back at every turn. You projecting that onto others won't change that.


Will you finally tell me if you've taken a college science course?

 

[6days]

Yes! It's called upheaval and erosion! Do you think all layers on earth are parallel to each other?

Actually the Bible tells us about mountains rising, so we know the layers are not parallel. Do you think all layers on earth are parallel to each other?
BTW... You didn't answer my question. You seem to suggest that dinosaur bones found at ground level are below the KT boundary?

Ok, well since I just gave you an example of evolutionary research contributing to science and society as a whole

You gave an example of science contributing to an understanding of bacteria.... Common ancestry beliefs had nothing to do with it.
And, as has been pointed out to you, your belief system of evolutionism, has often hindered scientific progress and lead to increased racism and genocide.

 

[6days]

Umm....no. Evolution is the process by which organism populations adapt and change in response to environmental stimuli. Bacteria incorporating a plasmid into their own genome, receiving a positive adaptation from the plasmid, then passing on its plasmid-infused genome to its offspring is textbook evolution.

It's also textbook creationism Greg.
God programmed genomes with the ability to adapt.
Bacteria are particularly good at it because they need to survive such a wide array of fast changing environments. Keep in mind that in the creation model all bacteria were beneficial.... and the vast amount of bacteria still are beneficial and are required for life to survive on earth.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Actually the Bible tells us about mountains rising, so we know the layers are not parallel. Do you think all layers on earth are parallel to each other?
BTW... You didn't answer my question. You seem to suggest that dinosaur bones found at ground level are below the KT boundary?

I honestly cannot tell if you're serious or just trolling. I answered "Yes!" with literally the first word of my last post, then went on to explain why that is (upheaval and erosion). However, I can clarify by adding the fossils won't be present above the KT boundary wherever it is present (wherever Cretaceous rock beds are).

Based on that, will YOU now answer the question of why there are no dinosaur bones above the boundary?

You gave an example of science contributing to an understanding of bacteria.... Common ancestry beliefs had nothing to do with it.

And, as has been pointed out to you, your belief system of evolutionism, has often hindered scientific progress and lead to increased racism and genocide.

A. You are lying about "evolutionism" (still not a word, btw) hindering scientific progress, you know that, and you should be ashamed that you stoop so low so often. It's easy for people to see how unchristian like your behavior is. You're a pitiful example of what Christ says Christians should be.

As for the rest of the list: who cares? The universe doesn't base its natural laws on which of two theories is more moral or what makes you feel happier. So if the correct theory leads to bad things, then so be it. That's better than staying blissfully ignorant of reality, imo. The evidence leads to evolution, and it doesn't care about your moral objections.

Im going to need to know if you've ever taken a college science course. Okay? Don't ignore me, I won't quit asking


*Note that 6days characterizations of what evolution has caused are in no way representative of reality. Remember guys, the church (not "evolutionists") tried to suppress Heliocentrism and plantation owners used the bible, not The Origin of Species, to justify racism. Again this is a stupid argument because ultimately it makes no difference what a theory may or may not have caused if we are evaluating its accuracy. An idea can be right and still provoke bad things to happen.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It's also textbook creationism Greg.
God programmed genomes with the ability to adapt.
Bacteria are particularly good at it because they need to survive such a wide array of fast changing environments. Keep in mind that in the creation model all bacteria were beneficial.... and the vast amount of bacteria still are beneficial and are required for life to survive on earth.

Where is this creation model? Where does it lay out all of this? It's not in the bible. Where is it?

 

[Stripe]

How did rapid adaptation become part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

Evidence.

It's already been outlined.

Feel free to discuss that instead of ranting nonsense. :up:

Why can't you answer a question?

Why can't you stick to the topic?

"Kind" has a well-defined and stable definition, while "species" is vague and malleable.

 

[chair]

Where is this creation model? Where does it lay out all of this? It's not in the bible. Where is it?

It's not in the Bible. The Bible explains fairly clearly that God created all the different types of creatures- not "kinds" that later turned into the creatures we know today.

It is not Biblical. And it is not Scientific.

 

[Stripe]

It's not in the Bible. The Bible explains fairly clearly that God created all the different types of creatures- not "kinds" that later turned into the creatures we know today.

Actually, it's pretty clear. God made the kinds to reproduce among themselves and generate more of the same kind.

Add to that the scientific observation that variety can emerge — and emerge rapidly — and we have a perfectly reasonable Biblical and scientific model.

It is not Biblical. And it is not Scientific.

So much for your assertion.

 

[User Name]

In our first animation of this series we learned how point mutations can edit genetic information. Here we see how duplication events can dramatically lengthen the genetic code of an individual. As point mutations add up in the duplicated region across generations, entirely new genes with new functions can evolve.

In the video we see three examples of gene duplications resulting in new traits for the creatures who inherit them: the evolution of a venom gene in snakes, the evolution of leaf digestion genes in monkeys, and the evolution of burrowing legs in hunting dogs:

 

[Stripe]

In our first animation of this series we learned how point mutations can edit genetic information.

Thank you, Mr Cutandpaste.

Did you have something to contribute to the discussion of the evidence rather than presenting stuff you don't understand from your side as if it was the only possible idea.

 

[User Name]

Thank you, Mr Cutandpaste.

You're welcome, but it's "copy and paste," not "cut and paste."

 

[Jose Fly]

*Note that 6days characterizations of what evolution has caused are in no way representative of reality. Remember guys, the church (not "evolutionists") tried to suppress Heliocentrism and plantation owners used the bible, not The Origin of Species, to justify racism. Again this is a stupid argument because ultimately it makes no difference what a theory may or may not have caused if we are evaluating its accuracy. An idea can be right and still provoke bad things to happen.

It's called the fallacy of appealing to consequences. It's nothing more than a sign of 6days' desperation. He's been shredded on the evidence, so he's reduced to slinging mud.

Not only that, but if we apply his faulty reasoning to belief in gods, we would have to look at all the horrible things that have been, and continue to be, carried out and justified via "what God wants". But 6days won't do that.