Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deadly Waters No Problem for Well-Equipped Algae
ICR ^ | March 25, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 03/25/2009 8:39:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Deadly Waters No Problem for Well-Equipped Algae

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Arsenic is a common toxic component in pesticides and herbicides, and one place it is found naturally is in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park. The arsenic in the water there would be deadly to many living creatures, yet the Cyanidioschyzon algae thrive in it because they are specially equipped to detoxify arsenic through chemical modification. Some bacteria, marine worms, and lichens are also known to convert between different forms of arsenic, but new research details how the algae do it....

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: algae; creation; cyanidioschyzon; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign

1 posted on 03/25/2009 8:39:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 03/25/2009 8:40:03 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

fantastic!


3 posted on 03/25/2009 8:42:19 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Without evolution?

Oh no! - What ever are we going to do; they’ve burned the church down......


4 posted on 03/25/2009 8:43:17 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Instead of ooh-ing and ahh-ing over extreme -philes, how about looking up a little real research on them.

http://merolae.biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/intro_menu.html

Genome sequence of the ultrasmall unicellular red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae 10D.
Matsuzaki M, Misumi O, Shin-i T, Maruyama S, Takahara M, Miyagishima S, Mori T, Nishida K, Yagisawa F, Nishida K, Yoshida Y, Nishimura Y, Nakao S, Kobayashi T, Momoyama Y, Higashiyama T, Minoda A, Sano M, Nomoto H, Oishi K, Hayashi H, Ohta F, Nishizaka S, Haga S, Miura S, Morishita T, Kabeya Y, Terasawa K, Suzuki Y, Ishii Y, Asakawa S, Takano H, Ohta N, Kuroiwa H, Tanaka K, Shimizu N, Sugano S, Sato N, Nozaki H, Ogasawara N, Kohara Y, Kuroiwa T.
Nature 2004 Apr 8;428:653-657. [ Download PDF ] [ Supplementary Information ]
Small, compact genomes of ultrasmall unicellular algae provide information on the basic and essential genes that support the lives of photosynthetic eukaryotes, including higher plants. Here we report the 16,520,305-base-pair sequence of the 20 chromosomes of the unicellular red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae 10D as the first complete algal genome. We identified 5,331 genes in total, of which at least 86.3% were expressed. Unique characteristics of this genomic structure include: a lack of introns in all but 26 genes; only three copies of ribosomal DNA units that maintain the nucleolus; and two dynamin genes that are involved only in the division of mitochondria and plastids. The conserved mosaic origin of Calvin cycle enzymes in this red alga and in green plants supports the hypothesis of the existence of single primary plastid endosymbiosis. The lack of a myosin gene, in addition to the unexpressed actin gene, suggests a simpler system of cytokinesis. These results indicate that the C. merolae genome provides a model system with a simple gene composition for studying the origin, evolution and fundamental mechanisms of eukaryotic cells.

Complete sequence and analysis of the plastid genome of the unicellular red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae.
Ohta N, Matsuzaki M, Misumi O, Miyagishima S, Nozaki H, Tanaka K, Shin-i T, Kohara Y, Kuroiwa T.
DNA Res. 2003 Apr 30;10(2):67-77. [ Download PDF ]
The complete nucleotide sequence of the plastid genome of the unicellular primitive red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae 10D (Cyanidiophyceae) was determined. The genome is a circular DNA composed of 149,987 bp with no inverted repeats. The G + C content of this plastid genome is 37.6%. The C. merolae plastid genome contains 243 genes, which are distributed on both strands and consist of 36 RNA genes (3 rRNAs, 31 tRNAs, tmRNA, and a ribonuclease P RNA component) and 207 protein genes, including unidentified open reading frames. The striking feature of this genome is the high degree of gene compaction; it has very short intergenic distances (approximately 40% of the protein genes were overlapped) and no genes have introns. This genome encodes several genes that are rarely found in other plastid genomes. A gene encoding a subunit of sulfate transporter (cysW) is the first to be identified in a plastid genome. The cysT and cysW genes are located in the C. merolae plastid genome in series, and they probably function together with other nuclear-encoded components of the sulfate transport system. Our phylogenetic results suggest that the Cyanidiophyceae, including C. merolae, are a basal clade within the red lineage plastids.
Reference: Matsuzaki, M. et al. Nature 428, 653-657 (2004)


5 posted on 03/25/2009 8:52:37 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
yet the Cyanidioschyzon algae thrive in it because they are specially equipped to detoxify arsenic through chemical modification.

Or maybe the arsenic isn't toxic to them.

6 posted on 03/25/2009 8:57:46 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (Want to make a conservative angry? Lie to him. Want to make a liberal angry? Tell him the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


7 posted on 03/25/2009 8:58:10 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
God the Creator deserves the credit for equipping His plants and other creatures with the necessary cellular machinery to survive in extreme environments. The impersonal universe doesn’t care whether Yellowstone’s hot springs harbor life, but God, who formed the earth uniquely to be inhabited, apparently does.

Amen!

8 posted on 03/25/2009 9:10:17 AM PDT by WondrousCreation (Good science regarding the Earth's past only reveals what Christians have known for centuries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

[[These results indicate that the C. merolae genome provides a model system with a simple gene composition for studying the origin, evolution and fundamental mechanisms of eukaryotic cells]]

Yup- mustn’t assume anythign otherthan evolution- It just couldn’t be deisgned that way- had to evolve- any other explanation is Heresy!


9 posted on 03/25/2009 9:17:51 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

based on what.....?

Science is limited. It can’t answer everything. If you think it can then you simply have a different belief system.


10 posted on 03/25/2009 9:39:45 AM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

[[Science is limited. It can’t answer everything. If you think it can then you simply have a different belief system.]]

Tis true, tis true- but hten again “Nature did it” isn’t exactly a worthy attempt at a scientific endeavor- At least ID shows HOW IC is constructed and functions- the naturalist however jumps right in and ‘refutes’ IC by simply claiming ‘nature did it’ without ANY evidence to back it up. A classic example of this broad sweeping generalization by naturalists was the ‘explanation’ for how higher complexity blood clotting ‘could have’ arisen by ‘natural means’- Ken Miller went on to defeat his whole argument that blood clotting is ‘Reducible, and hterefore not irreducibly complex’ by inventing an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED scenario that nature simpyl is incapable of producing- His whole argument hinged on the idea that ‘Nature simply did it’ (somehow someway, but we just don’t know how by golly).

There’s another thread goign on right now about a dispute in ‘science’ where one camp thinks a hippo descended from whales, while another camp beleives it descended from pigs- Their only evidences? Homological similarities- they don;’t even attempt to answer hte scientific quesitons about the trillions of biological and morphological changes that MUST have taken place ‘sometime in the past’ apparently, for which there is NO scientific evidence to support- They might as well assume rocks gave birth to pomegranits concidering how little evidence they have to support their claims- and to boot- they can’t even begin to agree on which species the hippo allegedly descended from because there again, is infact NO scientific evidence to support the trillions of changes that MUST have taken place for which there simpyl is no evidence to show. Assumptions I’m afraid is not science- Evidence is science- ID presents evidence- Macroevolution leaves hte realm of science and wanders down the dark path of godless assumptions.

Sorry- but science doesn’t even begin to seriously TRY to answer HOW- all they do is htrow out a bunch of scenarios, and claim nature must have done it ‘in the past sometime’


11 posted on 03/25/2009 10:06:58 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


12 posted on 03/25/2009 10:27:37 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

You have mistaken “evidence” with inept deconstructive criticism. ID shows nothing - not one thing has a so called intelligent design advocate ever proven. All that ID “science” (term used very loosely) does is stand in its little corner and sneer at real science.

Again I say - if you don’t know how popcorn works - you think its magic. Since you can’t fathom the complexities of biology - you throw stones at us biologists.

I’ve tried to engage in serious debate but all I’ve ever gotten is misdirected, misunderstood, half baked, web-generated, un-sourced hogwash.


13 posted on 03/25/2009 10:40:18 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

[[All that ID “science” (term used very loosely) does is stand in its little corner and sneer at real science.]]

Says the sneererer!

[[You have mistaken “evidence” with inept deconstructive criticism.]]

I’m assuming you are refering to the inept ‘desconstructive criticism’ that Ken Miller presented? If so- then you are correct- He attempted to deconstruct IC but failed miserably- and simply proved, once again, that it takes intelligent design to construct the IC systems we know to exist- and by the way- all life is IC- right from the simpelst cells to the top species- look up ‘life’s irreducible structures’ in google, and you’ll find the FR thread that discusses this new metainformation problem that will prove to be evolution’s ultimate undoing.

[[Again I say - if you don’t know how popcorn works - you think its magic. Since you can’t fathom the complexities of biology - you throw stones at us biologists.]]

Lol- an amateurish attempt at subtle insulting- Step it up a bit- Say what’s really on yer mind- Shall I state that since ‘real science’ can’t explain how IC can exist, then they must therefore declare it magic, and that ‘nature did it’ ‘sometime in the past’? Because that’s the truth- they can NOT explain IC via naturalism, but insist ‘nature did it’ and that IC is an ‘illusion’! lol

[[I’ve tried to engage in serious debate but all I’ve ever gotten is misdirected, misunderstood, half baked, web-generated, un-sourced hogwash.]]

Says hte misdirecting, misunderstanding, half-baked, unscourced hogwasher!


14 posted on 03/25/2009 10:54:37 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

[[I’ve tried to engage in serious debate]]

No! You’ve presented assumptions, and htne complain and engage in name calling and thinly veiled insults toward ID when people ask for details- Character assassination isn’t ‘serious debate’- but do lemme know when you’re willing to step it up a bit, put aside subjective opinions, and discuss the actual evidences. When you’re willing to cede the gigantic gaps and assumptions in hte claims made- then we’ll engage in ‘serious debate’- but if all you’re goign to do is complain that I and others don’t accept the same a priori assumptions that you do without questioning the actual details, then whatever- but let’s not pretend there’s been any attempt at ‘serious discussions’ yet. You presented an article by talkorigins- a KNOWN deceptive website- I presented evidences which expose the wild assumptions made in the talkorigin’s claims, and you didn’t liek that- That isn’t ‘serious debate’ that is a case of ‘agree with me, or else I’m taking my ball and going home’

IF you want ot be taken seriously, then stick to facts, evidences, and we’ll discuss whether the conclusions on either side have more weight than the othe’rs conculisions do- I’m confident that ID holds more actual wieght, and that macroevo is really, when examined and broken down, a pastry puff with fluff filling. Woops- engaged in opinion.


15 posted on 03/25/2009 11:01:55 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Touched a nerve, have I?

I refer you to the articles I have linked above. They are not talkorigins - they are from japanese research biologists.

I will cede that you expect every little detail to be spelled out to you in minutia. Are there gaps in the knowledge base - yes. If we knew everything there would not be a reason to study anything. You assume that because not everything is explained that nothing can be. That is pure fallacy. And, not to correct you, but, you say you are not using an apriori assumption - again, that’s false. You’re assuming that everything that doesn’t fit into a bibliocentric worldview is false. I’m no amature but from your comments on this and many other threads I assume that your knowledge of science comes from the condemnations launched from non-scientific web sites. That’s poor logic, poor reasoning, and poor judgement if you presume to debate me.


16 posted on 03/25/2009 11:13:50 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Deadly Waters No Problem for Well-Equipped Algae

Up a creek without a paddle? No problem. Hold our beers, and watch this!

17 posted on 03/25/2009 11:22:04 AM PDT by BlueDragon (the "Bakersfield bump" had nothing to do with disco...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Re-read my post.


18 posted on 03/25/2009 4:32:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Ok, I did.
And....?
There are several ways of taking what you wrote. I chose one.


19 posted on 03/25/2009 5:02:08 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

[[Touched a nerve, have I?]]

It was my last nerve and I’ll be danged if you didn’t jump all over it- lol- No- no nerve touched.

[[I will cede that you expect every little detail to be spelled out to you in minutia.]]

‘Every minutia’? No- but I DO expect more than ‘nature did it- and that is that’

[[Are there gaps in the knowledge base - yes.]]

There arew not only gaps- there are impossibilities-

[[You assume that because not everything is explained that nothing can be.]]

Nope- wrong! It is explained- you folk however refuse to accept anythign but naturalism

[[And, not to correct you, but, you say you are not using an apriori assumption - again, that’s false.]]

Nope it isn’t false- I examine hte evidence- when enough evidence is present to present a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion- that is NOT a priori- that is following hte evidence and coming to a reasonable conclusion- the natural explanation is NOT reasonable precisely ecause it violates scientific priciples and laws- but that apparently doesn’t bother those that think man came from goo.

[[You’re assuming that everything that doesn’t fit into a bibliocentric worldview is false.]]

Bzzzzzt! Wrong! I see you don’t care to present any reasonable arguments- but rather apparently are content tryign to figure out what I beleive and why- but not to worry- I’m used to evasive lines of ‘arguments’ from anturalists- when you feel you wish to discuss the evidences, lemme know- huh? Till then- I’ll continue examining hte evidences objectively and seeing if they are possible via nature or not- so far I’m finding they are not

[[I’m no amature but from your comments on this and many other threads I assume that your knowledge of science comes from the condemnations launched from non-scientific web sites.]]

That’s BS- You obviously have NOT looked at my arguments when hte discussions STAYED ON TOPIC and didn’t deviate into name calling and ad hominem attacks liek you seem to be devolving into- but again- I’m used to that little tactic because it’s apparent it’s the only ‘defense’ you folks have left.


20 posted on 03/25/2009 5:34:59 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

All these “articles” do is summarize a legitimate scientific article and then state it is so complicated that god must have done it. How about going to the original article in the legitimate journal and references from that paper and showing that there are no similar structures or enzymes (which would require real research), but they don’t because they CAN’T.

Another example from Yellowstone:
The DNA polymerase used for PCR was found in bacteria that live in the thermal pools in Yellowstone at close to boiling temperatures. This enzyme is a DNA polymerase, from its function. The regions of the protein necessary for polymerizing DNA are very similar to other polymerases as most mutations in these areas likely disable the protein. What has mutated are regions which increase the stability of the protein at higher temps. If not they would denature, as an egg does when it is put in a frying pan. This is easy to understand how it evolved.
Bacteria that had a mutation that made the protein a bit more stable at a few more degrees than normal could survive in hotter water and have more descendants. A few of these descendants had mutations that allowed them to survive in a little hotter water. Repeat billions of generations and you have the current bacteria. The same kind of evolution occurred at the deep sea vents.

What is so hard to understand about that?


21 posted on 03/25/2009 6:33:18 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

You amuse me with your redirection.

I can only comment on what you’ve said. You have never accepted anything in any posts and I doubt you ever will. You did not address the peer reviewed research I linked. You want evidence, there you go. You analyze that with your critical cognizance and let me know what you think.

You will notice that not once in the article does anyone say “nature did it.”

Also, if you don’t think your reflexive responses are not the result of an apriori defense then you are just fooling yourself.

I’ve never attacked you (or lumped you as ‘you people’), I’ve attacked your ideas as without substance. Faith and science are two separate exercises but each should temper the other. I’ve always said that each answers a different question (Religion=Why: Science=How). You can’t mix the questions up and expect to get a satisfactory answer.

So, when your ready to interpret the articles I posted. Let me know.


22 posted on 03/25/2009 7:18:43 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Precisely. See the two articles I linked above.


23 posted on 03/25/2009 7:19:57 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

[[You have never accepted anything in any posts and I doubt you ever will.]]

Present hte cold hard facts, and there will be no dissagreement- it’s only when you or someone else extrapolates beyond hte evidencesthat we will have to dissagree because nature simpyl is incapable of hte supernatural events that folks claim it is.

[[You did not address the peer reviewed research I linked.]]

Yes I did- I pointed out how they IMEDIATELY a priori assumed nature ‘musta done it’- If you can refute that they did so, then be my guest.

[[You want evidence, there you go.]]

Evidence for what? DEsign? I saw NO evidence pointing to macroevolution- just the a priori assumptiuons that these ‘species’ must have evolved. Where’s the evidenece that they did infact Macroevolve?

[[You analyze that with your critical cognizance and let me know what you think.]]

Just did.

[[You will notice that not once in the article does anyone say “nature did it.”]]

Oh really? Hmmm- seems to me I poitned out exactly where they did infere just that

[[(Religion=Why: Science=How). ]]

Psssst- ID answers HOW- Science speculates about HOW. ID shows HOW an intelligent designer designed, constructed and assembled IC- Science poo poo’s that and goes BEYOND the actual evidences and the HOW and SPECULATES HOW IC ‘could have’ supposedly arisen naturally- although each and every tiem they do this speculating- their ‘examples’ are riddled with intelligently designed, carefully constructed, carefulyl controlled scenarios that onyl go to show just how much ID is NEEDED behind the IC they say is ‘naturally caused’

[[So, when your ready to interpret the articles I posted. Let me know.]]

There’s nothign to discuss- they simply show adaptation- Sorry- can’t help you ‘discuss’ somethign that isn’t present in the articles- We’re talkign about hte feasibility of naturalism- not about MICROEvolution here


24 posted on 03/25/2009 7:39:32 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Are you bible thumpers going to ignore my and Former Rep’s posts about the bacteria or come up with it is too complicated so “god did it” again?


25 posted on 03/25/2009 8:01:42 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“These results indicate that the C. merolae genome provides a model system with a simple gene composition for studying the origin, evolution and fundamental mechanisms of eukaryotic cells.”

That in no way indicate apriori assumption. How do you expect testing to occur if there are no models? Oh - you keep saying macroevolution - code words from the creationist dismissal sites. There has never been a publication that has ever said “...and here at this point in the fossil record (poof!) an amoeba becomes a seagull.”

Only creationist have that sort of expectation and anything short of that is instant proof that living creatures are transformed only by magic.

ID does not answer how about anything. But it makes reasonable people wonder how such empty headed approaches to reasoning were ever adopted by upright walking hominids. I believe similar world views kept the world flat and the earth the center of the solar system.

Try actually reading the articles and addressing their methods and results. Start with that - ignore the abstract and the conclusion sections. Let me know if you think their methods were unsound. You can’t dismiss what you don’t like simply because you assume a bias before you even read it.

This discussion was never about naturalism but evolution. Stop trying to duck and dodge your way out of the conversation.


26 posted on 03/26/2009 7:06:53 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

[[a simple gene composition for studying the origin, evolution]]

[[That in no way indicate apriori assumption.]]

Surte it does- Everythign apparently must have a macroevolutionary origin to these folks- Naturalism is apparently a prerequisite for studying life.

[[How do you expect testing to occur if there are no models?]]

Objectively- IF they had mentioned microevolution, I’d have no problem with the statement- however, when ‘evolution’ is mentioned, it means macroevolution- don’t deny this.

[[Oh - you keep saying macroevolution - code words from the creationist dismissal sites.]]

Yup- because there is a distinct biological difference between micro and macro

[[There has never been a publication that has ever said “...and here at this point in the fossil record (poof!) an amoeba becomes a seagull.”]]

Now you’re just getting silly.

[[Only creationist have that sort of expectation and anything short of that is instant proof that living creatures are transformed only by magic.]]

Now you are disingeniously and intentionally MISREPRESENTING Creationism and ID- I had asked you to discuss things with doing so, but apparently you’re not up to the task?

[[ID does not answer how about anything. But it makes reasonable people wonder how such empty headed approaches to reasoning were ever adopted by upright walking hominids. I believe similar world views kept the world flat and the earth the center of the solar system.]]

Now you are disingeniously and intentionally MISREPRESENTING Creationism and ID- and you have misrepresented what God’s word says and what Christians beleived- we NEVER beleived the world was flat- God specifically told us the world was spherical- The STATE RUN (Read secular run) ‘Church of Rome’ were the ones who beleived that and enforced it- the TRUE Church NEVER did- might wanna brush up on your Christian knowledge before attempting to make petty little insults! I had asked you to discuss things with doing so, but apparently you’re not up to the task?

[[Let me know if you think their methods were unsound.]]

Their methods of investigation are NOT what is being discussed here- their a priori assumptions and over-reachign conclusions ARE what we are discussing here!


27 posted on 03/26/2009 8:44:01 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

[[Are you bible thumpers going to ignore my and Former Rep’s posts about the bacteria or come up with it is too complicated so “god did it” again?]]

Take it easy htere God-mocker- There’s absolutely NO reason to appeal to the supernatural because your example is PURELY MICROEvolution

[[Bacteria that had a mutation that made the protein a bit more stable at a few more degrees than normal could survive in hotter water and have more descendants.]]

Correct me if I’m wrong- (I never am, I just htrew that in there) The info is ALREADY PRESENT- End of story Nothing novel is goign on there. When you can point to htose bacteria evolving novel, non species specific info, and show the creation of the higher metainfo NECESSARY to control this new non species specific info- lemme know- till then you aint got game!

[[A few of these descendants had mutations that allowed them to survive in a little hotter water. Repeat billions of generations and you have the current bacteria.]]

EEEEEEK- Are you telling me that after billions of years Bacteria are..... get ready for it..... STILL Bacteria? By golly ya got us over a barrel now God-Mocker


28 posted on 03/26/2009 9:21:27 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

How can you assess their conclusions if you refuse to even examine their study. You also pre-assume their mental state, which if you bother to read it you will find that you’re the only one making assumptions.

How can you discount macro-evolution while accepting micro? They are links in the same chain. Macro is the penultimate result of multivariate change. If you think that this study is about evolution then you didn’t read the summary. They are discussion the variation from type that results in extreme climactic survivorship.

So how am I misinterpreting ID? Please explain.


29 posted on 03/27/2009 9:23:06 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson