Deadly Waters No Problem for Well-Equipped Algae

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....

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?

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.

[[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

“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.

[[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!

[[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

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.

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.