Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Nobody is making claims about Constitutional rights being violated by others simply not accepting their beliefs, by by having those other’s beliefs being forced on them through litigation and the abuse of the judiciary.
BINGO! It’s not like there’s not sheer mountains of evidence of godless liberals suing and censoring particularly Christian religious beliefs not just out of public science and e’ducation in general but virtually ALL public realms.
Science has established dogma when it demands the adherence to the ToE at the cost of a scientists career. Anyone who does not adhere to, even dares to question it, might as well kiss that career good-by.
No dissent allowed.
Who got sued into abandoning their beliefs?
Exactly...and this silliness that I keep hearing that Creationism gives conservatism a bad name...what a joke THAT drivel is!
It’s simply not a conservative position to excalim that godless liberal atheists somehow OWN the deifinitions of science let alone decide what is or isn’t acceptable “theory”.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
No dissent allowed.
You can question anything you want. Just be prepared to back it up with evidence. A scientist that can't do that isn't going to have much of a career. Get over it.
Exactly. Mutation is constrained and this spells doom for evolution.
But, like a chicken after you wring it's neck, evolution needs to flop around and spew blood over everything for a while before it finally dies.
In evolution's case, it's well worth watching.
I probably might could have, but then again I may not.
Not necessarily superior, but more suited for the environment in which they were naturally selected. Humans are more isolated from nature today so these environmental pressures are not as apparent.
For example, extremely deep-sea fish did not evolve to have eyes but this is not inferior for their pitch-black environment.
Rapid changes can force a formerly adapted species to die out entirely. Dodo birds did not fly but this was not inferior in a predator free environment. Once their environment rapidly changed and included humans, flightless birds instantly became inferior.
They would EXACTLY AND PRECISELY undergo a change in genetic makeup.
In response to stress a bacteria will undergo its stress response. Part of this stress response is to increase its own mutation rate and decrease its mutation repair rate. Mutations, for those of you in Rio Linda, IS A CHANGE IN THE GENETIC MAKEUP.
Therefore a bacteria under stress increases its natural tendency to mutate its DNA, thereby changing its genetic makeup.
'Science' gets to make up any after-the-fact story it wants as long as the evidence is interpreted through the filter of the philosophy of naturalism. No other filters are allowed because naturalists actually believe that equating technological success and origins philosophy is appropriate.
It never occurs to them that their equivocation begs the very question they are being challenged on.
"Get over it."
"The use of unnecessary rudeness has been approved." (adapted from The Blues Brothers)
What exactly is this “philosophy of naturalism” your ranting about? Do you think scientists should just declare everything that can’t explain in the first 10 minutes of observation the result of some supernatural force and move on to something else?
While bacteria exhibit this complex biological ability, it never occurs to the evolutionist that they merely *assume* that this ability 'evolved'.
The fallacy of Affirming the Consequent lives on...
If you can't understand Lewontin; you can't understand...
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin
What other reason would bacteria under stress intentionally increase their mutation rate?
Why would God want bacteria to increase their mutation rate in response to stress?
Why would bacteria that increase their mutation rate in response to stress have a survival advantage over those bacteria that do not?
Bacteria - Bacterial Adaptation
Bacterial adaptation
Bacteria have been designed to be adaptable. Their surrounding layers and the genetic information for these and other structures associated with a bacterium are capable of alteration. Some alterations are reversible, disappearing when the particular pressure is lifted. Other alterations are maintained and can even be passed on to succeeding generations of bacteria.
The first antibiotic was discovered in 1929. Since then, a myriad of naturally occurring and chemically synthesized antibiotics have been used to control bacteria. Introduction of an antibiotic is frequently followed by the development of resistance to the agent. Resistance is an example of the adaptation of the bacteria to the antibacterial agent.
Antibiotic resistance can develop swiftly. For example, resistance to penicillin (the first antibiotic discovered) was recognized almost immediately after introduction of the drug. As of the mid 1990s, almost 80% of all strains of Staphylococcus aureus were resistant to penicillin. Meanwhile, other bacteria remain susceptible to penicillin. An example is provided by Group A Streptococcus pyogenes, another Gram-positive bacteria.
The adaptation of bacteria to an antibacterial agent such as an antibiotic can occur in two ways. The first method is known as inherent (or natural) resistance. Gram-negative bacteria are often naturally resistant to penicillin, for example. This is because these bacteria have another outer membrane, which makes the penetration of penicillin to its target more difficult. Sometimes when bacteria acquire resistance to an antibacterial agent, the cause is a membrane alteration that has made the passage of the molecule into the cell more difficult.
The second category of adaptive resistance is called acquired resistance. This resistance is almost always due to a change in the genetic make-up of the bacterial genome. Acquired resistance can occur because of mutation or as a response by the bacteria to the selective pressure imposed by the antibacterial agent. Once the genetic alteration that confers resistance is present, it can be passed on to subsequent generations. Acquired adaptation and resistance of bacteria to some clinically important antibiotics has become a great problem in the last decade of the twentieth century.
Bacteria adapt to other environmental conditions as well. These include adaptations to changes in temperature, pH, concentrations of ions such as sodium, and the nature of the surrounding support. An example of the latter is the response shown by Vibrio parahaemolyticus to growth in a watery environment versus a more viscous environment. In the more viscous setting, the bacteria adapt by forming what are called swarmer cells. These cells adopt a different means of movement, which is more efficient for moving over a more solid surface. This adaptation is under tight genetic control, involving the expression of multiple genes.
Bacteria react to a sudden change in their environment by expressing or repressing the expression of a whole lost of genes. This response changes the properties of both the interior of the organism and its surface chemistry. A well-known example of this adaptation is the so-called heat shock response of Escherichia coli. The name derives from the fact that the response was first observed in bacteria suddenly shifted to a higher growth temperature.
One of the adaptations in the surface chemistry of Gram-negative bacteria is the alteration of a molecule called lipopolysaccharide. Depending on the growth conditions or whether the bacteria are growing on an artificial growth medium or inside a human, as examples, the lipopolysaccharide chemistry can become more or less water-repellent. These changes can profoundly affect the ability of antibacterial agents or immune components to kill the bacteria.
Another adaptation exhibited by Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and a great many other bacteria as well, is the formation of adherent populations on solid surfaces. This mode of growth is called a biofilm. Adoption of a biofilm mode of growth induces a myriad of changes, many involving the expression of previously unexpressed genes. In addition,l de-activation of actively expressing genes can occur. Furthermore, the pattern of gene expression may not be uniform throughout the biofilm. Bacteria within a biofilm and bacteria found in other niches, such as in a wound where oxygen is limited, grow and divide at a far slower speed than the bacteria found in the test tube in the laboratory. Such bacteria are able to adapt to the slower growth rate, once again by changing their chemistry and gene expression pattern.
A further example of adaptation is the phenomenon of chemotaxis, whereby a bacterium can sense the chemical composition of the environment and either moves toward an attractive compound, or shifts direction and moves away from a compound sensed as being detrimental. Chemotaxis is controlled by more than 40 genes that code for the production of components of the flagella that propels the bacterium along, for sensory receptor proteins in the membrane, and for components that are involved in signaling a bacterium to move toward or away from a compound. The adaptation involved in the chemotactic response must have a memory component, because the concentration of a compound at one moment in time must be compared to the concentration a few moments later.
See also Antisepsis; Biodegradable substances; Biodiversity; Composting; Microbial genetics; Origin of life; Water microbiology; Nitrogen fixation.
Resources
Books
Alberts, et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th. ed New York: Garland Science, 2002.
Cullimore, Roy D. Practical Atlas for Bacterial Determination Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.
Dyer, Betsey Dexter. A Field Guide to Bacteria. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.
Groisman, Eduardo A. Principles of Bacterial Pathogenesis. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2000.
Koehler, T.M. Anthrax New York: Springer Verlag, 2002.
Walsh, Christopher. Antibiotics: Actions, Origins, Resistance. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press, 2003.
Other
The Foundation for Bacteriology, New York University. “Virtual Museum of Bacteria” [cited February 5, 2003]. http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/main1.shtml
Huge critical-thinking error by proposing the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent as an argument to 'support' evolution.
And I will be waiting for a picture of a sleestak.
Lewontin the MARXIST?
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.