Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Is that short enough for you drive-by "philosophers" to understand?
Modern science arose when Christian theism dedivinized nature. In speaking of modern science I was referring to what it has been devolving into since the time of Hume, the mechanists, materialists, etc.
Science was fated to fall back into magic as soon as men removed the transcendent Creator from the picture, for either He is divine or nature is divine.
The ‘new’ science as represented by Depak Chopra, quantum physics, green environmentalism, transhumanism, spiritual humanism, James Lovelock, and powerful UN insiders such as Robert Muller is definitely spiritual. Materialist Darwinism is out and Telhard de Chardin’s Omega Point in. After millions of years, God is “emerging” out of matter resulting in the spiritualization of the temporal.
Ultimately, it matters not what Darwinists believe or want. Their days are numbered. Nature is being redivinized and evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins will either get on board or go down in flames.
You are being disingenuous. Since your last statement indicates understanding. The point is that if the cell dies, it was a stress. If it does not die, it wasn't a stress. Be that as it may, the signaling process must already have been established prior to the stress for there to be a response to the stress, my point. Google James A. Shapiro.
Indicating a directed and purposeful response, not an accident.
bkmk
Read the rest - but they lose a lot of their ability to survive “normal” conditions due to their damaged genetic structure.
Yet I wonder how many would continue in their research if they could not feed so heavily on the federal gov grants and the like.
Would it not improve science if say they had to secure and/or provide their own private funding?
Cell stress does not equal cell death.
Yes, the signaling process is established in the genetics of the cell prior to the stress. Because you think every stress means cell death I can see why you would be confused and ignorant enough to think that made some sort of point for you - but it doesn't.
Bacteria alive today are the descendants of many billions of ancestors who had proficient stress responses that enabled them to NOT DIE during stress.
One of these stress response genes is an error prone DNA polymerase.
Now why do you suppose a bacteria would have an error prone DNA polymerase that would be expressed during stress?
I do not rely upon federal government grants and the like for my research. While federal funding for large projects like Moon landings and Particle Accelerators and the like are somewhat justified because of the size and nature of the endeavor - I am for private funding of scientific research.
I noticed you claimed that error prone DNA polymerase “imply a stored collection of rejected mutations employed as a survival mechanism”.
You claimed to have previously answered my question about error prone DNA polymerase.
With your response you clearly show that you STILL don't even understand the question.
Where do you think a bacteria stores this collection of rejected mutations?
Have you come up with a single example of a large genome species that went extinct due to mutation yet?
Have you questioned your beliefs that are obviously in conflict with reality and not at all backed by evidence yet?
You should.
No clearly it does not bother me that my answer does not fit what you are looking for...
Simply put
IT IS STILL BACTERIA!!!
You are almost there - but your Creationist paradigm once again cripples your understanding.
That bacteria under stress that mutates rapidly through expression of error prone DNA polymerase and survives the stress has not “lost” permanently the previous ability to thrive at “normal” environment - and survival is not “temporary” if any single member of that population is able to mutate and survive and give rise to a new population.
Survival is a long term permanent benefit.
Being able to survive a stress through mutation of the genome is a long term permanent benefit.
If that prior stress is removed and the bacteria is under stress in a “normal” environment - can you guess what it would do?
Why it would express error prone DNA polymerase and rapidly mutate to survive the stress of the “normal” environment.
And I repeat to you what I said before.
Only a fool would think it would be anything other than a bacteria after a few days of expressing error prone DNA polymerase.
Now where does is “store” these mutations?
I really want to know just how wacky your model of living things are.
Do they carry around previous mutations in a tote bag?
Only a fool would believe what you claim.
If the bacteria evolved into a new life form why then you’d have proof of macro-evolution. Which you clearly do not.
I am not saying that error prone DNA polymerase is going to change them from a bacteria to a non-bacteira - but it could, and no doubt has, led to different strains of bacteria from the same common ancestry.
What I am saying is that a bacteria under stress has a mechanism to INCREASE its mutation rate.
Now why do you think a bacteria under stress increasing its mutation rate would lead to better chances of survival?
Obviously the bacteria stress response is at odds with your view of mutations and what they can and cannot do.
Does this make you question your ignorant assumptions about mutations?
It should.
Where do bacteria “store” these mutations?
What is the evidence that large genome species go extinct due to mutation? Do you even have a single example?
Are you embarrassed by how badly your views line up with reality?
You should be.
No, it’s still a question whose interpretation is accepted.
If stress causes lots of changes in a short amount of time then 6-10k years may be sufficient [which iirc is something you ridicule the creation viewpoint for - not enough time in thousands of years to accomplish the wide variety of life forms]. Yet science can not repeat even thousands of years in the lab.
And before you begin ridiculing this idea keep in mind 90% of all life forms are evident in the fossil record [’billions’ of years in long ages viewpoint for the ‘cambrian’ explosion] fully developed.
Six to ten thousand years is not enough time for what?
I know that a few thousand years is not enough time to explain the wide variety of species we see upon the Earth if you think they all came from those few species that could fit on a boat of known dimensions.
So what mechanism would you use to explain how we went from a few species a few thousand years ago to the innumerable species we have today? Do you think you don't need a physical mechanism to explain it? Either way - if this is your paradigm then you believe in evolution, speciation, and the (semi) common descent of species - and at a rate and with a power well beyond that ever proposed by any competent evolutionary biologist.
Why wouldn't the fossils of extinct species be “fully developed”?
An Australopithocine is not a undeveloped human being - it is a “fully developed” Australopithocine. A flying squirrel is not a undeveloped flying creature - it is a “fully developed” gliding arboreal mammal.
The ark had dimensions and shape similar to a modern day barge, would barely fit on a football field and be about 4 stories tall.
Here’s a description from Dr. Walt Brown PhD from his online website creationscience.com:
a. A boat large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—perhaps 16,000 animals in all. (Of course, sea creatures did not need to be on the Ark. Nor did insects or amphibians. Only mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans. Much plant life survived the flood in a surprisingly simple way.)
b. The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year.
c. Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a pair of wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.)
Wow. Do you give proper credit to Darwin when you use his theory?
Do you still hold that speciation (macro-evolution) doesn't happen or is mathematically impossible? Hate to break it to you - but a dingo and a jackal deriving from a common ancestor is about as “macro” as it gets.
A dingo and a jackal differ in DNA quite a bit more than a human and a chimpanzee.
Why do you suppose a greater change in DNA is quite possible and easily explainable in describing the common ancestry of a jackal and a dingo - but not at all applicable in describing the relatively smaller change in DNA between a chimpanzee and a human?
Do you question why your views are such a self conflicting mess at complete odds with reality?
You should.
Do you not understand English? I answered that. The cell does not have arms and legs to build shelters. It must use itself to muster a defense. It is part of the previously established stress response.
You obviously have no interest in attempting to listen to any concept counter to your preconceptions because you did not avail yourself of the opportunity of seeking who James A. Shapiro was. Well, here is a link to an 1:38 minute lecture taking to task your simplistic views. James A. Shapiro - Revisiting evolution in the 21st Century
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2010.WorksOfTheMind.pdf
shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2010.MobileDNA.pdf
I can see why you would be confused and ignorant enough to think that made some sort of point for you - but it doesn't.
That is because you are the one confused. The DNA polymerase in no way is directly involved in the actual response made to the stress. It allows a response to be made. It is akin to providing the paper for "War and Peace".
Anyway, listen to the lecture. The process is established prior to the stress.
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.