Posted on 07/13/2018 11:19:47 AM PDT by fishtank
“Nylon”-Digesting Bacteria are Almost Certainly Not a Modern Strain
Jul. 12, 2018
This marine bacterium has the ability to digest nylon waste products, despite the fact that it doesn’t live in an environment that contains nylon waste products. (click for credit)
Evolutionists are fond of stating “facts” that aren’t anywhere near factual. For example, when I was at university, I was taught, as fact, that bacteria evolved the genes needed to resist antibiotics after modern antibiotics were made. As with most evolutionary “facts,” this turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists. We now know that the genes needed for antibiotic resistance existed in the Middle Ages and back when mammoths roamed the earth. They have even been found in bacteria that have never been exposed to animals, much less any human-made materials.
Of course, being shown to be dead wrong doesn’t produce any caution among evolutionists when it comes to proclaiming the “evidence” for evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.drwile.com ...
I worked for years on the discovery and study of microbes with the ability to biotransform man-made compounds like Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). We found that the pathways and enzymes able to degrade these compounds were those used to degrade natural compounds with a similar structure. In many cases there was no selective advantage to degrading the man-made compounds because the bacteria could not grow on these materials. While that meant it was not possible for them to increase their numbers in contaminated samples, we could increase their number by adding the natural compounds to the environmental samples.
Did you notice how your delivery is again consistent with that of a person who’s wrong but only knows it subconsciously.
This causes an internal conflict for the person, a strong emotional response including feelings of intimidation and fear of rejection, so he takes on a defensive tone and from there uses mostly personal insults against his opponent.
It may have been originally black & white until Ted Turner colorized it..../s
Your post is balderdasious drivel
Fear of discourse is a sure sign one feels their idea is threatened by a stronger one. Why not just try the stronger idea?
Feelings of intimidation => internal conflict => strong emotional response => fear of rejection => defensive posturing => abandoning discussion in favor of using personal insults
Man was not created to believe lies.
Live up to your intrinsic value.
Please read my profile
What I notice is that reasonisfaith has no real argument to make, only to claim without evidence that "evolution is religion" and to respond to someone who says, "no it's not" by projecting "strong emotional response", "intimidation and fear of rejection", etc.
All nonsense, all non sequitur and irrelevant to the question reasonisfaith implied: is evolution religion?
By any reasonable definition, the science of evolution is the opposite of religion.
Unlike any religion all of science begins with the basic assumption: only natural explanations for natural processes.
Anything outside those boundaries is by definition, not science.
Unlike any religion the work of science begins with careful physical observations and is subject to changes when new observations or better explanations are discovered.
In the specific case of evolution, while Darwin's basic ideas of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, have been enhanced by literal mountains of new evidence and libraries of detailed explanations but the basics remain today considered as valid as ever.
And as invalid by Darwin's opponents!
But it's still interesting to note a good many "anti-Darwinians" will confess to something they call "adaption" (aka "micro-evolution") while denying "evolution".
In fact they're the same things with only different time scales implied -- short term "adaption", long term "evolution".
In reality, all "adaption" is short-term evolution and all evolution is long-term "adaption".
Anyway, so long as they follow basic rules of science itself -- i.e., only natural explanations for natural processes -- none of it is or can be called "religion".
Nor is it a function of " internal conflict... a strong emotional response".
We know evolution is a religion—that is, belief in evolution occupies the part of the mind/brain housing deep beliefs. Evolutionists wouldn’t argue in such a vociferous and belligerent way if it were mere facts.
Every reply to me on this has been a highly emotional personal attack. This is evidence in itself.
Some studies in neurobiology have shown this part to be the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Others have implicated localized segments of the brain including the posterior parietal-occipital region.
Who is we?
We sounds lke a group of very narrow minded persons that know nothing of the real world.
The fact you equate reason and faith is reason to discount every word you post and further, every thought you think.
“Unlike any religion all of science begins with the basic assumption: only natural explanations for natural processes.”
Science began because the first scientists, up to and beyond Newton, believed God made a rationally intelligible universe.
One of the major factors that fooled some of the scientists during the two and a half centuries was the fancy sounding but ultimately nonsensical writing of David Hume.
Hume somehow convinced his audience, and much of society, to think God couldn’t exist because he would be limited by the laws of nature.
Take note—the laws of nature are a god for the religion of naturalism. This religion includes evolutionism.
There’s no such thing as a nonreligious human mind.
For the religion of naturalism, the primary dogma is that everything is explainable by the laws of nature.
Many have rightly pointed out that Hume was using circular logic: in order to claim that God doesn’t exist, he asserted that miracles couldn’t happen because they violate the laws of nature, which assumes the laws of nature are primary, an assumption dependent on the premise that God doesn’t exist.
So Hume’s conclusion is the same as his starting premise.
Thanks to scholars like Gary Habermas, John Lennox, Alvin Plantinga, Ravi Zacharias, Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and many more, the academy of philosophy, that is, the mainstream of philosophy, is moving in the direction of theism and away from atheism.
Science generally falls in line with philosophy. With a few rare exceptions.
“the work of science begins with careful physical observations”
No it doesn’t. The work of science begins with an hypothesis, and in formalized scientific research the process is to target the null hypothesis.
And the identification of an hypothesis involves the context of a preexisting belief system.
Anything we learn first as a child can be a "deep belief" whether that is religious, scientific, historical, moral, mathematical or just how to dress properly on Sunday.
But to call everything held in a certain brain region as "religion" simply denies logical distinctions -- or indeed the value of logic itself.
So I don't buy it.
reasonisfaith: "Every reply to me on this has been a highly emotional personal attack.
This is evidence in itself."
I can't confirm that except to note the posts I've seen on this thread seem pretty mild in tone compared to many on other threads, some directed at me.
I'd also say that vociferous complaint about "personal attacks", real or imagined, is not really "guy thing".
reasonisfaith: "Some studies in neurobiology have shown this part to be the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
Others have implicated localized segments of the brain including the posterior parietal-occipital region."
So you claim there is some brain center for "deeply held beliefs", religious or otherwise, which makes all thoughts held there "religious" and yet nobody really knows where this center is?
Hmmmmmm…
And many, many still do!
Here's a list of historically more well known Christians in science.
Note that some opposed Darwin's ideas but just as many tried to reconcile Darwin with their own beliefs.
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.