Bravo Hardloper
Bravo Hardloper
Harambe wrote:
not a good sentence wrote:
Also Vanco, no novel genes have been made that confers antibiotic resistance. Some resistance genes are shared between bacteria. They already existed in other bacteria but where just spread through plasmid transfer. Some genes have a slightly deleterious mutations that helps the protein still carry out their function without being inhibited by the antibiotic as the wild type protein would. And some resistance comes about by breaking a gene completely, but it was a gene that wasn't needed for the environment the bacteria is presently living in (the host or the petri plate) so breaking it within that environment had no fitness costs.
Is your argument from this extremely hard to parse paragraph: antibiotic resistance has never evolved? God made beta-lactamase?
My argument is that antibiotic resistance by the invention of a completely new protein has never been observed. All the resistance we've seen so far has come about (as best we can tell) by the slight modification, or co-opting for new usage, or outright breaking, of already existing proteins.
Did God make beta-lactamase? Probably, but I don't know for sure. It seem more likely from an inductive reasoning standpoint that some intelligent source made it, since there is no empirical demonstration for something like beta-lactamase being made from purely random happenstance.
You can make conjectures about a modification pathway that lead to the currently observed beta-lactamase. This is done by finding some similar proteins that caries out a related function and speculating about the changes that happened in the past that lead to beta-lactamase. But when you track (by speculation) those related genes back to a source protein, you will invariably find a fully formed protein that is perfectly suited to carry out some function (maybe metabolic, maybe regulation of signally pathways, etc) in the bacteria in an environmental setting. So where did that fully formed source protein come from?
To answer this question, scientists come up with more un-provable conjecture and "just-so" stories. And they just keep making up stories and speculation for as far back as they need to go in order to dazzle all the brain-washed zombies who dare not attempt to question the dogmatic fantasies they were taught in school. And while the scientist keep adding speculation on top of speculation, they claim their theory is falsifiable and based on evidence. But God forbid someone like an ID scientist comes along and tries to falsify the theory of evolution. Then its nothing but ad-hominem attacks and accusation that ID is "not real science."
For anyone who can't yet see how intellectually bankrupt and Full Blown Retarded the whole theory of evolution is at this point, I have nothing more to say to you.
Chow.
A lot of scientists are just as close minded and arrogant as creationists. Big egos come in all fields of study and walks of life.
0/10 Ha Ha Ha. If God created all protein sequences he's an idiot and needs to pick up a thermodynamics textbook.
not a good sentence wrote:
My argument is that antibiotic resistance by the invention of a completely new protein has never been observed. All the resistance we've seen so far has come about (as best we can tell) by the slight modification, or co-opting for new usage, or outright breaking, of already existing proteins.
Did God make beta-lactamase? Probably, but I don't know for sure. It seem more likely from an inductive reasoning standpoint that some intelligent source made it, since there is no empirical demonstration for something like beta-lactamase being made from purely random happenstance.
You can make conjectures about a modification pathway that lead to the currently observed beta-lactamase. This is done by finding some similar proteins that caries out a related function and speculating about the changes that happened in the past that lead to beta-lactamase. But when you track (by speculation) those related genes back to a source protein, you will invariably find a fully formed protein that is perfectly suited to carry out some function (maybe metabolic, maybe regulation of signally pathways, etc) in the bacteria in an environmental setting. So where did that fully formed source protein come from?
To answer this question, scientists come up with more un-provable conjecture and "just-so" stories. And they just keep making up stories and speculation for as far back as they need to go in order to dazzle all the brain-washed zombies who dare not attempt to question the dogmatic fantasies they were taught in school. And while the scientist keep adding speculation on top of speculation, they claim their theory is falsifiable and based on evidence. But God forbid someone like an ID scientist comes along and tries to falsify the theory of evolution. Then its nothing but ad-hominem attacks and accusation that ID is "not real science."
For anyone who can't yet see how intellectually bankrupt and Full Blown Retarded the whole theory of evolution is at this point, I have nothing more to say to you.
Chow.
not a good sentence wrote:
To answer this question, scientists come up with more un-provable conjecture and "just-so" stories. And they just keep making up stories and speculation for as far back as they need to go in order to dazzle all the brain-washed zombies who dare not attempt to question the dogmatic fantasies they were taught in school. And while the scientist keep adding speculation on top of speculation, they claim their theory is falsifiable and based on evidence. But God forbid someone like an ID scientist comes along and tries to falsify the theory of evolution. Then its nothing but ad-hominem attacks and accusation that ID is "not real science."
The most unprovable conjecture is claiming someone just made things "just-so." It's a weak cop-out when you don't want to engage with challenging science and history.
De novo gene emergence is well studied and far less rare than people once thought. Sadly molecular biology has advanced in the last 20 years while ID talking points have not...
Giving up and saying "well this is hard, somebody must have just designed it" means that you just you don't understand large numbers, which is fair. It's easier to grasp things if you just pretend the earth is 5000 years old or whatever.
Harambe wrote:
not a good sentence wrote:
To answer this question, scientists come up with more un-provable conjecture and "just-so" stories. And they just keep making up stories and speculation for as far back as they need to go in order to dazzle all the brain-washed zombies who dare not attempt to question the dogmatic fantasies they were taught in school. And while the scientist keep adding speculation on top of speculation, they claim their theory is falsifiable and based on evidence. But God forbid someone like an ID scientist comes along and tries to falsify the theory of evolution. Then its nothing but ad-hominem attacks and accusation that ID is "not real science."
The most unprovable conjecture is claiming someone just made things "just-so." It's a weak cop-out when you don't want to engage with challenging science and history.
De novo gene emergence is well studied and far less rare than people once thought. Sadly molecular biology has advanced in the last 20 years while ID talking points have not...
Giving up and saying "well this is hard, somebody must have just designed it" means that you just you don't understand large numbers, which is fair. It's easier to grasp things if you just pretend the earth is 5000 years old or whatever.
No one here is trying to argue that the Earth is 5000 years old.
Straw men wrote:
No one here is trying to argue that the Earth is 5000 years old.
Yes, that's called an insult
Intellectuallar wrote:
What an amazing article. What an amazing and scientifically based argument. How can it be refuted beyond "nuh uh".
What is most interesting, beyond the evidence that Darwinian Evolution is basically impossible based on science, is how he describes the Darwinist community as being more "religious" and "dogmatic" than the religious community. In other words, most of the scientific world, when it comes to Darwinian Evolution, is taking a radical emotional response, not a logical, scientific, reasoned approach.
From the first page, followed by pages of Darwinists making emotional responses.
I'm an atheist, Darwinism is a joke.
Not a good sentence is a white supremacist christian nationalist who things Jesus was a white man with blonde hair and blue eyes. You have no idea how science works. The fact that you keep arguing nonsense and you have been proven wrong over and over again. Lack of knowledge or lack of answers does not prove the existence of a god or the veracity of the bible.
Bumping this bad boy up because ID morons continue to get BTFO'd by de novo gene research:
Intellectuallar wrote:
What an amazing article. What an amazing and scientifically based argument. How can it be refuted beyond "nuh uh".
What is most interesting, beyond the evidence that Darwinian Evolution is basically impossible based on science, is how he describes the Darwinist community as being more "religious" and "dogmatic" than the religious community. In other words, most of the scientific world, when it comes to Darwinian Evolution, is taking a radical emotional response, not a logical, scientific, reasoned approach.
Great response. Much of science has become an emotional and dogmatic mess, nothing scientific about it. Driven by corporate greed, institutional (academic) laziness, special interest politics, and that's sad.
##### wrote:
Intellectuallar wrote:
What an amazing article. What an amazing and scientifically based argument. How can it be refuted beyond "nuh uh".
What is most interesting, beyond the evidence that Darwinian Evolution is basically impossible based on science, is how he describes the Darwinist community as being more "religious" and "dogmatic" than the religious community. In other words, most of the scientific world, when it comes to Darwinian Evolution, is taking a radical emotional response, not a logical, scientific, reasoned approach.
Great response. Much of science has become an emotional and dogmatic mess, nothing scientific about it. Driven by corporate greed, institutional (academic) laziness, special interest politics, and that's sad.
Yawn. You've never read a scientific article
Didn't Tesla's work render thermodynamic law obsolete?
Vancomycin wrote:
0/10 Ha Ha Ha.
If God created all protein sequences he's an idiot and needs to pick up a thermodynamics textbook.
not a good sentence wrote:
My argument is that antibiotic resistance by the invention of a completely new protein has never been observed. All the resistance we've seen so far has come about (as best we can tell) by the slight modification, or co-opting for new usage, or outright breaking, of already existing proteins.
Did God make beta-lactamase? Probably, but I don't know for sure. It seem more likely from an inductive reasoning standpoint that some intelligent source made it, since there is no empirical demonstration for something like beta-lactamase being made from purely random happenstance.
You can make conjectures about a modification pathway that lead to the currently observed beta-lactamase. This is done by finding some similar proteins that caries out a related function and speculating about the changes that happened in the past that lead to beta-lactamase. But when you track (by speculation) those related genes back to a source protein, you will invariably find a fully formed protein that is perfectly suited to carry out some function (maybe metabolic, maybe regulation of signally pathways, etc) in the bacteria in an environmental setting. So where did that fully formed source protein come from?
To answer this question, scientists come up with more un-provable conjecture and "just-so" stories. And they just keep making up stories and speculation for as far back as they need to go in order to dazzle all the brain-washed zombies who dare not attempt to question the dogmatic fantasies they were taught in school. And while the scientist keep adding speculation on top of speculation, they claim their theory is falsifiable and based on evidence. But God forbid someone like an ID scientist comes along and tries to falsify the theory of evolution. Then its nothing but ad-hominem attacks and accusation that ID is "not real science."
For anyone who can't yet see how intellectually bankrupt and Full Blown Retarded the whole theory of evolution is at this point, I have nothing more to say to you.
Chow.
Harambe wrote:
##### wrote:
Great response. Much of science has become an emotional and dogmatic mess, nothing scientific about it. Driven by corporate greed, institutional (academic) laziness, special interest politics, and that's sad.
Yawn. You've never read a scientific article
Yawn, you're clearly incapable of complex and/or original thought.
##### wrote:
Yawn. You've never read a scientific article
Yawn, you're clearly incapable of complex and/or original thought.[/quote]
I'm not the one trying to overturn thousands of validating experiments. Show me something complex or I'll fall asleep