Creationism and swine flu

[Mulder]

Does anyone know what creationists think about genetic mutations? Presumably they can hardly deny that they happen. Just not so much as to actually create a new species.

The current swine flu outbreak, which now allows the virus to jump from human to human, no pigs required, is surely a beneficial mutation for the virus (if not for its host). Humans are a better host because they are spread so much more evenly acros the world - not stuck on isolated farms! Swine fever will now spread more widely and quicker than it ever could in pigs. Doesn't this look a bit like natural selection in action?

[lost thought]

I think they are against vacines so would they accept a flu vacine, there seems to be a mistrust of science and medicine amongst some of the fundimentalist "If t'aint in the bible" this would be a worry as this could see the return of many diseases once thought to be wiped out.

[Imox]

Does anyone know what creationists think about genetic mutations? Presumably they can hardly deny that they happen. Just not so much as to actually create a new species.

No, I don't know what they are thinking, but it's a good point.

Maybe they think the mutation was made by the big creator.

[polomint38]

Does anyone know what creationists think about genetic mutations? Presumably they can hardly deny that they happen. Just not so much as to actually create a new species.

The current swine flu outbreak, which now allows the virus to jump from human to human, no pigs required, is surely a beneficial mutation for the virus (if not for its host). Humans are a better host because they are spread so much more evenly acros the world - not stuck on isolated farms! Swine fever will now spread more widely and quicker than it ever could in pigs. Doesn't this look a bit like natural selection in action?

Creationists think, really, evolution must be setting in, in a few thousand years they may catch up with the rest if us. >:D

[Matt]

Does anyone know what creationists think about genetic mutations? Presumably they can hardly deny that they happen. Just not so much as to actually create a new species.

According to AiG even new species are permitted to evolution just not new "kinds" Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology


The current swine flu outbreak, which now allows the virus to jump from human to human, no pigs required, is surely a beneficial mutation for the virus (if not for its host). Humans are a better host because they are spread so much more evenly acros the world - not stuck on isolated farms! Swine fever will now spread more widely and quicker than it ever could in pigs. Doesn't this look a bit like natural selection in action?

A little bit. What we're most hopeful for is that exceedingly virulent strains will be selected against due to incapacitating the host before allowing widespread dispesal of the virus. However we must rember that natural selection is statistical. Whilst it's more likely for the benficial mutation to predominate there's no guarentee.

[Matt]

I think they are against vacines so would they accept a flu vacine, there seems to be a mistrust of science and medicine amongst some of the fundimentalist "If t'aint in the bible" this would be a worry as this could see the return of many diseases once thought to be wiped out.

I don't think there's anything in the bible prohibitting vacines. It owuld be remarkably precient if there were.

However those anti vaxxers who wish to avoid the mandatory schedule for childhood vaccines can only do so under US law, through claiming religious exemption.

[Imox]

What's the difference of an exemption and an exception?

[Trinoc]

According to AiG even new species are permitted to evolution just not new "kinds".
I noticed that last time I went to a Creationist talk. They seem to be seriously backtracking while trying to keep an ever-diminishing part of the creation of life exclusively for God. I suppose as long as there is the tiniest area that hasn't been fully explained by genetics they will cling to it, and even when that goes they will tell us that God was necessary to create genetics in the first place.

So, if a virus can only mutate from a virus of the same "kind", presumably that means God created AIDS to make people suffer. I can understand him wanting to punish gays and fornicators - he's nasty like that - but what about all of the "ordinary" people in Africa, not to mention the apes who had it before that?

[Imox]

That's a little bit the disaster of the scientists. They'll never be able to explain everything totally. And even if they could, the creationist wouldn't understand the matter. No single human can understand and explain the whole biology. And cause the creationist don't read serious books they'll anyway never have a chance to understand.

[Tony Williams]

The bottom line I've heard from some creationists is that, OK, almost everything may have evolved, but humans didn't!

What they can't seem to stomach is the notion that we evolved from animals. That's always been the primary visceral objection since evolution was first proposed, and everything else kind of built up in support of that.

[newatheist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo
How many of these people are there in America?

[Pebble]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo
How many of these people are there in America?

While one might object to his selective interpretation of statistics and the reliance on 30 year old data to criticize vaccination, I suspect that worrying about homeland security getting involved in health-scares is very reasonable given their track record for measured responses.

[SorryImPsychic]

Does anyone know what creationists think about genetic mutations? Presumably they can hardly deny that they happen. Just not so much as to actually create a new species.

.......Doesn't this look a bit like natural selection in action?

A view from the Intelligent Design camp:



« Jerry Coyne vs. NCSE, AAAS, & NAS (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/jerry_coyne_vs_ncse_aaas_nas.html) | Main (http://www.evolutionnews.org/)
Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution

A few years ago, the media was abuzz over the scare of the avian flu virus, which led me to write a post titled Avian Flu: An Example of Evolution? (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/avian_flu_an_example_of_evolution.html). At the time, it wasn't clear whether the avian flu would evolve and "jump" into a highly virulent form that easily infected humans. Had the avian flu virus made the jump, then we would have witnessed a sort of evolution where viruses swap genetic material in a process known as "reassortment" and can then more easily infect new hosts, such as humans. As I explained (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/avian_flu_an_example_of_evolution.html) at that time:
So our fight to combat the Avian flu is undoubtedly a fight against evolution. The question is, has there been a net increase in genetic information through this "evolution"? The Avian flu is essentially the swapping of genes--but its genes probably came from other pre-existing viruses.If you've read the news lately, you're aware that many are presently concerned about the threat from the swine flu virus. In this case, we're looking at precisely the same type of evolution: As an article on Physorg.com explains (http://www.physorg.com/news160054720.html), this new virus has bird, pig and human components:
Pigs are well-known crucibles for mixing viruses, able to harbour strains of flu that normally are specific to pigs, birds and humans. When present in the same animal, these viruses are able to swap genes as they replicate, which can result in a new strain and leap the species barrier to humans.At best, the origin of this new swine flu virus represents a virus that is composed of pre-existing genes that have been swapped into a new "mixture" in the swine flu virus. This is of course "evolution," when we understand evolution as "change over time," but it involves the origin of no new genes. After All This "Evolution," It's Still a Virus
In his 2007 book The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe observed that after our attempts to kill disease-causing bacteria and viruses, some can evolve via Darwinian selection to evade our disease-fighting strategies. Yet despite this evolution, they remain bacteria and viruses — with very little net change. As Behe writes:
Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use. (Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162)Similarly, we wrote in response to David Hillis that the evolution of certain influenza viruses entails a trivial degree of evolution:
To further show the alleged utility of evolution, Hillis discussed how mutations in one particular protein of the influenza virus allow it to escape detection by our immune system, stating “phylogenetic analysis … is a critical tool for developing flu vaccines every year,” and asserting that “knowledge of evolution helps millions of human lives be saved every year.” While there is no doubt that influenza “evolution” is a real phenomenon, we must ask the crucial questions: What degree of evolution is this? And can this sort of “evolution” be legitimately extrapolated to explain large-scale evolutionary changes? In other words, if we were teaching students about this type of “evolution,” should we teach them that it implies large scale macroevolutionary change that could explain the origin of complex biological features, such as new body plans?

The answer is clearly no. The truth is that the mutations in the hemagglutinin molecule testified about by Dr. Hills represent small-scale changes in a limited number of amino acids in one domain of the protein that do not change the virus’s function for this protein (it resides on the surface of viruses and its function is to bind the flu virus to the infected cell).3 Nothing in Dr. Hillis’s comments alters the fact that the flu virus remains a virtually identical virus after the microevolutionary changes he describes. Lives may be saved by studying functionally trivial amino acid changes in this protein, but it is not due to knowledge of any kind of evolution that can explain the origin of new species or body plans. An Analysis of the Expert Testimony of Prof. David Hillis before the Texas State Board of Education on January 21, 2009 (http://www.discovery.org/a/9941)
Indeed, as soon as one's immune system produces an antibody that can successfully target the hemagglutinin molecule in a flu virus, that virus can be effectively targeted by its host. Because it is readily recognized by our immune system, there is a tremendous amount of selection pressure on the hemagglutinin protein that makes it a huge liability to the virus. The cat-and-mouse game between the adaptive immune systems of higher vertebrates and viral hemagglutinin proteins has been going on for near-countless generations. If viruses could function without the hemagglutinin protein, evolution would have jettisoned it long ago. Long, long ago. But it hasn't. There are limits to evolution, and we see that in constraints upon viral evolution.

And it's a good thing that there are limits to evolution, because our flu-fighting strategies rely on it remaining a flu virus. This allows preventative measures that work to be implemented, vaccines to be developed using standard flu virus culture techniques in eggs and the treatment of patients suffering from infection with drugs like Tamiflu. In other words, the incredibly trivial changes that Dr. Hillis was commenting on are of some significance, but clearly don’t make the point he was trying to make: We rely on the limits of evolutionary processes to fight the flu, not the purported ability of evolution to generate new biological features. The Evolutionary Origin of Viruses? "Forever Obscure"
Evolution appears tightly constrained, yet we see a suite of complicated micro-killers like viruses. How did viruses arise in the first place? After reviewing some of the speculative, vague, and detail-free ideas about how viruses might have arisen, an article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=experts-where-did-viruses-come-fr) in Scientific American admitted last year, "At the end of the day, however, despite all of their common features and unique abilities to copy and spread their genomes, the origins of most viruses may remain forever obscure."
Let's just hope that a cure for the swine flu virus is less obscure than its ultimate origin.

[SorryImPsychic]

[QUOTE=SorryImPsychic;61239]

CORRECTION:

The above quote incorporates Intelligent Design views but written by Evolutionist.

Forget those guys though: Viruses have always know exactly what they have to so to survive.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501154143.htm

[Mojo]

Creationists think...
...are two words that should not appear together in the same sentence.

[SorryImPsychic]

...are two words that should not appear together in the same sentence.

Everyone has something to contribute - scientific truths have emerged from Creationism too!

[Tony Williams]

...are two words that should not appear together in the same sentence.
Oh, they think all right; what they don't do is reason.

[Tony Williams]

Everyone has something to contribute - scientific truths have emerged from Creationism too!
Really? Which?

[Mojo]

This will probably turn out to be the "Newton was a Christian therefore his scientific work is an example of ID" argument that the likes of Steve Fuller put forward. For example on pp. 50-51 of Dissent over Descent he claims that Newton "leveraged a biblical understanding of humanity's cosmic privilege into the broadest and deepest scientific theory the world has ever known". Total bollocks of course.

[SorryImPsychic]

Really? Which?


Maxwell’s Motivation
Through the creatures Thou hast made
Show the brightness of Thy glory.
Be eternal truth displayed
In their substance transitory.
Till green earth and ocean hoary,
Massy rock and tender blade,
Tell the same unending story:
We are truth in form arrayed. Teach me thus Thy works to read,
That my faith,– new strength accruing–
May from world to world proceed,
Wisdom’s fruitful search pursuing
Till, thy truth my mind imbuing,
I proclaim the eternal Creed –
Oft the glorious theme renewing,
God our Lord is God indeed.

— James Clerk Maxwell (http://creationsafaris.com/images/Maxwell.jpg)One of the greatest physicists (http://creationsafaris.com/images/Maxwell_Evening_Hymn_4pt.jpg)of all time (a creationist (http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm)).






James Clerk Maxwell (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a
Scottish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland) theoretical physicist and mathematician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics).

His most significant achievement was the development of the classical electromagnetic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theory), synthesizing all previous unrelated observations, experiments and equations of electricity, magnetism and even optics into a consistent theory.

[Tony Williams]

Maxwell’s Motivation
Through the creatures Thou hast made
Show the brightness of Thy glory.
Be eternal truth displayed
In their substance transitory.
Till green earth and ocean hoary,
Massy rock and tender blade,
Tell the same unending story:
We are truth in form arrayed. Teach me thus Thy works to read,
That my faith,– new strength accruing–
May from world to world proceed,
Wisdom’s fruitful search pursuing
Till, thy truth my mind imbuing,
I proclaim the eternal Creed –
Oft the glorious theme renewing,
God our Lord is God indeed.

— James Clerk Maxwell (http://creationsafaris.com/images/Maxwell.jpg)One of the greatest physicists (http://creationsafaris.com/images/Maxwell_Evening_Hymn_4pt.jpg)of all time (a creationist (http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm)).

Very pretty, but it doesn't contain a single "scientific truth".

[SorryImPsychic]

Very pretty, but it doesn't contain a single "scientific truth".

Well the prayer worked for Maxwell...



Featured Creation Scientist for April
.Featured Creation Scientist for April

http://creationsafaris.com/images/maxwellsm.jpg (http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm)
James Clerk Maxwell (http://creationsafaris.com/images/maxwell.jpg)
1831 - 1879 In our roll call of great scientists of Christian faith, it would be hard to find a better role model than James Clerk Maxwell. Just take a look at his report card (http://creationsafaris.com/images/maxwellrc.jpg)! His scientific work alone puts him in a triumvirate with Newton and Einstein, but no matter what other way you examine his life – intellect, personality, creativity, wit, work ethic, Christian character, integrity, breadth and depth of knowledge and accomplishments – Maxwell comes out on top. He pursued science with exuberance, and with grace and charm and unselfishness, giving glory to God. In his too-brief life of 48 years, Maxwell changed the world.
Do you use a cell phone? A pager? A remote control for your TV? A radio? Television? You owe these inventions in large part to Maxwell. Radar, satellite, spacecraft and aircraft communications – any and every means of transferring information through thin air or the vacuum of space, comes out of his work. The inventors of all these devices all built on Maxwell’s exceptional discoveries in electromagnetism, discoveries that required the best in experimental method with the best in mathematics and theory. Maxwell discovered many things, as we shall see, but his crowning achievement was the summation of all electromagnetic phenomena in four differential equations, appropriately named Maxwell’s Equations in his honor. These equations, that express natural laws, not only brought together all the work of Faraday, Ohm, Volta, Ampere, and everyone else who had studied the curious properties of electricity and magnetism, but made an absolutely astounding and important prediction: that light itself was an electromagnetic wave, and through manipulation of electromagnetic waves, it might be possible to transmit information through empty space. Thus, our modern world. The importance of these equations can hardly be overstated. Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate and influential 20th-century modern physicist, paid his respects this way: “From a long view of the history of mankind–seen from, say, ten thousand years from now– there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.” Electricity and magnetism, mere curiosities when explored by Faraday and explained by Maxwell, turned out to generate more economic wealth than the entire British stock exchange. Our modern world is inconceivable without the experimental and theoretical foundation laid by these two great Christians and scientists who harnessed mysterious laws of nature for human benefit.
And that was only one of Maxwell’s claims to fame. One biographer described him, “a man of immense intellectual capacity and seemingly inexhaustible energy, he achieved success in many fields, ranging from colour vision and nature of Saturn’s rings to thermodynamics and kinetic theory. In a short life he published a hundred scientific papers and four books. His was perhaps the last generation of scientists to whom so wide a field of interest was possible: with the rapid increase in knowledge in the latter part of the 19th century specialization became unavoidable . . . . on any assessment Maxwell stands out conspicuously among a race of giants. How much more might he not have achieved had his life run a normal span.”
..... He was the kind of fellow you would want to chat with over dinner every chance you could. No matter what the subject, he would keep you entertained and fascinated for hours.
....... Maxwell opposed any philosophy (like the new Darwinian evolution) that exalted itself against the God of creation, yet he did it with wit and grace (sometimes even in clever poetry) that earned the attention and respect of all.If it took belief in Creationism to fuel his passion for the discovery of "God's" secrets in the natural world then who are we to complain. Like I originally said everyone has got something to contribute. You are very ungrateful Mr Williams >:-)

[Tony Williams]

If it took belief in Creationism to fuel his passion for the discovery of "God's" secrets in the natural world then who are we to complain. Like I originally said everyone has got something to contribute. You are very ungrateful Mr Williams >:-)

What matters is science, not scientists' personal beliefs. Many scientists have shown that they are able to subdivide their minds; to apply (very successfully) logical reasoning based on the gathering and objective evaluation of evidence, while at the same time believing in some very illogical things. That simply demonstrates that the human mind is very flexible, and can believe two quite incompatible things at the same time.

However, it is rare for good scientists to hold illogical beliefs about matters within their own field of study. Maxell was not a biologist - as your article notes, his achievements were in the field of electricity. Darwin's ideas were revolutionary, and took a long time to be accepted by people who were not specialists in biology, palaeontology or geology.

Isaac Newton was also very religious (virtually everybody was then). But his theory of gravity owed nothing to religion - only to the logical workings of his brilliant mind.

[SorryImPsychic]

What matters is science, not scientists' personal beliefs.

Isaac Newton was also very religious (virtually everybody was then). But his theory of gravity owed nothing to religion - only to the logical workings of his brilliant mind.

So we can conclude that being a Creationist & a Brilliant Scientist are not mutually exclusive terms.

I have argued vigorously in other threads that we need conflict (intellectual) to forge scientific discovery and advance. Conflict between views or understanding etc really gets us going cognitively and forces us to probe and explore the issues deeply - from this activity scientific invention and discovery emerge. Capernicus obsessing about the stars and trying to reconcile the Church's Aristotelian Theory of Perfect Spheres led to one of human's most significant revolutions. Complacency and contentment are not what fuel Science and technological advance.

[Tony Williams]

Complacency and contentment are not what fuel Science and technological advance.
What fuels it is the questioning, critical mind - the rejection of accepted theories and the urge to discover. This is diametrically opposed to the urge to believe, as required by faith.

I'm unaware of any proof that the conflict which might be set up in a scientist's mind between faith and his logical faculties does anything to help his scientific discoveries - especially once they begin to clash. Concern about this (less his own fading faith than that of others) caused Darwin to delay publication of his theory of evolution for two decades.

[SorryImPsychic]

I'm unaware of any proof that the conflict which might be set up in a scientist's mind between faith and his logical faculties does anything to help his scientific discoveries - especially once they begin to clash.

Well my argument is more regarding the discoveries that emerge when trying to DEFEND a faith (as was the initial case for Copernicus and many other scientists).

It's not the internal conflict type crisis of faith but the conflict that is caused by external opposition to that faith. Get the difference?

[Pebble]

Well my argument is more regarding the discoveries that emerge when trying to DEFEND a faith (as was the initial case for Copernicus and many other scientists).

It's not the internal conflict type crisis of faith but the conflict that is caused by external opposition to that faith. Get the difference?


Belief held because of a general state of ignorance coupled with extreme external pressure to conform, can indeed be a powerful stimulus to explore and learn. Thus in previous centuries it was reasonable to hold fervent religious belief, irrespective of ones ability and for exploration of said beliefs to take the form of rational inquiry.

The problem now, is that there is little external pressure to believe nonsense, and anyone with half a brain should at least realize that religious beliefs have no rational basis - only faith. Once accepted this means that rational inquiry and faith exist in two separate realms, so there is no possible contribution to science from personal delusions anymore.

[Tony Williams]

Well my argument is more regarding the discoveries that emerge when trying to DEFEND a faith (as was the initial case for Copernicus and many other scientists).
That sounds like an attempt to rewrite history. Copernicus was a polymath, but most famously an astronomer and mathematician. His research into the movements of the sun, stars, Moon and planets, coupled with a study of earlier thinkers (Greek and Arabic), led him to realise that the traditional, church-supported view of the Earth as the stationary centre of the universe was wrong. As with Darwin, it seems to have been fear of the likely religious reaction which caused him to delay publication of his ideas for many years (until just before he died, in fact). In other words, the role of religion in his life was negative rather than positive. Galileo's fate showed that his fears about the religious reaction were entirely justified.


It's not the internal conflict type crisis of faith but the conflict that is caused by external opposition to that faith. Get the difference?
You said: "Capernicus obsessing about the stars and trying to reconcile the Church's Aristotelian Theory of Perfect Spheres led to one of human's most significant revolutions." Reads like a description of an internal conflict to me.

Copernicus' theory was driven by scientific observation and mathematical calculation, not by any religious notions.

[Pebble]

TW

In respect of Darwin at least one could argue that the absolute dominance of the creationist theory forced him to work on supporting evidence for his theory well beyond that which he might have achieved if he were less worried about being challenged. His work on barnacles, insect pollination and domestic plants may never have been completed were it not for the 'skeptical' reception of his theory.

[Tony Williams]

In respect of Darwin at least one could argue that the absolute dominance of the creationist theory forced him to work on supporting evidence for his theory well beyond that which he might have achieved if he were less worried about being challenged.
Yes, I agree. But his theory was already developed, based on the evidence he had collected on his travels, and it was the theory that mattered. The extra supporting evidence was nice to have and may have helped convince some doubters - those who weren't blinded by religious belief, that is.


His work on barnacles, insect pollination and domestic plants may never have been completed were it not for the 'skeptical' reception of his theory.
That argument reminds me of Handel's stroke, after which he stopped writing operas and focused on the oratorios which made his reputation, or the artist Turner's increasingly impressionistic style which some have suggested was due to problems with his eyesight. Does that mean that having a stroke or failing eyesight are good things? No, just that dark clouds do occasionally have silver linings...but they're still dark clouds.

[Mojo]

However, it is rare for good scientists to hold illogical beliefs about matters within their own field of study. Maxwell was not a biologist - as your article notes, his achievements were in the field of electricity. Darwin's ideas were revolutionary, and took a long time to be accepted by people who were not specialists in biology, palaeontology or geology.


See also William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. A brilliant scientist in his own field, who managed to be wrong about other fields on a regular basis:


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

[Mojo]

James Clerk Maxwell One of the greatest physicists of all time (a creationist).
Wasn't he some sort of satanist (http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm)? ;)

[SorryImPsychic]

Wasn't he some sort of satanist (http://www.auburn.edu/%7Esmith01/notes/maxdem.htm)? ;)


See how Maxwell's religious beliefs informed his physics. They provided inspired metaphors for him to actually discover true dynamics.

[SorryImPsychic]

You said: "Capernicus obsessing about the stars and trying to reconcile the Church's Aristotelian Theory of Perfect Spheres led to one of human's most significant revolutions." Reads like a description of an internal conflict to me.

Copernicus' theory was driven by scientific observation and mathematical calculation, not by any religious notions.

But that is just it - Capernicus did start out believing conventional scientific/religious theory (one and the same thing at the time) based on Earth centered universe and unchanging spheres and his work was based on trying to reconcile this thinking with observation.....

"How to reconcile God's perfect unchanging spheres with observed changes within that sphere?". After many convoluted calculations (anguish I'm sure) he discovered that the only way to solve the problem was to put the sun at the center and the Earth in orbit. The church/science didn't like this discovery and rejected it.....it wasn't until Newton that the Capernican Revolution was complete.

[bindeweede]

See how Maxwell's religious beliefs informed his physics. They provided inspired metaphors for him to actually discover true dynamics.

(No, really, I shouldn't). Oh Well. I'd like to apply Maxwell's Silver Hammer to SIP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_Silver_Hammer

(Not really!)

[SorryImPsychic]

(No, really, I shouldn't). Oh Well. I'd like to apply Maxwell's Silver Hammer to SIP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_Silver_Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_Silver_Hammer)

(Not really!)


Well I hope (Not really!) :-[

The only time I would condone the application of a silver hammer to the head is in this case which I gleaned from you most excellent go and google (gog) recommendation.


A Silver Hammer is used to strike a dead Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in the head, twice, to be sure he is dead before electing a new Pope.

[bindeweede]

Well I hope (Not really!) :-[

The only time I would condone the application of a silver hammer to the head is in this case which I gleaned from you most excellent go and google recommendation.

SIP,

Only a jest - I hope you understand - well I know you do really!:thunder:

PS. I am hopeless with smileythingies.

[SorryImPsychic]

SIP,

PS. I am hopeless with smileythingies.

Its OK
Let's just :party: on Binde

[Tony Williams]

But that is just it - Capernicus did start out believing conventional scientific/religious theory (one and the same thing at the time) based on Earth centered universe and unchanging spheres and his work was based on trying to reconcile this thinking with observation.....

"How to reconcile God's perfect unchanging spheres with observed changes within that sphere?". After many convoluted calculations (anguish I'm sure) he discovered that the only way to solve the problem was to put the sun at the center and the Earth in orbit. The church/science didn't like this discovery and rejected it.....it wasn't until Newton that the Capernican Revolution was complete.

That sounds to me as if his religious views were a handicap. Without them, he would simply have analysed his data and come to the obvious conclusions quickly, without going through all of the convolutions caused by those orthodox religious views.

[Mojo]

See how Maxwell's religious beliefs informed his physics. They provided inspired metaphors for him to actually discover true dynamics.
You can have the metaphor without the belief. Atheists have no problem with the concept.

[Mulder]

Going back to "Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution" quote (page 1) the argument seems to be that evolution can work on a single species but not to cause it to become new species! Apart from that, this particular person seems to accept natural selection!

This raises the interesting question of what constitutes a species. The normal definition, based on reproduction, becomes a bit hazy down at the level of viruses. Either way, it looks like the old 'god in the gaps' argument where everything about evolution is accepted by creationists except species evolving into others. Why do they think that selection pressures stop just short of new species? Is there something stopping that process?

What the quote says 'no new genes' are involved in creating the new swine flu, that isn't correct - viruses pick up genes from other viruses while they are both in the same host. So, the swine flu virus that is causing the current fuss, has incorporated genes from bird flu that it didn't previously have.

[Croydon Bob]

Does anyone know what creationists think about genetic mutations? Presumably they can hardly deny that they happen. Just not so much as to actually create a new species.

One of the problems with a discussion like this is that they think lots of different things. They don't all agree with each other and most hold mutually contradictory ideas in their little heads.

Some creatinists believe that one pair of each 'type' was in the Ark. This might even be just one pair of marsupials. All marsupials have evolved from this one pair just 4 or 5 thousand years ago! Super-evolution to explain away evolution.

Inevitably other cretionists reject this flirting with evolution and insist that no species has evolved at all ever. Including viruses, bacteria, etc.

It’s very dangerous to start suggesting that ‘creatinists believe this’ or ‘cretionists think that’ because you’ll always be wrong about large numbers of them.

[SorryImPsychic]

Going back to "Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution" quote (page 1)

What the quote says 'no new genes' are involved in creating the new swine flu, that isn't correct -

Mulder the bulk of the article was written by an Evolutionist and he quotes M Behe, a major spokesperson for Intelligent Design. Both agree that "no new genes are involved" and this is correct i.e. existing genetic information is simply being swapped around - no new information is being added which would then bring us into the domain of actually creating a new species

This is one of the major arguments of Creationists - Evolution cannot explain the creation of new genetic information s.a.DNA ape ---> DNA human.
I will write about this tomorrow when I have more time.

But for now read this.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415141210.htm.

If I said that a virus is able to genetically engineer its own survival strategies as the need arises and this engineering is not a result of random mutation but the ability to recognize imperatives and devise solutions to achieving the the purpose of these imperatives. No mainstream scientist would accept this...and this is a result of the stronghold of Evolutionary Theory - if it doesn't agree with it ET - its rejected.

[Croydon Bob]

Both agree that "no new genes are involved" and this is correct i.e. existing genetic information is simply being swapped around - no new information is being added which would then bring us into the domain of actually creating a new species

No. DNA is made up of four types of nucleotides. If you swap them around or add extra you are creating new information. If I swap words around I'm writing new material - you can't say that I've used the same 23 letters that you used in your post so no new information is being added. And adding new info is not what defines creating a new species, you could cut the amount of genetic info and still create a new species.

[Mulder]

This is one of the major arguments of Creationists - Evolution cannot explain the creation of new genetic information s.a.DNA ape ---> DNA human.

Of course human DNA and ape DNA is almost identical. One major difference is which genes are switched 'on' and which switched 'off'. This can occur during reproduction. It is another way evolution works, in addition to mutation. Some genes even affect the way others are expressed, again depending if they are on or off.

Genes can even be turned on and off during an organism's lifetime and these changes passed on to offspring (epigenetics).

What do creatiionists ay about that, I wonder? it must be a full time job for them finding new, smaller gaps in genetics into which they can fit their designer.

[SorryImPsychic]

No. DNA is made up of four types of nucleotides. If you swap them around or add extra you are creating new information. If I swap words around I'm writing new material - you can't say that I've used the same 23 letters that you used in your post so no new information is being added. And adding new info is not what defines creating a new species, you could cut the amount of genetic info and still create a new species.

Shall we say all living things are encoded with DNA (a constant - 4 letter alphabet) and the sequences are the variables (arrangement of 4 letters of alphabet). Evolution has to explain how increased complexity (information) can emerge from this construct. e.g. how does a fish become a bird.


Richard Dawkins is dumbfounded after being asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome" - quite a reasonable question that one would expect Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science - so adamant in his belief in evolution - could and would provide an answer for.

[Imox]

SIP, do you really think there was a creator?

The point is, atoms don't need to ask someone whether they can make a reaction with another atom or not. Atoms also don't need any help to make a "coalition". Except things like temperature or radiation can create new molecules. For instance if a C-atom gets heated and there is some oxygen around, there will be a CO2 molecule then. No need for a creator. The same with DNA. If there is enough time molecules can become bigger and bigger. And moreover, the nature hadn't the intention the create humans. We are here cause it worked. We are just an (lucky) accident.

And, for instance, women often get pregnant without to recognize this event. If the first cells are able to live the woman will get a child. But if the first cells have any strange mutation these cells won't grow to a new human, cause they're not able to live. Thus, everything happens(ed) by accidents.

And the DNA is very long. For that reason mutations can happen very often. And so a fish-DNA can become a bird-DNA, if there's enough time.

Like that toy:
http://www.theschmids.ch/mediac/400_0/media/Sortierbox.jpg
You can sort the things into the box cause you know the star fits in the star-hole. But a very little child may solve that problem without to ponder - just trying. Maybe even a storm or a tidal wave may sort the pieces into the box, if it lies on the beach. The same happened with DNA.


I think I should get an A for this explanation.

[Mulder]

Shall we say all living things are encoded with DNA (a constant - 4 letter alphabet) and the sequences are the variables (arrangement of 4 letters of alphabet). Evolution has to explain how increased complexity (information) can emerge from this construct. e.g. how does a fish become a bird.

Genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_pair)vary in length but overall the human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs including about 20,000 to 25,000 genes. A single gene can code for something major, like a limb, or minor, like the protein in a cell. It is a complex subject (think introns, epigenetics, etc) but if you study it you will get answers to questions like yours. I can certainly imagine Dawkins being dumbfounded by the question he was put.

Do you believe what you are writing or are you just playing advocate?

[Imox]

yes, he want's to kidding us probably.

[SorryImPsychic]

SIP, do you really think there was a creator?

And so a fish-DNA can become a bird-DNA, if there's enough time.

I think I should get an A for this explanation.



A for politeness

F- for assuming a persons gender


F- for assuming I assume a creator

O "And so a fish-DNA can become a bird-DNA, if there's enough time."
There is nothing that can substantiate this claim - no evidence - none at all anywhere.

[SorryImPsychic]

Do you believe what you are writing or are you just playing advocate?

Mulder I really try not to believe in anything. But I write what I think.

[Croydon Bob]

There is nothing that can substantiate this claim - no evidence - none at all anywhere.

Completely wrong. You are just repeating creationist lies (and quotes about Dawkins). Go and look evolution up on wikipedia, read, learn and come back when you have a clue.

[Mulder]

"And so a fish-DNA can become a bird-DNA, if there's enough time." There is nothing that can substantiate this claim - no evidence - none at all anywhere.

I agree! It is difficult to imagine a fish ever becoming a bird, though there are flying fish, of course.

The central problem that creationists seem to have, as far as I can see, is that they don't accept understand the idea that you can take one easily demonstrable idea in one problem and apply it to another. For instance, they don't get how you can infer the distant past from present circumstances, even though it is easy to model right here and now. Unless they SEE one species give rise to another, they don't accept it (although hybrids are an interesting possible example of seeing evolution in action over relatively short time scales).

So, they see the fossil record but don't see how it implies evolution. They see the evidence of virus DNA in the human genome but can't see why this would drive evolution. They accept natural selection but only within single species.

It is the same problem that people had until recently when they thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. Yes, it might look like that by applying the principles of mechanics in Newton's Laws, you can infer (from observations of apparent planetary movement) that the Earth orbits the Sun.

[SorryImPsychic]

The central problem that creationists seem to have.....

.....they see the fossil record but don't see how it implies evolution.


But that is the real problem - Creationists claim that the fossil record does not give evidence of the intermediary stages between, for arguments sake, a fish and a bird. The record simply throws up complete samples of each species....

P.S. Do you Mean Intelligent Design proponents when you say Creationists?

[Croydon Bob]

But that is the real problem - Creationists claim that the fossil record does not give evidence of the intermediary stages between, for arguments sake, a fish and a bird. The record simply throws up complete samples of each species....

But as this is all just nonsense why are you wasting our time repeating creationist lies here?

[SorryImPsychic]

But as this is all just nonsense why are you wasting our time repeating creationist lies here?


You would be much better off if you just ignored me.

[Imox]

I agree! It is difficult to imagine a fish ever becoming a bird, though there are flying fish, of course.

:smiley: exactly :smiley:

[SorryImPsychic]

Originally Posted by SorryImPsychic http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=61535#post61535)
NO - The Theory of Evolution has served its purpose and will soon reach its use-by date.

Evolution could prove more resilient than you appear to think. I have seen no sign of a superior theory to displace it. All you have done to date is to point to the fact that we do not have evidence of species jumps recorded at present. However, neither have we seen continents colliding. The fact that one can measure incremental continental drift if generally regarded as proof when backed by other evidence from mountains and volcanos etc.

So in evolutionary terms - here is some evidence of studies into the potential mechanisms of such seizmic events.

PNAS 2009; 106: 1869 - 1874

Emergence of species in evolutionary “simulated annealing”


<LI id=contrib-1>Muyoung Heo (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Muyoung+Heo&sortspec=date&submit=Submit), <LI id=contrib-2>Louis Kang (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Louis+Kang&sortspec=date&submit=Submit) and
Eugene I. Shakhnovich (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Eugene+I.+Shakhnovich&sortspec=date&submit=Submit)1 (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1869.abstract#corresp-1)

+ (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1869.abstract#)Author Affiliations

Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138



Edited by Harold A. Scheraga, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved November 20, 2008 (received for review October 1, 2008)

Abstract

Which factors govern the evolution of mutation rates and emergence of species? Here, we address this question by using a first principles model of life where population dynamics of asexual organisms is coupled to molecular properties and interactions of proteins encoded in their genomes. Simulating evolution of populations, we found that fitness increases in punctuated steps via epistatic events, leading to formation of stable and functionally interacting proteins. At low mutation rates, species form populations of organisms tightly localized in sequence space, whereas at higher mutation rates, species are lost without an apparent loss of fitness. However, when mutation rate was a selectable trait, the population initially maintained high mutation rate until a high fitness level was reached, after which organisms with low mutation rates are gradually selected, with the population eventually reaching mutation rates comparable with those of modern DNA-based organisms. This study shows that the fitness landscape of a biophysically realistic system is extremely complex, with huge number of local peaks rendering adaptation dynamics to be a glass-like process. On a more practical level, our results provide a rationale to experimental observations of the effect of mutation rate on fitness of populations of asexual organisms. [/QUOTE] __________________
Creating ripples in a sea of credulity.>:D
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=61543)

[Croydon Bob]

You would be much better off if you just ignored me.

This board might be better off if you weren't trolling it with creationist nonsense.

[SorryImPsychic]

Pebble says: Evolution could prove more resilient than you appear to think. I have seen no sign of a superior theory to displace it. All you have done to date is to point to the fact that we do not have evidence of species jumps recorded at present. However, neither have we seen continents colliding. The fact that one can measure incremental continental drift if generally regarded as proof when backed by other evidence from mountains and volcanos etc.

So in evolutionary terms - here is some evidence of studies into the potential mechanisms of such seizmic events.

PNAS 2009; 106: 1869 - 1874

Emergence of species in evolutionary “simulated annealing”


<LI id=contrib-1>Muyoung Heo (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Muyoung+Heo&sortspec=date&submit=Submit), <LI id=contrib-2>Louis Kang (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Louis+Kang&sortspec=date&submit=Submit) and
Eugene I. Shakhnovich (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Eugene+I.+Shakhnovich&sortspec=date&submit=Submit)1 (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1869.abstract#corresp-1)

+ (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1869.abstract#)Author Affiliations

Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138



Edited by Harold A. Scheraga, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved November 20, 2008 (received for review October 1, 2008)

Abstract

Which factors govern the evolution of mutation rates and emergence of species? Here, we address this question by using a first principles model of life where population dynamics of asexual organisms is coupled to molecular properties and interactions of proteins encoded in their genomes. Simulating evolution of populations, we found that fitness increases in punctuated steps via epistatic events, leading to formation of stable and functionally interacting proteins. At low mutation rates, species form populations of organisms tightly localized in sequence space, whereas at higher mutation rates, species are lost without an apparent loss of fitness. However, when mutation rate was a selectable trait, the population initially maintained high mutation rate until a high fitness level was reached, after which organisms with low mutation rates are gradually selected, with the population eventually reaching mutation rates comparable with those of modern DNA-based organisms. This study shows that the fitness landscape of a biophysically realistic system is extremely complex, with huge number of local peaks rendering adaptation dynamics to be a glass-like process. On a more practical level, our results provide a rationale to experimental observations of the effect of mutation rate on fitness of populations of asexual organisms. __________________
Creating ripples in a sea of credulity.>:D

[Mulder]

But that is the real problem - Creationists claim that the fossil record does not give evidence of the intermediary stages between, for arguments sake, a fish and a bird. The record simply throws up complete samples of each species....P.S. Do you Mean Intelligent Design proponents when you say Creationists?

I really can't be bothered to differentiate between creationists and ID - from my point of view any difference is of no interest.

Evolution would never go straight from a fish to a bird in one go - there are many intermediate forms. Don't tell me I have to go through fossils as well as genetics here!

I suspect what you're getting at is speciation. In geological terms this happens quickly so not all intermediate forms are always visible in the fossil record - see punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium). Interestingly, there are species undergoing speciation right now. Take the Herring Gull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring_Gull)complex, for instance. It illustrates how several forms of a species are splitting here and now because of geographic separation. The 'species' occurs all around the world but in different forms - some say they are races, others separate species. The definition of species, where they cannot interbreed, is not strictly true. There are some fertile hybrids and someclosely related species, which only split recently, can interbreed but don't simply because of geographic separation.

[Mulder]

Evolution could prove more resilient than you appear to think. I have seen no sign of a superior theory to displace it. All you have done to date is to point to the fact that we do not have evidence of species jumps recorded at present. However, neither have we seen continents colliding. The fact that one can measure incremental continental drift if generally regarded as proof when backed by other evidence from mountains and volcanos etc.

This is a perfect example of what I wrote earlier about how creationists cannot apply general principles from one problem to another. If we had to rely only on what we could witness we would still be utterly ignorant. Science shows you can apply general principles from one problem to another and it works.



Emergence of species in evolutionary “simulated annealing”


<LI id=contrib-1>Muyoung Heo (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Muyoung+Heo&sortspec=date&submit=Submit), <LI id=contrib-2>Louis Kang (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Louis+Kang&sortspec=date&submit=Submit) and
Eugene I. Shakhnovich (http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=Eugene+I.+Shakhnovich&sortspec=date&submit=Submit)1 (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1869.abstract#corresp-1)
+ (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1869.abstract#)Author Affiliations
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

Edited by Harold A. Scheraga, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved November 20, 2008 (received for review October 1, 2008)
Abstract

Which factors govern the evolution of mutation rates and emergence of species? Here, we address this question by using a first principles model of life where population dynamics of asexual organisms is coupled to molecular properties and interactions of proteins encoded in their genomes. Simulating evolution of populations, we found that fitness increases in punctuated steps via epistatic events, leading to formation of stable and functionally interacting proteins. At low mutation rates, species form populations of organisms tightly localized in sequence space, whereas at higher mutation rates, species are lost without an apparent loss of fitness. However, when mutation rate was a selectable trait, the population initially maintained high mutation rate until a high fitness level was reached, after which organisms with low mutation rates are gradually selected, with the population eventually reaching mutation rates comparable with those of modern DNA-based organisms. This study shows that the fitness landscape of a biophysically realistic system is extremely complex, with huge number of local peaks rendering adaptation dynamics to be a glass-like process. On a more practical level, our results provide a rationale to experimental observations of the effect of mutation rate on fitness of populations of asexual organisms.

A model is only as good as its assumptions. I see no mention of endogenous retroviruses which, as I explained earlier, put their own DNA into that of their host. Nor do I see anything about epigenetics!

[SorryImPsychic]

This is a perfect example of what I wrote earlier about how creationists cannot apply general principles from one problem to another. If we had to rely only on what we could witness we would still be utterly ignorant. Science shows you can apply general principles from one problem to another and it works.

The post you responded to was actually by Pebble...(it got mixed up). Please note I do not subscribe to anything he said.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227054.500-viruses-could-kill-superbugs-that-antibiotics-cant.html

Now I'm thinking viruses are nanotechnology machines :undecided:

[Mulder]

Interesting point about creationism / ID. Unlike mainstream science, it always sticks to the same assumption, no matter what the evidence - namely that there is a 'designer' present in nature. In mainstream science, there are no such immovable objects. If someone comes up with a better theory than relativity to explain gravity then out it goes. I doubt any creationist will EVER come up with a better theory than a 'designer'.

[SorryImPsychic]

If someone comes up with a better theory than relativity to explain gravity then out it goes.

Ideally this should be the case but it is not what is actually happens.

Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)'s characteristics of a scientific theory which have been summed up as the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.



Despite meeting all of Popper's criteria , any discussion on Plasma (Electric) Universe in mainstream science is mainly met with rejection, contempt, censorship, ridicule and scorn. You name the negative response and Plasma Universe has been on the receiving end of it.

Now I know your suspicions may be aroused to think there must be some rational explanation for this - well the only rational explanation is this: The Theory of the Plasma/Electric Universe conflicts with current scientific (esp astrophysics) theory.

Please look at this site http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com and pay special attention to the Historical-Timeline information.

[SorryImPsychic]

. If someone comes up with a better theory than relativity to explain gravity then out it goes. I doubt any creationist will EVER come up with a better theory than a 'designer'.

I just posted this comment on another thread but it is more appropriate here. You must realize that ultimately Newton's gravity is a creationist theory.


Any hypothesis of gravitation is theology and not science.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710 Newton didn't know how it worked and science proceeded to invent constructs to make it work.

[skbuncks]

Ideally this should be the case but it is not what is actually happens.

Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)'s characteristics of a scientific theory which have been summed up as the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.



Despite meeting all of Popper's criteria , any discussion on Plasma (Electric) Universe in mainstream science is mainly met with rejection, contempt, censorship, ridicule and scorn. You name the negative response and Plasma Universe has been on the receiving end of it.


Now I know your suspicions may be aroused to think there must be some rational explanation for this - well the only rational explanation is this: The Theory of the Plasma/Electric Universe conflicts with current scientific (esp astrophysics) theory.


Please look at this site http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com and pay special attention to the Historical-Timeline information.






The rational explanation (amongst others) is that observation of the cosmic background radiation matches with the predictions of the big bang model and not plasma cosmology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiplasma
I am not quite sure what we are supposed to be looking for in the historical timeline of http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com)

skb

[Mulder]

Popper said new scientific theories are resisted until overwhelming evidence shows them to be correct. This DOES happen or relativity would never have replaced Newton's laws. Interestingly, it is another example of punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium), applied to social theory, which I've recently mentioned elsewhere.


Newton didn't know how it worked and science proceeded to invent constructs to make it work.

Newton was a genius but he didn't know what we know. What you call 'constructs' are actually models. Relativity is a model of gravity. It has passed all the tests that have ever been applied to it so it is a good model. However, it does not fit with quantum theorem which has also passed every test, so we know there is a better model somewhere to explain both. We just don't know what it is yet.

If the Plasma Cosmology model comes up with overwhelming evidence, it will replace the Big Bang Theory.

Science never ends. It just constantly refines its models of the universe to fit new evidence as it emerges. We will never reach a 'final' answer because there probably isn't one (just like there probably isn't a god).

[Croydon Bob]

Popper said new scientific theories are resisted until overwhelming evidence shows them to be correct. This DOES happen or relativity would never have replaced Newton's laws.

And (again) evolution is another fine example of this. Replacing creationism over a period of 50ish years because the overwhelming evidence convinced the vast majority.

I really don't understand what SIP is trying to achieve. He/she/it is just trolling. Is SIP now trying to argue that gravity doesn't exist? Just because we don't understand it 100%?

[SorryImPsychic]

Newton was a genius but he didn't know what we know. What you call 'constructs' are actually models. Relativity is a model of gravity. It has passed all the tests that have ever been applied to it so it is a good model. However, it does not fit with quantum theorem which has also passed every test, so we know there is a better model somewhere to explain both. We just don't know what it is yet.

If the Plasma Cosmology model comes up with overwhelming evidence, it will replace the Big Bang Theory.

"If the Plasma Cosmology model comes up with overwhelming evidence........::)"

Oh Mulder are you that naive? IT HAS COME UP WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE....so why isn't it contemporary theory?


I never doubt the genius of Newton or Darwin...and the value of their contribution to the advancement of science. However in light of our current understanding their theories have reached their use-by date.

[Mulder]

No, the plasma theory has solved some of the problems of Big Bang while introducing its own new ones - see the 'other thread'. That's often the way with competing theories. They often aim at explaining the anomalies in the consensus theory while forgetting the bits that actually work well.

I'm interested in you saying Darwin's theory has reached its use-by date. So what is going to replace it? (at least this will get the thread back on course!).

[SorryImPsychic]

No, the plasma theory has solved some of the problems of Big Bang while introducing its own new ones....
I'm interested in you saying Darwin's theory has reached its use-by date. So what is going to replace it? (at least this will get the thread back on course!).

Yes regarding those new problems - who say's they have generated new problems. Please read my response on other thread carefully. Redshift IS explained.

A new theory of Evolution will be based on the recognition that an organism genetically engineers its own design.

[Croydon Bob]

A new theory of Evolution will be based on the recognition that an organism genetically engineers its own design.

Evidence?

[SorryImPsychic]

Evidence?

If its organic then you will find evidence.

Imagine this: An insect processes genetic information from surrounding environment and is able to express this genetic information in its appearance as camouflage.

[Mulder]

If its organic then you will find evidence.

Imagine this: An insect processes genetic information from surrounding environment and is able to express this genetic information in its appearance as camouflage.

Is there a link for this or is it your own idea?

What do you mean by organic? Involving carbon chemistry?

How does an insect 'process genetic information'?

[SorryImPsychic]

Is there a link for this or is it your own idea?

What do you mean by organic? Involving carbon chemistry?

How does an insect 'process genetic information'?

It's my theory when I feel like being an Evolutionary Theorist.

Carbon based life - all living things including plants.

Insects process genetic information just like any other living thing by recognizing imperatives and following them.... a while back i gave an example of e.coli engineering new mechanism to fold disulfide bonds when their survival at peril. Remember the lab had destroyed the original mechanism..

[Mulder]

It's my theory when I feel like being an Evolutionary Theorist.

Carbon based life - all living things including plants.

Insects process genetic information just like any other living thing by recognizing imperatives and following them.... a while back i gave an example of e.coli engineering new mechanism to fold disulfide bonds when their survival at peril. Remember the lab had destroyed the original mechanism..

Do you have a link for that? Or to ANY evidence to support your theory? Survival 'at peril' sounds suspiciously like redfining natural selection.

[SorryImPsychic]

Do you have a link for that? Or to ANY evidence to support your theory? Survival 'at peril' sounds suspiciously like redfining natural selection.

In the press releases the expression used was "Evolution Caught in the Act".
Also it is understandable how Dr Bardwell views his results within the paradigm of Evolutionary Theory.

The bacterium were put under "selective pressure" if you like because if they didn't find a solution they would perish....fortuitious mutation? Gosh these little beasties are teaching scientists how to genetically engineer.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2329

To me "mutation" can be viewed as an imperative response to the organisms survival/reproduction needs (this includes curtailing reproduction when necessary).

[Mulder]

The bacterium were put under "selective pressure" if you like because if they didn't find a solution they would perish....fortuitious mutation?

Fortuitous mutation? It had a little help ...

"The bacteria used in the experiment were forced to use a protein called thioredoxin---which normally destroys disulfide bonds---to make the bonds instead. In a process similar to natural selection, UT graduate student Lluis Masip made random alterations in the DNA encoding thioredoxin and then subjected thousands of bacteria to the swim-or-starve test. He wanted to see if an altered version of thioredoxin could be coerced to make disulfides for other proteins in the bacteria.

To the researchers' surprise, a mutant carrying only two amino acid changes, amounting to less than 2 percent of the total number of amino acids in thioredoxin, restored the ability of the bacteria to move. The altered thioredoxin was able to carry out disulfide bond formation in numerous other bacterial proteins all by itself, without relying on any of the components of the natural disulfide bond pathway. The mutant bug managed to solve the problem in time and swim away from starvation and multiply."

So does your theory rely on having a lab assistant following animals around making random changes to their DNA?

I'm not as surprised as they were. There are numerous examples of the same molecules being used for entirely different biological processes in different circumstances.

[SorryImPsychic]

Fortuitous mutation? It had a little help ...

So does your theory rely on having a lab assistant following animals around making random changes to their DNA?.

Look I'm not trying to convince you of anything - just telling you my theory and giving you an instance which might help you relate to the idea.

[Mulder]

Look I'm not trying to convince you of anything - just telling you my theory and giving you an instance which might help you relate to the idea.

Can you give a bit more detail of your theory?

[SorryImPsychic]

Can you give a bit more detail of your theory?


Why do you want more detail? Look around you and tell me how life acclimatizes to any environment it finds itself in without giving the Darwinian gibberish about the ever present 24/7, all knowing eye of natural selection weeding out the good from the bad...preserving to good :cheesy: etc

[Tony Williams]

Why do you want more detail? Look around you and tell me how life acclimatizes to any environment it finds itself in without giving the Darwinian gibberish about the ever present 24/7, all knowing eye of natural selection weeding out the good from the bad...preserving to good :cheesy: etc
Hey, you're right - you've hit upon the answer! Natural selection is the only rational, evidence-based explanation for how life manages to acclimatise to such a wide range of environments! Well done! O0

[Mulder]

Why do you want more detail? Look around you and tell me how life acclimatizes to any environment it finds itself in without giving the Darwinian gibberish about the ever present 24/7, all knowing eye of natural selection weeding out the good from the bad...preserving to good :cheesy: etc

A theory isn't a couple of lines! I was interested to know if there IS any more detail. Darwin spent decades collecting and analysing primary evidence before he came up with his theory, which took a whole paper to explain. I'm not saying you have to do that but a little expansion isn't too much to ask, is it? Currently your theory proposes no actual mechanism to replace natural selection. Perhaps you could offer an example of evidence that doesn't involve someone inducing random DNA changes.

[Croydon Bob]

Look I'm not trying to convince you of anything

Many of your posts suggest otherwise.

[Imox]

I know someone, loving cheese very much. I don't like cheese at all. It's possible to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of cheese for a long time. Or to let it.

[polomint38]

I know someone, loving cheese very much. I don't like cheese at all. It's possible to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of cheese for a long time. Or to let it.

Although of subject, cheese in general is good.
English cheese - good O0
French cheese - good O0
Italian cheese - good O0
German cheese - sorry can't lie :sad:

[SorryImPsychic]

Although of subject, cheese in general is good.
English cheese - good O0
French cheese - good O0
Italian cheese - good O0
German cheese - sorry can't lie :sad:



:feedme:Now you're making me hungry!

[lost thought]

Toasted cheeeeeeeeese yum.. :cheesy:;D

[SorryImPsychic]

Toasted cheeeeeeeeese yum..

Oh yes my favorite!

But as Dr B says: Why is cheese?

[Imox]

Although of subject, cheese in general is good.
English cheese - good O0
French cheese - good O0
Italian cheese - good O0
German cheese - sorry can't lie :sad:
As I said, I don't like cheese. Whether French, Italian, or wherever from.

[Tony Williams]

As I said, I don't like cheese. Whether French, Italian, or wherever from.
Not even Wensleydale? :shocked:

[chaggle]

Sprinkle a bit of grated cheese on your spaghetti bolognese - fantastic. Also, try leeks and cauliflower in cheese sauce. You'll soon get to like it.O0

[Mojo]

Pan-fried halloumi with leeks, cumin seeds and lime juice. :smiley:

[SorryImPsychic]

I can just imagine you all feasting on your favorite cheese dishes.


:chinese:

[polomint38]

As I said, I don't like cheese. Whether French, Italian, or wherever from.

But Germany, good sausages. O0

[Imox]

yes, especially my country, Thuringia, is well known for its sausages. But I like also leeks (without cheese), or peas, cauliflower, red cabbage, spinach..... all things as long as they don't come from any animal's udder.

[Croydon Bob]

.... all things as long as they don't come from any animal's udder.

What! Not even Red Leicester?

[Imox]

Not even Red Leicester!

[Croydon Bob]

Not even Red Leicester!

Not even Paneer?

[Trinoc]

Cue cheese shop sketch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_Shop_sketch) ...

Nope, not got any of those.

[Croydon Bob]

Cue cheese shop sketch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_Shop_sketch) ...

Nope, not got any of those.

Spoilsport...

[Trinoc]

Spoilsport...
No, no, you're supposed to name a type of cheese that nobody has named before. We can take it as read that someone answers "no", to save space. I suppose the winner is the last person to post an original name when nobody can think of another.

Limburger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburger).

[Matt]

No, no, you're supposed to name a type of cheese that nobody has named before. We can take it as read that someone answers "no", to save space. I suppose the winner is the last person to post an original name when nobody can think of another.

Limburger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburger).

Monterey jack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_Jack)

[Croydon Bob]

Monterey jack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_Jack)

Pot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_cheese

[skbuncks]

Not even Red Leicester!

What about Casu_marzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu)?

Yummy


skb

[Matt]

Pot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_cheese

Stinking Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Bishop_cheese)

[Croydon Bob]

Stinking Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Bishop_cheese)

Pantysgawn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantysgawn)

[Matt]

Pantysgawn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantysgawn)

Jarlsberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarlsberg)

[Imox]

can't we talk about cabbage? red.....white......savoy... :smiley:

[Trinoc]

can't we talk about cabbage? red.....white......savoy... :smiley:
First person to make a Sauerkraut joke is out! :smiley:

(Oh dear ... I suppose that's me! :sad:)

[Imox]

We eat sauerkraut, but the Brits put everywhere vinegar over their meal. Even on chips. So, what's worse?

[Trinoc]

We eat sauerkraut, but the Brits put everywhere vinegar over their meal. Even on chips. So, what's worse?
Fish and chips may be an acquired taste, but give us a break ... Britain doesn't have much to shout about in the food area!

[chaggle]

Britain doesn't have much to shout about in the food area!

I beg to differ!!! I think britain has the best food anywhere. I think the so-called Mediterranean Diet is a myth. It's all deep fried in batter and soused in olive oil and the Spanish could learn a thing or two about vegetables. French food is raw meat and overcooked veg and the bread is very boring. In Britain you get everything, a huge variety from all over the world. But native British food is good as well. There's not much wrong with a Sunday roast and the stereotypical 'meat and two veg' (snigger, phwoar) is a good balanced meal. Don't knock it. I expect you will tho'.....

[bindeweede]

Fish and chips may be an acquired taste, but give us a break ... Britain doesn't have much to shout about in the food area!

Pork pies? Black pudding? Kippers? Haggis?

Gorgeous!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5808143.ece

[Trinoc]

I beg to differ!!! I think britain has the best food anywhere. I think the so-called Mediterranean Diet is a myth. It's all deep fried in batter and soused in olive oil and the Spanish could learn a thing or two about vegetables. French food is raw meat and overcooked veg and the bread is very boring. In Britain you get everything, a huge variety from all over the world. But native British food is good as well. There's not much wrong with a Sunday roast and the stereotypical 'meat and two veg' (snigger, phwoar) is a good balanced meal. Don't knock it. I expect you will tho'.....
Not necessarily, though you did make the point that most of the best food in Britain comes from elsewhere ... Indian, Chinese, etc., ... but then the British come from everywhere as well, so that's fine.

I suppose it's not the lack of good, traditional recipes, but the lack of will among most of the population. To most Brits, food is something to be thrown together and eaten as quickly as possible before getting on with something else. A Brit who wants a gastronomic experience (without requiring a second mortgage) goes to a Mediterranean, Asian or Oriental restaurant.

[Trinoc]

Pork pies? Black pudding? Kippers? Haggis?

Gorgeous!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5808143.ece
Looking at the list in the article, with the possible exception of fish and chips (though it's been a while since I went to an ordinary chippy), you need to seek out the prize examples, but the ordinary varieties are dire. Melton Mowbray pork pie, delicious; Walls pork pie disgusting. Arbroath Smokie, delicious; Sainsbury's kipper, OK but nothing special. Pasties: a whole range from delicious to awful (and I suppose you know the bit around the edge was not supposed to be eaten - it was a handle for the tin miner to hold it so as to avoid getting heavy metal poisoning). The Ploughman's Lunch is a fake - phoney traditional food for pub garden lunches. Never had grouse - I would probably worry about lead poisoning. Treacle sponge pudding was the bane of school dinners - you could use it as the heat storage medium in an electric storage heater. Never had Parkin. I occasionally indulge in black pudding as part of a heart attack on a plate, otherwise known as Full English Breakfast (or, worse, Ulster Fry), but if I ate that every day I'd probably survive about 6 months.

And, sorry, haggis always disgusting!

[chaggle]

Not necessarily, though you did make the point that most of the best food in Britain comes from elsewhere ... Indian, Chinese, etc., ... but then the British come from everywhere as well, so that's fine.

I suppose it's not the lack of good, traditional recipes, but the lack of will among most of the population. To most Brits, food is something to be thrown together and eaten as quickly as possible before getting on with something else. A Brit who wants a gastronomic experience (without requiring a second mortgage) goes to a Mediterranean, Asian or Oriental restaurant.

I think we're getting better. It pains me to say it but all those cooking programs on telly (curse them and their obnoxious, foul-mouthed, overpaid celebrity cookie boys) are having an effect. Many people I know (including us) rarely eat packaged, processed foods, often making meals completely from first principles. I guess it might be different for busy career juggling mums though.

Nigella is obviously an exception to the chef comment above.

The only thing I will say in favour of cooking programs is that they are not as bad as finding-completely-worthless-crap-in-your-attic programs hosted by a prune

[Mongrel]

Stinking Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Bishop_cheese)

[Matt]

Stinking Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Bishop_cheese)


Stinking Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Bishop_cheese)

BzzT! Repetition.

Buffalo Mozzarella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozzarella_di_Bufala_Campana)

[Mongrel]

BzzT! Repetition.

Buffalo Mozzarella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozzarella_di_Bufala_Campana)

Sorry, completely missed the next page :(

[Mongrel]

BzzT! Repetition.

Buffalo Mozzarella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozzarella_di_Bufala_Campana)

Sorry, completely missed the next page :(

Y Fenni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Fenni_(cheese))

[Matt]

Sorry, completely missed the next page :(

Y Fenni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Fenni_(cheese))

Idiazábal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiazabal_cheese)

[ZERO]

We eat sauerkraut, but the Brits put everywhere vinegar over their meal. Even on chips. So, what's worse?I ate sauerkraut all the time when I was a child. Although I think the Dutch version (or the way my parents made it) is different to the German way.
I didn't like it much.

Borecole is my thing. With a nice big rookwurst.

As for cheese, I love blue vein.

[Trinoc]

With a nice big rookwurst.
Bird sausage?

Oh, I see (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rookworst)) ... Looks like one of the cheaper protein sources I remember from the university food shop. Depending on mood, I think we referred to it as spamwurst or turdwurst. :-X

[ZERO]

Bird sausage?

Oh, I see (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rookworst)) ... Looks like one of the cheaper protein sources I remember from the university food shop. Depending on mood, I think we referred to it as spamwurst or turdwurst. :-X
Charming. ???

At least that link has shown me the proper spelling for boerenkool.

[Imox]

I ate sauerkraut all the time when I was a child. Although I think the Dutch version (or the way my parents made it) is different to the German way.
I didn't like it much.

Borecole is my thing. With a nice big rookwurst.

I think there is no single way to make sauerkraut. It's made different everywhere. The same with our famous Thuringian dumplings. http://www.graefenhain-info.de/images/Klosstellerr.jpg As many recipes as families in a village.

[SorryImPsychic]

The current swine flu outbreak, which now allows the virus to jump from human to human, no pigs required, is surely a beneficial mutation for the virus (if not for its host). Humans are a better host because they are spread so much more evenly acros the world - not stuck on isolated farms! Swine fever will now spread more widely and quicker than it ever could in pigs. Doesn't this look a bit like natural selection in action?


An interesting development on Swine Flu origins:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afrdATVXPEAk&refer=home

[lost thought]

Found this game thought some would like to play it and infect as many as possible with flu.
Spare a few hours and have a go...... O0

http://www.clinical-virology.org/killerflu/killerflu.html (http://www.clinical-virology.org/killerflu/killerflu.html)

Killer Flu!! Or, maybe, “non-killer flu” to describe the current outbreak of swine flu! Here is a game that allows you to learn more about how the influenza virus is transmitted and how it changes every year - which explains why you can get more than one dose of the flu over your lifetime and why vaccines need changing every year. We also hope it will be a bit of fun.

The second level of the game is an opportunity to understand why pandemic flu is a bit different to normal yearly (seasonal) flu. Remember: even pandemic flu generally kills fewer people than you would think. Try to kill too many people in the game and see how difficult it is!