Creationists

[UltimateReality]

I accept your surrender.

Not even remotely true.

First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.

Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.

Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.

Not in contention.

Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.

This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.

The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.

You are so full of BS it isn't even funny.

Yet you continue to fail to demonstrate.

You may be right. I assumed to know what you mean when you use the term "vertical change." It could (and likely is) just more of your bullshit.

This is you assuming that you know what you're talking about.

No. It doesn't. That's magical thinking. That's creationism.

You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide.

No. You're wrong. Again.

You just proved your intellectual dishonesty and what a rabid liar you are. I am done responding to any of your posts. If you can't tell the truth, there is no point in having a discussion with you. Peace.

 

[LOki]

You are so full of BS it isn't even funny.

Yet you continue to fail to demonstrate.

You may be right. I assumed to know what you mean when you use the term "vertical change." It could (and likely is) just more of your bullshit.

This is you assuming that you know what you're talking about.

No. It doesn't. That's magical thinking. That's creationism.

You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide.

No. You're wrong. Again.

You just proved your intellectual dishonesty and what a rabid liar you are.

Yet you cannot demonstrate a single lie ... any dishonesty at all. Why is that Cupcake?

I am done responding to any of your posts.

If substance is the measure of response, you haven't started responding to my posts.

If you can't tell the truth, there is no point in having a discussion with you. Peace.

I've told you nothing but truths. Too bad you can't reciprocate.

 

[newpolitics]

Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Even if all of the founders were fundamentalist christians, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. So, whether they were deist or whatever, is not of any importance actually. This an argument from authority, in a way. What they produced, what they gave birth to with the constitution, wasn't necessarily christian. It does not follow that what they produced has any of that attributes that they themselves had. If you read a book by a Muslim about walking dogs, does that mean that the information in the book is "Muslim"? No. it's just information about walking dogs. Same thing. It doesn't matter who it came from. If it is sound advice, it must be assessed on its own merit.

Wow, for someone who says they just follow the evidence you sure rationalized this one away. What evil hold does Hollie have on you that you are falling for her revisionist BS? Pick up a history book for Man hands sake. England had an official Christian religion. The Pilgrim's came to America to spread the Gospel. The whole culture was steeped in Christianity. Most of the principles the US Government was founded on are Christian principles merely because that is what they all knew at the time. I'm done defending this. It's stupid to argue something so easily researched. And by the way, the Founders WERE NOT Fundamentalists!!!! GEEZ, you people are so blinded by your own prejudice its nauseating.

It's the same as an argument from authority because arguments must be assessed on their own merits, not who is making the argument or claim. The same with the constitution. You must assess the constitution and what it tries to establish on its own grounds. When you look at the constitution, the first amendment clearly establishes a separation of church and state, so I don't understand how you can honestly claim that their being christian, or deist, has anything to do with what they produced. It doesn't. It is illogical to say so, and is in fact, a logical fallacy.

Separation of CHURCH and state, not religion and state. The Founders never meant for God to be removed from our government. Abraham [Bible Name] Lincoln prayed publicly all the time. So did a whole slew of other presidents with Jesus Disciple names like Thomas, James, John, and Andrew.

I can see how you may say the same for the bible, when I am attacking the credibility of the bible based on lack of authorship. The claims and the purposes of the documents are different. The constitution is not positing the existence of anything in the universe. It is an agreed upon contract. That is not the same as the bible, which tries to convince people of a supernatural diety, and makes claims about the universe, its origins, the after life, etc... none of which is present in the constitution. Besides, we have actual signatures on the constitution, and we have ample historical documentation of those names signed on the document outside of the constitution, verified by other historians. There is barely applicable to the bible. There are hardly any extra-bibilical authors that attest to anything about Jesus existing. Josephus' account is considered by all biblical scholars to be a forgery, and any reference to Jesus is simply as "christus" and only talks about some guy being crucified. Nothing about miracles, nothing about preaching, none of that.

You treat the Bible as if it is a single book. We do have many other historical accounts. They are many different books in the collection called the New Testament. Just because the works by different authors are lumped together, why aren't they treated on their own merit? Do you have any idea what happened to Rome? And here it comes, your appeal to the masses... funny that such a huge force in the world could be tricked by some sandal wearing dude making some crazy claims about being God.

History of late ancient Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't matter what they were man. I just threw out fundamentalists because that is the most extreme view of christianity. I don't care what they were. You missed the point. It is non-sequitur to say that their religious affiliation personally, has anything to do with something they created. Whether they were fundie, moderate, whatever. Understand?


There is no distinction between church and state, and god and state, because then you have to define god outside of scripture or religion, and you can't meaningfully do that, especially if you are going to use it to inform political decision. The more specific about your definition of god, the more it resembles a religion, and the easier it is to reject as such. This is the paradox of god and politics. The most vague definition of god, a deist god, doesn't really offer any prescriptions for living, so wouldn't hinder politics much.


Funny that the world would be tricked by a lot of things. What's your point? Much of the world was "tricked" by Muhammed, by Moses, by Krishna... you're asking for special pleading to consider christian doctrine as true, when you have no more evidence than the next religion.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other. What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.

True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.

It’s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It’s a common tactic to claim “Darwinism” is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.

Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.

So the game is played by religionists that “Darwinism” (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.

It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.

Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,

What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)

 

[LOki]

True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.

It’s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It’s a common tactic to claim “Darwinism” is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.

Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.

So the game is played by religionists that “Darwinism” (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.

It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.

Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,

What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)

Lenski.

 

[newpolitics]

True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.

It’s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It’s a common tactic to claim “Darwinism” is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.

Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.

So the game is played by religionists that “Darwinism” (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.

It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.

Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,

What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)

Uh, no, in reality. How do you know that we don't see new traits from random mutations? This happens every time a virus mutates. That's an example right there! How do you explain that away? It is highly plausible, being that mutations happen all the time as "copying" errors when RNA is used to copy DNA. RNA is not as stable as DNA, as I'm sure you know, and copying errors happen all the time, every day. Most of the time its nothing, but statistically, it is a certainty, that at least some of the time, there will be beneficial mutations. You CAN NOT DENY THIS. It is simple probability, no matter how small. There is no constraint on time with evolution, which means, that eventually, beneficial mutations will occur. It is unavoidable.

 

[UltimateReality]

There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. I think that's sad. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.

You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.

Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?

So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.

It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.

You know nothing of me. ^

How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man. You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...

I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!! You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,

What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)

Lenski.

Hmm, I pretty sure this experiment has input from an INTELLIGENT AGENT!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.

As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.

In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.

To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.

The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.

So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose. It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/more_from_lensk055751.html

 

[newpolitics]

You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.

Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?

So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.

It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.

You know nothing of me. ^

How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man. You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...

I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!! You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

Yes, I do take things too personally. I realize this. I have anger issues. But, when you tell me I am lost without a god you can not demonstrate with any evidence or logic, you sound completely ridiculous, and you are being insanely obnoxious.

Religion and the concept of god actually depresses me, because I think it is so delusional, and requires such gullibility. I am not running from anything. Again, you are being obnoxious saying I am running from something that can't even be demonstrated to exist. It's laughable to me that you would say that. The judaeo-christian god I am positive, does not exist. It is an internally contradictory concept of a god.

 

[newpolitics]

I will not believe something just because it feels good. I could also believe that I am god. That would be even better. Why not do that? As long as we are waiving truth altogether and simply trying to believe things that feel good, let's believe something that would make us feel truly amazing.

It's not about feeling good. It's about truth. Reality exists whether we like it or not. It is our job to try and identify as best we can, what that reality consists of. Through logic, reason, and evidence, we can only do the best we can to assess reality using these tools, and at best, only arrive probabilities, unless certain things simply defy logic. Then certainty may be warranted in precluding something from reality (such as the christian god). If ones goal is simply to believe things that are most likely true, then faith becomes out of the question, as it requires no evidence, and as long as this is the standard for forming beliefs, we are vulnerable to believe ANYTHING. This is unacceptable. You are contained in your christianity because the scripture contains clauses which preclude you from entertaining other religious beliefs. If it didn't, christianity would lose its grasp and would never have survived this long. It is a giant sales pitch made by people, not god. Everything about religion can be explained naturally.

If I were to entertain a god at this point, it might be a deist god, but this is functionally pointless, and essentially is identical to atheism as far as my ontology for this universe would go, so I need no need for it.

 

[newpolitics]

In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.

As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.

In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.

To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.

The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.

So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose. It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.

More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously - Evolution News & Views

You quoted an article from fucking Michael Behe? I'll be honest, I am not going to bother to read any of it, because it would be a waste of time. I don't care about some dick heads interpretation whose entire position is based on personal incredulity.

 

[UltimateReality]

In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.

As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.

In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.

To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.

The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.

So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose. It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.

More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously - Evolution News & Views

You quoted an article from fucking Michael Behe? I'll be honest, I am not going to bother to read any of it, because it would be a waste of time. I don't care about some dick heads interpretation whose entire position is based on personal incredulity.

So you won't read the comments based on who wrote it? So instead of addressing the salient points above, you just discredit the author. Sounds pretty ad hominem to me.

 

[newpolitics]

In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.

As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.

In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.

To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.

The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.

So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose. It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.

More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously - Evolution News & Views

You quoted an article from fucking Michael Behe? I'll be honest, I am not going to bother to read any of it, because it would be a waste of time. I don't care about some dick heads interpretation whose entire position is based on personal incredulity.

So you won't read the comments based on who wrote it? So instead of addressing the salient points above, you just discredit the author. Sounds pretty ad hominem to me.

You'd be right. I have a bias against complete bullshit. His words aren't worth the paper they'd be printed on when it comes to evolution. His opinion is "the human cell is too amazing. Therefore, god did it." If he has so little respect for the truth, I have no respect for what he says. He employs one massive argument from ignorance.

Not to mention, its all the same BS. Spinning facts to reach the conclusion they've already reached before looking at any evidence. That's not science.

 

[LOki]

What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)

Lenski.

Hmm, I pretty sure this experiment has input from an INTELLIGENT AGENT!!!

Oh? You're "pretty sure."

Tell us about this input then. Tell us the means by which the Cit+ trait was intentionally added.

This should prove to be entertaining.

 

[eots]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

You are confusing Christianity with intelligent design..

 

[LOki]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

You are confusing Christianity with intelligent design..

You're like a child ...

 

[LOki]

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good".

This is nonsense. Good and evil are real.

However, with a theistic world view, good and evil are fundamentally interchangeable terms ... they are essentially meaningless in an existence where what is good and what is evil are subject to obedience, and not an objective reality.

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!!

As determined by the amount of money you can bring to the collection plate.

You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death.

This god of yours treats people like food.

And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter.

100% escapist superstition.

Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

FOOD!

I really think you are just running from God.

I think you're running from your intellectually and morally incompetent life.

You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

You've found that laying the consequences of your intellectual and moral incompetence on some divine plan--and the assurance of forgiveness for just "believing"--is a convenient dodge for being responsible for your behavior.

 

[ima]

So if the world was made in 6 days and is what, 7000 years old, how are the dinosaur fossils explained?

 

[Hollie]

You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.

Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?

So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.

It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.

You know nothing of me. ^

How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man. You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...

I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!! You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

So here you have the one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs. The deep seated fear of inadequacy; of the inability to function without the security blanket of daddy, (the "father in heaven") to watch over us. I can imagine in the brutal and vicious times of how life came and went a few thousand years ago, there was comfort in the promise of a better life in some alleged afterlife.

I can also imagine in those brutal, ancient times the deep seated desire that those who commit atrocities suffer greater than humans can manage. The lust for vengeance, and calling it justice. Well, it's not like that. Billions make no effort to examine their religious beliefs, they simply have them, make token nods to them, appeal to them in the hope of dying sooner, rather than later to gain spiritual and carnal rewards and cling to them when they die for comfort. Nothing difficult in that. Surprisingly, the gods are very adept at assisting people into the alleged afterlife. There is no more cruel or psychopathic mass murderer than the Christian gods. They have once wiped the planet of most of humanity simply because humanity was a disappointment. The next humanity wiping tirade will be via fire... because they are gods of love and compassion.

No, it's much harder to face truth coldly. It's far easier to believe in a loving father figure who will reward us (or p u n i s h us) based upon our understanding of a bunch of ancient rules written in the desert somewhere. It's a simple Santa Clause (purposeful mispelling) model that most people can embrace without having to take the time or expend the effort to examine critically.

It's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler or Mao or Stalin, etc., are beyond suffering for their cruelties. But it's the truth. And we need the truth to function properly, to explore, and learn. Our time is short, and we are beings that want to know what our universe is like, what it is, how it works.

So what if a dead Hitler is roasting over a spit in a hell somewhere. How much roasting is required to bring justice for the millions upon millions of people who died as the result of his ideology? Justice would have been for the gods to roll a tank over Hitler back in 1939.

But the gods didn't do that. I guess all those millions of people who died during the ensuing war years failed the "test". Or maybe the gods were just too busy with their administrative duties to give a hoot. What the hey - as far as the gods are concerned, humans are a dime a dozen.

This notion of eternal rewards or eternal punishment for arbitrarily defined offenses to god(s) have all the earmarks of an elite ruling class preying upon the fears and superstitions of others.