Enoch2021 Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. I was recently in the Hospital (ICU) with my 7 year old son who had a severe case of Pneumonia. I had a heart to heart with the Doctor in which we discussed @ length and in great detail my sons condition and the treatment options. After we were finished I asked him......"Do you believe in evolution?" He laughed out loud. My son fully recovered. PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's the Anecdotal, here's the meat....... Marc Kirschner Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr. Marc Kirschner: The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding bio-discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 So you were saying? Perhaps he laughed because it was such an absurd question. Seriously though, I don't believe this really happened. Otherwise you would be telling me that while your son lay gravely ill you took the time to ask a doctor about evolution. I really don't care about your quote mining and anecdotal "evidence". When you start posting peer reviewed data we can have a conversation. Unlike yourself I work in the field and have a masters degree in the subject. Others might humor you but I won't. "Seriously though, I don't believe this really happened." That's fine "I really don't care about your quote mining" Another Baseless Unsupported Assertion "When you start posting peer reviewed data we can have a conversation." Ahhh yes, "Peer-Reviewed"....modern science's "stand In" for the Scientific Method. Kinda rough when the majority of those "peers" have an a priori conviction to a Unverifiable ever changing Hypothesis....but I'll muddle through. No Problem, lets stick with Bacterial Resistance ( or whatever you wish)..... ‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of an existing genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess. Palumbi, S.R., Evolution—humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force, Science 293:1786–1790, 2001; p. 1787. Bacteria can become resistant as a result of mutations, but all of those studied so far are loss mutations. Probably the classic example is streptomycin and other mycin drugs that have been rendered ineffective by ribosome point mutations. Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226–233, 1971. Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203–234, 1972. Can you please define evolution? So we don't waste time. I have a feeling your equivocating "Micro" and "Macro". "Unlike yourself I work in the field and have a masters degree in the subject." How do you know I don't or DIDN'T.....Magic evolution mind powers?? I knew it wouldn't be long until the "Master's Degree" would make an appearance. "Others might humor you but I won't." That's my kind of party!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. Yeah, that's not evolution. We have heard the same tired old clap-trap about bacteria strains, peppered moths and finch beaks for years. None of that has anything to do with evolution. All you have is examples of adaptation within a particular organism/species. Evolution, where one animal becomes a completely different creature, is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2014 It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. I was recently in the Hospital (ICU) with my 7 year old son who had a severe case of Pneumonia. I had a heart to heart with the Doctor in which we discussed @ length and in great detail my sons condition and the treatment options. After we were finished I asked him......"Do you believe in evolution?" He laughed out loud. My son fully recovered. PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's the Anecdotal, here's the meat....... Marc Kirschner Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr. Marc Kirschner: The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding bio-discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 So you were saying? Perhaps he laughed because it was such an absurd question. Seriously though, I don't believe this really happened. Otherwise you would be telling me that while your son lay gravely ill you took the time to ask a doctor about evolution. I really don't care about your quote mining and anecdotal "evidence". When you start posting peer reviewed data we can have a conversation. Unlike yourself I work in the field and have a masters degree in the subject. Others might humor you but I won't. MrsRationale and nebula, You two are GREAT READ. I absolutely love your posts. You both get to the point and say what you have to without mincing words. I'm glad you shared your resume Rationale so maybe now people without this background will ponder more seriously your words (especially in the realm of science). You and nebula remind me of the two witnesses in revelation. Spock bopping in and now out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. I was recently in the Hospital (ICU) with my 7 year old son who had a severe case of Pneumonia. I had a heart to heart with the Doctor in which we discussed @ length and in great detail my sons condition and the treatment options. After we were finished I asked him......"Do you believe in evolution?" He laughed out loud. My son fully recovered. PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's the Anecdotal, here's the meat....... Marc Kirschner Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr. Marc Kirschner: The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding bio-discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 So you were saying? Perhaps he laughed because it was such an absurd question. Seriously though, I don't believe this really happened. Otherwise you would be telling me that while your son lay gravely ill you took the time to ask a doctor about evolution. I really don't care about your quote mining and anecdotal "evidence". When you start posting peer reviewed data we can have a conversation. Unlike yourself I work in the field and have a masters degree in the subject. Others might humor you but I won't. MrsRationale and nebula, You two are GREAT READ. I absolutely love your posts. You both get to the point and say what you have to without mincing words. I'm glad you shared your resume Rationale so maybe now people without this background will ponder more seriously your words (especially in the realm of science). You and nebula remind me of the two witnesses in revelation. Spock bopping in and now out Spock LOL, So since you "quoted" both me and Tristen; then by proxy: .....are we "Not A Great Read?" You don't Love our posts? We mince words and don't get to the point? Who do we (Tristen and I) remind you of? "I'm glad you shared your resume Rationale" Do you know my resume, sir? What's the relevance? Do you like Arguments from Authority? Also, I read in the tos..." User names should not contain titles such as Rev. or Dr. We have no way to verify ones education or right to bear such title. Here on the boards, we are all on equal standing" The question is, does this mean posting in the CONTENT of a message? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. I was recently in the Hospital (ICU) with my 7 year old son who had a severe case of Pneumonia. I had a heart to heart with the Doctor in which we discussed @ length and in great detail my sons condition and the treatment options. After we were finished I asked him......"Do you believe in evolution?" He laughed out loud. My son fully recovered. PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's the Anecdotal, here's the meat....... Marc Kirschner Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr. Marc Kirschner: The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding bio-discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 So you were saying? Perhaps he laughed because it was such an absurd question. Seriously though, I don't believe this really happened. Otherwise you would be telling me that while your son lay gravely ill you took the time to ask a doctor about evolution. I really don't care about your quote mining and anecdotal "evidence". When you start posting peer reviewed data we can have a conversation. Unlike yourself I work in the field and have a masters degree in the subject. Others might humor you but I won't. MrsRationale and nebula, You two are GREAT READ. I absolutely love your posts. You both get to the point and say what you have to without mincing words. I'm glad you shared your resume Rationale so maybe now people without this background will ponder more seriously your words (especially in the realm of science). You and nebula remind me of the two witnesses in revelation. Spock bopping in and now out Spock LOL, So since you "quoted" both me and Tristen; then by proxy: .....are we "Not A Great Read?" You don't Love our posts? We mince words and don't get to the point? Who do we (Tristen and I) remind you of? It's just a backdoor way of barbing you THROUGH nebula and mrsrational. It's what you do when you don't have the courage to address someone personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 30, 2014 MrsRationale and nebula, You two are GREAT READ. I absolutely love your posts. You both get to the point and say what you have to without mincing words. I'm glad you shared your resume Rationale so maybe now people without this background will ponder more seriously your words (especially in the realm of science). You and nebula remind me of the two witnesses in revelation. Spock bopping in and now out Spock LOL, So since you "quoted" both me and Tristen; then by proxy: .....are we "Not A Great Read?" You don't Love our posts? We mince words and don't get to the point? Who do we (Tristen and I) remind you of? It's just a backdoor way of barbing you THROUGH nebula and mrsrational. It's what you do when you don't have the courage to address someone personally. Say it ain't so, Spock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Do I even have to say why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts