Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: 5StarOracle

How do you plan to "test" my pagan claims one wonders

a reply to: Noinden

I just wanted to see if you were what you say you are...
Or if you were using an untruth to elevate yourself while you were busy with harassment on a personal level.

** GET ON TOPIC **

The Topic isn't each other.

Ok On topic

Tell me neighbour, what are your views on the OP now you've quized my chemical back ground. Perhaps you have something to add? Or were you helping a brother out? By brother I mean Ragedyman

Evolution what is your understanding?

a reply to: Noinden

I understand that it is an incomplete study that relies heavily on leaps of faith...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Oh would you care to say what these leaps of faith are? Please do not use the terms micro or macro when applied to evolution, or if you do, do so in the correct manner. If you do not know how? Do not use the terms.

But I will give you a hint, we've observed evolution, one example is antibiotic resistance. There are many more, but that is one.

So go for it. Or do you plan to make a comment and walk away from it? The thing about "mic drops" are they need to be irrefutable (though Hobbits are not needed) and unarguable in any way shape or form. Otherwise, it is posing and running away from something. Which shall it be neighbour?

a reply to: Noinden

Non-resistant bacteria commonly become resistant by several different means, most of which have nothing to do with mutations. Palumbi notes that in ‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of anexisting genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess.13 An important mechanism by which bacteria become resistant is by obtaining one or more specific resistance genes from other bacteria. This type of resistance can be obtained by the transfer of a plasmid (small circular units of DNA), already existing in the bacterium gene pool, that carries a gene for an enzyme which either destroys or inactivates the antimicrobial substance.14 Many resistance genes are also carried on self-transmissible genes known as transposable elements, that can jump between plasmids and chromosomes.15

Bacteria can obtain a new gene (or genes) by several methods:

Conjugation is the most common method. It is a complex system that transfers a copy of a plasmid from one bacterial cell (called the donor) to another bacterium (called the recipient) (Figure 1). A tube-like structure known as pilus latches onto the recipient and is positioned in such a way that a conjugation bridge can form, allowing for the transfer of genes for resistance and other purposes.16 A common example is bacterial resistance to penicillin that is acquired by obtaining the gene for penicillinase as a result of conjugation. Penicillinase is an enzyme that alters the penicillin molecule in such a way that it is rendered ineffective. The plasmid containing the drug resistance is called a Resistance (R) factor.Transduction is a virus-mediated transfer of host DNA from one host to another. Bacterial viruses, known as bacteriophages, sometimes can serve as intermediaries, picking up the resistance gene from a naturally resistant bacterium and then passing on this gene to non-resistant bacteria. In this case the bacteria’s genomes gain information, but the source is not mutations. Instead, the new genetic material is derived from the genome of another bacterium that already has the gene (or gene set) that confers resistance.Transformation (the process in which bacterium take up exogenous DNA from its environment). Chromosomal or plasmid DNA can even be taken up and spread from dead to living bacteria.

Also, many gene sets called transposons are self-transmissible and can transfer from their normal location to other plasmids or chromosomes. In bacteria, antibiotic-resistant genes are located on plasmids or transposons, small circular units of DNA that can even be spread from dead to living bacteria.

I had that saved from somewhere...

Oh there was more...

Antibiotics are produced naturally by fungi and bacteria which have coexisted since Creation as part of their own defence systems. Without innate defences, bacteria could not protect themselves and would soon become extinct. When an antibiotic reaches the bacterial periplasm or cytoplasm (see Figure 2) it may be inactivated by modification, isolation, or destruction, all of which are due not to mutations’, but rather to complex, innate, physiological mechanisms.

When a bacterial strain has gained resistance to an antibiotics, it is more correct to say that the bacteria it has lost sensitivity to the antibiotic.17 Furthermore, bacteria have had resistance to many antibiotics long before humans used them. This has been confirmed by culturing bacteria found on human explorers frozen to death long before human-developed antibiotics existed. An example is a 1988 University of Alberta study of bacteria on the bodies of Arctic explorers frozen in 1845. Investigators discovered that some of the bacterial strains were resistant to antibiotics.18 The study, which evaluated six strains of Clostridium on three men who had been buried in permafrost, found the bacteria were particularly resistance to clindamycin and cefoxitin, both antibiotics that were developed over a century after the men died.19 Clostridium is part of the normal bacteria flora of the human gut.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Could you at least cite your source material correctly? Rather than cut and paste with no actual identifying information? Oh wait, searching the text shows that you appear to be citing something from a creationist site. This would be a site which is very biased against any evidence that sinks their little battleship. Now how could I tell that you would pull one of these little examples out of your cut and paste folder?

Davies and Davies, say otherwise (Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010 Sep; 74(3): 417–433), that paper is free to read, give it a go But the cliff notes begin with the title "Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance", here is the thing about scientific papers, you know those ones which are peer reviewed, and will be turned down if they can't back their ideas up. They have to be precise and accurate in language. QED if you use the term "evolution" you will bet your bippy its about, you guessed it evolution. Here is the next bit, and its the killer. It involves genes. Genes are passed on between generations, and if a younger generation has a gene that does something that their forebares one did not, that is called mutation, and you know what, that is evolution.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh or perhaps you found this here? That is also NOT a scientific paper, its a paper for an online course. DO you know the difference??

a reply to: Noinden

I don't remember where it's from I said I had saved it or I would have posted a link...
Many factors can be cause for mutations not all mutations are a progression or a benefit for survival kind of like rolling the dice gotta take the good with the bad...
I believe in evolution only so far fish will only ever be fish lizards will only ever be lizards humans will only ever be humans... to me that is how evolution is contained...

No it was from a doctoral thesis from an individual that was attending the University of Alberta...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Mutations by their very definition are genetic. In that the only thing which can mutate are genes. Thus it stands to reason that the passing on of mutations between generations constitutes evolutionary process. Again by definition (the accumulation of mutations).

You also can believe that fish will be fish and only fish, and Lizards only lizards etc. There is however ample genomics evidence to show that this is not the case, that coupled with transitory fossils, is enough for any scientist. It is not belief, it is data.

a reply to: Noinden

No its supposition based on fragmentary evidence that requires a leap of faith to connect the dots and ascribe to the faith of evolution...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden
I believe in evolution only so far fish will only ever be fish lizards will only ever be lizards humans will only ever be humans... to me that is how evolution is contained...

So how do you explain there being no Homo sapiens around when the dinosaurs were? There is literally no evidence for ANY homo sapiens being eaten by, hunting or interacting with dinosaurs.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh I dunno I'll take a guess...
They were living far under ground cause they were scared of dinosaurs...
That or they were not created until after dinosaurs were eliminated...
If dinosaurs are humans ancestors and they went extinct how did we evolve from them?
Or do you suppose a magical collision happened on earth and that dinosaurs were not wiped out but we're instead morphed into many new forms of life as they were genetically altered in an instant?