tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post4355235595698566099..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: The Natural Theologian's DilemmaMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-57758110616670172522011-04-25T04:38:00.450-07:002011-04-25T04:38:00.450-07:00Tell me Martin,
If we are created in GODS image an...Tell me Martin,<br />If we are created in GODS image and he is omnipotent, should his creation be unfearing towards MRSA,Tuberculosis,H1N1<br />and so on , surely, he would intervene.<br />These bacteria and viruses have evolved from a struggle against man made medicine.<br />A harmful organism like that should in your world not exist because it would threaten his most valued creation.<br />Yet, they do exist and prey on the most weak of us all (infants , elderly , infirm,...) those of us who can not fend for themselves.<br />It seems like abiogenesis can to certain degree be proven , there have been amino-acids made from base chemicals during the Miller-Urey experiment.<br />And humans themselves have evolved , although not so drastically, in the dark ages ( when religion was king.:).) life expectancy was 30 to 40 years , <br />with our environment becoming less harsh and better care for our health it has been boosted to 70-90 years.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01346738612668539438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2661625705662352132011-04-22T12:59:56.222-07:002011-04-22T12:59:56.222-07:00Rosemary, the Blogger system is indeed squirrelly....Rosemary, the Blogger system is indeed squirrelly. It has all sorts of quirks with posting and answering in the comments section. In fact, even though I write the blog, I don't like trying to have a real conversation in the comments section. But I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments and continued discussions here. And for the most part, I've been quite happy to see the level of civility remain pretty good (given how often these things degenerate) through this long exchange with Martin. <br /><br />Matt McCormickMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25927957108040162222011-04-22T11:22:54.603-07:002011-04-22T11:22:54.603-07:00@Matt
Keep learning :-)@Matt<br />Keep learning :-)Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-13471511004783796212011-04-22T07:49:58.056-07:002011-04-22T07:49:58.056-07:00I am not the blog writer, although we share the fi...I am not the blog writer, although we share the first name. He often signs with "MM" or something similar. Sorry for the confusion.<br /><br />I'm just a student who goes to school and, y'know, learns stuff. :PMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068629169998511865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-70480141034704431402011-04-22T03:18:35.029-07:002011-04-22T03:18:35.029-07:00Rosemary, the blogger commenting system is a littl...Rosemary, the blogger commenting system is a little strange - I've had similar experiences on other blogger sites.<br /><br />When comments are deleted there is a "placeholder" comment left, saying that it had been deleted (by the author or administrator, for example).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11225263183302069752011-04-22T00:06:42.245-07:002011-04-22T00:06:42.245-07:00@Matt
I don't know about that. I've lear...@Matt<br /><br />I don't know about that. I've learnt a lot about abiogenesis :-)<br /><br />BTW, are you deleting selected posts or is Blogger eating them? I've lost several, and so, it seems, has Havok. I don't want to upload them again if you have censored them.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62028442581000726122011-04-21T20:48:20.647-07:002011-04-21T20:48:20.647-07:0053 comments later, nothing has changed. Surprised...53 comments later, nothing has changed. Surprised?<br /><br />-I'm not.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068629169998511865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78875749204126817782011-04-21T09:51:19.603-07:002011-04-21T09:51:19.603-07:00No, Martin, I am not doing research in abiogenesis...No, Martin, I am not doing research in abiogenesis and Yes, Martin, any opinion I were to express on the veracity of the work would be from a lay person’s perspective. But I am not offering opinions of this nature. What I am doing is summarizing the research in lay language. <br /><br />I understand enough of the relevant science, enough about research skills and techniques, enough about critical thinking and enough about professional level teaching to be able to do that relatively successfully. I have had plenty of experience writing lab reports and papers that require that relevant preceding research, both pro and con, be accurately and objectively summarized before proceeding with any work of my own. That is, I am used to looking at both sides of every question critically and objectively. <br /><br />Since I do this kind of thing better than you at this point in your education, that gives my summary of the current research more credibility than your doctrinally-biased regurgitation of what non-experts have told you, don’t you think? Obviously, if an expert in abiogenesis were to visit this site and tell you that I did not have it quite right then you should listen to him or her in preference to me. <br /><br />At the moment you are a sitting duck for the misinformation put out by the likes of Michael Behe. Behe and his ilk are entrepreneurial con-artists. They bank on the hope that the members of their audience have less science education than they, and no inclination or ability to check their statements of “fact”. They thrive on the average Faith Patsy who desperately wants an authoritative sounding reason for believing what is otherwise unsupportable. Remember that one of them is in jail for fraud and another was held in legal contempt for lying to a judge in a court of law on the subject of “intelligent design”. Don’t you think that it’s time to stop being a willing victim of their bid for power?Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46732413915142236602011-04-21T09:47:49.641-07:002011-04-21T09:47:49.641-07:00Martin,
I directed you to a layman’s summary of t...Martin,<br /><br />I directed you to a layman’s summary of the latest research on biogenesis in my very first post. Check back.<br /><br />You don’t have sufficient science background to understand original papers. They require a professional level knowledge of biochemistry. <br /><br />The TalkOrigins site is an excellent place to start. Follow all of its links. It will take you a couple of days to work through it all but you will stop asking silly questions after that. <br /><br />One of the episodes in Morgan Freedman’s excellent” Through the Wormhole” series gave a fairly good lay person’s summary of the elements of abiogenesis research. You might also find other episodes in this series enlightening. See if you can track down a copy of the set. <br /><br />If you haven’t seen Julia Child’s kitchen video which includes the recipe for Primordial Soup, then I suggest you watch it. You will find it here.<br />http://www.holycow.com/mel/2009/09/23/cooking-primordial-soup-with-julia-child-and-other-stories/<br /><br />The following link takes you to a serious of videos on the topic. This first one is a little complex but it’s constantly attacked by Creationist sites so it is presumably saying something that Creationists don’t want people to know. It needs British Year 10 level chemistry (GCSE) to understand it easily. (Unfortunately that translates as a U.S. college level minor in chemistry from an Ivy League school). http://wn.com/How_Abiogenesis_Works<br /><br /><br />Everyone working in the field of abiogenesis is concerned with discovering how life began as the result of random events directed by environmentally ordered natural selection. No-one is doing any more “directing” than would happen in the natural world of that time. <br /><br />The aim of abiogenetics is to artificially reproduce an environment that represents one that existed at the time life was thought to commence and then introduce chemicals that form the building blocks of simple life. There have been huge advances in the field over the last twenty years. <br /><br />The experts now have colonies of self-replicating chemicals that can copy RNA, the precursor to DNA. Other scientists have discovered how other steps in the sequence work, such as the crucial development of a cell wall to keep things together and how self-replicating molecules attract other self-replicating molecules.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58259973011454712011-04-21T07:44:24.734-07:002011-04-21T07:44:24.734-07:00And, I do hate to harp on about this, but you stil...And, I do hate to harp on about this, but you still have not provided even an outline of your own position.<br />Since you've not shown abiogenesis impossible nor implausible, and it is in line with existing science, and you're yet to offer any alternative hypothesis, I guess we ought to accept a natural origin for life, no? :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-43333690893703081182011-04-21T07:40:46.045-07:002011-04-21T07:40:46.045-07:00Sorry to mention it yet again, Martin, but serious...Sorry to mention it yet again, Martin, but seriously, a little sentence and paragraph structure wouldn't kill you.<br />If you're going to splat your thoughts onto a page, you might as well try translate it from "Martin Speak"<br /><br /><b>Martin: every expert in abiogensis is an intelegent person working in his/her given field can you please<br />forward me any information of any person`s working in the field of random not directed processes,</b><br />Apart from what you've been directed towards, you always have google ;-)<br /><br /><b>Martin: I assume a random not directed , non designed orgin of life</b><br />No, you assume a designed origin of life, but you're yet to provide ANY justification for such an assumption.<br /><br /><b>Martin: if not then your view of the results of this work is no more valid than mine</b><br />Martin, you're views are, thus far, illogical and irrational. If you would care to provide <i>alternative</i> views, you're more than welcome to.<br /><br /><b>Martin: so are you an expert in abiogensis?.Martin: I am not an expert in languages and if you are not either, then neither of our opinions mean anything in regard to this do they.</b><br />And again you are presenting a completely ridiculous caricature of modern evolutionary theory - I thought you knew aprobably lot about the science here.<br /><br /><b>Martin: i typeD in in to google and just got talk origins site it this upto date or should I be looking elsewhere</b><br />I hate to talk for someone else, but it's probably a decent place to start. Of course, you may need to shed the ideological blinders you seem to be wearing - it looks like they obscure a large part of reality.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-28856330875867031322011-04-21T04:25:43.662-07:002011-04-21T04:25:43.662-07:00sorry Berry one more thing please direct me to the...sorry Berry one more thing please direct me to the latest upto date work on abogensis, i typeD in in to google and just got talk origins site it this upto date or should I be looking elsewhereUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01944650763710809237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47335192907061538362011-04-21T04:15:43.294-07:002011-04-21T04:15:43.294-07:00since you used the language analagy
if you wished ...since you used the language analagy<br />if you wished to translate a book from english to japanese given as long a time as you want which method would you chose , random non directed coping mistakes , then hope these mistakes would be selected , or deliberate ,directed,<br />intelegent,translators, I know by obseveration, experimentation etc<br />which would be most sucessful.<br />I am not an expert in languages and if you are not either, then neither of our opinions mean anything in regard to this do they.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01944650763710809237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44097764014272500482011-04-21T03:55:01.777-07:002011-04-21T03:55:01.777-07:00so I dont understand science maybe you can enlight...so I dont understand science maybe you can enlighten me , every expert in abiogensis is an intelegent person working in his/her given field can you please<br />forward me any information of any person`s working in the field of random not directed processes,<br />that come up with the same results as that is what we are discussing here, I assume a random not directed , non designed orgin of life.Also are you doing research work in the field work of abiogenesis if not then your view of the results of this work is no more valid than mine and certainly less valid than the list of names you have said are not experts in the field, so are you an expert in abiogensis?.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01944650763710809237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6353265929255673452011-04-20T22:34:01.024-07:002011-04-20T22:34:01.024-07:00THE LANGUAGE ANALOGY
The evolution of languages i...THE LANGUAGE ANALOGY<br /><br />The evolution of languages is a good parallel to the evolution of plants and animals. <br /><br />American English, with all its variants, is derived from British English, with all its variants. American English diverged because of prolonged geographic isolation from its source. British English continued to survive, and to develop along different lines. If the world had not invented a plethora of language media the two variants would have eventually become entirely different languages. <br /><br />British English continues to exist in the presence of its various offshoots (American, Australian, South African, Indian, Singaporean, New Zealander), all of which have distinctive differences and several of which are sufficiently dissimilar to have different grammatical rules, different dictionaries and even agreements among publishing firms to translate one into the other before selling it. Did you know that American English must be translated into British English before being sold in any bookstore in the countries of the British Commonwealth? <br /><br />If you understand how British English can exist in the presence of its linguistic descendants, then you have no reason to ask why bacteria, crocodiles and fish exist in the presence of the species that branched off from them. <br /><br /><br />In Europe the very similar Romance languages of Italian, Spanish and Portuguese all descended from the Roman language, Latin. Latin has since died out but its descendants survive. <br /><br />Linguists can tell how languages developed from one into another on the basis of the linguistic similarities and differences. This is supplemented by written and aural history, archeological findings and knowledge of human migration paths. <br /><br />These Romance languages are like the Ape family (which includes monkeys, great apes, and humans), all of which descended from a common ancestor that no longer exists. <br /><br />Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are so similar that a native speaker of one can understand the native speaker of another, although neither speaks or writes the other language. Likewise, the genetic structures of members of the Ape family have strong similarities. <br /><br />Just as the internal structure of similar languages can be used to determine how and when they branched from one another, genetic information can show how animals and plant species branched in the course of their developmental history. As with languages, determining the derivation of different species can be assisted by reference to external things such as fossil records, the distribution of blood types throughout the world, animal migration paths, weather patterns and a whole lot of other apparently unrelated things. <br /><br />If you can understand how Italian, Spanish and Portuguese continue to exist while Latin does not then you should be able to understand how humans, gibbons, monkeys, apes and baboons exist in the absence of their common ancestor. <br /><br /><br />CROCADUCKS AND JAP-LISH.<br /><br />If you can understand why English is not going to suddenly change into Japanese or combine into Jap-lish then you can understand why tadpoles are not going to grow into frogs that have wings. This is not a perfect analogy as it is possible for elements of English to influence Japanese and vice versa. As far as the products of species development is concerned, the origins of the combinants are so different that they are incompatible. If crocaducks existed they would destroy the current theory of evolution.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77898699849128523122011-04-20T22:29:30.363-07:002011-04-20T22:29:30.363-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-34844215421262361582011-04-20T22:28:18.406-07:002011-04-20T22:28:18.406-07:00THE MECHANISMS OF SPECIATION.
Martin wrote: “bac...THE MECHANISMS OF SPECIATION.<br /><br /><b>Martin wrote: “bacteria have been more or less stable for a billion years, so it has gone through a billion years of mutation and natural selection and its still bacteria so no upward evolutionary change, just adaptavive changes.” </b><br /><br />It normally takes millennia to develop a species that looks noticeably different from its ancestors. It also requires that the new group be geographically isolated from the parent group until their genetic code is sufficiently different to prevent viable breeding between the two groups. After speciation has occurred the parent group may die out or, as it usually the case, continue in parallel with its progeny. This is why bacteria still exist as a species but so do all the other species which developed from them.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79153268080413361562011-04-20T22:14:57.065-07:002011-04-20T22:14:57.065-07:00Martin wrote: “The plasmids you say were a produc...<b>Martin wrote: “The plasmids you say were a product of driving evolution , how is it that bodies were discovered and the bacteria in those bodies were found to contain plasmids which were resistant to penicilin and these bodies preceeded penicilin by 100 years so why would they develop this resistance maybe they forsaw the coming of penicilin.” </b><br /><br />A five minute web search makes it plain that you have no idea what a plasmid is, how it operates or why your rhetorical questions are as funny and as indicative of ignorance as a child asking an adult why he has never met any of his sexual relations. <br /><br />Let me explain what I discovered.<br /><br />A plasmid is a loose piece of DNA that replicates within a cell independently of the chromosomal DNA. Plasmids are able to insert themselves into chromosomes in regions where there is a common sequence of nucleotides. Because of this property, and the relative ease with which they can be cloned and mutated, they are used in recombinant DNA research to transfer genetic material between cells. Plasmids are important in certain bacteria since they code for proteins, especially enzymes. This means that mutations can confer resistance to antibiotics.<br /><br />In other words, plasmids are free-floating genetic material that mutate just like chromosomal genes. That means that the existence of these objects prior to the invention of penicillin does not mean that cells containing them have always been resistant to penicillin. That is ludicrous. <br /><br />It is possible that some ancient bacteria had plasmids that contained code that made them slightly resistant to penicillin compared with other bacteria. However, without the presence of penicillin any mutations that could offer such an advantage would have been naturally de-selected from the DNA pool. At the very least they would have become as rare as the gene mutation that confers resistance to the AIDS virus. <br /><br />All that is required to start the process of selection is a change in environment and one or more mutations that give an organism a slight advantage over the others in this milieu. Reproductive selection will then shape the colony towards solid adaptation to the new environment (or threat). With fast replicating things like bacteria you can see this evolutionary goal fulfilled in a remarkably short time.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-65118077457458188122011-04-20T22:03:29.345-07:002011-04-20T22:03:29.345-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61721485655006067982011-04-20T22:00:18.099-07:002011-04-20T22:00:18.099-07:00Martin wrote: “you mock me and thats ok”
Since ...<b>Martin wrote: “you mock me and thats ok” </b><br /><br />Since you have twice mentioned mocking you are obviously not O.K. with it. Unfortunately you take no responsibility for the behavior that causes it. <br /><br />You set yourself up for ridicule every time you insinuate that you understand what scientists working in a specialized area are talking about and then compound this by implying that you understand their area so well that you can see flaws in it that they cannot. If that were really the case then you would have published several peer-reviewed papers on the subject by now. You would also be a lot more humble about the extent of your knowledge and your level of certainty. Instead, you are claiming a superiority to which you are clearly not entitled.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-70770888628933280472011-04-20T21:52:37.377-07:002011-04-20T21:52:37.377-07:00Thanks for that Rosemary - you're far more tho...Thanks for that Rosemary - you're far more thorough than I :-)<br /><br />Martin, I had assumed that most of the comments were, as Rosemary pointed out, from non-experts, and were directed specifically at the question "How did life arise on Earth a few billion years ago?", a question which, due to the evidence no longer existing, is likely impossible to answer with great confidence.<br /><br />Abiogenesis research, from what I understand, is focussed on the far more general question of "How <i>could</i> life, such as we find on Earth, occur?".<br />At present there seem to be a number of promising and plausible pathways from chemistry to biology, which are being investigated - it's not as if there is only a single hypothesis or cluster of hypothesis available, and it/they have completely failed, it's that there are a number of avenues to pursue, and each step is difficult (like science in general, I suppose).<br /><br />If we find multiple paths life may have taken, we may be able to give a higher probability to one over the others.<br />If we can discover only a single path, then we would say it is most probable, since it will be all we have to go on.<br />If we can discover no pathways, then we will have to accept that it is simply an unknown (note: You don't get to insert "God" as a default, as I've mentioned a number of times).<br /><br />As I said much earlier in the thread, you dismiss an entire area of research on the basis that it hasn't provided solid explanations yet, without regard to the fact that research continues apace, pieces of the puzzle are being found and fitted together, and there is no reason to think the task impossible.<br /><br />To establish your own claim, that the Christian God did it, you would need to provide your own competing hypothesis, and it would need to beat out the "opposition".<br />Regardless of how much time is spent finding a natural explanation for abiogenesis, we simply cannot rest on the unproven assumption of "God did it".<br /><br />So, as I've requested repeatedly, please present some of the <i>positive</i> evidence in favour of your position(s).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50644891362807073662011-04-20T20:02:16.677-07:002011-04-20T20:02:16.677-07:00Martin,
You asked why we ignored your unreference...Martin, <br />You asked why we ignored your unreferenced “quotations” from several scientists who have made comments or expressed opinions relating to evolution, genetics and abiogenesis. You got the short answer from Havok. Here is the long one.<br /><br />Pierre Paul Grasse (1895-1985) was a French Zoologist. He studied medicine and entomology and specialized in human anatomy amd insects, notably termites. He was not specialized in evolutionary biology, genetics, or abiogenesis so his opinions do not carry much weight in those areas.<br /><br />Francis Crick (1916-2004) Molecular biologist, biophysicist, neuroscientist. In his view Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life. He believed it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction. <br /><br />He predicted that erroneous Christian concepts about the nature of humans and the world, such as traditional notions of a “soul”, would no longer be tenable when the workings of the brain became better understood and that such concepts would be replaced by an understanding of the physical basis of mind. According to him, the idea that a non-material soul could enter a body and then persist after death is purely an imaginary..<br /><br />His speculative panspermia hypothesis has not attracted much of a following among reputable scientists. Crick was not an expert in abiogenetics so his un-evidenced speculations do not count for much. <br /><br />Sherwood Chang is a retired exobiologist with training in physical organic chemistry. He is not involved in cutting edge research in abiogenesis but could be expected to understand it. However, any statement he made during his working years will be outdated by now. <br /><br />If Paul Davis is a physicist then he has no legitimate authority in the fields of abiogenesis, genetics or biology. They are well outside his area of expertise. He is quite unlikely to be in a position to understand these fields or to know key researchers working in them.<br /><br />If Ken Nealson is a geobiologist then he explores interactions between the biosphere, the lithosphere and the atmosphere. That means that he is not an expert in abiogenesis.<br /><br />Professor Richard Dawkins is a biologist but not an expert in abiogenetics. We cited the most up to date evidence in abiogenesis but I don’t think you understood what had been achieved or its significance.Rosemary LYNDALL WEMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750975392518510362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-24007472663300755852011-04-20T04:34:54.720-07:002011-04-20T04:34:54.720-07:00Martin, you made these claims:
bacteria became res...Martin, you made these claims:<br /><i>bacteria became resistant to penicilin due to a section of their genes called plasmids.It does not prove anything re evolution.</i><br />and<br /><i>Havoc a recombination of existing bacteria parts to allow it to metabolise citrate is not conformation of new genetic material, its just an organism developing a new trait it does not even say that this trait was not always a posibility just like bacteria and penicilin .</i><br /><br />I'd like you to justify these claims, and demonstrate that the penicillin resistance and ability to metabolise citrate were already present in the genomes of these organisms prior to the experiments. If you can't then these claims are just so much hot air (especially as your own claims seem to be clearly contradicted by the experiments themselves).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52692667323018197622011-04-20T00:59:10.564-07:002011-04-20T00:59:10.564-07:00The plasmids you say were a product of driving evo...The plasmids you say were a product of driving evolution , how is it that bodies were discovered and the bacteria in those bodies were found to contain plasmids which were resistant to penicilin and these bodies preceeded penicilin by 100 years so why would<br />they develop this resistance maybe they forsaw the coming of penicilin.<br />And its funny as piere paul grasse said evolutionists do so much work on bacteria to prove evolution ,but bacteria have been more or less stable for a billion years, so it has gone through a billion years of mutation and natural selection and its still bacteria so no upward evolutionary change, just adaptavive changes.<br />And you mock me and thats ok but the names I mentioned in an earlier post are bona fida scientists but you just ignored their comments , maybe these guys are misguided or then again maybe they are being honest and dont have a vested interest in needing research funds to justify their jobs , but no scientist would over do the favorable evidence and play down the negative on his research they are far to honest for that, ha ha.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01944650763710809237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2868985839075408132011-04-19T20:51:28.747-07:002011-04-19T20:51:28.747-07:00The order of my last 3 posts is messed up - the mo...The order of my last 3 posts is messed up - the most recent is actually the second.<br /><br />Stupid blogger! :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.com