Atheism

Pahu has no point. Pastes these things and vanishes until the next time.

Like a drive-by shooting

Or drive-by wanking.

Natural Selection 2


Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more (d), or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).

b. “[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.

c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.

d. Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-Natural Selection,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76–83.

e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,” Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed]

I know I shouldn't feed the troll but that is just hilarious. Humans evolved on the plains without exposure to staircases, but they can still walk up them. The idea that any that bacteria only develops traits in response to exposure to antibiotics is frankly hilarious. Thanks!

Gotta laugh along with you, h. I sometimes wonder if a poster such as Pahu isn't being purposely funny, to make ridiculous the cause he claims to defend.

I think Pahu brings some interesting points up which is more than can be said for those asserting to the contrary and inventing their own childish justifications.

Apropos of nothing - just came across this in a quote database I've been building for ever:

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

I used to read Russell quite a bit. I don't recall that specific quote, but it does sound like him.

I've just realised that I would never paste that quote into my facebook page (friends, family and work colleagues), so as not to hurt the feelings of any who might be religious. Oddly I don't actually know whether any are religious or not...

That's just ordinary consideration, and i for one applaud you for it. I don't ever lie about or attempt to conceal my lack of belief, but i don't rub people's nose in it, or try to bring anyone down with it, either.

This is just incorrect. Were you to take a dispassionate look at the variation between the human and chimp genes. The fusing of human chromosome 2 is a mirror and conjoining of chimp chromosomes 1 and 2. They have developed new telomeres and centromeres . Several thousand experiments in tracking genes (like those in the "ice fish" show that entirely new suites of genes have developed in the parent fishs genome. ALL this was merely as an adaptive response to a lwering water temperature in post glacial times.
Entire newsequences of genes that result from a populations exposure to new environments is recorded as cyclic mutations on the genome. There is an entire industry devoted to interpreting how humans migrated from their point (s) of origin to their "final destinations" All this is based upon new genes. Whether you agree with the development of "human phylogenetic trees " or not, its indisputable that new genes are inserted into our(And presumably all organisms) genomes through time


The ptterns of acquired immunity is a perfect example of evolution at the somatic level. Pesticides are initially effective at killing >99% of the insect population (no one disputes that the original effectiveness of most pesticides is high).
Then, due to the very mechanisms , a very low pwercentage of the species will respond with some acquired immunity. Whether its transferred via a rapid mutation or by acquiring another genome (say from a bacteria), the mechanism os one of gradual rise of an acquired immunity. The newly immune memebers of the speies gradually transfer this "advantage" to new generations. The rise of immunity to pesticides like DDT are a very good example of how immunity becomes acquired and translated .(With associated genomic markers)


, Let us not ignore the fact that most evolution is ADAPTIVE. ADAPTATION is a creative force. The fossil record is a history book of failed emembers of paleospecies . These failed members are a great record of the "trial and error" way that evolution works



Stephen Gould is dead and is no l,onger in charge of spouting phrases that are picked up by Creationists and "quote mined" out of context. The very quote youve presented is one that is familioar with the Quote Mining school of Creationism. Gould ws talking about how adaptation and Punctuated equilibrium are mechanisms that, in his mind (and other scientists) overshadow mere natural selection


You make it sound like bacteria and their resistance were not present until the 1940's. Kinda silly PAHU. The first antibioptics were developed in response to existing bacteria and rickettsia. The growth of penicillium was the DISCOVERY opf a mold that was already in the atmosphere. Its properties were developed by concentrating the penicillia and deriving the antibiotic. The fact that immuno bacteria were found in bodies from the Franklin expedition is only testimony of the cosmopolitan nature of these disease bacteria and our own means of acquiring immunity. Disease bacteria go back to our cave ancestors..


The mechanism of developing and transferring immunity IS a pwrfect example of evolution. Its rather disengenuous to claim that all immunity was already in a species genome. For example, pyrethrins, found to be effective in specific cases of insect control, are developed from flowers. It had been recognized that marigolds were effective at deterring insect larvae and worms, pyrethrins were merely a chemical isolate from these flowers. Apparently the flower had , in its evolution, developed a deterrent to insect damage and all we did was exploit this trait.
As far as chlorophosphate or organochlorine pesticides, they all have a period of initial effectiveness, which, may be 99.999%. That 0.0001 % that arent affected (by several means that youve identified above) can develop quickly due to insects rapid breeding rates. The small number of immune individuals then merely expand their numbers and the population that results, is almost 99% immune. This has been the experience that weve kearned with DDT and many other pesticides. Acquired immunity supports evolution, it doesnt refute it.

It had not ocurred to me to consider that line as anything more than a throwaway. I think the point it makes veers to trolling.

re - B Russell

Apropos equally of nothing, there is a lot in the Gospels about humility.

Bummer about the Gospels' priorities, then.

Beware fm of le vertige des grandes profondeurs. Do not allow yourself to become inebriated with the fatal enchantment which even the medieval scholasticism was acutely aware of as secondary interpretations of the primal threatened to skitter out of control as exegesis fed on exegesis and waxed fat.
Do not remove the helmet provided for you by that giant Ponzi scheme which is American higher education where the investor never needs to see that his investment is worthless because there is an endless supply of suckers for him to tempt into the base of the pyramaid, the result of fornications, and, so far, no audit. And where such things as--



can so easily be made to pass without uncontrolled mirth when presented by po-faced presbyters to those who await, listening rapt and agog, the approval, and a ticket, tricked up out of wood pulp and ink vats, to a world of "no work", reinforced, with a funny hat, a gown rendering our adaptive capacity to run from predators nullified, a video and rounds of faked applause. (That'll be fifty grand mate and cheap at twice the price).

What you described is no different than the grading system for crusher-run in a quarry. Your brilliantine vocabulary might impress some folks but it has no effect on me.

Unfortunately, religious adherence is no guarantee that the adherent will be humble; nor does the lack of religious adherence prevent an idividual from practicing humility.

And even that implies the charitable concession that humilty is a good thing. Personally, I prefer proud and assertive people over the humble ones any time.

Practicing humility is not the same as feeling it. The former in the non-religious is a strategy, possibly aggressive. The latter is neurotic.

So do I. It is honest. Although when the pride is unjustified it is ridiculous. A touchdown is okay.