Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
Yea but all cells don't share this trait.
As for Bacteria, there are mutations in them but these have been shown not to be adaptive. For instance, the bacteria wasn't introduced to an anti-biotic for the mutation to occur. There were studies done that showed how mutations already existed in Bacteria for certain anti-biotics, 100 years before those bacteria were exposed to them.
There are a few processes other than Mutation, which Bacteria perform to get resistant to an anti-biotic.
There are things called 'Plasmids' inside bacteria. These carry codes for the bacterias survival. (Some of the enzymes in this assist in the breakdown of antibiotics and so you have at least one process by which bacteria grow immune to them.)
Any other process does not further the cause of "Macro Evolution" and so you can't use this mutation process to justify Evolution.
|
As I said before... I'm not a scientist.
But because some bacteria showed a resistance to certain anti-biotics long before they were invented doesn't mean anything. All it means is some bacteria have been resistant to antibiotics before they were invented.
And when these bacteria become resistant via the process you describe... what do you think happens when the bacteria reproduces? The genetic code of the cell changes so that it is resistant does it not?
Is this not evolution? The evolving of genetic code? I mean I don't know how you can make a distinction between micro and macro evolution based on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
Exactly, so you'd have to be at the end of a certain discovery to be entirely sure of something. We can never be sure of this with science.
For instance, Newton thought his theory on gravity was all that was, as did people who believed in it. Einstein came and gave us relativity and hence Curved space theory, giving us another theory to do with the gravitational pull. As we advance, so undoubtedly will these theories.
So if an individual is self correcting, that is fine. They however can not use science to be the infallible entity that so many people take it as.
|
Science is not an entity it's a field of study and a process. It certainly is a more reliable process than say... I don't know... reciting a dubious thousand year old document and taking it's word as truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
That is the thing, i've given these reasons already in the main Evolution thread and others.
Either way, it is hard not to mention religion when talking about Evolution, since it is the Crutch for most Atheists to use against most religions.
Lastly, it is faith in evolution because the so called evidence, is flawed.
|
Evolution is not necessary for an atheist to attack religion. All an atheist needs to do is to scrutinize religion itself. If it were allowed on here I'd do so but I'm not.
I'll say it again... if you applied just a fraction of the scrutiny which you apply to science in your lame attempt disprove the theory of evolution as you did to your own religion I'm quite confident that you'd be an atheist too. (Of course I expect you to deny this so no need to reply)