ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4156
Latest Activity: 4 hours ago

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

A Merry Newtonmas to You All on Atheist Nexus from Terry

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Dr. Terence Meaden 4 hours ago. 6 Replies

Fossilized rod and cone cells

Started by Patricia on Wednesday. 0 Replies

Pope Severely Criticizes Vatican Bureaucracy

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Joseph P on Tuesday. 3 Replies

The Bible is not Great by Soren Sagan

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by sk8eycat on Monday. 18 Replies

Ebola Spreads to U.S.

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Dec 19. 10 Replies

Organic Material Found on Mars

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Patricia Dec 17. 1 Reply

Pope Says Animals go to Heaven

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Lemual Poot Dec 17. 24 Replies

Alzheimer's Reversed in Mice

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Loren Miller Dec 14. 2 Replies

Pope Says Animals go to Heaven

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Plinius Dec 11. 2 Replies

42,000 Year Old Flute

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Jay Stride Dec 10. 2 Replies

540,000 Year Old Artwork

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Dr. Terence Meaden Dec 9. 15 Replies

Hawking Likes Film on His Life

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Grinning Cat Nov 29. 3 Replies

Very Ancient Sharks Teeth Found

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Joseph P Nov 29. 3 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 14, 2013 at 8:41pm
What evidence, Shaun? The burden of proof is on the upstart new hypothesis. And if it stands up to testing, it will become the new consensus. Or it will modify and be absorbed into the current one.
Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 14, 2013 at 8:37pm
Dorian, that is facinating! I love how, as we learn more about the microscopic world, how complex it shows itself to be. But it's still not an "intentional" thing.

Shaun, if by "majority," you mean those who have their view of evolutionary theory coloroed by pre conceived religious notions and skewed by misrepresntation by religious leaders, then yes. Yes, you do look like the majority.
Comment by Dorian Moises Mattar on September 14, 2013 at 8:36pm

Shaun are you stating that Darwin's Theory is wrong because most people don't understand it?

Seriously.  I guess Quantum Physics is wrong too...

Comment by Susan Stanko on September 14, 2013 at 8:33pm

So what you are saying, Shaun.  Is that the majority have no idea what evolution is?  Yeah, we know that already and we know why.  So what exactly is your point?

Comment by Shaun Johnston on September 14, 2013 at 8:32pm

Chad, when the evidence tells you a theory is wrong you don't  continue to assume it's true until an alternative is offered. If spaceships  going to the moon hadn't proved otherwise would you still insist it was made of green cheese, for want of proof it wasn't?

Comment by Dorian Moises Mattar on September 14, 2013 at 8:25pm

Chad, this article states that bacteria employes different tactics or adaptations to survive the antibiotics.

"Antibiotics stop working because bacteria come up with various ways of countering these actions, such as:

  • Preventing the antibiotic from getting to its target When you really don't want to see someone, you might find yourself doing things like hiding from them or avoiding their phone calls. Bacteria employ similar strategies to keep antibiotics at bay. One effective way to keep a drug from reaching its target is to prevent it from being taken up at all. Bacteria do this by changing the permeability of their membranes or by reducing the number of channels available for drugs to diffuse through. Another strategy is to create the molecular equivalent of a club bouncer to escort antibiotics out the door if it gets in. Some bacteria use energy from ATP to power pumps that shoot antibiotics out of the cell.
  • Changing the target Many antibiotics work by sticking to their target and preventing it from interacting with other molecules inside the cell. Some bacteria respond by changing the structure of the target (or even replacing it within another molecule altogether) so that the antibiotic can no longer recognize it or bind to it.
  • Destroying the antibiotic This tactic takes interfering with the antibiotic to an extreme. Rather than simply pushing the drug aside or setting up molecular blockades, some bacteria survive by neutralizing their enemy directly. For example, some kinds of bacteria produce enzymes called beta-lactamases that chew up penicillin.

How do bacteria pick up these drug-fighting habits? In some cases, they don't. Some bacteria are simply making use of their own inherent capabilities. However, there are many bacteria that didn't start out resistant to a particular antibiotic. Bacteria can acquire resistance by getting a copy of a gene encoding an altered protein or an enzyme like beta lactamase from other bacteria, even from those of a different species. There are a number of ways to get a resistance gene:

  • During transformation - in this process, akin to bacterial sex, microbes can join together and transfer DNA to each other.
  • On a small, circular, extrachromosomal piece of DNA, called a plasmid - one plasmid can encode resistance to many different antibiotics.
  • Through a transposon - transposons are "jumping genes," small pieces of DNA that can hop from DNA molecule to DNA molecule. Once in a chromosome or plasmid, they can be integrated stably.
  • By scavenging DNA remnants from degraded, dead bacteria."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-micros...

Comment by Shaun Johnston on September 14, 2013 at 8:25pm

I think controversial means, among most people, not limited to the consensus among those with specialist training.  I believe I represent the majority better than those of you who have responded to my comment so far. Do you think I'm wrong?

 It may be assuming too much but I fancy I offer you an opportunity to glimpse what puts the majority of people off darwinism.  But I detect little interest,

 I'll merely repeat, I think it's an error to say there's no controversy.  What there is is an unwillingness among those dedicated to darwinism to acknowledge the existence of controversy.

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 14, 2013 at 8:01pm
I'm starting to get a bad taste in my mouth here.

Okay, Shaun, I'll play your game. What do you as a "non believer" propose would be a better model?
Comment by Susan Stanko on September 14, 2013 at 8:00pm

It is controversial to you because, it obvious from your posts, that you have NO understanding of what evolution actually is.   Nor what determinism is.

Comment by Shaun Johnston on September 14, 2013 at 7:54pm

Joseph, I do not engage here in order to change your mind, only to   affirm that evolution is controversial.  By controversial I mean in general, among the majority that experience consciousness as different in kind from any form of matter and also that they have free will. To them l think "emergent  properties" would smack of an appeal to magical thinking.  I am myself among that majority. To me, darwinism is not the kind of theory likely to account for what I experience myself being. For us non-believers, darwinism (modern synthesis) remains controversial.

Can you see how reasonable it is for ordinary people to doubt the darwinian origin story -- random damage to the blueprint we're built on, followed by a 1-2%-efficient culling process of individuals?  It's just not convincing unless you place blind faith in population statistics and emergence.  We won't put our faith there just because an influential minority say so. That kind of blind deference to authority lead to witch trials and eugenics. Do you endorse such blind obedience?  Or should we think for ourselves? Perhaps you think, because we're determined, we can't think for ourselves.  But if we can't how can you? And if you can't, why should we pay you any attention?

The implications of darwinism are controversial.

 

Members (4156)

 
 
 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service