Defining what can and cannot be a new species is not a trivial affair, but generally one can say that species can't interbreed. Anyway I've seen the "ALWAYS achieved by deletion or disabling" claim before and I've also seen it debunked. I.e. added/enabled instead of just deletion/disabled.
OK, I guess you at least read the Wikipedia section about "creationists' misuse of the term", but you still miss the point. In order for any morphological feature to "evolve", there have to be a large number of new genes that simultaneously created. Horizontal transfers will not do this (because you only transfer pre-existing genes) regardless of whether you're talking about "millions of years ago" or last year.
Moreover, resistance to diseases, etc is ALWAYS achieved by deletion or disabling of a pre-existing gene. eg, resistance to sickel cell anemia; genetic defects in the genes responsible for the structural integrity of red blood cells. Same deal for so-called new speciation of insects. What complicates "speciation" is that especially for bacteria and insects, there is no absolute definition for "species", which is an issue that we deal with constantly in my laboratory. Sometimes, you have to distinguish species based on morphology while for some organisms, it's the 16S RNA sequences that determine different species, which is not a black and white procedure at all (ie you have to make call like 95.0% similarity in 16S RNA is a different strain of the same species, but 94.9% is a different species, etc).
I think you're confusion macro-evolution with punctuated equilibrium, which would be like going from NY to LA in one step. Ironically, many modern evolutionists have resorted to PE b/c of evidence against the traditional gradual evolution theory.
What you're talking about is properly called horizontal gene transfer and this can result in gaining a gene or two (ie a protein or two) at a time. However, these are already existing genes. They will not result in, for example, morphologically new features in the organism, which is what "macro-evolution" refers to. Do your home work before emotionally "attack" people.
Denying evolution at this stage simply shows that one is not educated in any of the sciences.
Wow.
I have a PhD in Medicinal/Organic Chemistry from UCSD and I thoroughly disagree with theory of common descent and macro-evolution. What's your credential?
If you don't believe in evolution, then you throw out everything we know about genetics and inheritance. I expect you will then decline any medical treatments that have been discovered through our knowledge of evolution and genetics.
The reason why you have this delusion is because "macro" evolutionists have encouraged people to interpret genetics in the context of macro-evolution. If you take those bias glasses off, there is nothing in genetics that point to macro-evolution what-so-ever. Please name one medical advancement that resulted from the theories of macro-evolution and common descent.
It is news like this that gives evangelical Christians a bad rep. I suppose that these Brazilian Christians were thinking about the "mark of the beast" in the book of Revelation, in which it states that in the Great Tribulation, only those with the mark of the beast can participate in commerce and those who refuse to have the mark of the beast (newly converted Jewish believers) will be persecuted by the society because they can't buy or sell anything. There is nothing in the Scriptures about Satan having a trident thingy or that he is red or anything like that. In fact, it says that he can appear as an angel of light that appears righteous, etc. But nothing about the stereotypical evil look.
maybe if you take out any isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen.
Please review your chemistry textbook! The molecular weight takes into account the percentage of other isotopes that occur naturally for each element. So need to "take out any isotopes".
H2O is known to weigh 1000 g/L at 4oC with the current metric system.
So if we define 1 kg = 1L of water at 4oC at 1 atm, or 55.50843 mols of water, anybody anywhere in the world can have the precise and accurate standardization for kg.
Slashdot Mirror
Defining what can and cannot be a new species is not a trivial affair, but generally one can say that species can't interbreed. Anyway I've seen the "ALWAYS achieved by deletion or disabling" claim before and I've also seen it debunked. I.e. added/enabled instead of just deletion/disabled.
Name one example
OK, I guess you at least read the Wikipedia section about "creationists' misuse of the term", but you still miss the point. In order for any morphological feature to "evolve", there have to be a large number of new genes that simultaneously created. Horizontal transfers will not do this (because you only transfer pre-existing genes) regardless of whether you're talking about "millions of years ago" or last year. Moreover, resistance to diseases, etc is ALWAYS achieved by deletion or disabling of a pre-existing gene. eg, resistance to sickel cell anemia; genetic defects in the genes responsible for the structural integrity of red blood cells. Same deal for so-called new speciation of insects. What complicates "speciation" is that especially for bacteria and insects, there is no absolute definition for "species", which is an issue that we deal with constantly in my laboratory. Sometimes, you have to distinguish species based on morphology while for some organisms, it's the 16S RNA sequences that determine different species, which is not a black and white procedure at all (ie you have to make call like 95.0% similarity in 16S RNA is a different strain of the same species, but 94.9% is a different species, etc).
I think you're confusion macro-evolution with punctuated equilibrium, which would be like going from NY to LA in one step. Ironically, many modern evolutionists have resorted to PE b/c of evidence against the traditional gradual evolution theory. What you're talking about is properly called horizontal gene transfer and this can result in gaining a gene or two (ie a protein or two) at a time. However, these are already existing genes. They will not result in, for example, morphologically new features in the organism, which is what "macro-evolution" refers to. Do your home work before emotionally "attack" people.
I know you can't "verify" that this is my real name, but here's a link to my PhD thesis: http://roger.ucsd.edu/search/t?SEARCH=Organic%20synthesis%20as%20an%20effective%20approach%20to%20chemical,%20pharmaceutical,%20and%20biosynthetic%20investigations%20of%20natural%20products&searchscope=9
Hey AC, Very well said. Thanks.
Argument from authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Exactly my point, sir.
Denying evolution at this stage simply shows that one is not educated in any of the sciences.
Wow. I have a PhD in Medicinal/Organic Chemistry from UCSD and I thoroughly disagree with theory of common descent and macro-evolution. What's your credential?
If you don't believe in evolution, then you throw out everything we know about genetics and inheritance. I expect you will then decline any medical treatments that have been discovered through our knowledge of evolution and genetics.
The reason why you have this delusion is because "macro" evolutionists have encouraged people to interpret genetics in the context of macro-evolution. If you take those bias glasses off, there is nothing in genetics that point to macro-evolution what-so-ever. Please name one medical advancement that resulted from the theories of macro-evolution and common descent.
Intelligence, please. Not just name calling
It is news like this that gives evangelical Christians a bad rep. I suppose that these Brazilian Christians were thinking about the "mark of the beast" in the book of Revelation, in which it states that in the Great Tribulation, only those with the mark of the beast can participate in commerce and those who refuse to have the mark of the beast (newly converted Jewish believers) will be persecuted by the society because they can't buy or sell anything. There is nothing in the Scriptures about Satan having a trident thingy or that he is red or anything like that. In fact, it says that he can appear as an angel of light that appears righteous, etc. But nothing about the stereotypical evil look.
temperature is a bit tricky to measure precisely, it's really a measure of the average movement of the molecules.
It is very easy to measure the temperature VERY accurately. For instance, you can buy this low-end thermometer https://www.vwrsp.com/catalog/product/index.cgi?catalog_number=61220-670&inE=1&highlight=61220-670
maybe if you take out any isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen.
Please review your chemistry textbook! The molecular weight takes into account the percentage of other isotopes that occur naturally for each element. So need to "take out any isotopes".
H2O is known to weigh 1000 g/L at 4oC with the current metric system. So if we define 1 kg = 1L of water at 4oC at 1 atm, or 55.50843 mols of water, anybody anywhere in the world can have the precise and accurate standardization for kg.
Why is this tagged technology??? Because of the "resistant" strain?
"A lazy man buries his hand in the bowl, And will not so much as bring it to his mouth again. " Proverbs 19:24