Quote:

In order to decide whether it's selection or mutation, you need to analyze the modified parts of the DNA.



That's why that site is kind of a sham. They just see results and assume its evolution without studying what's happening on the genetic level. At least creationists will break it down on a genetic level (of course they only do this because they believe it disproves evolution, but more information is better than none even if you believe in evolution).

Quote:

Once you find the mechanisms for both low-temperature tolerance and high-temperature tolerance you know whether it's mutation or just selection.



That's my point about most of these supposed progressive mutations. If you can't show a creature mutating to evolve into an environment that it would NEVER have survived in in the first place, then isn't all of this conjecture rather moot? (Even if you can, its just a start). All of the examples on the site can easily be explained by simple variations already programmed in the original genetic material of the organism which natural selection just widdled down, if you will. To say that a creature can adapt to changing environments is to agree with creationists. To say that that e coli will ever become anything except e coli no matter how long you give it, is just conjecture and these 'good' mutations don't bring scientists any closer to an answer. I'll do another one below, they start getting much easier.

In my experience in learning from these 'good mutations' is that its usually much simpler than that. But since the author of that site seems to think the results speak for themselves, we'll never really know. Which sucks. I have enough faith that I'm right that I wouldn't hesitate to reveal the results (even if it contradicts what I believe, because I believe that some future knowledge might reveal something that changes it to evidence for my view, and I know in the overall picture this example can't disprove my entire hypothesis). He has enough faith in what he believes that he doesn't care to analyze or reveal the results. He's just ready to believe whatever it is that concurs with what he has to say, even if that means not actually discovering the depth of what's going on. Figures.

Quote:

I'm not going to come down on pro or anti God here, I just wanted to point out that “man's desire” to become healthy does have a measurable effect. Patients who “fight for life” have a greater chance of living then those who just give up or put it all in the hands of a “higher power” (fate, God, FSM, whatever).



I'm talking about outside the physical realm. For instance, one cure for depression may be to exercise. This causes a chemical change and can balance people out in certain cases more than just sitting there. I wouldn't actually call it a total cure. Anyway, this has nothing to do with prayer. If I don't do anything to change myself (like say not letting doctors operate on me) and just pray, that means I'm putting my will over the will of God. Or if I sit on my ass and wollow in self pity and the only thing I do is pray, why should God care? He gave us the natural ability (or even unnatural in the form of pills) to help ourselves. If we aren't willing to try, why should he?

I might as well tell God that he owes me a cure just because I asked for it. I just happen to disagree with that thinking, so when someone tells someone to stop taking medication, there should be a better reason than faith (because in essence I see this as different than just a simple matter of faith). I have faith that I can do all I can as a human, including asking through prayer, and allowing doctors to help me, to see me through serious injury. I have faith that God CAN heal me, but I don't believe its always in my best interest to be healed. But I also believe that when bad things happen that I don't like, they're not always bad and I know its not up to me to make that distinction. That's different than saying I can control God with prayer.

In my opinion, of course. I just realized, that we might be slightly off key from each other on exactly what's being discussed. I might be reading more into the original post than I should.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/13/06 23:04.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."