Corporate Christian Crusade

[Insurrectionist]

Nice attack on religion there Ferno It's abusive to teach religion?

Let's not get the message muddled here. "alternative viewpoints to evolution", "intelligent design" and all those other memes are only used to disuade from the fact that it's actually called CREATIONISM and trying to persuade people otherwise is just abusive.

Let's not get the message muddled here. So you try to persuade people in believing Evolution is true, could this not be just as abusive.

probably because they feel the need to try and control the thought process of other people.

I don't think schools teach you to think for yourselves anymore. What better way to control the thought process of others then teaching others that Evolution is true and not allowing any other theory to be taught.

[woodchip]

Insurrectionist, just what other \"theories\" are there that would explain geologic layering/radioactive decay/paleontology and insects in 100 million year old amber deposits without waving a magic wand? I'd be interested in reviewing it.

[Duper]

Woody, God didn't need a wand. He Spoke things into existence. Read your Bible.

And we go through this every 8 months.

Remember that science is supposed to make conclusions from data gathered. That is, an educated assumption. If data is incorrectly gathered, if it is misinterpreted. your conclusions will be wrong. The universe keeps getting \"younger\" as astronomers refine their measuring processes. Never assume that ideas in science are definitive. History has proved that we as finite critters have a knack for missing the mark.

[Ferno]

oh you have got to be kidding me. I'm not attacking religion insurrectionist. I'm trying to point out that it's being used as a tool to try and control people.

is your faith so shaky to think that you view any opposing viewpoints as an attack?


I don't even know where to start with your post because frankly, it doesn't even make any sense.


Do vocal religious people freak out over the theory of evolution? yes.

Do devout people try and scare the crap out of people in order to try and get them to believe in their religion? yes.

Are the \"intelligent design\" advocates trying to push their views into the classroom and onto impressionable children? YES.

The problem is, you are getting a scientific theory mixed up with a scientific HYPOTHESIS. You really should do yourself a favor and read up on exactly what a scientific theory is before making any further judgments and labeling others that 'they can't think for themselves'.

[CUDA]

The problem is, you are getting a scientific theory mixed up with a scientific HYPOTHESIS. You really should do yourself a favor and read up on exactly what a scientific theory is before making any further judgments and labeling others that 'they can't think for themselves'.

scientific theory

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

SO since they are teaching the theory of Evolution in school. what they are REALLY teaching is a class on the human imagination

[Insurrectionist]

oh you have got to be kidding me. I'm not attacking religion insurrectionist. I'm trying to point out that it's being used as a tool to try and control people.

is your faith so shaky to think that you view any opposing viewpoints as an attack?


I don't even know where to start with your post because frankly, it doesn't even make any sense.


Do vocal religious people freak out over the theory of evolution? yes.

Do devout people try and scare the crap out of people in order to try and get them to believe in their religion? yes.

Are the "intelligent design" advocates trying to push their views into the classroom and onto impressionable children? YES.

The problem is, you are getting a scientific theory mixed up with a scientific HYPOTHESIS. You really should do yourself a favor and read up on exactly what a scientific theory is before making any further judgments and labeling others that 'they can't think for themselves'.

Do Evolutionist freak out when you try push religion on them? yes

Do Evolutionist advocates trying to push their views into the classroom and onto impressionable children? Yes they have already

I didn't get scientific theory mixed up with a scientific Hypotheses. Evolution is just a theroy or is it.

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm

[Sergeant Thorne]

They just can't seem to be happy unless everyone is either a Christian or at least, follows those beliefs.

I almost laughed out loud! But you know that when someone is coerced into accepting something they don't believe, it's futile, and only amounts to control. If a person's mind and therefore their will is what someone is trying to change, there's nothing morally wrong with that. I don't ask that people's mind or will be changed beyond a certain point, however, before insisting on it, and that point is when what they're doing hurts me or mine.

By the way government funding of Christian-based schools should be just fine. You can still have your secular schools, if you want, but believe it or not there are a few Christians in this country and they pay taxes too.

[Kilarin]

By the way government funding of Christian-based schools should be just fine. You can still have your secular schools, if you want, but believe it or not there are a few Christians in this country and they pay taxes too.

VERY bad idea. I used to support the concept of "vouchers", but I've changed my mind.

My uncle-in-law ran a Christian school in Pakistan a long time ago. The government came along and said, "we are going to support ALL the schools, even the Christian schools. Here is some money, no strings attached"

My uncle refused to take the money. All of the other Christian schools DID take it, and told him he was a fool for not taking free money.

A few years later, the administration changed in Pakistan. The government came around and told all the Christian schools, "You have taken our money, that makes you a state school, and this is an Islamic state. We are shutting you down." My Uncle's school was the only one left operating.

Government money NEVER comes with "No Strings Attached". For a secular example, look at the bank bail-out. I work for a bank now, and I can tell you, our perspective was VERY different from what you heard in the news. Our bank didn't need the bail-out money, and didn't WANT the bail-out money. BUT, the fed basically locked our CEO (along with many others) in a room and said, "This bail-out won't work unless ALL the big banks take the money, so you WILL take it before you leave this room".

We took the money, "no strings attached", remember? Put it into a separate account and left it there, untouched, in hopes of limiting the damage. We were only partially succesfull.

It was only a few months before the government started pulling strings on that "no strings attached" money. The people got angry at AIG idiots and as a result, everyone at MY bank lost their raises and bonuses for that year. We tried to hire a new programmer and were told that there was a hiring freeze due to restrictions placed on recipients of the bail-out, BUT, we could still hire more offshore staff.

We tried to give BACK the money that we hadn't wanted in the first place, and the government didn't want to take it. We had to beg and plead and pass a series of "tests" before the government would finally let us pay it back.

Government money (and ANY money really), ALWAYS comes with strings attached. Church School's should NEVER accept government funding if they want to remain independent and free.

[Will Robinson]

A voucher isn't the government giving money to any school, it is the government giving back to the taxpayer the equivalent of his taxes that were paid to fund a school his child is no longer attending allowing that taxpayer to use the money to fund his child's education at another school.
If the government were to take back the voucher money it would be taking it from the taxpayer not the school and under your scenario that would mean the government was doing so because of the taxpayer religious belief. Selective application of the tax law....not constitutional....

[TechPro]

Ferno and Insurrectionist... Thank you both for helping to illustrate my point. Which is that neither side of the viewpoint (at this point in time) is able to come to an agreement regarding the level/amount/content of either topic, and are thus incapable of working out their differences.

That's why we'll never see the two concepts taught side-by-side.

And no, Ferno, I do NOT think that teaching \"teaching CREATIONISM beside actual science sabotages the entire teaching method\". It would be ideal if the teacher (or teachers if needed) could present the student with both concepts, allow the student's understanding to be tested ... and let the student decide what he/she want to personally believe. THAT is what freedom is all about.

By \"both concepts\" I mean the concept of evolution (Darwin's theory) and the concept of creationism. No need to teach the intricate details of all the variations of creationism, or the details of the variations of evolution concepts. Just the basic overall concepts. Anything deeper than that should be in separate specific classes/courses/schools/disciplines/whatever ... at the choice of the student (thus ensuring all concepts and understandings are presented in fairness and the student is allowed to explore each concept as much as he/she desires.

[flip]

I see what your saying Will but I got to agree with Kilarin on this one. It is whatever they say it is. The same reason I wouldn't support any type of state sponsored prayer at this point.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well, maybe I'm speaking too theoretically, Kilarin, because such a thing ought to work in America. It's our tax money, and they're our children, and if there's a string attached outside of basic performance requirements we ought to pull it until we reel in the person or entity attached to it and lock them away!

Thanks for relating your experience with the bank you work for. Very thought-provoking to hear an actually account. I don't know if you remember (or maybe it was on .com), but I was very much against Federal government manipulation of private institutions back when they started the shenanigans with AIG. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing was a play, and the public outcry was purposefully invoked. Very troubling.

[Bet51987]

.

[Lothar]

is your faith so shaky to think that you view any opposing viewpoints as an attack?

Yours seems to be.

[Kilarin]

A voucher isn't the government giving money to any school, it is the government giving back to the taxpayer the equivalent of his taxes that were paid to fund a school his child is no longer attending allowing that taxpayer to use the money to fund his child's education at another school.

In theory, yes. But it never works out that way.

Take, for example, Medicare/Medicaid. It's JUST an insurance program really. Government run, but just insurance. BUT, hospitals that take Medicare/Medicaid money find themselves facing increased government control. Several Christian hospitals were screaming bloody murder a few years back because government regulations were threatening to force them to provide benefits for same sex partners. What the Christian Hospitals were NOT telling everyone was that the regulation only applied to hospitals that took Medicare/Medicaid.

Thanks for relating your experience with the bank you work for.

Actually, I stopped too soon. The ultimate insult is that even though we didn't WANT the money. Even though we didn't USE the money. Even though we paid the money back, with interest, Obama is now planning to add a new penalty tax to big banks <link> <link> to punish us for having participated in the bail-out.

One of the most terrifying sentences ever spoken is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"

[Sergeant Thorne]

To understand? The children wouldn't understand a damn thing--they'd be confused, because all they would be exposed to is two different conclusions, and the only one that even begins to set forth the facts, for my money, is the creation museum (because it has to).

\"Now little johnny, are you going to believe what everyone else believes, or are you going to believe what those crazy Creationists told you?\"

Welcome to the world of public education, where the children are taught what to think at the expense of being taught how to think.

Must be great to be right by default.

Evolution is a guess, wrapped in a theory, veiled in \"science\", and defended to the death by the ignorant secular world. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Goodnight.

[Sergeant Thorne]

So let's get this straight, Kilarin. The government took our money... from international lenders, gave it to various financial organizations with a bunch of strings attached. During this time financial organizations tightened their lending, which hurt us. Now they're going after these organizations by imposing new taxes in order to \"get our money back for us\", which will cause them to pass these expenses on to us, and the result is that the government gets our money... back... for government spending (but since it more than likely won't stretch far enough, they'll barrow the difference).

Sounds to me like they essentially increased government spending while simultaneously increasing government control and taxation of financial (only financial?) institutions in America. Oh, and in the end we still get screwed.

...Where's my gun...

[Spidey]

Lol

Like I said before…

Noah said “ T-Rex…no fin way!!!”

I guess Noah disobeyed god and left poor Dino behind to drown. (and all the rest of them as well)

[TechPro]

Thank you, Thorne, nicely put. Students need to know how to think, instead of having the thinking done for them.

It would be ideal if the teacher (or teachers if needed) could present the student with both concepts, allow the student's understanding to be tested ... and let the student decide what he/she want to personally believe. THAT is what freedom is all about.

Hi Techpro,

What happens when the entire class visits a science museum and learns about the iridium layer where everything became extinct 65 million years ago. Where, out of all fossils ever recovered, no human fossils have ever been found below that layer and no dinosaur fossils have ever been found above it. Then the same class visits the creation museum where they see man, dinosaurs, trilobites, and all living things coexisting within a 10,000 year time frame.

How long do you think they will take to understand...

Bee

Ha, ha! You obviously don't really know/understand the concepts that creationists believe.

Why is it, that self-proclaimed aetheists insist that creationists think they know the explanations for the existence of dinosaur fossils? And why do the self-proclaimed aetheists insist on assuming creationists think dinosaurs, trilobites, and everything else all coexisted at the same time? Look. It's simple. They don't know, and neither do you. All anyone really knows is what our level of science has determined and/or conjectured. Creationists get to relax about it because they don't have to know (unless it's on a test) because knowing that isn't required in order to get to Heaven.

Creationists think that whatever they don't know and/or cannot figure out or resolve while alive, they will get the chance to find out later on down the line. ... Does that mean creationists ignore science? NO! Everything around us is here for us to learn about. Everything. If we already knew all the answers, we wouldn't have anything to learn, and you've got to admit that learning everything we can about dinosaurs is very educational.

But the science we have about dinosaurs seem to conflict with the information in the Bible. So what. I don't base my belief of God on what we know about dinosaurs, and the Bible doesn't explain the dinosaurs either (because it doesn't have to). Knowledge regarding the dinosaurs is not required for salvation. For creationists, what matters for salvation is two things. 1) What they (personally) believe and 2) how/why they believe it.

Studying dinosaurs, evolution, the cosmos, geology, etc. are all worthy pursuits and we learn a lot from them.

[Will Robinson]

...
Take, for example, Medicare/Medicaid. It's JUST an insurance program really. Government run, but just insurance. BUT, hospitals that take Medicare/Medicaid money find themselves facing increased government control....

The key difference there is hospitals don't have any rights under the constitution people do. If hospitals take government money the government can change the rules mid game with no problems.
People have protection from rule changes because those changes must meet the constitutional test. And a rule that would selectively punish based on religion will not stand.

I'm not suggesting there will never be a moment when the government might try to strong arm a voucher recipient but at least if it happens the person will have the constitution to back him up, a hospital has no protection.
I think if this is the only reason you are against vouchers you can relax a little. If you see them craft the voucher legislation to make the payments directly to the schools instead of to the taxpayer then you'll know your fears are warranted.

[dissent]

Hi Techpro,

What happens when the entire class visits a science museum and learns about the iridium layer where everything became extinct 65 million years ago.

Bee

Of course, "everything" did not become extinct 65 million years ago. It was a serious mass extinction, but many forms of life survived.

Speak with precision and there will be fewer opportunities for misunderstanding. (see below)

Ha, ha! You obviously don't really know/understand the concepts that creationists believe.

Why is it, that self-proclaimed aetheists insist that creationists think they know the explanations for the existence of dinosaur fossils? And why do the self-proclaimed aetheists insist on assuming creationists think dinosaurs, trilobites, and everything else all coexisted at the same time?

Because there is a subset of all creationists who DO believe these things. They generally fall under the designation of "young earth" creationists; i.e. the Henry Morris variety; AiG, ICR and all that.

Not all creationists are young earth creationists, lumping the groups together as one and the same thing is imprecise speaking.

But the science we have about dinosaurs seem to conflict with the information in the Bible. So what.

A "young earth" creationist does not take this conflict lightly. It is the reason more much of the percieved controversy.

[Kilarin]

The key difference there is hospitals don't have any rights under the constitution people do.

Schools don't. The reason I brought up the hospital example is that I think the same thing will happen. Hospitals that accept patients who pay with medicare/medicaid find that the government starts put restrictions on them. Schools that accept students who pay with government vouchers will almost certainly find that the government starts putting restrictions on them.

[CUDA]

OMG another Evolution Vs Creation thread

[flip]

Just for the record I believe in dinosaurs. I think they were here long before man and gone long before man was here. To me they were like big gardeners, getting this thing going. Now all they do is push my car around . What would we have done without dinosaurs?

[Kilarin]

Just for the record I believe in dinosaurs.

I'm programming in COBOL right now. I AM a dinosaur!

The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense.

[Bet51987]

.

[Krom]

Just stirring up the inferno in here a bit, what do you all think of the new antibiotic resistant \"super bug\" bacteria that are being a thorn in modern medicine's sides lately?

[Ferno]

That's gotta be the work of intelligent design!

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm

pseudoscience and confirmation bias. lol.



Techpro: they already teach creationism. in sunday school.

[Duper]

What would we have done without dinosaurs?

well.. Cheveron would have had find another reason for the Vast oil deposits that exist all over the planet.


This is an interesting read: http://www.oralchelation.com/viewpoint/ ... /life1.htm

It's written by Dr.David N. Menton. It's about 5 minutes long, depending on how fast you are.

And Ferno, "..evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

That is valid. Scientific method demands those three criterion. Otherwise, it's just theory or faith. And while it is technically is a theory, (as we've said a number of times already) It's being taught as FACT. THAT is why we're crying foul. In today's society and climate, teaching creationism won't go very far, but being lied to and chastised for saying otherwise is just too typical in the country.

[dissent]

And Ferno, "..evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

That is valid. ...

"not observable". wrong -
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

"not repeatable". wrong -
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html

and "not refutable". wrong -
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html
(in short, show me a bona fide PreCambrian rabbit fossil, then you will have something to dispute the current understanding of evolution)

(In general, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . Poke around in the archive a bit, there's plenty more there.)

[TechPro]

Look. It's simple. They don't know, and neither do you. All anyone really knows is what our level of science has determined and/or conjectured.

Again, the iridium layer. We may not know why for sure, but we do know it happened.

That's the point. Neither "side" knows why for sure ... yet, only what appears to have happened.

But the science we have about dinosaurs seem to conflict with the information in the Bible. So what.

"So what" is the reason creationism shouldn't be taught in the science classroom.

I don't get why not. I think you're missing the point. Science is about proof, starting with theories. Creation about a variety of beliefs and faiths, of which one (or maybe more) may turn out to be truth. Simple as that. All are concepts easily taught.

Darwin's Theory is still ... just a theory. You believe it to be true and you have reasons for that. I have belief and faith in a God. I believe that to be true and I have reasons for that.

It's not required to teach the religions in the schools. I think the basic concepts from which religions are usually based is valid concept material to teach, next to the valid concept material of Darwin's Theory. Let the student decide which they prefer. My beliefs are not challenged by that and I'm not afraid of that. Why are you?

Just stirring up the inferno in here a bit, what do you all think of the new antibiotic resistant "super bug" bacteria that are being a thorn in modern medicine's sides lately?

The End is coming !!!

[roid]

"..evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

That is valid. Scientific method demands those three criterion. Otherwise, it's just theory or faith. And while it is technically is a theory, (as we've said a number of times already) It's being taught as FACT. THAT is why we're crying foul. In today's society and climate, teaching creationism won't go very far, but being lied to and chastised for saying otherwise is just too typical in the country.

Unfalsifyable? Poppycock

Current Evolutionary theory would be falsified if you found things that didn't fit. Something like say... Bunny Rabbits fossilised in Cambrian rock.
Or a flat-worm with the same retroviral genetic markers found in Primates.
Or a cold-blooded camel.
Even finding a fossil of a CROCODUCK would falsify evolution.
Or finding the inactive DNA to make feathers hidden in the DNA of a whale, or NOT finding the inactive DNA to make teeth in a bird.

Birds have the inactive DNA to make teeth, know why? Coz they evolved from reptiles that had teeth.

It's incredibly easy to falsify Evolutionary theory, if you can actually find the evidence*. It makes TONS of predictions that are dependant on it being true. If these predictions don't pan out - then it's wrong, and we need to fix it.
That's how science works.
It makes predictions, and if they fit, then we consider it a good explanation: what in science is called "a scientific theory".

*I'll let you in on a clue though: Evolutionary theory was made - by the very people who study these things like fossils and geology, the very people who dug, studied and searched, were surrounded by the hard evidence constantly. Fossils of old animals, and studying living animals. It was those people who made up evolutionary theory to explain what they saw, because it was the only thing that brought it all together.
They don't call Evolution "the grand unifying theory of biology" for nothing.
Without evolution, very little that we observe in biology makes sense.
They came up with evolutionary theory because it is correct, it is the only thing that make sense of the evidence: of the fossils, of the geology layers, of the genetic record.

[Tunnelcat]

To understand? The children wouldn't understand a damn thing--they'd be confused, because all they would be exposed to is two different conclusions, and the only one that even begins to set forth the facts, for my money, is the creation museum (because it has to).

Isn't that the museum that put humans together with dinosaurs in a display? The Bible never mentions them either. You'd think something the size of a T-Rex would be quite noticeable to the humans of the time. Hahahaahaahaahaahaahaa haaahaahaahaahaa! ROFL! What a load of tripe! The K-T Boundary is far older than 6000 years if you had ANY understanding of how long it takes to form rock layers and strata. It tends to be a VERY SLOW affair in most cases, especially sedimentary deposition. There is also NO indication that worldwide volcanism occurred suddenly back then then either. The rock layers just don't show the right mineral or ash deposit evidence associated with such an event that would be consistent with worldwide volcanic action.

Trying to 'fix' Bible history by blending it with earth fossil history and shortening up the geologic time line is preposterous! It smacks of desperation!

By the way, children are perfectly capable of discerning between religious teachings in their church and science taught in public school. If they have questions, their parents can discuss the difference if they are worried about science subverting their personal beliefs. Religiosity is different from logic in the human brain.

Evolution is a guess, wrapped in a theory, veiled in "science", and defended to the death by the ignorant secular world. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Goodnight.

When I was taught 'Evolution', it was called a 'THEORY', namely 'The Theory of Evolution'. If it's being taught as a fact, then science class has become seriously warped. It can be demonstrated with observable changes in the fossil record and as Krom pointed out, bacteria adapting to antibiotics. The only way to prove it beyond a doubt as fact would be if we could time travel into the past and actually observe life's beginning and progression over time.

[Insurrectionist]

The only way to prove it beyond a doubt as fact would be if we could time travel into the past and actually observe life's beginning and progression over time.

You could only go back in time, to when the time machine was built.

[dissent]

When I was taught 'Evolution', it was called a 'THEORY', namely 'The Theory of Evolution'. If it's being taught as a fact, then science class has become seriously warped. It can be demonstrated with observable changes in the fossil record and as Krom pointed out, bacteria adapting to antibiotics.

Evolution is (both) a theory and a fact

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.

The fact of evolution is that (populations of) organisms have changed over time. The theory (or theories) of evolution is the attempt to explain how that change occurred. Gravity is another example of a concept that is both theory and fact.

The only way to prove it beyond a doubt as fact would be if we could time travel into the past and actually observe life's beginning and progression over time.

"Proof" is another idea that is confused between it's use in the vernacular and it's relation to science. see discussion in first link above.

[Insurrectionist]

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found in such phrases Matter of fact, and \"... not history, nor fact, but imagination.\"

Source Wikipedia

[woodchip]

Using semantics will will not win the argument.

[flip]

Today bacteria are an important tool in the study of genetics and biotechnology, but for 40 years after the rediscovery of Mendel's work and the rebirth of genetics, they were considered too simple to have genes, undergo mutation, or reproduce sexually. This is not surprising - bacteria are so small that it's very difficult to study individuals. Scientists had long observed differences between bacterial colonies, but had never realized that these differences were the results of mutations.

So they see differences in bacterial colonies and \"conclude\" this is caused by mutation. I'm skeptical about the use of mutation here.

It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant.

Here they see some bacteria becoming virus-resistant, while others succumb and die.

Two explanations for this unexpected variation confronted the scientific community: either (1) exposure to the virus had caused some small proportion of the bacteria to become immune and able to pass this immunity on to their offspring, or (2) the virus-resistant form already existed in the colony prior to the introduction of the virus - having arisen through mutation - and it was selected for by the addition of the virus.

Here they surmise that either they developed immunity or mutated.

Luria returned to the lab and set up a large number of bacterial cultures, starting each one from only a small number of cells. He allowed the cultures to grow for a while, then added virus and counted how many bacteria survived (were resistant). He reasoned that if resistance was induced in bacteria randomly, in response to contact with a virus, it would be expected to occur at a zero or low level in all cultures - like the zero or small payoffs from a slot machine operating by chance. Alternatively, if resistance was the result of a mutation, the results would be analogous to the payoff from a programmed slot machine. Most bacteria in most cultures would not mutate, but if one did, it would reproduce and when the virus was added there would be many survivors - a jackpot! By looking at the fluctuations in the pattern of payoff (viral resistance), he and Delbruck could determine whether they were governed purely by chance or if the game was \"rigged\" by mutation.

It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.

I still don't see how this proves mutation. How is this any different from us as human beings, some being susceptible to a disease and others being immune? Does that mean we are mutating to or just adapting.

By analyzing their data further, Luria and Delbruck were also able to determine the rate of bacterial mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant. The likelihood of any single bacterium mutating during each cell division was extremely low - only about one in a hundred million, explaining why it was so difficult to detect and study bacterial mutations. Luria and Delbruck were successful because they created a method that screened for the outcomes of such rare events. They screened for the mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant by exposing the cultures to the fatal virus. Other mutations, for which there was no such screening method, would have been almost impossible to detect.

So since they can't actually \"see\" a mutation, but rather conclude that that's what it must be, who here thinks that the word \"mutation\" is misused here? As far as I can tell this is one of the first studies done, and all else was built on these findings.

[dissent]

Source, flip ??


Is this what you are referring to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria-Delb ... experiment

This work was done around 1943?

[flip]

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... ations.php

That's my source. My contention is with the use of the word \"mutation\". Reason being, that because of that study, the studies there after also assume mutation. I can see where they invented a successful screening procedure, but to call it mutation assumes too much.