I want to reply to some of your questions and comments.
Odrade: Yes, it is quite something when you realize what the elders are really all about, now that I'm able to listen to everything objectivly, I can't believe all the holes I'm able to see in talks, magazines, etc..
DanTheMan: Indeed, people want something to believe in, I think most people want to be told what to do with their life and want a degree of certianty in their life, that's why they will always flock to these kind of places.
I agree with those of you who said the best thing to do would be to fade away, I think this is the best solution. There would be nothing gained by DA'ing myself. At first I kind of wanted to go before a committee to get my case heard, hoping that reason could preval and I actually might be able to get through and cause some positive change. But looking around on this website has made me release that such hopes are frutile.
For the intelligent individual who posted the fine article about evolution of bacteria: My view point is not one of saying that evolution disproves that God exists. But as far as bacteria is concerned, this is a subject I know a little something about. Normally I wouldn't waste my time responding to an article on creation 'science' since all their articles as far as I know only focus on critizing certain aspects of evolution, and their has never been in viable results that have come from their research or any testable predictions put forth. However, for the benfit of those genuinely interested in biology and evolution I will respond this once.
The author of this article is quite right in stating that bacteria reproduce by a lateral transfer of genes, in fact all prokaryotes reproduce in this fashion. The author goes on to imply that the mutation that is seen which clearly produces a benfical effect in enabling the bacteria to resist many modern antibotics isn't evolution (as if he has the authority to decide this matter). He equates that the ways cells reproduce and bacteria replacate vastly different, and he is quite correct! Cells replacate using mitosis, while bacteria reproduce via fission, but the important point this gentleman missed is that as scentists we are not looking at it in this fashion. Bacteria are asexual, therefore each new cell it produces is akin to eukaryote organisms having a baby. So when we look at bacteria we are comparing its evolutionary patterns to those of eukaryotes that reproduce via sexual meiosis-fertilization cycles in plants in animals. We are not comparing the way bacteria reproduce and the way cells replcate, cells create (99% of the time) identical copies of themselves, while bacteria create unique versions of themselves each time they reproduce. Its only when eukaryotes reproduce that we would look for mutations in the ofspring but not at a cellular level as in the case of bacteria (where each cell is a new life form instead of being part of an organism). The gentelman also implies that bacteria (or prokaryotes in more general terms) could not have evolved into more complex organelles like the golgi body or nucleus, this is quite incorrect as has been demonstrated most clearly lately. Recent studies have clearly shown that the prokaryita eubacteria and archaebacteria combined to form chimaera through symbosis.
Now if this argument is over your head, then perhaps you shouldn't take an authoritive stand on matters you know nothing about (to harsh?). Please do not rush out and find 1000 more creation (psudo)science articles and post them in this thread as I will not respond to them all. But I hope this does help to answer XBEHERE's sincear question. For more information on the evolution of human DNA, check out scientific ameria's website they put out an article recently about how humans recently developed a gene to allow them to digest milk from cows (with the last 8000 years). As far as DNA goes, it can correct itself to a certain degree, when DNA replactes through mitosis, in other words the DNA strand unwinds itself and free floating RNA attaches itself to avaible DNA recptors. Now since DNA and RNA can only combine in 4 different ways the chances for error are very low. Where errors do occur is in the exchange of chromosomes, but this is a complicated subject. Surfice to say the most mutation are not harmful or benfitial, but nutral in nature. These nutral mutation can prove benfical, look at the example of bacteria by friend brought out, the neutral mutations that would otherwise do no good prove most benfical when antibotics are introduced because it allows those forms of bacteria that are more resistant to survive.
Thanks again everyone! I look foward to contributing to this form.
