Why atheists you lied or deceived., but talk as fact?

Question

2 truths from scientists so far

you claim positive mutations . ill give 2 examples similar

one is bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotic

another for bacteria to be able to consume nylon(antibiotic).

You said for one the mutation reistance to antibiotics was positive and you try say that as fact..... but it ended up more negative, because it's information was scrambled around and it suffered a genetic loss, so that's why antibiotics cant lock onto ribosomes , because of the dna loss. Worse off in the longterm now. that's like saying man with no hands is positive because cops cant arrest him.

another case antibiotic resistance in bacteria having nothing to do with nuclear (hereditary) DNA but is a product of plasmids in the cytoplasm modifying themselves to metabolize the antibiotic (or nylon). This is a natural process similar to the human body producing T-lymphocytes in response to infection and therefore would not be legitimately classified as a mutation. This is passed on to future generations because part of the cytoplasm is passed on to future generations as part of the reproductive process. This can also be passed horizontally to completely different species of bacteria when the plasmids are picked up as these different species eat the bacteria having the plasmids.

so at this case why would anybody believe you if you dont come with proper information or facts....,. at this instance anything you believe scientists have proven has been or can be proven wrong. What's to say the next resistance you come with as a positive mutation turns out either that it had one small positive, but only from suffering one bigger negative , like example 1 above .. or turn out not to be a mutation at all, like example two above. You dont even know whats proof anymore when it comes to alleged genetic positive mutations

Answer 1

You are right... i agree, brother.

Answer 2

This is just a ridiculous attempt to greatly restrict the definition of positive. The fact remains that bacteria underwent a genetic change that resulted in functioning differently in their environment. Evolution. As for positive there are many examples of positive mutations in that they for a given environment confer an advantage for the species. You are incorrect in your assessment of plasmids, plasmids are DNA molecules themselves. So genetic change to them that affects the organism is evolution.



Mutations can be helpful, harmful, neutral, or even somewhat helpful in some areas and not so much in others. Adaptations that are helpful for a current environment can be less helpful if the environment changes a lot. Change that favors survival is selected for because those with these changes pass on their genes more as they survive better and leave more offspring. Nothing in your post contradicts the evidence for evolution.

Answer 3

You do not understand evolution. Mutations occur. Some may be bad, some may be good. It doesn't matter whether there a net "loss" or "gain" it's about whether a mutation can give a beneficial advantage in the struggle to reproduce. That's it. E.g sickle cell anemia is an mutation which is both bad and good. It can cause many undesirable complications, but also provides resistance from malaria, so that in areas where malaria is a real risk, the benefits out-weight the negatives. That is the reason this mutation is found in sub-saharan Africans, but not in Europeans. Kindly go away until you've learnt something. Your making yourself look a fool.

Answer 4

Positive mutations have been shown in a lab, including the combination of two mutations to create an unexpected higher-order functionality, something claimed impossible by ID supporters. 'irreducible complexity' evolving before our eyes



You've lost this one, sorry

Answer 5

The point is that changes to genomes in a population do, have, and will continue to happen. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, a fact. Case closed.

Answer 6

How many falsehoods can you actually put in a few paragraphs?



Of course, if you were truly convinced that you were correct you'd be putting this utter nonsense in the Science section, not here.



So, either you're a poe, or a coward.

Answer 7

Please list your PhD and Nobel Prize for all the information you have put forward here since if they are true in any manner you would have proven them and received a Nobel Prize for it.

Answer 8

This is a deliberately false BS anti-rational rant.

Answer 9

Couldn't be bothered to answer so here's a link to the last time this question was posted...



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20120509034558AAOaBcN

Answer 10

'Why atheists you lied or deceived., but talk as fact?'



Do you even know what an atheist is?

Answer 11

I have no idea what you just wrote, and I'm pretty sure you don't either :/