DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:52 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:Do you think that the debate we had here was unfairly demeaning to Christians or that they were unfairly attacked?

Referring strictly to posts up until I made the above comment.

Posted: **Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:57 pm**

Funny thing…I don’t feel the least bit threatened by young earth creationists (regardless how many museums, they have)…but the people screwing around in gene research scare the living bageebees out of me.

Posted: **Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:19 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:Will, who is "us"? Do you think that the debate we had here was unfairly demeaning to Christians or that they were unfairly attacked? I don't. I think you mean people in general?

You seem to agree that the tension between science and religion is old but assert that the demeaning nature in which some people talk about them is new. For instance, you say that we got over the Butler Act without anyone belittling Christians. But, in fact, during the Scopes Trial, we saw the exact opposite, with one side colorfully calling the other immoral, and the other colorfully calling the one ignorant--nothing new under the sun....

Yes I mean people in general.

Butler Act, Scopes Trial, same thing...all of it a minor blip that popped up on the radar screen in a small town in Tennessee and whatever insults were hurled at the trial never made into the national character of the country. Fundamentalists have been here since the Pilgrims but they didn't make themselves into prime time players, they were made into prime time players.

I'm merely pointing out that it is a relatively new practice for the news media, academia and pop-culture to proudly denigrate all members of the Christian religion. And it is especially hypocritical for them to do so in light of their tireless preaching of tolerance for Islam. Try and reconcile that without looking at politics...

It is a relatively new practice to declare a person incompetent in a vocation because their religion can be interpreted to be at odds with science.
When did it become standard operating procedure to investigate the members of a candidates church to see if there are any of them married to pets or spouting racism? Did the Scopes trial spawn that back in 1925?

I find it very hard to believe it is altruism that has the villagers coming out with the torches and pitchforks trying to save us from the Jesus monster.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:56 pm**

Will wrote:Butler Act, Scopes Trial, same thing...all of it a minor blip that popped up on the radar screen in a small town in Tennessee and whatever insults were hurled at the trial never made into the national character of the country.

No. Read the article on the Scopes Trial. They have an entire section devoted to this.

People have always demeaned people that they don't like or with whom they strongly disagree. If Christians are demeaned more now, I think it's because everyone is demeaning everyone more now.

Will wrote:I find it very hard to believe it is altruism that has the villagers coming out with the torches and pitchforks trying to save us from the Jesus monster.

Of course it isn't altruism.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:30 pm**

I'm not sure how the young earth theory came about except through some funky math. Originally the theory started with the thought that Man had been created 6-8 thousand years ago. The study of the history of the Alphabet and then beginnings of writings themselves somewhat support this theory.
We see from mitochondrial Eve that man has supposedly a common ancestor, and then from one point on the earth they began to spread. As did the beginning of writing itself. This would suggest that man came from one single point on the earth and then spread from there. I would think for evolution to be true, we would see an evolution all over and not from just 2 separate individuals that then spread into what we see today.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:00 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:
Will wrote:Butler Act, Scopes Trial, same thing...all of it a minor blip that popped up on the radar screen in a small town in Tennessee and whatever insults were hurled at the trial never made into the national character of the country.
No. Read the article on the Scopes Trial. They have an entire section devoted to this.

I did and there is nothing to indicate anything on the scale we have now. In that tiny event for it's limited duration, among it's participants and observers sure but then after that people over all never adopted that practice as a meme. It didn't become standard operating procedure in political debate to try and pin the crazy tail on the Christian! The way Dubya won pretty much unhinged the lefties!
I've lived through the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's and it changed drastically after Reagan won in 1980 and now, since Dubya it isn't even in whispers and only spoken out loud in certain circles, it's practically a part of the public school curriculum!

Jeff250 wrote:... If Christians are demeaned more now, I think it's because everyone is demeaning everyone more now.

I think that may not be true since we also have seen the birth of political correctness so it could be a wash. But considering the difference in the way the talking heads, left wingers and most celebrities seem to only speak poorly of Christians and rabidly defend Muslims I think you must be wrong. If their was an even application of disparagement at play then certainly the religion that has killed more people in just one of their many attacks than all the Christians bombing abortion clinics times 25 the phenomenon I'm describing can't be explained away as just the general attitude of society has become more abrasive....

Jeff250 wrote:
Will wrote:I find it very hard to believe it is altruism that has the villagers coming out with the torches and pitchforks trying to save us from the Jesus monster.
Of course it isn't altruism.

I mentioned that because you sited your concern for peoples ability to be productive as reason to take up the fight. I think you are not representative of the majority, not even close.
It is that motive that my whole side track is about. I'm asking people to consider why they really feel compelled to carry on the way they do.

An example of how successfully ingrained this effort has become into the national thought process is how so many people mindlessly accept and repeat the premise that radical Islam is no different, and no more dangerous, than radical Christianity.
There is no logical reason to accept that argument and if people were just simply more rude than they used to be that argument would be non-existent outside of memebers of Hammas, Hezbollah and the Iranian ruling class.

Lol, now I've taken this sidetrack from one sewer to another! I should have thrown in a Hitler reference or two so I could score the hat trick!
I'll get out of the way now.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:41 pm**

Spidey wrote:Funny thing…I don’t feel the least bit threatened by young earth creationists (regardless how many museums, they have)…but the people screwing around in gene research scare the living bageebees out of me.

I feel pretty threatened myself when those people get themselves elected to public office and vote on policies relating to science and technology. If someone wants to play the head-in-the-sand game on their own time, that's fine by me, but they cross the line when they bring that ignorance into the public policy sphere.

flip wrote:I would think for evolution to be true, we would see an evolution all over and not from just 2 separate individuals that then spread into what we see today.

Not at all. The process of natural selection, which is the mechanism which drives evolution, depends on certain selection pressures provided by a species' environment. There's a classic example of the peppered moth, whose dark-colored variants became much more plentiful during the Industrial Revolution due to the soot-stained trees that provided better camouflage. In this case, the conditions that impacted earlier hominids to evolve into Homo sapiens were local in nature; obviously, the environment in northern Africa is far different than that in northern Siberia. In addition, those hominid species that were our ancestors only lived in that general area of the world; it was only much more recently that our own species ranged out of Africa into Asia and Europe.

And while mitochondrial DNA evidence does confirm that all humans are descended from a very few common ancestors (there's actually a period in the history of our species when we were apparently down to a few thousand members), I don't think I've seen evidence suggesting that there was literally a single "Eve."

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:11 pm**

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:22 pm**

I'm talking about young-Earth creationists in public office, though I'm admittedly a bit leery of a few of the more fringe aspects of genetics research.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:32 pm**

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:07 pm**

I’m finding it very difficult to imagine a scenario where Young Earth Christians could get elected to enough seats in Congress, to have any kind of affect on my life.

I’m pretty sure we have much more to worry about with the hard core socialist/capitalists then worrying about having to get mandatory circumcisions.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:10 pm**

Will wrote:I did and there is nothing to indicate anything on the scale we have now.

You could be right--maybe the people publicly mocking fundamentalist Christians in 1925 stopped in 1926 after the article ends, but I think that the same people who were publicly saying these things in 1925 were still privately thinking them in 1926, and in 1924 too.

Will wrote:But considering the difference in the way the talking heads, left wingers and most celebrities seem to only speak poorly of Christians and rabidly defend Muslims I think you must be wrong.

Again, I don't want to talk about liberals or conservatives, but I also see 20% of the population who thinks that Obama is a Muslim and who don't mean that as a compliment. I can't understand the thinking (or lack thereof) of either the group you mentioned or this one, but at least there seems to be a symmetry.

Will wrote:I mentioned that because you sited your concern for peoples ability to be productive as reason to take up the fight. I think you are not representative of the majority, not even close.

No--my point was the opposite--I can't care *too* much about young-earth creationists because their ideas will eventually lose because they can understand less and do less than people with better conceptions of reality.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:12 pm**

Spidey wrote:I’m finding it very difficult to imagine a scenario where Young Earth Christians could get elected to enough seats in Congress, to have any kind of affect on my life.

Um...have you seen the quotes out there by some of our illustrious Congressmen? Have you read some of Palin's sound-bytes? There are already plenty of very uninformed people in Congress right now, and not just in the realm of biology; bills like this are nothing short of pathetic. (I'm really surprised there hasn't been a thread on that here yet.) I feel like a basic grasp of science and technology should be an essential prerequisite to holding public office...that's how I exercise my vote, anyway.

Posted: **Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:22 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:No--my point was the opposite--I can't care *too* much about young-earth creationists because their ideas will eventually lose because they can understand less and do less than people with better conceptions of reality.

Yea, but they still make for great fear-mongering.

Gather the pitchforks, and torches...

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:14 am**

Heretic wrote:Hahahahaha your a not funny any way Ferno. You can get any dumber any way. You act as though those are my thoughts when it's the scientist them selves who destroy own science with their own words.

LOL. I love how you try to try and even the playing field while spitting out a barely legible post.

and now who said anything about me being funny? you see anyone else laughing?

You really should read what lothar wrote about observation and theorizing thoroughly. It's actually pretty good.

And those quotes you pulled? dude, they're ten and eleven years old. It's hardly relevant now seeing as a lot of work has been done on the entire theorem. Going with those quotes does no one any good and does nothing to bolster your position. And if you can't see that they had an agenda at the start well; i'm not sure what to tell you.

But you know what? For funsies, let's have a look at the entire quote. Since I know you're a fan of quotefarming, I'm sure you'll get a kick out if it...

Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.

Now you have the entire paragraph to mull over.

The fact is, scientists are figuring out the 'how' part of the question of the way living beings are, but they're still working on the 'why' part.

I want to see these young-earth creationists explain the fact that bacteria have now developed a resistance to antibiotics over the years.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:48 am**

Top Gun wrote: The process of natural selection, which is the mechanism which drives evolution, depends on certain selection pressures provided by a species' environment. There's a classic example of the peppered moth, whose dark-colored variants became much more plentiful during the Industrial Revolution due to the soot-stained trees that provided better camouflage.

Mutating is NOT evolving. Hmm seems the peppered moth is STILL the peppered moth.

edit: Oh, and, BTW, adapting to your environment is also NOT evolving.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:31 am**

Ferno wrote:...
I want to see these young-earth creationists explain the fact that bacteria have now developed a resistance to antibiotics over the years.

Satan?

sorry couldn't resist

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:35 am**

Will Robinson wrote:
Ferno wrote:...
I want to see these young-earth creationists explain the fact that bacteria have now developed a resistance to antibiotics over the years.
Satan?

sorry couldn't resist

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:24 am**

AlphaDoG wrote:
Top Gun wrote: The process of natural selection, which is the mechanism which drives evolution, depends on certain selection pressures provided by a species' environment. There's a classic example of the peppered moth, whose dark-colored variants became much more plentiful during the Industrial Revolution due to the soot-stained trees that provided better camouflage.
Mutating is NOT evolving. Hmm seems the peppered moth is STILL the peppered moth.

edit: Oh, and, BTW, adapting to your environment is also NOT evolving.

Sir.

Sir, sir.

Natural selection is a vehicle for the process of evolution. That's how it works.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:35 am**

I honestly don't have the time nor the inclination to rehash this debate once again. To each his own. I can come up with enough questions to cast serious doubt on both sides of this coin, enough that it comes down each individuals way of looking at things and what makes sense to him or her and what doesn't.
Natural selection definitely doesn't follow my sensibilities, otherwise I can't figure out why these hominids lost fur to become dependent on clothes or why of all the different hominids that supposedly existed now are nowhere to be seen and just our particular branch survived to become homo sapiens and a million other things that don't make sense to me. I guess we'll all know for sure one day.

Back to your regularly scheduled program of getting nowhere.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:14 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote:Mutating is NOT evolving. Hmm seems the peppered moth is STILL the peppered moth.

I don't understand your argument. Why we should think that one population of organisms can't accrue enough of these mutations over time such that they are no longer genetically compatible with another population of organisms?

flip wrote:otherwise I can't figure out why these hominids lost fur to become dependent on clothes or why of all the different hominids

So you think that we would be better off with fur? I don't. (It seems like I could ask you a symmetric question--if you think that having fur is so useful, then why did God create us without it? Is he just a big jerk?) One of the lesser reasons why we lost our fur is because we didn't need it anymore. We became bipedal and that changed how we raised our children. If you use your arms to crawl around, your kids need to grab onto you. If you are bipedal, then you can carry your children. (Becoming bipedal also had other interesting side effects, like the way it bent our vocal tract, making language possible.) I think though that there is also a much more common sense explanation to your question--if you live in Africa, why would you want a fur coat that you can't take off?

flip wrote:all the different hominids that supposedly existed now are nowhere to be seen and just our particular branch survived to become homo sapiens

I don't understand why you find this puzzling. Species go extinct all the time. When you have finite resources, only the better adapted species survive. If you can out-hunt your competitors, then they go hungry. That alone is sufficient to explain why species like the Neanderthals went extinct. I've also heard the theory that we also directly killed Neanderthals. It's not unthinkable, considering we will kill our own kind over competition for resources.

flip wrote:To each his own. I can come up with enough questions to cast serious doubt on both sides of this coin,

I don't think so. In fact, it doesn't seem like you've really put any thought into this issue at all.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:41 pm**

So are you saying these hominids originally had fur? From what I've heard, the story goes like this:
Walks on all fours, has fur. Eventually stands upright which stretches it vocal chords allowing language, already in and evolves from africa with fur although it isnt needed, loses it to then needs to be clothed. LOL.
That means there had to be a single point in time where one of these guys says, \"oh ★■◆●, I just realized I've lost my fur and I'm nekkid\". Heh that seems a hellova stretch to me.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:14 pm**

Being naked has nothing to do with having fur or not.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:24 pm**

No but to come from furry four legged creatures to what we are today means their had to be a moment of awareness of nakedness. That's not something that happens over a period of time but in an instant.

I've also heard the theory that we also directly killed Neanderthals. It's not unthinkable, considering we will kill our own kind over competition for resources.

Considering the arguments, speculation and conjecture, it's not unthinkable to believe in creation either.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:22 pm**

flip wrote:No but to come from furry four legged creatures to what we are today means their had to be a moment of awareness of nakedness. That's not something that happens over a period of time but in an instant.

I doubt that. Let's put some perspective on this. There are still cultures today who don't regularly wear clothes, typically in warmer climates. Clothing was probably initially more of an "it's cold here" thing than an "I'm naked" thing. (People don't feel naked in societies where people don't wear clothes.)

Even if your historical retelling were accurate, why couldn't a feeling of nakedness develop over a period of time? And even if it couldn't, why would this be a problem for the theory of evolution? I don't see what you're driving at.

flip wrote:Considering the arguments, speculation and conjecture, it's not unthinkable to believe in creation either.

Don't misquote me. Read what came immediately before:

"Species go extinct all the time. When you have finite resources, only the better adapted species survive. If you can out-hunt your competitors, then they go hungry. That alone is sufficient to explain why species like the Neanderthals went extinct."

You agree that species go extinct today, right? Why would that have magically stopped happening in the past?

Your attempts to equivocate the theory of evolution and creationism will fail. They aren't "a wash."

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:34 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:
I doubt that. Let's put some perspective on this. There are still cultures today who don't regularly wear clothes, typically in warmer climates. Clothing was probably initially more of an "it's cold here" thing than an "I'm naked" thing. (People don't feel naked in societies where people don't wear clothes.)

One question, why instead of donning clothing did not the "fur" just come back once "man" started living in colder climes? Your "it's cold here" argument doesn't hold water IMO.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm**

Charles Darwin wrote, \"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?\" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.

At least Darwin himself, the man of original thought, questioned his own surmises and whether it stood the test of common sense or at least some form of evidence by saying \"If my theory be true\". I give him credit for at least thinking for himself and not scoring a perfect score on the required curriculum.

He himself didn't accept his own alternative theory as true without some tangible evidence.

Also, you either know your naked or not. there is no middle ground. Shame of nakedness was never mentioned.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:51 pm**

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:54 pm**

Bett lets just try to stay with things we can reason ourselves and not what others have told us. Genesis is not at debate here. Evolution is.

EDIT: So, if you can, give arguments that give credence to how evolution either makes sense or does not.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:24 pm**

Let me also say this Bett. Your argument that the fossil record does not yet support the Genesis account also holds true for evolution. There is no support for either theory given in the fossil record.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:11 pm**

Spidey wrote:Being naked has nothing to do with having fur or not.

One view of my back will prove that.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:12 pm**

About why humans don't have fur: Its pretty simple really; many marine mammals don't have fur either. The fat deposits in our bodies are unusual for land mammals, but fairly common in marine ones. All humans as they grow start out with webbed hands and feet, we can hold our breath when most land animals can't. Odds are at some point during our evolution we were seriously heading towards becoming a marine mammal, but then our population exploded which stabilizes and re-absorbs genetic mutations so the change (and pretty much all other changes) stopped.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:15 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:
Ferno wrote:...
I want to see these young-earth creationists explain the fact that bacteria have now developed a resistance to antibiotics over the years.
Satan?

sorry couldn't resist

LOL nice.

SATAN will kill you.. in the dark...

tenderly.

hey alphadog, about your mutation bit? It's actually a part of evolution because any mutations that benefit a species' survival is integrated into natural selection and the offspring inherits said mutation.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:29 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote:One question, why instead of donning clothing did not the "fur" just come back once "man" started living in colder climes? Your "it's cold here" argument doesn't hold water IMO.

Aren't some ethnicities--say Europeans--"hairier" than others? In any case, I'd still prefer the flexibility of clothing over fur, even if the fur were seasonal, just because weather is never predictable. And, of course, if you're already wearing clothing, then how warm you can keep without wearing any isn't going to be as strong a selection pressure. It's the same reason why we wouldn't expect humans with indoor heating to evolve fur.

edit: Thanks Krom for that insight. I'd never heard that.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:42 pm**

The only problem with that bit of crap Ferno, is that so far there is NO beneficial mutation ever been documented. All known mutations so far have been destructive. Anyways my fun is over.

EDIT: I would imagine if Darwin himself had observed anything like Krom suggests, maybe he would have believed it himself .

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:12 pm**

Why do 6.7 billion people have the same Mitochondria DNA from one woman in Africa and All men have Y chromosomes from one man?

Mitochondrial Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Y-chromosomal Adam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Posted: **Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:42 am**

...because thousands of years ago, humanity experienced a massive die-off that seriously depleted the genepool?

Posted: **Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:42 am**

flip wrote:The only problem with that bit of crap Ferno, is that so far there is NO beneficial mutation ever been documented. All known mutations so far have been destructive. Anyways my fun is over.

Care to rethink that:

"Conversely, a third frequent mutation in this gene, the Ser447-Stop, is reported by some investigators to underlie higher HDL cholesterol levels and would represent a beneficial genetic variant in lipoprotein metabolism. We therefore sought conclusive evidence for these allegations by investigating the effects of the LPL Ser447-Stop mutation on LPL and hepatic lipase (HL) activity, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides in a large group of CAD patients (n = 820) with normal to mildly elevated total and LDL cholesterol levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Carriers of the Ser447-Stop allele (heterozygotes and homozygotes) had significantly higher postheparin LPL activity (P = .034), normal postheparin HL activity (P = .453), higher HDL cholesterol levels (P = .013), and lower triglyceride levels (P = .044) than noncarriers. The influence of the Ser447-Stop allele on LPL activity was pronounced in patients using beta-blockers (P = .042) and not significant in those not using them (P = .881), suggesting a gene-environment interaction between the Ser447-Stop mutation and beta-blockers. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the LPL Ser447-Stop mutation has a significant positive effect on LPL activity and HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels and that certain subgroups of CAD patients carrying the Ser447-Stop mutation will have less adverse metabolic effects when placed on beta-blockers. The LPL Ser447-Stop mutation therefore should have a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD."

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

Posted: **Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:17 am**

Ferno wrote:...because thousands of years ago, humanity experienced a massive die-off that seriously depleted the genepool?

Really Mitochondrial Eve lived about (according to science) 200,000 years ago. Homo sapiens evolved (according to science) 200,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens

Was there not also another story of a mass die off?

Posted: **Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:55 am**

It is true that the majority of mutations fall into the categories of either nearly neutral or harmful. Silent (neutral) mutations alter the DNA sequence but do not alter the amino acids encoded by the DNA sequence. This is due to built-in redundancy in the code (also referred to as degeneracy). For example, CCC, CCT, CCA, and CCG in the DNA all code for the amino acid glycine. In a hypothetical DNA sequence that has the sequence CCC if the last base is changed to any of the remaining DNA bases (T, A, or G), it will still code for the amino acid glycine. (However, there is some evidence that indicates that even these changes may not be completely neutral and may alter the stability of the mRNA, which serves as the intermediate between DNA and proteins).

My graduate work focused on studying mice that were missing three bases in their DNA and, thus, one amino acid from one protein. The mice were blind (no eyes), deaf, albino, had deficient immune systems, suffered osteopetrosis, had no teeth, and died upon weaning without supplemental nutrition. Talk about a harmful mutation! Even a small change in the DNA can cause large detrimental effects to the overall development and health of an organism.

But are there such things as beneficial mutations? In short, no, but let me explain. While I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation, I have seen evidence of mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments. Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a “live or die” situation). However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations

DescentBB

North American Man Boy Love Association (Turned Evolution)

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: