Search This Blog

Monday, February 18, 2013

Bacteria challenge Scientists- Why do they still exist, even in NASA clean rooms?


Cartoon by Nick Kim, www.nearingzero.net

Bacteria...Darwinists have been trying to use the fast generation cycles of bacteria to induce evolution.  Yes, they do what they can in labs to coerce bacteria into evolving.  While at the same time, in a place where science does NOT want bacteria, they show up and speciate so rapidly that evolution could not have been involved.  So we present two posts with important points to make about bacteria and why what we know about bacteria falsifies evolution.  Bacteria do not EVOLVE, they SPECIATE with pre-existing genetic information involved.  Articles from Creation.com from David Catchpoole and Robert Carter.   Trust me, there is more about bacteria yet to tell.  But we'll dole it out in bites.


NASA shock: ET from Earth

Life on other planets would be Ex-Terrestrial, not Extra-Terrestrial

©iStockPhoto.com/cherokeejones
The American space agency NASA adeptly draws attention to its space exploration program by linking it to the quest to find alien life.1 Its periodic announcements about potential extra-terrestrial life certainly make a big media splash.2 (Though perhaps many in the public would be dismayed to realize that NASA isn’t generally talking about discovering the sort of sentient ET life portrayed by Hollywood, but rather microbes.)3,4
However, recent research findings have put a dampener on NASA’s quest to discover ET. In this case, it was not what was found (or not found) on Mars or Europa (a moon of Jupiter) or Enceladus (a moon of Saturn) that dealt a blow to NASA’s alien life project. Rather, it was what was found here on Earth—in NASA’s own spacecraft assembly and launch facilities, to be precise.

NASA’s ‘clean rooms’ not so clean

NASA recognizes the need for sterile places in which to assemble their ET-seeking spacecraft:
“Clean room environments are of … particular importance to the assembly of spacecraft hardware. The search for life on other planets relies heavily on the authenticity of cells and/or biomarkers detected in extraterrestrial samples. Contamination of these samples with organic matter originating on Earth (forward contamination) would inherently confound the interpretation of any such biosignatures discovered. … The overall cleanliness of hardware fabricated for missions to Mars, Europa or Enceladus is of particular concern, as these bodies present the greatest likelihood of sustaining earthly life and affording it the ability to (i) colonize and proliferate and/or (ii) complicate subsequent searches for extraterrestrial life forms.”5
Unfortunately for NASA, despite their best efforts to make their ‘clean rooms’ sterile, several research surveys over the past few years have detected bacteria there.5,6,7 Not just in one of their labs, but across four of NASA’s clean rooms in distinct geographical locations.8
A simple, sobering message for NASA: lots of bacteria were found in their so-called ‘clean rooms’.
The bacteria were able to withstand NASA’s strict cleaning protocol—and more. The various types of bacteria found were described as extremotolerant, i.e. able to survive extreme conditions. There were bacteria resistant to UVC radiation and hydrogen peroxide exposure. There were thermophiles (bacteria resistant to heat shock and high temperature extremes, e.g. Geobacillus), obligate anaerobes (bacteria that must live in oxygenless environments, e.g. Paenibacillus), cryophiles (bacteria that thrive in cold temperatures, e.g. Pseudomonas), and halotolerant, alkaliphilic species (bacteria resistant to hypersalinity and pH>11, e.g. Oceanobacillus and Exiguobacterium). There were spore-formers and mesophilic heterotrophs as well as non-spore-forming microbes (alpha-and beta-proteobacteria and actinobacteria).
Complicated names, maybe, but a simple, sobering message for NASA: lots of bacteria were found. And there was another problem, too.

Species unknown-to-science discovered

Many of the bacteria found in NASA’s clean rooms were species that “did not belong to any previously described bacterial species and warrant description as novel species.”5,9,10
©iStockPhoto.com/gerenme
This raises colossal issues for NASA’s quest for extra-terrestrial life. One summarizing report put it this way, as it highlighted the finding of “a broad diversity in the types of bacteria able to grow in the most hostile environments including almost 100 types of bacteria, about 45 percent of which were previously unknown to science. The findings were something of a shock for NASA, an agency now forced to wonder exactly how many unknown pathogens have been taken to the moon and Mars.11(Emphasis added.)
Imagine the front-page headlines if these ‘unknown species’ had not first been successfully detected in NASA’s clean rooms, but instead in Martian samples and other extraterrestrial sites probed by NASA. ‘New bacteria found on Mars’, ‘Parallel evolution on Mars and Earth’, and other evolutionary media hoopla would be likely, if the past is anything to go by.12 But now, having found that their clean rooms are anything but clean, hopefully NASA scientists will be much more circumspect in their pronouncements if they find ‘biomarkers’ in extraterrestrial samples. Because if they find life on other planets and/or their moons, NASA won’t be able to rule out the possibility of having simply ‘found’ what they took there themselves from Earth—even if on a previous occasion.13
(Radar - Oh, it would be a HUGE story alright!   Remember when NASA publicized the so-called "Arsenic Bacteria?"   Headlines on page one, retraction days later in small print off in a corner somewhere.  Much like the "Nylon" and "Citrate" bacteria that went before, it was a false claim that was proved to be wrong.   Good thing we found out about dirty "Clean Rooms" before somebody claimed bacteria were detected on Mars!!!)

Not ET, but Extremely Tolerant, and Evolution-Thwarting

If NASA’s researchers and affiliated scientists could take off their evolution-paradigm ‘glasses’, they would surely see, in their discoveries, evidence for the Creator God of the Bible. The extremotolerant bacteria found in spacecraft hardware assembly facilities thwart evolution by virtue of their having been over-designed, or as design engineers would say, over-engineered. Some of the ‘clean rooms’ bacteria, e.g.Bacillus pumilis, were resistant to multiple extreme conditions, able to survive even the maximum levels of increased cleaning that NASA frantically submitted their clean rooms to during assembly of the Phoenix spacecraft.6
Arguably, such conditions do not occur anywhere else on Earth. As the aforementioned report put it, “One would think that the one place on Earth where bacteria do not exist is in the NASA ‘clean rooms’”. (Emphasis added.)
Evolution cannot be expected to ‘over-equip’ bacteria for a multiplicity of extremes they have never faced.
According to the theory of evolution, an organism will develop only the attributes it needs to survive. So where did NASA’s extremotolerant bacteria ‘evolve’ their phenomenal capacity to withstand the worst that man, with all his modern know-how and ingenuity, can throw at these maverick microbes?
The problem for evolutionists is even worse when one considers that the likes of Deinococcus radioduranscan survive 12 million rads of gamma radiation.14 (By way of contrast, a thousand rads is enough to kill a person.) This level of radiation occurs nowhere in its natural environment. Evolution cannot be expected to ‘over-equip’ bacteria for a multiplicity of extremes they have never faced.
Sadly, the ‘shock’ of finding these ‘clean room’ extremotolerant bacteria hasn’t stopped NASA from employing its alien life program and media strategy.1 This strategy has helped to dupe many into believing in the existence of ET.15 But the evidence fits instead with what the Bible says, that it was the earth that God formed to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). It’s on Earth that one can, it seems, find life everywhere—even in spacecraft-assembly ‘clean rooms’. So that man is, indeed, “without excuse”. (Romans 1:20)

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. A typical recent example: Lovett, R., Enceladus named sweetest spot for alien life, www.nature.com, 31 May 2011. Return to text.
  2. E.g.: Brown, D. and Weselby, C., NASA sets news conference on astrobiology discovery, www.nasa.gov, 29 November 2010; cf. Sarfati, J., Conclusive evidence for life from Mars? Remember last time! creation.com/mars, 15 May 2002. Return to text.
  3. Burton, K., Astrobiologists zero in on search to clues for life, www.nasa.gov, 4 October 2000. Return to text.
  4. About astrobiology, astrobiology.nasa.gov, 22 January 2008. Return to text.
  5. La Duc, M. and five others, Isolation and characterization of bacteria capable of tolerating the extreme conditions of clean room environments, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73(8):2600–2611, 2007. Return to text.
  6. Ghosh, S. and three others, Recurrent isolation of extremotolerant bacteria from the clean room where Phoenix spacecraft components were assembled,Astrobiology 10(3):325–335, 2010. Return to text.
  7. And not just NASA’s labs, but European-spacecraft-associated clean rooms and the Herschel Space Observatory located therein, too. Stieglmeier, M. and three others, Cultivation of anaerobic and facultatively anaerobic bacteria from spacecraft-associated clean rooms, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75(11):3484–3491, 2009. Return to text.
  8. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Spacecraft Assembly Facility, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Multiple Testing Facility, the Johnson Space Center Genesis Curation Laboratory, and the Kennedy Space Center Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility. Return to text.
  9. ‘Novel species’ as defined by the authors of ref. 5: “It is generally accepted that if the 16SrRNA gene sequence of an unknown strain is less than 97.5% similar to that of the type strain of its nearest evolutionary neighbor, then the unknown strain represents a novel species.” Return to text.
  10. In the European spacecraft labs, too, novel species have been found—e.g. by Stieglmeier et al. (refer footnote 7). Return to text.
  11. The Marshall Protocol Knowledge Base—Autoimmunity Research Foundation, Microbes in the Human Body, mpkb.org/home/pathogenesis/microbiota, 9 January 2012. Return to text.
  12. E.g., Noble, I., ‘Conclusive evidence’ for Martian life, news.bbc.co.uk, 26 February 2001. Also see Cosner, L. and Bates, G., Martian fossils? Dissecting the media hype, creation.com/martian-fossils, 25 November 2010. Return to text.
  13. And even if not transported by NASA (or other) spacecraft, any microbes found in future on other planets may nevertheless have come from Earth in any case by other means, e.g. comet impact. Non-Christian physicist Paul Davies has himself pointed this out—see: Planets can swap rocksCreation 18(3):7, 1996; creation.com/focus-183#rocks. Also see creation.com/lifefromspaceReturn to text.
  14. Catchpoole, D., Life at the extremesCreation 24(1):40–44, 2001; creation.com/extreme. Return to text.
  15. Bates, G. and Cosner, L., UFOlogy: the world’s fastest-growing scientific religion?, creation.com/ufology, 12 May 2011.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



A grim fairy tale indeed!!!




Genetic entropy and simple organisms

If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?

morgueFile.com
Published: 25 October 2012 (GMT+10)

Summary

Genetic entropy (GE) is eroding the genomes of all living organisms because mutations are inherited from one generation to the next. Many people wonder why, if GE is real, are bacteria still alive today? There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that their genomes are simpler, they have high population sizes and short generation times, and they have lower overall mutation rates. This combination makes them the most resistant to extinction. Of all the forms of life on Earth, bacteria are the best candidates for surviving the effects of GE over the long term. This does not mean they can do so forever, but it explains why they are still around today.

What is genetic entropy?

After the landmark publication of Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Cornell University Professor Dr John Sanford, we have often been asked to supply further details of this major challenge to evolutionary theory. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations (spelling mistakes in DNA) are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (particularly people) that natural selection cannot stop the functional degradation of the genome—let alone drive an evolutionary process that can turn apes into people.
A simple analogy would be rust slowly spreading throughout a car over time. Each little bit of rust (akin to a single mutation in an organism) is almost inconsequential on its own, but if the rusting process cannot be stopped it will eventually destroy the car. A more accurate analogy would be to imagine a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica on a computer that has a virus that randomly swaps, switches, deletes, and inverts letters over time. For a while there would be almost no noticeable effect, but over time the text would contain more and more errors, until it became meaningless gibberish. In biological terms, ‘mutational meltdown’ would have occurred.
sxc.hu/schulergd
When living things reproduce, they make a copy of their DNA and pass this to their progeny. From time to time, mistakes occur, and the next generation does not have a perfect copy of the original DNA. These copying errors are known as mutations. Most people think that ‘natural selection’ can dispose of harmful mutations by eliminating individuals that carry them. But ‘natural selection’ properly defined simply means ‘differential reproduction’, meaning some organisms leave more progeny than others based on the mutations they carry and the environment in which they live. Moreover, reproductive success is only affected by mutations that have a significant effect. Unless mutations cause a noticeable reduction in reproductive rates, the organisms that carry them will be just as successful in leaving offspring as all the others. In other words, if the mutations aren’t ‘bad’ enough, selection can’t ‘see’ them, cannot eliminate them, and the mutations will accumulate. The result is ‘genetic entropy’. Each new generation carries all the mutations of previous generations plus their own. Over time, all these very slightly harmful mutations build up to a point that, in combination, they start to have serious effects on reproductive fitness. The downward spiral becomes unstoppable, because every member of the population has the same problem: natural selection can’t choose between ‘fit’ and ‘less fit’ individuals if every member of the population is, more or less, equally mutated. The population descends into sickness and finally becomes extinct. There’s simply no way to stop it.
Dr Sanford argues that humans could not possibly have been around for tens of thousands of years (let alone millions, or billions if one considers our supposed evolutionary animal ancestors) because, at the current rate of mutation and the number of generations that would have occurred, we should have already become extinct.
From time to time, we are asked by honest people seeking a better understanding, as well as hostile people trying to challenge us, to explain why, if genetic entropy (GE) is true, do bacteria still exist?

Genetic entropy in bacteria

From time to time, we are asked by honest people seeking a better understanding, as well as hostile people trying to challenge us, to explain why, if genetic entropy (GE) is true, do bacteria still exist? After all, bacteria have extremely short generation times. Some bacteria can reproduce every 20 minutes, so would be gaining far more mutations in a day than humans would in a hundred years. And bacteria are much simpler organisms, so it should take less time to break down their genetic instruction set compared to humans. Why, then, did they not go extinct long ago?
There are several ways to answer this. First, the idea of GE was developed by population geneticists working on higher genomes (i.e. genomes of the more complex organisms with longer generation times). The big puzzle is why species like humans have not gone extinct if we have been around for tens of thousands of years as evolutionists maintain.1 In a complex organism, a high mutation rate combined with a low reproduction rate makes it very difficult for ‘natural selection’ to remove deleterious mutations from the population. Thus, higher mammals like people and elephants are not good candidates for long-term survival because mutations accumulate from one generation to the next. For eukaryotic organisms (everything more complex than bacteria), the complexity of the genome makes the ‘mutation target’ quite large—in these more-complicated systems, there are more things that can go wrong, i.e. more machinery that can be broken.2
sxc.hu/svilen001
On the other hand, changes to simpler genomes will often have more of a profound effect. Changing one letter out of the three billion letters in the human genome is not likely to create a radical difference. But the genome of the bacterium E. coli, for example, is about 1,000 times smaller than that of humans; bacteria are more specialized and perform fewer functions. Any letter change is more likely to do something that natural selection can ‘see’. That is, it is more likely that a small change will produce a large enough effect that it will make a difference in the number of individuals carrying that trait generations later.
It’s important to note that there are multiple things going on at once. We have to consider a combination of factors in order to understand why bacteria are still with us today. Let’s use an illustration. Bacteria are like bicycles. People are like sports cars. One can make a number of modifications to both without breaking them, but there are fewer parts in a bicycle, so any given modification is more likely to produce a non-working bicycle. They need two wheels, a handle bar, a frame, a chain, and at least two gear sprockets. There is very little you can remove from them or break before they can’t be used. Cars, on the other hand, don’t need a roof, windshield, or headlights. There are a lot more modifications you can make to a car and still drive it around. You may not get to work on time, because it does not operate at full potential, but the car can still be driven.

But why, if mutation is more likely to kill or harm a bacterial cell, do they still exist?

First, bacteria do suffer from GE. In fact, and perhaps counter intuitively, this is what allows them to specialize quickly.3 Many have become resistant to antibiotics4 and at least one has managed to pick up the ability to digest non-natural, man-made nylon.5 This is only possible with much ‘genetic experimentation’, mostly through mutation, but sometimes through the wholesale swapping of working genes from one species to another. Many mutations plus many generations gives lots of time for lots of genetic experiments. In fact, we have many examples, including those just mentioned, where breaking a perfectly good working system allows a new trait to develop.6 Recently, it was discovered that oceanic bacteria tend to lose genes for vital functions as long as other species of bacteria are living in the area. Here we have an example of multiple species losing working genes but surviving because they are supported by the metabolic excretions of other species.7 Since the changes are one-way and downhill, this is another form of GE.

Lower mutation rates

Another reason why bacteria still exist is that they have a lower overall mutation rate. The mutation rate in E. coli has been estimated to be about 1 in 10–10, or one mutation for every 10 billion letters copied.8 Compare this to the size of the E. coli genome (about 4.2 million letters) and you can see that mutation is rare per cell. Now compare this statistic to the estimated rate of mutation per newborn human baby (about 100 new mutations per child2) and one can begin to see the problem. Thus, there are nearly always non-mutated bacteria around, enabling the species to survive. However, there are also always mutated bacteria present, so the species are able to explore new ecological niches (although most known examples have arisen at the expense of long-term survival).

Incredible growth potential

Bacteria have an amazing growth rate. The entire world population of a species like E. coli turns over very fast (perhaps once per hour). Trillions upon trillions of these cells die for many different reasons each and every hour. Thus, this may be a system where natural selection can actually halt the inevitable decay. Why? Because any mutation that confers even a small disadvantage (and most do) can be removed through differential reproduction, given enough time. (Time in this case is measured in generations.)
Bacteria can replace themselves after a population crash in a very short period of time. This is a key reason they do not suffer extinction. Thus, when exposed to antibiotics, for example, the few resistant cells within the population can grow into a large replacement population in short order, even though 99.99% of the original bacteria may have died. If the antibiotic is removed, the population can turn over again, with the non-resistant ones replacing the resistant ones (because antibiotic resistance is usually associated with impaired growth, so the originals grow faster and would dominate the population in a few generations). Humans cannot do this. It would take thousands of years to replace the current population of 7 billion people, and the inbreeding that would occur when the few survivors were forced to marry close relations might drive us to extinction anyway.9

Bacteria vastly outnumber people

Population size is another consideration. There are many more bacteria than people. But since bacterial population sizes are relatively constant, there isn’t room for more, and competition is extreme. Most lineages die out in the long run. In large populations, with lots of competition, mutations can be purged more efficiently through differential reproduction. Any cell with a slight advantage over another is more likely, over generations, to persist.
Their simpler genomes, high population sizes, short generation times, and lower overall mutation rates combine to make them the most resistant to extinction. However, this does not mean that they can do this forever.

Environmental sources

It is quite feasible that many bacterial species undergo significant periods of dormancy. Bacteria coming out of dormancy would serve as a continual source of older, less mutated versions and would help to prevent GE over the long term.

Mutations can’t hide in prokaryotic genomes

Eukaryotes, such as humans, inherit two copies of each chromosome—one from each parent.10 Thus, any mutation on one human chromosome is often masked by the good copy on the other chromosome. This interferes with differential reproduction based on mutational differences (e.g. ‘natural selection’) and increases the mutation burden of our species. This is not true for bacteria, which reproduce asexually and inherit their DNA from only one parent.

What about other fast-reproducing organisms?

One might reply, “But mice have genomes about the size of the human genome and have much shorter generation times. Why do we not see evidence of GE in them?” Actually, we do. The common house mouse, Mus musculus, has much more genetic diversity than people do, including a huge range of chromosomal differences from one sub-population to the next. They are certainly experiencing GE. On the other hand, they seem to have a lower per-generation mutation rate. Couple that with a much shorter generation time and a much greater population size, and, like bacteria, there is ample opportunity to remove bad mutations from the population. Long-lived species with low population growth rates (e.g. humans) are the most threatened, but the others are not immune.

Conclusions

There are attempted evolutionary counter arguments to the basic GE hypothesis. They are weak, but it is not the purpose of this article to give an all-comprehensive defense of the theory. It is sufficient to say, however, that bacteria, of all the life forms on Earth, are the best candidates for surviving the effects of GE over the long term. Their simpler genomes, high population sizes, short generation times, and lower overall mutation rates combine to make them the most resistant to extinction. However, this does not mean they can do this forever and, in the end, they will be burned up along with everything else when Christ returns.

Related Articles

References

  1. Kondrashov, A., Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?, Journal of Theoretical Biology175:583–594, 1995. Return to text.
  2. Lynch, M., Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 107(3):961–968, 2010.Return to text.
  3. C.f., Sniegowski, P.D., Gerrish, P.J., Lenski, R.E., Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coliNature 387:703–704. Return to text.
  4. Bergman, J., Does the acquisition of antibiotic and pesticide resistance provide evidence for evolution?Journal of Creation 17(1):26–32, 2003. Return to text.
  5. Batten, D., The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste, Journal of Creation 17(3):3–5, 2003; creation.com/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste. See also the comment on “nylonase” below this article: creation.com/question-evolutionReturn to text.
  6. See our Q&A pages on mutations and natural selectionReturn to text.
  7. Morris, J.J., Lenski, R.E., Zinser, E.R., The Black Queen Hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss, mBio 3(2):e00036–12, 2012.Return to text.
  8. Tago, Y., Imai, M., Ihara, M., Atofuji, H., Nagata, Y., and Yamamoto, K., Escherichia coli mutator Delta polA is defective in base mismatch correction: The nature of in vivo DNA replication errors, Journal of Molecular Biology 351:299–308, 2005. Return to text.
  9. This would not have been a problem for the human population immediately after Noah’s Flood. Being only 10 generations or so removed from Adam, they would not yet have picked up all the deleterious mutations we carry today. Return to text.
  10. Exceptions include red blood cells, which don’t have nuclei, and liver cells, which often have extra copies of many chromosomes. Return to text.

Besides the many thousands of articles that are freely available on this site, our staff answer many hundreds of emails in response to it. Help us help advance the gospel. Support this site

Readers’ comments

Jack C., Australia, 24 October 2012
Mutation is used by atheists as the trigger to explain the origin of the species. If mutation is the cause and given mutation is mostly harmful and detrimental to any species, how come over supposedly billions of years the net effect is that it has been good to allow species not only to change but to survive? Isn't there a contradiction? They can't have an agent that is net bad and net good at the same time.
Robert Carter responds
Jack,
Evolutionists acknowledge the problem that mutations are generally bad in the short term, but they assume that natural selection can remove them over the long term. The main point of Genetic Entropy is that this assumption is incorrect.
RC
michael S., United Kingdom, 25 October 2012
Just wondering an old-earther said that the world was made "very good", not "perfect". My question is - why are there spelling errors in DNA anyway? Is this a flaw in the design?
For example, if I made a carburetor with a small hole in it, by design, then by design it would leak. Are mutations a flawed design?
I assume that they are not - but how can we know for sure? Surely mutations happening by design would thwart an argument from design - or so atheists would reason. (correctly).
Disclaimer: I am not atheist, but this puzzles me.
Rob Carter responds
Michael,
Mutations, as properly understood, are not part of the original creation. They have been added to the human (and that of other species) genome over the past 6,000 years. This process began after the "Curse", that is, after Adam rebelled against God and death and suffering entered the world. Thus, the presence of mutations in the modern world is perfectly consistent with biblical history and there is no reason whatsoever to conclude otherwise. Note also that the phrase "very good" was wrapped up in the promise that there would be no death unless Adam sinned. Your old-earther friend accepts death prior to Adam (inconsistent as this is) and must, therefore, downplay the plain contextual meaning of a very important passage of Scripture.
graham P., New Zealand, 25 October 2012
Excellent piece. Logically speaking there may have been trillions of species of bacteria that have gone extinct already. We can't see them because, I suppose, its hard to spot them in the fossil record.
Pluri B., Germany, 26 October 2012
Are bacteria really "living organisms" or just a sort of bio-nanomachines that make the world go round for higher organisms? Bacteria are, in fact, immortal. They simply split to reproduce. Can we speak of living beings when such beings are immortal, and cannot die?
Bacteria can also take up and integrate handy DNA from whatever source in their own genome. They can exchange DNA almost unlimited with each other. Constantly changing and adapting they clean and optimize the environment. They reduce the garbage produced by others, and do not even realize it. Their capacity to adapt is beyond imagination.
Maybe we should concider them as a sort of "immunological compartment" of the world. The immune system has also been designed to adapt. Bacteria may similarly have been created to keep the planet going on, in order to receive and maintain an environment optimized for man.
I realize that integrated foreign DNA, DNA in the wrong context, may also induce uncontrolled nanomachines, which then leads to diseases. But that would be secondary, and introduced after the rebellion.
PB
Robert Carter responds
PB,
Very interesting comments. I do not think it inappropriate to consider that bacteria are alive, however. Even though they reproduce by fission, the daughter cells still have to inherit the DNA of the mother cell (sometimes unequally). In many other ways, they are just a simplified version of higher life forms and they certainly demand a different status than viruses, which I would argue are not alive. However, I appreciate the ideas and will be considering them in the future.
D. B., United States, 2 November 2012
Perhaps a better analogy would be copying the Encyclopedia by hand, each time adding new errors to the process but never correcting any of the previous errors. At some point the nth-generation copy will be so unfit for use that no one will ever copy it, and it will become 'unviable.'
Robert Carter responds
Yes, but how do you know when you have reached the point when they are unfit for use? Instead of it happening at some unspecified future time, I added a test at the end of each iteration and only those books that led to passing grades were passed on. This is an illustration of natural selection, where only a subsample of all existing copies make it to the next generation. Eventually, and despite selection, enough errors will accumulate that nobody can pass a test. That guarantees extinction.
Doug L., United States, 3 November 2012
I THINK this is a very good article. I say "think" because, to be honest, I didn't fully follow the whole thing. I'm an engineer and database system developer, not a geneticist. So I simply fall back on what is really the most significant aspect of the book on GE: namely that there is no such thing as a mutation which can be shown to add information to a genome. They are always destructive to genetic information, even if they have no immediate impact.
Therefore the GE argument is relative and valid. Every genome is on an inexorable downhill slide, whether slowly or quickly, which is exactly what one should expect. Unless of course you are a fanatical evolutionist who refuses to see the obvious. Hear no creation, speak no creation, see no creation.
Robert Carter responds
Good comments, but please see my article that directly address the "no new information" argument: http://creation.com/mutations-new-information. Whether or not "mutation" can "add" "new" "information" depends very much on how things are defined. I advise caution when using the argument.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait, your side actually thinks bacteria in NASA clean rooms and the risk of seeding other planets is new news? I'm sorry... I can't stop laughing.

radar said...

Your side thinks evolution is possible and now THAT would be funny if it wasn't such a plague on science and humanity. The widespread belief in evolution has not only dumbed-down science and devalued human life, it has certainly helped dictatorships flourish. After all, if there is no real morality, why not kill and steal to obtain power? If men evolved from apes, then some are less evolved and less important. That is what YOUR SIDE believes and that is no laughing matter!

Most people in the world have NO IDEA about NASA clean rooms. Most people in the world have NO IDEA about a lot of things related to bacteria. Therefore when I put the information out there it is new to most people.

Your side finds bacteria alive in "86 million year old clay" and marvels at their ability to live at a low level of energy consumption, rather than realize that it means the clay hasn't been there very long. Your side pays no attention to the magnetic field degradation that means life on Earth 50,000 years ago would be impossible. Your side sees a moon that is spewing geysers miles into space and pretend it is a mysterious and glorious event for something billions of years old. Your side finds flesh and blood in dinosaur remains and pretends it could exist for millions of years or tries to label it as something else than it is to avoid scrutiny. Your side is stupid.

I have subscriptions to technical journals but most of the content is not available to put online for a couple of years. I only use what they release to the public out of courtesy to their policies. Besides, most people who have been brainwashed by Darwinists are far behind the curve when it comes to evidence. Too much modern evidence is damning to Darwin so it is not shouted from the rooftops.

Anonymous said...

"speciate so rapidly that evolution could not have been involved"

I had to stop reading at this point because I was laughing too hard. Seriously, once something as stupid as this is presented in full seriousness, it's impossible to take anything else that follows seriously.

radar said...

Have no not heard? Simple derision is not an argument.

Whereas bacteria stubbornly refuse to die off from mutations because of the evidence presented, they continue to live in virtually any Earth environment as they were designed for contingencies and failures like NASA would design a space capsule, only much better (you remember that the shuttle had no way for the crew to escape if there was a failure to escape the atmosphere?) than anything mankind can devise.

Bacteria can share genetic information and can adjust rapidly to changes in environment by using genetic information already extant. If you cannot comprehend the articles, it would be okay to admit it and acknowledge you need time to study the subject. But your laughter is frankly as empty as the evidence you present, which is nothing.

Rapid speciation is a design feature of organisms. This is how bacteria adjust so quickly to changes and how the Galapagos finches beaks change from generation to generation. In fact, beak sizes are changed quickly using distal switching in the cell and not mutations. Mutation has nothing to do with it.

I suggest you study the subject as your empty mirth is the same as an admission that Darwinism cannot account for the rapid changes.

radar said...

Better commenters, please! Back to work...

Anonymous said...

You want to talk about "far behind the curve"? Buddy, you are literally decades behind the curve on reporting the microbes in clean rooms thing. Like I said, it's nothing new.

Most people in the world have NO IDEA about a lot of things related to bacteria.

I realize, given the fact that your ego is so ridiculously oversized that it's at risk of needing its own zipcode, that this probably won't make a dent, but this statement applies quite well to you.

Also, this is rich:

Have no not heard? Simple derision is not an argument.

But just above, you say this:

Your side is stupid.

Sorry dude, but you lost the right to use the "derision is not an argument" thing years ago. Besides, given the fact that you've hardly had an original thought on here since the earliest days of the blog, and given that literally 80-90% of this blog is copypasted from elsewhere, I think simple derision is about all this place is worth.

I suggest you study the subject as your empty mirth is the same as an admission that Darwinism cannot account for the rapid changes.

This, from a guy with zero experience, education or study in the field of micro (or any other science, for that matter). You really are one of a kind buddy.

Anonymous said...

"I suggest you study the subject as your empty mirth is the same as an admission that Darwinism cannot account for the rapid changes."

My mirth was at the complete lack of knowledge of the subject that you betrayed by your comment. What's even funnier is that you don't get it even now:

"speciate so rapidly that evolution could not have been involved"

I suggest you study the subject as well some time. You seem thoroughly confused. If you can't even get that straight, then how can you possibly make any informed selection of what is worth pasting and what isn't?

And yes, most of your blog is simple cut-n-paste, with no intelligent commentary added.

radar said...

Like I said, better commenters PLEASE!!!

Mirthful derision with no knowledge displayed is a sign you have no argument. For instance, the rapid speciation of the bacteria mentioned in the NASA article was a shock to Darwinist science as they could not find mutations as the engine for change. Bacteria are amazing in that they can live in conditions that mankind was certain they could not withstand.

You do realize that bacteria split rather than mate, right? That their genome is small compared to, say, a rat or a camel or a man? That the reason they are still alive today is that they are simple enough to allow the environment to weed out mutated strains and yet reproduce fast enough to recover from a grievous loss? That they share genetic material in order to adjust to conditions in ways we are still studying?

Did you know that bacteria communicate with a chemical "language?" Specific varieties have a specific language that is understood by that variety but there is also a bacteria "esperanto" as it were, a general language to invite the colony to grow or to suggest going elsewhere. When a type of bacteria senses they have enough of a population to invade/colonize an organism or other food source, they sense a quorum and begin to replicate rapidly.

Rapid speciation has been observed in many varieties of organisms, speciation driven by the use of existing genetic information and NOT mutations. I have written on this before. I've written a lot on bacteria, a great deal on speciation and genetic redundancy and facilitated variation and changes due to plasmids and changes via distal switches.

I know enough to understand what I am writing. You anonymous guy? By reading your comments I can imagine you are probably about 19 years old and know next to nothing about anything. Show us you know anything at all about the subject or make some kind of point at least? Because all you are doing now is acting like a Baboon tearing through a kitchen, ripping up the joint. Try giving us one constructive comment?

Anonymous said...

I've written a lot on bacteria, a great deal on speciation and genetic redundancy and facilitated variation and changes due to plasmids and changes via distal switches.

No, you have not. Unless of course by "I have written" you mean "I have copied and pasted a bunch of other people's writings on those subjects".

You anonymous guy? By reading your comments I can imagine you are probably about 19 years old and know next to nothing about anything.

Way off, but thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

"Like I said, better commenters PLEASE!!!"

Like I said, what makes it even funnier is that you still don't get it.

And your name-calling/mindreading attempt is way off in my case as well.

radar said...

Anonymous, you have not made one statement that is anything but derision, and therefore giving you an age of 19 is being generous.

I often write my own material, such as the Saturday the 16th post. But it is an effort on my part to share various science sites with readers as I share information.

In any event, your cries that "I do not get it" are meaningless. Nothing you have said tells me you know anything about bacteria or genetics. Suppose you tell us how bacteria were able to adjust to NASA clean rooms by evolution and I want specifics. Otherwise you are just an ignorant guy on the sidelines yelling at the players with no idea what it takes to actually play the game. Further such comments will not be worth my time. Have a nice life.

Anonymous said...

I often write my own material, such as the Saturday the 16th post. But it is an effort on my part to share various science sites with readers as I share information.

Funny. According to word count, the post from the 16th is 25% you, 75% someone else.

As far as bacteria and genetics, I'm pretty confident that I have a considerably higher knowledge of the subject than you do. The difference is that I don't have a massive ego and inferiority complex to feed.

radar said...

Hey, anonymous?

You are the guy who claims great knowledge (minus the evidence) and are so concerned about assuring us all how much smarter you are (sounds like ego to me) and again without evidence.

Check my language carefully. The post on the 16th starts with my own material and introduces the rest. I cannot believe you actually did a word count?

Hope the Friday the 22nd post makes you happier since it is probably 90% me and not one article from another site, either.

Why do you need to go to blogs and assert how superior you are, pray tell? Don't you realize that is not normal? It indicates that you are not confident in yourself and want approval and need people to tell you how smart you are so you can believ it. You could start by convincing yourself? At that point you might show up with evidence instead of the mememmemememememememe stuff?

Anonymous said...

Your last paragraph here is easily rephrased to describe you perfectly:

"Why do you need to post on your blog and assert how superior you are, pray tell? Don't you realize that is not normal? It indicates that you are not confident in yourself and want approval and need people to tell you how smart you are so you can believe it. You could start by convincing yourself. At that point you might show up with evidence instead of the mememmemememememememe stuff?"