[_ Old Earth _] Mutation, Evolutions last hope

[Barbarian]

Just to bring it back to the OP title, evolutionists claim that mutations are both beneficial & continuous

No. Has it occured to you that you might be more effective fighting science, if you actually learned what it says?

In fact, every mutation known to scientific observation - & true science must be based on observation - is both detrimental & quickly corrected

Wrong again. Most mutations don't do much of anything. One amino acid changing in a protein with hundreds of them, probably won't change it's function measurably. A few mutations do, and do harmful things. And a very few do useful things. Natural selection sorts them out. Sould you like to learn about some useful mutations?

Thus, Darwin drivel goes against one of the most established laws of science: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Put simply, things left to themselves tend to decay, not to improve

That's not what the second law says, and it's demonstrably wrong. If that was true, no plants would grow from seeds, no new animals would be born, even hurricanes could not form.

Would you be offended, if I asked you to go look up the 2nd Law and learn what it actually says? BTW, Boltzmann, who is the father of mathematical thermodynamics was a supporter of Darwin. Is it possible he knew something you don't?

See the great array of learned articles, books, CDs, DVDs etc @ http://www

If your "learning" is an example, I'll pass. But if you could show me the numbers on the 2nd law, I might reconsider.

 

[MrVersatile48]

True science is observation - not a pathetic atheistic philosphy masquerading as wisdom but, in fact, clutching desparately at straws to find excuses to disobey a holy, righteous God

If you have time study 'suddenly' @ concordance


Online Bible study aids

http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27408

Must go

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch ... version=31

Genesis 37:7

We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it."

Genesis 37:6-8 (in Context) Genesis 37 (Whole Chapter)

Numbers 6:9

" 'If someone dies suddenly in his presence, thus defiling the hair he has dedicated, he must shave his head on the day of his cleansingâ€â€the seventh day.

Numbers 6:8-10 (in Context) Numbers 6 (Whole Chapter)

Numbers 16:42

But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the Tent of Meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared.

Numbers 16:41-43 (in Context) Numbers 16 (Whole Chapter)

Numbers 35:22

" 'But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally

Numbers 35:21-23 (in Context) Numbers 35 (Whole Chapter)

Joshua 11:7

So Joshua and his whole army came against them suddenly at the Waters of Merom and attacked them,

Joshua 11:6-8 (in Context) Joshua 11 (Whole Chapter)

Judges 14:5

Samson went down to Timnah together with his father and mother. As they approached the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came roaring toward him.

Judges 14:4-6 (in Context) Judges 14 (Whole Chapter)

2 Kings 2:11

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

2 Kings 2:10-12 (in Context) 2 Kings 2 (Whole Chapter)

2 Kings 13:21

Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

2 Kings 13:20-22 (in Context) 2 Kings 13 (Whole Chapter)

Job 1:19

when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"

Job 1:18-20 (in Context) Job 1 (Whole Chapter)

Job 5:3

I myself have seen a fool taking root, but suddenly his house was cursed.

Job 5:2-4 (in Context) Job 5 (Whole Chapter)

More results from New International Version


Psalm 64:4

They shoot from ambush at the innocent man; they shoot at him suddenly, without fear.

Psalm 64:3-5 (in Context) Psalm 64 (Whole Chapter)

Psalm 64:7

But God will shoot them with arrows; suddenly they will be struck down.

Psalm 64:6-8 (in Context) Psalm 64 (Whole Chapter)

Psalm 73:19

How suddenly are they destroyed, completely swept away by terrors!

Psalm 73:18-20 (in Context) Psalm 73 (Whole Chapter)

Proverbs 6:15

Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant; he will suddenly be destroyedâ€â€without remedy.

Proverbs 6:14-16 (in Context) Proverbs 6 (Whole Chapter)

Proverbs 28:18

He whose walk is blameless is kept safe, but he whose ways are perverse will suddenly fall.

Proverbs 28:17-19 (in Context) Proverbs 28 (Whole Chapter)

Proverbs 29:1

A man who remains stiff-necked after many rebukes will suddenly be destroyedâ€â€without remedy.

Proverbs 29:1-3 (in Context) Proverbs 29 (Whole Chapter)

Isaiah 29:5

But your many enemies will become like fine dust, the ruthless hordes like blown chaff. Suddenly, in an instant,

Isaiah 29:4-6 (in Context) Isaiah 29 (Whole Chapter)

Isaiah 30:13

this sin will become for you like a high wall, cracked and bulging, that collapses suddenly, in an instant.

Isaiah 30:12-14 (in Context) Isaiah 30 (Whole Chapter)

Isaiah 47:11

Disaster will come upon you, and you will not know how to conjure it away. A calamity will fall upon you that you cannot ward off with a ransom; a catastrophe you cannot foresee will suddenly come upon you.

Isaiah 47:10-12 (in Context) Isaiah 47 (Whole Chapter)

Isaiah 48:3

I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass.

Isaiah 48:2-4 (in Context) Isaiah 48 (Whole Chapter)

Jeremiah 6:26

O my people, put on sackcloth and roll in ashes; mourn with bitter wailing as for an only son, for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us.

Jeremiah 6:25-27 (in Context) Jeremiah 6 (Whole Chapter)

Jeremiah 15:8

I will make their widows more numerous than the sand of the sea. At midday I will bring a destroyer against the mothers of their young men; suddenly I will bring down on them anguish and terror.

Jeremiah 15:7-9 (in Context) Jeremiah 15 (Whole Chapter)

Jeremiah 18:22

Let a cry be heard from their houses when you suddenly bring invaders against them, for they have dug a pit to capture me and have hidden snares for my feet.

Jeremiah 18:21-23 (in Context) Jeremiah 18 (Whole Chapter)

Jeremiah 51:8
Babylon will suddenly fall and be broken. Wail over her! Get balm for her pain; perhaps she can be healed.

Jeremiah 51:7-9 (in Context) Jeremiah 51 (Whole Chapter)

Daniel 5:5

Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote.

Daniel 5:4-6 (in Context) Daniel 5 (Whole Chapter)

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests that Mr. V might be more effective, if he could show the numbers on his claims for the 2nd Law)

True science is observation - not a pathetic atheistic philosphy masquerading as wisdom but, in fact, clutching desparately at straws to find excuses to disobey a holy, righteous God

I gather this means you aren't going to show us your evidence?

(lots of Scripture cited, most with no discernable connection to 2nd Law)

I guess so.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Hi Barb!

Just @ 60 secs to crack the old chestnut 4 ya.. 8-)

How..

er..

Barbaric can ya get?? :crazyeyes:

I'm just about to mutate to the Simpsons Movie - is that beneficial or detrimental, readers? :wink:

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29281

Cheapest NW cinema Tues/Thurs

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29598

How many readers think Barb knows that The X Men is fiction?

As are those cute CGI special FX that disguise the fact that there are millions of missing links - at every so-called step along the so-called evolutionary ladder/chain

Reminds me: I put it all to music for y'all ..

All The Wonders Of The Universe :infinity:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=18462

Ian :-D

 

[MrVersatile48]

From FAQ @ http://www.discovery.org/csc

5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory?

Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world.

These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

6. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?

Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications.

Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski, Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe, Darwinism, Design and Public Education by Stephen C. Meyer & John Angus Campbell (Michigan State University Press) and Debating Design (Cambridge University Press) by Center Fellow William A. Dembski and ID critic Michael Ruse.

In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago.

There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations.

Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics. For more information go to our annotated list of "Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting ID"

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

===================================================================================

Now to search mutations @ Essential Readings there..

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

These 3 should cover it:-

Science & Design
By: William Dembski
First Things

DNA and Other Designs
By: Stephen C. Meyer
First Things

Survival of the Fakest (PDF)
By: Jonathan Wells
American Spectator

Now to try http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicS ... s,127.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicS ... a,126.aspx

What’s the best “proof†of creation?
Laymanby Ken Ham

If the Bible’s account of creation is true, you may ask, then what’s the best proof I can give to someone?

Why doesn’t all the evidence for creation convince scientists that evolution is wrong?

Well, it’s not that simple.

In this chapter, we will examine the presuppositions that all people have and how this affects their interpretation of the evidence. We need to help evolutionists understand their own naturalistic presuppositions and see that the same “evidence†fits very nicelyâ€â€in fact, even betterâ€â€within a biblical worldview...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... f-creation


& http://www.creationevidence.org.html

& http://www.creationism.org

http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/videos/index.htm - 20 of 'em, but this public PC can't open audio/video

http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm

BINGO:-

MUTATIONS

MUTATIONS - Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations in life forms.

Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every evolution-teaching professor in America.

Or, let's buy them big X-ray machines to use like tanning beds. …

Okay, too much fun here. ….

Back to serious answers...

Evolutionists have serious problems with their theory.

There is still no mechanism for *how* evolution could have happened, to bolster their underlying belief system that there just can't be a God to have to answer to. Testable-repeatable science shows very, very different results than evolution teaches.

Mutations are almost always harmful or (if not fatal) get reabsorbed into successive generations in any event.

Inbreeding causes serious problems, not magical automatic improvements.

They keep thinking that somewhere on Earth they'll find some bona fide transitional fossils. But while billions upon billions of fossils have been dug up over the years there are still zero transitional fossils that stand up to scientific scrutiny over time.

All amphibians remain amphibians (reproducing within preset variational limits).

All fish remain fish.

All mammals have always been mammals, and within mammals (just like "kinds" within amphibians or fish, etc.), there are dog-kind of animals that keep producing only a variety of dogs as offspring.

Why, you'd think that some wise Designer had encoded specific, but flexible, instructions into each type of life at the outset then let them propagate down through time.

A good engineer does not re-invent the wheel with each new model...


http://www.creationism.org/topbar/mutations.htm

Ian

 

[Barbarian]

Well, a little substance this time. Well done. Let's take a look...

If the Bible’s account of creation is true, you may ask, then what’s the best proof I can give to someone?

The Bible's account is true. It's yours that's a problem.

Why doesn’t all the evidence for creation convince scientists that evolution is wrong?

Primarily because evolution is consistent with God's creation.

MUTATIONS
Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations in life forms.

But it won't increase rates of evolution. Think of it as gasoline in a car. Your car won't run without gasoline, but putting more gasoline in it won't make it run faster.

Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every evolution-teaching professor in America.

Or, let's buy them big X-ray machines to use like tanning beds. …

Ah, you've now confused what's true, with what's desirable. Scientists don't accept evolution because they like it; they accept it because that's what the evidence shows. And since the majority of mutations do little, with most of the rest doing bad things, they don't think having a mutation is a good thing, most of the time.

Okay, too much fun here. ….

No, just a really big misconception about evolution, and evoutionary theory.

Evolutionists have serious problems with their theory.

As do chemists, physicists, geologists, etc. Good thing for them, too. You see, a science with no problems left to solve is dead. No need for scientists. There are entire journals dedicated to research in evolution, addressing various problems. Ditto for chemistry and other sciences.

There is still no mechanism for *how* evolution could have happened,

Variation and natural selection.

to bolster their underlying belief system that there just can't be a God to have to answer to.

Even Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. Someone's been taking advantage of you.

Testable-repeatable science shows very, very different results than evolution teaches.

Sounds intriguing. But it would be believable, if you had some facts.

Mutations are almost always harmful or (if not fatal)

A common misconception. Most mutations don't do much of anything. Most of us have a few.

get reabsorbed into successive generations in any event.

Nope. Even harmful ones, if they are recessive, tend to persist. Would you like to learn why?

Inbreeding causes serious problems,

Can, if you aren't careful. And yet, animal breeds have been greatly improved by inbreeding. Hint: heterosis can be maintained during inbreeding.

They keep thinking that somewhere on Earth they'll find some bona fide transitional fossils. But while billions upon billions of fossils have been dug up over the years there are still zero transitional fossils that stand up to scientific scrutiny over time.

Someone's suckered you on that, too. Let's test that notion. Name two major groups of animals, one said by evolutionary theory to have evolved from the other, and I'll see if I can find a transitional between them. You've got a sporting chance here, because we haven't yet found all transitionals; we find new ones almost monthly. But there are enough that I'm pretty confidence you won't find them. Just to be completely fair, pick five such instances, and I'll see if I can get all five.

All amphibians remain amphibians (reproducing within preset variational limits).

So is Seymouria a reptile or an amphibian, and on what basis do you make that claim?

All fish remain fish.

So if it has legs and feet, it can't be a fish, right? Is this a fish?

All mammals have always been mammals,

[/quote]

A testable claim. Is this the skull of a mammal, and how do you know?

 

[MrVersatile48]

Hi Barb! :wink:

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/

Worldviews: God Explains it All
Dr. Paul Dean

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Such a question is basic to our very existence and all people must answer it in some way whether consciously or unconsciously.

To answer the question unconsciously is both to answer it and to ignore it at the same time.

To ignore the question is to answer it along these lines, “I only believe what I feel like believing at any given moment.â€Â

In other words, this individual has no coherent philosophical grid by which he approaches life in general except that he acts merely upon circumstantial feelings. This individual will live with philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions within his own mind without really caring or perhaps even knowing such to be the case.

Some take a more thoughtful approach and attempt to develop some sort of belief system.

In other words, they know what they believe and are often very committed to those beliefs. Yet, they are not so different from those who ignore the question, though they may conceive themselves as being different by virtue of the fact that they at least answer the first half of the question: what do you believe?

They are not so different because setting forth what one believes is not enough.

What one believes is irrelevant if he does not know why he believes it. If one does not know why he believes something then he is his own authority and has relegated himself to a position of relativism, or, to put it more aptly, arbitrariness. That is, he is philosophically uncertain about anything because he has no ground for what he believes.

He simply believes it because he believes it.

Others are more thoughtful still. Not only have they answered the first half of the question, but they have wrestled with the second half as well.

These individuals know what they believe and offer some justification for it. In other words, they have attempted to answer the question: why do you believe it?

They have consciously committed themselves to a particular worldview. Of course, those who ignore the question and those who answer only the first half have committed themselves to their respective worldviews to be sure.

The difference between those individuals and the one who wrestles with the “why†question is that the former are unconsciously committed to their worldviews and the latter is consciously committed to his worldview. The latter is attempting to make some sense out of his world.

There is yet another category to be brought forth momentarily.

The concept of “worldview†must be dealt with first. A “worldview†quite obviously has to do with the way a person looks at the world. In one sense, it is the totality of what one believes.

In another sense, it is the lens through which a person views the world or ultimate reality. It consists of one’s presuppositions or assumptions about the nature of our world.

A worldview is made up of those presuppositions that individuals believe without evidence or outside support; they are merely taken for granted or on faith.

Then there are those presuppositions or beliefs that persons hold to based on some kind of rationale. A person will always speak from his particular worldview whether he is conscious he is doing so or not, whether he is consistent or not, or whether he has determined to do so or not.

Everyone brings his worldview to the marketplace of ideas.

To pick up on the opening question once again is to put these issues in sharper focus. It is not difficult to see that the individual who has ignored the question has no ground for what he believes. And, it is perhaps quite clear that the one who has only set forth what he believes without asking why he believes it has no ground for what he believes either.

And yet, it is also true that the one who has answered both sides of the question, the one who knows what he believes and why, has no rational, philosophical ground for what he believes if he holds to any worldview other than a biblical worldview.

In other words, the one who does not presuppose the God of the bible has no ground for believing what he believes about anything. He has relegated himself to a life of intellectual futility and philosophical inconsistency.

By way of example, one committed to an evolutionary/naturalist worldview must live with philosophical contradictions.

He conceives of the universe as a box. The only things that exist are those things within the box. One may not go outside of the box to search for answers to anything or to explain anything. There is only the physical universe in which we live. There is nothing metaphysical. Thus, he says there is no God.

Yet, there are a number of things that he cannot justify on his worldview.

He presupposes laws of logic to engage in scientific method or have a conversation, etc...

But laws of logic are immaterial, that is, metaphysical and cannot be justified on his worldview.

He cannot justify concepts like honesty on his worldview though he presupposes those concepts in the reporting of data or in formulating hypotheses or theories, etc.

He violates his own worldview by presupposing the uniformity of nature though he says the origin of the universe was a random chance accident.

He posits a natural law that says matter and energy cannot come from nothing yet he says just that: the universe came from nothing.

He posits a natural law that says that life cannot come from non-life yet in the beginning life did in fact come from non-life says he.

On an evolutionary worldview, we are but an accident with no real purpose for being here. On that worldview, values mean nothing and there is no life after death.

Evolutionists do indeed attempt to inject meaning into our existence. But, they have no justification for doing so on their worldview.

Let me take it a step further. The evolutionist says there is no God.

The question must be put to him, “how do you know there is no God?â€Â

On his worldview, one of observation and data, he does not know. He has not searched every corner of the universe. He has limited knowledge and limited investigative ability.

He posits a statement of absolute fact concerning the existence of God but he is relegated to a position of complete uncertainty on his worldview. He cannot justify his claim...

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/ - 2 more pages there

Ian :-D

 

[MrVersatile48]

Evangelical Minds

David Dockery on Christian Higher Ed's Key Challenges

Plus: Fearing secularization and "fundamentalization" and whether "Christian economics" exist.
Hunter Baker


Book Report: David Dockery's Renewing Minds

David Dockery is president of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Co-editor of two earlier books on Christian higher education (Shaping a Christian Worldview and The Future of Christian Higher Education), he has now written his own book on the subject. Renewing Minds: Serving Church and Society through Christian Higher Education, will be published by Holman Academic in October.


CT: You've already edited two books on Christian higher education, and have written extensively on the subject. What motivated you to take it up again in a new volume, especially as there have been so many other books on Christian higher education in recent years?

Dockery: The world in which we live is characterized by change. At the heart of these paradigmatic changes we see that truth, morality, and interpretive frameworks are being ignored if not rejected.

The challenges posed for Christian higher education by these cultural shifts are formidable indeed. I believe that those of us who are called to serve in Christian higher education at this time in history must step forward to address these issues.

Renewing Minds is a call to reclaim the best of the Christian intellectual tradition.

In this context we need more than just new and novel ideas and enhanced programs; we need distinctively Christian thinking. It seems to me that the integration of faith and learning involves, as T.S. Eliot said so appropriately, being able to think in Christian categories.

CT: One of the significant divides in terms of conceiving the Christian university is between the "two spheres" model that aims to provide an excellent secular education in a Christian environment and the integrationist model that aims at distinctively Christian education. You endorse the latter. Why?

Dockery: A two-sphere model recognizes the place of chapel, campus ministry, mission trip opportunities, and residence-life Bible studies. This model sees a place for faith on one side of the campus and learning on the other. This model can be achieved with parachurch ministries on secular campuses. I do not believe this model represents the best of Christ-centered higher education nor do I think it represents the best of the Christian intellectual tradition through the years.

The conjunction of faith and learning, the one-sphere or integrationist model, points to the essence of a Christian university. In recent years, among an increasingly large number of intellectuals, there has arisen a deep suspicion of today's thoroughly secularized academy, so that there is indeed a renewed appreciation for and openness to what George Marsden calls "the outrageous idea of Christian scholarship."

As Mark Schwenn of Valparaiso University has suggested, it may be time to acknowledge that the thorough secularization of the academy is, at least, unfruitful. There is even a renewed interest in many places in the relationship of the church to higher education. "Ex cordeecclesiae" is the way our Catholic friends frame this idea, which calls for the church to be at the heart of the university and for the university to be at the heart of the church.

Being faithful will involve much more than mere piety or spirituality, which by itself will not sustain the idea of a Christian university. We need a model of higher education that confesses the sovereignty of the triune God over the whole cosmos, in all spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible.

CT: Why are Christian faculty sometimes deeply divided over making the integration of faith and learning the touchstone of a Christian university experience? And why does it seem to provoke bigger fights between Baptists than Presbyterians or Catholics?

Dockery: I think one of the key challenges we face in trying to advance the cause of Christian higher education is locating and developing faculty who believe in the importance of the vision I have attempted to articulate in the first three questions. This understanding of faith (the faith that we believe) provides a unifying framework that helps avoid the error of a spiritualized Gnosticism on the one hand or a purely materialistic metaphysic on the other.

It is this confessional starting point that forms the foundation for our affirmation that all truth is God's truth, whether revealed or discovered. Thus, on the one hand we respond with grateful wonder at what has been made known to us, and on the other, with exerted effort to discover what has not been clearly manifested...


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -42.0.html

Ian

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, my degrees are in science. I'm a biologist.

At least now I know what your blinder is.

I actually know about the subject? That does give one an advantage.

Social science and fits right in with finance.

Even if you have degrees in social science and finance, it really won't help you. Biology is what you need to know.

Both guessing games, playing with statistics. As for me I'm in an exact science. I have a degree in Accounting and Professional services,

Hmm... Never heard of a University offering a degree like that. And you're wrong about the accounting at least. It's considered math, not social science.

Biology tries to help evolution but none of it is based on hard facts of first hand viewing of time, its all theories, ideas, and assumptions.

You've been snockered on that one. Let's take a look from a journal of biology... (Journal of Virology)

Characterization of the Early Events in Dengue Virus Cell Entry by Biochemical Assays and Single-Virus Tracking.van der Schaar HM, Rust MJ, Waarts BL, van der Ende-Metselaar H, Kuhn RJ, Wilschut J, Zhuang X, Smit JM.
Department of Medical Microbiology, Molecular Virology Section, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West-Lafayette, IN 47907-2054, USA; Department of Physics, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

In this study, we investigated the cell entry characteristics of dengue virus (DENV) type 2 strain S1 on mosquito, BHK-15, and BS-C-1 cells. The concentration of virus particles measured with biochemical assays was found to be substantially higher than the number of infectious particles determined with infectivity assays, leading to a infectious unit-to-particle ratio of approximately 1 : 2,600 - 72,000 depending on the specific assays used. In order to explain this high ratio, we investigated the receptor binding and membrane fusion characteristics of single DENV particles in living cells using real-time fluorescence microscopy. For this purpose, DENV was labeled with the lipophilic fluorescent probe DiD. The surface density of the DiD dye in the viral membrane was sufficiently high to largely quench the fluorescence intensity, but still allowed clear detection of single virus particles. Fusion of the viral membrane with the cell membrane was evident as fluorescence dequenching. It was observed that DENV binds very inefficiently to the cells used, explaining at least in part the high infectious unit-to-particle ratio. The particles that did bind to the cells showed different types of transport behavior leading to membrane fusion both in the periphery and perinuclear regions of the cell. Membrane fusion was observed in 1 out of 6 bound virus particles, indicating that a substantial fraction of the virus has the capacity to fuse. DiD dequenching was completely inhibited by ammonium chloride, demonstrating that fusion occurs exclusively from within acidic endosomes.

Science is a whole lot more interesting and rigorous than you imagine.

Finally, all these things get soed into a magical idea that sounds simple, everyone believes and thus you have a strong idea and theory.

You were fooled on that one, too. Evidence is what counts. And it has to work. That's why evolutionary theory is accepted. It makes useful predictions.

I've seen studies were the scientist did something that pegged young ages and they scrapped there work because hey dinosaurs couldn't live 2 to 6k years ago right?

That one sounds interesting. Give us a checkable link, so we can see.

Go ahead and tell me scientist follow up on each other as well, and there studies.

Peer review and refereeing for journal articles. Works a lot better than anything else we do.

Since the first guy created the tool that he uses for his misguided guess, the second checkin his work is gonna use that same corrupt instrument.

Odd then, that biology has been so productive in the last few decades. Would you like some examples? You see, it works. Your stuff doesn't. And that's why scientists don't use it.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Hi Barb!

Timely Word 4 Today:-

For Thou Hast Created All Things!

For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the wind,
Who declares to man what his thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
Who treads the high places of the earth--
The LORD God of hosts is His name.

Amos 4:13 NKJV

_________________

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:15 - 17 ESV

_________________

"You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created."

Revelation 4:11 NKJV

_________________

I made the earth
and created man on it;
it was my hands that stretched out the heavens,
and I commanded all their host.

For thus says the LORD,
who created the heavens
(he is God!),
who formed the earth and made it
(he established it;
he did not create it empty,
he formed it to be inhabited!):
"I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:12,18 ESV

_________________

We need a Savior because we are sinners,
and the wages of sin is death...

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift:
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God is the object of
our faith; the only faith that saves is faith in Him.



Comment on this Story | Printer Friendly | Send Story to a Friend | Top

 

[Barbarian]

Timely Word 4 Today:-

For Thou Hast Created All Things!

It's good that you admit that much, at least. But you still balk at the way He did it.

 

[Ted]

A good study of the biology of the Galapagos clearly shows the evolutionary development of plant and animal life. Mutations do happen. In fact some of those mutations are known to be among the causes of some cancers.

Shalom
Ted :D