Any β-lactam antibiotic, such as Methicillin operates by targeting peptidoglycan, a key component in the synthesis of the bacteria's cell wall. The bacteria, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus produces β-lactamase, which targets and destroys Methicillin, hence protecting itself. The bacteria gained immunity by producing a new substance to attack the antibiotic.

It depends how the loss of your arms compares to being handcuffed. I called it a poor analogy because not enough information is given to properly analyze it. Are you hands cuffed together, or they cuffed to a bar for your entire life, etc. Are you more likely to be able to reproduce without arms or when your arms are permanently cuffed together? It can't be answered very well. The cause and effect relationships weren't established.

On the other hand, Malaria is a perfect example.
A positive mutation is simply any mutation that increases the probability of a organism's ability to reproduce in it's environment. A human with homozygous sickle cell anemia may have a reduced life expectancy just above the age of fertility, however, the life expectancy in Malaria endemic regions are below the age of fertility. The real advantage is the heterozygous sickle cell trait, which is nearly asymptomatic, while providing adequate immunity to Malaria. A human with sickle cell anemia would be selected against in North America, while it would be selected for in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the same sense, homozygous sickle cell anemia would be selected against and the heterozygous sickle cell trait would be selected for in Sub-Saharan Africa.

do you have any information on disease gaining immunity not through deletion? everything i have seen has been through losing genetic information.

an analogy is never perfect. what you are saying is losing a fully functional gene (your arms) wont affect your ability to live or reproduce? Losing genetic information does indeed harm the organism. A) your ability to survive/feed/do anything for that matter is severely limited without the assistance of others. B) females instinctively search for males with good gene structure to mate with…therefore you would not have that quality gene structure anymore and would be looked at as diseased or inferior…possibly never being able to mate for that matter.

so for the sickle cell…you are saying that by causing a defect, i will prevent another defect from happening….and that is a positive mutation? sounds pretty negative to me…a lose-lose situation as you're going to die prematurely from one or the other and you will pass down the sickle cell whereas you wont pass down malaria. just cause one defect prevents another defect, that doesnt mean it is positive….if anything, it is a negative mutation that is the lesser of two evils but by no means is that actually positive.

you also state sickle cell anemia gives immunity when its not 100% immunity…its not guaranteed that you get sickle cell so you cant get malaria.

what constitutes a positive mutation seems very very lenient in how im reading your replies.

Viruses gain immunity from various forms of genetic mutation, not just deletion. An antiviral may prevent a certain function from being performed, so the virus needs to circumvent the block. The blocked mechanism can be changed or removed. On a side note, penicillin is an antibiotic, not an antiviral.

That isn't a correct analogy. Being able to resist a drug allows them to survive and reproduce. Being born without arms does not affect my ability to live and reproduce, nor do handcuffs affect those factors. Any mutation that increases the ability to reproduce is a beneficial mutation.

Sickle cell anemia is a good example of a mutation that is harmful, but increases the survivability of a species in a specific environment. Sickle cell anemia obviously causes anemia, which is a side-effect, however, the carrier gain immunity to the malaria parasite because the parasite cannot survive in the sickle cells.

a virus gaining immunity to penicillin is a positive mutation? Ok, do you know how they gain immunity? They lose genetic information which causes the drug to no longer be able to work on the virus.

If i handcuff you and you mutate and lose your arms….you are now immune to my handcuffs because you lost genetic information for arms. is that also a positive mutation in your eyes cause now i can no longer handcuff you?

Gaining immunity to a substance is a positive mutation as it increases the organism's survivability, hence increasing the ability to reproduce. Mutations are always viewed from the perspective of the organism.

I would say that Dawkins did answer the question. He may not have given a specific example, but he throughly described information and how it can increase or decrease. The problem with asking that question is that the word information is typically given a very vague definition. Information can be genetic variety, genetic material, novel genetic material, etc. Gene duplication followed by point mutation is a good example of information being added.

Can you help me understand why such a famous evolutionist like Dawkins couldnt/refused to answer the question if it was as simple as pointing to flavobacterium like you did?

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

quick question….are viruses that become immune to say penicillin positive mutations, neutral mutations, etc..???

Science theory stands up, asks for someone to knock it down. Things that have not been knocked down we accept as scientifically correct to the best of our knowledge

I read the entire article and I would say it is pretty poor. It is full of misconceptions and falsehoods. Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and on the field. The author of the article is an engineer and simply does not have enough knowledge of genetics. He does not understand how random mutations work. One misconception that reveals his lack of research is that he claims most mutations are harmful, where as, the majority of mutations are neutral. His entire article collapses because he has little knowledge of biology and he throws in a ton of analogies, most of which are poor comparisons.

His great questions that apparently nobody can answer;
“Can you produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that led to an increase in information?”

Flavobacterium in contact with nylon have evolved, allowing them to digest nylon. It has been observed in the field and reproduced in the lab.

DNA does not require a mind behind it, simply because of chemical reactions. DNA isn't a determined language, it has formed due to chemical attractions. In fact, a few months ago RNA was naturally formed in the lab by using raw elements, which would have been found on the primordial Earth.

my schedule has been hectic and have not had the time to fully put together a reply…only bits and pieces so far as I hate misquoting by going off the top of my head. However, I have some useful reading for you and a riddle that i'd like your response/thoughts on as you seem intelligent enough that you've done more research than the common person on your beliefs…which is rare these days. I dont claim this proves God's existence…but it is very thought-provoking nonetheless and does explain a lot of logic behind the belief of a Supreme Being.

You can choose to read it all, which i HIGHLY recommend as it refutes Darwins Evolution theory by showing the holes in his thinking. It doesnt prove Evolution is wrong…it may very well be proven right someday, which is why I enjoyed this article as it doesnt claim facts like that. However, with that being said, it does indeed refute Darwins theory that it can not be true in its entirety.

If you choose to ignore the entire article, which i think you'd be truly missing out, you can scroll to the Atheists Riddle near the bottom half of the article. I'd like your thoughts on that while i craft a reply to your above message.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/darwin-half-right/

There is a BIG difference between suspecting and knowing the outcome of an event. If I had children I would tell them to try there hardest if I knew that had any chance of success. If I knew with absolute certainty that they would fail, I would spare them the pain.

I do not deny the possibility that the Christian God exists, I merely do not believe that he exists. In my opinion, I would say that the thief received backwards justice. I do not feel that an apology/accepting Jesus should be a sufficient method of "passing" the test. Nor do I support a punishment of enduring unimaginable pain whether it is eternal or finite in length. Of course you could always say that my morally is surpassed by God, but whatever.

Your understanding of the eternal universe theory is a bit off. It is generally the Big Crunch cycle. It is not a single atom that has always existed, but the entire universe. The total amount of energy in the universe has remained constant, the only difference is that it expanded, contracted and changed form. Prior to the expansion event, all matter existed in a sub-atomic state and the laws of physics break down at the sub atomic level, potentially allowing the destruction of entropy. The problem is that we do not know if the universe is an open or closed system.

It is not accurate to describe entropy as the amount of disorder in a system, as it really has to do with the amount of ways a microstate can arrange itself in a system. Defining entropy as disorder does not work as snowflakes and and other liquid -> crystal changes would defy the law as matter spontaneously changes from disordered to extremely ordered. It is also interesting to mention that black holes appear to defy the second law of thermodynamics as Steven Hawkings revealed.

Quantum mechanics is basically just observing matter on the atomic and sub-atomic level. We have yet to discover "absolute nothing" as even "nothing" as we see it is only "nothing" until it is measured. This is drawn in towards the theory of eternity as "something" always exists, but is considered "nothing" until it has been measured.

Even if we do not know the origin of our universe, it does not make a supreme being are more likely. If a naturally sustaining and forming universe is rejected, a supreme being does not become any more likely as no evidence can be put in favor of the being, due to it existing outside of the universe. All that can be said while maintaining intellectual honesty is that we don't know.

What makes the Christian God a better choice than any other religious deity? Why is the Christian God the creator of the universe rather than an advanced alien life form?

wow buddy, talk about a pessimistic and defeated personality? depressing to fail a test so why would a loving God have you take it? increased amount of pain? jeez, i truly hope you dont live your life with such a defeated attitude when something doesnt go your way. Are you going to tell your kids to not go to school or work cause there is a good chance they may not succeed and why would a loving parent risk such disappointment for their child? Actually, why would you even allow them to live cause there is a good chance they may fail at life…and by your logic, that would make you unloving to allow them to do that.

in regards to this test and how complicated that test is to pass, i'll have to use Bible because the test implies you believe to some point. to see how easy it is to pass the test, look at the thief next to Jesus on the cross. He's lived nothing of a virtuous life but he accepted/admitted all his failures and believed in Jesus as his lord and savior…and Jesus welcomed him into heaven with open arms. not too complicated of a test, no?

all of eternity is more of an English translation, there is more research I personally need to do on that but there seems to be evidence that eternity may have been mixed from greek to english/latin translation…further corruption from the original texts which the Church denies yet is proven to be true…a known FACT.

you have to keep in mind. its not just simply saying, I dont believe in a Christian God so im doomed to hell? when you use that argument, it leads astray the real issue at hand which is the reason your actions are frowned upon in regards to Christianity. you are denying the possibility of the Christian God all while convincing others of your belief which leads more people astray…thats pretty serious and you know the consequences ahead of time so the point is, you best be sure what you speak before you say how true it is. I dont even speak about Jesus and what he says as a fact out of fear i'm misinterpreting something or my research is flawed…atheists who dont believe have no reason to feel a consequence so they'll have no issues saying anything thats negative and agaisnt Christianity with no fear. see my point? anyway, for me to say who gets in and who doesnt, i have no evidence to support that. all i do know is based on that thief, you can live a completely unvirtuous life but in the end, he was truly sorry for his actions and he believed in Jesus as his lord and savior…that was apparently enough to get him in good graces. lets put it this way, in my opinion, i surely do not deserve to be in good graces…ive lead nothing close to a virtuous life so far and i'll accept whats coming to me because its only fair. i know the test ahead of time therefore im prepared and im still not living the most virtuous of lives so you wont be lonely most likely.

—-
eternal part

yes, i obviously understand the "eternal theory" means it doesnt require creation….according to the "theory." but that implies that at least a single atom existed, did not need creation, and that atom spurred the creation of other atoms to create teh world we live in today. that doesnt make any sense to me based on the scientific law we know of this world. I just dont know why that single atom (which already existed) would need to create the rest of the world, which is what the eternal theory admits, when that single atom itself did not need creation. why has everything since that single atom needed creation but that initial one just didnt need it? that has far too many holes in it for me to even consider it a valid option…though i cant disprove it so it obviously is an option….just very unlikely.

That is a bigger assumption than creation, which i'll detail below. creation makes more sense in scientific law because it implies everything that we see as scientific law….only something creates something and something MUST be created for it to exist. thats the scientific law we live in. we've never witnessed nothing create something so its hard to say that something just existed eternally when everything that was something, has been created through our observations.

—-
quantum mechanics theory to vacuum fluctuations

the theory of the quantum mechanics theory, to my knowledge, is that unless we observe it from beginning to end, we have no idea of the past because it was not observed therefore it isnt even reality. as a VERY quick summary, is that what quantum mechanics theory is to you?

"nothing" as you imply actually is "something" becuase energy (whether positive or negative) actually is "something" rather than "nothing"

"something" does not only apply to something visible like "matter"….something applies to non-visible energy or electric fields as well. unless you categorize these as "nothing" your theory of nothing creates something is only relevant under the hypothesis that if its not perceived, anything is possible (quantum mechanics theory).

it is far more likely that the universe is a closed system with finite energy (Einstein). that destroys the theory of eternal. if it was eternal, we wouldnt exist anymore. I refute your nothing creates something by the first law of thermodynamics….stating that matter/energy CAN NOT be created by "nothing" by any natural process. the 2nd law of thermodynamics states taht the energy becomes more and more useless in time. the 2nd law destroys the eternal theory because the eternal theory (the universe always existed and is eternal) can not be sustained by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The first law than explains the universe could not have created itself. Hence a supreme being must be in order that it outside of realm.

the disorder of the world is by chance and the high degree of order can only logically be explained by a supreme being.

ultimately, the above makes the universe NOT self-sustaining which means something MUST have created it and that something MUST be ultimately self sustaining therefore a Supreme Being is the only logical option.

scientists also admit that teh 2nd law of thermodynamics is what will likely end the universe in what is known as a "heat death." the Eternal Theory, could not be possible then.

you can look up Babu Ranganathan, among others, for further information on that.

Sure, you may be tempted to challenge the professor, but why would the professor even allow you to take the test if he knew with 100% certainty that you would fail. Failing a test becomes a lot more depressing if you used your utmost effort. The kinder option would to deny the option of writing the test. Why would a loving god allow you to feel the increased amount of pain created from trying your hardest to pass the test, even though he already knew the outcome.

Do I and the other 3 billion non-Christians deserve to endure unexplainable pain for all of eternity just for not accepting the Christian god?

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Something that is eternal does not require creation. It has existed for all of eternity. Without evidence pointing towards a time in which nothing existed, we have no reason to believe that any materials required to be created. The universe has drastically changed since the big bang, a few seconds after and the current day, however, our scientific laws perfectly support that creation is not necessary. I am not ruling out the possibility of creation, however, that adds an additional unneeded assumption. Unless the possibility of an eternal universe can be ruled out, it holds the greatest amount of support due to the least amount of assumptions being made, such as creation and a supernatural being.

You seemed to have ignored the entire section regarding quantum mechanics. "Nothing" exists as "something" and as such, "nothing" is perfectly able to produce "something." "Nothing" has a meaningful existence that maintains properties and can be measured. Vaccum fluctuations are a good example, as virtual particles appear out of "nothing" and once again disappear into "nothing."

Both an eternal universe and a natural formation of the universe are supported by science. I have given two alternate naturalistic explanations of the origin of the universe supported by scientific theories and facts. Since the supernatural is beyond the realm of science, the God hypothesis only has value when no other possibilities exist.

Spare me your bullshi.t and stop pretending that you are any better than me. My life does have meaning, my life has consequences and my life has a purpose. These are determined by each of us. Do I have a personal motive to "deny" a supernatural being? No, I simply do not see any valid evidence supporting the existence of one or any reason to require one.

Apparently you love that Zietgeist movie, part 1 of it at least, and you seem to be taking that one movie and making it sound like you’ve done extensive research on the subject but all you did was watch a movie. It’s all bogus research, at least part 1 is, and if you actually did research, you would realize that. A) Christianity was never founded on astronomy/sun/moon, etc… and B) Jesus’s birthday is unknown…the Church just used December 25th as a holiday to celebrate his birthday, partially believed to be because it would help them convert believers of all those other Gods that were created in the past that claim to be born on Dec 25th. Here is a fairly well written article that will help you further your research by showing you the flaws of the weak research of that movies writer….unless you truly think that you have answered all of lifes questions about religion with the simple minded research of Zeitgeist. Google Ben Witherington and zietgeist for the article.

you claiming you did research is exactly my point of laziness and people wanting the easy way out of finding answers. all i can do is tell you to constantly seek the truth/answers rather than EVER accept one answer as the final truth on such complex issues and biased arguments while you are alive. thats been the point ive been trying to make this entire time…people dont do their own research, they watch a biased movie with flawed research, dont do their own legwork or due diligence (fact-checking), just accept it cause its easier that way and takes less time, than try to pawn it off on others like they actually did research. reminds me of that guy from Good Will Hunting that sat in the bar and quoted all these things from books and pawned it off like it was his own ideas. most everyone does that now a days, whether they realize it or not. nobody seems to think for themselves…its sad