Tossing Those Terms Around

[PoliticalChic]

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.

View attachment 371842
Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
Britannica.com



1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.

To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.



2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.

3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of Penicillium (another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.



4. Here’s the problem:

“The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956



5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.

Nice retelling of the story of Fleming, but nothing to support your position in point #5.

I've explained it to you.....


....but I can't comprehend it for you.

You cannot comprehend it for yourself. Try an a=b, b=c, a=c linear argument.

Try reading more carefully.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This note is REALLY gonna get under the scales of the Militant Secularists......


6. Penicillin was not an ‘overnight success.’ Fleming published in 1929, but it was a full decade until the chemists Ernst Chain and Howard Florey, succeeded in purifying and concentrating the antibiotic enough to make it clinically useful. None of these three scientists saw any role for Darwinism in their work. (Jonathan Wells).

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.



Ernst Chain (who was Jewish) made it clear that he had no use for Darwinism at all. “The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,” he said, “is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory... I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”





7. When Fleming received the Nobel Prize, he attributed his success, thus:

“… destiny may play a large part in discovery. It was destiny which contaminated my culture plate in 1928 – it was destiny which led Chain and Florey in 1938 to investigate penicillin instead of the many other antibiotics which had then been described and it was destiny that timed their work to come to fruition in war-time when penicillin was most needed.

It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.”
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1945

Now, what could that be?

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.

So what?

Why is Darwinism, proven false, taught as factual in government school?

Where was it proven false?

Here is one example.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.

Which part of your post was supposed to disprove Darwinism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This note is REALLY gonna get under the scales of the Militant Secularists......


6. Penicillin was not an ‘overnight success.’ Fleming published in 1929, but it was a full decade until the chemists Ernst Chain and Howard Florey, succeeded in purifying and concentrating the antibiotic enough to make it clinically useful. None of these three scientists saw any role for Darwinism in their work. (Jonathan Wells).

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.



Ernst Chain (who was Jewish) made it clear that he had no use for Darwinism at all. “The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,” he said, “is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory... I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”





7. When Fleming received the Nobel Prize, he attributed his success, thus:

“… destiny may play a large part in discovery. It was destiny which contaminated my culture plate in 1928 – it was destiny which led Chain and Florey in 1938 to investigate penicillin instead of the many other antibiotics which had then been described and it was destiny that timed their work to come to fruition in war-time when penicillin was most needed.

It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.”
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1945

Now, what could that be?

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.

So what?

Why is Darwinism, proven false, taught as factual in government school?

Where was it proven false?

Here is one example.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.

Which part of your post was supposed to disprove Darwinism?

You will find a complete answer to that question laid out in this thread:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It's not very long.


The points are numbered one to ten.

 

[White 6]

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.

View attachment 371842
Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
Britannica.com



1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.

To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.



2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.

3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of Penicillium (another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.



4. Here’s the problem:

“The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956



5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.

Nice retelling of the story of Fleming, but nothing to support your position in point #5.

I've explained it to you.....


....but I can't comprehend it for you.

You cannot comprehend it for yourself. Try an a=b, b=c, a=c linear argument.

Try reading more carefully.

Read it close enough. You failed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.

View attachment 371842
Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
Britannica.com



1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.

To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.



2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.

3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of Penicillium (another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.



4. Here’s the problem:

“The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956



5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.

Nice retelling of the story of Fleming, but nothing to support your position in point #5.

I've explained it to you.....


....but I can't comprehend it for you.

You cannot comprehend it for yourself. Try an a=b, b=c, a=c linear argument.

Try reading more carefully.

Read it close enough. You failed.

"Read it close enough. You failed."

If you had an education, that would be "Read it closely enough. You failed."


It appears your post has become a boomerang.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waksman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was being used to treat tuberculosis.

Like the discoverers of penicillin, Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin. In 1956, he pointed out that the isolation, purification, and clinical application of antibiotics was highly artificial and had no counterpart in nature. Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”
Jonathan Wells.
And...... Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14.


Must be pretty important to keep Darwinism in the curriculum.

Why?

 

[White 6]

8. “Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waksman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was being used to treat tuberculosis.

Like the discoverers of penicillin, Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin. In 1956, he pointed out that the isolation, purification, and clinical application of antibiotics was highly artificial and had no counterpart in nature. Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”
Jonathan Wells.
And...... Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14.


Must be pretty important to keep Darwinism in the curriculum.

Why?

Nobody is postulating that Darwinism yields the the answer to all microbial disease. With a simple genetic mutation, a microbe could evolve to something nature will not catch up to for centuries. Nothing states for every change there is an equal conteractive spontaneios change at the same instant. Sometimes, if you want something dead, you have to engineer something to kill it, nature has yet to come up with. Teach both.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This note is REALLY gonna get under the scales of the Militant Secularists......


6. Penicillin was not an ‘overnight success.’ Fleming published in 1929, but it was a full decade until the chemists Ernst Chain and Howard Florey, succeeded in purifying and concentrating the antibiotic enough to make it clinically useful. None of these three scientists saw any role for Darwinism in their work. (Jonathan Wells).

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.



Ernst Chain (who was Jewish) made it clear that he had no use for Darwinism at all. “The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,” he said, “is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory... I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”





7. When Fleming received the Nobel Prize, he attributed his success, thus:

“… destiny may play a large part in discovery. It was destiny which contaminated my culture plate in 1928 – it was destiny which led Chain and Florey in 1938 to investigate penicillin instead of the many other antibiotics which had then been described and it was destiny that timed their work to come to fruition in war-time when penicillin was most needed.

It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.”
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1945

Now, what could that be?

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.

So what?

Why is Darwinism, proven false, taught as factual in government school?

Where was it proven false?

Here is one example.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.

Which part of your post was supposed to disprove Darwinism?

You will find a complete answer to that question laid out in this thread:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It's not very long.


The points are numbered one to ten.

If any part of that thread disproves Darwinism, you should post it here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

8. “Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waksman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was being used to treat tuberculosis.

Like the discoverers of penicillin, Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin. In 1956, he pointed out that the isolation, purification, and clinical application of antibiotics was highly artificial and had no counterpart in nature. Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”
Jonathan Wells.
And...... Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14.


Must be pretty important to keep Darwinism in the curriculum.

Why?

“Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year.

This isn't proof that Darwinism is wrong.

Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin

Neither is this.

Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”''

So what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.

View attachment 371842
Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
Britannica.com



1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.

To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.



2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.

3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of Penicillium (another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.



4. Here’s the problem:

“The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956



5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.

Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.

Why?

Science is based on experimental results.

Yes.

And antibiotic resistant bacteria are not merely "a figment of the imagination" as the quote you posted claims.

It's being caused by a need by the organism to survive, is.

I will provide a note on Larmarian/Lysenkoism Darwinism in a later post.

It's being caused by a need by the organism to survive, is.

Organisms killed by antibiotics don't survive to reproduce.

This is exactly the sort of lack of science education that made this thread necessary.

You couldn't be more incorrect if your aim was to be incorrect.

Organisms killed by antibiotics don't survive to reproduce.

Please, please, please, explain how my statement was incorrect.
Be specific.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This note is REALLY gonna get under the scales of the Militant Secularists......


6. Penicillin was not an ‘overnight success.’ Fleming published in 1929, but it was a full decade until the chemists Ernst Chain and Howard Florey, succeeded in purifying and concentrating the antibiotic enough to make it clinically useful. None of these three scientists saw any role for Darwinism in their work. (Jonathan Wells).

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.



Ernst Chain (who was Jewish) made it clear that he had no use for Darwinism at all. “The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,” he said, “is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory... I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”





7. When Fleming received the Nobel Prize, he attributed his success, thus:

“… destiny may play a large part in discovery. It was destiny which contaminated my culture plate in 1928 – it was destiny which led Chain and Florey in 1938 to investigate penicillin instead of the many other antibiotics which had then been described and it was destiny that timed their work to come to fruition in war-time when penicillin was most needed.

It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.”
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1945

Now, what could that be?

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.

So what?

Why is Darwinism, proven false, taught as factual in government school?

Where was it proven false?

Here is one example.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.

Which part of your post was supposed to disprove Darwinism?

You will find a complete answer to that question laid out in this thread:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It's not very long.


The points are numbered one to ten.

If any part of that thread disproves Darwinism, you should post it here.

No I shouldn't.

Extensively and dispositively covered here:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It it's too much trouble to click on it......don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waksman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was being used to treat tuberculosis.

Like the discoverers of penicillin, Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin. In 1956, he pointed out that the isolation, purification, and clinical application of antibiotics was highly artificial and had no counterpart in nature. Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”
Jonathan Wells.
And...... Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14.


Must be pretty important to keep Darwinism in the curriculum.

Why?

“Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year.

This isn't proof that Darwinism is wrong.

Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin

Neither is this.

Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”''

So what?

"So" it is the central theme of Darwinism.


How could you miss that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.

View attachment 371842
Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
Britannica.com



1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.

To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.



2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.

3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of Penicillium (another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.



4. Here’s the problem:

“The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956



5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.

Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.

Why?

Science is based on experimental results.

Yes.

And antibiotic resistant bacteria are not merely "a figment of the imagination" as the quote you posted claims.

It's being caused by a need by the organism to survive, is.

I will provide a note on Larmarian/Lysenkoism Darwinism in a later post.

It's being caused by a need by the organism to survive, is.

Organisms killed by antibiotics don't survive to reproduce.

This is exactly the sort of lack of science education that made this thread necessary.

You couldn't be more incorrect if your aim was to be incorrect.

Organisms killed by antibiotics don't survive to reproduce.

Please, please, please, explain how my statement was incorrect.
Be specific.

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Hollie]

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.

View attachment 371842
Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
Britannica.com



1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.

To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.



2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.

3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of Penicillium (another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.



4. Here’s the problem:

“The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956



5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.

Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.

Why?

Science is based on experimental results.

Yes.

And antibiotic resistant bacteria are not merely "a figment of the imagination" as the quote you posted claims.

It's being caused by a need by the organism to survive, is.

I will provide a note on Larmarian/Lysenkoism Darwinism in a later post.

You're applying human attributes such as "need" to organisms as you apply such attributes to your gods. That's silly.

Religionism is not a substitute for a science. Your appalling lack of education is alarming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This note is REALLY gonna get under the scales of the Militant Secularists......


6. Penicillin was not an ‘overnight success.’ Fleming published in 1929, but it was a full decade until the chemists Ernst Chain and Howard Florey, succeeded in purifying and concentrating the antibiotic enough to make it clinically useful. None of these three scientists saw any role for Darwinism in their work. (Jonathan Wells).

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.



Ernst Chain (who was Jewish) made it clear that he had no use for Darwinism at all. “The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,” he said, “is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory... I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”





7. When Fleming received the Nobel Prize, he attributed his success, thus:

“… destiny may play a large part in discovery. It was destiny which contaminated my culture plate in 1928 – it was destiny which led Chain and Florey in 1938 to investigate penicillin instead of the many other antibiotics which had then been described and it was destiny that timed their work to come to fruition in war-time when penicillin was most needed.

It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.”
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1945

Now, what could that be?

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.

So what?

Why is Darwinism, proven false, taught as factual in government school?

Where was it proven false?

Here is one example.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.

Which part of your post was supposed to disprove Darwinism?

You will find a complete answer to that question laid out in this thread:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It's not very long.


The points are numbered one to ten.

If any part of that thread disproves Darwinism, you should post it here.

No I shouldn't.

Extensively and dispositively covered here:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It it's too much trouble to click on it......don't.

Extensively and dispositively covered here:

You're lying. No disproof of Darwinism at your link.

It it's too much trouble to click on it......don't.

If it's too much trouble to post your proof......don't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

8. “Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waksman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was being used to treat tuberculosis.

Like the discoverers of penicillin, Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin. In 1956, he pointed out that the isolation, purification, and clinical application of antibiotics was highly artificial and had no counterpart in nature. Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”
Jonathan Wells.
And...... Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14.


Must be pretty important to keep Darwinism in the curriculum.

Why?

“Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year.

This isn't proof that Darwinism is wrong.

Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin

Neither is this.

Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”''

So what?

"So" it is the central theme of Darwinism.


How could you miss that?

"So" it is the central theme of Darwinism.

"Because I said so" it is the central theme of whatever you're claiming here.

 

[Hollie]

Quite an important birthday, today.....and an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.

View attachment 371842
Alexander Fleming, in full Sir Alexander Fleming, (born August 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland—died March 11, 1955, London, England), Scottish bacteriologist best known for his discovery of penicillin.
Britannica.com



1. The truth of the matter is that government school grads have only the most superficial knowledge of most things, except how wonderful Liberalism is, but certainly the least of all about science.This is probably the reason why so many of them ascribe absolute correctness to the false theory of evolution, Darwinism.

To hide this lacunae, they love terms like ‘common ancestor,’ ‘fossil record,’ and most of all, ‘survival of the fittest.’ And one example that the cling to is the imagined production of new bacterial species due to the use of pharmaceuticals.



2. In 2001, the U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) televised a pro-Darwin series accompanied by a book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, which claimed: “The resistance that bacteria have to many antibiotics didn’t just happen: it unfolded ac- cording to the principles of natural selection, as the bacteria with the best genes for fighting the drugs prospered. Without understanding evolution, a researcher has little hope of figuring out how to create new drugs and determine how they should be administered.” Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,” p. 336.

3. “English microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic: penicillin. Fleming noticed a culture dish of staph bacteria on which a mold spore had settled. Remarkably, there were no staph colonies around the mold, suggesting that the latter was producing a substance that killed or inhibited the staph bacteria. The mold was a species of Penicillium (another species of which is used to make blue cheese), and Fleming’s training in microbiology enabled him to turn this serendipitous observation into a major medical breakthrough.
See Alexander Fleming, “On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae ,” British Journal of Experimental Pathology 10 (1929), 226–36. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 2.



4. Here’s the problem:

“The concept of the ‘struggle for existence’ has been applied to microbial interrelationships in nature in a manner comparable to the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life. It has also been suggested that the ability of a microbe to produce an antibiotic sub- stance enables it to survive in competition for space and for nutrients with other microbes. Such assumptions appear to be totally unjustified on the basis of existing knowledge. . . . All the discussion of a ‘struggle for existence,’ in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination, and an appeal to the melodramatic rather than the factual.” Nobel laureate Selman Waksman, 1956



5. Sooooo.....attributing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and pharmaceuticals.......hardly an example of understanding the science.

Nice retelling of the story of Fleming, but nothing to support your position in point #5.

I've explained it to you.....


....but I can't comprehend it for you.

You cannot comprehend it for yourself. Try an a=b, b=c, a=c linear argument.

Try reading more carefully.

Your cut and paste ''quotes'' from Harun Yahya are so clumsily edited, parsed and manipulated, they tend to appear as non-related, incoherent snippets.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This note is REALLY gonna get under the scales of the Militant Secularists......


6. Penicillin was not an ‘overnight success.’ Fleming published in 1929, but it was a full decade until the chemists Ernst Chain and Howard Florey, succeeded in purifying and concentrating the antibiotic enough to make it clinically useful. None of these three scientists saw any role for Darwinism in their work. (Jonathan Wells).

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.



Ernst Chain (who was Jewish) made it clear that he had no use for Darwinism at all. “The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution,” he said, “is based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory... I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.”





7. When Fleming received the Nobel Prize, he attributed his success, thus:

“… destiny may play a large part in discovery. It was destiny which contaminated my culture plate in 1928 – it was destiny which led Chain and Florey in 1938 to investigate penicillin instead of the many other antibiotics which had then been described and it was destiny that timed their work to come to fruition in war-time when penicillin was most needed.

It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.”
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1945

Now, what could that be?

Not Fleming, nor Chain, nor Florey saw any hand of Darwinian evolution in the success.

So what?

Why is Darwinism, proven false, taught as factual in government school?

Where was it proven false?

Here is one example.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.

Which part of your post was supposed to disprove Darwinism?

You will find a complete answer to that question laid out in this thread:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It's not very long.


The points are numbered one to ten.

If any part of that thread disproves Darwinism, you should post it here.

No I shouldn't.

Extensively and dispositively covered here:

Wrong In So Very Many Ways

I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides: “A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not...

www.usmessageboard.com

It it's too much trouble to click on it......don't.

Extensively and dispositively covered here:

You're lying. No disproof of Darwinism at your link.

It it's too much trouble to click on it......don't.

If it's too much trouble to post your proof......don't.

I posted it.....get off the couch and provide the proof you believe exists.

Bet you won't be able to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year. In 1944, microbiologist Selman Waksman and his research assistant Albert Schatz announced the discovery of streptomycin, and within a year it was being used to treat tuberculosis.

Like the discoverers of penicillin, Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin. In 1956, he pointed out that the isolation, purification, and clinical application of antibiotics was highly artificial and had no counterpart in nature. Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”
Jonathan Wells.
And...... Albert Schatz, Elizabeth Bugie, and Selman A. Waksman, “Streptomycin, a Substance Exhibiting Antibiotic Activity Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 55 (1944), 66–69. Wainwright, Miracle Cure, Chapter 8. Selman A Waksman, “The Role of Antibiotics in Natural Processes,” Giornale di Microbiologia 2 (1956), 1–14.


Must be pretty important to keep Darwinism in the curriculum.

Why?

“Penicillin is effective against many diseases, but not against tuberculosis, which causes millions of deaths worldwide every year.

This isn't proof that Darwinism is wrong.

Waksman saw no role for Darwinism in the discovery of streptomycin

Neither is this.

Waksman concluded that the Darwinian assumption of a “struggle for existence” among microbes in nature is “totally unjustified.”''

So what?

"So" it is the central theme of Darwinism.


How could you miss that?

"So" it is the central theme of Darwinism.

"Because I said so" it is the central theme of whatever you're claiming here.

Why don't you list what you believe is Darwin's central theme, and watch me destroy it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. It is the sort of mistake the uneducated make when they attribute experience of antibiotics and other drugs to an example of Darwinian evolution, as speciation is not a byproduct.



“The clinical use of antibiotics creates a highly artificial situation. Antibiotic- producing microbes must be isolated from their natural surroundings and grown in pure culture with special nutrients. Then the antibiotic has to be purified and concentrated to a degree never seen in nature. When the antibiotic is finally administered to a patient, there is nothing “natural” about what follows.

The greenhouses and livestock pens of domestic breeders are more natural than a hospital room or a doctor’s office. Occasionally, a few bacteria may survive antibiotic treatment. The survivors then multiply and continue the infection, against which the original antibiotic may be ineffective, and this can be a serious medical problem. Yet the process is not fundamentally different from domestic breeding, except that in domestic breeding it is the desirable ones that survive, while in antibiotic resistance it is the undesirable ones. Both cases involve human selection in an artificial situation, and neither case involves the origin of a new species. Tuberculosis bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are still tuberculosis bacteria.” Jonathan Wells