Tossing Those Terms Around

[anynameyouwish]

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 can't comprehend anything

 

[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 can't comprehend anything

Brilliant post.

Is this why they call you 'Einstein'?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I posted it....

Nothing in your link disproved Darwinism.

 

[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.

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

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

“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.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

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.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you recycle from thread to thread destroys only your credibility.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I suspect that your preferred cure for disease consisting of prayer and rattling bones is inferior to medicine,

You need more ''quotes'' from Harun Yahya,

I suspect you visually inspect your colon more often than not.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you recycle from thread to thread destroys only your credibility.

I see you didn't list anything there.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you recycle from thread to thread destroys only your credibility.

I see you didn't list anything there.

I see you're not paying attention.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you recycle from thread to thread destroys only your credibility.

I see you didn't list anything there.

I see you're not paying attention.

I see you posted Jack Squat. Care to try again?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you recycle from thread to thread destroys only your credibility.

I see you didn't list anything there.

I see you're not paying attention.

I see you posted Jack Squat. Care to try again?

The gods are on my side.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you recycle from thread to thread destroys only your credibility.

I see you didn't list anything there.

I see you're not paying attention.

I see you posted Jack Squat. Care to try again?

The gods are on my side.

There's only one God (for this world), you're already failing.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you recycle from thread to thread destroys only your credibility.

I see you didn't list anything there.

I see you're not paying attention.

I see you posted Jack Squat. Care to try again?

The gods are on my side.

There's only one God (for this world), you're already failing.

What about all the other gods?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet another, "Highly educated people who dedicate their careers to a scientific field don't really know things. I know things because i plagiarized mined quotes from a blog written by religious nutters." thread from the unwanted fungus of the science section, PoliticalChick.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I posted it....

Nothing in your link disproved Darwinism.

That's proves you are clueless about the theory Darwin posed.


Do some reading.

 

[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.

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

I asked you for the central premises of Darwin's theory.

It appears you were unable to.

No wonder you can't understand my threads.

 

[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

“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.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

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.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet another, "Highly educated people who dedicate their careers to a scientific field don't really know things. I know things because i plagiarized mined quotes from a blog written by religious nutters." thread from the unwanted fungus of the science section, PoliticalChick.

Yet another, "Highly educated people who dedicate their careers to a scientific field don't really know things. I know things because i plagiarized mined quotes from a blog written by religious nutters." thread from the unwanted fungus of the science section, PoliticalChick.

Got any proof of Darwin's theory, or do you accept it on faith alone?

 

[Hollie]

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

“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.

And this proves evolution is wrong?

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.

From the standpoint of the bacteria, resistance is the desirable trait.

"And this proves evolution is wrong?"

This does.

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

Your ''pwoof'' is cutting and pasting nonsense comments you cut and pasted earlier?

You fell down and bumped your head again, right?

 

[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.

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

the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

I asked you for the central premises of Darwin's theory.

It appears you were unable to.

No wonder you can't understand my threads.

I asked you for the central premises of Darwin's theory.

So you won't be destroying the definition of Darwinism? LOL!

No wonder you can't understand my threads.

I understand you haven't disproved Darwinism yet. Try again?