Do you know the difference between “historical” and “observational”/experimental science? Well, it makes a big difference to creationists! You see in an effort to discredit the fossil record and all of geology, it is necessary to make a big distinction (link to discussion at National Center for Science Education) that doesn't exist. The assumption here is that you can only know something if it was directly observed. Amazing! Creationist students are being taught to ask science teachers “How do you know? Were you there?” Without direct observation, you cannot know something. Think about how much knowledge that rules out. Inference is just so much wishful thinking. This is a made up distinction that is just plain silly. Creationist also made up the distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” because it has become basically impossible to argue that “microevolution” doesn’t happen. No such distinction is made in biology, but what do you expect? These people don’t know science and they don’t want to know science. It further demonstrates that creationism is actually know-nothing-ism.
Does expression of the toxA operon depend on ToxT as well as ToxA?
1 day ago in RRResearch