PDA

View Full Version : Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria



bob b
February 5th, 2006, 06:14 PM
We've talked about this before and I have expressed my belief that this phenomenon provides no real support for the "bacteria to Man" version of evolution. If interested here are more details of why creationists reject this phenomenon as evidence for macroevolution.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

firechyld
February 7th, 2006, 04:36 AM
We've talked about this before and I have expressed my belief that this phenomenon provides no real support for the "bacteria to Man" version of evolution. If interested here are more details of why creationists reject this phenomenon as evidence for macroevolution.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

I don't actually know of any schools of thought, religious or scientific, that DO present this concept as proof of macroevolution. Do you?

aharvey
February 7th, 2006, 08:36 AM
I don't actually know of any schools of thought, religious or scientific, that DO present this concept as proof of macroevolution. Do you?
Firechyld,

I think it's called a strawman.

OlDove
February 7th, 2006, 08:39 AM
Within evolution. What would bacteria become that is not bacteria?

firechyld
February 7th, 2006, 09:34 AM
Firechyld,

I think it's called a strawman.

Oh right, I forgot they were a type of bacteria....

OlDove
February 8th, 2006, 12:49 PM
Within evolution. What would bacteria become that is not bacteria?

aharvey
February 8th, 2006, 01:55 PM
Within evolution. What would bacteria become that is not bacteria?
Hard to say. Depends on which bacteria, how long, and what was the cause for the change. If you're talking about bacteria today, then it's really hard to say, since organisms of the future don't yet exist and thus do not have names.

That's not as flippant as it sounds. One organism will not be able to evolve into another already-existing type of organism; at best, it might evolve into something convergently similar to an existing organism (e.g., four-o clocks and cacti, or flying squirrels and sugar gliders (http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/images/analogies.jpg)). So it makes no sense to argue that evolution cannot turn a horse into a cat. Evolution can turn a species of horse only into either another species of horse or into something that does not exist and is therefore as yet unnamable.

OlDove
February 8th, 2006, 01:58 PM
Hard to say. Depends on which bacteria, how long, and what was the cause for the change. If you're talking about bacteria today, then it's really hard to say, since organisms of the future don't yet exist and thus do not have names.

That's not as flippant as it sounds. One organism will not be able to evolve into another already-existing type of organism; at best, it might evolve into something convergently similar to an existing organism (e.g., four-o clocks and cacti, or flying squirrels and sugar gliders (http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/images/analogies.jpg)). So it makes no sense to argue that evolution cannot turn a horse into a cat. Evolution can turn a species of horse only into either another species of horse or into something that does not exist and is therefore as yet unnamable.
Then may I ask, what became bacteria?

aharvey
February 8th, 2006, 02:08 PM
Then may I ask, what became bacteria?
Other bacteria?

Beyond that, I'm not sure we have any clear idea. We don't have too many microscopic 3.5 billion year old fossils, not that they would help much. Bacteria are notoriously featureless in their external appearance. But don't take my word for it, since it's not something I've seriously investigated, and the pros are sure to know more about this than me.

OlDove
February 8th, 2006, 02:19 PM
Other bacteria?

Beyond that, I'm not sure we have any clear idea. We don't have too many microscopic 3.5 billion year old fossils, not that they would help much. Bacteria are notoriously featureless in their external appearance. But don't take my word for it, since it's not something I've seriously investigated, and the pros are sure to know more about this than me.
other bacteria? :doh:

noguru
February 8th, 2006, 02:35 PM
OlDove, you can do some research on eukaryotic and prokaryotic bacteria. The distinction is quite interesting. It seems that sexual reproduction can be found in eukaryotic bacteria but cannot be found in prokaryotic forms. There is also quite a bit of scietifically founded "speculation" that these different forms of bacteria eventually led to the first mulicellular organisms. There is evidence that certain forms of bacteria, under certain conditions, begin to organize, synthesize, and specialize their efforts. Kind of like that mold that in one biome is made of many different cells that do exactly the same thing. But given another biome the cells begin to specialize by carrying out seperate and distinct functions. In the later biome, the collection of cells looks much more like a muticelluar mold with which there are different types of cells with specialized functioning.

OlDove
February 8th, 2006, 04:21 PM
OlDove, you can do some research on eukaryotic and prokaryotic bacteria. The distinction is quite interesting. It seems that sexual reproduction can be found in eukaryotic bacteria but cannot be found in prokaryotic forms. There is also quite a bit of scietifically founded "speculation" that these different forms of bacteria eventually led to the first mulicellular organisms. There is evidence that certain forms of bacteria, under certain conditions, begin to organize, synthesize, and specialize their efforts. Kind of like that mold that in one biome is made of many different cells that do exactly the same thing. But given another biome the cells begin to specialize by carrying out seperate and distinct functions. In the later biome, the collection of cells looks much more like a muticelluar mold with which there are different types of cells with specialized functioning.
By sexual reproduction are you saying there is male and female bacteria? I'm no expert on the subject. I see change within lifeforms, but it almost sounds like you're saying bacteria became us. Or did I misunderstand? The bacteria without sexual reproduction, how does it create it's next generation or whatever the proper word is?

noguru
February 8th, 2006, 07:48 PM
By sexual reproduction are you saying there is male and female bacteria? I'm no expert on the subject. I see change within lifeforms, but it almost sounds like you're saying bacteria became us. Or did I misunderstand? The bacteria without sexual reproduction, how does it create it's next generation or whatever the proper word is?

Well with bacteria the gender differences are, shall we say "not obvious". Reproduction that does not involve two parties is called asexual.

I'm just pointing out the evidence. You can led it lead where it may, or reject it.

Unbeliever
February 8th, 2006, 09:43 PM
We've talked about this before and I have expressed my belief that this phenomenon provides no real support for the "bacteria to Man" version of evolution. If interested here are more details of why creationists reject this phenomenon as evidence for macroevolution.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Antibiotic resistance is real-world evidence of natural selection. It proves that organisms will change during subsequest generations based on environmental factors.

It is just one piece of evolution.

bob b
February 9th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Antibiotic resistance is real-world evidence of natural selection. It proves that organisms will change during subsequest generations based on environmental factors./quote]

Yes, everyone, including creationists agree that bacteria change in response to environmental factors such as antibiotics.

[quote]It is just one piece of evolution.

There is good reason to believe that there is a "built-in" mechanism in bacteria which facilitates their response to antibiotics. If this turns out to be true then it would support the "design" hypothesis, not the "random mutations plus natural selection" hypothesis.

OlDove
February 9th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Well with bacteria the gender differences are, shall we say "not obvious". Reproduction that does not involve two parties is called asexual.

I'm just pointing out the evidence. You can led it lead where it may, or reject it.
How much of life is asexual?

Unbeliever
February 9th, 2006, 02:09 PM
[QUOTE=Unbeliever]Antibiotic resistance is real-world evidence of natural selection. It proves that organisms will change during subsequest generations based on environmental factors./quote]

Yes, everyone, including creationists agree that bacteria change in response to environmental factors such as antibiotics.



There is good reason to believe that there is a "built-in" mechanism in bacteria which facilitates their response to antibiotics. If this turns out to be true then it would support the "design" hypothesis, not the "random mutations plus natural selection" hypothesis.

If bacteria do have a "built-in" mechanism to respond to antibiotics, then that is still proof of nothing. That mechanism could also be the result of evolution. Although, considering the quick reproduction of bacteria, the "natural selction" explanation seems more likely.

Please answer these two questions:

Does natural selection occur?
Are there random mutations?

bob b
February 9th, 2006, 06:27 PM
[QUOTE=bob b]

If bacteria do have a "built-in" mechanism to respond to antibiotics, then that is still proof of nothing. That mechanism could also be the result of evolution. Although, considering the quick reproduction of bacteria, the "natural selction" explanation seems more likely.

Please answer these two questions:

Does natural selection occur?
Are there random mutations?

Yes and yes.

BTW. It is obvious that youwill not believe in God no matter what.

The only reason people tolerate you here is that you illustrate perfectly why God stopped performing miracles: they do not lead to belief in those who hate the idea of bowing down to Him.

firechyld
February 9th, 2006, 10:31 PM
[QUOTE=Unbeliever]

Yes and yes.

BTW. It is obvious that youwill not believe in God no matter what.

The only reason people tolerate you here is that you illustrate perfectly why God stopped performing miracles: they do not lead to belief in those who hate the idea of bowing down to Him.

Wow. Did I miss something, or was that kinda unnecessary?

bob b
February 9th, 2006, 10:51 PM
[QUOTE=bob b]

Wow. Did I miss something, or was that kinda unnecessary?

I felt that he was more intelligent than to defend the idea of "random mutations plus natural selection" being the magic wand that leads from "hypothetical primitive protocells to man given billions of years" by asking whether natural selection happens and then whether mutations happen.

The only explanation I could see is that this person is basically a troll and is only trying to have some fun with Christians by taunting them.

So I "lost it".

firechyld
February 9th, 2006, 11:00 PM
[QUOTE=firechyld]

I felt that he was more intelligent than to defend the idea of "random mutations plus natural selection" being the magic wand that leads from "hypothetical primitive protocells to man given billions of years" by asking whether natural selection happens and then whether mutations happen.

The only explanation I could see is that this person is basically a troll and is only trying to have some fun with Christians by taunting them.

So I "lost it".

Fair enough.

I find most debates about evolutionary theory a little pointless. Most of us don't have the education to really give it a decent wack.

noguru
February 10th, 2006, 01:46 AM
How much of life is asexual?

I have never seen any figures on that. And that all depends on how one defines asexual. There are many different variations from asexual reproduction in bacteria to sexual reproduction between decisively male and female individuality such as in mammals, which show a great level of sexual dimorphism.

Many worms and night crawlers are hermaphrodites, however they inseminate each other rather than fertilizing their own eggs. Groupers and some Cichlids start of life as females but become male after a certain point. There is one species of cichlid that has no males of its own species. The females utilize the sperm of a closely related and nearby species. There is a great frequency of hermaphrodites in the plant kingdom especially among certain weeds. In that case the male and female flowers often mature at slightly different times on a certain plant. This reduces the possibility that the plant will fertilize itself. Gender for many crocodilians is determined by the temperature at which the eggs are incubated. In mammals, the male/female genetic makeup can be overshadowed by hormone levels in utero. This situation leads to sexually ambiguous genitals. This happens approximately once in every 200 - 2,000 human female births.....

The bilogical world displays great variation in types of reproduction and gender classificaion is often blurred. The terms asexual and sexual are just markers at the ends of a spectrum of variation. We as humans are more familiar with the sexual reproduction of mammals where there is a large level of sexual dimorphism. We tend to be uncomfortable with the idea that distinct lifelong individual genders is only one of the various sexual reproductive templates. The biological world is not as black and white/cut and dry as many believe.

noguru
February 10th, 2006, 05:28 AM
[QUOTE=Unbeliever]

Yes and yes.

BTW. It is obvious that youwill not believe in God no matter what.

The only reason people tolerate you here is that you illustrate perfectly why God stopped performing miracles: they do not lead to belief in those who hate the idea of bowing down to Him.

Bob, why would God stop performing miracles for those who believe because of those who don't believe?

Unbeliever, do you hate the idea of "bowing down" to God?

aharvey
February 10th, 2006, 07:53 AM
[QUOTE=bob b]

Fair enough.

I find most debates about evolutionary theory a little pointless. Most of us don't have the education to really give it a decent wack.
Interestingly enough, I find that the discussions here never even reach the point where how much you know about the details of the theory make a difference. Long before, discussions founder on the shoals of logic.

eisenreich
February 10th, 2006, 08:44 AM
[Two views of abiogenesis]


Creationist idea of
abiogenesis

simple chemicals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bacteria


Real theory of abiogenesis
(simplified)

simple chemicals
|
polymers
|
replicating polymers
|
hypercycle
|
protobiont
|
bacteria


I think this figure summarizes the gap between creationists and scientists who have thoroughly studied the origins of life/abiogenesis. Is this the reason debate on this topic normally breaks down, because of a lack of understanding about what scientists are actually proposing?

The creation story for YEC Christians is fairly straightforward, read Genesis (old-earth creationists have their own ideas). For YECs to come out and say, 'man didn't evolve from apes,' or 'so you think we're here because of a vat of primordial stew?' simply creates strawmen and undercuts the argument at hand.

In my opinion, it's much easier for Christians to wave their hands and say, "God did it," than actually researching the opposition's stance (granted, there are tomes of scientific papers that often require prior understanding of the concepts involved.)

The fact that the entire scientific defense can't be condensed into a few stanzas should not be an excuse for Christians looking for intelligent debate on the subject.

- source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

bob b
February 10th, 2006, 10:54 PM
[Two views of abiogenesis]


[quote]I think this figure summarizes the gap between creationists and scientists who have thoroughly studied the origins of life/abiogenesis. Is this the reason debate on this topic normally breaks down, because of a lack of understanding about what scientists are actually proposing?

My reason for believing the debate breaks down is different than yours. First, proponents like you believe that we do not read. Second, you try to act like a professor and lecture us, all the time insinuating that we are stupid if we don't see things your way. Your illustration is ample proof of that.


In my opinion, it's much easier for Christians to wave their hands and say, "God did it," than actually researching the opposition's stance (granted, there are tomes of scientific papers that often require prior understanding of the concepts involved.)

The fact that the entire scientific defense can't be condensed into a few stanzas should not be an excuse for Christians looking for intelligent debate on the subject.

- source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

What's to debate?

We have looked at the evidence and have found it lacking in credibility.

BTW, I was interested in this subject for many years since I purchased a Dover reprint of Oparin's classic. I continued to obtain books by the leading researchers.

As the years passed scientists found more and more complexities in the systems of the cell that made the concept of abiogenesis into a rapidly receding target. The trend continues.

Most people have made up their minds long ago that the concept is goofy considering the growing number of hurdles.

If scientists want to waste their time chasing a fading dream that is their business, but don't think anyone else is all that interested as to dig into the nitty gritty reasons why the target is receding so rapidly.

Come back when you have something to shout about. Handwaving doesn't make it.

BTW, just one hour ago I happened to read the following about abiogenesis research:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12102024_1

bob b
February 10th, 2006, 11:10 PM
aharvey,
You might consider editing your post to make it clear that I posted none of the words which appear after the

[QUOTE=bob b]


in your posting.

In fact none of my original text appears in your posting except:

[QUOTE=bob b]

noguru
February 10th, 2006, 11:54 PM
[QUOTE=eisenreich][Two views of abiogenesis]




My reason for believing the debate breaks down is different than yours. First, proponents like you believe that we do not read. Second, you try to act like a professor and lecture us, all the time insinuating that we are stupid if we don't see things your way. Your illustration is ample proof of that.



What's to debate?

We have looked at the evidence and have found it lacking in credibility.

BTW, I was interested in this subject for many years since I purchased a Dover reprint of Oparin's classic. I continued to obtain books by the leading researchers.

As the years passed scientists found more and more complexities in the systems of the cell that made the concept of abiogenesis into a rapidly receding target. The trend continues.

Most people have made up their minds long ago that the concept is goofy considering the growing number of hurdles.

If scientists want to waste their time chasing a fading dream that is their business, but don't think anyone else is all that interested as to dig into the nitty gritty reasons why the target is receding so rapidly.

Come back when you have something to shout about. Handwaving doesn't make it.

BTW, just one hour ago I happened to read the following about abiogenesis research:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12102024_1

How can you argue with that appeal to emotion. Try to set up sides by making people who lack experience in an area feel that those with experience think they are "stupid". What a way to twist things around. One of my friends has no college level learning at all, but her IQ is 186. Would you think she is stupid Bob? I certainly don't.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is a difference between intelligence and education level. The lack of knowledge in a certain area does not make a person "stupid". This is a common misnomer and Bob loves to use this politically charged style of persuasion to bolster his side of the argument. I can only think of one sociology professor of all the people I have known in academia who feels that his education level makes him superior.

bob b
February 11th, 2006, 11:14 AM
How can you argue with that appeal to emotion. Try to set up sides by making people who lack experience in an area feel that those with experience think they are "stupid". What a way to twist things around. One of my friends has no college level learning at all, but her IQ is 186. Would you think she is stupid Bob? I certainly don't.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is a difference between intelligence and education level. The lack of knowledge in a certain area does not make a person "stupid". This is a common misnomer and Bob loves to use this politically charged style of persuasion to bolster his side of the argument. I can only think of one sociology professor of all the people I have known in academia who feels that his education level makes him superior.

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the person who posted a diagram depicting how shallow and uninformed Christians were who have dismissed abiogenesis.
And then amazingly has the audacity to cite a superficial discussion at talk.origins as his source. :down:

If you want to defend abiogenesis on technical grounds be my guest, but it might be prudent to read the opposing side first.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...?aid=12102024_1

aharvey
February 13th, 2006, 12:24 PM
aharvey,
You might consider editing your post to make it clear that I posted none of the words which appear after the

[QUOTE=bob b]


in your posting.

In fact none of my original text appears in your posting except:

[QUOTE=bob b]
Bob b, you constantly outdo yourself! Before I fix my egregious error, you might want to take a look at your own post #20 in this thread!

"Do as I say, not as I do"?

noguru
February 13th, 2006, 02:02 PM
I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the person who posted a diagram depicting how shallow and uninformed Christians were who have dismissed abiogenesis.
And then amazingly has the audacity to cite a superficial discussion at talk.origins as his source. :down:

If you want to defend abiogenesis on technical grounds be my guest, but it might be prudent to read the opposing side first.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...?aid=12102024_1

Well Bob first off, not all Christians dismiss abiogenesis, and that is because some of us see the error in the first model he posted. Secondly, it seemed that eisenreich was making a valid point. Because he specified creationist and even you prefer the cartoon version over what those studying the subject currently believe happened. It seems that you like to use this model, because in your mind it gives more credence to your complaints about the naturalistic explanation. And finally, your link did not work. I even did a cut and paste and the site could not be found.

bob b
February 13th, 2006, 02:38 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12102024_1

aharvey
February 13th, 2006, 03:10 PM
If scientists want to waste their time chasing a fading dream that is their business, but don't think anyone else is all that interested as to dig into the nitty gritty reasons why the target is receding so rapidly.
Then why do you keep bringing it up?

noguru
February 13th, 2006, 03:26 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12102024_1

Thanks Bob that was very interesting. I liked the final two paragraphs especially.



It goes without saying that this is a tentative judgment, perhaps only a hunch. But let us suppose that questions about the origins of the mind and the origins of life do lie beyond the grasp of “the model for what science should be.” In that case, we must either content ourselves with its limitations or revise the model. If a revision also lies beyond our powers, then we may well have to say that the mind and life have appeared in the universe for no very good reason that we can discern.

Worse things have happened. In the end, these are matters that can only be resolved in the way that all such questions are resolved. We must wait and see.


But for you I guess its like a piece of popcorn stuck in your teeth.

bob b
February 13th, 2006, 03:31 PM
Then why do you keep bringing it up?

If abiogenesis is not true, that is if life did not arise naturally, then all scientific bets are off with respect to the starting point for evolution, and perhaps also the mechanism which causes changes in lifeforms.

noguru
February 13th, 2006, 04:01 PM
If abiogenesis is not true, that is if life did not arise naturally, then all scientific bets are off with respect to the starting point for evolution, and perhaps also the mechanism which causes changes in lifeforms.

Not neccesarily. Actually Darwin originally assumed that the first life form was created by God.

aharvey
February 14th, 2006, 07:58 AM
If abiogenesis is not true, that is if life did not arise naturally, then all scientific bets are off with respect to the starting point for evolution, and perhaps also the mechanism which causes changes in lifeforms.
So, let me get this straight: you chastize scientists for wasting their time studying something no one "is all that interested" in, and yet you keep bringing up that exact same topic for what I think I'm safe to characterize as its fairly profound importance to our understanding of biology?

Is this kind of like your only against evolution approach to brainstorming?

Oh, and I do like how you slip in the second phrase "perhaps also the mechanism which causes changes in lifeforms." Thanks for showing me how to do that salesman's trick properly. It would be just as accurate to state that "if abiogenesis is not true, then all scientific bets are off with respect to the starting point for evolution, and perhaps also for every other phenomena that we currently attribute to natural processes."