Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    What I read is that the creationist world accepts the fact that selection can help bacteria adapt to their environment. What they do is pretend that there is something wrong with the story. That the bacteria are not good. They are damaged. They don't survive well outside of the antibiotic-heavy environment of the hospital.
    "Far from being a ‘new improved model’, resistant cells also cannot take up the amounts of food substances that would normally enter via transporters that are now damaged or absent. Thus, in the absence of antibiotic, susceptible bacteria commonly out-compete resistant bacteria; so resistant ones comprise only a small percentage of the overall bacterial population."

    But this is precisely what the theory of evolution predicts. The bacteria that are best suited for their environment will survive and reproduce. There is no such thing as a "new improved model" in evolution. There are only "models" that are better suited to their environment.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by chair View Post
      What I read is that the creationist world accepts the fact that selection can help bacteria adapt to their environment. What they do is pretend that there is something wrong with the story. That the bacteria are not good. They are damaged. They don't survive well outside of the antibiotic-heavy environment of the hospital.
      "Far from being a ‘new improved model’, resistant cells also cannot take up the amounts of food substances that would normally enter via transporters that are now damaged or absent. Thus, in the absence of antibiotic, susceptible bacteria commonly out-compete resistant bacteria; so resistant ones comprise only a small percentage of the overall bacterial population."

      But this is precisely what the theory of evolution predicts. The bacteria that are best suited for their environment will survive and reproduce. There is no such thing as a "new improved model" in evolution. There are only "models" that are better suited to their environment.
      Both creationism and evolutionism share some understanding of the evidence.

      Creationists have no problem with "descend with modification". What we do have a problem with is the wild speculation that tiny random changes can be "selected" to turn a single celled creature in to a man.

      Those kinds of "changes" have never been observed and go against what we do know about genetics, etc.
      All of my ancestors are human.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
        Both creationism and evolutionism share some understanding of the evidence.

        Creationists have no problem with "descend with modification". What we do have a problem with is the wild speculation that tiny random changes can be "selected" to turn a single celled creature in to a man.

        Those kinds of "changes" have never been observed and go against what we do know about genetics, etc.
        Those changes have been observed. That's what we see in the fossil record.
        But let's leave that alone for a moment.
        What I am interested in here is where the line is between what creationists view as reasonable, and what they view as unreasonable.
        Some (Stripe comes to mind) will deny that mutation and natural selection can be advantageous to an organism. The case of bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant shows that these mechanisms can make an organism more suited to its environment. I see that many creationists are willing to accept that. So for them, there is no reason to argue about the basic mechanism, as they accept it.

        The question then arises- where is the line between what mutations and natural selection can "accomplish", and what they can't?
        1. Bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. Yes, that is accepted. At least by most creationists.
        2. Can wolves evolve into dogs?
        3. Can an ancient horse-ancestor evolve to give us donkeys, horses and zebras?
        4. Can an ancient mammal ( say the morganucodontids) evolve into all the various types of mammals that we see today?
        5. Can animals that live in the sea evolve into land-living animals?



        Where exactly is the line? And why does that line exist?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by chair View Post
          Those changes have been observed. That's what we see in the fossil record.
          The fossil record is only proof for the "true believer" in evolution. It has so many problems for evolution, but evolutionists just ignore them and brush them under the rug.

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          But let's leave that alone for a moment.

          What I am interested in here is where the line is between what creationists view as reasonable, and what they view as unreasonable.
          Some (Stripe comes to mind) will deny that mutation and natural selection can be advantageous to an organism. The case of bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant shows that these mechanisms can make an organism more suited to its environment.
          These "advantageous" mutations come at a high cost to the integrity of the original code. They are NOT the "building blocks" that can turn an amoeba into a man.

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          I see that many creationists are willing to accept that. So for them, there is no reason to argue about the basic mechanism, as they accept it.
          Once again, this is NOT a glorious pathway from a single celled creature to a man.

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          The question then arises- where is the line between what mutations and natural selection can "accomplish", and what they can't?
          1. Bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. Yes, that is accepted. At least by most creationists.
          Damage to existing designs is a long-term downhill path and not the magnificent climb from amoeba to man.

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          Can wolves evolve into dogs?
          Wolves are dogs. They can interbred.

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          Can an ancient horse-ancestor evolve to give us donkeys, horses and zebras?
          Once again, they all appear to be descended from a general "horse kind".

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          Can an ancient mammal ( say the morganucodontids) evolve into all the various types of mammals that we see today?
          We don't know for certain how many kinds there were or exactly what the true "tree of life" looks like. What we do know with a high degree of certainty is that they are not all descended from a single universal common ancestor.

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          Can animals that live in the sea evolve into land-living animals?
          Not likely based on what we do know.

          Originally posted by chair View Post
          Where exactly is the line? And why does that line exist?
          Unlike evolutionists, creationists will not claim to know all of the details about things that happened in the distance past.

          But what we do know is enough to totally demolish the idea that all life is descended from a single universal common ancestor.
          Last edited by Right Divider; November 7th, 2019, 06:47 PM. Reason: typo
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by chair View Post
            Those changes have been observed.
            No, they haven't.
            That's what we see in the fossil record.
            No, it's not.
            But let's leave that alone for a moment.
            Just don't assume the truth of your theory when analyzing ours.
            The case of bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant shows that these mechanisms can make an organism more suited to its environment. I see that many creationists are willing to accept that. So for them, there is no reason to argue about the basic mechanism, as they accept it.
            Observations of what happens do not tie people to an explanation.

            Bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. Yes, that is accepted. At least by most creationists.
            None, in fact. Evolution is the idea that all life is descended by means of random mutations and natural selection from a universal common ancestor. No creationist accepts that. Darwinists like to define evolution as "change," which makes a rational discussion impossible.
            Can wolves evolve into dogs?
            No.
            Can an ancient horse-ancestor evolve to give us donkeys, horses and zebras?
            No.
            Can an ancient mammal evolve into all the various types of mammals that we see today?
            No.
            Can animals that live in the sea evolve into land-living animals?
            No.

            Where exactly is the line? And why does that line exist?
            Evolution is impossible for reasons that have been laid out thousands of times, but never engaged with sensibly. Darwinists need to learn what it is we disagree with, not equivocate using a useless definition of evolution to insulate their ideas against challenges.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              No, they haven't.No, it's not.Just don't assume the truth of your theory when analyzing ours.Observations of what happens do not tie people to an explanation.

              None, in fact. Evolution is the idea that all life is descended by means of random mutations and natural selection from a universal common ancestor. No creationist accepts that. Darwinists like to define evolution as "change," which makes a rational discussion impossible.
              No.
              No.
              No.
              No.

              Evolution is impossible for reasons that have been laid out thousands of times, but never engaged with sensibly. Darwinists need to learn what it is we disagree with, not equivocate using a useless definition of evolution to insulate their ideas against challenges.
              Whatever. When you learn how the rest of the world uses words, let me know.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by chair View Post
                When you learn how the rest of the world uses words, let me know.
                The world is a bigoted, irrational place. It calls Israel "occupiers." Are you going to bow to what is popular as well?

                Heres the situation: We do not agree that random mutations and natural selection play any significant role in the diversification of biological organisms. A perfectly sensible shorthand for that idea is "evolution." If you simply respect the fact that when we say "evolution," that definition is what we mean, a rational discussion might be possible.

                However, if you insist that "evolution" must mean "change," then there is no discussion to be had. Who in their right mind would argue that things do not change?
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  However, if you insist that "evolution" must mean "change," then there is no discussion to be had. Who in their right mind would argue that things do not change?
                  Maybe some people think that we think that children are their parents.
                  All of my ancestors are human.
                  Originally posted by Squeaky
                  That explains why your an idiot.
                  Originally posted by God's Truth
                  Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                  Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                  1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                  Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by chair View Post
                    Stripe, as you would say: pay attention to the challenge.

                    I didn't ask what is wrong with the evolutionary explanation. I asked "How do Creationists explain this phenomenon?...How do the bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?"
                    The diversion attempt fails anyway. Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that mutations do arrive randomly, and not in response to environment. In fact, their studies were based on bacteria. Some recent workers have suggested that their work is flawed, and that cells can "choose" their mutations. However, one set of critics found:

                    "Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I eliminated the hypothesis that mutations were “directed” toward a useful goal. The first negative evidence was obtained not with FC40, but with SM195. SM195 has an amber mutation in lacZ and so reverts both by intragenic mutations and by the creation of tRNA suppressors (11). The continued appearance of extragenic suppressors during lactose selection allowed us to dismiss the hypothesis that the selective conditions “instructed” the cell to make appropriate mutations—in the case of extragenic suppressors, there is no direct path from the phenotype (Lac+) to the mutated gene (encoding a tRNA) (23). Later it was shown that about two-thirds of the late-appearing Lac+ revertants of SM195 were due to slow-growing ochre suppressors that probably arose during growth prior to lactose selection (57). Nonetheless, the continued appearance of fast-growing amber suppressors in addition to the true revertants demonstrated that mutations appear elsewhere than in the gene directly under selection (24).

                    The second piece of evidence against directed mutation was obtained by putting a second revertible allele, a +1 frameshift in the tetA gene, close to the Lac− allele in FC40. During lactose selection, Tetr revertants appeared at about the same rate as did Lac+ mutations and had the same genetic requirements (21). The frequency of double Lac+ Tetr mutants in these experiments indicated that the two events were not independent (21). Nonetheless, the occurrence of nonselected mutations during lactose selection demonstrated that the mutational mechanism was not directed at a specific gene.
                    ...
                    So where are we now? A recent variant of the amplification model has been proposed by Roth's group (42). This variant postulates that fewer cells start to amplify and the extent of their amplification is less; to compensate, the mutation rate increases >35-fold due to induction and amplification of Pol IV (42, 62). How can this be reconciled with the fact that the accumulation of Lac+ mutants is linear with time? Roth's group hypothesizes that a given amplified array is constantly being destroyed and reformed (63). Although not stated explicitly, they apparently believe that this process would allow for a constant rate of mutant production. But how can such instability be consistent with the fact that clones can be isolated with up to 50 copies of the lac region (1) and that some cells build up enough Lac− copies to become phenotypically Lac+ (20)? I find it easier to believe that there are two processes occurring: a mutational process that produces true revertants and an amplification process that produces slowly growing colonies that start appearing after about 5 days of incubation. But it is interesting that the original Roth-Stahl hypothesis has evolved so that it is now almost exactly what Cairns and I proposed years ago."

                    Adaptive Mutation in Escherichia coli
                    Patricia L. Foster
                    J Bacteriol. 2004 Aug; 186(15): 4846–4852.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that mutations do arrive randomly.
                      Nope. As you learned last time, their study showed exactly what I said: The same changes happen every time the same conditions are applied and in a similar timeframe.

                      It's chemistry, not magic. When you repeat an experiment, you get the same results.

                      Maybe your memory is fading faster than you thought.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by WonderfulLordJesus View Post

                        Perhaps it would be more relevant to ask other questions, if you're sold on evolution. Where is your species change evidence?
                        Even informed YE creationists admit it's a fact:

                        As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
                        https://answersingenesis.org/natural...on/speciation/

                        Answers in Genesis admits the evolution of new species and genera. Some creationists admit new families, as well. But they just say it's "not real evolution." Real evolution, in biology, is merely a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Evolution within a species is sometimes called "microevolution", and speciation is "macroevolution."

                        Where has one creature reproduced to produce a different creature, also noting it's a non-starter to claim the fossil record supports transitional forms?
                        Informed YE creationists disagree with you:

                        It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument
                        Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

                        Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
                        https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/..._2_216-222.pdf (my emphasis)

                        Wise does not believe they are truly transitionals, referring to them as "stratomorphic intermediates." He merely notes that they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", and suggests that while creationism has no explanation for them at the present, there might be such an explanation in the future.

                        Or perhaps you could explain to everybody how evolution nullifies entropy,
                        Same way a plant, growing from a seed does. If this puzzles you, ask me, and we'll show you the details. Suffice to say "entropy" isn't quite what you were told.

                        what evidence there is of order being created, absent design
                        You think God designs snowflakes and hurricanes? In each case, simple physical forces produce order with no design observed.

                        and energy input,
                        It's not going to happen without energy inputs. Sunlight normally serves as the input.

                        Tell us about the Big Bang, how, for instance, an explosion was ever used to build a building
                        The Big Bang wasn't an explosion; it's just a figure of speech. And even if God just poofed the solar system together, evolution would work exactly the same way.

                        Your other confusion is in equating natural objects with human artifacts. Artifacts are designed; natural objects are formed by natural forces, as God intends.

                        Perhaps tell us how even a single celled creature requires thousands of simultaneous, complex systems to live, how those systems could have even evolved,
                        Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. If you'd like to imagine (as Darwin did) that God just made the first living things, evolution would still work exactly the same way.

                        or what blood would do, absent the heart.
                        Nourish tissues in small animals. Insects, for example, lack a true heart. Instead, they have a "dorsal vessel" somewhat like the arteries in you legs, that have one-way valves so that your muscular contractions can move back up to your heart. Since they have an open circulatory system, it's very low-pressure, and works just fine for them.

                        And, please, if you're one of those that really believes a monkey and a typewriter...
                        That's a creationist superstition. Scientists don't think like that.

                        There's a lot more to learn if you really want to know about this. It's going to be a bumpy ride, but a fun one.
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by chair View Post
                          Whatever. When you learn how the rest of the world uses words, let me know.
                          The troll knows how scientists define "evolution"; he just would like to redefine it as something else. For reasons we all understand.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            The troll knows how scientists define "evolution"; he just would like to redefine it as something else. For reasons we all understand.
                            Trying to steal the term "scientist" for your own purposes. Very dishonest...but what else is new for you?
                            All of my ancestors are human.
                            Originally posted by Squeaky
                            That explains why your an idiot.
                            Originally posted by God's Truth
                            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by chair View Post
                              Can wolves evolve into dogs?
                              Over and over, you people keep chanting nonsense like "Individuals don't evolve; populations evolve", and then, you turn around and say something like, "Can wolves evolve into dogs?" Didn't you mean to say, "Can populations of wolves evolve into populations of dogs?" I mean, you whine and cry and angrily chant things like the phrase, "word games", as a reaction against someone saying to you, "Can a wolf evolve into a dog?", yet then, hypocrites that you are, you turn right around and say, "Can wolves evolve into dogs?" Why is saying, "Can a wolf (singular) evolve into a dog (singular)?", somehow a bad thing, whereas saying (as you say), "Can wolves (plural) evolve into dogs (plural)?", is somehow a good thing?

                              Your frustration all boils down to the simple fact that, by your slogan words, "evolve" and "evolution", you mean absolutely nothing: for one to be able to explain what one means by a word or phrase, one must mean something by that word or phrase. No meaning? Then no meaning to be explained. No meaning to be explained? Then no possibility of explanation. By your slogan phrase, "evolve into", you mean absolutely nothing. By your slogan phrase, "populations evolve", you mean absolutely nothing. By all such phrases, you are simply parroting what is cognitively meaningless. You mean nothing, so you have nothing to explain. And yet, you want to pretend that you have something to explain, and that you have something you can explain, and that you have something you have explained. But you never explain; because you can't explain; because you have nothing to explain, because you mean nothing.

                              What is it for something to "evolve into" something? See, you have absolutely no rational response for elementary questions like this. You go about saying this "evolves into" or "evolved into" that, and yet, you throw a temper tantrum when you are asked what (if anything) it is for something to "evolve into" something, because you know that you cannot answer the question.

                              What is it for a population to "evolve into" something? And, if a population "evolves into" something, into what does it "evolve"? Does a population "evolve into" itself? Does a population "evolve into" a population other than itself?

                              What is it for a population of wolves to "evolve into" a population of dogs?
                              All my ancestors are human.
                              PS: All your ancestors are human.
                              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                Answers in Genesis admits the evolution of new species and genera.
                                Nope. It explicitly denies that evolution plays a role. Perhaps you got fooled. More likely you're just desperate for validation, even from the opposition.

                                There's a lot more to learn if you really want to learn about this. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X