Whatever. When you learn how the rest of the world uses words, let me know.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Whatever. When you learn how the rest of the world uses words, let me know.
The world is a bigoted, irrational place. :idunno: 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?
Right Divider
Body part
Maybe some people think that we think that children are their parents. :dizzy:
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.
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. :idunno:
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-selection/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."
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/j09_2/j09_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.
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.
You think God designs snowflakes and hurricanes? In each case, simple physical forces produce order with no design observed.
It's not going to happen without energy inputs. Sunlight normally serves as the input.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The troll knows how scientists define "evolution"; he just would like to redefine it as something else. For reasons we all understand.
Right Divider
Body part
Trying to steal the term "scientist" for your own purposes. Very dishonest...but what else is new for you?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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?
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.
Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. Darwinists want it to be "change," which defines the debate out of existence.
They hate a challenge.
That's the problem...they do:
Perhaps most worrisome is evidence from the PNAS study that CRE bacteria can pass from person to person undetected. “It seems that some people can carry the bug without getting sick, and spread it to others they come in contact with,” says William Hanage, Ph.D., associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and senior author on the study.
That means, he says, that CRE bacteria may not be confined to outbreaks of infections in hospitals but are likely to be far more widespread in the community than once thought.
For the study, researchers from Harvard University, MIT, and other institutions tested patients at four hospitals—three in the Boston area and one in California—over a period of 16 months.
Their findings paint a more complete picture of a superbug that is “incredibly diverse and tricky,” Hanage says.
https://www.consumerreports.org/ove...rous-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-spreading/
At first, such bacteria tend to be only in hospitals, because they can't compete with other bacteria, except in the environment where antibiotics are present. But like MRSA, TB, and the organisms that cause gonorrhea and syphilis, they eventually evolve to move into the general population.
That's the way evolution works.
Right Divider
Body part
So bacteria change to become... still bacteria.
Did you get a college degree in this kind of silly argumentation?
It is a poor substitute for real content.
That is the topic of this particular thread. The point is that the mechanism of mutation and selection works. If we can agree on that, then we can leave that question aside, and go on to why people think this mechanism can't create new species.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I really dig how you so often feel compelled to publicly react to my posts. And how, every time you do so, you thereby make it clear that you are now aware of the questions I asked you; how, every time you do so, you publicly advertise your incompetence to answer the questions of which you are aware that I asked you. Thank you, chair, for, once again, proudly showcasing the fact that you can't answer an elementary question (among oh so many other questions) such as, "What is it for something to 'evolve into' something?" Why do you consider your inability to answer that question to be a good thing, and something you can be proud of? I mean, come on!!--you and your fellow Darwinists go on and on with this phrase, "the theory of evolution", and you say that something "evolves into" something, and yet, you can't even begin to say what it is for something to "evolve into" something!! What's there for you to be proud of in your failure??
If someone comes along and says that you, chair, should consider the theory of fablomation to be scientific, and true, and they tell you that something has flablomated into something, and you repeatedly ask them to tell you what it is for something to flablomate into something, and, despite your requests, they never tell you what it is for something to flablomate into something--what, then, will you think of their reaction to your query, when the best of what they have in their arsenal is to call your questioning of their nonsense, "silly argumentation" and "a poor substitute for real content", and other such trite, formulaic insults?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You can't even tell us what it is for something to "evolve into" something, so why don't you try to get that "little detail" cleared up, first? Oh, that's right: because your phrase, "evolve into", is meaningless. Why bother saying "mutation" and "selection" when you can't even say "evolve" meaningfully?
The scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time.
The scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time.
The scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time.
The scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time.
The Skinny: Study is hard work. If you already understand that study is hard work, the second step is to accept it as a daily fact of life and then, as the philosopher said, 'Just do it.' One of the facts you will have to embrace is that study requires repetition. If study is extending and internalizing your interaction with course material, a key component is, I repeat, repetition: Reading, re-reading, writing, re-writing, discussing, re-discussing, thinking, re-thinking the course material. Bored? Too bad. A long-standing learning clich? is that you need to push the same stuff past your brain in as many ways as possible: See it, hear it, read it, write it, repeat it all again in as many different ways as possible.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/ufhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/study/
If the definition is too technical for you, you might want to use Darwin's term: "descent with modification." It's still valid, although not as technical. Good luck and remember, repetition will help you with difficult concepts.
Even honest creationists acknowledge that speciation is a fact:
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-selection/speciation/
Did you miss the point deliberately or intentionally?
Nope. That's just you demanding that your idea be treated as fact. When you get over your religious devotion to Darwin, you might be of some use in a discussion over the evidence.