Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by chair View Post

    Nah, just pointing out that you have nothing to say besides your semantic games.
    Have a nice day!
    LOL
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by chair View Post
      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?

      Where exactly is the line? And why does that line exist?
      According to Answers in Genesis, as far as I can tell:
      1. Bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. Yes, that is accepted. At least by most creationists.
        AiG agrees.
      2. Can wolves evolve into dogs?
        AiG agrees.
      3. Can an ancient horse-ancestor evolve to give us donkeys, horses and zebras?
        AiG agrees.
      4. Can an ancient mammal ( say the morganucodontids) evolve into all the various types of mammals that we see today?
        AiG disagrees.
      5. Can animals that live in the sea evolve into land-living animals?
        AiG disagrees.

      The reason for placing the line at around the level of order/family?

      If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some.

      In other words, it depends on how big you think a cubit is.

      Stuart

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        The reason for placing the line at around the level of order/family?

        If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some.

        In other words, it depends on how big you think a cubit is.

        Stuart

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post

          Despite the fact that the evidence shows otherwise.
          You are simply wrong. The evidence shows that the mechanism of mutation and selection works. The example of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is one example that demonstrates this. Why don't you see this?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by chair View Post

            Did you get a college degree in this kind of silly argumentation?
            It is a poor substitute for real content.
            If it were silly you'd have refuted it. Instead, it's your own ad hominem response that is the silly argument.
            sigpic
            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by chair View Post

              You are simply wrong. The evidence shows that the mechanism of mutation and selection works. The example of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is one example that demonstrates this. Why don't you see this?
              Natural selection is not evolution.

              E. Coli bacteria that are resistant to Penicillin are still E. Coli bacteria.

              When I mow my lawn and cut down all the tall Dandelion weeds but leave the short ones, before long, all I have is short ones but they're all still 100% pure breed Dandelion weeds that are just as happy reproducing with tall Dandelion weed pollen as they are the short Dandelion variety.

              There are thousands and thousands of such examples and not one of them is an example of, or even evidence for, evolution.
              sigpic
              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Clete View Post
                Natural selection is not evolution.
                Exactly right. Natural selection is an agency of evolution. The change in allele frequencies is evolution.

                E. Coli bacteria that are resistant to Penicillin are still E. Coli bacteria.
                Yes. Just evolved E. coli bacteria. The species name is always lower case, to make it clear in technical articles, while the genus name is always capitalized. I know it seems inconsistent, but it works very well to avoid confusion. Evolution can happen within a species, just as it can produce new species. Most creationists, as Stuu mentioned, allow for the evolution of new species, genera and families. Apparently, some will go as far as new orders. They just don't want to call it "evolution."

                When I mow my lawn and cut down all the tall Dandelion weeds but leave the short ones, before long, all I have is short ones but they're all still 100% pure breed Dandelion weeds that are just as happy reproducing with tall Dandelion weed pollen as they are the short Dandelion variety.
                Actually, they don't broadcast pollen:
                Despite the colorful nature of the dandelion flower it doesn’t actually attract as many butterflies or bees as many other flowers of similar size, such as clover or henbit. One of the main reasons for this is that dandelions don’t require pollination, therefore their flowers aren’t designed to attract insects.
                https://www.ezhomelife.com/dandelion-weed/

                They are bisexual, having both male and female parts on each flower, and so pollinate themselves.

                There are thousands and thousands of such examples and not one of them is an example of, or even evidence for, evolution.
                You aren't killing the tall ones, of course. They live for years, unless you remove the taproot or poison them with herbicide. But by removing the flowers, you do indeed change the allele frequency of the dandelions on your lawn, which as you know, is evolution.



                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post

                  Exactly right. Natural selection is an agency of evolution. The change in allele frequencies is evolution.



                  Yes. Just evolved E. coli bacteria. The species name is always lower case, to make it clear in technical articles, while the genus name is always capitalized. I know it seems inconsistent, but it works very well to avoid confusion. Evolution can happen within a species, just as it can produce new species. Most creationists, as Stuu mentioned, allow for the evolution of new species, genera and families. Apparently, some will go as far as new orders. They just don't want to call it "evolution."



                  Actually, they don't broadcast pollen:
                  Despite the colorful nature of the dandelion flower it doesn’t actually attract as many butterflies or bees as many other flowers of similar size, such as clover or henbit. One of the main reasons for this is that dandelions don’t require pollination, therefore their flowers aren’t designed to attract insects.
                  https://www.ezhomelife.com/dandelion-weed/

                  They are bisexual, having both male and female parts on each flower, and so pollinate themselves.



                  You aren't killing the tall ones, of course. They live for years, unless you remove the taproot or poison them with herbicide. But by removing the flowers, you do indeed change the allele frequency of the dandelions on your lawn, which as you know, is evolution.


                  So, as someone else on the thread has already pointed out, the term evolution doesn't mean evolution any more, it means change. Any change whatsoever seems to count as evolution (so long s it fits the evolution narrative anyway) which results in asinine posts like yours where you contradict yourself without even being able to tell you did it because the word evolution is now effectively meaningless.

                  sigpic
                  "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    So, as someone else on the thread has already pointed out, the term evolution doesn't mean evolution any more, it means change.
                    That's exactly what it means. That's why Darwin preferred "descent with modification", and science today defines evolution as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." The etymology is worth reading:

                    evolution (n.) 1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

                    Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

                    https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=evolution

                    Darwin's general notion of change over time was replaced by the modern definition after the mechanism of heredity was discovered.
                    Any change whatsoever seems to count as evolution
                    No, and that is a source of confusion for some creationists. They talk about one getting a tan or become acclimatized to a new environment as evolution. But it's not, in the biological sense. Neither "descent with modification" nor "change in allele frequency" applies to such adaptation by an individual. The easy way to remember is "individuals don't evolve; populations do."

                    (so long s it fits the evolution narrative anyway) which results in asinine posts like yours where you contradict yourself without even being able to tell you did it because the word evolution is now effectively meaningless.
                    See above. It's not a dishonesty on your part, it's just a confusion.




                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post

                      That's exactly what it means. That's why Darwin preferred "descent with modification", and science today defines evolution as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." The etymology is worth reading:

                      evolution (n.) 1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

                      Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

                      https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=evolution

                      Darwin's general notion of change over time was replaced by the modern definition after the mechanism of heredity was discovered.
                      Reproducing after their kind is no great mystery. A single common ancestor producing all kinds is a myth.

                      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      No, and that is a source of confusion for some creationists. They talk about one getting a tan or become acclimatized to a new environment as evolution. But it's not, in the biological sense. Neither "descent with modification" nor "change in allele frequency" applies to such adaptation by an individual. The easy way to remember is "individuals don't evolve; populations do."
                      Populations are just groups of individuals. Why is this something that evolutionists cannot understand?
                      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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post

                        That's exactly what it means.
                        Thank you for conceding the debate.
                        sigpic
                        "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Barbarian observes:
                          That's exactly what it means. That's why Darwin preferred "descent with modification", and science today defines evolution as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." The etymology is worth reading:

                          evolution (n.) 1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

                          Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

                          https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=evolution

                          Darwin's general notion of change over time was replaced by the modern definition after the mechanism of heredity was discovered.

                          Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          Thank you for conceding the debate.
                          Pleased that we can agree on this.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                            According to Answers in Genesis, as far as I can tell:
                            1. Bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. Yes, that is accepted. At least by most creationists.
                              AiG agrees.
                            2. Can wolves evolve into dogs?
                              AiG agrees.
                            3. Can an ancient horse-ancestor evolve to give us donkeys, horses and zebras?
                              AiG agrees.
                            4. Can an ancient mammal ( say the morganucodontids) evolve into all the various types of mammals that we see today?
                              AiG disagrees.
                            5. Can animals that live in the sea evolve into land-living animals?
                              AiG disagrees.
                            Nope.

                            Try reading. We deny evolution, regardless of how desperately Darwinists want us to accept it.

                            The reason for placing the line at around the level of order/family?

                            If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some.

                            In other words, it depends on how big you think a cubit is.

                            Stuart
                            Nope. Science, remember?

                            "Plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind."

                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Science, remember?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by chair View Post

                                You are simply wrong. The evidence shows that the mechanism of mutation and selection works. The example of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is one example that demonstrates this. Why don't you see this?
                                Because bacteria changes in response to stimulai in ways that show random mutations and natural selection can have no part in the process.

                                Did you not read what I wrote?

                                Also, begging the question is a logical fallacy. You can't be part of a rational conversation until you stop using your theory as fact.
                                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