Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

[bob b]

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]

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]

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]

Within evolution. What would bacteria become that is not bacteria?

 

[firechyld]

Firechyld,

I think it's called a strawman.

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

 

[OlDove]

Within evolution. What would bacteria become that is not bacteria?

 

[aharvey]

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). 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]

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). 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".