Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you want to get into specifics, I've mentioned antibiotic resistance a half a dozen times in this thread with no response from the opposition.
Antibiotic resistance is not equivalent to evolution. Evolution is an upward progression and resistance is a linear change within the bacteria kind. Antibiotics are designed to interfere with a bacteria's ability to replicate DNA or maintain their cell wall or making proteins .. all critical functions .. by binding to a particular protein of the bacteria and disabling that particular targeted function.
Antibiotic resistance is a mutation of the already existing DNA of a bacteria. Yes, this may help them resist the antibiotic, but it also harms them in another fashion. It does not add any new genetic information to create a "new" bacteria. It is the same bacteria only mutated.
Get a population of bacteria. Introduce the antibiotic. Say, for example, 2% of the population produce the mutation and avoid dying from the antibiotic. 98% of the bacteria that didn't mutate are killed. The 2% that did mutate survive and multiply. Then you now have a population of mutated bacteria that can resist antibiotics, but due to the mutation they now also don't survive as well in environments where antibiotics are not present. Non-mutated bacteria are still much better equipped to reproduce and compete for nutrients and out-perform the mutated bacteria.
Yes, mutations and natural selection assist bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.
Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to eventually have been able to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few. Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functionality of certain systems (downward progression ... the opposite of what the ToE proposes). It doesn't add anything new for the bacteria to work with, it just rearranges what it already has.
Again, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action (upward progression) but rather variation within a bacterial kind (lateral adaptation). It's also a great testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.
Evolutionist will not agree on what Evolution is, so I think that you need to define what you believe it is.
Nick:
They won't? Who exactly are these "Evolutionists" who can't agree on what it is? I'm sorry but Scientists don't just make stuff up. It's apparent that you're very unfamiliar with the scientific method and evolution so I'll enlighten you.
First of All, Evolution can simply be described as A change in gene or allele frequencies over time.
It is considered a scientific FACT that allele frequencies change over time. Failure to acknowledge this requires you to deny the mechanisms which cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. That's evolution in action. Do you deny this?
Once we've gotten over the fact of evolution, we can move on to the Theory of Evolution.
Quote:
Nikk
From my experience of studying evolution at the University level, is that it requires "faith".
Nick:
While you may have studied it at the "University level" I seriously doubt you understood what you were being taught.
Quote:
Nikk:
Mainly because there is no evidence in support of the theory.
Nick:
This statement is false. First, define evidence.
Quote:
Nikk:
At least the prevailing theory of Neo-Darwinism. In fact after most scientific studies are done, an evolution caveat is thown at the study in a post mortum fasion in order for the paper to be accepted by the scientific community.
Nick:
That's interesting. No evidence for "Neo-Darwinism." I'm relatively sure you don't even know what it is.
Describe the scientific process. I ask because you are abysmally ignorant of so many things I don't think you've ever even had a science class beyond 1st grade.
Quote:
Nikk:
But no knowledge of Evolution is required in order to study any biological function at any level.
Nick:
Is that so? Fine. Why don't you tell us about biodiversity okay?
What is biodiversity and why biodiversity? Why are there around 250,000 species of Beetle? Tell us about the relationship between the complex ecosystems in the world's rainforests. Why are half the known species of plants and animals found in the rainforest? Why are there more species of Tree in a single hecta-acre of Amazon rainforest than there are different types of tree in North America?
I won't hold my breath.
Antibiotic resistance is not equivalent to evolution. Evolution is an upward progression and resistance is a linear change within the bacteria kind. Antibiotics are designed to interfere with a bacteria's ability to replicate DNA or maintain their cell wall or making proteins .. all critical functions .. by binding to a particular protein of the bacteria and disabling that particular targeted function.
Antibiotic resistance is a mutation of the already existing DNA of a bacteria. Yes, this may help them resist the antibiotic, but it also harms them in another fashion. It does not add any new genetic information to create a "new" bacteria. It is the same bacteria only mutated.
Get a population of bacteria. Introduce the antibiotic. Say, for example, 2% of the population produce the mutation and avoid dying from the antibiotic. 98% of the bacteria that didn't mutate are killed. The 2% that did mutate survive and multiply. Then you now have a population of mutated bacteria that can resist antibiotics, but due to the mutation they now also don't survive as well in environments where antibiotics are not present. Non-mutated bacteria are still much better equipped to reproduce and compete for nutrients and out-perform the mutated bacteria.
Yes, mutations and natural selection assist bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.
Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to eventually have been able to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few. Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functionality of certain systems (downward progression ... the opposite of what the ToE proposes). It doesn't add anything new for the bacteria to work with, it just rearranges what it already has.
Again, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action (upward progression) but rather variation within a bacterial kind (lateral adaptation). It's also a great testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.
There's my answer from the opposition to the ToE.
I think you have committed a fundamental error in that your assertion of bacteria being affected by only one potential outcome. Ecosystems are full of complex dynamics all affecting the natural selection and final product of an organism. Limiting bacteria down to just a change due to antibiotics is a bit unfair as you only focus your assertion on the so called "downward trend" that immunity builds with complete blatant disregard for any other ecological factors. My point here is that by only presenting ONE single factor to the overall development of an organism leads one to believe (falsely) that that is the ONLY factor attributing the natural selection and henceforth the evolution of the organism.
To further extrapolate on this, we can look at the Verhulst Equation which is as such:
dP/dt = rP(1-P/K)
Let me explain.
In this formula 'P' is the current population, 'K' is the carrying capacity, and 'r' is the growth rate of the population. This formula actually shows that of how many of a specific organism can be continuing at a given rate and time. Only providing one variable such as JUST antibiotics does nothing for your argument. The problem is that when you assert that only one thing affects the growth rate or population of a particular organism you are altering your "p" and "r" values to a point of unrelenting destruction or extinction.
If I were a good programmer, I imagine I could put these values into some sort of program to show you the non-linear outcome of the equation. Unfortunately, I am not a good programmer, but I can provide links to those who are and they will be at the bottom of the page. What I'm getting at here is that to only provide one potential factor for the outcome of a species, or in this case, a simple (yet complex) organism is an egregious scientific and mathematical error.
If you really focus on what I'm telling you, than you'll realize that the assertion of:
However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.
is indeed a false assertion. In order for an organism to sustain itself, the change must be meted out over time such as that any change must be beneficial enough to warrant a continuing progression as a result of that change. As evolution has proven time and again, that change, although temporarily a benefit, can also be a hinderance in the long run. What ends up happening is a consistent ever-changing product based on the ecological dynamics the organism is subject to. Only until an organism reaches the point at which any change is negative change will it reach a point of stassis. As such, periods of stasis may last for centuries or for as long as thousands of millenia. Regardless, if we use Verhulst's equation correctly, we realize that the mathematical product for an organism to maintain itself as a result of microbiotic change is an accurate assessment.
Evolutionist will not agree on what Evolution is, so I think that you need to define what you believe it is. From my experience of studying evolution at the University level, is that it requires "faith".
Here is another occasion where a fundamentalist is ABUSING the word 'faith'. 'Faith' means a belief or act that goes BEYOND REASON. Accepting the theory of evolution is based on a scientific examination and does NOT go beyond reason. Such acceptance is CONSISTENT with reason because it is BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
Applying the word 'faith' to scientific subject matter is a "category error."
Last edited by ParkTwain; 02-11-2008 at 10:06 PM..
Antibiotic resistance is not equivalent to evolution. Evolution is an upward progression
No it isn't. Evolution is just adaptation aimed at survival. There is nothing directional about it.
Quote:
and resistance is a linear change within the bacteria kind.
Actually, it is additive mutation coupled with selection. Add in time and you have evolution.
Quote:
Antibiotic resistance is a mutation of the already existing DNA of a bacteria. Yes, this may help them resist the antibiotic
I agree so far.
Quote:
but it also harms them in another fashion.
Not necessarily. There are harmful mutations, but there are also beneficial ones:
Quote:
A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[6] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People who had this mutation were able to survive infection; thus, its frequency in the population increased.[7] It could also explain why this mutation is not found in Africa where the bubonic plague never reached. Newer theory says the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation has been caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[8]
A particularly clear example of entirely new abilities is one I have mentioned before: Nylon eating bacteria.
Remember, Nylon is a man made substance which has only existed since 1935.
Quote:
In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon-6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.
Quote:
Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain. [2]
to create a "new" bacteria. It is the same bacteria only mutated.
This issue is purely taxonomic.
Quote:
Get a population of bacteria. Introduce the antibiotic. Say, for example, 2% of the population produce the mutation and avoid dying from the antibiotic. 98% of the bacteria that didn't mutate are killed. The 2% that did mutate survive and multiply. Then you now have a population of mutated bacteria that can resist antibiotics, but due to the mutation they now also don't survive as well in environments where antibiotics are not present. Non-mutated bacteria are still much better equipped to reproduce and compete for nutrients and out-perform the mutated bacteria.
Most mutations carry some cost, usually just in the manner of resources expended in order to produce needed body parts.
This applies to most anything. It costs resources in the form of raw material (food) in order for a polar bear for example to grow the hair and produce the fat needed to insulate against the cold.
Put that same polar bear in a tropical environment and it won't do nearly as well.
Does this mean that the polar bear is somehow deficient? No. It is just adapted to its environment, which is what evolution is all about.
Quote:
Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to eventually have been able to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few. Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functionality of certain systems (downward progression ... the opposite of what the ToE proposes). It doesn't add anything new for the bacteria to work with, it just rearranges what it already has.
Your understanding of what is actually involved in the Theory of Evolution is incorrect. You may want to do a little research so you don't continue making strawman arguments.
No it isn't. Evolution is just adaptation aimed at survival. There is nothing directional about it.
Actually, it is additive mutation coupled with selection. Add in time and you have evolution.
Mutations + Natural Selection + Time + Chance = Humans. Okay. Got it
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRiedl
Not necessarily. There are harmful mutations, but there are also beneficial ones
Yes, I agree to that. There are very rare instances of beneficial mutations, such as sickel cell disease. Sure, you won't get malaria, but at what cost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRiedl
Your understanding of what is actually involved in the Theory of Evolution is incorrect.
I understand what is purported by the ToE. Actually, it's what definition one wishes to apply at any given point of discussion that needs defined when speaking of evolution. I'm talking about the grand picture of goo-to-you evolution. It all takes upward transitions to go from a single cell to a more complex organism. Your examples, to me, are all indicitive of changes within kinds. A bacteria will always be a bacteria, a dog will always be a dog. Doesn't matter how much you rearrange or mutate their DNA and then select only what traits you want, it's still not moving up the ladder.
Even National Geographic explained it when discussing dog breeding on a show I saw over the weekend. Dogs have tremendous variety and you can get all shapes and sizes. However, using their example, you can't breed a cow into anything but a cow. They say this supports evolution. I say it supports creationism -- change within a kind not change from one kind to another.
Here is another occasion where a fundamentalist is ABUSING the word 'faith'. 'Faith' means a belief or act that goes BEYOND REASON. Accepting the theory of evolution is based on a scientific examination and does NOT go beyond reason. Such acceptance is CONSISTENT with reason because it is BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
Applying the word 'faith' to scientific subject matter is a "category error."
I don't think you know what faith is. Also you are confusing evidence with the interpretation of evidence.
To explain faith let me take a known example. If you try to date when a car was made, we look at the model and often features of the car point to a year that it could have been made in. We can even check the date stamped on the engine block or the Vin number which will correlate to a specific day and time and even to the hour of final assembly in some cases. Even if we have all this information and a book which lists when each series # came off the line, we will still have to put faith in the people who wrote these things. The book may be in error, the date stamped could have been incorrect (a wrong digit may have been used in the sequence). Worse case we may find out that the car is a forgery and a latter model was modified by someone hoping to get more money for their car. Ultimately we have to trust some evidence for some reason. If we have to question a date in the past of a known time then doesn't it stand to reason that we have to question an indefinite time (like the dates by evolutionist). The only way that we will be able to know with 100 percent certainty a date for a car is if we have a worker who can verify it and some proof that the car is the car in question like title records or just one owner who has always had the car in possesion.
So when we have a biologist shoot from the hip and say this is 6 million years old the question is how do we know for certain. Often you will hear them say because it was located in an area of rock. That rock layer may have dated by presence of other fossils. I have found many circular reasoning of this type with dating. These fossils came from this rock layer which we have dated from fossils which come from this age of rock... with no end. Each scientist increases the error.
The evidence does not speak for itself, otherwise it would be indisputed. But it doesn't. All evidence must be interpreted. So we must ask questions, like why was the date chosen? Was it based off of some isotopic dating? Was it contaminated? Is there a reason that the scientist picked one set of values from one isotope over another? Often a scientist is trying to prove his own pre-conceived theory. You may say this is unscientific. And I would agree with you. It is unscientific and it happens all the time. Even when we look at dates that should be reasonable to calculate and prove like the reign of different Pharohs in Egypt, there is much discrepancy. Multiple athropologists will disagree. The only thing we know is that the evens did take place, we just do not know when (I am talking about pharohs, we do not know if evolution has taken place).
So when I say faith with evolution, I am saying that we must have faith that the scientist that have done the field word, did their job well. Even if everything is perfectly accounted for we have to disbelieve it to a certain extent because no one was there to tell us that that was how it happened.
Or do we? To be at a place and time before any human existed would have to be someone like God. Well God chose to impart this information to man. The question then remains, Do you trust the humans that have made-up these evolutionary timelines or God? It all comes down to "Faith".
I keep saying 14 billion years because that's the estimated age of the unverise and we're seeing images from the Hubble telescope from the most distant parts of the universe and that's how long it took that light to get here. You completely misunderstand the meaning of a light year. It's the distance that light will travel in one year so it includes both time and space. You're trying to eliminate the time part because it doesn't fit into your thinking but there's just no way around it. Your statements are not based on any scientific evidence and they're not based on any Biblical references that you can cite. Can you show me a passage that says something like "and God stretched the universe and saw that it was good"?
You wont believe it anyways, but here it is in Jerimiah 10:12: He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Light year is a distance. Light can travel that distance but we can't assume it ever did. We may find some worm hole to an area millions of light years away. When we come out of that hole and see only black, because no light has reached that far into space, in your mind how can you give it a distance to earth? You seem to want to refuse distance unless light has traveled over it. Isn't space independant to light's presence?
You wont believe it anyways, but here it is in Jerimiah 10:12: He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Light year is a distance. Light can travel that distance but we can't assume it ever did. We may find some worm hole to an area millions of light years away. When we come out of that hole and see only black, because no light has reached that far into space, in your mind how can you give it a distance to earth? You seem to want to refuse distance unless light has traveled over it. Isn't space independant to light's presence?
Since the universe is still expanding does that mean that he's still stretching it?
Nick:
They won't? Who exactly are these "Evolutionists" who can't agree on what it is? I'm sorry but Scientists don't just make stuff up. It's apparent that you're very unfamiliar with the scientific method and evolution so I'll enlighten you.
First of All, Evolution can simply be described as A change in gene or allele frequencies over time.
It is considered a scientific FACT that allele frequencies change over time. Failure to acknowledge this requires you to deny the mechanisms which cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. That's evolution in action. Do you deny this?
Once we've gotten over the fact of evolution, we can move on to the Theory of Evolution.
Nick:
While you may have studied it at the "University level" I seriously doubt you understood what you were being taught.
Nick:
This statement is false. First, define evidence.
Nick:
That's interesting. No evidence for "Neo-Darwinism." I'm relatively sure you don't even know what it is.
Describe the scientific process. I ask because you are abysmally ignorant of so many things I don't think you've ever even had a science class beyond 1st grade.
Nick:
Is that so? Fine. Why don't you tell us about biodiversity okay?
What is biodiversity and why biodiversity? Why are there around 250,000 species of Beetle? Tell us about the relationship between the complex ecosystems in the world's rainforests. Why are half the known species of plants and animals found in the rainforest? Why are there more species of Tree in a single hecta-acre of Amazon rainforest than there are different types of tree in North America?
I won't hold my breath.
Cheers,
Nick
Hey, I am not degrading your credentials even though we disagree. It is these kinds of smacks to the face that cause alot of the ill favor between people. It is amazing that you are sure you know what I know. I am still fuguring out what I know myself, but you want to name call. If you are the enlightened among us wouldn't you be better off by explaining what you believe. Isn't better to lift up your fellow man instead of tear him down.
I do appreciate you simplifying what you think evolution is. Unfortunately it is not a simple topic and the definition that you pick may not be what another believer in evolution would pick. I have often found in the same paragraph and sadly within the same sentance the definition of evolution change. So, for me to acept your particular definition would be futile. I would no sooner begin to talk on the subject with your definition and someone would tear me down for using it incorrectly. This happens most when I get close to disproving it. I guess even in debates it is hard to hit a moving target. I think that we have come to the heart of this post. "What is the deal with evolution?"
I think that we can sum it up best with the words of Clinton "It all depends what your definition of is is."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
