Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?

[Stripe]

Even honest creationists acknowledge that speciation is a fact:

It's a pity we can't find an honest Darwinist.

​

Species and kinds are not the same As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million or so species in the world is a testament, not to random chance processes, but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds.

Oops. Barbarian got caught quote mining again. You'd think he'd feel some shame.

 

[Stripe]

The point is that the mechanism of mutation and selection works.

Despite the fact that the evidence shows otherwise.

 

[chair]

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. ...

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

 

[chair]

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?

Stripe, this is an irrelevant emotional appeal. We are talking about how words are used. Scientific words, in particular. Not what political or religious ideas people have.
When you lack real arguments, you fall back on this kind of stuff. Maybe, deep inside, you know your position is weak, so you fall back on trash arguments and redefinition of terms.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, this is an irrelevant emotional appeal. We are talking about how words are used. Scientific words, in particular. Not what political or religious ideas people have.
When you lack real arguments, you fall back on this kind of stuff. Maybe, deep inside, you know your position is weak, so you fall back on trash arguments and redefinition of terms.

Evolution is impossible.

You think that means "change is impossible."

When you're ready to defend the challenge that has actually been issued and address the evidence that has been provided, let us know.

 

[7djengo7]

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

LOL

 

[Stuu]

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

 

[The Barbarian]

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

:chuckle:

 

[chair]

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?

 

[Clete]

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.

 

[Clete]

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

 

[Clete]

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

 

[Right Divider]

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.

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?

 

[Clete]

That's exactly what it means.

Thank you for conceding the debate.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Thank you for conceding the debate.

Pleased that we can agree on this.

 

[Stripe]

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."

 

[User Name]

Science, remember?

:rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

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.