-
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
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The grass has evolved!
You must only accept what you wish to accept. It only bothers me in situations where people are negatively affected, for example when young people who are curious about how the world works are limited by the creationism imposed on them by selfish or deluded adults. But I think you should complain to AiG about these contradictory statements from that same article:
| God placed variety within the original kinds, and other variation has occurred since the Fall due to genetic alterations. After the Flood, the animals were told to “be fruitful and multiply on the earth” (Genesis 8:17). As they did this, natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur. Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world. |
I take it from your remark about variation within kinds that you agree with the above.
So then, can you explain then what is meant by mutation, if it is not the same thing as genetic alteration which leads to variation? That's what it means in biology.
And can you tell how the second statement, with references to flooding removed, is not a description of evolution by natural selection?
Science would attempt to explain:
1. How a god places variety in kinds;
2. The causal relationship (if any) between a 'fall' and genetic alterations; and
3. What is meant by 'other mechanisms'.
And can you convince us that these 'boundaries' are not derived from calculations of volume in a boat described in Genesis?
Stuart
Notice how you've jumped from Chair's and your characterization of what AIG believes as "evolution" and are now quoting them directly?
That's a logical fallacy. It's called moving the goalposts. I've made it very clear what I disagree with and what I mean when I say evolution. Similarly, AIG makes it abundantly clear what it means. If you want to argue with AIG, invite them here. If you want to understand what I'm thinking, ask me. I'm not here to defend AIG against your stupid analysis of its position.
You tell me. It's your term. I never use it to describe what I believe. From your definition here, everything is a mutation. As I've explained, the evidence says otherwise.
.
Read my definition of what evolution is. If you can't figure it out, you're not going to be much use in an intelligent conversation.
:AMR:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Oh yes their tiny bacterial genomes already have all the information necessary to deal with every potential possibility including humans inventing the use of antibiotics and humans devising experiments to get them to use Citrate? :dizzy:
Orrr mutation and selection actually works. :chuckle:
And this only makes sense because bacteria with shorter genomes reproduce faster, so in many situations the smallest genome wins. And the way to make a small genome adaptive? Mutation and selection.
You can insist on your narrative all you like. You know what happens when we look at the evidence. The only reason you're pretending you don't know this conversation is because you don't want it repeated.
Far be it from me to claim that AiG is your keeper, or vice-versa.
I have read quite a bit of your writing, and although I do read quite carefully I really don't know what you think evolution is, or on what grounds you think it is wrong. Can you direct me to somewhere where the views you mention here are laid out clearly, with perhaps some citations of the 'evidence' that you frequently claim supports your position?
Stuart
Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
Obviously, AiG concedes the fact of evolution up to (family? order?) They just don't want to call it evolution. Hence, they will never accept the Darwin's definition of evolution, or the more precise modern definition, because they've already conceded that it happens.
Nope. You're lying again, remember?
It's easy to tell.
Now, when someone is ready to discuss OP, we have evidence, unlike the Darwinists, who have nothing but trollery and logical fallacies.
6days
New member
Darwin thought the cell was simple... Science proved he was wrong. Later, evolutionists claimed some genomes must be simple, or "tiny" such as bacteria. Science has proved that to be false... But evolutionists are still trying to peddle that belief.Alate_One said:
Yes... It would seem, that because we depend on bacteria for our survival, God programmed them to adapt and survive rapidly changing environments.Alate_One said:
And... I think it is funny evolutionists think that bacteria adaptation is evidence that 'fish' can evolve into philosophers. The adapted resistant bacteria are generally (perhaps always) less fit than the parent populations when the environment changes. (When the antibiotic is removed).
BTW... In case you don't know, bacteria have unique ways of exchanging genetic information, and reproduce at a much higher rate then humans and animals. Claiming bacterial adaptation is evidence that 'monkeys' can evolve into humans is simply trying to sell a false belief system to the gullible.
Darwin thought the cell was simple... Science proved he was wrong.[/quote\
The irony is, the discovery of complex genes cleared up a problem for Darwn's theory that he had no adequate answer for. You see, if heredity was in the blood, then it was like mixing paint. But then a new trait in a population would be overcome like a drop of red paint in a a barrel of white paint. When things turned out to be more complex in the cell, and it was more like sorting beads, the problem went away.
Sound like a testable assumption. Let's take a look...
Some organisms have truly tiny genomes, the smallest genomes yet discovered. As of 2011, the smallest reported genome found outside an organelle was the Tremblaya genome, which has just 121 genes, and is found in a bacteria found in mealybugs. Other extremely small genomes include Candidatus Carsonella rudii, also known as C. rudii, at just 159,662 base pairs, with approximately 182 genes.
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-th...st-genomes.htm
Compare to humans with something over 20,000 genes. At any rate, less than 200 genes surely qualifies as "tiny."
The fossil record, as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, points out, shows that tetrapods evolved from fish. No philosophers,though. That's another creationist fairy tale.
MRSA demonstrates that you're wrong. It is more fit, even in the absence of "normal" Staphylococcus aureus. Untreated MRSA will overwhelm normal flora and produce septicemia and toxic shock.
If left untreated, MRSA infections can become severe and cause sepsis—the body’s extreme response to an infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/community/index.html
Staph aureus is a normal part of the bacterial flora on humans. Generally, they don't cause much trouble, and most people who have this bacterium don't ever know it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staphylococcus_aureus
But as we showed you before, that story is yet another creationist fairy tale your leaders tell their gullible followers. Monkeys are far too evolved in their own way to have given rise to humans.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Bacterial genomes are much smaller than those of virtually all multicellular organisms.
Darwin was wrong about a fair number of things, modern evolutionary science isn't strictly based on Darwin's ideas. Origin of species isn't a scriptural reference. But maybe you should learn more about science before trying that particular argument.
Oh so evolution is true, in bacteria! (Even when that evolution kills us, is that part of the intentional programming?
Genetic change in a population over time is basically the same thing, just at a much shorter timescale and involving far fewer genetic changes.
The benefits of every evolutionary change depends on the environment it is operating in. In one situation it may be advantageous, in another not as much. That's why evolution is important for all living things. The environment changes and they can change with it.
Yes and no. Some bacteria can swap genes relatively easily. But others can't. Sexual reproduction allows for recombination of traits. Bacteria don't have that same capability.
No, your rejection of the evidence is like seeing a Redwood seed germinating and claiming that it could never become a full sized redwood tree. No one has ever seen a seedling go all the way from a seed to a several thousand year old tree. But the steps in between have been observed and the process is essentially the same at each level.
I'd say evolution by natural selection does not require a single universal common ancestor, but the evidence supports that inference overwhelmingly. This is not a complaint against your characterisation of evolution as it has occurred on this planet.
So the next aspect is the evidence that you claim discredits it. What would you say is the most telling piece of evidence that disproves this neo-Darwinism?
Stuart
6days
New member
Complex genes help show the majesty of our Creator... and the foolishness of evolutionism.Barbarian said:
Evolutionists like to believe cells, genes, and genomes can be simple and tiny. Science is showing (Still discovering) the sophistication and complexity of genes. Advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of genes and overlapping layers of transcription.Barbarian said:
You were caught lying before about Kurt Wise on the topic of horse evolution.Barbarian said:
Yep. But usually, YE creationists get all worked up when we show you how they evolved over time, as God intended them to do. God is a lot more powerful and wise than creastionists would like Him to be.
As you learned, bacteria do indeed have much simpler genomes than prokaryotes. Less than 200 genes for some living bacteria, compared to more than 20,000 for humans, on the latest count. But it's very likely that we haven't yet found the simplest possible genome in bacteria.
You're about 20 years too late...
Science. 1989 Nov 3;246(4930):578-9.
How do you read from the palimpsest of life
Waldrop MM.
Well, let's show you, once again...
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.
(deleted long list of other transitional forms)
Evidence 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
Did you think we forgot? You're not a very honest person, are you?
There's a lot of this going on. We see evolution happening. We understand the mechanism. We see the fossil record. Yet YEC's will say: "Development of new traits in bacteria- OK. Zebras and horses developed from the same ancestor- OK. Elephants and mice have a common ancestor?!- com'on, give me a break! Fish and humans- nah, that's incredible! How could you believe such a thing!?"
Personally, I find Evolution amazing and non-intuitive. But the facts are there. And there are plenty of non-intuitive things in science that have been proven to be true. Like relativity (which some on TOL can't accept), quantum mechanics (which most people are not that familiar with, but is as non-intuitive as it gets), and that absurd idea that the Earth is a round globe.
Are you going to stick with the idea I disagree with, or are you going to revert to insisting that I disprove evolution as you want it defined, ie, "change."
6days
New member
"Small" genomes are packed with sophistication and evidence of our Creator. Genetic research can be a form of worship as we see the handiwork of God... and the impossibility of common ancestry.Alate_One said:
Yes... He was wrong about God...wrong about geology… wrong about natural selection, and other things.Alate_One said:
Adaptation is observational science. Common ancestry is a false belief system.Alate_One said:
There is a thread in TOL if you are interested giving several examples of rapid adaptation which is consistent with Biblical creation.Alate_One said:
The more adapted a population becomes to a specific environment, the less genetic diversity. This sometimes leads to genetic meltdown and extinction.Alate_One said:
Bacteria have unique ways of exchanging genetic information, and reproduce at a much higher rate then humans and animals.Alate_One said:
From God's Word, we know Redwood trees reproduce after their own kind...it is observational science. The non observational belief that molecules can eventually become microbiologists is contradictory to scripture.Alate_One said: