Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?

[6days]

The appeal to personal incredulity.

Or is it personal lack of comprehension?

Stuart

Hey Stuu.... No, the term is accurate.

 

[6days]

Well, let's show you, once again(Re Kurt Wise and Horse Evolution)

As you were shown before Barbarian... and contradictory to your claim, Kurt Wise does not believe in horse evolution and mentions evidence against it. You were embarrassed last time and disappeared from this site for a couple months.

 

[ok doser]

You were embarrassed last time and disappeared from this site for a couple months.

oh please please please

 

[Right Divider]

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.

The atheist version of "evolution" requires that life magically "evolved" from non-life. And, of course, due to the impossible nature of that jump... they claim that all life is descended from a single common ancestor. To believe that life appears from non-life multiple times is all that much more impossible.

 

[6days]

As most of us are aware, many bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics

Evolutionists always start with the conclusion that 'evolution did it'. Science shows us that evolution did not do it.

A professor biology prof from University of Akron and the scientific director of McMaster’s Institute for Infectious Disease Research say“We think antibiotic resistance has appeared because we use antibiotics in the clinic,” said Barton. “But if you go to a site where the bacteria haven’t been exposed to any antibiotics, they turn out to be resistant to almost every drug we use in the clinic. That suggests resistance is not something that has emerged in the 20th century but something that has been hard-wired into bacteria for millions and potentially longer years.” ​

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...isolated-cave/

We need bacteria for our survival and they are programmed (Hard wired as the article says) to survive rapidly changing environments in order that life can exist on our planet. The vast majority of bacteria are beneficial and necessary, however...because creation has been corrupted, we now have sickness, suffering and death in our world.

 

[The Barbarian]

As you were shown before Barbarian... and contradictory to your claim, Kurt Wise does not believe in horse evolution

I showed you that Wise does not accept the evidence for evolution but says that the horse series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." I even linked to the paper he wrote. Do you think no one noticed? Do you think everyone forgot? Would you like me go back and cite it again? You can't serve God by being deceptive. Learn to live with the truth.

You are one of the reasons unbelievers think Christians are dishonest. If you'll lie about this, what won't you lie about?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists always start with the conclusion that 'evolution did it'. Science shows us that evolution did not do it.

A professor biology prof from University of Akron and the scientific director of McMaster’s Institute for Infectious Disease Research say“We think antibiotic resistance has appeared because we use antibiotics in the clinic,” said Barton. “But if you go to a site where the bacteria haven’t been exposed to any antibiotics, they turn out to be resistant to almost every drug we use in the clinic.​

Turns out, favorable mutations don't arise in response to need. Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that favorable mutations evolve constantly. The only reason we see more of it today, is that more people are getting antibiotics, and this favors antibiotic mutants.

And remember what evolution is: "descent with modification" or more precisely "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." So as you realize, it's evolution.

That suggests resistance is not something that has emerged in the 20th century

Such mutations have always been happening. Because until recently, they offered no advantage to bacteria,they never because established in the population.

but something that has been hard-wired into bacteria for millions and potentially longer years.

No. The ability to mutate and evolve is hard-wired into bacteria. Particular mutations are just errors that occasionally turn out to be useful in specific environments. Luria and Delbruck showed this in very clever experiments. Would you like to learn about that?​

 

[6days]

Such mutations have always been happening.

Yes it would seem that God hardwired the programming and mechanisms into bacteria. (As I said before).


It is an awesome time for bible-believing Christians, as science helps confirm the biblical creation model.

 

[Stuu]

The atheist version of "evolution" requires that life magically "evolved" from non-life. And, of course, due to the impossible nature of that jump... they claim that all life is descended from a single common ancestor. To believe that life appears from non-life multiple times is all that much more impossible.

Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory, but there are very plausible hypotheses based in very sound science. It is still early days for the difficult kinds of work that entails, and it would help very much if we could easily visit other planets like ours, which we can't.

But have you stopped to reflect on the hypocrisy of calling scientific hypothesis 'magic', when that is exactly what you are presenting in your alternative? You haven't even told us about the science of making humans from breathing into dirt, or a woman from a man's rib.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

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.

Yes, I'm surprise that there isn't more of the 'Quantum mechanics is like magic, and our creation is like magic, so quantum mechanics is evidence for a creator' rhetoric. Is it possible that there are some topics on which YEC creationists feel they are not sufficiently well versed to comment?!

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

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."

I'm going with theories that unambiguously explain the evidence, whatever they are. Evolution by natural selection, choosing from variation caused by mutation, pretty much completely explains all the evidence. Do you have evidence that is not explained by it?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Hey Stuu.... No, the term is accurate.

I know. It tells us everything about creationists' inability to comprehend.

But what is the value of your disbelief? Have you realised yet that science would still be stuck in the Fourteenth Century if disbelief was a valid disproof?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

It is an awesome time for bible-believing Christians

Is that because your hobby is becoming more and more exclusive?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory, but there are very plausible hypotheses based in very sound science.

Perhaps you'd like to advance this "very plausible hypotheses based in very sound science" that we can discuss.

It is still early days for the difficult kinds of work that entails, and it would help very much if we could easily visit other planets like ours, which we can't.

Irrelevant to our ability to discuss what we can actually know.

But have you stopped to reflect on the hypocrisy of calling scientific hypothesis 'magic', when that is exactly what you are presenting in your alternative?

Note that in this same post you said "Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory" and THEN you go on to say "calling scientific hypothesis 'magic'".

Sounds like you're totally confused about the issue.

You haven't even told us about the science of making humans from breathing into dirt, or a woman from a man's rib.

As you mentioned already "Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory"

The Creator of all things said that He did it. That is a valid origin theory.

 

[Stuu]

Perhaps you'd like to advance this "very plausible hypotheses based in very sound science" that we can discuss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Irrelevant to our ability to discuss what we can actually know.

But relevant to your mockery of science.

As you mentioned already "Understandably the origins of the first living things is not formulated as a scientific theory". The Creator of all things said that He did it. That is a valid origin theory.

Your 'valid origin theory' is not a theory in the scientific use of that word. It is the evidence of things unseen, things hoped for, isn't it. It's nothing much to do with discovering what actually happened in natural history, or even in the past few thousands of years of human history.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

The more adapted a population becomes to a specific environment, the less genetic diversity.

Just to clarify: Adaptation creates more diversity among the organisms that share a common ancestor population — more diversity equals less genetic integrity.

 

[Stripe]

Turns out, favorable mutations don't arise in response to need.

Turns out, they aren't even mutations. So you've gotten nothing right. Organisms adapt to their environment in ways that eliminate the possibility of random mutations and natural selection. Would you like to see that evidence again?

Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that favorable mutations evolve constantly.

They'll hand out Nobels for anything.

As you learned, their work showed nothing of the kind.

Would you like it explained to you all over again?

And remember what the theory is: The idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

The ability to mutate and evolve is hard-wired into bacteria.

Nope. It's the ability to adapt. Evidence, remember?

Luria and Delbruck showed this in very clever experiments. Would you like to learn about that?

I showed you that they did nothing of the sort. I even linked to the paper he wrote. Do you think no one noticed? Do you think everyone forgot? Would you like me go back and cite it again? You can't serve God by being deceptive. Learn to live with the truth. You are one of the reasons unbelievers think Christians are dishonest. If you'll lie about this, what won't you lie about?

 

[Stripe]

Evolution by natural selection, choosing from variation caused by mutation, pretty much completely explains all the evidence.

When we put a culture in a new environment, it reacts predictably and in the same time frame in every repeat of the experiment. How do random mutations and natural selection fit with the evidence?

 

[Alate_One]

Is that because your hobby is becoming more and more exclusive?

Stuart

Globally Religion is doing fine.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that useful new mutations have always been happening)

Yes it would seem that God hardwired the programming and mechanisms into bacteria. (As I said before).

No hardwiring required. He merely created a universe in which such wonderful things could emerge from the earth and evolve. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

It is an awesome time for bible-believing Christians, as science helps confirm the biblical creation model.

Sorry, science can't say anything at all about the supernatural. If your faith isn't sufficient, science can't help you out.