How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
In the end, a computer simulation isn't necessary to demonstrate evolution. It serves no purpose in proving or disproving evolution. It's a pointless venture if that is the goal.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
[Image: db051218.gif]

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Minimalist's post
02-06-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(02-06-2015 09:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 09:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You mean the weasel program?

Perhaps you failed to recognize that this program was dependent on choosing a prespecified target sequence, it's entirely teleological. Requiring a programer to specify what the end target would be.

What do you think you could simulate in a computer? Why would the simulation make any difference when we have observations of what actually happened? What do you think the simulation would prove that genetics or the fossil record don't?

I suppose if you can't model it then it didn't happen? If you can't simulate bacteria evolving into higher life forms then the theory is flawed. Maybe this is where Tomasia is going.

Humans have a very difficult time (pun intended) imagining time periods in excess of a couple hundred years. We live an average of 75 years and then we die. Our ability to place into context a million years, much less a billion years does not come easily.

Our capacity to understand what can happen over such expanses of time eludes a great many people, it becomes obvious when, like in this thread, a person finds incredulity in adaptions that result a single-cell organism evolving into what we see around us today over a time period that is unfathomable.

I totally understand the difficulty some people have in accepting the science even with overwhelming evidence. Our human brains can accept some fantasies easier than difficult concepts.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
I'm a bit late to this thread, so if this has already been posted, oh well...


I've usually heard something similar to the following:


"But they're still bacteria. They haven't evolved into a college professor".

Or:

"Antibiotic resistance is just adaptation, not evolution".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 01:25 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(02-06-2015 12:42 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 09:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What do you think you could simulate in a computer? Why would the simulation make any difference when we have observations of what actually happened? What do you think the simulation would prove that genetics or the fossil record don't?

I suppose if you can't model it then it didn't happen? If you can't simulate bacteria evolving into higher life forms then the theory is flawed. Maybe this is where Tomasia is going.

Humans have a very difficult time (pun intended) imagining time periods in excess of a couple hundred years. We live an average of 75 years and then we die. Our ability to place into context a million years, much less a billion years does not come easily.

Our capacity to understand what can happen over such expanses of time eludes a great many people, it becomes obvious when, like in this thread, a person finds incredulity in adaptions that result a single-cell organism evolving into what we see around us today over a time period that is unfathomable.

I totally understand the difficulty some people have in accepting the science even with overwhelming evidence. Our human brains can accept some fantasies easier than difficult concepts.

Conceptualizing time is one of the hardest parts of geology for me. I have tried for years to fully comprehend the amounts of time I am dealing with, and it is still hard to do.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-06-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(02-06-2015 12:42 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 09:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What do you think you could simulate in a computer? Why would the simulation make any difference when we have observations of what actually happened? What do you think the simulation would prove that genetics or the fossil record don't?

I suppose if you can't model it then it didn't happen? If you can't simulate bacteria evolving into higher life forms then the theory is flawed. Maybe this is where Tomasia is going.

Humans have a very difficult time (pun intended) imagining time periods in excess of a couple hundred years. We live an average of 75 years and then we die. Our ability to place into context a million years, much less a billion years does not come easily.

Our capacity to understand what can happen over such expanses of time eludes a great many people, it becomes obvious when, like in this thread, a person finds incredulity in adaptions that result a single-cell organism evolving into what we see around us today over a time period that is unfathomable.

I totally understand the difficulty some people have in accepting the science even with overwhelming evidence. Our human brains can accept some fantasies easier than difficult concepts.

Welcome the the Middle World.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 03:51 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2015 03:55 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(02-06-2015 01:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 12:42 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I suppose if you can't model it then it didn't happen? If you can't simulate bacteria evolving into higher life forms then the theory is flawed. Maybe this is where Tomasia is going.

Humans have a very difficult time (pun intended) imagining time periods in excess of a couple hundred years. We live an average of 75 years and then we die. Our ability to place into context a million years, much less a billion years does not come easily.

Our capacity to understand what can happen over such expanses of time eludes a great many people, it becomes obvious when, like in this thread, a person finds incredulity in adaptions that result a single-cell organism evolving into what we see around us today over a time period that is unfathomable.

I totally understand the difficulty some people have in accepting the science even with overwhelming evidence. Our human brains can accept some fantasies easier than difficult concepts.

Conceptualizing time is one of the hardest parts of geology for me. I have tried for years to fully comprehend the amounts of time I am dealing with, and it is still hard to do.

Yup. Previously you posted two diagrams but obviously NOT TO SCALE. That got me thinking on how best to explain and conceptualize 3.5 billion years.

If we reduced the scale so that 100 years = 3.5 billion years how would it look?

100 years = 3,500,000,000 years
10 years = 350,000,000 years
1 year = 35,000,000 years
1 day = 95,890 years
1 hour = 3,995 years
1 minute = 67 years

Humans have been around for just under 1.6 days (150,000/95,890) or about 37.5 hours

In other words (if I did this right), if the oldest fossils we have are 3.5 billion years old and that is then reduced to scale to a time frame of 100 years...

So as per your post #64:

Oldest fossils = 100 years ago

29 days pass [Image: BRqIww5.gif?zoom=2]





Oxygen begins to accumulate in atmosphere = 71.4 years ago

51 years pass [Image: BRqIww5.gif?zoom=2]









Simple multicellular organisms evolve = 20 years ago
Amphibians appear = 10.6 years ago
First dinosaurs and mammals =6.6 years ago
Mass extinctintion wiping out dinosaurs = less than 2 years ago
Ice age = 25 days ago [Image: qh68183.gif?zoom=2]
Modern humans = 1.6 days ago [Image: faSFd9a.gif?zoom=2]
Columbus discovers the New World = less than 8 minutes ago

Even with this it’s hard to grasp. Undecided

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
02-06-2015, 06:04 PM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(02-06-2015 03:51 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 01:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Conceptualizing time is one of the hardest parts of geology for me. I have tried for years to fully comprehend the amounts of time I am dealing with, and it is still hard to do.

Yup. Previously you posted two diagrams but obviously NOT TO SCALE. That got me thinking on how best to explain and conceptualize 3.5 billion years.

If we reduced the scale so that 100 years = 3.5 billion years how would it look?

100 years = 3,500,000,000 years
10 years = 350,000,000 years
1 year = 35,000,000 years
1 day = 95,890 years
1 hour = 3,995 years
1 minute = 67 years

Humans have been around for just under 1.6 days (150,000/95,890) or about 37.5 hours

In other words (if I did this right), if the oldest fossils we have are 3.5 billion years old and that is then reduced to scale to a time frame of 100 years...

So as per your post #64:

Oldest fossils = 100 years ago

29 days pass [Image: BRqIww5.gif?zoom=2]





Oxygen begins to accumulate in atmosphere = 71.4 years ago

51 years pass [Image: BRqIww5.gif?zoom=2]









Simple multicellular organisms evolve = 20 years ago
Amphibians appear = 10.6 years ago
First dinosaurs and mammals =6.6 years ago
Mass extinctintion wiping out dinosaurs = less than 2 years ago
Ice age = 25 days ago [Image: qh68183.gif?zoom=2]
Modern humans = 1.6 days ago [Image: faSFd9a.gif?zoom=2]
Columbus discovers the New World = less than 8 minutes ago

Even with this it’s hard to grasp. Undecided

Not going to lie, I hate these relative comparisons for geologic time because it's just as hard for me to grasp all of human history condensed down (all of life's history) into such small amounts of time too. And it ends up confusing students when you try and make them compare it.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant
God did it...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 05:34 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 05:51 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(02-06-2015 10:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In the end, a computer simulation isn't necessary to demonstrate evolution. It serves no purpose in proving or disproving evolution. It's a pointless venture if that is the goal.

The analogy of the computer simulation was merely to compensate for our inability to watch billions of years transpire in front of us. And the question is primarily in regards to selection pressures.

If we transported bacteria to another planet in which it was able to survive, and given several billions years what would we expect the likely outcome to be? Would we more likely find a diverse array of life, that extends well beyond the domain of bacteria, perhaps find ourselves looking upon a variety of conscious creatures that extended from this early lineage?

I'd argue that this is unlikely to be the case, that what we'd more than likely see is an even more diverse array of bacteria. Bacterias can be some tough sons of bitches, able to survive without oxygen, the harsh conditions of space, in a variety of temperatures etc.. As a group, they display one of the widest variations of all organisms, and have been able to inhabit all sorts of environments. It's hard to conceive of any selection pressures that would likely lead to bacteria breaking off into lineages well beyond it's domain.
If we were able to computer model bacteria, in an infinite variety of environments, it's seemingly unknown what sort of ecological niche we'd have to create, for bacteria to extend beyond more resistant forms of bacteria.

You don't agree?

Selection pressures is basically a naturalist version of the God of the gaps, rather than particularly acknowledging the unknowns, awaiting further knowledge, we appeal to selection pressures, even when those supposed selection pressures are clearly unknown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: