How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2015, 09:29 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 06:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, we don't watch selection pressures occur, particulary not at the scale we're speaking of.

What, exactly, do you think we're seeing with extinctions?

That is selection in action. And those animals which survive are doing so by adapting, either genetically or behaviorally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 09:48 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 09:23 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Nonsense. In many cases we know the selection pressures.

In some cases, sure, but we appeal to selection pressures even when those selection pressures are unknown. Plugging these gaps with with "selection pressures".

Quote:Taking our lack of knowledge about a hypothetical scenario and asserting that that state of affairs informs all thinking about selection pressure is not apt, and renders your comparison a false equivalence.

The hypothetical scenario was to illustrate the unknown selection pressures. If we know what the selections pressures are, we can likely predict what the eventual outcome would be. Like if we introduced an antibiotic as a selection pressure, we can say with some confidence that the bacteria will eventually develop a resistance to it. Yet, attempting to even conceptualize what sort of selection pressures would be needed for bacteria to develop beyond it's particularly domain, into a variety of different lineages, perhaps one day develop consciousness, etc.. is unknown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
You have higher standards for the acceptance of scientific theory than you do for a magic sky wizard Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
03-06-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(31-05-2015 10:43 PM)Worom Wrote:  How do creationists explain the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria?
Bacteria scientists are constantly developing anti-antibiotics of their own. This sort of thing is well funded in bacterial society. Of course, bacteria do have a few antibiotic deniers among them but, unfortunately for us, they are a minority with little influence.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 10:57 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 11:03 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 09:29 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  What, exactly, do you think we're seeing with extinctions?

Extinctions.

Quote:That is selection in action. And those animals which survive are doing so by adapting, either genetically or behaviorally.

Bacteria is able to survive and thrive pretty much any sort of ecological development threatening it's eradication, a point made evident by it's prevalent existence in pretty much every nook and cranny imaginable, under pretty much every condition we can conceive of. In terms of survival, they are the pinnacle of evolution, one of our most resilient and abudnant forms of life.

There's no conceivable selection pressure in which bacteria would need to extend beyond it's domain, or develop into lineages of such diverse forms of life, perhaps even extending into the development of conscious creatures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In some cases, sure, but we appeal to selection pressures even when those selection pressures are unknown. Plugging these gaps with with "selection pressures".

We hypothesize them, sure. But rather than then say, "Well, that's that, let's move on" (which is what the god of the gaps fallacy sees theists doing), scientists keep on looking for various selection pressures in order to better understand the process.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

(03-06-2015 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The hypothetical scenario was to illustrate the unknown selection pressures. If we know what the selections pressures are, we can likely predict what the eventual outcome would be.

This is an oversimplistic and unevidenced claim. We have no way of knowing what random mutations might occur that would be acted upon by selection pressures.

You really need to go read up on evolution.

(03-06-2015 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Like if we introduced an antibiotic as a selection pressure, we can say with some confidence that the bacteria will eventually develop a resistance to it. Yet, attempting to even conceptualize what sort of selection pressures would be needed for bacteria to develop beyond it's particularly domain, into a variety of different lineages, perhaps one day develop consciousness, etc.. is unknown.

But the idea that bacteria will evolve, likely into different life-forms, is not unknown, because we already know of one place where it has happened in the timescale you've proposed.

Evolution is not and likely never will be a theory which predicts how life-forms will evolve in the future, because the essential randomness of the mutations (not just how often they happen, but also their phenotypic expression as a result of the allele affected) is by definition unknowable. That doesn't mean we don't know that mutations will or won't occur. They will. We also know that they will be subject to selection pressures, because even such a simple matter as latitude of habitat can exert selection pressure on the fringes of a creature's range.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
03-06-2015, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 05:28 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 03:53 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  We hypothesize them, sure. But rather than then say, "Well, that's that, let's move on" (which is what the god of the gaps fallacy sees theists doing), scientists keep on looking for various selection pressures in order to better understand the process.

No, we hold a steadfast faith that these unknowns, that our extensive diversity of life, consciousness, our reasoning abilities, are all the end products, of selections pressures. We don’t particularly lack a belief in this of course, awaiting to acquire more insight as to what those selections pressures were, but believe it to be a product of selection pressures with all our hearts. “Selection pressures” are our handy dandy gap fillers. It’s why someone like Beardedguy imagines that if we transported bacteria to another planet and give it several billion years, selections pressures would more than likely produce a diversity of life equivalent to our own, rather than us merely looking at just more diverse and resilient forms of bacteria.

Quote:This is an oversimplistic and unevidenced claim. We have no way of knowing what random mutations might occur that would be acted upon by selection pressures.

Of course we don’t know what random mutations would occur. But selection pressures place constraints, dictating that many things are not possible, that the solution to a particular biological problem can often only be handled in one of a few ways.

Bacteria may have a countless number of mutations, yet seemingly only a handful, would save it from extinction imposed upon it by an antibiotic. We can predict that it would need to develop an immunity, or go extinct. A selection pressure imposed on it on numerous occasions, yielding the same results pretty much every time. There are various traits or abilities found repeatedly among different species, that are not the result of common ancestry. For these traits to appear so frequently, like the development of the eye, we have to assume that they are product of similar selection pressures, ecological constraints, leading to their convergence.

Quote:Evolution is not and likely never will be a theory which predicts how life-forms will evolve in the future, because the essential randomness of the mutations (not just how often they happen, but also their phenotypic expression as a result of the allele affected) is by definition unknowable. That doesn't mean we don't know that mutations will or won't occur.

The question here is not the randomness, or even the frequency of genetics mutations, but about selection pressures. As previously mentioned selection pressures impose constraints on what mutations would be viable. Leaving our poor little bacteria with only narrow means of overcoming the the threat imposed on it by the introduction of an antibiotic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 05:12 PM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 03:53 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  We hypothesize them, sure. But rather than then say, "Well, that's that, let's move on" (which is what the god of the gaps fallacy sees theists doing), scientists keep on looking for various selection pressures in order to better understand the process.

No, we hold a steadfast faith that these unknowns, that our extensive diversity of life, consciousness, our reasoning abilities, are all the end products, of selections pressures. We don’t particularly lack a belief in this of course, awaiting to acquire more insight as to what those selections pressures were, but believe it to be product of selections pressures with all our hearts. “Selection pressures” are our handy dandy gap fillers.

It’s why someone like Beardedguy imagines that if we transported bacteria to another planet and give it several billion years, selections pressures would more than likely produce a diversity of life equivalent to our own, rather than us merely looking at just more diverse and resilient forms of bacteria.

Quote:This is an oversimplistic and unevidenced claim. We have no way of knowing what random mutations might occur that would be acted upon by selection pressures.

Of course we don’t know what random mutations would occur. But selection pressures place constraints, dictating that many things are not possible, that the solution to a particular biological problem can often only be handled in one of a few ways.

Bacteria may have a countless number of mutations, yet seemingly only a handful, would save it from extinction imposed upon it by an antibiotic. We can predict that it would need to develop an immunity, or go extinct. A selection pressure imposed on it on numerous occasions, yielding the same results pretty much every time. There are various traits or abilities found repeatedly among different species, that are not the result of common ancestry. For these traits to appear so frequently, like the development of the eye, we have to assume that they are product of similar selection pressures, ecological constraints, leading to their convergence.

Quote:Evolution is not and likely never will be a theory which predicts how life-forms will evolve in the future, because the essential randomness of the mutations (not just how often they happen, but also their phenotypic expression as a result of the allele affected) is by definition unknowable. That doesn't mean we don't know that mutations will or won't occur.

The question here is not the randomness, or even the frequency of genetics mutations. But in regards to selection pressures. As previously mentioned selection pressures impose constraints on what mutations would be viable. Leaving our poor little bacteria with only narrow means of overcoming the the threat imposed on it by the introduction of an antibiotic.

From where does your expertise in evolution, genetics, statistics, and geology come from?

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
03-06-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 05:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  From where does your expertise in evolution, genetics, statistics, and geology come from?

He came to this forum and began teaching them over the interent, so that they were astonished,
and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and this miraculous insight?
"Isn't he a janitor's son? Isn't his mother, Beth and his brothers, John and Ringo and Paul and George?
"And His sisters, aren't they around too? Where then did this man get all these things?" -Pat 13:55
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 05:23 PM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 05:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 05:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  From where does your expertise in evolution, genetics, statistics, and geology come from?

He came to this forum and began teaching them over the interent, so that they were astonished,
and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and this miraculous insight?
"Isn't he a janitor's son? Isn't his mother, Beth and his brothers, John and Ringo and Paul and George?
"And His sisters, aren't they around too? Where then did this man get all these things?" -Pat 13:55

So, from bullshitland?

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: