How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2015, 05:27 PM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
[Image: da2d0d6d23466e66b6fa752a91214288.jpg]

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, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 05:38 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 10:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Except that bacteria are actually pretty frail on the whole, and are quite vulnerable to changes in their environment. They are successful due to their rapid replication, which has allowed for incredible diversification into far too many species (and strains within) to count which has allowed them to be able to rapidly adapt to changes. However, most bacteria are highly specialised to their environments and even slight changes to the chemical make-up of the environment may likely result in the near-total wipe out of present colonies if not killing them out-right.
Bacteria are so vulnerable despite their incredible variety and spread due to the spread that got them to that point: bacteria reproduce by cloning, which leaves them vulnerable to changes as each progenitor is the same as it's forerunners (aberrations exempted). They are only capable of adapting to changes as their rapid reproduction cycles encourages the occurrence and spread of random mutations. In essence, bacteria are the ultimate "swing-and-miss" life, constantly producing progeny, a few of which will always suffer some genetic alteration and most of those will die and not reproduce from it, in case something changes which will allow an aberrant to survive and clone onward as the rest die off. But this system is prone to failure due to the whole random part.
As an aside, bacteria are also extremely vulnerable to non-environmental factors such as infection, since all colony members have the same defences against pathogens.
colony members
(03-06-2015 10:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In terms of survival, they are the pinnacle of evolution, one of our most resilient and abudnant forms of life.

Not if you include viruses as life. They easily beat out even bacteria in terms of abundance.
Also, there's no "pinnacle" of evolution, it's a continuous process.

(03-06-2015 10:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You're right; there are no individual selection pressures which would force bacteria to stop being bacteria.
It's entirely possible that given enough time they will respond to their current pressures and trod down the path from which multicellular life arose, but I for one doubt it. It'd require a lot of time and probably some big shifts encouraging multi-cellularity beyond that of colonies. I doubt it because frankly they are good at what they do and I'm unsure if their fragility would allow for such changes...

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
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
03-06-2015, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 08:12 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, we have knowledge of this. The fact that you confuse faith and knowledge says more about you than it does about evolutionary biology ... just so you know.

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Given the fact that you have obviously and patently ignored the various reasons why your hypothetical stasis is extremely unlikely, you're the last person who should be calling anyone out.

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Thank you, Capt. Obvious. What's next? Water is wet?

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

The problem with this point of yours is that evolution is not teleological. That some courses of evolution are channelized is to be expected. For instance, once you have a gathering of a few neurons which can more quickly process information, you might expect that nerve-bundle to grow, so long as the environment rewards quick information processing. And once an adaptive strategy evolves, it doesn't disappear, but rather, it gets overwritten or subsumed into a new phenotypic expression.

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Then you need to provide some detail as to how you expect an environment on any planet can go unchanged for three billion years, in order to support your points in this argument. Real-life examples would be appreciated. Because you're completely ignoring a point which has been made to you repeatedly, which is that pressures arise from very fine gradations of the environment.

If you are not going to provide this answer. please don't reply to this post at all, because I am judging the sincerity of your interaction here on this one answer. I'm serious; if you're going to ignore your obligations in this discussion, I am going to shift from congenial discussion to treating you like any other person who plugs their ears and shouts "lalalalala".

This is your chance. Let's see you shine. Exactly how do you expect that a planet, through three billion years of travel around its sun, with varying distances and angles, and therefore climates, with plate tectonics changing over the eons giving rise to geology which also provides further challenges to the life in the area -- how do you expect that planet to not exert selection pressures?

What mechanism do you propose that would hold a planet's ecology in what is virtual stasis? What would prevent weather from happening on a planet? Which orbit is more likely, a perfect circle or an ovoid? Which axial inclination is more likely -- a north-south axis perfectly parallel to the sun's north-south axis, or a tilted axis? And how do these answers affect the likelihood of selection pressures?

Answer these questions, or do not reply.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
04-06-2015, 05:36 AM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 07:53 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, we have knowledge of this. The fact that you confuse faith and knowledge says more about you than it does about evolutionary biology ... just so you know.

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Given the fact that you have obviously and patently ignored the various reasons why your hypothetical stasis is extremely unlikely, you're the last person who should be calling anyone out.

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Thank you, Capt. Obvious. What's next? Water is wet?

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

The problem with this point of yours is that evolution is not teleological. That some courses of evolution are channelized is to be expected. For instance, once you have a gathering of a few neurons which can more quickly process information, you might expect that nerve-bundle to grow, so long as the environment rewards quick information processing. And once an adaptive strategy evolves, it doesn't disappear, but rather, it gets overwritten or subsumed into a new phenotypic expression.

(03-06-2015 05:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Then you need to provide some detail as to how you expect an environment on any planet can go unchanged for three billion years, in order to support your points in this argument. Real-life examples would be appreciated. Because you're completely ignoring a point which has been made to you repeatedly, which is that pressures arise from very fine gradations of the environment.

If you are not going to provide this answer. please don't reply to this post at all, because I am judging the sincerity of your interaction here on this one answer. I'm serious; if you're going to ignore your obligations in this discussion, I am going to shift from congenial discussion to treating you like any other person who plugs their ears and shouts "lalalalala".

This is your chance. Let's see you shine. Exactly how do you expect that a planet, through three billion years of travel around its sun, with varying distances and angles, and therefore climates, with plate tectonics changing over the eons giving rise to geology which also provides further challenges to the life in the area -- how do you expect that planet to not exert selection pressures?

What mechanism do you propose that would hold a planet's ecology in what is virtual stasis? What would prevent weather from happening on a planet? Which orbit is more likely, a perfect circle or an ovoid? Which axial inclination is more likely -- a north-south axis perfectly parallel to the sun's north-south axis, or a tilted axis? And how do these answers affect the likelihood of selection pressures?

Answer these questions, or do not reply.

He ignores or doesn't understand how competition can drive selection within a species. As well as the fact the biology can and does modify climate and geology on Earth and would on any other planet. In fact, the only reason we have any free oxygen in our atmosphere is because of life, thus photosynthetic life facilitated the development of respiring life.

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
04-06-2015, 05:50 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2015 05:59 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 07:53 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Then you need to provide some detail as to how you expect an environment on any planet can go unchanged for three billion years, in order to support your points in this argument. Real-life examples would be appreciated. Because you're completely ignoring a point which has been made to you repeatedly, which is that pressures arise from very fine gradations of the environment.
…….

This is your chance. Let's see you shine. Exactly how do you expect that a planet, through three billion years of travel around its sun, with varying distances and angles, and therefore climates, with plate tectonics changing over the eons giving rise to geology which also provides further challenges to the life in the area -- how do you expect that planet to not exert selection pressures?

That’s a nicely packed strawman, and a bit ironic since it’s requires you to be the one ignoring the points I’ve made here numerous times. Of course there would be a variety selection pressures. But I’m going to use a quote from Free Thought, in the post directly above your previous one, which pretty much sums up my view:

Quote: Forethought: You're right; there are no individual selection pressures which would force bacteria to stop being bacteria.
It's entirely possible that given enough time they will respond to their current pressures and trod down the path from which multicellular life arose, but I for one doubt it. It'd require a lot of time and probably some big shifts encouraging multi-cellularity beyond that of colonies. I doubt it because frankly they are good at what they do and I'm unsure if their fragility would allow for such changes...

Do you agree with this? Because I do for the most part, the only contention is I would probably say quite unlikely, other than entirely possible.

And please if you don’t take the time to understand my points, and write responses that distort what I claimed, such as claiming that I believed no selection pressures would be exerted, don’t expect me to respond as if you didn’t do this.

Quote:The problem with this point of yours is that evolution is not teleological.

Hum, I didn’t say it was teleological here. Claiming that given a particular niche an adaptation can be predictable, is not the same as claiming it’s teleological.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 06:49 AM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 05:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 07:53 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Then you need to provide some detail as to how you expect an environment on any planet can go unchanged for three billion years, in order to support your points in this argument. Real-life examples would be appreciated. Because you're completely ignoring a point which has been made to you repeatedly, which is that pressures arise from very fine gradations of the environment.
…….

This is your chance. Let's see you shine. Exactly how do you expect that a planet, through three billion years of travel around its sun, with varying distances and angles, and therefore climates, with plate tectonics changing over the eons giving rise to geology which also provides further challenges to the life in the area -- how do you expect that planet to not exert selection pressures?

That’s a nicely packed strawman, and a bit ironic since it’s requires you to be the one ignoring the points I’ve made here numerous times. Of course there would be a variety selection pressures. But I’m going to use a quote from Free Thought, in the post directly above your previous one, which pretty much sums up my view:

Quote: Forethought: You're right; there are no individual selection pressures which would force bacteria to stop being bacteria.
It's entirely possible that given enough time they will respond to their current pressures and trod down the path from which multicellular life arose, but I for one doubt it. It'd require a lot of time and probably some big shifts encouraging multi-cellularity beyond that of colonies. I doubt it because frankly they are good at what they do and I'm unsure if their fragility would allow for such changes...

Do you agree with this? Because I do for the most part, the only contention is I would probably say quite unlikely, other than entirely possible.

And please if you don’t take the time to understand my points, and write responses that distort what I claimed, such as claiming that I believed no selection pressures would be exerted, don’t expect me to respond as if you didn’t do this.

Quote:The problem with this point of yours is that evolution is not teleological.

Hum, I didn’t say it was teleological here. Claiming that given a particular niche an adaptation can be predictable, is not the same as claiming it’s teleological.

Which scenario is more likely.

1) you understand evolution, geology, biology, genetics, etc better than those who study them and build careers in these fields, and that you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth.

Or

2) your ignorance makes you think you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth. Because you don't understand any one of these fields well enough to understand the shear magnitude of your ignorance?

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
04-06-2015, 07:02 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2015 07:07 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 06:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Which scenario is more likely.

1) you understand evolution, geology, biology, genetics, etc better than those who study them and build careers in these fields, and that you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth.

Who are the "those" here? Are you a part of them? Did you study and build your career in these fields? Did they elect you as their spokesperson?

Quote:2) your ignorance makes you think you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth.

Unlikely, not impossible. In fact it was comparatively said here, that we'd more than likely be looking at diverse and more resistant forms of bacteria after a few billions years, than diverse forms of life extended well beyond this domain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 07:13 AM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 07:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 06:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Which scenario is more likely.

1) you understand evolution, geology, biology, genetics, etc better than those who study them and build careers in these fields, and that you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth.

Who are the "those" here? Are you a part of them? Did you study and build your career in these fields? Did they elect you as their spokesperson?

Quote:2) your ignorance makes you think you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth.

Unlikely, not impossible. In fact it was comparatively said here, that we'd more than likely be looking at diverse and more resistant forms of bacteria after a few billions years, than diverse forms of life extended well beyond this domain.

Answer my questions instead of bullshit sidesteps.

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
04-06-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 07:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 06:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Which scenario is more likely.

1) you understand evolution, geology, biology, genetics, etc better than those who study them and build careers in these fields, and that you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth.

Who are the "those" here? Are you a part of them? Did you study and build your career in these fields? Did they elect you as their spokesperson?

Quote:2) your ignorance makes you think you have successfully argued for the impossibility of bacteria or bacteria-like organisms descending all varieties of life alive today on earth.

Unlikely, not impossible. In fact it was comparatively said here, that we'd more than likely be looking at diverse and more resistant forms of bacteria after a few billions years, than diverse forms of life extended well beyond this domain.

And yes, I have devoted my career to the fields of geology, paleontology, evolution, paleobiology, geochemistry, and paleoclimatology.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2

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
04-06-2015, 07:24 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 07:13 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Answer my questions instead of bullshit sidesteps.

Neither option 1 or 2, would be accurate.

Do you disagree with Freethought as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: