How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2015, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2015 09:50 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 09:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 09:35 AM)Banjo Wrote:  The guy does not know your mother. Got that fact? Stop using your mother as an excuse to lose your cool and spit the dummy.

Grow up or be ignored.

Go fuck yourself. I don't care if I'm insulted but "son of a bitch" is not something I'm inclined to endure.

a "cherubic looking jolly son of a bitch" to be exact, but if you think this was an insult, then I can't help you there. Folks such as yourself often tend to get overly worked up, and way too tense. I tried to introduce some levity to ease that tension a bit, but apparently that flew over your head, and backfired. When you don't share a person's rage, or return a person's anger with anger, or even try to lighten the angry party up a bit, I guess it must appear as trolling to you. The internet is a very odd place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 10:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Diversity is inevitable; what forms that will take is not.

It's inevitable given what? Random mutation? Are random mutation inevitable sure.

Are selection pressures inevitable? Are mutations responding in time to these selection pressures inevitable? Is it more inevitable that a particular form of life would die off when these pressures arise, or develop appropriate mutations in time to survive these pressures?

Mutations do not occur in response to selection pressure nor develop appropriate mutations to survive. Facepalm
That is quite simply not how it works.

Mutations are random. Mutations that result in beneficial changes will tend to survive, mutations that result in negative changes will not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-06-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
TheBeardedDude [\quote' Wrote:  Go fuck yourself. I don't care if I'm insulted but "son of a bitch" is not something I'm inclined to endure.

Funny as hell. You are unworthy of time.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 09:04 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Nature would have no goal to "save" anything.

Did I say it had a goal? Again it was a predicative statement, not a teleological statement, or one implying that nature had a goal. Though I'd be curious how you can decipher if nature has a goal or not? How could the Weasel know that his being was preselected as the eventual outcome of that algorithm in which it arose from?

Your wording was unclear. "Save" implies intent.

As far as how I can decipher the teleology or its lack in nature, Occam's Razor helps. You see, for intent to happen, there must be a mind. For mind to occur in a material universe, there must be a material substrate for it. Where is nature's mind? This question of yours is simply you being obstreperous.

(04-06-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Did I ever say there would only be a limited amount of selections pressures, rather than plenty of selection pressures? Bacteria has been aptly exposed to quite possibly every form of selection pressure under the sun right here on earth. And has adapted to every ecological niche thrown it’s way.

The question you're dodging is "why do you think those selection pressures, which you now admit exist, would not actually pressure the microbe to evolve?"

(04-06-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You keep associating me with claims that I never made, and then complaining about how I avoid responding to your strawmaning.

No, I keep pointing out the implications of your argument which you, in your thoughtlessness, have clearly overlooked. Your thinking is so half-baked you don't even understand the nuances of your own claims. You're clearly casting about in the dark trying to defend a point you cannot support.

At this point you would be better off acknowledging that there are considerations you had not conceived, and modify your statement accordingly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
04-06-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
I'm sorry, but I feel I have poorly made my previous point regarding Tomasia's statement on selective pressure and the change of bacteria from themselves to something else.
I must apologise for my failure to properly communicate within the context of the wider discussion and any confusion it may have bred.

(03-06-2015 05:35 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(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...

In the above quote, I was responding directly to Tomasia's words; that part was not intended to be taken within the context of the discussion being held around it, it was purely a literal reply to the section the quote was attached to.

Specifically, I referred to Tomasia's stating "There's no conceivable selection pressure in which bacteria would need to extend beyond it's domain", I agreed with him by saying that there are no individual selection pressures which would result in a development out of domain (he did refer to 'pressure' singular). I believed the implication of needing a culmination of multiple selective pressures was obvious, (but it would not be the first time I failed to express myself properly nor will it be the last).
To such an end, I explicitly stated that it is entirely possible for bacteria to eventually undergo multicellularity given enough time, but it would require significant differences in the selective pressures acting on them to encourage said development (See: "pretty big shifts..."), the implication being that they would need to be drastically different from present pressures, which I believed to have enforced with the statements that I was unsure if it would happen due to the fragility and specialisation of current bacteria.

Given the context of a different environment and thus pressures, I'd side with TBD explicitly. In a different environment which may reward such a progression, multicellular life would almost certainly arise from bacteria eventually (assuming they survived long enough).

As a final note, I would caution anybody who cares read my occasional drivel to take anything I say on such matters with a healthy pile of salt given that I am admittedly nowhere near TBD's level.
There's a world of difference between the likes of him and a slow-witted first-year ethology undergrad such as myself.

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
[+] 4 users Like Free Thought's post
04-06-2015, 09:53 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 09:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps if you took the stick out of your ass, and eat a little humble pie, you might have figured that out already.

[Image: 2a9zbex.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
04-06-2015, 09:57 AM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 09:47 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
TheBeardedDude [\quote' Wrote:  Go fuck yourself. I don't care if I'm insulted but "son of a bitch" is not something I'm inclined to endure.

Funny as hell. You are unworthy of time.

The "go fuck yourself" may be strong, but I'm not inclined to tolerate ignorant fuckers calling me a "son of a bitch".

I don't particularly care if you find me unworthy of your time, I didn't realize it was valuable.

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, 09:58 AM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 09:52 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  I'm sorry, but I feel I have poorly made my previous point regarding Tomasia's statement on selective pressure and the change of bacteria from themselves to something else.
I must apologise for my failure to properly communicate within the context of the wider discussion and any confusion it may have bred.

(03-06-2015 05:35 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  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...

In the above quote, I was responding directly to Tomasia's words; that part was not intended to be taken within the context of the discussion being held around it, it was purely a literal reply to the section the quote was attached to.

Specifically, I referred to Tomasia's stating "There's no conceivable selection pressure in which bacteria would need to extend beyond it's domain", I agreed with him by saying that there are no individual selection pressures which would result in a development out of domain (he did refer to 'pressure' singular). I believed the implication of needing a culmination of multiple selective pressures was obvious, (but it would not be the first time I failed to express myself properly nor will it be the last).
To such an end, I explicitly stated that it is entirely possible for bacteria to eventually undergo multicellularity given enough time, but it would require significant differences in the selective pressures acting on them to encourage said development (See: "pretty big shifts..."), the implication being that they would need to be drastically different from present pressures, which I believed to have enforced with the statements that I was unsure if it would happen due to the fragility and specialisation of current bacteria.

Given the context of a different environment and thus pressures, I'd side with TBD explicitly. In a different environment which may reward such a progression, multicellular life would almost certainly arise from bacteria eventually (assuming they survived long enough).

As a final note, I would caution anybody who cares read my occasional drivel to take anything I say on such matters with a healthy pile of salt given that I am admittedly nowhere near TBD's level.
There's a world of difference between the likes of him and a slow-witted first-year ethology undergrad such as myself.

You've got it down for the most part. I don't tend to read anything you write as particularly problematic.

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, 10:02 AM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 09:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 09:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Go fuck yourself. I don't care if I'm insulted but "son of a bitch" is not something I'm inclined to endure.

a "cherubic looking jolly son of a bitch" to be exact, but if you think this was an insult, then I can't help you there. Folks such as yourself often tend to get overly worked up, and way too tense. I tried to introduce some levity to ease that tension a bit, but apparently that flew over your head, and backfired. When you don't share a person's rage, or return a person's anger with anger, or even try to lighten the angry party up a bit, I guess it must appear as trolling to you. The internet is a very odd place.

You'd be wise to not throw insults around if you want them to be taken sarcastically or non-literally.

For instance, when I say you are a "stupid fucker", I really mean it.

You need to reread what everyone (like FT, me, Chas, and thump to name a few) has presented to you before you even consider responding. Because you really don't get 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
04-06-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(03-06-2015 05:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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,

Because ... ? Consider

Quote:that what we'd more than likely see is an even more diverse array of bacteria.

We might.

Quote:Bacterias
'Bacteria' is the plural. Bacterium is the singular.

Quote: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.

It seems hard to you - not to others. The first step is multicellularity which allows larger organisms and specialized cells.

Quote: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?

Yes, it is unknown. So?

Quote:Selection pressures is basically a naturalist version of the God of the gaps,

Really? We see selection pressure all around us. Warmer/colder, wetter/drier, presence/absence of predators, chemical environment, and on and on.

Quote:rather than particularly acknowledging the unknowns, awaiting further knowledge, we appeal to selection pressures, even when those supposed selection pressures are clearly unknown.

Clearly not unknown. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: