How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 10:46 AM)TheBear Wrote:  Applying disinfectant to a counter top would be one example of environmental change for bacterium living on the surface. You never see any labels claiming - "Kills 100% of bacteria". Why is that?

God? Satan?

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, 10:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2015 11:07 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 10:02 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, when I say you are a "stupid fucker", I really mean it.

I'm sure you do, particularly over the internet, which breeds a sort of over confidence and nastiness. Where if I were to come by and visit you in person, that nastiness will likely dissolve rather quickly. You'd likely be as jolly and kindhearted as the man in the picture would suggest, and perhaps far more reluctant to call someone a "stupid fucker"

People who have possibly suppressed their rage all their lives, have found a valuable outlet online, and I'm bound to be the recipient of this suppressed rage on occasions. I try and brush it off, and imagine it merely as the bravado of anonymity. Perhaps the persons just a had bad day, and just needed a dog to kick? At least these are things I tell myself, to not take these insults personally, to avoid becoming unhinged and irrational, all of which is within my capacities as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 11:07 AM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 10:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 10:02 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, when I say you are a "stupid fucker", I really mean it.

I'm sure you do, particularly over the internet, which breeds a sort of over confidence and nastiness. Where if I were to come by and visit you in person, that nastiness will likely dissolve rather quickly. You'd likely be as jolly and kindhearted as the man in the picture would suggest, and perhaps far more reluctant to call me a "stupid fucker"

People who have possibly suppressed their rage all their lives, have found a valuable outlet online, and I'm bound to be the recipient of this suppressed rage on occasions. I try and brush it off, and imagine it merely as the bravado of anonymity. Perhaps the persons just a had bad day, and just needed a dog to kick? At least these are things I tell myself, to not take these insults personally, to avoid becoming unhinged and irrational, all of which is within my capacities as well.

Perhaps I would be more verbose in my assessment of your cognitive facilities were we to meet in person, but your arrogance in your ignorance and refusal to be able to admit error are not admirable traits.

Perhaps I'd say, in person, that "You think very highly of your opinion that runs counter to scientific knowledge. Do you think this admirable or are you inclined to think that you may be fantastically wrong and devoid of any salient points?"

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, 11:57 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 10:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So basically you’re saying that we can’t infer intent unless we know who or what the mind behind it is? We can’t presume intent without knowing this, or we’d be violating occam’s razor? (this is a side question unrelated to whatever i may have said previously here)

The mechanisms that explain evolution do not require intent to function. Evolution works just fine without intent.

Quote:
Quote: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?”

I didn’t “now” admit they exist. In fact my use of bacteria was predicated on the fact that they’ve been exposed to an infinite variety of selection pressures.

Not actually infinite.

Quote:A bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic is evolving. My issue here is not that bacteria will not evolve (it will),

A bacterium might or might not.

Quote: but the confidence in which some believe it will evolve in some linear fashion over billions of years, extending well beyond the domain of bacteria. It’s possible of course, if we take earth as an example of this, but is this extensive diversification into a variety of domains more likely than just a plethora of diverse and resistant forms of bacteria?

It's not clear which is more likely, but the longer the time period, the more likely is diversification.

Quote:We don’t know what the conditions would have to be to make these leaps and bounds.

There aren't any leaps and bounds - just tiny changes that accumulate.

Quote:If we had the capacity to computer model these conditions we wouldn’t even know where to begin, to conceptualize the actual constraints needed.

We have a very good idea of the conditions on earth through time. What is it that's mysterious?

Quote:Yet we know from direct observations, and the facts that bacteria has adapted to pretty much every ecological niche imaginable, that bacteria has been able to survive, and reproduce, without having to extend outside its domain.

*bacteria have

Some bacteria are still bacteria, other organisms arose from them. Your point? Consider

Quote:If Occam’s razor is your tool of choice here, perhaps you can see why the view that we’d just be looking at diverse and more resistant forms of bacteria, is not without warrant.

It is certainly a possible state, but one that becomes less and less likely as time passes.

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
04-06-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 10:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So basically you’re saying that we can’t infer intent unless we know who or what the mind behind it is? We can’t presume intent without knowing this, or we’d be violating occam’s razor? (this is a side question unrelated to whatever i may have said previously here)

The mechanisms that explain evolution do not require intent to function. Evolution works just fine without intent.

Quote:I didn’t “now” admit they exist. In fact my use of bacteria was predicated on the fact that they’ve been exposed to an infinite variety of selection pressures.

Not actually infinite.

Quote:A bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic is evolving. My issue here is not that bacteria will not evolve (it will),

A bacterium might or might not.

Quote: but the confidence in which some believe it will evolve in some linear fashion over billions of years, extending well beyond the domain of bacteria. It’s possible of course, if we take earth as an example of this, but is this extensive diversification into a variety of domains more likely than just a plethora of diverse and resistant forms of bacteria?

It's not clear which is more likely, but the longer the time period, the more likely is diversification.

Quote:We don’t know what the conditions would have to be to make these leaps and bounds.

There aren't any leaps and bounds - just tiny changes that accumulate.

Quote:If we had the capacity to computer model these conditions we wouldn’t even know where to begin, to conceptualize the actual constraints needed.

We have a very good idea of the conditions on earth through time. What is it that's mysterious?

Quote:Yet we know from direct observations, and the facts that bacteria has adapted to pretty much every ecological niche imaginable, that bacteria has been able to survive, and reproduce, without having to extend outside its domain.

*bacteria have

Some bacteria are still bacteria, other organisms arose from them. Your point? Consider

Quote:If Occam’s razor is your tool of choice here, perhaps you can see why the view that we’d just be looking at diverse and more resistant forms of bacteria, is not without warrant.

It is certainly a possible state, but one that becomes less and less likely as time passes.

I think this point eludes him:

Evolution doesn't mean that the ancestral species has to go extinct

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, 01:44 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 12:17 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I think this point eludes him:

Evolution doesn't mean that the ancestral species has to go extinct

I don't recall every saying or implying that they had to go extinct. Wouldn't my suggestion that we'd be looking at a wide diversity of bacteria indicate that extinction of earlier forms is not required?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 01:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 12:17 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I think this point eludes him:

Evolution doesn't mean that the ancestral species has to go extinct

I don't recall every saying or implying that they had to go extinct. Wouldn't my suggestion that we'd be looking at a wide diversity of bacteria indicate that extinction of earlier forms is not required?

We don't have to speculate, we are already looking at a wide diversity of bacteria.

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
04-06-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  The mechanisms that explain evolution do not require intent to function. Evolution works just fine without intent.

Neither does the "weasel program", once the algorithm is set to run, it's requires no further tinkering to arrive at "Methinks it is like a weasel". Once the algorithm of evolution is set to run, faced with a particular selection pressure, it can produce an eye over and over again, 40 or so times to be exact.

Quote:It's not clear which is more likely, but the longer the time period, the more likely is diversification.

Sure, the longer the time period the greater the likelihood of developing conscious rational creatures like ourselves. The longer we allow the Weasel Program to go on, the greater the likelihood that "Methinks it is like a weasel" would be spelled out. Though in the Weasel Program, given a long enough period of time the sentence is inevitable, don't know if it's similarly inevitable that bacteria would extend beyond it's domain, or that conscious life will eventually emerge, given sufficient time.

Quote:We have a very good idea of the conditions on earth through time. What is it that's mysterious?

That's not the unknown, the unknowns are the particular ecological niches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Unless you can show that your views, are held by the consensus of experts here, then your option 1 is mute. I don't think you're representative here. In fact I think a variety of experts, like Jerry Coyne will likely side with me here more so than you.

*moot

Thank you, Chas. This is a huuuuge pet peeve of mine, and I only avoid pointing it out in an argument because it looks like a retreat-into-pedantry fallacy coming from an active participant.

But thank you, this drives me up the fucking wall.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2015, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2015 02:27 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(04-06-2015 10:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2015 09:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Your wording was unclear. "Save" implies intent.

Only for those bent on seeing intent in it.

... or for those who know the nuances of the language.

Is it really so hard for you to say "oops"? Fucking Christ.

(04-06-2015 10:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote: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.

So basically you’re saying that we can’t infer intent unless we know who or what the mind behind it is? We can’t presume intent without knowing this, or we’d be violating occam’s razor? (this is a side question unrelated to whatever i may have said previously here)

No. I'm saying we have no reason to infer intent because we can swee no machinery for its operation.

Would you please learn to read?

I'm done with this aspect of the conversation; you're clearly attempting to dodge my questions.

(04-06-2015 10:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote: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?”

I didn’t “now” admit they exist. In fact my use of bacteria was predicated on the fact that they’ve been exposed to an infinite variety of selection pressures.

A bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic is evolving. My issue here is not that bacteria will not evolve (it will), but the confidence in which some believe it will evolve in some linear fashion over billions of years, extending well beyond the domain of bacteria. It’s possible of course, if we take earth as an example of this, but is this extensive diversification into a variety of domains more likely than just a plethora of diverse and resistant forms of bacteria?

We don’t know what the conditions would have to be to make these leaps and bounds. If we had the capacity to computer model these conditions we wouldn’t even know where to begin, to conceptualize the actual constraints needed. Yet we know from direct observations, and the facts that bacteria has adapted to pretty much every ecological niche imaginable, that bacteria has been able to survive, and reproduce, without having to extend outside its domain.

And we also know that they have evolved outside their "domain", assuming that by "domain" you mean original niche. "Domain" certainly wasn't used in my Biology or Phys Anth classes. I suppose it's the same sort of category label as "kind"?

(04-06-2015 10:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If Occam’s razor is your tool of choice here, perhaps you can see why the view that we’d just be looking at diverse and more resistant forms of bacteria, is not without warrant.

No, it isn't my tool of choice. My tools of choice are observed facts.

It is possible that the bacteria would remain unevolved -- but in my opinion, quite unlikely. You disagree with my opinion, but refuse to address its support, instead hooting "but you don't know!" Well, of course I don't know the answer to a hypothetical question, and nor do you. If worms had machine guns, would birds continue to fuck with them?

Seriously, learn about the topic so that you don't sidetrack a thread with ignorant utterances. A good rule of thumb you need to take to heart is that you'll look smarter asking the right questions than you wold asserting the wrong points. But of course, you wouldn't get the satisfaction of the "aha!" moment, the desire for which is painfully apparent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: