How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2015, 09:45 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2015 09:52 AM by Chas.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 09:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What do you get if you multiply a small change over time with a very, very long time?

A bunch of bacteria and fungus.

Why? Why do you think that there is a limit on what changing the DNA can result in? The only difference between you and a bacterium is your DNA.

Quote:If we were able to develop a bacteria able to survive on another planet, is it in inevitable that given 3.5 billions years, that we'd find a diverse array of life,

Very probable, not inevitable; it depends on selection pressures.

Quote:conscious and self-aware creatures like ourselves roaming the planet, writing novels, and building sky scrapers and shit?

Far less likely, but still possible.

Quote:Probably not, so why should a creationist buy the Darwinian narrative?

Because it is the inevitable result of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success, i.e. selection pressure.

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
01-06-2015, 09:49 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2015 10:00 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 09:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, they'll likely explain it as micro-evolution, a small scale gene mutation, that allowed the bacteria to develop the resistance.

And I guess the question should be why should we imagine that this accounts for all the diversity of life, on the grand scale vision Darwinians have in mind.

Probably because over hundreds of millions of yours, with no mechanism in place to restrict or limit mutations, "microevolution" becomes "macroevolution."

Also, the idea of calling people "Darwinians" is silly. The Modern Synthesis which happened when we realized that Darwin, Mendel, and Watson and Crick were all working on the same problem from different angles means that Darwin's observations and theory are only one aspect of understanding evolution by natural selection.

It smacks of a deliberate obscurantism, using that term "Darwinians."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
01-06-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 09:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why? Why do you think that there is a limit on what changing the DNA can result in? The only difference between you and a bacterium is your DNA.
.....
Very probable, not inevitable; it depends on selection pressures.

Well, there goes the missing ingredient right? You claim it's very probably, but what exactly is very probable here? That bacteria on another planet will continue to have gene mutations, sure. Are selection pressures, that bacteria needing to develop feet, or a nose very probable? Is there really any valid reason to believe that bacteria left on a planet for several billions years, will need to develop the sort of diversity of life found on our planet, for survival? Not, really. They'll likely be able to manage just fine as piles upon piles of bacteria and fungus.

Do you think this is our more probable finding here, or would we more likely find a diversity of creatures as we do on our own planet?

(for the most part I'm just playing the devil's advocate here)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 10:03 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2015 10:06 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 09:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-05-2015 10:43 PM)Worom Wrote:  I was sitting here at my desk and a thought occurred to me.

How do creationists explain the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria?

We are seeing evolution in action as the few bacteria that had the mutation to survive the antibiotics are surviving via natural selection processes.

And if they admit micro-evolution is occurring but not macro-evolution then they are arguing from personal incredulity. As micro-evolution and macro-evolution are just terms trying to split evolution out when that is not how it works(from what I understand). Using their terms you end up with, If enough "micro-evolutions" happen you end up with "macro-evolution"

And I guess the question should be why should we imagine that this accounts for all the diversity of life, on the grand scale vision Darwinians have in mind.

Well for one thing, it requires a lot fewer assumptions than the competing "Sky Wizard" and "Sufficiently Advanced Aliens" hypotheses.

But to be fair, the creationists shouldn't imagine the "grand scale" of the Darwinians. Because they don't exist. Darwinian evolution has been long supplanted by the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is an expansion and synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian inheritance.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
01-06-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 10:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 09:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why? Why do you think that there is a limit on what changing the DNA can result in? The only difference between you and a bacterium is your DNA.
.....
Very probable, not inevitable; it depends on selection pressures.

Where the goes the missing ingredient right? You claim it's very probably, but what exactly is very probable here? That bacteria on another planet will continue to have gene mutations, sure. Are selection pressures, that bacteria needing to develop feet, or a nose very probable? Is there really any valid reason to believe that bacteria left on a planet for several billions years, will need to develop the sort of diversity of life found on our planet, for survival? Not, really. They'll likely be able to manage just fine as piles upon piles of bacteria and fungus.

Do you think this is our more probable finding here, or would we more likely find a diversity of creatures as we do on our own planet?

(for the most part I'm just playing the devil's advocate here)

You're not playing devil's advocate, you're using a straw man version of what creationists think natural selection and evolution are.

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
01-06-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Because, keep in mind, those piles of "fungus and bacteria" are still around today even though other lineages have developed into different piles of organization.

No reason to think that life on another planet would not behave in exactly the same way with regards to evolution as it would be expected for other theories, like gravity.

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
01-06-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 10:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 09:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why? Why do you think that there is a limit on what changing the DNA can result in? The only difference between you and a bacterium is your DNA.
.....
Very probable, not inevitable; it depends on selection pressures.

Well, there goes the missing ingredient right? You claim it's very probably, but what exactly is very probable here? That bacteria on another planet will continue to have gene mutations, sure. Are selection pressures, that bacteria needing to develop feet, or a nose very probable? Is there really any valid reason to believe that bacteria left on a planet for several billions years, will need to develop the sort of diversity of life found on our planet, for survival? Not, really. They'll likely be able to manage just fine as piles upon piles of bacteria and fungus.

Do you think this is our more probable finding here, or would we more likely find a diversity of creatures as we do on our own planet?

(for the most part I'm just playing the devil's advocate here)

No, you are being ignorant. Read the last of that post and put some thinking into it.
"Because it is the inevitable result of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success, i.e. selection pressure."

Diversity is inevitable; what forms that will take is 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-06-2015, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2015 10:15 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 10:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because, keep in mind, those piles of "fungus and bacteria" are still around today even though other lineages have developed into different piles of organization.

No reason to think that life on another planet would not behave in exactly the same way with regards to evolution as it would be expected for other theories, like gravity.

There's no reason to think that it would. Of course we're not just speaking about how life on another planet would behave, but also about how the planet itself would behave, creating an abundance of supposed ecological niches, that places the same sort of selections pressures on this group of bacteria.

There is no reason to think that this group of bacteria will one day find themselves in the midst of selection pressures that leads to them to branch off and develop limbs. Perhaps they'll find themselves in the midst of such pressure, but are not given enough time, and just die off, that the opportunity to develop vanishes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 10:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because, keep in mind, those piles of "fungus and bacteria" are still around today even though other lineages have developed into different piles of organization.

No reason to think that life on another planet would not behave in exactly the same way with regards to evolution as it would be expected for other theories, like gravity.

There's no reason to think that it would, of course we're not just speaking about how life on another planet would behave, but also about how the planet itself would behave, creating an abundance of supposed ecological niches, that places the same say sort of selections pressures on this group of bacteria.

There is no reason to think that this group of bacteria will one day find themselves in the midst of selection pressures that lead to them to branch off and develop limbs.

First off, having different niches only means that the ecological space available for life to adapt into would be different. Not that evolution or any of the processes of evolution would differ.

Second, we have seen how life evolves into different niches on Earth over the course of the Phanerozoic, as well as how life can refill those niches after the organisms that formerly filled them went extinct. And what we find is that given similar selection pressures, organisms tend to converge upon similar modes of life with similar adaptations. This is convergent evolution.

The notion that evolution necessarily leads to complexity or sentient organisms is a bullshit straw man version of religious idiocy.

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
01-06-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(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?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: