How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Bacteria Feat...band name.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
01-06-2015, 01:21 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 12:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The unspoken assumption in your scenario is that the new planet's climate and topology would remain unchanged for billions of years. That doesn't strike me as terribly likely.

Yes, but those changes would have to produce particular ecological niches, without those particular niches, there no particular reason to believe that we'd be looking at anything other than different varieties of bacteria.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 01:39 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2015 02:34 PM by dancefortwo.)
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
They also have a difficult time explaining nylon eating bacteria. Bacteria that evolved to eat nylon.....Ta Da!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
01-06-2015, 01:41 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 01:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 12:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The unspoken assumption in your scenario is that the new planet's climate and topology would remain unchanged for billions of years. That doesn't strike me as terribly likely.

Yes, but those changes would have to produce particular ecological niches, without those particular niches, there no particular reason to believe that we'd be looking at anything other than different varieties of bacteria.

This still doesn't logically follow from any understanding of evolution.

1) There is nothing in evolution that dictates an increase in complexity

2) A complex environment is more likely to result in complex niches and complex interactions, thus leading to an increased likelihood for more complex adaptations and thus more complex organisms

3) Organisms modify their environment and can induce complexity. For instance, competition for resources can lead to infraspecific competition which may result in different adaptations to exploit those resources better.

4) As Thump suggests, environments (here or on any other planet likely to host life, which means it has an atmosphere and is therefore likely large enough to have active plate tectonics) aren't static. Variable climates, topography, and environments result in complex niches. Organisms can feed into this loop of enhancing the production of these variable climates, topography, and climate (organisms can alter weathering rates, or produce sediments that lubricate plate tectonics, or create new environments that wouldn't exist without life, like rain forests, or create microenvironments). So, it is very likely that if life has originated on any planet similar to Earth, it will result in similar niches and similar selection pressures and similar adaptations to exploit those niches. But that life will be completely unrelated to our own.

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
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
01-06-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 01:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 01:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, but those changes would have to produce particular ecological niches, without those particular niches, there no particular reason to believe that we'd be looking at anything other than different varieties of bacteria.

This still doesn't logically follow from any understanding of evolution.

1) There is nothing in evolution that dictates an increase in complexity

2) A complex environment is more likely to result in complex niches and complex interactions, thus leading to an increased likelihood for more complex adaptations and thus more complex organisms

3) Organisms modify their environment and can induce complexity. For instance, competition for resources can lead to infraspecific competition which may result in different adaptations to exploit those resources better.

4) As Thump suggests, environments (here or on any other planet likely to host life, which means it has an atmosphere and is therefore likely large enough to have active plate tectonics) aren't static. Variable climates, topography, and environments result in complex niches. Organisms can feed into this loop of enhancing the production of these variable climates, topography, and climate (organisms can alter weathering rates, or produce sediments that lubricate plate tectonics, or create new environments that wouldn't exist without life, like rain forests, or create microenvironments). So, it is very likely that if life has originated on any planet similar to Earth, it will result in similar niches and similar selection pressures and similar adaptations to exploit those niches. But that life will be completely unrelated to our own.

On point 3, would this essentially induce an evolutionary arms race? sorry if i'm over simplifying the terminology. For example, organisms that are better able to use resources or can prevent other organisms from using the same resources, would be more fit for survival.

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
Everything bad that happens in this world = Adam & Eve ate some stuff

My blog
[Image: communion_zpslrzvgcuh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2015, 04:03 PM
How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 03:02 PM)Worom Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 01:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This still doesn't logically follow from any understanding of evolution.

1) There is nothing in evolution that dictates an increase in complexity

2) A complex environment is more likely to result in complex niches and complex interactions, thus leading to an increased likelihood for more complex adaptations and thus more complex organisms

3) Organisms modify their environment and can induce complexity. For instance, competition for resources can lead to infraspecific competition which may result in different adaptations to exploit those resources better.

4) As Thump suggests, environments (here or on any other planet likely to host life, which means it has an atmosphere and is therefore likely large enough to have active plate tectonics) aren't static. Variable climates, topography, and environments result in complex niches. Organisms can feed into this loop of enhancing the production of these variable climates, topography, and climate (organisms can alter weathering rates, or produce sediments that lubricate plate tectonics, or create new environments that wouldn't exist without life, like rain forests, or create microenvironments). So, it is very likely that if life has originated on any planet similar to Earth, it will result in similar niches and similar selection pressures and similar adaptations to exploit those niches. But that life will be completely unrelated to our own.

On point 3, would this essentially induce an evolutionary arms race? sorry if i'm over simplifying the terminology. For example, organisms that are better able to use resources or can prevent other organisms from using the same resources, would be more fit for survival.

Evolutionary arms race is an expression we use for the Red Queen Hypothesis. It's a type of escalation where predation pressure induces a response on the predator to be better adapted to hunt prey and prey to be better adapted to resist predation.

What I mean by intraspecific competition is competition within the same species for limited resources (like space or mates or food, etc).

For single-called organisms this could result in those better adapted to growing more quickly being able to utilize space faster or access resources more quickly. Or better efficiency meaning less resources are needed. Or an adaptation to utilize a previously inaccessible resource.

For more complex organisms, the interactions and possible adaptions also become increasingly more complex. They still need space and access to resources, but sexual reproduction means access to mates (and competition) and predation means a need to adapt a strategy for offspring survival (parental care versus a larger offspring population, etc).

There's a lot to it when it comes to adaptations and selection pressures. Like tiering for benthic organisms. Or swimming strategies (speed vs agility vs motility). We could go on for days.

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
02-06-2015, 06:29 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(31-05-2015 10:43 PM)Worom Wrote:  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"

To them, microevolution is something that happens and can be observed happening. Macroevolution is based in faith because no one has "seen" species A turn into species B. They frame their arguments in such a way as to be able to shift the goal posts as much as they please. For example, if you find a "missing link" between two species, they'll simply declare it to be a "final form" and tell you to find the two links between the three species. If you pull that off, they'll call those final forms and tell you to find four more links. It's all about setting up a belief system that all evidence points to the truth they want, and that cannot be proven wrong.

So, the micro/macro division is basically them accepting the stuff that is so obvious that they'd look like flat-earthers if they denied it, while allowing themselves enough wiggle room to believe in a bronze-age creation myth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
02-06-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(01-06-2015 01:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 01:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, but those changes would have to produce particular ecological niches, without those particular niches, there no particular reason to believe that we'd be looking at anything other than different varieties of bacteria.

This still doesn't logically follow from any understanding of evolution.

1) There is nothing in evolution that dictates an increase in complexity

2) A complex environment is more likely to result in complex niches and complex interactions, thus leading to an increased likelihood for more complex adaptations and thus more complex organisms

And an environment that's not as "complex", won't produce as many niches and interactions, there by leading to less diversity. There's no particular reason to believe that if we were to transport a bacteria on to a random planet, that given a few billions years, that we just wouldn't be looking at a variety of different bacterias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: How do creationists explain antibiotic resistant "super bugs"
(02-06-2015 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 01:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This still doesn't logically follow from any understanding of evolution.

1) There is nothing in evolution that dictates an increase in complexity

2) A complex environment is more likely to result in complex niches and complex interactions, thus leading to an increased likelihood for more complex adaptations and thus more complex organisms

And an environment that's not as "complex", won't produce as many niches and interactions, there by leading to less diversity. There's no particular reason to believe that if we were to transport a bacteria on to a random planet, that given a few billions years, that we just wouldn't be looking at a variety of different bacterias.

Bacteria modify their environment, inducing complexity.

Competition between bacteria produces complexity.

No one ever said evolution requires an increase in the complexity of the organism through time.

No one ever said evolution necessarily leads to the evolution of sentient organisms.

You are still using a straw man version of what you think evolution is.

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
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: