Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This
Caedes, one cannot work in a laboratory without qualifications. I thought I made that clear.
A few definitions of evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years (Oxford).
What you see in the laboratory with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus and resistant M. tuberculosis, amongst others, do not prove the process of evolution. In Lenski’s E. coli experiments some E. coli strains developed the ability to grow in a citrate medium. However, as above definitions indicate, such examples do not qualify as evolutionary. The process is called adaptation. You’ll notice evolution describes the development of different organisms from earlier forms. I am glad to inform you, above examples remain part of their genus and species. No new genus and no new species. Bacterial antibiotic resistance does not demonstrate the process of evolution. As I’ve said before, as a laboratory worker, I am thankful that these stay as they are, otherwise the identification process would have been very complicated indeed.
If your immune system works optimally, you would be able to survive all of the above, even invading cancer cells. Your immune system will sort them out. If your immune system is suppressed or not working optimally, because of various factors, then you've got problems. This concept is scientifically feasible and fits in well with Christian theology. But I don't think you would be interested in that.
Vidqun-" I stress the point, an information system cannot develop by itself or be derived from non-living matter."
But doesn't this point also work against theists inasmuch as the vastness of information required to create the Creator goes off the scale.
An old argument I know but what it does do is to highlight the folly of the assumption that there is a 'creator' (as in god of the bible) based on the above argument.
Vidqun-"So, what are the alternatives? You be the judge…."
There are alternatives that don't include a creator, like simulationism. If the information programmed in matter is created externally then an alternative explanation could be that we live in a simulation.
Therefore it is an assumption to believe in a creator when a simulation is an equally plausible explanation.
Your answer is a great example of someone who has only a superficial knowledge of evolution, your own quote highlights what you are missing!
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (my emphasis)
It is precisely the sort of generational changes (or adaptation) that you are talking about that eventually lead to new species, evolution does not state that one such change makes a new species.
If you were a scientist you would be wondering what happens to those changes over time and the effect they have on the classification of those species.
With all your expertise how would you suggest we positively identify antibiotic resistant bacteria?
You still haven't answered either of my previous questions.
Yes Giles, the possibility that we live in a simulation cannot be ruled out. Or, a Prometheus type civilization seeding the earth is also a possibility. If it is a simulation, would you not need a creator to create the simulation (as in the Matrix Trilogy)?
Vidqun-"If it is a simulation, would you not need a creator to create the simulation (as in the Matrix Trilogy)?"
Not necessarily no. That's limiting outside the simulation to what the simulation is inside.
If outside the simulation is so vastly different to what we experience in the simulation then maybe there is no beginning and no end, no up and no down, in fact it could be void of dimension.
Wild speculation obviously but equally as valid as any theistic hypothesis when it comes to assuming an alternative. The only advantage with simulationism is that it can answer every question thrown at it.
Caedes, not sure which question you want answered. I would have been a much better linguist than a scientist, but my father was a biology teacher and he insisted I do a BSC. My natural disposition would have been languages in which I excelled at school. But he did not want me to become a teacher, etc. And with it all came the Witness thing. My mother was a Witness.
That's one of the problems with the theory of evolution in my opinion, a lack of consensus on the definition. Yes, I know, one of the favorite excuses of evolutionists is the time factor. That's why it remains a theory. It cannot demonstrated.
I have mentioned the Coelecanth and the Horseshoe crab, millions of years old and no change. What happened there? Then there's the development of the horse as an example of evolution. Retired. And the same goes with the development of the whale. Some things are not right there either. So, no, I am not convinced. And the practical implications of an sea animal evolving and becoming a land animal. Then to reverse the process for the land animal to become a whale or dolphin. It strains all credibility.
In the case of Staph. aureus, you incubate the bacterium in a meat broth, then spray it out on a blood agar plate. You place a methicillin resistant disc on the plate. If the organism overgrows the methicillin disc, it is a problem, especially in a hospital environment. Farmers are contributing to the problem by treating their animals (cattle, sheep and chickens) with antibiotics. We are contributing to the problem by using antibiotics and releasing them in the water system through drainage. Doctors are compounding the problem by unnecessarily prescribing antibiotics (e.g., for flu which is caused by a virus). Drug companies do not want to spend millions on an antibiotic that is soon going to become worthless as the bacteria becomes more resistant. So yes, I think hospital infections of super bugs are on the increase and it is going to get worse, before it gets better.
That's why it remains a theory. It cannot demonstrated.
Oh dear indeed. Credibility, if any remained, blown.
Answering any of my questions would be a start because you didn't answer really answer my last question either did you?
I rather suspect that you know you didn't answer it and are hoping that using a very specific example will deflect away from that.
I will ask another question, why should anyone believe what you have to say about micro-biology?
Vidquin attempts to insult me and pretend to be a microbiologist are a delight. Good job, guys.