Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Bacteria Raises Concern
KDLT ^ | November 29, 2012 | Laura Monteverdi

Posted on 12/03/2012 1:31:48 AM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last
To: MrB
Creationists have a huge advantage. We understand the competing theories and assumptions because we’ve been exposed to them all our lives, and have researched further than what we were spoon fed in humanist indoctrination centers.

For sure.

We know how to think outside the box.

For that matter, we know how to think.

51 posted on 12/04/2012 7:04:08 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GailA
If you have side affects from a drug all your doctor does is switch you to a different one, and it does not get reported, doctors don't have time or financial resources to do so, nor does your drug store.

I'd like to see the stats on all the senior citizens who get flu shots then catch pneumonia or some other opportunistic infection and die. I'll wager you they're not too keen on keeping stats like that.

52 posted on 12/04/2012 7:11:35 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: metmom

One mistake we need to avoid is thinking “the other side” is irrational or “can’t think”.

The problem isn’t the rationality or the logical thinking ability in most cases. Their conclusions are logically reached through reason but they start from the wrong set of initial assumptions.

This applies to both evolutionists and to leftists as well.


53 posted on 12/04/2012 7:11:42 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well, considering that in public schools, kids are not taught to think, but rather regurgitate, I’m not so sure that it’s that far off.

It’s something they have to be taught, and yes, they do not realize that they are starting from the wrong premise, but having been taught to think, they would come to that conclusion at some point.

One of my contentions against evolution is that it starts with a bunch of premises who are either accepted because they have always been told that it is so, or because it best supports their theory.

For all how creationists are told that they’re being unscientific for accepting the *Goddidit* paradigm, they are accepting theirs with just as much faith, not because there is hard scientific evidence for any of it. They are starting with a philosophical premise that they don’t even recognize as such and base their science on it. They’re doing the very thing they condemn when it’s done with a premise they disagree with.


54 posted on 12/04/2012 7:31:45 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: metmom
How does it happen that a bacterial develops antibiotic resistance?

Let us say some idiot Creationists supposes that “either I got infected with the resistant strain or I didn't - evolution cannot happen” and stops taking their antibiotics as soon as they feel better, but before all the bacteria are dead.

Those bacteria are now subject to stressful but not lethal levels of the antibiotic.

Under stress many bacteria start using error prone DNA polymerase to reproduce their genome instead of the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase - this increases their mutation rate. Thus any new variation (that did not previously exist in the population, but was created through mutation) that helps it survive the stressful levels of antibiotic tend to predominate in subsequent generations of the bacteria. This is known as natural selection of genetic variation. Note that the variation was created through error prone DNA polymerase in this example - it did not previously exist in the population.

Thus the bacteria comes back from an ineffective treatment of antibiotics as one that has developed antibiotic resistance. The idiot gets sick again, and now needs a different antibiotic than the one that would have been effective if they had used it correctly.

Thus we see the HARM that your anti-science denial of reality can cause. People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

55 posted on 12/04/2012 7:48:31 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Hate to sound like need a tin foil hat...BUT.........


56 posted on 12/04/2012 8:10:11 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Allmendream, you stated

"Let us say some idiot Creationists supposes that “either I got infected with the resistant strain or I didn't - evolution cannot happen” and stops taking their antibiotics as soon as they feel better, but before all the bacteria are dead.

Have you actually done much thinking about Creationism and evolution and (Big-E) Evolution?? Creationists DO NOT believe in stasis, as evidenced by the fact that all of them (or at least the Christian ones) believe that the various races of man differentiated from a single pair of individuals over recent time. In fact, you could say that Creationists believe in rapid De-volution, that is the rapid degeneration of the biosphere. Theologically, this comes from the Christian view that creation is in a state of progressive disarray, an understanding (whether they agree with it or not) that 98% of Evolutionists are utterly clueless about.

William Paley is dead and long gone and so are his ideas. So please re-formulate your objections to Creationism with an eye toward understanding what creationists are saying, not what you imagine they are saying.

57 posted on 12/04/2012 8:21:47 AM PST by cookcounty ("For the first time in my adult life I am not proud of my country.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

So this bacteria “de-evolved” into the highly useful trait of antibiotic resistance?

Please note my first post on this thread - I mentioned the idiotic premise that all change will be maladaptive - “all change will make an organism less fit as it changes it away from the way God created it”.

Obviously that premise doesn’t withstand even a cursory examination of the evidence.


58 posted on 12/04/2012 8:29:23 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...
Thus we see the HARM that your anti-science denial of reality can cause.

FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU, I needed a good laugh today.

People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Variation within species, not *evolutionary change*.

The ones who have contributed to anti-biotic resistance in bacteria are the medical professions, who supposedly have some background in biology which, according to evos, would include evolution, and so THEY should have known better and not over prescribed anti-biotics in the first place, which they should have foreseen would become resistant as an understanding of the ToE would have told them.

The patients CANNOT get antibiotics to use without a prescription from their doctors, who SHOULD HAVE known better with their education in science and biology, which SHOULD HAVE included the ToE.

The people most vocal about the overuse of antibiotics and warning of the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria were the naturalists, whom the scientific and medical communities pooh-poohed as being........ unscientific.

59 posted on 12/04/2012 8:32:48 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Under stress many bacteria start using error prone DNA polymerase to reproduce their genome instead of the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase - this increases their mutation rate. Thus any new variation (that did not previously exist in the population, but was created through mutation) that helps it survive the stressful levels of antibiotic tend to predominate in subsequent generations of the bacteria.

What smart bacteria. How clever of them to figure that out all by their little selves.

Think they ever heard of Darwin?

60 posted on 12/04/2012 8:34:51 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

I am Christian. I do not for one second believe that all God’s children were descendants of the Adam and Eve. Most especially since there are two different days of creation written of and about. Genesis 1:26 on the six day uses the plural of they and them. And at the end of chapter 1 God said his creation was good.

In Genesis 2:5 God said there was no man to till the ground, hence He made the farmer. At least a couple of thousand years later (Peter says a day with the LORD is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day) we are given the formation of the Adam... we are not told how long after the Adam was formed God put him to sleep and removed a ‘curve’ and made woman.

Most Christians cannot tell the difference in the two different days of creation of flesh bodies for the souls/spirit to travel this flesh journey.

Interesting to consider the ‘state’ the Adam was initially formed.

Evolution is a hoax, specifically because of the reason given for this flesh age. Christ said to ‘see’ the kingdom of God humans needed to be born of woman... Now that would exclude those first fully formed adults. Adam was not alive - living until the breath of life which means soul was breathed into his nostrils.


61 posted on 12/04/2012 8:35:20 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: metmom

So why do you suppose a bacteria would have a stress induced gene for an error prone DNA polymerase - if not to create variation that did not previously exist?

The idea that all variation has to already be in a bacterial population for it to come about is easily tested. And that idea FAILS the test.

To deny that variation arises in non resistant populations due to incorrect use of antibiotics is idiotic and can only lead to the more rapid evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic strains of bacteria.

Creationism is once again useless if not actively harmful in explaining or predicting reality.


62 posted on 12/04/2012 8:41:09 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...
I have been repeatedly told that there is no such thing as evolution, evolutionary change is not science, that all change will make an organism less fit as it changes it away from the way God created it; so there couldn’t possibly be a “New Bacteria” that is antibiotic resistant!

Could you provide a link to said statements you are claiming to be fact?

Or are you just regurgitating what you've been told or heard all your life?

63 posted on 12/04/2012 8:46:52 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“pooh-poohed as being........ unscientific”

Coincidentally, another “intellectual” in history used this same “argument” to dismiss critics of his theories. His name was Karl Marx.


64 posted on 12/04/2012 8:51:10 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So why do you suppose a bacteria would have a stress induced gene for an error prone DNA polymerase - if not to create variation that did not previously exist?

So somehow the bacteria just so happened to evolve a mutation that gave it that ability. How convenient.

The idea that all variation has to already be in a bacterial population for it to come about is easily tested. And that idea FAILS the test.

Why and how? How about some support for your many statements instead of just expecting people to take what you say at face value.

To deny that variation arises in non resistant populations due to incorrect use of antibiotics is idiotic and can only lead to the more rapid evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic strains of bacteria.

Who's denying that?

You're beginning to froth at the mouth in your hatred of creationism. It's making you imagine things and not think rationally and making you unwilling to listen to reason.

65 posted on 12/04/2012 8:53:11 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"“all change will make an organism less fit as it changes it away from the way God created it”.

Not sure that all creationists agree completely with that with that formulation (Note: I am more of an IDer than a creationist).

The problem is the ill-defined buzz-word "fit." The question has to be asked "fit for what?" For example, in sickle-cell anemia, the E-volutionist would definitely affirm humans are more "fit"(defined as survivability) when blessed with sickle-cell because it grants survivability in a malarial environment and therefore the prospect of progeny. Creationists might have a more nuanced understanding of "fit," if they bother to define it at all.

Would a world in which highly-adapted bacteria destroy all mammalian life be a more "fit" world? Some would say "yes." Others, "no." Others would say "define fitness."

66 posted on 12/04/2012 8:55:48 AM PST by cookcounty ("For the first time in my adult life I am not proud of my country.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
Just wanted to add something toWould a world in which highly-adapted bacteria destroy all mammalian life be a more "fit" world?: "Would a world in which highly-adapted bacteria destroy all mammalian life be a more "fit" world?

A species can be more "fit" (as defined by the myopic E-vo) and yet signal degradation of the whole.

67 posted on 12/04/2012 9:04:41 AM PST by cookcounty ("For the first time in my adult life I am not proud of my country.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: metmom
See post 57 on this very thread to see an example of creationist belief in “de-evolution”.

Why, do you think such a position is so stupid that no creationist could possibly hold it? Are you going to go after that poster the way you do me? Say they don't believe in God maybe because they disagree with you? Ping all your buddies because you are afraid to debate by your poor little ol’ self?

68 posted on 12/04/2012 9:13:30 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
So the bacteria “de-evolved” the highly useful trait of antibacterial resistance then?

Or did God (ahem - the designer) have to intervene mysteriously in order for the antibiotic resistance to develop?

How do you explain how antibiotic resistance arises in a population?

69 posted on 12/04/2012 9:16:01 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Most Christians cannot tell the difference in the two different days of creation of flesh bodies for the souls/spirit to travel this flesh journey.

Christians like Paul the Apostle, for instance.

If Adam was not the first man, Christian theology makes no sense. If he was an allegory, you're worshipping a Creator who is descended from a fictional character.

70 posted on 12/04/2012 9:17:12 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Cigarettes are like squirrels: Perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and set it on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

If a dictator gave order to shoot all the blonde people in his country, and a few generations later there were fewer blonde people around, would that be evolution?


71 posted on 12/04/2012 9:20:37 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Cigarettes are like squirrels: Perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and set it on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I said “To deny that variation arises in non resistant populations due to incorrect use of antibiotics is idiotic and can only lead to the more rapid evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic strains of bacteria.”

You asked. “Who's denying that?”

So evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explains the development of antibiotic resistance?

Wow! What a useful and predictive theory!

As to variation in bacterial populations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

These experimenters took 12 IDENTICAL (in DNA) e. coli and tracked their changes since 1988. Some changes (variations that DID NOT EXIST in the original population) took place in all populations - adapting them to life in the petri dish; and other changes (variations that DID NOT EXIST in the original population) took place in only on population - notably the ability to metabolize citric acid.

So no need to take at face value my assertions that the idiotic idea that all useful variations must already exist somewhere in a population for it to come about has FAILED the test. Just a trifling need to educate yourself in the very basics of a field you have discussed for YEARS without availing yourself of even a basic education on the subject.

72 posted on 12/04/2012 9:31:48 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Christians like Paul the Apostle, for instance. If Adam was not the first man, Christian theology makes no sense. If he was an allegory, you're worshipping a Creator who is descended from a fictional character.

We are not given the names of those formed in Genesis 1:26. Where do you suppose the land of Nod was located wherein Cain found a wife? He had no sister yet, but he in short order found a mate.

This "The first man Adam was made a living soul;" was the first 'farmer' Genesis 2:5, and apparently it was already known the power of the devil to encourage, tempt us into sin, God already knew that this 'the first man Adam' would provide the blood line to Christ. Ever notice the control and care God Himself took to protect that blood line, in spite of what His children and the devil attempted to derail?

Hebrews 214 (also written by Paul) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This death sentence of that first rebel took place before this flesh age began.

Those flesh bodies described in Genesis were given dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

It sometimes does amaze me that people believe that God was so unclear in Genesis 1:26 He then has Moses write a total different creation of the Adam and even had the Adam name the farm animals he was given. Course there is the millennium to teach what the majority have been mistaught.

DNA hard cold science demonstrates that not all God's children could have come from only two people, and Genesis does in fact describe two different days of creation of flesh bodies wherein their soul/spirit were placed in them to make them alive.

73 posted on 12/04/2012 9:54:46 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"So the bacteria “de-evolved” the highly useful trait of antibacterial resistance then?

Exactly. It changed. Just as humans "de-volved" the highly useful trait of malarial resistance through sickle cell anemia. The end result is degradation of higher life forms, hence the term "devolution".

"Or did God (ahem - the designer) have to intervene mysteriously in order for the antibiotic resistance to develop?"

Maybe He did. Maybe He didn't. Maybe the Bible is right: Maybe physical corruption of the creation is related to the moral corruption of creation.

How do you explain how antibiotic resistance arises in a population?

Resistance existed in some of the bacterial organisms, somewhere, somehow. Otherwise, by definition, they'd all be dead. The ones that didn't have resistance died. You can't "develop resistance" in dead organisms. Anyway, are "more destructive parasites" the definition of fitness?"

And this is all beside the point, because it still doesn't explain how you got a brain. Which is what Big E-volution is supposed to explain. You don't need that brain to propagate (your definition of "fitness"), you could have easily done it as a bacterium. And a lot more prolifically.

74 posted on 12/04/2012 10:20:19 AM PST by cookcounty ("For the first time in my adult life I am not proud of my country.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; cookcounty
Courtesy pinging cookcounty as you were too inconsiderate to do so when disparaging him.

Why, do you think such a position is so stupid that no creationist could possibly hold it (devolution)?

Did I ever say that?

If you'd get out of your box for a few minutes and consider that when (if) God (a creator) created a perfect specimen, it would be perfect and front loaded to adapt to ANY environment. Would it be so much of a stretch to then conclude that traits not needed could be lost?

What is *stupid* about that? It sounds more feasible than all those little bacteria deciding to adjust themselves to adapt to new stress, although you don't seem to be willing to entertain where THAT capability came from.

Say they don't believe in God maybe because they disagree with you?

Where have I ever said that? For that matter where has ANYBODY said that/ Sounds more like the kind of extrapolation that scientists must engage in when they see varation within species and conclude macro-evolution.

Ping all your buddies because you are afraid to debate by your poor little ol’ self?

Projecting again? Who said I was afraid. Your imagining it reveals more about you than me.

75 posted on 12/04/2012 10:22:15 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
"If a dictator gave order to shoot all the blonde people in his country, and a few generations later there were fewer blonde people around, would that be evolution?

Bingo.

76 posted on 12/04/2012 10:23:13 AM PST by cookcounty ("For the first time in my adult life I am not proud of my country.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
"If a dictator gave orders to shoot all the blonde people in his country, and a few generations later there were fewer blonde people around, would that be evolution?"

-Either that, or "Unintelligent Design."

77 posted on 12/04/2012 10:25:24 AM PST by cookcounty ("For the first time in my adult life I am not proud of my country.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

*Useful and predictive*? For something common sense and an understanding of variation within species can indicate.

Nobody has to accept species to species macro evolution to understand variation within species.

And understanding that does not by default demand an acceptance of the ToE.

It means that an infinitely creative Creator programmed it into life when He created it.


78 posted on 12/04/2012 10:25:31 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Where do you suppose the land of Nod was located wherein Cain found a wife? He had no sister yet, but he in short order found a mate.

How do you know he had no sister? Do you expect the Bible to list EVERY descendent of Adam and Eve? Or did they only have three sons?

79 posted on 12/04/2012 10:28:38 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

-———If a dictator gave order to shoot all the blonde people -——

The question indicates your bias and ignorance.

It does however get to the nit of your ignorance. The procedure you describe is the basis for much of The Origin Of the Species. The process/procedure is Selection, man made selection and thus not natural selection, and thus not evolution. The process you describe is the same followed by breeders of plants and animals for thousands of years.

In the present if you observe carefully, it is used by dog breeders to produce yapping little psuedo-kids.


80 posted on 12/04/2012 10:32:05 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: metmom; allmendream; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; ...
*It just happened*? How scientific is that?

Sorta like Topsey, “it just growed”?

81 posted on 12/04/2012 10:38:41 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You seem to vacillate wildly between the idea that nobody is arguing against the idea that the bacteria evolved antibiotic resistance and the idea that the variation that would confer resistance had to be there, created by God, from the beginning.

Which is it?

In the case of the citric acid metabolizing e.coli - it was obviously NOT there from the beginning. How could it have evolved when it could only de-evolve? When evolution isn't scientific.

It seems obvious you don't understand variation within a population (species) when you presuppose (despite the evidence) that all variation had to be created from the beginning by God.

82 posted on 12/04/2012 10:54:39 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
But HOW did it change? That is the question.

Supposing that a god of the gaps had to mutate the bacteria for it to develop antibiotic resistance is a useless postulate, one that leads nowhere and to nothing, to no further discovery or useful application. And really, there is no need to invoke divine intervention when genetic variation created through error prone DNA polymerase and natural selection of that variation is both necessary and sufficient to explain this type of change.

Supposing that natural selection of (newly created) genetic variation is at work leads to the inescapable conclusion that one should finish their regimine of antibiotics rather than stop taking them once they feel better - and that one should not leave unused antibiotics on the shelf to age and self-prescribe. Once again showing how creationism is useless while science is of use.

Why do bacteria have a stress induced gene for error prone DNA polymerase? Because they need to “de-evolve” in response to stress?

And no, dead bacteria do not evolve - that is why subjecting bacteria to a stressful but not lethal dose of antibiotics - usually through improper use - is how resistant strains can arise.

83 posted on 12/04/2012 11:09:01 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

So, you’re saying that original sin was the devil’s, not Adam’s?

Look how many hoops you have to jump through to make Genesis 1 and 2 say what you need them to say rather than taking them as a macro view of the creation of the entire universe followed by a focus on Adam, Eve and the garden?


84 posted on 12/04/2012 11:27:00 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Cigarettes are like squirrels: Perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and set it on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
So, you’re saying that original sin was the devil’s, not Adam’s?

Not sure why this question. Adam blamed God and that woman for deliberately breaking the direct command from God. I consider the Garden Party illustrative of the condition we in flesh bodies have when it comes to our willingness to go along to get along.

Look how many hoops you have to jump through to make Genesis 1 and 2 say what you need them to say rather than taking them as a macro view of the creation of the entire universe followed by a focus on Adam, Eve and the garden?

I did not write these hoops. Usually students are instructed to read with comprehension, not inject their own ways of thinking. I did not write in Genesis 2:5 there was NO man to till the ground. Wonder why God would have the need after everything else He had Moses pen suddenly decide to inject that bit of information after everything else He had Moses write about what He had already done. Maybe there will be a pop quiz on judgment day, with the question 'have you never read'?

85 posted on 12/04/2012 11:35:01 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: bert

Oh my.

Boy, did you miss my point.

Try reading for comprehension and thinking about why I would bring that up in a disussion of antibiotic resistance instead of looking for a hook to hang and insult on, and maybe it will occur to you what my meaning was.


86 posted on 12/04/2012 11:57:03 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Cigarettes are like squirrels: Perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and set it on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom
Thus we see the HARM that your anti-science denial of reality can cause. People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Consider other biological organisms which afflict mammals. For example

Have you ever treated patients for any infection? And if not, would you please tell the readers of your post a little more regarding the, as you say, "idiot crationists", about this propounded infection which was the harmful results of their "idiocy". You seem to forcefully put forth the claim that evolution of microbes (better said to be mutations) is the reason and only reason which results in harm from the development of resistance to antiobiotic chemotherpy (antibiotic chemotherapy being an older term for antibiotic therapy). It seems that one would logically conclude from your remarks that antibiotics and antibiotics alone are the ultimate arbitor of whether or not HARM is the result of this mutation in an organism (bacterial). I was taught that there are many factors in HARM done by infectuous agents. For example people with AIDS can be infused with dangerously toxic doses of antibiotics to the patient but will not abate the symptoms and signs associated with one and a number of species of microbes which could cause everything from pneumonia, multiple abcesses, sepsis, or any of dozens of other types of diseases. The dosage of the antibiotic was not in question as to efficacy, so there must have been other factors than simply the concentration of the antibiotc in solution involved in some of the organisms remaining viable. I was taught that, depending on the antibiotic, it efficacy might depend upon the possible delay in administration of therapy, administration of suboptimal doses of the antimicrobial compound, alteration in the metabolic state of the patient, synergism with other antibiotics, secondary infections, medical or physiological processes of certain bacteria may act to interfer with the cidal or static effects of other concurently administered antibiotics. Then, of course, there are independent patients which have slightly different physiologies which may result in ineffectual antibiotic therapy. For example a patient who is in acidosis (for a number of reasons, renal failure, congestive heart failure, sepsis, many kinds of idiopathic dysrrhythmias, etc.) will result in certain antibiotics which whill not change to a bioavailable form which results in death of the said bacterial organism. Other host determinents would be age, genetic factors (i.e. Glucose 6-Phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency may result in indeterminate rate of inactivation of isoniazide, pregnancy and the placental/blood barrier, or the effect of the blood/brain barrier which prevents certain drugs to be available in cases of various types of bacterial encephalitis, or any of a plethora of concurrent diseases the patient has, atopic allergy, insufficiency of blood flow to affected areas, or the inability of many, many drugs to penetrate the relative alkaline fluids of the prostate gland making prostatis more difficult to treat, and with fewer available choices, or heptatic function or renal function which often inactivate the drugs within a pharmakodynamic bioavailable serum concentration curve. Virtually all, (not necessarily injection abcess sites) abcesses are specifically not treated singularly, or even preferentially, by antibiotic therapy. The treatment of choice is drainage of the abcess. The reason for this is that there is a sequestration of the microbe within a pocket of pus. I have seen abcesses as large as NFL footballs. Antibiotics will never treat, singularly, such infections. Even small 1 cm. abcesses will not be eradicated with antibiotcs alone. The acidity of the pus pocket and lack of blood suppy into the abcess pocket will not allow antibiotic penetration and thus cure.

Now I think what you referenced was the MISUSE of antibiotics which cause failure of treatment. These would include treatment of untreatalble infections, treatment of FUO, improper dosages and duration of treatment, treatment with antibiotics with omission of necessary surgical drainage, lack of bacteriological information (from sensitivity studies, serotype of microbe, and other causes. Having been on the front lines for 30+ years, reality, not theoretical, I will grant, have observed, and have treated MRSA and others. When I first started in surgery Serratia marcessensdid not cause disease in human (except in very rare opportunistic occasions), however, now, we see it not uncommonly in UTIs. Certain strains of Enterococcus, the likewise occurrances. We see more and more of it. I know you must laugh when you read of the the flesh-eating bacteria. Fascitis has been around for millenia. But, the fact is that it does occur from time to time. Nosocomial infections are becomming more and more a problem and will become worse with cutbacks in payment Part B medicare payments. Research in study of mutations research as regards to microbes will likewise be receiving much less mony. I look for pharmaceuticals to cut way back in R & R over the next few years. You know, Maggie Thatchers remarks that the problem with socialism is that very soon the socialist run out of other peoples money. Mutation, transduction, transformation, bacterial conjugation are all valid areas of research and study.

Consider other biologicals which cause disease in man and mammals. The helminths are considerable in their devastation in certain areas of the world. Loa loa, Cestoda species, Lumbricoides species, Clonorchis species, Fasciola species, even amoebic infestations are cases in point. Thirty years ago, there were no more than 2 or 3 drugs use in ranching to kill various intestinal tapeworms and some external parasites such as lice and horn flies. Many of those parasites developed a tolerence to those drugs and are now completely ineffective. We have gone from piperazine which was effective in the '50s and are not completely ineffective. We now use Ivermectine or Novamectine or Cydectine. These are completely different drugs, in completely different classes of drusgs than the piperazine or thiobendazole. Yet, the organism, Taenia sagginatum remains the same species. Same species of worm, resistant to above drugs, now remain the exact same species of organims Taenia sagginatum. The same could be said of the 'evolution' of the beef (and human) liver fluke worm, Fasciola hepaticushaving evolved to Fasciola hepaticus. I could continue to speak on these mutations of other species, Clonorchis, Ascaris, Diphillobothum, Necator (hookworm) Enterobius (pinworms), or even ectoparasits of the order Siphoptera, or the malarial organisms, Plasmodium or even Leishmonia organism or amoebic species. The point is they all adapt to their challanges, but they stay the same species. I know you already know this, but you do not factor it into your colloquy, but rather move to the pejorative. You might even look at a book entitled, The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease look up the myriad diseases caused genetic or acquired deficiencies in enzyme systems in certain people. Lesch-Nyhan Disease is a particularly heinous condition, but incredibly interesting and due to a single genetic deficiency of an enzyme, hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase. I will not describe the manifest pathology. But I could point to carbohydrate metabolism deficiencies, Proteing metabolism deficiencies, Lipid metabolism deficiencies, Steroid metabolic deficiencies, Purine and Pyramidine metabolic deficiencies, and that of poyphyrines, connective tissue, those of blood born metabolic disease such as siclkle-cell, hereditary spherocytosis, thallacemias, and others all which have one singular thing in common. They all are due to mutations and they all 'evoloved' from Homo sapien to Homo sapien. They, all such afflicted, are human beings. Not Homo noeticus or another homo species. Maybe things are not always as crystialline in the nouminal world as they are in our minds. Just food for thought.

But don't you think it is a little harsh to reference the creationists as idiots. It tells me more about your mindset than theirs noetic ability. It does seem unkind and unnecessary. Your 'coda' seems unnecessary also. May I ask why you do that? I think Mormons are in theological error, but I would not be ugly to them simply because I felt they were in error. I would press my case, make my argument, but not be pejorative. What is the good in that? I look forward to read your reply.

I still wish for you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

I will tell you a story. I reread my post and in the next-to-last paragraph, referencing you declaration of creationists being idiots, I mistyped the word as, idyiotes, which I am sure would have resulted in your declaring proof of your claim regarding creationsists, even though you do not know whether or not I am a creationists. No doubt you would have declared it an "Act of God" and proclaimed victory.

Well, anyway, I thought it was humorous. Have a great day.

87 posted on 12/04/2012 11:59:48 AM PST by Texas Songwriter ( i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Not sure why this question.

Um...so, you don't see that humans choosing to sin in the beginning is crucial to Christian theology?

And you're saying it's impossible that Genesis 1 is a macro and Genesis 2 is a retelling of Day 6?

Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

Occam's razor is not friendly to the hypothesis you're advancing.

88 posted on 12/04/2012 12:07:36 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Cigarettes are like squirrels: Perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and set it on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
You stated that...

“Creationists DO NOT believe in stasis, as evidenced by the fact that all of them (or at least the Christian ones) believe that the various races of man differentiated from a single pair of individuals over recent time. In fact, you could say that Creationists believe in rapid De-volution, that is the rapid degeneration of the biosphere.”

Considering that Northern European populations have pale skin due to inactivation (de-evolution) of genes for dark skin, and lactose tolerance due to inactivation (de-evolution) of the control element that would lead to inactivation of the lactase gene after infancy - wouldn't the logical conclusion be that Norther European populations are de-evolved Africans? That the more perfect state of humanity designed by God was dark skin and lactose intolerance?

Not that there is anything wrong with that - but what do you think of that consequence of your paradigm whereby every evolutionary change is a change AWAY FROM what was originally designed by God - and thus de-evolutionary?

Do you consider Northern Europeans to be a de-evolved example of the more perfect African state of humanity designed by God?

Why not?

89 posted on 12/04/2012 12:14:18 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
You stated that...

“Creationists DO NOT believe in stasis, as evidenced by the fact that all of them (or at least the Christian ones) believe that the various races of man differentiated from a single pair of individuals over recent time. In fact, you could say that Creationists believe in rapid De-volution, that is the rapid degeneration of the biosphere.”

Considering that Northern European populations have pale skin due to inactivation (de-evolution) of genes for dark skin, and lactose tolerance due to inactivation (de-evolution) of the control element that would lead to inactivation of the lactase gene after infancy - wouldn't the logical conclusion be that Norther European populations are de-evolved Africans? That the more perfect state of humanity designed by God was dark skin and lactose intolerance?

Not that there is anything wrong with that - but what do you think of that consequence of your paradigm whereby every evolutionary change is a change AWAY FROM what was originally designed by God - and thus de-evolutionary?

Do you consider Northern Europeans to be a de-evolved example of the more perfect African state of humanity designed by God?

Why not?

90 posted on 12/04/2012 12:14:18 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: metmom
How do you know he had no sister? Do you expect the Bible to list EVERY descendent of Adam and Eve? Or did they only have three sons?

We are not told how old Cain was when he killed his twin. Had to be at least at the age of accountability. The reading is that Cain was forced away from home, the ground was cursed to him. There is no mention of taking his sister with him, yet, Cain did find a mate in the land of Nod.

Given what we are told in Genesis 1:26 and the amount of time that passed until the formation of the Adam there would have been quite a population of hunter gathers. That is exactly what the history books describe, time before agriculture. Although once word gets out that the Bible also describes a time of hunter/gathers before agriculture they will most likely have to rewrite history.

91 posted on 12/04/2012 12:14:54 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
You seem to vacillate wildly between the idea that nobody is arguing against the idea that the bacteria evolved antibiotic resistance and the idea that the variation that would confer resistance had to be there, created by God, from the beginning.

No, you misunderstand.

I am not saying it evolved antibiotic resistance. I'm saying it was already there and was expressed under the right conditions.

Do try to keep up and don't let your rabid disdain of non-evolutionary thought blind you so much. It's impeding your reading comprehension.

92 posted on 12/04/2012 12:52:55 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; cookcounty

Are you presuming the de-evolution is equivalent to the deterioration of a species, as opposed to merely a loss of some information instead of a gain in it?

Do you presume that loss of information makes for an inferior species as opposed to simply a different one?


93 posted on 12/04/2012 1:00:47 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The way to illustrate it is that you can eventually breed a poodle from two original wolves,
but you can’t breed “back” to a wolf from two poodles.


94 posted on 12/04/2012 1:02:40 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I don’t think he’ll get it.
It is contrary to his pre-suppositional framework.


95 posted on 12/04/2012 1:03:36 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
I don’t read anything by anyone who doesn’t know when to say “bacteria” and when to say “bacterium.”

Who you try'n to impress "Mr. Speller"? You read the article and ya know damn well ya did......so stop trying to impress us with your superior intellect.

If you can't hang with us drop-outs then move over to the mensa site.......sheesh!

96 posted on 12/04/2012 1:10:14 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (Jab her with a harpoon.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Um...so, you don't see that humans choosing to sin in the beginning is crucial to Christian theology?

To some Christianity is a reality, others a theology. The Adam gets much grief for his sin. Yes, he is the first recorded sinner of this flesh age. However, the greater sin committed by the devil took place in what Peter calls the world that was. Adam's flesh is what died, there is no record that he was damned to hell to be destroyed from within forever for his sin. Whereas, the devil has already been judged to death before this flesh age was set into motion. (Genesis 1:3)

And you're saying it's impossible that Genesis 1 is a macro and Genesis 2 is a retelling of Day 6? Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?

Again I did not write Genesis. The Heavenly Father elected Moses who was born long after the events of the creation story. So what Moses put down until he was educated enough to write his own biography would have come directly from the Heavenly Father.

The first time I heard about DNA and what it could tell about a person, I knew there was no way that all peoples could come from only two people. I see the need to macro Genesis 1 and 2 child's play, as if God did not know what He had Moses pen. Even worldly history describes the time of hunter/gathers before agriculture became a recognized method of livelihood. What is the big deal with God saying to His children He created on the 6th day they were hunter/gathers with dominion over the earth's creatures designated and then He rested the 7th day stating after that 'day', there was no man to till the ground? Was God confused about what He had created or maybe just maybe He knew exactly what He was saying, knowing full well there would be plenty of Adam's coming down through the generations who choose to ignore His time line.

Occam's razor is not friendly to the hypothesis you're advancing.

Occam nor his razor is mentioned in the whole of the Bible by name or instrument.

97 posted on 12/04/2012 1:11:05 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And the example of the citric acid metabolizing e.coli?

It was most certainly NOT “already there” and I am keeping up just fine, I didn't misunderstand you at all.

You say “evolution” but what you mean is that the variation was there from the beginning.

That is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Hideously wrong. Such a supposition is not only ignorant; it is dangerous.

If the antibiotic resistance was “already there” then an infected person either has the resistant strain or they do not; and there is no danger that their sloppy compliance with taking their antibiotics will lead to antibiotic resistant arising in the population.

So can you read and understand the e.coli evidence you asked for? It is obvious you did not. But then again if you let evidence change your opinion; you wouldn't be a creationist.

98 posted on 12/04/2012 1:22:15 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So do you consider Norther European populations to have had a “loss of information” during their de-evolution from the more perfect state of humanity created by God, a black skinned lactose intolerant African?

Why not?

And deterioration was the word used by the poster I was responding to - I don't buy into it for a second - just engaging using the language and explaining the consequences of the paradigm presented. Not that there is anything wrong with that! ;)

If all change is “de-evolutionary” and a “deterioration” caused by sin in the world - well the evidence is that Norther Europeans, with non working copies of dark skin genes - are more visibly “deteriorated” than Africans - and if there is a perfect condition of humanity as designed by God - that condition is black skin.

99 posted on 12/04/2012 1:31:59 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: MrB
A creationist criticizing someone for a pre-suppositional framework?!?!?

That is really funny!

100 posted on 12/04/2012 1:34:57 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson