Posted on 02/28/2011 12:05:32 PM PST by SeekAndFind
So your argument is now reduced to that if we try to explain ANYTHING by natural means we have to explain everything that way and become atheist anarchists?
Thanks for the source though. That was amusing!
For example, the antibiotic that targeted ribosomes...
leading to mutated ribosomes that were antibiotic resistant.
Again I ask, did human consciousness ultimately from mindlessness? ...without design?
From the source:
Penicillinase existed, and antibiotic-resistance existed, before we even started using antibiotics.
My argument is that teaching that the Earth circles the Sun is insufficient if you do not include the theory of gravity that explains it, and a million other things, including how planets and stars form.
One need not look at gravity as a “story of origins”, even though to use it to explain reality as we see it, how things fall, etc. It is the only scientific explanation.
Similarly, teaching that bacteria can develop resistance is insufficient if you do not include the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation that explains it, and a million other things, including the common descent of species.
One need not look at evolution as a “story of origins”, to use it to explain antibiotic resistance, directed evolution of industrial enzymes, why there is a gene for error prone DNA polymerase, and why it is expressed during stress.
Right now stars are forming off in space through gravity and nuclear fusion, they are as much created by God as our own Sun. Did God not create our own Sun if gravity and nuclear fusion were responsible?
I was created via cellular processes involving DNA, but I was also created “from dust” by God and “to dust” I will return, save for my eternal soul which is from God and which shall (I pray) return to God.
Penicillin is ALSO a natural compound produced by a fungus. So of course there was a natural resistance present.
When Penicillin is “modified” by humans to create a novel antibiotic that Penicillinase cannot bind to - it works like gangbusters even against Penicillin resistant bacteria - then suddenly there appears a modified (via mutation) Penicillinase that DOES bind to it.
Ribosome antibiotic leads to mutated ribosomes among antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Ribosomes existed before we started using antibiotics.
Doesn't make evolution any less the explanation for how resistance to the antibiotic that attacks ribosomes came about.
Definitely. And even some blacks owned slaves. As did some American Indians.
No, I’m not arguing that change didn’t occur in response to the environment, I’m arguing that all the genes for color expression were already there and the populations selected for those colors in response to the environment. If the genes were already present, then it’s not evolution in the greater sense of the word.
It is natural selection of genetic variation. That is the theory, and that is the result.
You forgot Robert Byrd.
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Shouldn’t they have all evolved by now?
I'm just curious as to where all the other animals that todays species evolved from are now.
Why would they evolve? Mastodons and saber tooth tigers running around . . .
Of all the different species that evolved, which ones have the species they evolved from still around? You'd think there would be a lot . . .
Over 99% of all the species described are currently extinct.
RE: Evolution explains it. That is what it has to do with it.
Evolution MIGHT (emphasis) be an explanation. But is it the ONLY reasonable explanation? THAT has always been my argument as a sceptic.
First, what is the source of the information in the first instance? Given that there is no detailed evolutionary history for the mechanisms in question (and certainly not a history that plausibly operates without input from an intelligent agent), then the mechanisms and the current functions they perform cannot operate as evidence for the evolutionary story. Otherwise, we come periously close to the precipice of tautology.
Second, it is precisely this plasticity in the term “evolution” (e.g., macroevolution, microevolution, population dynamics, changes in allele frequency, etc.) that tempts many proponents to claim that observations on one far end of the spectrum are evidence for conclusions at the other end of the spectrum.
We ought to be suspicious of a use of the term “evolution” that is so broad as to virtually encompass “all things biological.” If this is so, the previous lament ( see previous post several hours before this one ) that something explains everything that it explains nothing will apply.
Once we get to that broad of a definition, it loses all explanatory power and, as a result, the term can be completely jetisoned from most discussions and analyses of biological systems with no loss.
I believe you have some good insights and thoughts about the question of antibiotic resistance. As concerns this particular thread, however, I believe that antibiotic resistance on one end of the spectrum is not evidence for broad-scale macroevolution at the other end of the spectrum.
May be I could provide some insight in bacterial resistance from IT point of view. We can imagine bacteria as single instance of our own computer workstation. Actually you can map all the software on your disk in single string of bits. So what is resistance to drugs actually are similar mechanisms of antivirus programms.
There is no big difference between antibiotics and computer viruses which both tend to destroy some parts of the cell (system). So antivirus programs acquire those “dns parts” to incorporate into it’s own DNS (write on the disk) so to gain resistance against these antybiotics. Ofcourse I imagine that celluar mechanisms are much much more complex and much more clever.
But can we call it Darwinian evolution? Too premature for me at this point to conclude one way or the other.
Some quick points:
- The same objective standards that you say apply to creationism should also apply to evolutionary theory. The problem is that evolutionary theory has become a religion to the point that the “science” behind it is no longer objective and the scientists that hold fast to its teachings cannot tolerate truth (similar to the religion of climatism).
- All theories should be, as you say, “testable by the methods of science”. What about evolutionary theory is testable (and I’m not talking about adaption; real, hardcore evolutionary theory, as admitted by Darwin, seeks to explain the origin of life apart from a Creator - you have quite obviously drank the coolaid)?
- I certainly was not saying that NAS endorses creationism (quite the opposite), which proves my point that creationism is a religion that excludes all objective thought.
- If the fact that eclipses of our sun and moon that we observe from earth are unlike any others in the universe, or the improbability of the elements to support life all exist on Earth, do not even give pause (not prove, but provide evidence) that there is something special about our solar system, and the fact that you resort to personal attacks rather than objective debate based on the facts, says to me there is little hope that you could ever come close to comprehending the majesty of creation. Too bad!
Therefore, I rest my case - it would be useless to continue discussing objective science with a religious fanatic. Besides, those who are truly looking for answers and those who already know the answer but needed some encouragement have seen the difference between objectivity and religion.
You are the one talking common descent.
I am speaking of evolution of antibiotic resistance due to natural selection of genetic variation.
One need not presume that the Sun and Earth were formed by gravity (in contradiction of the notion that they were instantaneously created using miraculous means) to note that off in the universe - planets and stars form via gravity.
One need not presume that all species are related via common descent to note that antibiotic resistance comes about through natural selection of genetic variation.
You want to call it “micro” evolution - but you cannot seem to explain it any other way than through the theory that Darwin described - natural selection of genetic variation.
Isn’t Darwinian evolution : “descent with modification”?
Let’s not talk about astronomy just yet, but antibiotic resistance.
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.”
I will concede the word “demonstration”, but for me, the word CLEAR is too premature.
Analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution.
Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.
Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated. Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution.
These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion.
The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities. Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change. NOT YET.
A quick test for evolutionary religious zealots:
- How many DNA pairs are in the human genome?
- How many of those human DNA pairs differ from those of a chimp?
- How long would it take for a human to evolve from a chimp, assuming the necessary DNA mutations take place in exactly the right sequence, without any mistakes, and at the rate that is survivable.
Well that doesn't answer my question really.
It kind of proves my point.
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.