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

Skip to comments.

Evolutionists Couldn’t Have Been More Wrong About Antibiotic Resistance
Proslogion ^ | Dec. 15, 2016 | Dr. Jay Wile

Posted on 12/16/2016 2:27:06 PM PST by fishtank

Evolutionists Couldn’t Have Been More Wrong About Antibiotic Resistance

Dec. 15, 2016

A colony of bacteria similar to the one analyzed in the study being discussed. (click for credit) A colony of bacteria similar to the one analyzed in the study being discussed. (click for credit) Back when I went to university, I was taught (as definitive fact) that bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotics as a result of the production of antibiotics. This was, of course, undeniable evidence for the fact that new genes can arise through a process of mutation and natural selection. Like most evolution-inspired ideas, however, the more we learned about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the more we learned that there was a problem.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.drwile.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antibiotics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-225 next last
To: reasonisfaith

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42


141 posted on 12/18/2016 11:30:44 AM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: discostu

No, I still want few words. And I want them from you. Providing a link is fine, but I would like to know that you understand what is in the link.

Again, please be concise. Make real, logical connections with your words.

If speciation is true, there will be both fossils and living species consistent with expected results of evolution.

Tell me if you understand what I mean by “expected results.”


142 posted on 12/18/2016 11:35:41 AM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

No.

All you do is ask stupid questions. You can’t even be bothered to put forth anything you think, any facts, any logic.

So the answer is NO.

If you want to DISCUSS it, then we can DISCUSS IT. But you asking stupid questions isn’t a discussion, that’s just you asking stupid questions hoping for a chance to yell gotcha. And I ain’t playin. So if your next post is nothing more than stupid questions don’t bother. Actually SAY something, or bugger off. I don’t care which.


143 posted on 12/18/2016 11:38:20 AM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: discostu

If speciation is true, there will be both fossils and living species consistent with expected results of evolution.


144 posted on 12/18/2016 11:44:19 AM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

And there are. Basically the ENTIRE fossil record and EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET are the expected results of speciation.


145 posted on 12/18/2016 11:48:46 AM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: discostu

If speciation exists, each observable species will have a known and observable very similar but different species. The trajectory of speciation dictates this.

But it simply is not found. Not just for dogs, cats, horses, tapirs or platypus. It is not found for any species. Completely obliterates any possibility evolution is true.


146 posted on 12/18/2016 11:53:32 AM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

It is totally found. Have you never bothered to look at the biological tree of life?

Oh wait, I already know your answer, you remain unconvinced. Meanwhile, out here in reality, where the facts live, speciation is real, and exactly that evidence exists.


147 posted on 12/18/2016 11:59:27 AM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: discostu

If dogs were preceded by another species (call it species a) that evolved into dogs, then species a would have been preceded by species b, and species b by c, c by d, d by e, and so on for as many species as there are successful groups or sets of morphological changes. Species a and species b would have to be very similar, as would species d and e, f and g, q and r, and so on.

The number of these species required if evolution is true is exponentially higher than the number of species observed.

There is no such species a, or b, c, d, e, etc for dogs. Not to mention for ostriches, sharks, chipmunks, wolverines, gila monsters or any other. No species is associated with anything even close to the trajectory of species assumed by the theory of speciation.


148 posted on 12/18/2016 12:09:34 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: discostu

If dogs were preceded by another species (call it species a) that evolved into dogs, then species a would have been preceded by species b, and species b by c, c by d, d by e, and so on for as many species as there are successful groups or sets of morphological changes. Species a and species b would have to be very similar, as would species d and e, f and g, q and r, and so on.

The number of these species required if evolution is true is exponentially higher than the number of species observed.

There is no such species a, or b, c, d, e, etc for dogs. Not to mention for ostriches, sharks, chipmunks, wolverines, gila monsters or any other. No species is associated with anything even close to the trajectory of species assumed by the theory of speciation.


149 posted on 12/18/2016 12:09:34 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Like everyone I know and everyone you know I was introduced to the “biological tree of life” as a very young child, and have been reminded of it often throughout the years. Back then I was just as curious as any other boy about things such as this.

In those days I used to play with a boy my age, we were around 3 or 4 at the time. He would come over to my house, we would play for several hours and then we would fight and he would go home. Once in a while I think of this boy.

Who knows. Maybe, by some fantastic twist of fate, you are that same boy, now grown, meeting me here on this forum. If so, I would very much like to apologize to you for my pugnacious inclination so many years ago. Let our friendship go on and the bad behavior be left behind.


150 posted on 12/18/2016 12:24:16 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Yes there are. I know you’re not convinced, but if you actually bothered to understand taxonomy and how we figure out animals are related to each other you’d see that EVERYTHING you insist isn’t there, is.


151 posted on 12/18/2016 12:37:38 PM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

The only one fighting is you. At least you finally started making statements that can be part of a discussion. They’re wrong statements, but wrong statements are better than stupid questions.

Meanwhile if you bothered to understand the tree of life you’d see that it provides everything you think speciation would demand. It proves you wrong.


152 posted on 12/18/2016 12:39:15 PM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: discostu

I just haven’t seen a single transitional species. Much less the billions (or trillions) of transitional species that are necessary to demonstrate evolution.


153 posted on 12/18/2016 12:41:53 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: discostu

if you have faith, there is no reason


154 posted on 12/18/2016 12:43:16 PM PST by Thibodeaux (Exile Barack, Exile the Wookie, Exile Malia, Exile Shasha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

That’s because you choose not to. The entire fossil record is transition species. Again, if you’d bother to understand the Tree, and the taxonomy that built it, you’d see that everything you demand as evidence is there.


155 posted on 12/18/2016 12:44:31 PM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Thibodeaux

That’s the scariest concept in the world. Reason is absolutely necessary for ALL.


156 posted on 12/18/2016 12:48:00 PM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: discostu

-——Reason is absolutely necessary for ALL.——

Now that’s a joke. Fundamentalist Moslems have no reason whatsoever. Faith guides and rules


157 posted on 12/18/2016 4:39:02 PM PST by Thibodeaux (Exile Barack, Exile the Wookie, Exile Malia, Exile Shasha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Given your strong words I assume you understand “the Tree.” If you do, then you can explain at least some of it. My inquiry will be very small, probably less than one millionth of the total knowledge this tree should provide.

Which species does “the Tree” tell us preceded dogs? Which preceded cats?

Camels?

Giraffes?

Lampreys?

White-tailed deer?

Koalas?

Please be as specific as you can. If you don’t give answers, I will assume either you don’t understand “the Tree” or the tree doesn’t do what you say it does.


158 posted on 12/18/2016 4:51:24 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
you are just grossly ignorant.

Read the Stephen J Gould books that are a study of his work and other scholars. You should especially read Wonderful Life, the Burgess Shale and the nature of History.

Although I suspect you have a closed mind beyond salvation of enlightenment Wonderful Life is the place to begin.


159 posted on 12/18/2016 5:01:02 PM PST by Thibodeaux (Exile Barack, Exile the Wookie, Exile Malia, Exile Shasha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Thibodeaux

If my questions are that difficult, how about just one then? Can I get an answer?

Here goes. Which species preceded the common field mouse in the trajectory of evolution?


160 posted on 12/18/2016 5:24:13 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-225 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