Evolutionists Couldn’t Have Been More Wrong About Antibiotic Resistance

Proslogion ^ | Dec. 15, 2016 | Dr. Jay Wile

[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.

[central_va]

Anti-science, really? I have two engineering bachelors degrees as such I have studied science in a formal university environment. It seems more and more questioning evolution causes really strange reaction in the evolutionist. Both are religions.

How about anti silly science.

Here is the crossover species you are referring too? I am not buying it

According to Tim White, it is probable that Rhodesian Man was the ancestor of Homo sapiens idaltu (Herto Man), which itself was the ancestor of Homo sapiens sapiens.[25] The skull has cavities in ten of the upper teeth and is considered one of the oldest known occurrences of cavities. Pitting indicates significant infection before death and implies that the cause of death may have been due to dental disease infection or possibly chronic ear infection.[7]

[reasonisfaith]

If evolution is false, I would expect its believers to have no answer to the question I asked in posts 158, 160, 170, and 174. No answers have been given.

If you give me the answer in a post, it will save you from having to repost links or references to links.

If you don’t know what’s in the links you provide, you should read and understand them before posting.

[reasonisfaith]

What we have is a broader, general advantage (normal reproduction) being exchanged for a narrower, specific advantage (antibiotic resistance).

Wild type => normal reproduction

mutated (antibacterial resistant) => slowed reproduction

[discostu]

I gave lots of answers. Those links are the answers. I know EXACTLY what is in those links: the answers to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS. Saying I didn’t answer is quite simply lying.

[discostu]

Degrees don’t make you smart, or able to comprehend simple science. And the fact that I SHOWED you a crossover species and you’ve decided all by yourself that it isn’t proves you are the one with the closed mind. Thanks for playing, you lost.

[central_va]

Look at that skull. Look at a modern skull. There should be 7 or 8 iterations between the two.

It is you that is closed minded. The problem is that evolutionists bought off on the naming of individual species. They should have stopped at family and said all members of the cat family for instance, are the same but at different stages of evolution. By dividing and naming each individual species the smooth transition that evolution requires is undercut.

Forget species, the evolutionists cannot even explain how the very first bacteria/single cell organisms/virus came about. Which ever one you "feel" came first.

[discostu]

It’s not supposed to look like a modern skull, it’s NOT A MODERN SKULL. Here again we see the anti-science approach, you demand something that is actually the exact opposite of what should be expected, and insist the science is wrong for not providing this completely silly thing.

All the members of the cat family are NOT the same but at different stages of evolution. Once again you show you know nothing about the science.

And evolution does NOT require a smooth transition, in fact it points over and over to fazed transitions with fits and starts. So you’re again living in that familiar territory of the closed minded: outright lying about the other side, and claiming their ACTUAL evidence makes you right.

First life isn’t evolution, it’s abiogensis, a different science. Related but different. Might as well complain they can’t describe plate tectonics. So you’re 4 for 4 on completely unreasonable demands that show only how little you actually know.

[reasonisfaith]

Name the seven species that came right before the raccoon in the evolutionary tree. That’s it, just seven of them.

[central_va]

What you are saying is gooblygook.

Just present me a scenario where Homo Erectus morphs(evolves) into Homo Sapien. Speculate and use as much conjecture as you want. Just tell me how it could of happened. How long it takes. Don't worry about the facts per say as their is currently no fossil evidence, just make it up. Plausibility is all I am asking for.

[discostu]

No. I’m done with your stupid high school BS. I’ve answered more of your questions than you deserve, you’ve resumed not actually bothering to discuss things, reverted to pure stupid question spam. So clearly we both know you’re wrong. We’re done.

[discostu]

Once again you’re making up your own version of Evolution and demanding I defend it. It’s your version YOU defend it.

[central_va]

Um. So you can't envision the smooth transition from Homo Erectus to Home Sapien. You are not alone, I can't either.

It appears then your mind can't deal with the theoretical inconsistency present so you lash out and call me unscientific. Screw you a$$hole.

[discostu]

Since there wasn’t one why would I envision it? The evolutionary theory has homo erectus spawn off a different species, which then spawned off a couple of other and THOSE became homo sapien, meanwhile an unchanged section of homo erectus hung around doing nothing terribly exciting until they went extinct.

It appears that your mind made a bunch of crap up and now you insult me because even you can see that the crap you made up doesn’t make any damn sense. I would tell you to screw yourself but since this whole thing has been an exercise in mental masturbation on your part it would be redundant.

[reasonisfaith]

We can’t be done if you think “we both know you’re wrong.”

[reasonisfaith]

Maybe I am wrong, though. If that’s the case, I’d like to replace my wrong information with the correct facts.

[discostu]

The use google. Or buy a freaking high school text book. Because all the answers to your “what’s the species before ____” can be found by anybody that’s not a moron.

[reasonisfaith]

With that in mind, please give me the name of one species for which there is a known species that preceded it and one that came after it in the evolutionary process.

Just one.

And the replacement of my wrong ideas can proceed from there.

[reasonisfaith]

I’ve used google. I’ve checked your links. I’ve read about this stuff since I was five.

None of them provide answers to my questions.

What I want is evidence that the progression of species is describable in genetic terms, and that the genetic changes conveying speciation are well described. This would be evidence of evolution.

The “tree” only shows cartoon drawings.

[discostu]

I told you, I’ve answered enough of your stupid dare questions. Click ANY of those links I already gave you. They ALL answer that. Or look up human evolution. Or just stop being a pathetic waste of flesh.

[reasonisfaith]

And for it to be adequate evidence of evolution, the genetically described transition of species would have to be available for all or most known species, and it would have to include many multiple transitions for each along the trajectory of evolution.