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 ...
Compared to Christianity the number of "miracles" in the theory of evolution is staggering.
You still believe in ‘evolution’? Evolution is a fairy tale/tail denying the Creator His due. He keeps the only perfect record since the beginning... a b i o g e n s i s... and it was NOT one cell getting all hot and bothered and reproducing its self. God ‘spoke’ and it was ‘formed/created’.
It seems like you’re hiding behind links and other references.
Don’t you think it would be good if we were able to discuss—openly on this forum so others could see it—the known transitional species and how they demonstrate evolution?
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that... the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."
Creation paragraphs 14 and 15 on page 59
Actually there’s TONS of fossil evidence for that happening, that’s where all those names for the species come from. THE EVIDENCE.
No it isn’t. Darwin felt that it proved the greatness of God, the fact that it was a self correcting, self improving system that could handle basically any change or oddness to him spoke of omniscience. The only people who think science belittles God are stupid people who think the Bible is a science text.
Not hiding at all. Just don’t feel like asking 4000 versions of the same stupid question. At some point you need to just man up, admit you’ve been proven wrong, and educate yourself. And if you won’t do that there’s no reason for me to keep spitting in the wind.
I’d LOVE to be able to discuss transitional species. But you won’t. You just keep asking variations of the same question. That’s not discussion. If you want to discuss it great, go to one of those links I already gave, read up on the various species in that branch, come back and we’ll discuss.
Oh look a Swedish liar. Cute. Anybody that says there are not transitional species is quite simply a liar. The ENTIRE fossil record are transitional species. WE’RE hopefully a transitional species. That’s how evolution works, you’re either on the path to something else, or a dead end bound for extinction.
Maybe I don’t understand the definition of transitional species.
What are they? Please give the answer concisely, explicitly and visibly in your post without any links.
Depends on who you ask I suppose. On the creationist side it’s a convenient goal post that can always be shifted, for them every time we find a species that goes in between 2 other species that means we suddenly need to find 2 more transition species (one to get from the first one to the new find, and one to get from the new find to the second). They like that since it’s an unending source of “but”, if we found those other species they’d demand even MORE transition species. An unsatisfiable question is fun for people who are afraid of being wrong, it’s not really good logic, but they’re not into logic.
For people who actually get the science a transition species is anything that goes between two others. So with H. antecessor being between H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis that makes H. antecessor a transition. And of course H. heidelbergensis is also a transition because he gets us to H. rhodesiensis, who is also a transition since he’s part of that very last step to US homo sapiens. And hopefully we’re a transition to something else, because the only things that don’t get to be transition species are dead ends. And that would kind of suck.
For H. antecessor, is the genotype causing the differences in phenotype between it and H. erectus mapped out?
So that I can learn more, I would also like to know what are the specific genotype differences causing the transition in phenotype between H. antecessor and H. heidelbergensis.
Don’t know, not my field. Take it to Google.
With all respect to you and your beliefs, I would like to put forth my belief that evidence for evolution must necessarily include the transitional species’ genotype corresponding with their phenotype.
Well then check the googles. I know there’s problems getting whole DNA sequences from fossilized remains. And of course there’s the problem of fully sequencing the DNA which we haven’t done yet. New science makes new discoveries which then makes us re-examine old evidence. Science evolves too. Knowledge evolves. EVERYTHING evolves.
Until they go extinct.
Everything goes extinct eventually, the question is did it spawn the next wave first. Just like how we all die, but we can breed or do other things to make the world a better place first.
What I meant was that it’s true science evolves as you point out, but these ideas often go extinct.
They change a lot, they don’t tend to go extinct. Not since the age of humors and phlogiston. We know from the fossil record that the species that are on the planet weren’t always, and most of the stuff that was on the planet isn’t anymore. And we can see phased process to get from many of those old species to what we have now. The base evidence of evolution is undeniable and obvious, the only real question is the specifics.
You’re forgetting one important detail: no evidence establishing evolution has ever been observed.
I hope someone with access to such evidence and the ability to post it in plain sight will join in this discussion.
I believe the reason such a post has not yet been made is due to evolutionists having close to zero real confidence in their beliefs.
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.