Explain why there are no fossils of a half homo-erectus, half homo-sapien? Explain why there is no transition species? There is a huge difference between the two and no explanation, evolution itself requires a smooth transition to be viable.
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 ...
Your assertion sounds very basic and I have no disagreement with it.
“I never stated precisely that his premise is false; rather, I stated that you won’t find such teaching in scientific circles. But surely there have been exceptions. “
Here is what you stated:
“The political narrative derives primarily from pop culture, which is formed by and includes the misleading and false narrative in the media. Certainly in the media we find widespread implication that antibiotic resistance evolves directly from human use of antibiotics.”
You say the media narrative (that antibiotic resistance evolves directly from human use of antibiotics) is misleading and false. That is Dr Wile’s premise.
With regard to proving evolution, evolution can be defined as changes in gene frequency as the result of selective pressure. Placing a culture of bacteria in a medium with an antibiotic (a strong selective pressure) results in changes in gene frequency, such that bacteria containing antibiotic resistant genes increase and those without decrease. That is evolution.
But my assertion that evolution is an imagined process that has never been observed stands.
From Darwin until now the big picture of evolutionary theory paints a picture of one species changing into another.
It is an imagined and unobserved process.
“From Darwin until now the big picture of evolutionary theory paints a picture of one species changing into another. It is an imagined and unobserved process.”
I will agree that it has not been observed since it happens over a very long time frame. I prefer to call evolution a theory rather than an “imagined process”. The fact that bacterial populations undergo a simple form of evolution makes the theory plausible.
Although one of the many things that makes evolution theory implausible is as follows.
The change in gene frequency you referenced earlier is a continuous series of very small changes. If speciation is true, it must be a trajectory formed by these changes. The changes occur a single locus at a time. Along the path of this trajectory, there is no distinction between species.
But all available real world examples of species show drastic differences between each of them. These large differences correspond with huge numbers of genes.
So what we observe is consistent with creation, not with evolution.
Now THAT is a specialty not well peopled.
I hope you have the freedom to remain unconvinced. Because having to do multiple courses of high end anti-biotics and winding up with C-diff is a highly unpleasant experience.
“The change in gene frequency you referenced earlier is a continuous series of very small changes. If speciation is true, it must be a trajectory formed by these changes. The changes occur a single locus at a time.”
Your assumption that mutations occur at a single locus is incorrect. Each locus has probability of mutation accross the entire genome. Multiple changes occur at once. There are also multiple theories of how evolution operates including “punctuated evolution” that suggests fairly dramatic changes can occur rapidly.
“But all available real world examples of species show drastic differences between each of them. These large differences correspond with huge numbers of genes”.
One of the things that makes evolution plausible is that there is a rough continuum among species. There are multiple types of similar apes, birds, rodents, cats, etc. The closer they are and appear the closer their genomes tend to be. There is also a wide wariety of differences WITHIN species that have been proven to result from genetic differences. With enough changes and geographic isolation it is not difficult to imagine how speciation could occur. Speciation may also occur through behavioral differences. Differences in courtship rituals can prevent two genetically compatible groups of organisms from producing offspring further increasing the likelihood of genetic separation.
So here is where I think things stand. Biologists have some plausible theories on how species originate. All of them are FAR from perfect but it is a start. People who see the flaws are right in pointing them out. Some people who believe in creation work hard at disproving evolution, apparently thinking that disproving evolution proves creationism, it doesn’t. They demand evidence and supporting data from evolutionists while offering none proving creationism.
“So what we observe is consistent with creation, not with evolution.”
I disagree. It seems to me that creation would result in relatively few highly distinct species. Why would a creator make 50 types of birds with minor differences that do essentially the same thing? Why are there thousands of species of insects? Why are there mosquitos? Why make them so annoying?
I am not an expert in evolution or religion, nor am I a fanboy or hater of either. I maintain a healthy skepticism toward both. I am not a theorist. My interests have always been in practical applications and problem solving. Neither the study of evolution or religion lend themselves to that. I do however, enjoy an intelligent discussion of them from time to time. Thanks for that. I wish you well.
I think you are confusing natural selection which is real and evolution which is not.
“I think you are confusing natural selection which is real and evolution which is not.”
Please prove your assertion that evolution is not real using facts, not just your opinion.
Take our own species Homo Sapien. You read text and phrase like this: "Home Sapiens "suddenly appeared" 400,000 years ago in Africa. Well suddenly appears seems like a creative event to me. Step functions imply creation, analog functions imply evolution. Seems to me the former is the case.
“You read text and phrase like this: “Home Sapiens “suddenly appeared” 400,000 years ago in Africa. Well suddenly appears seems like a creative event to me. Step functions imply creation, analog functions imply evolution.”
Imprecise vernacular used by journalists and anthroplogists prove nothing. Species also migrate from one location to another, it doesnt mean they were created there.
I referenced the image. If the article author needs a different reference, that’s not my fault.
Look at humans: I think it goes like this homo-halibus->homo-erectus->homo-sapien. That is not a smooth transition. I will use a car analogy. The three human species are like the '55,'56 and '57 Chevy. These are distinct models. There are no 55 1/2 Chevys with a blended design incorporating some features of the '56 model year. Now the cars may share the same sealed beam headlight assembly, the eye equivalent in humans, but that does not mean they are not distinct and different designs. You cannot swap a fender from a '56 Chevy with a '57.
To my knowledge there are no homo-erectus/homo sapien cross breed transitional fossils. Same with every species in the chain of human development.
This is my observation a trained engineer.
I don’t see much of an analogy between biological procreation and 1950s model Chevys. Unless it procreation done in the back seats of 1950-ish Chevys.
That’s my observation also as a trained but “not-overly-interested-these-’ How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin’- arguments” engineer!
Explain why there are no fossils of a half homo-erectus, half homo-sapien? Explain why there is no transition species? There is a huge difference between the two and no explanation, evolution itself requires a smooth transition to be viable.
I could post a list (It exists!) of transitional fossils from one celled organisms to hominina. You would refuse to accept them, tell me I’m wrong and call me names. Like you’re doing right now. That’s not a discussion! Look go count “the angels” on the pin, leave me be.
If two homo-erectus(male and female) had a child with homo-sapien head and features(man #1) it would have been immediately killed. If not killed who would man #1 mate with? There is no way home-erectus's begat home-sapiens. Too much difference. So the only way evolution works as theory is thru a slow transition. NO FOSSIL RECORD EXISTS TO INDICATE THAT. When/if that is discovered I will reconsider my position on evolution.
Until then it is silly science, like gloBULL warming.
Either he heard wrong or was taught wrong
In the gene pool of the bacteria are some individuals with resistance. When all the others are wiped out, the resistant bacteria thrive and fill the vacuum. The bacteria do not evolve to resist the antibiotics, there are mutants in the population already resistant
The premise of the article is fallacious
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.