|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MRSA - would you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So directed panspermia is not a scientific hypothesis because it is invoking a designer ?
You have brought this up before and were slammed down. Again I ask. Show us where this was seriously advocated by an evolutionary biologist as a serious claim. You have already been shown that any reference to Crick is false. Do I need to show you the evidence again? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This is a bit unfair... ...they simply said that something was still a bacteria Not unfair in the slightest - it points out the standard creationist canard that an X is still an X, whatever level X happens to be.
Had they a more detailed knowledge... And there-in lies my point...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
What was the exact mutation that produced the resistance ? As an example, for an antibiotic to infect a bacteria, it has to get insdie the cell. This is done by on of the types of transporting protein in the membrane, which usually transports nutriments. So if the antibiotic chemically ressembles nutriment A, then the protein transporting A will also transport the antiobiotic. If, by a mutation, the protein transporter becomes none-functional, then the bacteria will become resistant to the antibiotic, but this will have been done through a loss of a function, that to be able to transport nutriment A in the cell. Why don't you find out before you start typing this gibberish?
It isn't as simplistic as resistance to antibiotic = increase in information. Yes it is, actually! The mechanism is that an alternative penicillin binding protein (PBP2a), is produced in addition to the "normal" penicillin binding proteins. The protein is encoded by the mecA gene, and because PBP2a is not inhibited by antibiotics such as flucloxacillin the cell continues to synthesise peptidoglycan and hence has a structurally sound cell wall. Note that there is no loss of function, no loss of information. The opposite is true: the bacterium has evolved the ability to survive flucloxacillin therapy, by acquiring a new gene (extra "information"). MRSA flourishes, and is now a prominent cause of morbidity & mortality in humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Izanagi,
Izanagi writes: Fine, then stop calling ID science. Don't argue the "science" of ID. Call it what it really is - religion. Izanagi, I have been here since March 2007. You can search my profile threads I have participated in and you will never find one, NOT ONE where I called ID science. In fact you will find quite the opposite. I think those that promote such are delusional, being deluded by Satan. Creation has to be accepted by faith. Once a person is born again they will have all the evidence they need. But there is no way of sharing that evidence with anyone, because to the natural man it is foolishness.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Once a person accepts that God is, he has no problems with anything else. Just like those who accept that the universe existed at T=10-43 have no problem with the BBT. Just like those that accept that life came from non life have no problem with evolution. All three are based on assumptions. Therefore all three are based on "FAITH". Now if anyone has scientific verifiable evidence for any of the three I would love to see it. In 30 months of asking for such evidence none has been presented. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Izanagi writes: As you said, macroevolution is just adding on more information. The bacteria added more information and therefore macroevolved. You are putting words in my fingers as I have never typed or said that.
Izanagi writes: What this bacteria has done has evolved, but it is still on the road to becoming something else. What is that something else? Then in the next sentence you qualify that something else.
Izanagi writes: I have no doubt that it will become a new species of bacteria, which evolution predicts. So it became a modified version of the same thing not something else.
Izanagi writes: If enough changes occur, then a new species is "born."
And as long as it remains the same critter it does not produce macro evolution. Give me scientific evidence of where any critter ceased to be that critter and became a totally different critter.
Izanagi writes: Again, evolution is a slow process, but adaptation to the environment is one step in that process. Why does the fossil record show things appearing all of a sudden and not over a long period of time? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Give me scientific evidence of where any critter ceased to be that critter and became a totally different critter. Define "totally different". Humans separated from chimps about 6 million years ago. We had a common ancestor. I don't think we can say we are "totally different" from chimps, nor any other creatures, however, as all living things are related to one another, albeit distantly for the most part. But this thread is about one kind of "critter", Staph. aureus, becoming MRSA, which is, I guess, a different kind of "critter".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Blzebub,
Blzebub writes: Define "totally different". Humans separated from chimps about 6 million years ago. We had a common ancestor. Can you provide verifiable scientific evidence of this common ancestor? Or is this another one of them we know it is so because we believe it and accept it to be so.
Blzebub writes: But this thread is about one kind of "critter", Staph. aureus, becoming MRSA, which is, I guess, a different kind of "critter". But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions. Like a Ford car and a Chevrolet car. They are very different but both are a car. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The ignorance... it burns!
But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions. Do you have any idea how many different kinds of bacteria there are!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Can you provide verifiable scientific evidence of this common ancestor? Define "verifiable". Have you done any reading on this subject? If so, please indicate what difficulties you have encountered.
But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions. Like a Ford car and a Chevrolet car. They are very different but both are a car. Well done. All critters are the same, just different versions. If you understand that, you understand evolution and common ancestry. That's why I asked you what you meant by "totally different".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Can you provide verifiable scientific evidence of this common ancestor? I can. But it's off-topic here, and has only been discussed about thirty times since you've been at EvC, ICANT. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Izanagi, I have been here since March 2007. You can search my profile threads I have participated in and you will never find one, NOT ONE where I called ID science. In fact you will find quite the opposite. I think those that promote such are delusional, being deluded by Satan. The ID people are deluded by Satan? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5244 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
I apologize for saying that you think that ID is science.
That said...
Why does the fossil record show things appearing all of a sudden and not over a long period of time?
This has been explained ad nauseum and is also off-topic. The question is, how can creationism explain the apparently sudden adaption of antibiotic resistance? It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions. By that it would be the same as saying all animals, plants & fungi are just different versions of the same thing. Bacteria are all the same as eukaryota (animals, plants & fungi) are all the same. There are 8 listed groups of bacteria: Firmicutes - Low G + C gram poitiveActinobacteria - High G + C gram positive Eobactreia - green non-sulphur Cyanobacteris - green photosynthetic bacteria Planctobacteria - example Chlamydia Proteobacteria - example E. coli Sphingobacteria - Green Sulphurs Spirochetes - The Ancestor's Tale Richard Dawkins, pp 543-544, 556 Each of these are equilivant to Animals, Plants, Fungi, Slime molds, Microsporia, Entaoeba, Flagellates, Ciliates, Trichomonads & Diplomonads of the Eukaryota. and the Methanosarcinales, Halobacteriales, Arcaeglobales, Methancoccales, Thermoproteales, Sulfobales & Disulurococcales of the Archaea Edited by bluescat48, : missing page # There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
In 30 months of asking for such evidence none has been presented. No, the problem is that you don't understand the evidence that has been shown/explained to you. You have been shown evidence to support evolution, you have been explained what T=O actually means (not what ICANT thinks it means), and you have stubbornly ignored all of it. You even tried to take your own topic off-topic just to avoid the evidence that was being shown to you. It's not that you haven't been shown the evidence, it's just that you can't recognize it as evidence because you don't undestand what you are discussing. And now you are trying to waste Izanagi's time with your same tired talking points. - Oni If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~George Carlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I don't remember ever bringing this up, perhaps are mistaken with someone else
anyhow, the original statement was that a designer is outisde the realm of science. I wanted to know if this included intelligent alien designers who would have put life on earth
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024