Disabling Bacterial Resistance

I thought a good experiment is putting a species in a niche it's not used to. If the species dies off before it has a chance to evolve, then obviously morphological change takes too long to happen, but ex nihilo creation seems plausible. It seems an evolving food chain is more logical because of this, but we'll wait for what Brad has to say.

Can you provide the link showing morphological change in species like the chimp or tiger or any species out of it's niche?

I don't recall a chimp growing wings any time soon.

That's because Mikey's catch 22 is valid. :) If they survive then they don't need evolution because no species has changed morphologically into another kind of animal, yet it has survived rendering the needed trait not needed. If they don't survive then evolution obviously doesn't happen because it's just not fast enough. :)

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-13-2005 01:11 PM

Shraff, the Iguana, how do you know it wasn't just an undiscovered species? Your link didn't work.

As for the bird and other one, that's just animals being clever like God made them. :)

A variation within a kind is possible don't forget. But big change into another kind of animal, like a cat to a fish, is highly unlikely. Or an ape into a man.

There isn't time. Please address catch 22. :)

Evolution is obsolete IMO. If you do survive, evolution hasn't had time to happen, if you don't, it still doesn't happen.

If you do or you don't, either way, evolution isn't fast enough to be useful, only small change under natural selection, just like AIG states.

If a species lasts one thousand years then it has survived without evolution. Why would it then speciate if it survived? Also, speciating isn't really the morphological change I'm talking about, because the fish still becomes a fish, or a monkey a monkey.

If a monkey species lasts long out of it's niche and survives a few hundred years, then it has survived without evolution. If you can survive without evolution then why would something then evolve?

I mean, animals are supposed to evolve because they need to in order to survive. I can't see that an ape needs to become a man because of niche change. It wouldn't even need any extra brain power. It seems that if it did need extra brain power, yet it survived in another niche without the extra brain power?

Hmmmmm. I doubt it. It sounds more like a naturalistic answer for man's God given intelligence. It seems more logical that the bible is correct, to me.

False. Animals are not supposed to evolve for any reason, they just do.

Not false. Mutations are supposed to be random, and natural selection apparently selects the fittest trait. The faster runner will survive for example, because running fast helps him get away from a beast, so he evolves for that reason.

In this case it is not necessary to become man due to the niche change. However, looking at our population numbers it certainly seems to be a temporary advantage to do so. If it was not advantageous, then non-human apes could have spread out of Africa and colonized earth... but they didn't.

This isn't really an explanation. You might aswell have just said, "oh we just are brainy". If ape-men did survive, then they done so for a long time, without major change. It seems that the human brain is inexplicable, as there is no cause for it, and it wouldn't come about through one mutation, but apparently a number of them. Hmm, that doesn't figure, the design is better explained as being a created organ rather than a willy nilly half-baked mutation experiment.

So, to you it seems logical that a book written a few thousand years ago that postulates the universe was created in six days is a correct source for understanding nature. Well, so be it.

It explains the brain, and gives better reasons for such an overwhelming brain. It seems all the other species survive without such a brain. I fail to see how such a brain could come about over time, as a complete package, without being needed, don't forget, NS only chooses what it needs.

This is false. Evolution (as understood here) is the change of genetic material over time in a population of organisms due to processes like natural selection. So, only if you find NO genetic changes in the population can you say that a species survived without evolution.

Again, even a small change doesn't account for big ones, if you get small you still don't require big. A human brain was never needed, and wouldn't happen, as the species survived without it for cast periods. But small change hasn't happened anyway. If it does it's so tiny that it in no way constitutes evolution, just variation within kind.

You have yet to show an example of anything 'surviving' without evolution

Ever seen a dragon fly fossil?

And that's after millions of years. But evolution takes very long periods. A species wouldn't survive long enough to evolve. If it needed a human brain, there's no way it would ever get one in time. If it didn't need a human brain, why would it develop one?

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-14-2005 09:08 PM

Shraff, calm down take a stress pill and heed the irrefutable one. :)

What is your evidence that there isn't time?

Glad you asked. The fossil record.

Where is your evidence there is? (positive).

Man" is an ape

Schraff, it's 2005 now, and I'm still convinced I'm no tree swinger. This isn't ignorance, you just can't accept that one can out-think the world's wisdom with God. Elightenment isn't an elemental philosophy, or I would have believed lon ago.

Kinds cannot be defined without the originals. Define what makes a mini a mini, without the original. You're thinking in categories when we don't have the originals anymore. Chances are, your Iguana didn't evolve or change niche anyway, as God simply made one Iguana different from the other, and they've always both existed since the original kind. Or God created them or one ex nihilo. Too many possibilities.

Mike, this is my last post to you.

I doubt it.

I have lost all respect for you, I am sad to say

WHy?

You are smarter, much smarter than this, but you have chosen willful ignorance over enlightenment. I am really very sad. Goodbye, and have a nice life wrapped up in your ignorance.

You have chosen wilfull ignorance of the answers the bible gives, which are better than the natural ones.

If I choose to find answers with God and you choose to without, then why do you you hold this against me?

You said belief isn't a choice. I can't choose to believe evolution, I just can't make myself think that the magnificent creation came about all by itself etc.. I tried, and I was fooling myself.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-14-2005 09:23 PM

Thus if an ape moves into an environment where intelligence becomes more important then natural selection will tend to make that trait more common - and if mutations leading to higher intelligence still occur natural selection will favour those, also.

There's a lot of problems with this logically.

Firstly, if an ape moved into an environment where a standard of intelligence is needed then it would not survuve without that standard, otherwise it wouldn't need it.

How long would it take an ape to get a human brain? Or even extra intelligence capabilities? No significant change in animals has been observed in thousands of years time period.

That means that mikey ape will wait a long long time, so if he survives that long long time, then he wouldn't need the intelligence anyway, because he's survived.

It's a valid dilemma. Read it again.

Hrun writes: For example, in your running example, the likelyhood of a fast runner surviving will be higher than that of a slow runner. That does not mean that all slow runners will be dead and all fast runners survive and that is it. No, in every single generation, if running fast is advantageous, the faster runners will reproduce more than the slow runners, so, over time, the overall population becomes faster.

If the slow runners can survive, then fast running isn't needed, and evolution is moot.

No offense everyone, but on my terms I don't think I can be refuted on this. I never have been on this one. I've never found a satisfactory logical answer.

Therefore it's not wilfull ignorance, but rather a genuine disbelief.

You say Bugeater, that evolution doesn't need belief. But it's not like evidence. It's not like a skeleton, or oxygen, or gravity that cen be tested. To me it is genuinely an elemental philosophy I don't believe is true. This isn't to offend anybody or annoy them at all, it's that I can disbelieve it happened. The fact that I can disbelieve it happened, means it isn't proven. Certainly viruses and major morphological change in animals becoming other kinds of animals, is a vastly different topic, and there is nothing to convince me of animals like apes becoming human.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-15-2005 08:00 AM

AIG writes: Say a population of plants has a mix of genes for the length of its roots. Expose that population over generations to repeated spells of very dry weather, and the plants most likely to survive are the ones which have longer roots to get down to deeper water tables. Thus, the genes for shorter roots are less likely to get passed on (see box bottom left). In time, none of these plants will any longer have genes for short roots

AIG writes: was seen by Darwin to be a process which was essentially creative, and virtually without limits. If ‘new’ varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions. It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had.

This quote below explains everything;

AIG writes: This can be seen in breeding, which is just another version of (in this case, artificial) selection–the principle is exactly the same as natural selection. Take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses–big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety–the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population. Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore! The greater the specialization

So as can be seen, NS happens when there is a need. You say;

Hrun writes: Mike, you are either not listening or you are purposefully disregarding what multiple people are trying to tell you: For evolution to occur it is not necessary for the newly evolved trait to be NEEDED. It is sufficient that the new trait is a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

And they're ignoring what I'm saying. The trait isn't new anyway. If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive. Nature kills what cannot survive. It has no way of choosing benefits, as the selector is NOT an abitrary definition of "selection", the selection is that those who survive will, and those who can't won't.

If you don't need a big brain, then you don't get one. A "competitive advantage" is not needed you are saying. Then why have it?

How on earth would nature select the competitive advantage? If it's not needed, then those without the advantage would survive. You're not thinking about what I'm saying enough, or Paul K.

Apparently, NS only "chooses" in that if the plant with the longer root survives, THAT is NS.(the short roots die). If the trait of longer root isn't needed, then how can NS choose it, if both would survive?

The whole premise of NS, is that it chooses the fittest to survive. But creatures are made to survive through adaptation and variation. So only if it's absolutely essential will information be favoured over other information. Therefore, ridding short roots forever would only happen if short roots could NOT survive.

It is more logical to say we are equipped to survive, rather than we came and then got equipped, that's why it seems logical to listen to AIG, who say the information needed to survive, was already there.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-15-2005 09:22 AM

I said a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive.

If running fast is beneficial, then those who can run fast will survive, that's what NS is. Those without it won't survive.

1. If they do survive then faster running isn't beneficial in the first place.
2. If they don't survive then faster running is a necessity and a NEED, so the species would need faster running in the first place

I beg thee, heed me. ;)

Well think, what do I mean by what I say? This whole forum seems to not understand what I am getting at a lot of the time.

"If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive"

This means that if an ape needs a big brain to survive (and hasn't got it), it needs it in the first place in order to survive. Therefore, if it survives, it doesn't need the trait.

"said a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive."

this is the same really, that you obviously don't need a bigger brain if you are surviving without one.

if the trait was needed, then a species wouldn't survive without it, If they survive, then they don't need it.

It's just a -> b, and no a = no b.

I don't think I'm wrong because natural selection is necessity based. I'm willing to hear any arguments against this but I still think NS isn't an arbitrary selector. Only those who can survive, do.

Be honest friend, what is logical? That all creatures arrive with all of the information in the gene pool, that they can survive. Or that they wait on mutations?

To show 1) is false I merely have to show that some predecessor could survive without the trait that is beneficial for survival

If they could then I think that negates the trait being a necessity. I say that NS is not abitrary because it isn't random. That is, I see know way of how NS could kull a none-beneficial trait simply because of a beneficial trait. The beneficial trait, must be a necessity, because that is how NS works (according to my knowledge). Only the fittest survive. It doesn't select fit and slightly fit. Those who aren't fit die.

Your second one;

To show 2) is false, I merely have to show that a trait can be selected for even if you can survive without it.

Yes. If a trait isn't needed, yet is selected, this would falsify it.

However, why would it be selected? If it is just beneficial, I fail to see how NS could select it. I only see NS working when it has no choice. Example; Some plants with short roots can survive, but so can longer roots. Longer roots are beneficial so are selected, yet the short roots survive too? Isn't that just no change in the gene pool?

It strikes me that a mutation would be kept YET still we have the problem that evolution takes ages and creatures can survive without it.

Statement 2 doesn't really matter that much pertaining to my argument. You highlighted statement 2.

Yet, as anybody can see, for example by looking at my deaf-mute cousin who is happily married and has two kids, the ability to speak is neither required for procreation nor for survival. Therefor, I have shown that Mike's initial statement is false. Speech is an example where a certain trait can give a competitive advantage, thus can be selected for, even though it is not required for survival or procreation.

Since we can't ascertain whether speech was a mutation selected for, then I don't think it's falsified my statement. But the true form of my argument is this;

if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive.

You are basicaly saying that If you didn't need a trait you didn't have then you would survive. I'm not against this, it's just that my argument only deals with the modus pollens and modus tollens.of my actually argument form. (a then b, AND no b then no a).

Even if speech was a competitive advantage, I still say we have always had it since our creation. I think if you could show speech evolved from an ape, then I'd believe this. But as I said previously, it seems more plausible that we came equipped rather than coming to get equipped.

Nevertheless, this agrees with my conditional anyway; if your cousin has survived, then he didn't need speech.(positive)

A-> b would be if he did need speech then he wouldn't survive

This seems to just prove that speech doesn't necessarily help us to survive. Not that natural selection selects traits which aren't necessarily necessary to survive.

To prove Natural selection selects traits that aren't necessary for survival yet are beneficial seems to be what is needed to be shown.

Your cousin doesn't prove this, he just proves that speech isn't needed to survive.

I think your post was good. I apreciate your efforts, this is a challenge to me, I hope you apreciate the logic I have highlighted in bright white in this post, too. :)

Sylas, thanks for yout time on gathering that information, but you're under the mistaken assumption that I don't know that stuff.

It strikes me that this information is all hypothetical and in reality, the ins and outs to the ToE are all good and make sense within the construct, but then, so does my argument.

I don't need to learn this stuff, nor need to show capacity to learn. If I did, then that would show that my motive is to impress men and learn from them. You know that's not my motive, you know that I'm a biblist who doesn't accept elemental philosophies.

As far as I can see, nature isn't a mind that it can favour beneficial selection. IMHO it's an impossibility, unless it has a brain. Even if beneficial alleles become more popular, that doesn't negate the fact that evolution seems somewhat moot. It seems that NS becomes more unlikely in my opinion. If faster runners survive, and slower ones do aswell, then slower ones don't need to be faster ones. That's a point which doesn't seem to be apreciated.

If slower ones are eventually weeded out, then it seems faster ones were needed, because slower ones didn't survive them.

I know that the vast accumulation of ToE information might work hypothetically, but then it has to. I still think my logic makes sense.

If it helps, I did learn all of that stuff when the evolutionists taught me it a year or two ago, and I took it in and haven't forgotten. But then what does my argument matter anyway? You have to accept the fact that I believe my argument over the evolution version. That I think it more plausible that original kinds and original gene pools provided all the information necessary, and that since then NS has worked with that information, but evolution is not proven IMO. Since hundreds of years of science are unlikely to be wrong and me right, it should comfort you to know that my argument won't mean much to anyone, but me.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-15-2005 07:41 PM

Sylas,

I said;

if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive

This is my argument. A favourable trait, if possible, would not prove evolution happened, it would prove that traits don't necessarily help us to survive. It would just be to deny the consequent of my argument, that's all. "if you survive you didn't need the trait". So are you saying NS never deals with needs?

I also agree with creationists, that NS works on availabe information, and you think it works on mutations = evolution.

Telling me how NS works doesn't remove the fact that if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive.

I assume you believe that we cam about naturalistically, right from the beginning. Therefore you still have the same problem as before, if I needed a heart or an organ or any rudimentary system immediately, then I would not survive.

This means that the dilemma is real, that if you claim NS made every creature and all biological systems, then if a organism is in need of anything it would not survive.

Selection really does apply for features that an organism does not need to survive

It wouldn't prove much anyway, because species from the beginning NEED in order to survive. All species have interacting functioning sytems, even cells. A species needs what it needs to survive straight away, it cannot wait for mutations. if you needed a trait you didn't have then you wouldn't survive

I will concede that NS will happen with things not needed, because of your knowledge on the matter. However, things are most definitely needed in order to survive.

Percy writes: Those who concede that they're "a biblist who doesn't accept elemental philosophies" probably shouldn't be contributing in the science forums. Those who are unable to grasp simple points and therefore engage in productive discussion should not be contributing to the science forums, either

Percy, I grasp simple points and have argued hypothetically about NS. Should by disbelief in naturalistic endeavours mean I can not take part even if I argue USING logic which is a valid part of science?

Also, if you are suggesting I can't grasp simple points, then show what you mean or your claim will mean NOTHING.

If I do not respond to simple points or immediately believe them, then that's because they don't negate nor have any special baring on my argument.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-17-2005 10:55 AM

WK

you need be able to show that the integrated systems could not Can you show that the neccessary components for a primitive self replicating system could not arise from inorganic material?

Notice anything? The true positive is to prove it, not disprove it.

It is to those who claim these things DO happen, those people must show these things COULD. And even if they hypothetically could, my position is also hypothetical.

I know I have repeated my valid argument again and again. It's to show that as far as I'm aware, this would be a genuine problem.

Now surely NS would select that which is needed to exist. Even a rudimentary system would be irreducabley complex IMO.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-17-2005 11:46 AM