MRSA - would you?

For my part, and I think this is the common view amongst creationists, I never rejected the fact that there is change over time within a given population of anything, including bacteria.But I hope you will agree that this does not equate to common ancestry evolution, which is what creationists reject.Rejecting the latter does not oblige to reject the former. Wanting it to appear that way is a bit fallacious.

Of course, but it happens quite often that someone shows this kind of 'evolution' as to prove the theory of evolution, which is common ancestry.This is why creationists make the distinction between the two, they call the first (descent with modification) 'evolution' and the second (common ancestry) 'from-goo-to-you evolution'. This last term is maybe a bit inappropriate, but it conveys the distinction between the two quite nicely. You are spot on: other lines of reasoning must be used in order to prove common ancestry evolution. Because anytime someone wants to use simple descent with modification as to prove this, it becomes a non-sequitur, since two different meanings of the word evolution are used.As for the specific reasoning you used, similar DNA sequences is certainly a fact, but common ancestry is not the only way option because of this. This would also be expected between creatures that would have been created by the same person.It may sound appealing to you, but this will not impress any creationists.

Maybe I misexpressed myself, as this is not what I had in mind

This does not add anything new to what I already understood of what you were thinking ...Only problem is, I disagree that common ancestry is the only option, because as I have said a common designer can easily account for genetic similarity. Descrediting this option based on where it comes from is called the genetic fallacy: a statement has to be evaluated on its own merits, not on where it comes from.But hey, if you convinced yourself that you have the correct explanation, I'm very happy for you

Good question, I don't know.Personnal intuition, probably around as much bacteria kinds as there are bacteria species. (does the classification family, species, etc. apply to bacteria ?)

The question is, could there be any 'facts of nature' that cannot be reconciled with a Designer ? (in other words, that would falsify the designer idea)In order to answer that question, we need to define which designer we are talking about. If I identify the christian God as the designer, than there are definite things that limit the scope of things he can be accounted for. As an extreme example, if a by some amazing mutation a human was to give birth to a monkey, then this would falsify the christian-God-as-the-designer idea.I can also identify Aliens as the designers, in which case it is theoretically falsifiable since it is naturalistic. This is the directed panspermia hypothesis.If we identify an Aristotlian God as the designer, than I do agree that it becomes unfalsifiable. And, if it is science, it is bad science.Of course, reality is not limited by what is scientific and what is not.

By proposing an alternative to your explanation of the genetic similarity argument, I am not ignoring it: I am in fact directly adressing it.Just claiming it ''proves beyond doubt'' will not make it so, and in fact since I can propose a reasonable alternative to your own interpretation, it is sufficient to support my doubts of it.

The reason they draw a line is because they recognize that their is a difference between micro and macro evolution:micro-evolution is certainly possible with only a downward trend to the information content. Now, I know full well that by using the word 'information' this will generate the usual responses to it. This is not my intention though, and don't be frustrated if I don't answer to them in order to keep it on topic. All I want to show is that their is a difference between micro and macro.On the other hand, macro is impossible without an increase in information. New organs, new proteins, etc.So in a hypothetical world where mutations never increased the information-content of the genome, micro evolution would still be possible, while macro evolution would not.

So directed panspermia is not a scientific hypothesis because it is invoking a designer ? Funny, as this comes in stark contrast as to what Perdition said in another thread:

quote:

---

Not necessarily, that's an assumtion. I could imagine a 1-in-a-gajillion shot where a single cell spontaneously mutates with the exact DNA sequence of modern humans and happens to be in an environment so nutrient rich that the fetus can grow and develop...or maybe there is a larger mutation that creates a womb-like environment inside this nutrient rich area...unlikely, but I would never venture to say that it requires a lot of time, it just so happens that the path taken is one that used a lot of time, and since we see there was a lot of time, there's no contradiction here.

---

The context was that evolution needed lots of time in order to happen, and he replied that not necessarily, since it could theoretically happen in a single generation. An instanteneous change would be fatal to creationism, effectively falsifying one of its basic premise that there exists a barrier betwee nkinds that cannot be breached.Although extremely extraordinary, this could be accounted for by the ToE. Because the contrary would be a 'Kantian' position, which is inconsistent. An example would be the laws of logic that are part of reality, but cannot be subject to any scientific analysis.Also, there is a problem if you consider reality to be limited by what is scientific. Science is a human construct by which we try to understand reality, and as of such is not an objective criterion. What is science today isn't the same as what it was yesterday, and could very well not be the same as tomorrow. But reality does not change whenever our definition of science changes. Reality is reality, and the existence of God, although not scientifically testable, is a distinct possible reality.

Of course, I have made no absolute statement about what type of world we could be in. I could just have easily have said ''in a hypothetical world where mutations can increase information ... etc. ...etc ...''But I'm glad you agree that this is a distinction between micro and macro. It isn't as simplistic as resistance to antibiotic = increase in information.Multiple questions can be asked: Did the antibiotic resistance already exist in the bacteria population ?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. If I break the key in the lock, it may prevent burgglers from picking the lock to enter my house, but it is still inconvenient, and becomes an advantage only when there really are burglers outside.

The point I was trying to have stand out was that there is a theoretical difference between micro and macro evolution on the genetic level.

This is because we went from a general case to a special case. There certainly are cases where the mutation was not present in the population, and so it is a fact that it does happen, with which I have no problem.But as soon as we focus on any given case, then I find perfectly OK that this question be asked. I probably paused for a good 5minutes trying to find a better term then 'inconvenient', but in the end couldn't find one. I do hope that the idea I was trying to express was rightfully understood.

A special case in general. As soon as such or such an example is being looked at, we need to verify if the antibiotic resistance wasn't already part of the genome of the population. I'll take another example. On windy islands, it is beneficial for beetles to be unable to fly. And so if I bring a new flying beetle species, given enough time one of the individuals will have a mutation which will disable it's capacity to fly. Relatively speaking, this will be done rather quickly, since there are many mutations that can give this result. And so if the species stays there long enough, it will become fixed in the population and so every single beetle will have it, which means the previous version of the genome no longer exists in the population.Now at this stage, I remove them from the island and put them back on another windless island. Here, being able to fly would be an advantage again. But how many mutations will be able to give that characteristic back ? Only one, the inverse of the previous. In fact, it is more likely that a second flight-inhibiting mutation gets in the population through genetic drift, and if this is to happen, then the capacity to fly is by all accounts lost forever for this population, as it would need to recover both previous versions of both mutations.Why is this ? Because it is far more easier to destroy something than to improve something. Since natural selection depends on the environment, it gives us the wrong impression that a specific mutation/change value is only relative to it's environment. But it isn't, it still has an intrisect 'destructive' or 'constructive' value (If I can use those terms)Not all changes are created equal, and in fact it is much more easier to tumble down mount improbable then to climb up it.

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

Reread what I originally said, I never stated anyone advocated for it.The intention of my question was if Izanagi was including Alien designers when he said: ''science doesn't concern itself with the existence of a designer''(Besides, wikipedia does say Crick advocated for directed panspermia. Don't know if he did all his life though)