|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MRSA - would you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
I often see creationists and the "ID" people complaining bitterly about lack of evolution in the world around us - you know the sort of thing. "I'll accept evolution if a chimp gives birth to a human baby". Well, that would be extraordinary, I admit, and I might even think about believing in god if it ever happened, but I digress.
There are obvious evolutionary changes going on all around us, and they make front-page news. I refer, of course, to the "germs", the grubbiest of god's creatures, which, even as I type, are engaged in a genetic arms race against pharmaceutical companies, or at least their antibiotics. Probably the best-known of these is MRSA, the methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus, but there are many other examples. Now, we all know about this bacterium, but my question is this: would a creationist who was suffering from an MRSA infection insist on receiving conventional (ineffective, Biblical??) antibiotic treatment for SA, or would they accept that SA has evolved into MRSA, and go for the correct antibiotic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread copied here from the MRSA - would you? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Presumably they'd accept that it existed but refuse to admit that it evolved. As with everything else.
Which leads to a second question --- would a creationist finish his course of antibiotics like you're meant to to stop superbugs from evolving, or stop as soon as he felt better like an antisocial idiot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
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. Great! This process is known as "Evolution". We may be getting somewhere.
But I hope you will agree that this does not equate to common ancestry evolution, which is what creationists reject. Yes, I agree. But DNA sequencing proves beyond any doubt that all life on Earth does have a common ancestor. All living creatures are related to each other. Isn't that an exciting and wonderful fact?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Great! This process is known as "Evolution". We may be getting somewhere. 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.
Yes, I agree. But DNA sequencing proves beyond any doubt that all life on Earth does have a common ancestor. All living creatures are related to each other. Isn't that an exciting and wonderful fact? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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. I don't know about anyone else, but personally I think that when creationists are accepting that an entire DOMAIN is one single kind, we are only one step away from almost complete agreement...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
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. I don't think you understand, so I'll say it again: DNA sequencing proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that all life has one common ancestor. Common ancestry IS the only way. Now that we know this extraordinary fact, there is no need to cling to a Bronze-Age hypothesis which was written in a Bronze-Age book. We have the correct explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5245 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Great! This process is known as "Evolution". We may be getting somewhere.
Except that many creationists (usually YECs) have no problem with microevolution, or small-scale changes of alleles frequencies in a population, but have major problems with macroevolution, or the evolution of separated gene pools The problem is that they're both the same process, except on different time scales, i.e. micro is within a few generations and macro is one the scale of thousands of years, but many creationists separate them because while they are willing to accept changes that occur within a species, they cannot accept that changes accumulate over time to produce speciation. That is a consequence of the extreme distaste many creationists have of the fact that we all share a common ancestor. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Maybe I misexpressed myself, as this is not what I had in mind
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Maybe I misexpressed myself, as this is not what I had in mind Then the obvious follow-up is... how many bacterial kinds are there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5245 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Now that we know this extraordinary fact, there is no need to cling to a Bronze-Age hypothesis which was written in a Bronze-Age book. We have the correct explanation.
Never underestimate the tenacious stubbornness of that book. I've seen people trot out explanations left and right that don't make sense according to the evidence but appeals to them because it supports that book. The problem is while many creationists accept that changes do occur, they arbitrarily draw a line and say, "but it stops here." As of yet, I haven't heard a good scientific reason for why the process can't go farther back to the beginnings of life, but I would be interested in discussing that. Regardless, I would absolutely believe that creationists, accepting that small-scale changes do occur, would definitely take the new drugs rather than the old one. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5245 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
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 a designer isn't an option because no one has proven a designer exists. In order to make a designer an option, you first need to prove a designer. But you can't prove or disprove a designer. So it becomes pointless to try to argue that premise. Good science is being able to prove something false. In science, we can never really prove something true, but we can always prove something false. The Theory of Evolution may not necessarily be true, but as of yet, it hasn't been proven false. That's why evolution is credible - we can prove it false. And so far, all the evidence suggests that evolution occurs with one of the more recent evidence being the evolution of Staph A. to methicillin-resistant Staph A. That is evolution on a small scale and that's what evolution predicts would happen when you change the environment of an organism. But that's why arguing a designer is bad science. A designer can never be proven false and that's why it should never be used to explain anything in science. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
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. Forgive me, but which part of "proves beyond any doubt" do you not understand? You seem to be either ignoring or opposing the DNA evidence. Which?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024