|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MRSA - would you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 ?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Izanagi,
Izanagi writes: The problem is while many creationists accept that changes do occur, they arbitrarily draw a line and say, "but it stops here." Have you ever thought about some of us creationists being raised on a farm and have had first hand experience with micro evolution? You don't even need a lab to experiment with it. But for the changes that require thousands or millions of years there is no scientific verifiable evidence for those things happening. It can not be reproduced in a lab much less on a farm. It is just a conclusion that some people have come to because they can not accept the alternative. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5245 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
But for the changes that require thousands or millions of years there is no scientific verifiable evidence for those things happening. It can not be reproduced in a lab much less on a farm.
But that's my point. You've arbitrarily drawn a line and said that changes can't accumulate over time to produce something that is much different than what it was before. But we know that accumulated changes can make something different than what it was before, most notably, machines. A phone from 20 years ago is much different from a phone now because of the accumulated changes we've made to the phone. But both phones still perform the same basic function. In nature, we see how an accumulation of small changes can produce something different. Mountains shrink into hills because of erosion. Flat land is turned into a valley by rivers. Mountains are created from flat land through plate tectonics. There are forces that are constantly working to produce changes and as changes accumulate, the thing becomes something different. So why not living things?
It is just a conclusion that some people have come to because they can not accept the alternative. But for the changes that require thousands or millions of years there is no scientific verifiable evidence for those things happening. It can not be reproduced in a lab much less on a farm.
We can't see it happening, but we can infer from the evidence that such a process has occurred and is occurring. Why? Because we know small accumulation of changes do change something into something a bit different. We see it in nature all the time. But you've arbitrarily drawn a line and said that even though we know it happens elsewhere in nature, it doesn't happen to living things.
It is just a conclusion that some people have come to because they can not accept the alternative.
There is no alternative because you haven't proven an alternative. Your alternative is unprovable and can't be used, else we may as well explain everything to God. Planes fly because of God, would you accept that explanation? And if I built a plane that physics says won't fly, would you fly in it? In the natural world, we can't have God as any explanation, otherwise we'll have God as every explanation. But having God as an explanation doesn't help us to understand the natural world. If we say birds fly because of God, that explanation doesn't help us to understand the dynamics of flight and any planes built upon the explanation that things fly because of God would never work. 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: |
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)
I told you, the idea of a designer is unprovable. That means science can't falsify it. That's why science forgoes the idea that there is a designer - science doesn't concern itself with the existence of a designer. It concerns itself with naturalistic explanations of what we see, because naturalistic explanations can be falsified.
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.
No, this would prove creationism, because, through evolution, a human will never, ever, ever give birth to a monkey. Evolution only says changes over time will produce a new species, not an instantaneous change from one species to the next. An instantaneous change will be evidence for creationism.
Of course, reality is not limited by what is scientific and what is not.
And how do you know? This is an unprovable statement and brings nothing to the discussion. 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: |
micro-evolution is certainly possible with only a downward trend to the information content.
A downward trend? Then how do you explain MRSA? This is bacteria that previously didn't have resistance to an antibiotic but now does. Doesn't that suggest an upward trend in information content?
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.
Aha! so your world of decreasing information content is hypothetical. That means micro-evolution does encompass additions and deletions of genetic information as MRSA proves. Since organisms can add information, as MRSA did by becoming resistant to an antibiotic, then macro is possible because, as you said
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.quote:and MRSA is clearly a case of new information being added, i.e. resistance to an antibiotic. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Izanagi,
Ianagi writes: But that's my point. You've arbitrarily drawn a line and said that changes can't accumulate over time to produce something that is much different than what it was before. The only line I have drawn is this one. You have no scientific verifiable evidence for macro evolution. There will never be such evidence as no one lives long enough to do the experiments. You can wish, dream, hope even have faith that it did take place. But you can't produce scientific verifiable evidence that one critter can become a competely different critter.
Izanagi writes: A phone from 20 years ago is much different from a phone now because of the accumulated changes we've made to the phone. But both phones still perform the same basic function. So the phone is still a phone regardless of what is looks like or how many improvements we have made to it.
Izanagi writes: Mountains shrink into hills because of erosion. Flat land is turned into a valley by rivers. Mountains are created from flat land through plate tectonics. It is all still dirt and rock makes no difference what shape it is in.
Izanagi writes: We can't see it happening, but we can infer from the evidence that such a process has occurred and is occurring. Why? Because we know small accumulation of changes do change something into something a bit different. A bit different something is a lot different that competely different something. You can conclude anything you want to. But that does not make it science. Macro evolution is not science. It is the notions of men.
Izanagi writes: Your alternative is unprovable No more unprovable than macro evolution. They both have to be believed and accepted by faith. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I told you, the idea of a designer is unprovable. That means science can't falsify it. That's why science forgoes the idea that there is a designer - science doesn't concern itself with the existence of a designer. It concerns itself with naturalistic explanations of what we see, because naturalistic explanations can be falsified. So directed panspermia is not a scientific hypothesis because it is invoking a designer ?
No, this would prove creationism, because, through evolution, a human will never, ever, ever give birth to a monkey. Evolution only says changes over time will produce a new species, not an instantaneous change from one species to the next. An instantaneous change will be evidence for creationism. Funny, as this comes in stark contrast as to what Perdition said in another thread:
quote: 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.
And how do you know? This is an unprovable statement and brings nothing to the discussion. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 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. Except that to bolster their claim, practically all of them seem obliged to pretend that there are no such things as beneficial mutations. Which would include bacteria exposed to antibiotics evolving antibiotic resistance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Izanagi,
Izanagi writes: MRSA did by becoming resistant to an antibiotic Are you saying the bacteria by becoming resistant to an antibiotic is macro evolution? If so has it ceased to be a bacteria? Or is it just an antibiotic resistant bacteria? If that is the case then it only adapted to its enviroment. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Aha! so your world of decreasing information content is hypothetical. That means micro-evolution does encompass additions and deletions of genetic information as MRSA proves. Since organisms can add information, as MRSA did by becoming resistant to an antibiotic, then macro is possible because, as you said 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.
and MRSA is clearly a case of new information being added, i.e. resistance to an antibiotic. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Or, of course, they resort to vaguer terms altogether. Do R-plasmids contain "information"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Multiple questions can be asked: Did the antibiotic resistance already exist in the bacteria population ? See? Now you're also questioning the existence of that "micro-evolution" that you claim doesn't really count anyway. Belt-and-braces denial.
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. And the fact that my lineage evolved from monkeys, and so is different from them, will be darn inconvenient for me if I ever want to leap from treetop to treetop in the rainforest canopy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024