Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MRSA - would you?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 31 of 68 (530582)
10-14-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
10-14-2009 4:54 AM


Re: Drawning a line
So the phone is still a phone regardless of what is looks like or how many improvements we have made to it.
Yes, and animals are still animals no matter how many evolutionary tweaks they suffer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 4:54 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 68 (530583)
10-14-2009 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
10-14-2009 5:06 AM


Re: Bacteria
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?
It's a bacterium the lineage of which has evolved by becoming genetically resistant to an antibiotic.
If that is the case then it only adapted to its enviroment.
Through genetic changes to its lineage, which is the definition of evolution.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 5:06 AM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 68 (530584)
10-14-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
10-14-2009 5:06 AM


Re: Bacteria
If so has it ceased to be a bacteria?
And again we see someone equating bacteria to kind
Do you even understand the concept of DOMAIN????
No matter how long we observe evolution, we still don't ever seem to see animals evolving into non-animals...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 5:06 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 10-14-2009 8:09 AM cavediver has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 34 of 68 (530585)
10-14-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2009 5:09 AM


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 5:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 5:40 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 35 of 68 (530587)
10-14-2009 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2009 5:14 AM


See? Now you're also questioning the existence of that "micro-evolution" that you claim doesn't really count anyway. Belt-and-braces denial.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 5:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 5:45 AM slevesque has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 68 (530590)
10-14-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by slevesque
10-14-2009 5:19 AM


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.
And the theoretical difference is that macroevolution is lots of microevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 5:19 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 68 (530591)
10-14-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
10-14-2009 5:26 AM


This is because we went from a general case to a special case.
Any special case in particular, or just a special case in general?
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.
Good.
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.
Obviously I understood it. That's why I dismissed it.
Any evolutionary change which makes a lineage better adapted to one environment than another will most likely make it worse adapted to the other than the one. If it is ever life or death to me to be able to breathe underwater, then I can curse my luck that I'm not a lobe-finned fish. Not being a fish would be inconvenient. On the other hand, if I became a lobe-finned fish right now, I'd suffocate. That too would be inconvenient. Evolution has adapted my lineage to the environment that I actually live in. As a direct consequence, I am no longer well-adapted to the environment that my ancestors lived in but I don't. That's how it works. No-one gets to be a human and a fish, there's always a trade-off.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 5:26 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 6:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 38 of 68 (530592)
10-14-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
10-14-2009 5:45 AM


Any special case in particular, or just a special case in general?
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.
Obviously I understood it. That's why I dismissed it.
Any evolutionary change which makes a lineage better adapted to one environment than another will most likely make it worse adapted to the other than the one. If it is ever life or death to me to be able to breathe underwater, then I can curse my luck that I'm not a lobe-finned fish. That would be inconvenient. On the other hand, if I became a lobe-finned fish right now, I'd suffocate. That too would be inconvenient. Evolution has adapted my lineage to the environment that I actually live in.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 5:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 7:36 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 68 (530597)
10-14-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by slevesque
10-14-2009 6:10 AM


A special case in general.
I'd mock you, but the challenge is gone.
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.
Sure, and it is easy to verify in specific cases that is wasn't.
Why make a big deal about this? You admit that it can happen, you admit that it has happened, but you want to submit a caveat that has nothing to do with either of those propositions.
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.
OK so far. That's the theory of evolution.
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.
No.
In fact, it is more likely that a second flight-inhibiting mutation gets in the population through genetic drift
Show your working.
and if this is to happen, then the capacity to fly is by all accounts lost forever for this population
No.
Why did you say "by all accounts"?
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)
That was just odd.
Not all changes are created equal, and in fact it is much more easier to tumble down mount improbable then to climb up it.
For a single act of genetic transmission from father to son, yes. For the lineage, no. Natural selection means that it has to "climb Mount Improbable". That's what it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 6:10 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 40 of 68 (530600)
10-14-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
10-14-2009 4:54 AM


Re: Drawning a line
The only line I have drawn is this one.
You have arbitrarily drawn a line. Science only draws lines when the evidence shows that certain situations cannot be explained by the current theory. In those cases, scientists either improve upon the existing theory, or make a new hypothesis that explains the old observations and the new. You, however, have no reason to draw such a line. If you do, then what is that reason?
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 say that evolution isn't happening because there is no direct evidence of speciation. By your reckoning, there is no God because there is no direct evidence of anything he has done. Isn't that right? Let me draw the parallel again - Evolution doesn't exist because no one can directly observe it; God doesn't exist because no one can directly observe God. If this is wrong, then tell us how we can directly observe God.
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.
I can infer by seeing that small changes over time accumulate to change something into something new. Take cell phones:
The earliest cell phones were huge compared to the ones today, and they served to do only one thing - call people. As technology advanced, we made changes to cell phones that accumulated over time. New methods of miniaturization allowed cell phones to become more compact. Advances in memory allowed phones to begin to store data, like addresses and ring tones. As technology continued to advance, the cell phone began to acquire new functionality until today, where we have cell phones that function, not only as a phone, but as multimedia centers, handheld gaming systems, daily planners, GPS systems, etc. It has changed so much that calling it a cell phone is no longer accurate - it would be more accurate to call it something else. The same concept applies to biological beings, which are nothing more than organic machines. A population of bacteria will accumulate changes over time until the result is a new species of bacteria.
Macro evolution is not science. It is the notions of men.
If you say that of Macroevolution, then you MUST say it of Design. Your arguments would serve to put Design into that category as well.
No more unprovable than macro evolution.
They both have to be believed and accepted by faith.
Fine, then stop calling ID science. Don't argue the "science" of ID. Call it what it really is - religion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 4:54 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 12:02 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 41 of 68 (530602)
10-14-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
10-14-2009 5:19 AM


Re: Bacteria
And again we see someone equating bacteria to kind
This is a bit unfair - neither slevesque nor ICANT equated bacteria with kind - they simply said that something was still a bacteria. Had they a more detailed knowledge of bacterial systematics, they might have said 'It's still a bacilliales' or 'It's still a staphylococcaceae' or even, in this case, 'it's still Staphylococcus aureus'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 10-14-2009 5:19 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by cavediver, posted 10-14-2009 10:43 AM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 42 of 68 (530606)
10-14-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
10-14-2009 4:58 AM


So directed panspermia is not a scientific hypothesis because it is invoking a designer ?
I don't think I've ever heard directed panspermia ever advocated by evolutionary biologists as part of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, evolutionary biologists don't usually argue about how life began, as far as I know.
However, directed panspermia could theoretically be falsified if humans began exploring the galaxy, as it requires the presence of some physical intelligence. Even panspermia could be tested by drilling into comets to see their chemical makeup. Those are answers based on the natural world. But an invisible, incorporeal designer is unprovable and unfalsifiable. Really, how are you going to test for an invisible, incorporeal being? Something like that is outside our natural world and thus is not scientific.
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.
I would disagree with Perdition on this point. A human bearing a monkey child would require some very specific changes to the genome. For that to happen would more likely need to be designed rather than evolved. As Perdition said, an event like that has a one-in-a-gajillion shot of happening, essentially saying that the odds are so astronomical as to be zero. For a scientist to see an event like that, two possibilities arise: 1) it's a hoax; or 2) it was designed to happen, and if number 2 is correct then two possibilities arise from that: 1) the designer is a physical being; or 2) the designer was a non-physical being. As scientists can't test for a non-physical being, the most logical conclusion would be that a physical being designed such an event to happen. Keep in mind that I said it was the most logical conclusion, not necessarily the right one.
My opinion is that I don't think ToE could explain that.
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.
You are right, reality doesn't change. The existence of God could be a distinct possibility. But science doesn't try to define reality. Science tries to explain the causation. Things fall because of gravity. Gravity is because of curved spacetime. Leaves change color because of chemical processes. Science is about causation. When our observations conflict with our explanations, then we find a new explanation to address the new observations. That's why science never proves, only falsifies. That's why falsification is necessary. As far as Kantian philosophy is concerned, I'll address it once I've read more into it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 4:58 AM slevesque has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5275 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 43 of 68 (530607)
10-14-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by slevesque
10-14-2009 2:23 AM


No Common Ancestry?
Hi Slevesque
Sorry I haven't had time to read all the other posts, so sorry if I repeat anyone else's response to your first statement.
You say: "...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."
This would mean that if you took, say, a culture of bacteria and divided it into 2 or more isolated cultures, they would all only evolve in 1 direction in exactly the same way.
If any of the isolated cultures mutated differently, then you would end up with different bacteria, with a common ancestry. Unfortunately for the creationist theory you mention, this has been proven to occur in experiments with bacteria and multi-celled lifeforms. For example, an experiment involving a species of guppies that was divided into different pools with different conditions found that the newly separated populations very quickly evolved differently. The different guppies all have a common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 2:23 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 44 of 68 (530609)
10-14-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
10-14-2009 5:06 AM


Re: Bacteria
Are you saying the bacteria by becoming resistant to an antibiotic is macro evolution?
As you said, macroevolution is just adding on more information. The bacteria added more information and therefore macroevolved.
If so has it ceased to be a bacteria?
See, you can't do that. Evolution is a step-by-step process that takes time. Nothing magically becomes something else; that's an argument for creationism (e.g. dirt into man, rib into woman). Evolution is the accumulation of changes over time to produce something new. What this bacteria has done has evolved, but it is still on the road to becoming something else. Given time, I have no doubt that it will become a new species of bacteria, which evolution predicts.
Look at another disease - swine flu. The current swine flu likely evolved from three strains of influenza that reassorted themselves into a new strain. This could happen because of factory farms which put animals in close quarters allowing viruses to spread faster and allow for greater chances of intermingling. That's evolution in process - make changes to the environment and the organism changes because of the new environment. If enough changes occur, then a new species is "born."
Or is it just an antibiotic resistant bacteria?
If that is the case then it only adapted to its enviroment.
Again, evolution is a slow process, but adaptation to the environment is one step in that process.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 5:06 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 12:35 PM Izanagi has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 45 of 68 (530611)
10-14-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
10-14-2009 5:09 AM


Multiple questions can be asked: Did the antibiotic resistance already exist in the bacteria population ?
Antibiotics have been in use for several decades now. If antibiotic resistance had been in the genome of the bacteria population, then the antibiotic resistance would have been found much earlier. The fact that the drug has now been discovered to be less effective, or even ineffective, against this bacteria, it's pretty clear that this is an evolved strain.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 5:09 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024