Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 8:22 AM
32 online now:
Aussie, CosmicChimp, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, vimesey (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,578 Year: 9,614/19,786 Month: 2,036/2,119 Week: 72/724 Day: 4/68 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   MRSA - would you?
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 1 of 68 (530462)
10-13-2009 3:57 PM


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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 1:36 AM Blzebub has not yet responded
 Message 4 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 2:23 AM Blzebub has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 68 (530531)
10-14-2009 12:34 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the MRSA - would you? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 68 (530536)
10-14-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
10-13-2009 3:57 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 3:57 PM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2811 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 4 of 68 (530539)
10-14-2009 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
10-13-2009 3:57 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 3:57 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 2:58 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 10-14-2009 3:21 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 5:06 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 43 by tuffers, posted 10-14-2009 8:33 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 5 of 68 (530543)
10-14-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by slevesque
10-14-2009 2:23 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 2:23 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 3:20 AM Blzebub has responded
 Message 9 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 3:32 AM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2811 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 6 of 68 (530548)
10-14-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Blzebub
10-14-2009 2:58 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 2:58 AM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 3:32 AM slevesque has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 7 of 68 (530549)
10-14-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by slevesque
10-14-2009 2:23 AM


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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 2:23 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 3:34 AM cavediver has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 8 of 68 (530552)
10-14-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by slevesque
10-14-2009 3:20 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 3:20 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 3:40 AM Blzebub has responded
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 3:41 AM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 9 of 68 (530553)
10-14-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Blzebub
10-14-2009 2:58 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 2:58 AM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2811 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 10 of 68 (530554)
10-14-2009 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
10-14-2009 3:21 AM


Maybe I misexpressed myself, as this is not what I had in mind
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 10-14-2009 3:21 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 10-14-2009 3:41 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2811 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 11 of 68 (530555)
10-14-2009 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Blzebub
10-14-2009 3:32 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 3:32 AM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 3:50 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 15 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 3:57 AM slevesque has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 12 of 68 (530556)
10-14-2009 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
10-14-2009 3:34 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 3:34 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 4:02 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 13 of 68 (530557)
10-14-2009 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Blzebub
10-14-2009 3:32 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 3:32 AM Blzebub has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 4:09 AM Izanagi has responded
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 4:27 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 14 of 68 (530560)
10-14-2009 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
10-14-2009 3:40 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 3:40 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 4:13 AM Izanagi has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3411 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 15 of 68 (530561)
10-14-2009 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
10-14-2009 3:40 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 3:40 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 4:17 AM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019