This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Debate: Does antibiotic-resistant bacteria prove Darwin's theory of evolution?
MRSA is a bacterium which has EVOLVED to become resistent to antibiotics. Therefore, if someone gets infected then its extremely difficult for antibiotics to kill the Pathogens.
Many scientists think that we are using to many antibiotics and bacteria is becoming immune. This is a huge problem as how will we protect ourselves against these infectious diseases?
However, i am asking whether this evolution, that has taken place in our lifespan, proves, or helps prove, Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Peter Law 30+
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/antibiotic-resistance-evidence
:-)
Freddie Hayward
Peter Law 30+
I don't thing anyone doubts that the resistant bacteria are already present in the population & are selected by natural selection. Call it evolution if you like, but it doesn't increase complexity.
""Genes for resistance to antibiotics, like the antibiotics themselves, are ancient.[1] However, the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections seen in clinical practice stems from antibiotic use both within human medicine and veterinary medicine. Any use of antibiotics can increase selective pressure in a population of bacteria to allow the resistant bacteria to thrive and the susceptible bacteria to die off. As resistance towards antibiotics becomes more common, a greater need for alternative treatments arises. However, despite a push for new antibiotic therapies there has been a continued decline in the number of newly approved drugs.[2] Antibiotic resistance therefore poses a significant problem.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
:-)
Entropy Driven
Are you saying that Bacteria carrying several genes that allow them to resist antibiotics are no more complex than bacteria that do not carry such genes? That would be quite a stretch even by creationist standards.
Alan Urdaibay
Gerald O'brian 50+
Well what do you think natural selection means???
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
But do you believe in mutation?
Alan Urdaibay
Since only a tiny fraction of bacteria have been identified, and since they transfer genetic material between each other - there being little in the way of a bacterial species, as such - it is not surprising that a new specie of bacteria can be identified. To summarize - they don't really have species so the comment is meaningless.
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
This does "further the Darwinist cause", because that is all there is to it.
Something else, since we're at it... I've always wondered. Do Creationists believe domestic cats were created by God?
Entropy Driven
Peter Law 30+
I doubt God created domestic cats; much more likely a big cat of some sort with enough variability to 'evolve'(if you like) into the many variations we see today.
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
So you can admit that evolution works on big cats. Do you believe in evolution for any other animal?
Alan Urdaibay
Peter Law 30+
Superbugs only exist in sterile environments. Put them outside with all the other bugs & they don't do so well. Their mutation is a disadvantage in any environment other than a sterile one; where their unmutated brothers & sisters are decimated by the antibiotics.
No one has ever argued with the fact that creatures adapt to their environment under the influence of natural selection. We see it every day & can test it in the lab; it's undeniable, every creature has this ability. What we cannot see or test is the theory that one type of creature can eventually morph into another type of creature . Darwinists call the change within a kind evolution, & show obvious examples; then talk as if the crossing into a new type is the same phenomenon. It's a play on words. There is no convincing evidence that such a thing ever happened.
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
What I don't understand is why God would work so hard at making it seem like an accident. Why did he arrange bones and genes in a way that really looks like we're all descendants of a common ancestor?
I mean, can you blame evolutionists?
Alan Urdaibay
Peter Law 30+
When I was 35 I came across the creation guys. They put the science together with the biblical narrative. This made sense to me, & makes more sense as I study it.
How you see things is based on what you expect to see.
When I see similar body plans, I do not see evolution, but a variety of near perfect creatures built by one maker & designed to survive in the same environment
When I see millions of millions of fossils buried deeply, I know they had to be buried rapidly to be fossils at all; so a fairly rapid worldwide flood makes more sense than the piecemeal deposition over billions of years espoused by evolution.
So this ordered & complex universe does not look to me like an accident, quite the opposite.
It is not difficult to line up fossils & make up a story about evolution; much more difficult to produce empirical evidence. I could dig up the bodies in our local graveyard & 'prove' that people are getting bigger/smaller/fatter/thinner, & given a reputation, people would believe me.
Evolution must make sense to those who refuse to consider a non-material explanation, it's sadly all they have. If you want an alternative, then try looking at things from a different perspective.
:-)
Alp Aygar
I have seen many creationists argue that natural selection and mutations cannot be real and after blindly rejecting these facts it is easy to see why they are against evolution. However you have accepted these facts but could not see that small changes that are made possible by mutations and natural selection, given large enough time, will eventually lead to a specie to morph into a new specie. We are talking about a time scale of billions of years which is more than enough for a specie to morph into another one. Small changes eventually lead to transformations.
Gerald O'brian 50+
What do you think might happen to two animals of the same species if they end up in groups living completely isolated from one another for millions of years? You must certainly agree that they might adapt to different environments and, given enough time, might end up becoming two very distinctive animals.
Is time the only trouble about the theory of evolution?
Alan Urdaibay
Peter Law 30+
Never heard of anybody denying natural selection.
Natural selection selects from pre-existing code. This code is finite within any creature, so the amount of variation is limited. This is obvious from breeding dogs, cattle, & corn; we always end up with dogs, cattle, & corn. If you want to believe otherwise, that's ok. There is no real proof though.
As most mutations disrupt the code the chances of new useful code appearing spontaneously is extremely remote. All the more so as it would have to have happened millions of times to give the desired results. Just not logical. We also have the small problem of body plans, which apparently have nothing to do with DNA coding. So we can mutate 'til the cows come home, it will not produce a new biological structure.
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
This reasoning is wrong, Peter, because mutated organisms don't carry the initial code anymore. They carry a new one, which can be mutated into yet another one. This is limitless, wouldn't you agree?
Peter Law 30+
There are a couple of problems with your scenario. Bill Gates & others have likened the DNA code to our computer code, but immensely more complex. Imagine we started introducing random code into Microsoft Word. How long would it remain usable ? Mutations will wreck the code long before any imagined benefit could take hold. Time & further mutations will only make matters worse; it's not going to happen. There is no reason to think nature is any different.
According to Stephen Myres the DNA coding has nothing at all to do with body plans, & no amount of 'beneficial' mutations can possibly produce a new organ, or body plan.
I just can't find any reason to believe in this stuff.
:-)
Alan Urdaibay
Gerald O'brian 50+
Also, you believe everything is the way it's supposed to be, like Feynman's joke about licence plates "You'll never believe the licence plate I saw on a car today. NL-5589!!!! Of all possible combinations, NL-5589!!! The odds are 1 to billions!"
You come from faraway and I don't think you'll ever grasp any of this unless you read a book about evolution. A good one, such as On the Origin of Species, or The Extended Phenotype. And even still, you'd have to let go to a lot of preconceptions you have about what life is. So I don't know... You might be too old for all this counter-intuitiveness.
Peter Law 30+
Sorry about the aids comment. I did of course mean malaria. Getting old.
Same point though, sometimes bad clouds have a silver lining.
I am familiar with the "eye evolution" arguments. Lots of different creatures have eyes of varying complexity, so we line them up in the correct sequence to infer evolution. I don't buy it, we always have to infer. There are 100million cable connections behind each eyeball. That is technology we can understand, but is light years ahead of our abilities, not time & natural selection.
Gerald
I am getting old right enough. I've been studying this for 50 years. In that time I think I have heard most of the arguments, seen most of the proofs, & read a book or two. I have found that materialists generally have little understanding of the religious or Id points of view. May I suggest "Signature in the Cell" , "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", or "Darwin's Black Box".
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
It doesn't try to explain life. It just makes the statement that, wow, life sure seems to be of supernatural origin.
I'd have a similarly hard time explaining how a laptop does NOT operate on magic, to people with no scientific knowledge.
So what books have you read about evolution ?
Peter Law 30+
That I think is the point. If life is scientifically & mathematically impossible by any natural force we know about, it must be caused by a force we don't know about. The more we learn, the bigger the deficit in our understanding. Putting a fancy tag (personal incredulity) on it doesn't really answer the question.
I'll pass on the Dick measuring contest re. Books.
:-)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Gerald O'brian 50+
It's explanatory. It's science.
So for instance, I don't see how one can be a Creationist after reading Darwin. Hence my curiosity as to whether you'd read "On the Origin of Species". I'd love your personnal opinion on what you found made no sense.
The more we learn, the more we understand. I don't know how you can deny that modern biology is tremedously deeper than pre-scientific revolution "natural philosophy". That solving problems raises new ones is independant of the fact that we do make progress.
Even if you were right, and if life was mathematically impossible, and Krisztian Pinter had to publicly dine on both his shoes... how is that an argument for Intelligent Design? Are you saying God is explained mathematically?