Creationists...What will it take?

As you are throughly admitting. The bacteria/viruses that are becomming immune to medicine's are gradually adapting to a large threat to living in some of their best breeding habitats (humans). This is the definition of evolution.

Please go back and re-read my post. Bateria are not 'becoming immune.' Evolution doesn't occur in individuals, it occurs in populations. There is nothing gradual about. Genes for immunity exist in populations... they don't arise as a result of a particular stressor. This genetic information was present already in the bacteria. Exposing bacteria to antibiotics merely selects for this gene. Bacteria haven't gained anything new from this. If you'd bothered to read AND think about what I've written, you'd realize that antibiotic resistance isn't equipping bacteria with anything new or improved. This is evidenced perfectly by the observation that antibiotic resistant bacteria are outcompeted by sensitive bacteria in the absence of this selective pressure. The genetic predisposition for antibiotic resistance ALREADY EXISTED within the population. Antibiotic resistance existed BEFORE the isolation and use of antibiotics. Evolution hasn't driven anything except the alteration of frequencies of a certain genetic character (that pre-existed) within a population.

It will either try to change to eliminate the ability to sustain damage or get rid of unneeded parts.

Statements like this merely demonstrate how poorly you understand this topic. Evolution doesn't attempt to do anything. There is no goal in this process. Evolution merely alters the frequencies of existing genetic information within populations.

The human is most likely the slowest evolving species on the planet. We actively evolve the world around us to suit our current state. Thus our bodies do not need to evolve as much or as frequently as others to survive.

Again, your utter lack of understanding comes shining through in this statement. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. What you actually mean to say is that humans have manipulated themselves and their environment such that certain selective pressures have been removed. The process of altering allelic frequencies doesn't cease though. Allelic frequencies ARE still being altered. What's happening, is that 'defective' or 'bad' genes are being allowed to persist within the gene pool. The process that is proposed to drive evolution doesn't cease because we can effectively manipulate certain aspects of our environment to compensate for inherited 'defects.'

A friend of mine once said, "Show me, step-by-step, how a fish evolves into a camel...then you'll at least have my attention!"

Seriously, read the first six chapters of Genesis. Doesn't it pretty much follow what scientists say about the development of The Earth and the appearence of life?

Isn't Creative Design the new catch phrase for evolution, guided by the hand of God? The old notions of evolution are falling away, and this new notion is taking it's place...probably because it's ALMOST acceptable in school.

As for me, I keep a Bible on the same shelf as Darwin...after all, it isn't where we come from, but where we're going that really matters.

Seriously, read the first six chapters of Genesis. Doesn't it pretty much follow what scientists say about the development of The Earth and the appearence of life?

I am not sure about this. Perhaps you could provide some specific examples.

Isn't Creative Design the new catch phrase for evolution, guided by the hand of God? The old notions of evolution are falling away, and this new notion is taking it's place...probably because it's ALMOST acceptable in school.

I think you are referring to Intelligent Design, and special (Biblical) Creation does fall under this category. But there are non-religious, non-faith based schools of thought that fall under the ID banner as well... Panspermia for example. However, I wouldn't say the old notions of evolution are falling away... They are still pretty firmly ensconced in their particular location. Theories other than evolution are being introduced at some schools, but now without vehement opposition from the evolution side. I would also have to say given this, combined with the 'flavor' of the evolution/creation debate in this forum, that evolutionary thought is long way from falling away.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Please go back and re-read my post. Bateria are not 'becoming immune.' Evolution doesn't occur in individuals, it occurs in populations. There is nothing gradual about. Genes for immunity exist in populations... they don't arise as a result of a particular stressor. This genetic information was present already in the bacteria. Exposing bacteria to antibiotics merely selects for this gene. Bacteria haven't gained anything new from this. If you'd bothered to read AND think about what I've written, you'd realize that antibiotic resistance isn't equipping bacteria with anything new or improved. This is evidenced perfectly by the observation that antibiotic resistant bacteria are outcompeted by sensitive bacteria in the absence of this selective pressure. The genetic predisposition for antibiotic resistance ALREADY EXISTED within the population. Antibiotic resistance existed BEFORE the isolation and use of antibiotics. Evolution hasn't driven anything except the alteration of frequencies of a certain genetic character (that pre-existed) within a population.

I dont know if i can agree with this. Are you saying that these bacteria are already immune to an anti-biotic before it was ever invented or produced??
Are you trying to say that there is no possible way to stop some bacteria because they are always going to be one step ahead?. What makes some baceria more special than others? Are there any bacteria that dont have some kind of immunity to any anti-biotic? If so then, do you think they will be able to gain immunity with progressive reproduction while being exposed to an anti-biotic. I am getting the impression that you think bacteria cant all of the sudden become resistent to anitbiotics because they already store that immunity somewhere and only when it needs to be used they use it. Am i right?.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I dont know if i can agree with this.

This is no great surprise.

Are you saying that these bacteria are already immune to an anti-biotic before it was ever invented or produced??

More or less. But first of all remember that antibiotics weren't 'invented,' they were just isolated. But I am saying that antibiotic resistant bacteria existed well before we knew about antibiotics. Consider the case noted by McQuire, "Eerie: human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria," Medical Tribune, 12/29/1988. Bacteria were recovered from the frozen bodies of a band of early Arctic explorers who died in 1845. The bacteria were recovered from their colons in 1988, carefully cultured and exposed to modern antibiotics. Many were found to be resistant to the most powerful modern antibiotics, demonstrating that antibiotic resistance was present ahead of time and has not "evolved" as a response to new selective pressures.

Are you trying to say that there is no possible way to stop some bacteria because they are always going to be one step ahead?.

That's not what I said at all. I stated that the genes for antibiotic resistance didn't arise as a result of antibiotic use. The genes ALREADY EXISTED in the population, and use of antibiotics resulted in an increase in the frequency of AR genes in the population.

What makes some baceria more special than others? Are there any bacteria that dont have some kind of immunity to any anti-biotic?

I don't understand the 'special' question. Please elaborate. I don't know about completely sensitive strains of bacteria. It seems like they're not on the radar so to speak.

If so then, do you think they will be able to gain immunity with progressive reproduction while being exposed to an anti-biotic.

No. There is no 'gain of immunity.' The bacteria that are immune live, those that are sensitive die, end of story. Immunity is either present in an individual or not. If it is, that individual is free to reproduce and the AR genes will proliferate in the population.

I am getting the impression that you think bacteria cant all of the sudden become resistent to anitbiotics

Bacteria can't suddenly become anything. They either are resistant or they aren't. Remember individuals don't evolve, populations do. AR stems only from genes already present in a population. It is noteworthy that bacteria can transfer genetic information horizontally, but this is still just transfer of PRE-EXISTING genetic information.

because they already store that immunity somewhere and only when it needs to be used they use it. Am i right?.

Well, sort of. They don't 'store it' until needed. It's a part of their regular genetic makeup. The AR is present in some already. Those that are AR survive and their genes are passed on, including AR genes.

Originally posted by mattison0922
More or less. But first of all remember that antibiotics weren't 'invented,' they were just isolated. But I am saying that antibiotic resistant bacteria existed well before we knew about antibiotics. Consider the case noted by McQuire, "Eerie: human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria," Medical Tribune, 12/29/1988. Bacteria were recovered from the frozen bodies of a band of early Arctic explorers who died in 1845. The bacteria were recovered from their colons in 1988, carefully cultured and exposed to modern antibiotics. Many were found to be resistant to the most powerful modern antibiotics, demonstrating that antibiotic resistance was present ahead of time and has not "evolved" as a response to new selective pressures.

Simply amazing. Didnt even know of such a case. I am fairly uneducated in this field, clearly not as much as you, and find this very interesting now that you've brought it up.

That's not what I said at all. I stated that the genes for antibiotic resistance didn't arise as a result of antibiotic use. The genes ALREADY EXISTED in the population, and use of antibiotics resulted in an increase in the frequency of AR genes in the population.

What i meant is, if the AR genes already exist, then how do we stop them if they are already immune to the anti-biotic, watever it is? If it's ALREADY in them then they will be one step ahead all the time since they can increase the frequency of AR genes in the population once we introduce the anti-biotic.

No. There is no 'gain of immunity.' The bacteria that are immune live, those that are sensitive die, end of story. Immunity is either present in an individual or not. If it is, that individual is free to reproduce and the AR genes will proliferate in the population.

Based on this, wat makes some bacteria more special than others?...WHy is it some have the immunity and others dont?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Simply amazing. Didnt even know of such a case. I am fairly uneducated in this field, clearly not as much as you, and find this very interesting now that you've brought it up.

Yes, I am chock full of interesting but pretty much completely impractical knowledge.

What i meant is, if the AR genes already exist, then how do we stop them if they are already immune to the anti-biotic, watever it is? If it's ALREADY in them then they will be one step ahead all the time since they can increase the frequency of AR genes in the population once we introduce the anti-biotic.

Well, this is the dilemma isn't it? The key is to decrease the frequency of AR genes as much as is possible... which would mean decreasing use of antibiotics overall. But in essence you are correct. The genes will most likely always be there, and use of ANY drug just increases resistance, especially in bacteria, which can have doubling times of about 20 minutes.

Based on this, wat makes some bacteria more special than others?...WHy is it some have the immunity and others dont?

A big part of it could have to do with the bacteria's ability to engage in horizontal gene transfer. You see bacteria can pass genes horizontally. The needn't reproduce to pass on genetic information. They can replicate AR genes INDEPENDENT of their other genes and pass them into the 'population.' Resistant vs. Sensitive bacteria could result from the bug's ability to take up these other genes. But within the same population, why some are immune and others are not is because of the slight variations that exist within individuals. Have you read "The Stand?" In that book, RANDOM people were immune to the Superflu (Cpt. Tripps). There was nothing special about them in particular, just luck of the draw. Just like there are certain people in the population that don't become addicted to nicotine (I'm one), just like there are people with sickle-cell anemia in a population, there are bacteria that are immune to the action of certain antibiotics. The strains that are resistant to multiple antibiotics result from concentration of all or most AR genes into a particular population. Generally the only occurs in an highly selective environment, like a hospital that uses tons of antibiotics and disinfectants.

A big part of it could have to do with the bacteria's ability to engage in horizontal gene transfer

Tell me that you people aren't seriously trying to back your argument on evolution with a discussion on bacteria. How can you possibly explain how we just somehow evolved intelligence. Even if the "THEORY" of evolution held some shread of possibility, which it doesnt, there is no reasonable explanation of how we came from single celled organisms which move about with no thought to what we are now. Get real.

Originally posted by deesw
Tell me that you people aren't seriously trying to back your argument on evolution with a discussion on bacteria. How can you possibly explain how we just somehow evolved intelligence. Even if the "THEORY" of evolution held some shread of possibility, which it doesnt, there is no reasonable explanation of how we came from single celled organisms which move about with no thought to what we are now. Get real.

Hmmmm.... perhaps you should read the thread... and look at ANY other post I've ever made re: evolution and you'll have your answer.

I thought so,,,, pretty weak arguement.

Originally posted by deesw
I thought so,,,, pretty weak arguement.

Like I said read the thread. Assuming you're a creationist, I'm the best friend you've got here in this forum.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by mattison0922]

I am Christian and believe in creation. But like evolution, creation has its own set of questions. It think that whichever way you believe there will still be unanswered questions. Creationism is a belief. In saying that what I mean is that to convince someone their belief is wrong is difficult and really not necessary. It would be like me saying to you.......you cannot be in love with your wife as love does not exist. Can you prove love? You may say that you can as you can feel it. That is what belief is, to feel. There is really no debate on ones feelings and faith as we all have our own that we live with day to day.

For me, I am looking for ways to incorporate my faith with science. I think in many things I can do that but understand in some I just cannot make sense of it. For those of us that believe, we could say, what would it take to convince evolution people to believe in creation? Sometimes some things are best to just agree to disagree. Sorry if that is not the best answer for this thread but it comes from the heart.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Well, this is the dilemma isn't it? The key is to decrease the frequency of AR genes as much as is possible... which would mean decreasing use of antibiotics overall. But in essence you are correct. The genes will most likely always be there, and use of ANY drug just increases resistance, especially in bacteria, which can have doubling times of about 20 minutes.

THis is the one thing i cant get myself to belive as true. Based on this we would have to conclude that there are no bacteria we could kill off, because "the genes will most likely be there and use of ANY drug jsut increases resistence". If the gene, to become resistent, is always goin to be there why have we managed to kill off bacteria using anti-biotics?

[edit on 13-2-2005 by LuDaCrIs]

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink

Give it up dude, if they don't want ot believe they won't...

They know the truth already, it's in the back of their minds...

It's freewill to choose whether or not you want to tune into it or out of it...

Ok propellerheads! Please provide solid proof as to what the catalyst was that set off the Big Bang. No guessing allowed.... no faith allowed either. Rock Solid Proof!


patiently waiting....

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
THis is the one thing i cant get myself to belive as true.

The irony of this is that it's one of the vew verifiable and traceable instances or examples of 'evolution' that we've available to us.

Based on this we would have to conclude that there are no bacteria we could kill off,

Hmmmm.... I don't know how you got this from my posts. There are plenty of bacteria we can kill off, they are the antibiotic sensitive strains. However killing off the sensitive strains removes or reduces competition for the resistant strains, thus the resistant strains proliferate. I don't know that our goal should be to kill off any particular strain of bacteria.

because "the genes will most likely be there and use of ANY drug jsut increases resistence".

It is likely that alleles for resistance to pretty much whatever DO exist, and use of whatever selects for those resistant strains... it's natural selection, and it's pretty much inescapable.

If the gene, to become resistent, is always goin to be there why have we managed to kill off bacteria using anti-biotics?

We've not managed to 'kill off' bacteria using antibiotics. We've been able to control infection via the use of antibiotics. Use of antibiotics however leads to proliferation of resistance genes within the population. I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend about this.

Here is the deal: Antibiotics are substances that are produced by microorganisms. The organisms that produce antibiotics must be resistant to their action themselves. It also must be kept in mind that bacteria are capable of horizontal gene transfer, resistance can be passed WITHOUT dividing and mutating, etc. Resistance can be acquired EXTRACHROMOSOMALLY. Thus the very source of antibiotics is often also the source of resistance. Many antibiotics are derived from Streptomyces species... coincidentallly enough many resistance genes found in other varieties of bacteria show remarkable homology to those genes found in Streptomyces species, suggesting that Streptomyces is the likely source of antibiotic resistance in many cases.

Synthetic antibiotics are simply modifications of other natural antibiotics, and can often be defeated via mutation of existing genes. However even in the case of man-made chemicals... take DDT for example. To my knowledge the structure of DDT (shown here)
isn't based on any biomolecule and was pretty much unobserved in the natural world. However, DDT resistance in the common housefly has been tracked to a single point mutation. It is entirely likely that one cannot create a chemical to which all members of a population will be sensitive.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?

I dont mean to say, you should immediately abondon your beleifs, i could never ask such a thing. I just want to know, what evidence will be good enough for you to accept it. What kind of evidence, besides what we have today, would you need scientists to find, in order to beleive evolution.

I am asking this question, becuase to me it seems creationists will always fall back on some excuse not to believe evolution. Granted, as of this moment i am still debating whether i can accept evolution, but i am always keeping an open mind to both sides of the coin.
My point here is that, being a scientific based person, it would be very easy for me to accept creationism on some logical facts. Creationists, it seems,from my personal experience with talking to them, will never accept evolution, simply because they have "faith". Some say they are open minded, but it seems no matter how much evidence science provides, they will never truely accept it.

I think it would be much easier to convert a scientist to a creationist, than the other way around.

So my question, once again, is what would you like scientists to find in order to accept evolution?

Answer

A way of dating rocks and such that actually complies with the scientific method. (..ie..no assumptions)

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?

Granted, as of this moment i am still debating whether i can accept evolution, but i am always keeping an open mind to both sides of the coin.

Once you know the truth about God, I am talking about the one and only God. The real God, Jesus Christ, there is nothing that will change a christian's(someone truly born again, not just a name to be claimed) mind. The Bible explains the universe and mankind and how it all came about. You admit yourself that you don't know the truth yet. A christian does know the truth regarding this matter. I don't need to search for God has revealed the truth to anyone who is willing to believe Him.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?When it gets elevated from theory to fact. Evolution is not fact and it constanly falls apart when you try to prove it. Look you don't want to believe in god that is your choise. first of all i believe in God but don't beleive in the church. And the way I see it is God just ask you to have a little faith in him. is that so wrong. Evolution is not fact. Evolution may one day be fact like when columbus sailed to the West and showed the rest of Europe the world wasn't flat. Alot of what is in the Bible is science fact today. We know how the world was formed and it is not that unlike what God told us in genisis. There was a void and then there was a star born the gravity of this star formed the rock planets like earth. Then there was sky and sea. from the sea there was life and that life spread to the earth. Were evolution and Genissis really part ways is God creates the life in the sea's earth and sky and evolution says that one form becomes another. So it is up to the scientist to figure which is right. I guess there is nothing wrong with faith in god and those that are so dead set against God are lost or evil. Our laws are based on his laws.

Well I've been reading on Allelic frequencies and while you are right you are also wrong. Alleles are simply put variations in a given gene. These variations can and do happen in individuals. Most of the time when they happen in small groups that gene is to die out. Except in asexual lifeforms in which the gene variations tend to replicate and change farther.

Allelic frequencies are basically nothing more then a measurement of gene variations across a species. They represent a trend of evolution not a guarenteed path.


Since asexual lifeforms dont have their own variations overwritten by other dna/genes from another individual they will evolve more seperate and distinct "breeds" then other lifeforms. Thousands of generations down the line of one type of amoeba may and in many cases has multiple very distinct "breeds" with diffintive differences. Only when a entire "breed" or strain is eliminated will that specific allele strain stop.

That is individual evolution at its simplest.

Now in non-asexual lifeforms individual still have gene variation that is indepedent of the entire species, but many times it is limited in its abilitie to cause a true evolution simply because a dominant gene type in the other donating individual overrides it and erases it from that lineage.

If it does happen to make it through the first generation it has a much greater chance albeit a horribly small one of making it through the second. With each consecutive generation that variation its self can change more. If it does become a dominant trait it will survive and eventually become a notable allelic frequency. At that time it will be considered a evolved state.

Almost every individual everywhere of every species has its own individual evolutions. Most of them will never make it into the broader gene pool because they are not dominant traits. Some of them though can lie dormant for generations before reappering.

You describe evolution as the change of a species, but it does not happen magically overnight from some random energy source passing through the entire species.

Evolution starts with the individual, and after many many generations it might become inherint in the species.