I stand corrected:

Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action? - Answers in Genesis

"The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world."

Thanks, I never would have known that otherwise. I never knew the bacteria lost anything by being more resistant.

Adaptation in bacteria and virus cases is evolution, they change their genoma by mutation or incorporation of some other organisms genoma. I guess one might say that incorporating foreign DNA is adaptaton, but still, you gotta evolve the ability to do so ;)

Edit: gotta respond to the post just over this.
To whom do they speak? People who understand the concept behind evolution quickly identifies that as utter bullshit. And their regular fanbase doesn't really need any more brainwashing I would presume.

Its hard to distinguish adaptation from evolution, but I still feel its more adaptation than evolution. Evolution I think is more broad and universal to a species/life form as a whole. Bacteria and Viruses only change in their strain. The rest adapt to their situation accordingly.

IOW, you can't have one without bolstering the other. It doesn't matter which one is first, either way, you create your own reality; one that is close to Reality, or one that is not. As for me, my ultimate reality is one of faith. I've had too many experiences to discount it now.


I do not defend Creationism as a matter of Science, I can't. But, I am happy not to. To me, the question is unimportant in comparison to how good a person I am, and if I am doing the right things at the right time. It's academic. As for the gap between science and religion, that gap is closing. However, it does not stop discussions like these just yet.

No tossing here, I just can't explain it.

So, how many parts have you put on your Miata then? How much money have you spent? And for what? For no insurance that you -will- have a car that starts and does what you want it to? You have NO faith that the car will start and run? NONE?


You have no concept of the irony you have just presented me with; Faith stems from the right side of the brain, the emotional side. Reason, obviously the left side. How would you exist as a human being without a balance of both? Before you answer, consider the fact that you answered with an emotional response, sarcasm. If faith is an outdated concept, you had better forget using sarcasm or wit, and just stick with the facts.

Well, from my understanding (I'm a medical student, not a biologist) bacteria evolves their own toxins as well as resistances. This is similar to a mammal evolving claws in my book, even if the claw-thing is a little more complex.

Adaptation and evolution is the same thing, adaptation is the evolving of a lifeform.

(If I mix stuff up, I apologize, english is not my native language).

Edit: fahrvergnugen>> It is actually nice to find a creationist that is reasonable enough not to burst into flames when evolution is the subject.

If i might clarify my previous statement about faith and reason. What I meant is that when reason tells you that your viewpoint on something is wrong (i.e. evidence presents itself about it), then you change your beliefs into what seems most reasonable then. That is the way of good science. Very few scientists are refusing to change their beliefs about something when presented with solid evidence. I suppose what I really meant was blind faith.

But like you said, its a complexity thing. That would be like saying growing a new skin cell over damaged tissue is evolution. Or white blood cells fighting off a virus. Something on that small of a scale and so simple in design, I can't really accept as evolution. Our bodies create things but its adaptation not evolution. Each individual does its own thing, its not on a population wide scale.

How many fucking times do I have to say this... Bacteria and virus and all that bullshit is nothing but the devil's work drifting you all away from the light they dont contribute ($$) anything to the church, they are not mentioned in the bible. Therefore Bacteria, and Virus are not life-forms and evolutions does not exist.

They are gods fingernail clippings. Viruses and bacteria that is.

Not exactly. It would be more like the new skin that healed over the wound would develop greater elasticity or become harder or something similar. But that cannot happen. What could happen is that in a harsh enviroment, where one would get cuts and scratches all the time, that could lead to life threatening infections, the individuals with the most tough skin would survive in greater percentage. The adaptation (having tough skin because of some random DNA-change) leads to better survival, the adapted lifeforms will dominate the habitat = evolution.

I think I might have been unclear. Its not evolution in the individual, but adaptaton is part of evolution. Adaptation is a random event though when evolution on the other hand is pure fitness. We are saying the exact same thing ;)

I agree adaptation is a part of evolution, but adaptation I think is more of a micro scale, evolution is a macro scale. Evolution in the individual doesn't matter when it won't change the population as a whole. The 'family tree" is too broad and spread out . But yeah, I think we are on pretty much the same page.

It always start in an indvidual, and then this individuals offspring survives to a greater extent than their fellows. After a while, some ten to thousands of generations depending on the spieces i presume, the change in genes that was the adaptation, will be present in the whole speices. Because of this mutation meaning "less dying" or better fitness.

NO genetic change can ever affect a whole speices in a given moment, this stuff takes time.

Could have been what you meant, I just wanted to clarify.

That was my point. Changes do occur, but it takes a LONG time for it to be a more broad and widespread change. Especially when say in a body, a virus may mutate and adapt, but if it is wiped out it never matters to the rest of the global population. That makes the evolution even that much slower.

Whatever you guys can discuss all your discovery channel theories over and over again. Baby Jesus Christ is gonna get upset one of these days and will turn all non-believer into chimps, and then put them in the zoo for all the enlighten ones to compel upon your lost souls. Im gonna pray for you all.

Him changing us into chimps implies de-evolution... you can't have de-evolution without evolution. You lose you bible beater scum!!! :giggle:

Really digging the heated Bio I debate.

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~kate/ima...%20popcorn.jpg

Wow we do need the sarcasm font. I thought "Baby Jesus Christ" wouldve given it away. :facepalm:

PS: you lose, Obama Jesus is omnipotent, so he can do whatever he wants, just like the 14 year old that wear extra fucking small Daisy Dukes at the mall.

Dec 21, 2012. Mark your calendars.

On another note, I just remembered something funny my middle school math teacher said. He's almost bald, so therefor he's more evolved than all those hairy people. It was his excuse for having a horrible comb over.

Lizards rule the world! Or does it just go for bald monkeys? In either case, I suppose he got laid a lot.

Apparently we do, I figured "bible beater scum :giggle:" would have given it away. I caught your sarcasm.

More like the final step is to eliminate all the intelligent people. Then all the people period.

I was thinking the same thing. Intelligent people tend to live within their means and only have children they can support if they have any at all. Stupid people tend to produce in masses because that's the only way they would normally survive. We cater to stupid people, so the majority don't die off like they're supposed to. We really need to let natural selection take place or fix the education system and ween kids away from stupid parents.

I wonder what the superior race will be after humans kill themselves off. Assuming they don't take the planet with them.

Your English is great, esp. to be talking in philosophical terms. Philosophy is normally hard enough that English speakers have issues! And thank you for the compliment. Speaking of school, I have a degree in Philosophy, so I have to admit when my reasoning fails. I could have had a minor in Religion, but did not go through the paperwork.

On your points on 'good science', that is the scientific method. Science is always skewed by man's imperfections. Our perceptions are flawed, our reasoning can be skewed by ego, on and on. With that in mind, it is difficult for me to base my worldview on such an incomplete approach to the Truth.

Parts on the Miata, lots. For what? Fun. It's a more fun car now. Money? Too much. I don't have faith that it will start or run any given day; it either will or it won't. If everything is working it will, if something in the chain of events needed to get it started and keep it running is amiss, it won't. Simple.

How do I live? Easy, I just do. Just because I don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean I have no emotion. ;)

Not an uncommon theory -------------> IDIOCRACY OPENING SCENE

heh sorry codes dont work here :(

Then that does not explain why you go through the effort of doing what you do on your car; surely you are not saying you spend countless hours working on it, so it WONT start, are you?


No, not at all. However, you -must- accept the idea that you have -some- modicum of faith. If you don't, there is absolutely no reason to get out of bed in the morning.

I work on it so that it will go faster and to maintain it. I really don't see your point. :hustler:

As for the second part, why? Why do I have to have faith? It's against everything I stand for. I get out of bed in the morning and go to work with every intention of keeping America safe, keeping my soldiers in line, and learning what I'm here to learn. I also have a wife and daughter to support. I have plenty to live for and plenty of reason to get out of bed in the morning.

Okay, fine. Then you have -faith- that it -will- go faster, the car starting is only a small part of that larger equation. You wouldn't do all of that, if you didn't believe, or have faith in the idea that it -would- go faster. Therefore, you, my boy, have faith. Not all faith necessarily has anything to do with religion. Or God. Or taxes.


Alrighty then, you then have faith in the idea that you can lead your soldiers in a manner befitting a person in the American Military, you must also have faith that your wife loves you, that your daughter loves you, and that you can help and support them in a way that demonstrates you return the sentiment. Faith is not always about religion, this is my argument, you irritating man. Faith extends from your emotional half, not reason. And reason without faith is pointless. IOW, you cannot have one without the other. That's it.

i wanted to open a strip club called "The church" just for controversy

T & A is a sort of religion, but it's redemptive qualities fade with age...

Ahh, I think I smell what you're cooking now.

Have you ever watched "Idiocracy" ... bad execution, scary idea O_o

No, but it seems I must watch it.

Honestly after all my years in school and hearing the lectures of science and evolution. I have found 1 big area of contradiction between science and evolution.

In my opinion the two are at odds with each other based solely on the objective of science. Science is designed with the purpose of exploring the world around us, finding order and laws in nature, and then experimenting with those obersvations and laws to benefit from them.

Evolution should not be considered as science for it is in the purpose of science that we find the contradictions. Evolution has never been observed and is based on the premise that nature came about through some form of random situation.
Evolution cannot have laws otherwise we should be able to predict the next step of evolution and see the exact progression from the supposed millions of years. If evolution was found to have laws then it would be at odds with its own definition of random changes based on environment and situation.
Evolution cannot be experimented with because of the lack of the 1st and
2nd phases of science.

I really don't care if you believe in God's creation or Evolution. Both cannot be seen in action or experimented with, however there are laws in nature and order therefore one would conclude through reason and an open mind that something or someone would have had to made those laws. You have to believe one or the other by faith.

Sigh, so much misunderstanding.

Let's get one thing straight - evolution is in no way "random" changes, and it IS observable.

"Random" changes - Evolution is simple, the strong survive, and the weak die. The strong survive to pass along the traits that made them successful to their children. Sometimes it's not even about strength, just about having favorable traits for the environment. I was in the butterfly museum at the UF-Gainesville campus when I saw a great example of evolution in action. There was a species of moth that, before the industrial revolution, would camouflage itself against things with its light brown body. As time wore on and the things it was landing on became darker (from the pollution), the darker of the offspring survived to mate and the species in that microclimate adopted a darker hue. Not observable? Imagine I'd taken the time to post pictures of two women, one butt-ugly and one gorgeous. Which one do you want to inseminate? Exactly. Observable. Next point.

No one had to make those "laws". They are there and have been since before there were beings sentient enough to try to understand them.

I'm sorry that I don't follow how 1 species of moth passing its genetic code onto its offspring is a sign or an explanation of evolution. Nothing new came from development except the same moth species with a different color.

This moth explanation has been taking place for years. The peppered moth is one for example. It was discovered that there were two variations of the moth, a light colored and a dark. The light started to die off as people began cutting down the white birch trees. The dark colored began to gain significant numbers. One might speculate that nature is selecting the darker colored species to survive. However, this is still far from evolution because both colors of moth are the same species.

Darawin even stated in his book and his writings that evolution must have taken drastic steps to ensure its survival. A color change would not even qualify as a drastic step. It's just an adaptation to help the species survive. If evolution is true and certain species are to die, all the moths and butterflys of the same species should be decreasing in numbers.

And to believe that laws make themselves is two steps back into the dark ages. When you see a painting, an invention, a well written letter, or a garden you don't assume that it has been there forever or that it is there because it chose to be. You know someone made it. That someone planned, worked, and found the correct way to assemble it.

The second Law of Thermodynamics even contradicts evolution. Evolution tries to teach that every step is towards a better goal and a more perfect creature. This Law proves that every goes from order towards more entropy.

What do you expect to happen? The moth to turn into a bird? Evolution is a long term change, something that takes hundreds or thousands of generations to really see even small changes. Things like color aren't major changes. Structure and size are.

This thread has really shined light on something I never realized. That being the fact that so many people still see evolution as only a theory, or false. It really blows my mind that people can't understand, or can't see how its real.

Really? You really don't see how multiple small adaptations over millions of years can result in evolution?

Funny how you're the one bringing up the dark ages. :giggle: Maybe we should go back to a simpler time, when (organised) religion taught us truths like the Earth is the center of the universe, is only 6,000 years old, and flat.

Attachment 203018

I understand that you believe that small steps proves evolution but really did you even read Darwin's books or any other books on the evolutionary process? Or do you only believe what the tour guide at the zoo says or what you see on the county museum wall?

The whole evolutionary process is about totally new species arising from pre-existing species who undergo drastic changes based on their environment and situations. All you have supplied is evidence that 1 species of moth can change color and pass its genes on. No new species were created. They are both the same moth.

I'm not trying to convince you to accept creation and reject evolution, but evolution has lots of holes in its theory and therefore should be classified as a theory and not as an exact science.

Since it took thousands or hundreds of years, show me the fossil record that backs up this supposition. If there were that many generations of slight differences, there should be tens of thousands of fossils. I'm not totally sold on the idea that evolution holds all the answers to nature.

Gravity is a theory too.

Darwin's theory has been scrutinized a LOT since The Origin of Species, and not just by creationists of course. It's been under review by the scientific community continuously, and rightly so. Darwin was the first word on evolution but certainly not the last.

No new species will evolve during our lifetime, as I stated already it takes much, much longer than that. A little change here, another there, another there, and over time a new species emerges.

And no, I don't get my information from the tour guide at the zoo. Do you get your information from the church bulletin board?

Lol no i don't. I actually have been enjoying this little debate. I'm also surprised that you would assume that just because someone points out that evolution has problems with its reasoning and evidence that they must be misinformed by their church.

I would just like someone to give me a straight answer to explain the evolutionary flaws. My high school teachers couldn't, my college professors were contradicting themselves and each other and i have a hard time believing something that no one can agree upon.

I said generations not years, and yes there are tens of thousands of fossils. What exactly did you mean by the fossil thing?

One could also say evolution is why people look so vastly different from one another. What would you say is the reason for that? I also wouldn't say "totally new species arising from pre-existing species". You can trace many different species back to one common source where they branched because of geographic reasons. So the old species doesn't really go anywhere, it just changes. Its not like one day one animal gives birth to something completely different and the old design disappears. Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant.

What flaws are you referring to? Maybe I missed them in your other posts. Ask and I will try to explain. I'd say I have a higher intelligence than a lot, so maybe I can comprehend and take a guess. Another thought, Darwin might have had a good grasp on things, but its not like there is an equation for evolution. Things will be changed as more is learned. So just because there are holes and flaws doesn't mean the "theory" overall is incorrect.

I'm also quite enjoying it, so I hope everyone tries to keep it civil so we can continue. This kind of discussion is my favorite, along with space related things and physics. Real things unlike politics and trivial things that in the big picture don't matter.

If you are really going to believe that evolution is true and an exact science please explain to me these areas of contradictions:

How can radiometric dating and carbon dating be considered a fool proof way to date the earth?

Where are all the fossils in the fossil record proving the small steps that species takes to change from one to another.

Why in the fossil progession of the horse does the rib count jump all over the place and why all the horse fossils are found on different continents and no two have been found on the same continent.

Why is the geologic column not found in the correct order anywhere. In fact some of the strata are actually found in the wrong order.

Why are there some fossils of whales running perpendicular through several layers of strata? Do you expect me to believe that the whale was there standing straight up for millions of years without being disturbed?

Why mutations are considered to be a new form of evolution and yet no mutations have been found to beneficial.

Why evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is Einstein's law wrong?

And there are several more.

^

My only intention was to counter your "tour guide" comment. :D

I enjoy it too. I'll let you and NA-6C duke it out a while, I'm going to bed. Pumpkin stuff tomorrow, w00t!

yeah i'm off too it's late it has been fun debating with you. No hurt feelings here.

Damn you! I'm bored and you two are wimping out on me! Only pussies need sleep!!!

Alright one last post.
The geologic column is the supposed idea base on the Law of Superposition. This law states the strata will lie in the order that they were laid down. Evolutionists have tried to use this to prove that the earth is millions of years old. Each layer would have been built up over time. They teach that the lowest layers would be the oldest and the ones near the top should be the newest.

The theory makes sense if it was found this way. However their order of layers does not appear in the correct order from oldest to newest anywhere. There are even several instances were the layers are out of order newer ones are found under the older ones and so on. There isn't even a place where all the layers are even present. Some are just missing all together.

The Law of Superposition was twisted to try to prove the age of the earth. The law deals more with heavier sediments that will settle more quickly than lighter sediments. Not how the layers were made.

Well..... the planet isn't geologically dead. Things move around you know. So of course things are going to be out of order after hundreds of millions of years. Geology isn't my strong suit I will admit. So I'm not going to have a real strong argument or proof here.

So you believe that a whole strata layer could possible move and disappear from a rock bed with no evidence left behind? Even under the most severe earth quakes the rock layers actually become more defined because of the shaking and floods reset the layers in the their correct order that they started.

I understand that geology isn't for everyone it can get boring and I know you are already bored;)

Yeah, I do find it quite boring. I do think its possible though, from my little understanding. Churning and shaking and all of the other geological processes over those huge spans of time, along with the fact that so many variables can come from those processes, I can see it being perfectly possible that layers get ripped apart and no telling what happens to them. Nature has amazing ways of doing some really amazing things. I'm not even going to pretend to understand the complexities of those processes. I don't really think many people do. We have been studying these things for such a short time, there is just no way that we could have a real strong grasp on what happens deep within Earth. But denying these things is worse than simply questioning them in my opinion.

you can have one layer slide up over another layer which might account for the incorrect ordering.

as for the vertical whale, similar thing. moving earth could push it into any orientation.

always thought that was a good quote.

But still evolution happened, and it doesn't take place overnight.

Someone mentioned its being weird that its still a theory. but in the scientific field the term theory also mean Law.

IE: Newton's law is the same as the Theory of Relativity both are known to be true. just different terms

In no way is a theory accepted as a law in the scientific realm. A theory is considered a possible explanation to certain observable problem. Almost the same meaning as the word hypothesis.
Once a theory has withstood several years of observable tests and experiments with the same measurable results it will be considered a law.
Even the definition of the words ,theory and law, contradict your statement that they have the same meaning. Just because people use the terms theory and law when speaking interchangeably doesn't mean it's correct.

Example: It is still called the atomic theory. Even through the past decades and the great hurdles that science has jumped in this field we still call it a theory, not a law. Because it hasn't produced irrefutable data to prove our theory as to its construction, bonding, and structure. We cannot see an atom. We believe the theory to be correct because of some of the evidence through experiments and interactions, but it is still called a theory.