The Myth of Bacterial Resistance, Due To Evolution.

[RWNJ]

Bacteria and viruses that cause diseases appear to be able to "change over time" or "evolve" to become immune to medicines that we use to fight them. Evolutionists will tell you that this is "evolution before your very eyes." How can we deny this claim? That's easy. The process is true, but it has nothing to do with evolution. It does not prove that people came from worms.

Say you have your average bunch of bacteria sitting around. They will all be a little different from each other, like any group of people would be. If you expose them all to the same antibiotic, they may all die. But if some survive ... even one ... it is because that one was a little different from all of the others. Maybe it was stronger in some way. Now this lonely little germ multiplies. Soon, all you have is a bunch of germs that are all resistant to the medicine. Evolutionists will try to tell you that a "new" germ has "evolved." As you can see, there is nothing new here at all.

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there. Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts. Creationists often call losses like this "de-volution" instead of e-volution, because this sends things into the exact opposite direction of what evolution says. By the way, evolutionists believe that the worms we came from were once bacteria. I don't think that germs "becoming" resistant to our medical drugs is any kind of proof that bacteria can eventually become worms, or that worms can become people. But that is what the science fantasy of evolution says is supposed to happen. I know this all sounds incredible. But, check it out in books on microbiology and evolution. It's all there ... ridiculous as it may seem to you and me.

Evolution is really the biggest myth in the history of western civilization. It routinely goes against the real scientific evidence. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a good example of "natural selection." Creationists believe in natural selection. But you cannot say that it is proof for the imaginary process of evolution. This is like looking at the sky and saying, "Look. The sky is blue. Evolution says that this would happen, so evolution must be true." The fact is ... the sky is blue, and germs do resist our drugs ... but neither of these needs evolution in order to be true. Keep thinking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that's why some bacteria can now eat nylon.

 

[irosie91]

And that's why some bacteria can now eat nylon.

they ATE MY PANTYHOSE--------it wasn't the perverted neighbor with the binoculars

 

[RWNJ]

And that's why some bacteria can now eat nylon.

It's also the reason they are still bacteria, and will always remain bacteria.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that's why some bacteria can now eat nylon.

It's also the reason they are still bacteria, and will always remain bacteria.

Give them a billion years......

 

[bgrouse]

I don't think that germs "becoming" resistant to our medical drugs is any kind of proof that bacteria can eventually become worms, or that worms can become people.

There will likely be many intermediate beings between that starting point and that ending point. One small mutation, then a bigger one years later, etc...

Even if you don't believe in evolution, creationism or intelligent design raises even more questions with even less evidence, like where did the "creator" or "intelligent designer" come from, making it an even worse theory by far.

 

[RWNJ]

I don't think that germs "becoming" resistant to our medical drugs is any kind of proof that bacteria can eventually become worms, or that worms can become people.

There will likely be many intermediate beings between that starting point and that ending point. One small mutation, then a bigger one years later, etc...

Even if you don't believe in evolution, creationism or intelligent design raises even more questions with even less evidence, like where did the "creator" or "intelligent designer" come from, making it an even worse theory by far.

God has always existed. He didn't have a beginning. He is the original cause of all that exists. An original cause, that is also uncaused is required, because you cannot have an infinite regression of causes. There has to be a primal cause. And since nothing physical can create itself, the physical universe MUST have had a Creator. No other explanation makes any sense. Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

 

[dblack]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

 

[RWNJ]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

 

[dblack]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

Oh... you're actually a creationist. Nevermind.

 

[bgrouse]

I don't think that germs "becoming" resistant to our medical drugs is any kind of proof that bacteria can eventually become worms, or that worms can become people.

There will likely be many intermediate beings between that starting point and that ending point. One small mutation, then a bigger one years later, etc...

Even if you don't believe in evolution, creationism or intelligent design raises even more questions with even less evidence, like where did the "creator" or "intelligent designer" come from, making it an even worse theory by far.

God has always existed.

Then maybe evolution always existed.

He didn't have a beginning. He is the original cause of all that exists. An original cause, that is also uncaused is required, because you cannot have an infinite regression of causes. There has to be a primal cause. And since nothing physical can create itself

Or it always existed. That's far more likely than the existence of something that has 0 proof (god).

, the physical universe MUST have had a Creator. No other explanation makes any sense. Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

 

[bgrouse]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

You're argument is quite silly. You're saying that since you haven't observed evolution working in leaps in bounds, that it doesn't work at all. That's like saying it's impossible for humans to build a house since you've never seen a person just put down a house in one swoop and that the most you've seen is a brick or two being put down.

 

[RWNJ]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

Oh... you're actually a creationist. Nevermind.

Oh... You're a clueless idiot. Never mind.

 

[RWNJ]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

You're argument is quite silly. You're saying that since you haven't observed evolution working in leaps in bounds, that it doesn't work at all. That's like saying it's impossible for humans to build a house since you've never seen a person just put down a house in one swoop and that the most you've seen is a brick or two being put down.

No. My argument is that there is no mechanism in place for life to add new information to it's DNA. Do you disagree? Keep in mind that information can not be created by nature. DNA is information. In fact, it meets the definition of a language. And every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

You're argument is quite silly. You're saying that since you haven't observed evolution working in leaps in bounds, that it doesn't work at all. That's like saying it's impossible for humans to build a house since you've never seen a person just put down a house in one swoop and that the most you've seen is a brick or two being put down.

No. My argument is that there is no mechanism in place for life to add new information to it's DNA. Do you disagree? Keep in mind that information can not be created by nature. DNA is information. In fact, it meets the definition of a language. And every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds.

My argument is that there is no mechanism in place for life to add new information to it's DNA.

How did bacteria "learn" to digest nylon?

 

[bgrouse]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

You're argument is quite silly. You're saying that since you haven't observed evolution working in leaps in bounds, that it doesn't work at all. That's like saying it's impossible for humans to build a house since you've never seen a person just put down a house in one swoop and that the most you've seen is a brick or two being put down.

No. My argument is that there is no mechanism in place for life to add new information to it's DNA. Do you disagree? Keep in mind that information can not be created by nature. DNA is information. In fact, it meets the definition of a language. And every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds.

You said yourself: germs "becoming" resistant to our medical drugs. Sounds like a "new" trick to me. As usual, you're holding onto the ridiculous belief that because they don't change into humans overnight, but only undergo small changes over a period of many years, that it's impossible for them to ever evolve through mutation into anything significantly different. That's like a little kid who can't comprehend that a house is built brick-by-brick and not all at once in one gesture.

 

[WinterBorn]

And that's why some bacteria can now eat nylon.

It's also the reason they are still bacteria, and will always remain bacteria.

How many changes or variations can occur before they are not bacteria?

 

[Old Rocks]

And that's why some bacteria can now eat nylon.

It's also the reason they are still bacteria, and will always remain bacteria.

LOL What a dumb statement that was. No one stated that they had changed from being bacteria. Just that they had changed their internal working enough so that they could now do something that previously they could not do, whether it was eating nylon, or being immune to an antibiotic.

 

[bgrouse]

And that's why some bacteria can now eat nylon.

It's also the reason they are still bacteria, and will always remain bacteria.

LOL What a dumb statement that was. No one stated that they had changed from being bacteria. Just that they had changed their internal working enough so that they could now do something that previously they could not do, whether it was eating nylon, or being immune to an antibiotic.

If they can't prove it to him in plain pictures on TV, it doesn't exist.
Except when it comes to god.

 

[RWNJ]

There are other ways that germs can become immune to our medicines. Many antibiotics kill bacteria by targeting some certain protein in the germ. If a bacterium is mutated, so that it does not have this protein, then the medicine cannot attack the germ. If any bacteria in the group are mutated like this, then only they will survive the attack by the medicine. Did anything new evolve here? No. The mutants were already there.

That's exactly how evolution works. You described it perfectly. The actual technical jargon characterizes evolution as "selecting", from among existing traits, those that are best adapted to their environment. There's no pretense about any trait emerging in response to the environment. You're exactly right. Evolution doesn't mean that new traits will emerge. It just means that those that work the best are more likely to stick around, and do.

Even if new mutants do form, this is only an example of losing the protein. For evolution to work, you are not supposed to lose anything ... you are supposed to evolve brand new proteins and genes and body parts.

Who told you that?

Your logic is faulty. In order for the diversity of life we see to exist, new information would need to be added to DNA. There is no know mechanism to accomplish this. Every observation ever made proves that like begets like. A cat cannot give birth to a dog. Never happen.

You're argument is quite silly. You're saying that since you haven't observed evolution working in leaps in bounds, that it doesn't work at all. That's like saying it's impossible for humans to build a house since you've never seen a person just put down a house in one swoop and that the most you've seen is a brick or two being put down.

No. My argument is that there is no mechanism in place for life to add new information to it's DNA. Do you disagree? Keep in mind that information can not be created by nature. DNA is information. In fact, it meets the definition of a language. And every observation ever made concludes that language comes only from intelligent minds.

My argument is that there is no mechanism in place for life to add new information to it's DNA.

How did bacteria "learn" to digest nylon?

Actually, the question you should be asking...is it still a bacteria? No matter what changes occur, it is still a bacteria. It will never be anything other than a bacteria. E Coli is a bacteria that's been around forever. It's still E Coli. It will always be E Coli. It has the one of simplest genomes on the planet, yet after supposedly billions of years of evolution it is still the same simple bacteria.