The Myth of Bacterial Resistance, Due To Evolution.

[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.

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.

Who says that the ability to eat nylon is something new? Just like the bacteria that were already immune to antibiotics, they did not evolve the ability. It already existed in their DNA. Read this. It explains it all...assuming you actually care about the truth.

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again

 

[bgrouse]

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.

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.

There's still more evidence for bacteria evolving than for god existing, which is supported by precisely 0 evidence.

 

[BulletProof]

I have no religious reason to object to Evolution. But, damn, if Evolutionists can't come up with anything better than nylon-eating bacteria, Evolution is too stupid for me to believe.

As I understand, the ability to inefficiently eat nylon comes with a loss of selectivity of what the bacteria consumes. In other words, it's a circumstantial benefit of devolution, not Evolution. Even if the bacteria did improve, rather than lose selectivity, it would still be so little as to be unimpressive. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean he clock works.

 

[bgrouse]

I have no religious reason to object to Evolution. But, damn, if Evolutionists can't come up with anything better than nylon-eating bacteria, Evolution is too stupid for me to believe.

As I understand, the ability to inefficiently eat nylon comes with a loss of selectivity of what the bacteria consumes. In other words, it's a circumstantial benefit of devolution, not Evolution. Even if the bacteria did improve, rather than lose selectivity, it would still be so little as to be unimpressive. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean he clock works.

There is no such thing as "devolution."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Actually, the question you should be asking...is it still a bacteria?

Yes, a bacteria that can digest nylon is still a bacteria.
How did it "learn" to digest nylon?
What loss of information could allow that?
Please explain your information based theory.

E Coli is a bacteria that's been around forever.

Forever? Surely you exaggerate.

 

[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.

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.

Who says that the ability to eat nylon is something new? Just like the bacteria that were already immune to antibiotics, they did not evolve the ability. It already existed in their DNA. Read this. It explains it all...assuming you actually care about the truth.

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again

Who says that the ability to eat nylon is something new?

What use is the ability to eat nylon, millions of years before nylon was invented?
Where are examples of these historical bacteria that could eat nylon?

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Actually, the question you should be asking...is it still a bacteria?

Yes, a bacteria that can digest nylon is still a bacteria.
How did it "learn" to digest nylon?
What loss of information could allow that?
Please explain your information based theory.

E Coli is a bacteria that's been around forever.

Forever? Surely you exaggerate.

Forever? Does that mean before god?

 

[fncceo]

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.

You just explained exactly how evolution works ... it doesn't change the individual organism, it was born the way it was. It survived because it was different from its peers (a mutation). It will pass that mutation on and its offspring will be born that way as well. Creating a new strain of bacteria from the individual mutation.

That IS evolution.

 

[BulletProof]

You just explained exactly how evolution works ... it doesn't change the individual organism, it was born the way it was. It survived because it was different from its peers (a mutation). It will pass that mutation on and its offspring will be born that way as well. Creating a new strain of bacteria from the individual mutation.

That IS evolution.

You're claiming that because a population of bacteria lost some selectivity in its consumption, becoming less complex, that your grandpa is a monkey. Sorry, I can't make that leap. I can agree that your grandpa is a monkey, but only to explain why his grandson is a monkey.[/QUOTE]

 

[fncceo]

You're claiming that because a population of bacteria lost some selectivity in its consumption, becoming less complex, that your grandpa is a monkey.

My Grandfather wasn't a monkey ... he was a Jew from Bremen who came to America in the 1930s. He did, however, just like every human, including you, me, and John Wayne, have an common ancestor with every primate.

The mutated bacteria in the above example didn't become less complex. It had a mutation, a portion of its DNA was different at birth from it's peers. It was just as complex as its peers and had precisely the same number of genes as its peers, just with a slightly different coding that caused it to be more resistant to a certain antibiotic.

Surviving the antibiotic allowed that bacteria to reproduce where its peers couldn't and pass that mutation down to its offspring. Creating a new strain of bacteria.

 

[bgrouse]

You just explained exactly how evolution works ... it doesn't change the individual organism, it was born the way it was. It survived because it was different from its peers (a mutation). It will pass that mutation on and its offspring will be born that way as well. Creating a new strain of bacteria from the individual mutation.

That IS evolution.

You're claiming that because a population of bacteria lost some selectivity in its consumption, becoming less complex,

There's no evidence that it's "more" or "less" complex or that it "lost" some part of it's DNA. The code was simply rearranged to dictate different traits.

that your grandpa is a monkey. Sorry, I can't make that leap. I can agree that your grandpa is a monkey, but only to explain why his grandson is a monkey.

There's no leap to make. Major evolutionary differences do not develop in a matter of a few decades. All you have to do is stop being so obtuse. Really, make the effort. It will make you seem less retarded.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have no religious reason to object to Evolution. But, damn, if Evolutionists can't come up with anything better than nylon-eating bacteria, Evolution is too stupid for me to believe.

As I understand, the ability to inefficiently eat nylon comes with a loss of selectivity of what the bacteria consumes. In other words, it's a circumstantial benefit of devolution, not Evolution. Even if the bacteria did improve, rather than lose selectivity, it would still be so little as to be unimpressive. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean he clock works.

OK. You simply do not understand evolution. It is not directional. In order to survive in a given environment, moving to the simple is just as much evolution as moving to the more complex. It is just that moving to the more complex gives an organism more possibilities of favorable mutations as the environment changes.

 

[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.

Who says that the ability to eat nylon is something new? Just like the bacteria that were already immune to antibiotics, they did not evolve the ability. It already existed in their DNA. Read this. It explains it all...assuming you actually care about the truth.

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again

LOL Cannot you see the error of your arguement? Particularly in view of the engineering that we are doing on various organisms. No, most of the other bacteria of the same species that the nylon eating bacteria came from did not have that genetic ability. That was a mutation that allowed that particular bacteria to use the nylon of food. Now the step from a bacteria, single celled organisms, to multi-celled organisms is a far larger step, involving billions of years of evolution. Over three billion on this planet.

 

[BulletProof]

There's no evidence that it's "more" or "less" complex or that it "lost" some part of it's DNA. The code was simply rearranged to dictate different traits.

Don't be so dumb. I never said the bacteria lost some DNA. I said the bacteria lost some selectivity in what it consumers. That equates with being simpler.

 

[bgrouse]

There's no evidence that it's "more" or "less" complex or that it "lost" some part of it's DNA. The code was simply rearranged to dictate different traits.

Don't be so dumb. I never said the bacteria lost some DNA. I said the bacteria lost some selectivity in what it consumers. That equates with being simpler.

No, it does not. The DNA is simply different, causing the cell to develop differently. There is no such thing as "devolution."

 

[BulletProof]

OK. You simply do not understand evolution. It is not directional. In order to survive in a given environment, moving to the simple is just as much evolution as moving to the more complex. It is just that moving to the more complex gives an organism more possibilities of favorable mutations as the environment changes.

You can stick a dildo up your ass and call it Evolution, that doesn't make your definition interesting or relevant, dumbshit. Only the direction of new complexity is interesting or relevant. Nature can't create new kinds of species if all it's doing is degrading existing species.

 

[BulletProof]

There's no leap to make. Major evolutionary differences do not develop in a matter of a few decades. All you have to do is stop being so obtuse. Really, make the effort. It will make you seem less retarded.

You don't think it's a leap to conclude that your gandpa is a monkey because some bacteria lost some selectivity in what it consumes? Damn, you really are a f-ing moron.

 

[bgrouse]

There's no leap to make. Major evolutionary differences do not develop in a matter of a few decades. All you have to do is stop being so obtuse. Really, make the effort. It will make you seem less retarded.

You don't think it's a leap to conclude that your gandpa is a monkey because some bacteria lost some selectivity in what it consumes? Damn, you really are a f-ing moron.

What part of "Major evolutionary differences do not develop in a matter of a few decades" does your severely damaged brain not comprehend?

 

[sakinago]

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.

You’re describing evolution...you’re arguing against a straw man of evolution. We have a much smaller intestinal track than chimps...because our tract got smaller that doesn’t mean we “devolved” our intestinal track. When the big ole dinosaurs roamed the earth, the rule of thumb was the bigger the better, up until an extinction event, when tiny mole like creatures became the new rulers....that’s not “devolving”. That’s just being better equipped for the environment around you.