who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[geauxtohell]

That's it?

That's your contribution?

Lighten up, Francis. I had to run to the post office to mail my little brother all my USMLE Step 1 stuff now that I thankfully don't need them anymore.

As for my participation in this thread beyond this snarky contribution; I am currently weighing whether I want to waste more time on yet another evolution thread dealing with more anti-evolutionists whose scientific illiteracy is so great that they can't formulate a coherent and sound scientific argument and often times have to resort to falsehoods to back up their positions (and in addition, haven't even bothered to really study what evolutionary theory is and is not).

That last wasn't necessarily directed at you in regards to the "Staff A" thing.

 

[geauxtohell]

Excuse me for coming in so late to this discussion, and let me just add my own two cents.

I don't believe in evolution. Despite the OP's assertion to the contrary, it has NOT been proven. I tend toward disbelief at the moment, although I am not particularly married to that position. I just see no point in believing in something with so little hard evidence and so many frauds presented in place of evidence.

And when I say "evolution", I don't mean "change over time", or "change and mutation within a species", or "abiogenesis" (but thanks so much to the OP for that projection onto others. I always love a good Wikipedia scientist ). I am specifically referring to Darwinism, aka Darwin's theory of evolution.

Then you'll be happy to know that only a few key elements of Darwin's Theory (i.e. natural selection) are present in current Evolutionary Theory (aka "The Modern Synthesis")

If you really have an open mind on this matter and care enough to educate yourself, read a biology textbook or take a biology class at your local university.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, I see how that makes a big difference.

Thank you.

Just keeping it all straight. I normally don't like people who nitpick, but when it comes to medical science, God is in the details.

I need a degree in microbiology to read and understand and discuss what almost croaked me?

LOL

Of course not, but you do look somewhat silly when you castigate the knowledge base of others and aren't fully aware of what bug you even had. Of the gram positive cocci, you basically have the Staph family and the Strept family (with Enterococcus thrown in).

I mean, this could get waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy down in the weeds in regards to prokaryotic morphology, physiology, and genetics. So you might as well have the very basics down.

I was just pointing out the total foolishness and against-all-odds notion that a gamma ray could slam into a DNA molecule and toss around amino acids like bowling pins and rearranging them perfectly to make a gene that makes the organism resistant to new drugs.

I'm happy the 8 years you spent in Med School in Cancun allowed you to correct my spelling from Staff to Staph.

Again, it was very helpful.

 

[geauxtohell]

So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species. There is no evidence that humans or animals have evolved from a totally different species.

This.
There is no evidence for one species becoming another. Biologists do not buy classic Darwinian theory.

Of course they don't. Darwin had no real mechanism for genetics.

To his credit, no one had discovered Mendel's work yet.

As for your prevailing and silly notion that there is some sort of difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution; only the anti-evolution crowd cares about that.

To an evolutionist, it's like saying you believe in a penny, but not a dollar.

 

[Father Time]

Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species. There is no evidence that humans or animals have evolved from a totally different species.

This.
There is no evidence for one species becoming another. Biologists do not buy classic Darwinian theory.

Of course they don't. Darwin had no real mechanism for genetics.

To his credit, no one had discovered Mendel's work yet.

As for your prevailing and silly notion that there is some sort of difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution; only the anti-evolution crowd cares about that.

To an evolutionist, it's like saying you believe in a penny, but not a dollar.

Yeah really, a species can have gradual changes but apparently there's no way those changes can combine to make a new species that would be silly.

 

[geauxtohell]

I was just pointing out the total foolishness and against-all-odds notion that a gamma ray could slam into a DNA molecule and toss around amino acids like bowling pins and rearranging them perfectly to make a gene that makes the organism resistant to new drugs.

Your insistence that gamma rays or radiation has to be involved in this process at all is foolishness. If you took some time to study genetics, you'd know that most genetic mutations occur at the transcriptional and translational level and don't require any outside energy to occur.

BTW, you keep referring to "mycins" as if there is an antibiotic class of drugs known as such, there is not. Simply because many antibiotics have the suffix mycin doesn't mean they are related in their mechanisms of actions which would make them part of a family (unlike beta lactams, macrolides, aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, etc).

Of all the millions of combination in all of the millions of strands of DNA that a single gamma ray could hit it knock a single electron in an atom of a GTCA strand and causes that electron to carom off other amino acids?

DNA and RNA are nucleic acids. Amino acids are found at the translational level in the assembly of proteins.

I'm happy the 8 years you spent in Med School in Cancun allowed you to correct my spelling from Staff to Staph.

Oh, it wasn't a spelling mistake Francis. It was a lack of knowledge. Let's not try and French it up. Anyways, on that note, you are welcome. However, you don't have to go to Medical School to know that "Staph" is a bacteria and "Staff" is what a Ninja Turtle carries.

I thought you'd be appreciative, lest you persist and look even more foolish.

Again, it was very helpful.

And again, you guys can't even get the basic nomenclature down, and you wonder why the rest of us barely have the patience for you idiotic and factually inaccurate rants about how evolution is all wrong.

 

[geauxtohell]

This.
There is no evidence for one species becoming another. Biologists do not buy classic Darwinian theory.

Of course they don't. Darwin had no real mechanism for genetics.

To his credit, no one had discovered Mendel's work yet.

As for your prevailing and silly notion that there is some sort of difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution; only the anti-evolution crowd cares about that.

To an evolutionist, it's like saying you believe in a penny, but not a dollar.

Yeah really, a species can have gradual changes but apparently there's no way those changes can combine to make a new species that would be silly.

And that kind of moronic (and, frankly, disingenuous) thinking is why I weigh whether I want to waste my time discussing this issue with people who have no desire to actually study and learn about this issue.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was just pointing out the total foolishness and against-all-odds notion that a gamma ray could slam into a DNA molecule and toss around amino acids like bowling pins and rearranging them perfectly to make a gene that makes the organism resistant to new drugs.

Your insistence that gamma rays or radiation has to be involved in this process at all is foolishness. If you took some time to study genetics, you'd know that most genetic mutations occur at the transcriptional and translational level and don't require any outside energy to occur.

BTW, you keep referring to "mycins" as if there is an antibiotic class of drugs known as such, there is not. Simply because many antibiotics have the suffix mycin doesn't mean they are related in their mechanisms of actions which would make them part of a family (unlike beta lactams, macrolides, aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, etc).

Of all the millions of combination in all of the millions of strands of DNA that a single gamma ray could hit it knock a single electron in an atom of a GTCA strand and causes that electron to carom off other amino acids?

DNA and RNA are nucleic acids. Amino acids are found at the translational level in the assembly of proteins.

I'm happy the 8 years you spent in Med School in Cancun allowed you to correct my spelling from Staff to Staph.

Oh, it wasn't a spelling mistake Francis. It was a lack of knowledge. Let's not try and French it up. Anyways, on that note, you are welcome. However, you don't have to go to Medical School to know that "Staph" is a bacteria and "Staff" is what a Ninja Turtle carries.

I thought you'd be appreciative, lest you persist and look even more foolish.

Again, it was very helpful.

And again, you guys can't even get the basic nomenclature down, and you wonder why the rest of us barely have the patience for you idiotic and factually inaccurate rants about how evolution is all wrong.

See, we're actually very close to saying the same thing.

I contend that an organism as selfaware energy, is able to rearrange itself energetically to meet the new challenge and when we look at it with our physical and limited human understanding, we call it a "random mutation"

 

[geauxtohell]

See, we're actually very close to saying the same thing.

I contend that an organism as selfaware energy, is able to rearrange itself energetically to meet the new challenge and when we look at it with our physical and limited human understanding, we call it a "random mutation"

Sound fascinating. You should form a hypothesis, research, and publish.

As it stands, it's rather pointless to debate your opinion on genetics when you have absolutely no data to back it up.

I'll stick to the notion that mutations are due to errors in DNA reading or coding and not something that is directed by a cell.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Excuse me for coming in so late to this discussion, and let me just add my own two cents.

I don't believe in evolution. Despite the OP's assertion to the contrary, it has NOT been proven. I tend toward disbelief at the moment, although I am not particularly married to that position. I just see no point in believing in something with so little hard evidence and so many frauds presented in place of evidence.

And when I say "evolution", I don't mean "change over time", or "change and mutation within a species", or "abiogenesis" (but thanks so much to the OP for that projection onto others. I always love a good Wikipedia scientist ). I am specifically referring to Darwinism, aka Darwin's theory of evolution.

Then you'll be happy to know that only a few key elements of Darwin's Theory (i.e. natural selection) are present in current Evolutionary Theory (aka "The Modern Synthesis")

If you really have an open mind on this matter and care enough to educate yourself, read a biology textbook or take a biology class at your local university.

Been there, done that, standing by my statement: evolution is NOT proven.

If you really have something to say, say it. Don't try to imply that you're right; PROVE that you are. All "read a book and take a class" proves is that you can't make a real argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution has only been proven to exist INSIDE a species. There is no evidence that humans or animals have evolved from a totally different species.

This.
There is no evidence for one species becoming another. Biologists do not buy classic Darwinian theory.

Of course they don't. Darwin had no real mechanism for genetics.

To his credit, no one had discovered Mendel's work yet.

As for your prevailing and silly notion that there is some sort of difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution; only the anti-evolution crowd cares about that.

To an evolutionist, it's like saying you believe in a penny, but not a dollar.

Actually, Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and was not impressed by him. This might explain why Darwin's supporters virtually ignored Mendel's work well into the twentieth century. Are you trying to say that Mendel's work supports Darwinistic evolution, or merely that you think Darwin would have come up with better ideas had he known more about Mendel's work before he published?

If you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist.

 

[geauxtohell]

Been there, done that, standing by my statement: evolution is NOT proven.

If you really have something to say, say it. Don't try to imply that you're right; PROVE that you are. All "read a book and take a class" proves is that you can't make a real argument.

Nothing in science is fully proven. Everything is open to revision. Evolution is highly supported by the data and evidence we have, but it is not beyond being overturned.

As for your second, I've said plenty on this subject on this and other threads. I pointed out that Darwin's original theory only proximately represents what we know now to be Evolutionary Theory. I assume you didn't know that, or you would have never made the statement that you did.

Or perhaps you did and you just wanted to dishonestly muddy the waters. When dealing with anti-evolution people, I never know if I am getting dishonesty or ignorance.

At any rate, I don't know what more you want me to say that I haven't already said on the matter here or elsewhere. Did you have a question?

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and was not impressed by him. This might explain why Darwin's supporters virtually ignored Mendel's work well into the twentieth century. Are you trying to say that Mendel's work supports Darwinistic evolution, or merely that you think Darwin would have come up with better ideas had he known more about Mendel's work before he published?

I've never seen anything that suggested Mendel and Darwin had a conflict with each other. As for ignoring Mendel's work; the entire scientific community ignored Mendel's work. The importance of what Mendel proposed wasn't realized until the early 1900s. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. That has nothing to do with Darwin.

Darwin's mechanism for inheritence was just silly, and he knew it. I doubt he would have been anything but enthusiastic about a simple mechanism for inheritance to explain gradual change over generations.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It would have certainly strengthened his theory. As it stands, Mendel is the father of genetics and genetics has only supported the notion of evolutionary theory.

So to answer you last question: both.

If you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist.

If you're too stupid to grasp the simple analogy and why it's absurd to get wrapped up in "Macro" and "micro" evolution then I can see why you are in the dark.

Intentionally in the dark, I presume.

If you don't support evolution, what is your theory for diversity of life?

You would certainly have to reject Intelligent Design, so are you a straight up creationist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Been there, done that, standing by my statement: evolution is NOT proven.

If you really have something to say, say it. Don't try to imply that you're right; PROVE that you are. All "read a book and take a class" proves is that you can't make a real argument.

Nothing in science is fully proven. Everything is open to revision. Evolution is highly supported by the data and evidence we have, but it is not beyond being overturned.

As for your second, I've said plenty on this subject on this and other threads. I pointed out that Darwin's original theory only proximately represents what we know now to be Evolutionary Theory. I assume you didn't know that, or you would have never made the statement that you did.

Or perhaps you did and you just wanted to dishonestly muddy the waters. When dealing with anti-evolution people, I never know if I am getting dishonesty or ignorance.

At any rate, I don't know what more you want me to say that I haven't already said on the matter here or elsewhere. Did you have a question?

There's a big difference between "not fully proven and subject to revision" and "not proven", so don't try to split semantic hairs with me. This sort of thing masquerading as an argument is EXACTLY why I'm so skeptical of evolution and its adherents.

Ditto "Darwin's original theory". I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory". I'm not interested in verbal shell games. If anyone is muddying the waters here, it's you. I've been very precise in my word choices to say exactly what I mean. As for dishonesty, your attempts to deflect onto things other than the true bone of contention on this subject speaks for itself.

I don't want you to say anything. The thread topic is "Who doesn't believe in evolution?" I answered that question. The topic wasn't "Justify your lack of belief in evolution to dipwads", nor was it "Listen to dipwads try to convince you to believe in evolution without ever actually offering proof". If I had a question, I would have asked it and there would be no doubt that I had done so.

 

[blu]

evolution has been proven for a long time

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and was not impressed by him. This might explain why Darwin's supporters virtually ignored Mendel's work well into the twentieth century. Are you trying to say that Mendel's work supports Darwinistic evolution, or merely that you think Darwin would have come up with better ideas had he known more about Mendel's work before he published?

I've never seen anything that suggested Mendel and Darwin had a conflict with each other.

When I say, "Not impressed with him", I refer to his work and theories, not the man personally.

As for ignoring Mendel's work; the entire scientific community ignored Mendel's work.

Something to remember when people are touting a "consensus of the scientific community" as proof that something is true.

The importance of what Mendel proposed wasn't realized until the early 1900s. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. That has nothing to do with Darwin.

You'd have to take that viewpoint up with William Bateson. William Bateson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said, in his Mendel's Principles of Heredity, concerning the delay in acceptance of Mendel's work, "the cause is unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines".

Darwin's mechanism for inheritence was just silly, and he knew it. I doubt he would have been anything but enthusiastic about a simple mechanism for inheritance to explain gradual change over generations.

And? Am I supposed to be impressed that Darwin KNEW he was slinging bullshit? Why am I supposed to care that HE would have approved of MENDEL?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It would have certainly strengthened his theory. As it stands, Mendel is the father of genetics and genetics has only supported the notion of evolutionary theory.

Really? So now you're going to tell us how the study of genetics "supports" evolution, right? And you're going to do it without any verbal three-card Monty to try to make "evolution" mean something else, yes?

So to answer you last question: both.

If you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist.

If you're too stupid to grasp the simple analogy and why it's absurd to get wrapped up in "Macro" and "micro" evolution then I can see why you are in the dark.

Intentionally in the dark, I presume.

If you don't support evolution, what is your theory for diversity of life?

You would certainly have to reject Intelligent Design, so are you a straight up creationist?

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass, and I can see why you're stupid enough to be an evolutionist.

Head up your colon, I presume.

Why do I have to have a theory in order to choose not to believe the one you offer? Where is it written that I can't just say, "you haven't convinced me yet"?

And I don't "have" to reject anything, and I have to tell you that your attempt to make this into a "those stupid religious nuts" argument instead of simply responding to what I'm saying is yet another standard, textbook evolutionist dodge which makes me skeptical of anything they have to say.

What are you so afraid of, that you have to try to project your talking points onto me?

 

[Cecilie1200]

evolution has been proven for a long time

Oh, well, if YOU say it's proven, then I'll just get right on accepting it with no further question. God knows, YOUR word for it proof enough for me.

 

[Father Time]

I am specifically referring to Darwinism, aka Darwin's theory of evolution.

Ditto "Darwin's original theory". I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory".

Nice backtracking.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You completely missed and/or glossed over my point about these random useful mutations. Not surprising. The ODDS of some "random mutation" creating the EXACT mutation necessary to defeat the latest mycin are...well, let's take a step back first.

In all actuality, I directly addressed the point about the odds regarding random mutation. It's in the very last paragraph of my previous post, which you directly quoted. Just because the numbers are too big for you to count on all your fingers and toes doesn't mean it's impossible. If you reread my previous explanation, you will see that the statistics are not only possibly, but likely to occur frequently. In fact desired mutations happen so quickly that we can study antibiotic resistance in an intro level college bio lab in real time.

It's not about creating some picture perfect mutation that defeats an antibiotic. It's about producing a ton of mutations, most of which are useless, but one of which allows for increased survival and replication.

Once bacterium develop a resistance to a drug, they NEVER mutate that resistance away. They are resistant to penicillin, they will be resistant to penicillin in another million generations. There is a mechanism in the bacterium that make these resistances additive and permanent.

Actually that's not entirely true. There is no such thing as "permanence". In fact, studies show that if a bacteria that has a lot of extra genome coding for antibiotics is not exposed to antibiotics, the offspring that accidentally lose the unneeded genetic code can replicate faster, and predominate the population.

The reason your colony of mutants collapses is that's not how bacterium work. If they were all mutated, they would not survive, because the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful (that's why they're called mutations). Moreover, by constant exposure to antibiotics, we are actually breeding the super bugs we fear. MRSA do not exists out in the wilderness, they only exist where we created them. (I have personal reasons for discussing these particular bacterium because I had two personal experiences with staff A, but thankfully was not MRSA)

The colony of mutants doesn't collapse. Lethal mutations are lethal to the one bacteria that was made with it. You continue to think of this concept as an all or none idea, and it's not. Say a bacterium divides, whereas one offspring is perfectly normal like the parent, and the other has a lethal mutation and dies. Notice how the entire colony is not lethally mutated. It's just one dead bug. Similarly, if one of the offspring gets a viable mutation that gives it antibiotic resistance, the entire colony is not mutated, just the one bacterium. However if antibiotics are introduced, everything BESIDES that one mutated bug dies, and that one mutated bug can repopulate the colony with a viable mutation.

Think of it like this: if something magically killed all the right handed people on the planet, what type of person would predominate? The lefties. They take over because they're the only survivors, and the surviving trait is not a damaging one.

btw, it's staph, not staff.

They develop the resistance, then transmit the new resistance to the others.

Yes, they develop the resistance to the antibiotic before they ever see the antibiotic. Then when everything else gets wiped out around them, they can transmit their resistance to any other bacteria when they get transferred around.

Also, I'm glad to see even you have finally realized how completely ridiculous is the notion of radiation causing these "random mutations"

Who has ever said in this thread that radiation causes the majority of random mutations? It CAN happen, but errors of replication are much more frequent. Where did you get this radiation idea from? You're like arguing with yourself and ending the conversation with "see? I'm right!".

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass

Actually you completely missed the analogy, because you read it literally instead of figuratively as it was meant. If I may rephrase it, he is making a statement such as "you believe a penny represents money but not a dollar". It's essentially saying that this ridiculous made up idea of microevolution is the penny to macroevolution's dollar. They're both different denominations of the exact same system.

And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself. So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated? Phylogenetics? Phenotype? You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.