Thread: creationists and evolution

Can i ask a question of creationist scientists, If you believe in the creation of all things from a divine source and not from evolution, how do you explain the evolution of bacteria to survive the medicines in their path?

Eg antibiotic resistant forms of common bacteria


This is a genuine question and not for the purpose of proving you wrong, just intersted in your explanation :-D

let me guess their argument
"Thats micro evolution, we dont belive in macro evolution"

Originally Posted by Zelos

let me guess their argument
"Thats micro evolution, we dont belive in macro evolution"

is that the usual response then?

ive heard it from creationists

That is a common response. There's also a more radical equivocation that nothing is happening at all, which they support with profound misunderstanding, either on purpose or accidental, of basic evolution.

Since none of the creationists have shown up yet, let me offer this argument on their behalf. They are free to provide a better one at any time.

The majority of individuals, including those in the sciences, accept evolution, not because they undertand it, but because they have been told it is true. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach: we cannot all investigate every single aspect of science to satisfy ourselves of its authenticity. However, there is a danger, when defending evolution, of simply parroting the established viewpoint, without understanding all the relevant aspects and implications.

One aspect, admittedly one that is also missed by many creationists, is that there is not, and never has been a Theory of Evolution. There have been many theories. Darwin's was not the first, though it came to prominence, produced a revolution in thinking, and, to some extent, forms the basis of all the current theories.

This diversity of theories has also produced a diversity of definitions, definitions of evolution itself, and of associated concepts, such as species. Supporters of evolutionary theory have thus constantly moved the goal posts. Certainly, I would not claim that this was done to confuse and discomfort creationists, but it has definitely led to obfuscation of the core matters.

Darwin was interested, primarily, in the evolution of animals and to a lesser extent of plants. He dealt exclusively with metazoans. He had no interest in microscopic life forms from the point of view of evolution. His focus was on large, multi-celled organisms; organisms whose distinctive characters were readily evident, even to an unskilled observer. It is to the evolution of such forms that we raise objection, not to minor variation in largely inconsequential aspects of tiny, single celled entities.

Let us even concede, purely for sake of argument, that these changes of character are substantial. What significance has this for changes in character of elephants, or monkeys? The honest, scientific answer has to be 'very little'. And that has to be the answer for two reasons:

Firstly, these bacteria that are supposedly exhibiting speciation are doing so, not in reality, but within the artificial definitions of species applied to these microscopic lifeforms. It really is ingenuous to accord the same meaning to species for a single celled, primitive, asexual entity, that we do for one that is multicellular, complex and sexual. To believe that some of these character changes produce new species is to distort the original meaning beyond breaking point.
(This is not to say that sceintists may not choose to call such variants 'species', but to pretend an identity with the 'species' amongst mammals, or fish, or birds, is either to be very ignorant, or intellectually dishonest to a remarkable degree.)

Secondly, these changes are taking place within prokaryotes. Such organisms have their genetic material spread randomly through the cell, not concentrated in a nucleus. In such an unstructured environment we might readily expect change to possible, indeed inevitable. The animal and plant species placed here by the Creator have their genetic material restrained within the structure of the nucleus of the cell. Such an environment is likely to suppress change, not encourage it.

In short, adaptation of single celled, prokaryotic, micro-organisms is wholly irrelevant to the alleged evolution of multi celled, eukaryotic macro-organisms. To disprove the view that such animals were created the scientists must address only these organisms, and not appeal to the incidental qualities of the bacterial kingdom..

Are there currently any participants in the forum who would defend Creation "science"? The Islamic prof might repudiate evolution, but seems more interested in seeking converts to Islam.

In response to Ophiolite:

Since the purpose of sex is genetic exchange then we can merely look to the prokaryotic method of direct exchange in its place when defining a species. Surely prokaryotic organisms are not capable of direct genetic exchange with just any other prokariotic organism?

On second thought, I know that some bacteria can do this (direct genetic exchange) but perhaps not all prokaryotic organisms, in which case it would not be such a good definition of prokaryotic species, in which case the species would have to be defined arbitrarily as you say.

I agree with what your saying about darwin not studying the micro oganisms, That is not all i base my belief in evolution on :wink: just a quick question that i wondered about as its one of those times when potentially science and religion come together

Eg a christian doctor working in virology etc I thought about it after the other thread i did recently of the mutation in a gene which could potentially make some people safe/safer from HIV virus

One question, why would the genetic material restrained within the nucleus of the cell suppress change?

surely its the genetic mutations at that level that causes the difference's that would either help or hinder a plant or mammal for instance have the edge over the others without the mutations

captain caveman asked:

Can i ask a question of creationist scientists, If you believe in the creation of all things from a divine source and not from evolution, how do you explain the evolution of bacteria to survive the medicines in their path?

Been awhile since I posted on TSF, but this question seems to be a good spot to re-enter.

The question seems to mix three areas of study. First of all, if you are talking about creation or the beginning of or whatever you which to call the point at which the Universe came into existence, that is the study of cosmogony. Cosmogony is somewhat removed from the beginning and diversification of life forms which is more accurately placed in the study of biology. And those two are connected by the study of the development of the Universe which is the study of cosmology.

As to how bacteria become immune: Antibiotics penetrate a bacterium's cell wall and poison it to death. The bacterium must rid itself of the poison or it will die. The bacterium, thus infected, seeks a solution. Usually, as with almost all life forms, some members of a population may have within its DNA construct, an antibiotic resistant plasmid which it is more than happy to share. The antibiotic-resistant bacterium comes in contact with a non resistant bacterium and sends out a pilus by which a single strand of the antibiotic plasmid is transferred. (This is called gene transference and is prevalent throughout life forms.) After the transfer, both cells synthesize a complimentary strand to complete the DNA structure and then the two share with two more and then there are four etc, Plus, the bacteria also multiply on their own, so you have something of a double multiplication process. This process takes place quite rapidly. However, the antibiotics are similarly equipped and can adapt to the defenses of the invading bacteria and it boils down to what you might call an evolutionary war.

You can learn more about this process at http/www.cosmicfingerprints.com/supplement although you will have to register with the site to get to the article.

The main reason TSF does not get creationists involved in these discussion is because there are any number of members of the forum who are here not for the purpose of discussing the issues, but rather merely for the purpose of attempting to thrash and express their disrespect for those of a religious bent with whom they disagree no matter the topic of discussion.

What we are learning about genes and the abilities of cells to both protect and restructure themselves in order to address differing circumstances is mind boggling. I have long been and still remain a disbeliever in Darwinism or neo-Darwinism because neither of these paradigms provide a mechanism to account for the evolutionary changes they suggest within the longest of time frames they propose. However, with recent discoveries of how cells and DNA actually work, they are showing mechanisms and processes whereby evolution can take place rapidly and dramatically.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

You can learn more about this process at http/www.cosmicfingerprints.com/supplement although you will have to register with the site to get to the article.

Addendum:you won't learn anything¹ from that site or the promoted book. It's all written by a nutcase with no clue as to the reality.

The main reason TSF does not get creationists involved in these discussion is because there are any number of members of the forum who are here not for the purpose of discussing the issues, but rather merely for the purpose of attempting to thrash and express their disrespect for those of a religious bent with whom they disagree no matter the topic of discussion.

False.

1 Except, possibly, that delusion is still rife among some people.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

captain caveman asked:

Can i ask a question of creationist scientists, If you believe in the creation of all things from a divine source and not from evolution, how do you explain the evolution of bacteria to survive the medicines in their path?

[snip]
I have long been and still remain a disbeliever in Darwinism or neo-Darwinism because neither of these paradigms provide a mechanism to account for the evolutionary changes they suggest within the longest of time frames they propose.
[snip]

Do you have a reference for this claim? How would one determine the span of time required for a given evolutionary change? Has anyone actually done this, and if so, what did they do and what did they find?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

captain caveman asked:

Can i ask a question of creationist scientists, If you believe in the creation of all things from a divine source and not from evolution, how do you explain the evolution of bacteria to survive the medicines in their path?

As to how bacteria become immune: Antibiotics penetrate a bacterium's cell wall and poison it to death. The bacterium must rid itself of the poison or it will die. The bacterium, thus infected, seeks a solution. Usually, as with almost all life forms, some members of a population may have within its DNA construct, an antibiotic resistant plasmid which it is more than happy to share. The antibiotic-resistant bacterium comes in contact with a non resistant bacterium and sends out a pilus by which a single strand of the antibiotic plasmid is transferred. (This is called gene transference and is prevalent throughout life forms.) After the transfer, both cells synthesize a complimentary strand to complete the DNA structure and then the two share with two more and then there are four etc, Plus, the bacteria also multiply on their own, so you have something of a double multiplication process. This process takes place quite rapidly. However, the antibiotics are similarly equipped and can adapt to the defenses of the invading bacteria and it boils down to what you might call an evolutionary war.

citation needed for this, as it wholly incorrect as to how the biology of bacteria works.
P.S. The reason your receive so much push back Dayton, is because you dismiss or ignore ANY data that doesnt support your assertion of "GOD DID IT", which is wholly unacceptable behavior on this forum, per the forum rules.

Exchemist:


Way to take issue with the irrelevant part of the statement while ignoring the meaningful part. The biggest problem with Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is the inability of these paradigms to display a mechanism which can accomplish biodiversity, on the scale the Earth has experienced it, within any suggested time frame. Both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism tend to present this basic formula: small random changes + long periods of time = evolution. Neo-Darwinism does include the idea of adaptation, but offers no actual random processes whereby these adaptations can be effectively achieved. The question you pose concerning showing the amount of time needed for small random changes to effect changes that would produce a noticeable genetically different lifeform is precisely the problem that Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism neglect to address. So your question here is better directed to them. They are the ones who claim this is how evolution has taken place. The question, ultimately, revolves around whether the changes are random or deliberately and purposeful.


Paleoichneum:


I am not sure that “this is wrong” really addresses an issue unless you are prepared to offer a discourse on “what is right.” Nor am I sure what it is you are saying is wrong (in what you quote) since I have merely described the process of horizontal gene transference, a well known and well-documented process which takes place among bacteria (and the cells of multi-celled lifeforms) and shows one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. This is such a basic and well-documented process, it hardly seems one would be required to provide citations. If you merely do a search on “horizontal gene transference,” you will find far more complex and complete explanations as well as diagrams showing the process.

Now then, it also occurs to me that this is showing a purposeful, intentional act on the part of the DNA of both donor and recipient. I suppose this might be found repugnant to someone who believes cellular changes are random, but fortuitous.


You say:

you dismiss or ignore ANY data that doesnt support your assertion of "GOD DID IT", which is wholly unacceptable behavior on this forum, per the forum rules.

Well, actually, I was under the impression this was a discussion forum. If you rule out the consideration of any one particular viewpoint, it ceases to be a discussion forum but, rather, becomes a one-sided, back-slapping forum of group-think. Secondarily, I do not see where you have offered any assertion to the contrary, other than to say, “You’re wrong.” That is not really a discussion point, but a very informational deficient opinion.

When someone presents data that does not support the assertion of "GOD DID IT," I generally address why I disagree on the basis of the assertion, not on the basis of my personal religious belief. I think if you were to look back at all of my more than 2500 posts on this forum, you would find few religious assertions being used in an attempt to refute factual presentations. If, however, someone makes a religious assertion with which I disagree, I feel it is permissible to use appropriate responses.


Why would disregarding data that does not support an assertion that “GOD DID IT” differ, in essence, from a position of disregarding data that does not support an assertion that “GOD DID NOT DO IT?”

I should think there is no empirical evidence either way as to whether “GOD DID IT.” If we lived in 2-dimensional world, there would be no proof that a ball is spherical because spherical cannot exist in a 2-dimensional world. It would always appear only as a circle. And, I suspect if we were in such a world, some people would deny the potential of a 3-dimensional world while others would conceptualize a ball and worship it. We actually live in a 3-dimensional (or maybe 4-dimensional when you include time) world while the God that seems to be in question is not from our 3-(or 4)dimensional) world any more than we are from a 2-dimensional world. But, I digress.

The real question is how did “IT” happen whether we are discussing cosmogony, cosmology, bio-genesis or bio-diversity? Once you can determine how “IT” happened, then you can decide whether “IT” was a fortuitous inexplicable accident of nature or a purposeful restructuring of “stuff” from a different dimensional economy. Ultimately, the bone of contention is whether the world we live in, from black holes and nebulae to quarks and nutrinos, was the result of random, chance occurrences or purposeful, meaningful events.

I find it difficult to believe that a forum should actually bar any positive assertion of purposeful, meaningful influences while encouraging only those assertions which support random, meaningless influences. That just does not seem like a good way to facilitate discussion -- to disallow divergent thinking.

I can see that this arm of the forum, which use to be the most active, is virtually idle today. A forum should be a free unrestricted exchange of ideas. If it is not that, it is not really a forum.

Exchemist:


Way to take issue with the irrelevant part of the statement while ignoring the meaningful part. The biggest problem with Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is the inability of these paradigms to display a mechanism which can accomplish biodiversity, on the scale the Earth has experienced it, within any suggested time frame. Both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism tend to present this basic formula: small random changes + long periods of time = evolution. Neo-Darwinism does include the idea of adaptation, but offers no actual random processes whereby these adaptations can be effectively achieved. The question you pose concerning showing the amount of time needed for small random changes to effect changes that would produce a noticeable genetically different lifeform is precisely the problem that Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism neglect to address. So your question here is better directed to them. They are the ones who claim this is how evolution has taken place. The question, ultimately, revolves around whether the changes are random or deliberately and purposeful.


Paleoichneum:


I am not sure that “this is wrong” really addresses an issue unless you are prepared to offer a discourse on “what is right.” Nor am I sure what it is you are saying is wrong (in what you quote) since I have merely described the process of horizontal gene transference, a well known and well-documented process which takes place among bacteria (and the cells of multi-celled lifeforms) and shows one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. This is such a basic and well-documented process, it hardly seems one would be required to provide citations. If you merely do a search on “horizontal gene transference,” you will find far more complex and complete explanations as well as diagrams showing the process.

Now then, it also occurs to me that this is showing a purposeful, intentional act on the part of the DNA of both donor and recipient. I suppose this might be found repugnant to someone who believes cellular changes are random, but fortuitous.


You say:

you dismiss or ignore ANY data that doesnt support your assertion of "GOD DID IT", which is wholly unacceptable behavior on this forum, per the forum rules.

Well, actually, I was under the impression this was a discussion forum. If you rule out the consideration of any one particular viewpoint, it ceases to be a discussion forum but, rather, becomes a one-sided, back-slapping forum of group-think. Secondarily, I do not see where you have offered any assertion to the contrary, other than to say, “You’re wrong.” That is not really a discussion point, but a very informational deficient opinion.

When someone presents data that does not support the assertion of "GOD DID IT," I generally address why I disagree on the basis of the assertion, not on the basis of my personal religious belief. I think if you were to look back at all of my more than 2500 posts on this forum, you would find few religious assertions being used in an attempt to refute factual presentations. If, however, someone makes a religious assertion with which I disagree, I feel it is permissible to use appropriate responses.


Why would disregarding data that does not support an assertion that “GOD DID IT” differ, in essence, from a position of disregarding data that does not support an assertion that “GOD DID NOT DO IT?”

I should think there is no empirical evidence either way as to whether “GOD DID IT.” If we lived in 2-dimensional world, there would be no proof that a ball is spherical because spherical cannot exist in a 2-dimensional world. It would always appear only as a circle. And, I suspect if we were in such a world, some people would deny the potential of a 3-dimensional world while others would conceptualize a ball and worship it. We actually live in a 3-dimensional (or maybe 4-dimensional when you include time) world while the God that seems to be in question is not from our 3-(or 4)dimensional) world any more than we are from a 2-dimensional world. But, I digress.

The real question is how did “IT” happen whether we are discussing cosmogony, cosmology, bio-genesis or bio-diversity? Once you can determine how “IT” happened, then you can decide whether “IT” was a fortuitous inexplicable accident of nature or a purposeful restructuring of “stuff” from a different dimensional economy. Ultimately, the bone of contention is whether the world we live in, from black holes and nebulae to quarks and nutrinos, was the result of random, chance occurrences or purposeful, meaningful events.

I find it difficult to believe that a forum should actually bar any positive assertion of purposeful, meaningful influences while encouraging only those assertions which support random, meaningless influences. That just does not seem like a good way to facilitate discussion -- to disallow divergent thinking.

I can see that this arm of the forum, which use to be the most active, is virtually idle today. A forum should be a free unrestricted exchange of ideas. If it is not that, it is not really a forum.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Way to take issue with the irrelevant part of the statement while ignoring the meaningful part. The biggest problem with Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is the inability of these paradigms to display a mechanism which can accomplish biodiversity, on the scale the Earth has experienced it, within any suggested time frame.

An example that shows you how quickly diversity develops is the cichlid radiation in Lake Victoria. A single species was trapped in the lake about 100,000 years ago, and within that time (which is a VERY short time on evolutionary scales) 500 new species evolved. Some evolved to eat the scales of other fish. Some evolved to live under rocks and eat bottom prey, shells and all. Some evolved to carry fertilized eggs in their mouths instead of laying them on the bottom of the lake. Some became much larger, some much smaller. Some lost fins. And all within 100,000 years.

Now consider how many more species, and how different they would be, after ten times that amount of time. Or 100 times. We'd see an amazing number of new species; a staggering amount of diversity.

In reality we have had 1.5 BILLION years from the first multicellular life to the diversity that we have today - 15,000 times as long as those cichlids have had to do all that radiative evolution.

The question, ultimately, revolves around whether the changes are random or deliberately and purposeful.

Not much question there. They are random. The mechanisms are well understood.

Now then, it also occurs to me that this is showing a purposeful, intentional act on the part of the DNA of both donor and recipient. I suppose this might be found repugnant to someone who believes cellular changes are random, but fortuitous.

They are random and most are NOT fortuitous. Most are either detrimental (i.e. injurious or fatal to the organism) or don't-care (i.e. non-coding DNA.) A very small number are fortuitous.

Well, actually, I was under the impression this was a discussion forum. If you rule out the consideration of any one particular viewpoint, it ceases to be a discussion forum but, rather, becomes a one-sided, back-slapping forum of group-think.

Agreed. But given that you are, in fact, presenting a different viewpoint, that is not what is happening.

Note that allowing discussion is very different from requiring everyone to accept and praise an unsupported and illogical theory.

I find it difficult to believe that a forum should actually bar any positive assertion of purposeful, meaningful influences while encouraging only those assertions which support random, meaningless influences. That just does not seem like a good way to facilitate discussion -- to disallow divergent thinking.

It does not. If you want to claim Santa Claus is real (surely near the top of the list of purposeful, meaningful influences on society) then you are free to do so. If you then complain that you are not taken seriously, and your revolutionary, out of the box thinking is not accorded the respect it deserves, then you will not be happy on open discussion forums.

Might be relevant here: Galapagos finches caught in act of becoming new species - BBC News

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Exchemist:


Way to take issue with the irrelevant part of the statement while ignoring the meaningful part. The biggest problem with Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is the inability of these paradigms to display a mechanism which can accomplish biodiversity, on the scale the Earth has experienced it, within any suggested time frame. Both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism tend to present this basic formula: small random changes + long periods of time = evolution. Neo-Darwinism does include the idea of adaptation, but offers no actual random processes whereby these adaptations can be effectively achieved. The question you pose concerning showing the amount of time needed for small random changes to effect changes that would produce a noticeable genetically different lifeform is precisely the problem that Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism neglect to address. So your question here is better directed to them. They are the ones who claim this is how evolution has taken place. The question, ultimately, revolves around whether the changes are random or deliberately and purposeful.

Well if you didn't mean it, or think it important, you shouldn't have said it, should you? I'm not going to apologise for picking you up on a claim you have made.

I should have thought the "mechanism" was abundantly clear. It is just the mechanism of natural selection. We even see it working in real time in the case of bacteria, and we see it over longer periods in the change in form of fossils - things like the bird and the whale spring to mind.

As for your claim that there is no evidence this can happen in the timescale involved, the fact is that change HAS occurred on that timescale, we can show it happened progressively, and the hypothesis appears to make sense of a range of observed phenomena and evidence, at least until such time as someone can show why it cannot have happened like that. This you have not attempted to do, I notice.

Billvon:


I like what you have to say in your last post. Remember, it is not me that said random changes + long periods of time = evolution. It is Darwinism and it progeny which, appropriately enough, have also evolved and adapted to new information to the point that many Darwinists who have kept up with recent discoveries have become ex-Darwinists realizing that evolution that we have documented does not fit that paradigm.


To be sure, rapid bursts of speciation have taken place at various times in the history of life, but none so dramatic as the Cambrian explosion. Such episodes were, perhaps, part of the stimulus for the development of the idea of punctuated equilibrium promoted by Jay Gould.

The Lake Victoria explosion is actually far more dramatic than you represent. The lake is, as you note, approximately 100,000 years old, but during that time it has dried out to bone dry status at least three times and the current lake is actually somewhat less than 15,000 years old. This makes what happened even more dramatic. One might also note, however, that in the approximately last 50 years, some 200 of the 500 cichlid species have become extinct. This also shows how rapidly species can disappear. This is also not surprising in view of the fact that fewer than 10 percent of all the known species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct. Meanwhile, somewhere, there are likely evolution people arguing over whether these are different species or variations of the same species.
This story is the exception rather than the evolutionary rule and, one might note, in no way directly shows how fish may have evolved into lung bearing land animals.

Meanwhile, the entire 100,000-year history of the lake does certainly provide where gilled creatures would have benefited from developing a way to live out of water. That could have happened although there is no suggestion that it did.


Probably no disagreement so far.

Billvon said:

Not much question there. They are random. The mechanisms are well understood.

This is where I would have to question as to the “well understood” mechanisms. Random, if you please, means undefined. So I find it difficult to understand how the mechanisms of an undefined random change can be well understood. Do you see the conflict there? This is not to say there is no such thing as random copy errors. I merely suggest that the causal mechanisms cannot be “well understood.” They can only be observed and tentatively identified.

Billvon also said:

They are random and most are NOT fortuitous. Most are either detrimental (i.e. injurious or fatal to the organism) or don't-care (i.e. non-coding DNA.) A very small number are fortuitous.

Now this, I can agree with although I am not quite sure what is your understanding of non-coding DNA. If you are referring to what was at some point called junk DNA, it has subsequently been found to be equally as important as the coding DNA from the standpoint that some of it is the DNA which tells the coding DNA what proteins to produce, when to produce them, how much to produce and when to stop producing it.

It is difficult to decide where to go from here. Your statement points to the fact that evolution from random changes are few and far between and that most random changes actually do not produce a new and improved version of the host, let alone a new species or new life form. We are also faced with the knowledge that on an individual basis, cells are very resistive to copy errors when dividing. I think this tends to show that change from random minor changes makes evolution on a broad scale very unlikely.


I would agree there is a degree to which I represent a different point of view, but on this issue I do not think I have ever said that I think evolution is incorrect on several issues because the Bible say something. I have merely and always, tried to point to different interpretations of the evidence offered in support of evolution and how it doesn’t add up to what evolutionists (mostly Darwinists) want it to.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Remember, it is not me that said random changes + long periods of time = evolution. It is Darwinism and it progeny

As Darwinism doesn't say that, I guess it must have been you.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Darwinists ... (ex-)Darwinists...

I'm fairly sure that you've been informed on multiple occasions that "Darwinist/ Darwinism" only existed at the time of Darwin. I.e. the term (let alone the "paradigm") was surpassed long ago.
The fact that you persist in using it shows that either
A) you don't know what you're talking about, or
B) you're deliberately setting up a straw man to knock down.

evolutionists (mostly Darwinists) want it to.

See?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

...that many Darwinists who have kept up with recent discoveries have become ex-Darwinists realizing that evolution that we have documented does not fit that paradigm.

Do you have a list of people you can provide to back this assertion?