Posted by Bob on 10/19/2007, 6:24 am, in reply to "Re: Infection Worse than AIDS" I'm glad we cleared up the "genetic response" thing. The two questions that remain are these: either the staph germ already had the resistance gene in some individuals, and now this gene is being selected for by the anti-biotics. Or else, the gene recently mutated to provide resistance. The human gene pool is being "loaded up" with defective genes: for example, more people are surviving with diabetes, hemophilia, and other hereditary ailments. Resistance to disease is decreasing, while germ resistance to anti-biotics is increasing. A tipping point is building up, and unless some unforeseen protection arises, some new (or old) disease will suddenly break into the general population with devastating consequences reminiscent of the plagues which killed off one third of Europeans in the middle ages. As to the definition of a species, a species is radically different from the definition of a variant. There can be massive variations within a species, without changing the species. Dogs are a good example. You have many different breeds of dog, but they are all of the same species. A species has its own gene pool that is not readily mixed with other species. (You can breed horses with donkeys, but the resulting mules are sterile, and thus, not a self-propagating species.) Species are distinct, stable, long-lasting groupings. We see this all around us. Birds of a feather flock... The geologic record does not show what evolution theory predicts. It does not show a fluid, gradual shift from say, ape to human. It shows distinct, stable species, and the leap from one supposed ancestor species to its descendant species is abrupt, and unlinked, according to the geologic record at least. This is not to say that the geologic record is accurate or complete, nor that it disproves evolution. It simply says that it does not demonstrate what evolution theory predicts. Nor does this lack of fluidity, if it is in fact the case, disprove evolution, but it does show that there is something fundamentally wrong with the present state of evolution theory, since one cannot reconcile the lack of fluidity with the prediction. I have heard proponents of evolution express confidence that, although the final proof of evolution has not yet been solidified, the clinching evidence will eventually surface. But that confidence is a form of "faith." Science considers evidence to have weight only AFTER it is discovered, not before. To close one's mind is to discredit any contrary evidence, no matter how authentic. I look forward to exciting new discoveries that will clarify the relationship between species. If this new evidence ratifies Darwinism, then so be it, I can accept that. But if it leads in another direction, I somehow doubt that materialist naturalists are going to yield gracefully.
72.243.26.154
Parallel discussions here.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread