Posted by James on 10/19/2007, 9:35 am, in reply to "Re: Infection Worse than AIDS" Or both are occuring at the same time. A gene that provided some resistance to anti-biotics is mutating to provide stronger resistance while anti-biotics are forcing a population level selection through generations for the stronger resistance. This is what I think is actually happening. Too many people want to make evolution an either/or of the nature you suggest, but in reality, it is much deeper than that with both mutation and selection occuring at the same time. "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." That is exactly what is happening. "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." This is overly simplistic and completely ignores that there is a rather large debate regarding the definition of species. "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 incorrect. The geologic record shows many examples of intermediates. On a technical level, every creature is an intermediate or transitional between one species and another as there should be minute (perhaps even unnoticeable except on a genetic level, which due to deterioration and difficulty in obtaining genetic samples from fossils may be unattainable) genetic changes or variations. "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." Again incorrect. The geologic record amply demonstrates the predictions of evolutionary theory. First, it does contain transitionals. Secondly, and much more importantly, the evidence of the geologic record shows the exact opposite of what creationism predicts, which would be an even mixture of most creatures within every level. Instead, we find distinct layers with distinctly different creatures. We do not find hominid fossils in layers from the Cambrian period. "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." The clinching evidences have surfaced. Genetic studies on modern creatures show genetic markers placed by viral attack on the exact same sequence area in different species. Since cross-species viral infections are rare, and never leave markers in the exact same spot of the sequence, these markers are an indication of a common ancestor. And what this shows is that there is far better evidence for evolutionary theory than the geologic record. The geologic record has major gaps due to the nature and rarity of preservation of organic matter through fossilization. The genetic record is not nearly so faulty. "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." Interesting phrasing. You pose the question as a battle between material naturalists and some vague other group, when this should not be a battle to be won, simply evidence and models to be tested. Creationism as a model has been tested against the evidence. Unfortunately for creationism, the evidence did not match the predictions, thus leading to it being discarded as a credible scientific explanation in favor for a better model, in this case, evolutionary theory.
199.80.67.241
"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."
Message Thread:
« Back to thread