afdave
Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006
|
DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA - NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION (STILL)
I got some pretty interesting responses yesterday to Dr. Anderson's article showing that disease resistant bacteria offers on proof of macroevolutionary theory. The responses were basically ...
(1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example) (2) Here go read these links that disprove what you say, Dave (I've never read them because you have to pay for all the articles, but you go read 'em, Dave) (3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria? (Team member shoots down argument for Dave) (4) Dr. Anderson is just making his own definition of evolution (yeah, because it's really hard to nail down evolutionists on what their definition is and what is proper terminology)
Remember, guys, I deal a lot with what the PUBLIC gets to hear about evolution ... I'll repeat the description from World Book because it is typical of what the public hears.
World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ... Quote | Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields. When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact. Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact | Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact. The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ... Quote | Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way. | So what does the kid take away from this? ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it.
Before reading this article, I was under the impression that bacterial resistance to anti-biotics might in some way provide evidence for macroevolution.
After reading this article, I see that it does not. I also see that it must be a pretty good article with no obvious gaffes. The folks here at ATBC jump on obvious gaffes pretty quickly.
It's interesting to see that I'm not the only one who drops by and voices concerns like this ... Here's a biochemist and computer programmer named 'skeptic' ... Quote | We are losing the PR battle.
Given those assumptions (mine), here's my thoughts:
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation. |
and ... Quote | Its obvious that this [trying to discuss how to salvage ToE] is a waste of time. Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory. Right now it is much more important to defend at all costs then to actually engage in science. Pity. |
and ... Quote | 2)but more difficult is the actual mechanics of random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA, it mosts cases that it actually has an effect upon the structure of the protein you have a non-functioning, or reduced-functioning protein. In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds, you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detremental to the organism. What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds.
I think this is a source of concern. |
Yes, skeptic, that it is, but good luck trying to get these guys concerned about it.
(Oh ... sorry, I'm not into astrology ... I just didn't realize that putting my birthday in would generate an astrological sign. Also, Paul Flocken and whoever else goes to my blog ... I don't post there very often ... too busy here at the moment ... right now it just serves as a repository for articles that I want to refer people to.)
-------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|