[sNoW PIrAnHa]

How do you explain drug resistant bacteria and viruses?

If you don't know what it is: Antibiotic resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this not count as evolution?

[martix_agent]

micro-evolution is fine and dandy.
macro-evolution is what I do not believe in.

Plus viruses are not drug resistant due to their "evolution". They're simply not alive to do so.

Look it up if you don't know what they mean.

[sNoW PIrAnHa]

Originally Posted by martix_agent

micro-evolution is fine and dandy.
macro-evolution is what I do not believe in.

Plus viruses are not drug resistant due to their "evolution". They're simply not alive to do so.

Look it up if you don't know what they mean.

Why do you believe micro and not macro? Its the same concept.

Whether viruses are alive or not is a moot point since we're talking about bacteria.

[2.0]

Not exactly true. It is true virii are not technically 'alive' by any biological standard, but virii evolve through recombining in their hosts, so while it is true that antibiotics don't do anything to them, they could become resistant to cartain drugs designed to stop their cycle by attacking either the protein or nucleic acid within them through this process of recombination. All it takes is reformulating the structure of the protein capsid and boom, the vaccine doesn't work anymore. Or a simple base change that ends up in changing the surface binding proteins of the virus makes anti-retrovirals useless.

Anybody that wants to see why anyone would truly believe in evolution needs to to be able to see the big picture of biological interactions and understand them.

But believing in a higher power is fine too, saves time and trouble.

[martix_agent]

micro is change within the species using genetics that are already existing in them. and some small mutations as well.

macro is change from species to species.

They are absolutely not the same thing at all. Understand what things are because you start comparing them to each other please.

[ComradeMolyneux]

National Geographic did an article on evolution that most non-believers would benefit from by reading it.

[sNoW PIrAnHa]

Originally Posted by martix_agent

micro is change within the species using genetics that are already existing in them. and some small mutations as well.

macro is change from species to species.

They are absolutely not the same thing at all. Understand what things are because you start comparing them to each other please.

I fully understand both concepts. Enough micro evolution will beget macro evolution.

[martix_agent]

Originally Posted by sNoW PIrAnHa

I fully understand both concepts. Enough micro evolution will beget macro evolution.

Micro evolution
Macro evolution
read up. Berkley is a pretty good source i think.

now. That seems to suit your side; I'm still unsure how changing colors or location can eventually create a new species though..
HOWEVER
evolution requires reproduction. Bacteria can transmit genes from one another without reproduction.
This beggs the question of how gender came to be. All unicellular(which i believe we are supposedly evolved from) are all asexual things and for that reason, do not have genders. now how the heck did two things evolve into separate genders? It's very improbable and highly impractical in a world without anything to mate with. Not only do there have to be two of the same sort of thing change at the same time and place, they also had to each fully develop reproductive parts in one mutation...

how the heck?

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

National Geographic did an article on evolution that most non-believers would benefit from by reading it.

got a link? I'm willing to read it.

[Toy Soldier]

i believe part evelotion and part of genisis from the Holy Bible.

Evolution--Scientist have found "****-sapiens" in variouse places around earth

Holy Bible-- read genisis....the whole thing

[martix_agent]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Evolution--Scientist have found "****-sapiens" in variouse places around earth

all that says is that humans have macro mutated. we're still humans thouhg.

[toXic]

Question, does a single bacteria go from being susceptible to antibiotics to being immune to it? Or does the bacteria "adapt" to it?

Either way, the real question is where did we come from? Both sides use the same answer...

[sNoW PIrAnHa]

Originally Posted by martix_agent

Micro evolution
Macro evolution
read up. Berkley is a pretty good source i think.

now. That seems to suit your side; I'm still unsure how changing colors or location can eventually create a new species though..
HOWEVER
evolution requires reproduction. Bacteria can transmit genes from one another without reproduction.
This beggs the question of how gender came to be. All unicellular(which i believe we are supposedly evolved from) are all asexual things and for that reason, do not have genders. now how the heck did two things evolve into separate genders? It's very improbable and highly impractical in a world without anything to mate with. Not only do there have to be two of the same sort of thing change at the same time and place, they also had to each fully develop reproductive parts in one mutation...

how the heck?




got a link? I'm willing to read it.

Bacteria do reproduce and they do it through binary fission. Mutations aren't limited to color and location. They can be almost anything, from arm length to the amount of taste buds on a tongue. If enough of these random mutation happens. You add enough of those changes up and you will end up with an organism that quite different than the first.

The origin of gender would likely have to do with transmitting genes from one another (like you stated).

[Trbo323]

heres my 2 cents, even though it hasnt been prooved whatsoever i am setting that aside right now, evolution can only go back so far and there are 2 huge things that modern science has not (and probably will never) explain, A) the big bang threw everything out right? so in that sence there are the star dates, but if everything came from one point then the gravity of it all should be slowing down the stars as they move apart correct? when, in reallity, they are accelerating away from one another, ya go figure, but also B) the big bang itself, so theres nothing then an explosion right, well funny thing but iv never been walking down the street and just had a space of air go BANG. how do you have an explosion without any mater?

if you want to read on something that really hits home for this conversation go grab the book "case for faith" it is EXTREAMLY well put together into chapters that each take on a different issue so even if you dont want to read the whole book you can look into whichever subject you like, its really a scientific look into God, amazing book

creation all the way

[hurdlebeast]

Here's the problem with saying the Big Bang theory is invalid because "you can't create something from nothing". If not, then how did God create the universe?


I choose to not enter this discussion currently, as I am undergoing a change of faith at the moment and I can honestly say that I see (and have argued) both sides of this. As far as I'm concerned, nothing in this world can be proved: it all comes down to faith, and what you chose to believe. I chose to believe in God.

For the record: this conversation can go back and forth between the evolution/creative design till eternity. Trust me, I've been in these convo's before. One side will never get the upper hand on the other. It all comes down to choice.

Edit: I agree with toXic, I think we as humans started our existence a long, long time ago when a spark created this earth and everything on it. Whether the spark was divine or not is the real subject of discussion.

[2.0]

I might add that there's a lot of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Creation or the existence of a superior power has zero scientific evidence supporting it. And i mean respectable, reputable scientific peer reviewed evidence, not nutjob claims.

But hey, who's to say evolution wasn't the plan of your supreme being all along.

As long as there's no indisputable proof of a supreme being or that murphy's law actually brought life to our little planet, all we can do is debate, and these debates always end the same way.

[sNoW PIrAnHa]

Originally Posted by Trbo323

heres my 2 cents, even though it hasnt been prooved whatsoever i am setting that aside right now, evolution can only go back so far and there are 2 huge things that modern science has not (and probably will never) explain, A) the big bang threw everything out right? so in that sence there are the star dates, but if everything came from one point then the gravity of it all should be slowing down the stars as they move apart correct? when, in reallity, they are accelerating away from one another, ya go figure, but also B) the big bang itself, so theres nothing then an explosion right, well funny thing but iv never been walking down the street and just had a space of air go BANG. how do you have an explosion without any mater?

if you want to read on something that really hits home for this conversation go grab the book "case for faith" it is EXTREAMLY well put together into chapters that each take on a different issue so even if you dont want to read the whole book you can look into whichever subject you like, its really a scientific look into God, amazing book

creation all the way

Wow, you really know a lot about gravity and the big bang theory. Did you learn it all from star trek or come up with it yourself?

The force of gravity gets exponentially weaker as distance increases. If they're moving apart the distance increases and it becomes easier for them to move apart.

How do you have an explosion without any matter? Dark matter. Anti matter. This point is moot since its not what the big bang theory states. The big bang theory states that all the matter was in one very small location. Then in a few trillionths of a second it expanded to what it is now.

Also, your example of walking down a street doesn't work because air is matter. If it went bang that would involve matter.

[Trbo323]

Originally Posted by sNoW PIrAnHa

The force of gravity gets exponentially weaker as distance increases. If they're moving apart the distance increases and it becomes easier for them to move apart.
.

yes i know that but go look up Newtons laws and you will see that no mater how weak the gravity gets between them they should A) always be slowing down and B) NOT accelerating away from one another

and yes i know that he big bang theory states all the matter came from one tiny point, but you still have to have that point, it doesnt matter if your arguing that an atom was created from nothing or that the whole universe was, my point was that it has never happened again since then and people argue that it MUST have happened because we are here but then nobody looks into why it hasnt happened again.....why we dont see whole universes just *bang* pop into existance out of an empty regon of space

[martix_agent]

with either theory you run into problems when you start talking about how things were created to start with. It's a moot point. the point is things were here. It's what happened after they came to be how we know them that's important