For Beatlemania

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You obviously haven't read very many of the posts in this thread. If you had you'd find that everyone here showing how Creationism is stupid actually knows what they are talking about and aren't going to be convinced by AIG.

Try reading through the 3000 post Evolution thread.

Or is it possible that we are doing a bad job of saying that evolution is the dumbest thing invented?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I don't have the time to read your crap so I'm going to assume you are just spouting the usual.

I think you read it and your too scared to reply.

Originally posted by Acemaster
Or is it possible that we are doing a bad job of saying that evolution is the dumbest thing invented?

It's possible you are the dumbest person to ever live.

Originally posted by The Cougar

>>the statistical unlikelihood of the possibility of quantities of positive mutations (if such really exist - forget Sickle cell anemia) all getting together simultaneously to produce a viable change in a necessary life function, like a lung change for example, precludes the logical acceptance of the possibility of evolution.

Hi -

MRSA - def.: Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is often fatal, due to the fact that this particular strain of bacteria is resistant to many commonly used antibiotics.

Actually, you misunderstand what I was indicating in my post, as those with Sickle Cell anemia are at an increased risk for MRSA.

What I was inferring, which I erroneously thought supporters of evolution would know, is that Sickle Cell anemia is claimed to be a "positive" mutation by some, due to the fact that in areas endemic for malaria, those who are heterozygous for Sickle Cell anemia are a less advantageous host for the malarial parasite. Therefore, some supporters of evolution claim that Sickle Cell anemia could be considered a "positive" mutation. However, Sickle Cell anemia is a fatal disease, and so it can not actually be considered a "positive" mutation, as it does not truly create an advantage for future generations, since on a statistical basis, if two heterozygous parents produced children, 25% of the offspring would be homozygous for Sickle Cell anemia, and die.

Furthermore, those who inherit the gene for Sickle Cell anemia live in a much wider geographic location than the area affected by malaria, so the negative effects of this blood disorder far outweigh any positive effects experienced by those living in malaria infected areas. Once again, from a population standpoint, the negative effects of Sickle Cell anemia preclude it's being considered a "positive" mutation.

Another problem with considering a mutation as a vehicle for evolution is that a mutation is only a change in an existing gene, not an entirely new gene. New genes are what is needed for totally new traits, like wings to grow on a previously wingless species (the myth that birds evolved from dinosaurs). For something like that to happen, it takes an intelligent mind to insert new genes, such as in genetically modified food, like BT corn; or cold resistant tomatoes that have had flounder genes spliced in; or glow in the dark mice that have had genes from fireflies, or jellyfish, spliced in. These new genes had to be inserted by mechanical means by someone with the imagination and creativity and ability to do so. It can not just happen by chance, random processes and time, as is stated in the myth of evolution.

Originally posted by The Cougar
Hi -

MRSA - def.: Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is often fatal, due to the fact that this particular strain of bacteria is resistant to many commonly used antibiotics.

Actually, you misunderstand what I was indicating in my post, as those with Sickle Cell anemia are at an increased risk for MRSA.

What I was inferring, whic ...[text shortened]... ust happen by chance, random processes and time, as is stated in the myth of evolution.

How did MRSA become resistant to antibiotics? Did it just wake up one day resistant or did it become resistant over time?

And Acemaster, you're a retard. You stopped answering questions in this thread long ago when you couldn't find any good answers. Remember how you claimed that the Sun was shrinking at some ridiculous rate? This thread would have died if it hadn't been from a new retard stepping into the fray despite having on idea about the most basic concepts.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
How did MRSA become resistant to antibiotics? Did it just wake up one day resistant or did it become resistant over time?

And Acemaster, you're a retard. You stopped answering questions in this thread long ago when you couldn't find any good answers. Remember how you claimed that the Sun was shrinking at some ridiculous rate? This thread would have died ...[text shortened]... rom a new retard stepping into the fray despite having on idea about the most basic concepts.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
[b]How did MRSA become resistant to antibiotics? Did it just wake up one day resistant or did it become resistant over time?

That is an excellent question. Some say that resistant bacteria have always been around, but only lately (last several decades) become a problem, due to the nonresistant strain populations being somewhat reduced by antibiotic use, and due to the resistant bacteria then being spread by hospitals, healthcare workers and patients. This is the reason that the healthcare profession does not prescribe antibiotics as much as they used to.

Others presume that the bacteria mutated. Since the science of microbiology is a relatively recent study, in comparison to the existence of bacteria, the actual answer will probably never be known.

It is unfortunate that you have to lower yourself to flaming and name calling. You would be much more credible if you did not.
🙂

Originally posted by The Cougar
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
[b]How did MRSA become resistant to antibiotics? Did it just wake up one day resistant or did it become resistant over time?

That is an excellent question. Some say that resistant bacteria have always been around, but only lately (last several decades) become a problem, due to the nonresistant strain populations ...[text shortened]... wer yourself to flaming and name calling. You would be much more credible if you did not.
🙂

[/b]You're kidding right? Every single person in the medical profession who deals with MRSA knows how it came about. IT EVOLVED.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You're kidding right? Every single person in the medical profession who deals with MRSA knows how it came about. IT EVOLVED.[/b]

It's okay Xanth - the other possibility is that his God made it specifically to kill.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You're kidding right? Every single person in the medical profession who deals with MRSA knows how it came about. IT EVOLVED.[/b]

No, actually the process that is fueling the spread of MRSA is called natural selection, not evolution, unless you further divide the term, "evolution" into macro- and micro-evolution. Some use the term "microevolution" when they actually mean natural selection. Natural selection is when a particular form of organism that is more adapted to it's environment, for whatever reason, propagates and becomes more widespread in that specific environment, than other forms of the same organism.

Natural selection happens all the time. Humans have practiced a form of natural selection, although it's not natural but human directed, in animal breeding for thousands of years. We see this most pronounced, perhaps, in dog breeding, where great variation has been created by dog breeders, but the animals are still dogs. So, if by "evolution" you mean microevolution, which is really natural selection, then you are, indeed, correct.

However, if by evolution you mean macroevolution, which is the changing of one form of life (species) into another, which is what is typically understood by those discussing Darwinian evolution, then you are incorrect. The staph bacteria are still staph bacteria. They have not changed into another life form.

Now, with cloning and gene splicing, and the introduction of genes from other species, or even the mixing of plant and animal genes, we are moving into another realm of organisms. What the ultimate result of this experimenting will be, no one knows. However, this does nothing to advance the idea of evolution, as it still takes a clever person to make these new organisms, which could never happen by chance, random processes, and time.

Originally posted by The Cougar
No, actually the process that is fueling the spread of MRSA is called natural selection, not evolution, unless you further divide the term, "evolution" into macro- and micro-evolution. Some use the term "microevolution" when they actually mean natural selection. Natural selection is when a particular form of organism that is more adapted to it's enviro ...[text shortened]... ake these new organisms, which could never happen by chance, random processes, and time.

You really should read threads before posting. This arguement has been presented and refuted many times already. I can't be bothered writing a new response, so here is one I gave to someone on the "what's wrong with evolution" thread:

Your only complaint about evolutionary theory is that there is no evidence that species arise from other species (as opposed to, for instance, all arriving together in an arc). This, however, is happening while we speak. A case example is dogs. According to evolutionary theory, all dogs came from the same common ancestor, and in fact share so much of their DNA that they are still technically considered the same species. However, according to the dictionary definition for species as being a "taxonomic group whose members can interbreed", great danes and chihauhaus are definitely not the same species. This is a case where breeders (I don't think they like to be called dog farmers) have selectively bred as animal of one species and produces several new ones. Oh, and don't say every type of dog came over on the arc, because many breeds have not been around nearly that long.
Not convinced? How about the case of mules? A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse (two species that do not even have the same number of chromosomes). It is almost always sterile, but is able to reproduce. Another example of farmers selectively breeding one species from another.
Evolution is a gradual process. You don't breed two dogs and get a cow. However, you might breed two dogs and get a really big dog with a funny head, then breed that dog to get more big dogs of which one has a funny tail, etc. Eventually you get something which looks nothing like your original, and in fact can be classed as a different species.
To boil it down for you, it is the telephone effect. You know the game where you whisper one thing in someone's ear, and by the time it gets around the circle the last person hears something completely different? At any point along the way, small changes get made, which eventually add up to a completely different sentence.
I think you are confused about the concept of macroevolution. It is not some separate evolutionary concept, but simply microevolution over a long period. I assume you accept microevolution (if you don't, I think you are beyond help), so if it exists in the present, why shouldn't it have existed in the past?
Oh, and don't give me an answer that involves changing from one species into another as a difference for macro and microevolution. By the dictionary definition of species that I gave you, microevolution (as in my example of dogs) can cause changes of species. If you are working with another definition, please explain what it is before you use the word "species" again.
By the way, evolution is not random. Whatever survives to reproduce gets selected for. It's not a hard concept, really, and definitely does not require divine direction.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's okay Xanth - the other possibility is that his God made it specifically to kill.

No, mutations are not something that are generally considered good, and according to the Biblical view, everything that God originally created was good, it was the disobedience of Eve and Adam that paved the way for bad things to happen, thereby ruining the good which God had created.

Furthermore, as thousands of years of bad things have multiplied on themselves, conditions continue to deteriorate. An example is pollution, which causes further gene mutations, causing increasing health problems. What we see in the world around us is actually the reverse of evolution, (macroevolution, that is), which implies that organisms are getting better, when what is actually observed (a test of true science), is that things are getting worse, as far as extinctions, health related issues, and physical decline of many species. Our mental achievements may have increased, but our physical world is going the other way, due to the above.

Originally posted by whiterose
You really should read threads before posting. This arguement has been presented and refuted many times already. I can't be bothered writing a new response, so here is one I gave to someone on the "what's wrong with evolution" thread:

Your only complaint about evolutionary theory is that there is no evidence that species arise from other species (as opp ...[text shortened]... 's not a hard concept, really, and definitely does not require divine direction.

Ah, dog breeding. Actually, a Dane and a Chihuahua *can* interbreed. You would be surprised at the crosses that have been made, currently called Designer Dogs. Now, those two particular breeds may have to be artificially inseminated (AI), but that can not be used as an excuse that they are not the same species, because then you would have to say that all AKC Bulldogs are not the same species, because they can not breed naturally with each other, due to their conformation which has been altered by human selection, which is the artificial form of "natural selection", sometimes referred to as microevolution, as I stated in a previous post. It would be an absurd statement to say that each AKC Bulldog was in a species of it's own. Dogs are dogs, they are all the same species.

Interspecific hybrids do indeed occur, like Zonies, Ligers, etc. However, they are selected against, so in natural selection, they have a lower chance of survivability, and so are not an example of macroevolution, but rather more proof for natural selection.

Your telephone analogy is not a good one, as what is being passed around the circle is verbal communication. And verbal communication is what comes out at the end of the circle. A newspaper does not sudden appear out of thin air.

I have already stated what microevolution (natural selection) and macroevolution are, and do not need to repeat myself. Natural selection happens daily, and is not the vehicle for evolution. Macroevolution can not be proven scientifically, because true science says that something must be observable, testable, and repeatable, and the additions of totally new, functional, traits arising in an organism from new code, does not happen, unless, as I have stated previously, some creative individual puts it there.

whiterose wrote:
> Whatever survives to reproduce gets selected for. <
That is precisely what natural selection does, as I stated previously. And no, it is not random, natural selection (not Darwinian evolution), does just what you said, it selects for survivability. This is what Darwin observed with his finch beaks. This is *not* macroevolution.

And it's ark, not arc. That is a geometric shape. 🙂

Originally posted by The Cougar
No, actually the process that is fueling the spread of MRSA is called natural selection, not evolution, unless you further divide the term, "evolution" into macro- and micro-evolution. Some use the term "microevolution" when they actually mean natural selection. Natural selection is when a particular form of organism that is more adapted to it's enviro ...[text shortened]... ake these new organisms, which could never happen by chance, random processes, and time.

Macro and micro evolution are meaingless definitions people attempt to use to allow for the disbelief of evolution on a large scale while allowing the evolution that we see every single day.

Evolution is evolution no matter if it's happening on a small scale (although I'd argue that MRSA has made more than small scale changes in 40 years) or on a large one.

Originally posted by The Cougar
Interspecific hybrids do indeed occur, like Zonies, Ligers, etc. However, they are selected against, so in natural selection, they have a lower chance of survivability, and so are not an example of macroevolution, but rather more proof for natural selection.

They're selected against by being unable to breed with another hybrid to produce more of them?

Originally posted by The Cougar
No, mutations are not something that are generally considered good, and according to the Biblical view, everything that God originally created was good, it was the disobedience of Eve and Adam that paved the way for bad things to happen, thereby ruining the good which God had created.

Furthermore, as thousands of years of bad things have multiplied ...[text shortened]... chievements may have increased, but our physical world is going the other way, due to the above.

I'll ask you for empirical proof for everything you state in your post at this point. Let's start with an easy one. Empirical proof for the existence of Adam and Eve.