Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[sanman]

Haha, evolution takes place via gradual change - a chain of small changes, which all occur through random mutation.

A change like that would be much too radical for evolution to provide. That would be like expecting humans to sprout wings overnight and fly.

[ozymandias]

yup..you made another asinine statement:



LOL

you are stupid enough to think that all anti biotics are the same thing. When in fact the evidence shows that those strains were resistant to the SAME antibiotics that are present now. Meaning a bacteria from 30,000 years ago, if by time travel were brought to the present would still show the same type of resistance ...hence ...not modified.

Still waiting on that evidence. You know, those facts that back up your claims -- and not just your repeated claims.

Lord have mercy...

you are really dense man!

It has taken me three weeks and you still can't understand this.

I'm sorry that I have been unable to make your flaws clear to you.

Do me a favour ... go back to school. Learn something of biology...then come argue with me.

Why would I need to learn more biology? I am doing just fine correcting you with the biology I have already. You are the one that is deficient in the biology and science education.

and memorize this mutation=/=evolution.

The funny thing is that you are the one claiming that mutation doesn't even exist -- so we are starting at the basics and correcting your poor understanding of biology. Evolution is built out of mutation, and if you are refusing to admit that mutation exists, we need to correct that first.

[ozymandias]

if evolution was true, plants would have evolved mobility in order to protect themselves from being cut down!!!!!

First of all, animals are evolved from the same source as plants -- so in effect, some things did evolve mobility.

Furthermore, evolution is not a 'directed' change. It is a process of gradual changes. No one 'decides' that an adaption would be beneficial, and then works towards that change, and then modifies the organism in that direction. Your example assumes that someone could decide to make such a drastic change.

Finally, humans have only been cutting down plants for a relatively short time frame, and plants have not been able to make such a drastic change in that time. They would require evolving muscles, a brain system to control them, sensory organs to control where they moved to, evolved away from a rooted system to obtain nutrients, etc. That's a hugely drastic change that would take a much longer time to make changes than is available.

As a side note -- many plants made a much simpler evolutionary change -- by making themselves useful to mankind, they are protected from competition, planted in an irrigated field, and the seeds are protected from one season to the next.

[Alchemist]

Could you be any more of an ass?

The literature is filled with proofs to back up my claims. You are just not bright enough to see it. You could just google it but you are in so much denial that you won't even try it.

And I never said mutation doesn't exist. You are only deceiving your self, with great success.

I am done wasting my time on a lay persons. Believe whatever you want to.

[ozymandias]

Could you be any more of an ass?

The literature is filled with proofs to back up my claims.

So go find one, or more, and post it here. You made the claim, it is your role to back up your claim.

You are just not bright enough to see it.

How am I expected to see it when you refuse to post any?

You could just google it but you are in so much denial that you won't even try it.

I refuse to google it because a) it is your job to validate your own claims, and b) so what it if is in google? Your point is what, exactly? That bacteria has varying resistances to anti-biotics, and have for a long time? So what?

And I never said mutation doesn't exist. You are only deceiving your self, with great success.

Ok, so we now have you admitting mutation does exist. Are you going to abandon your claims that E.Coli has not mutated in the last billion years? Or your claims that drug-resistant bacteria can arise from mutations and selective survival? Good to see that you are learning, and improving yourself.

I am done wasting my time on a lay persons. Believe whatever you want to.

Fair enough. I'm not sure what 'lay person' you are talking about, but I will still be here, and be willing to help you with your scientific and biology education anytime you like. If you are confused on any other points of evolution, don't hesitate to ask -- we cans et you straight and explain whatever confuses you.

[Alchemist]

OK Douchebag...

here... I am doing the leg work for you

Antibiotic resistance is ancient

Vanessa M. D’Costa, Christine E. King, Lindsay Kalan, Mariya Morar, Wilson W. L. Sung, Carsten Schwarz, Duane Froese, Grant Zazula, Fabrice Calmels, Regis Debruyne, G. Brian Golding, Hendrik N. Poinar & Gerard D. Wright
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authors
Nature 477, 457–461 (22 September 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10388
Received 28 March 2011 Accepted 22 July 2011 Published online 31 August 2011


The discovery of antibiotics more than 70 years ago initiated a period of drug innovation and implementation in human and animal health and agriculture. These discoveries were tempered in all cases by the emergence of resistant microbes1, 2. This history has been interpreted to mean that antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria is a modern phenomenon; this view is reinforced by the fact that collections of microbes that predate the antibiotic era are highly susceptible to antibiotics3. Here we report targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to β-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants. These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.



Are you a douchebag?

Of course you are. Because now you will try to debate with SCIENTIFIC evidence with your layman understanding.

Oh I can't wait to see this...

[Alchemist]

Oh no..

I am so embarrassed ... I got proven wrong ... oh dear me ... damn you ozy .. how did you disprove me ... I can't believe it ... so embarrassed.


lol

[ozymandias]

OK Douchebag...

here... I am doing the leg work for you

No, you are doing the legwork *for you*, since you are making the claims.

Antibiotic resistance is ancient

Vanessa M. D’Costa, Christine E. King, Lindsay Kalan, Mariya Morar, Wilson W. L. Sung, Carsten Schwarz, Duane Froese, Grant Zazula, Fabrice Calmels, Regis Debruyne, G. Brian Golding, Hendrik N. Poinar & Gerard D. Wright
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authors
Nature 477, 457–461 (22 September 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10388
Received 28 March 2011 Accepted 22 July 2011 Published online 31 August 2011


The discovery of antibiotics more than 70 years ago initiated a period of drug innovation and implementation in human and animal health and agriculture. These discoveries were tempered in all cases by the emergence of resistant microbes1, 2. This history has been interpreted to mean that antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria is a modern phenomenon; this view is reinforced by the fact that collections of microbes that predate the antibiotic era are highly susceptible to antibiotics3. Here we report targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to β-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants. These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.

Interesting that the drugs that these bacteria were resistant to are all naturally occurring chemicals such as penicillin, tetracycline, and vancomycin. There is no reason to assume that this resistance is *not* are result of evolution. All we do know is that while modern man has not known about these drugs long, they have existed far longer. So far you have not shown a fact that is inconsistent with evolution.

What's your point?

Are you a douchebag?

Nope.

Of course you are. Because now you will try to debate with SCIENTIFIC evidence with your layman understanding.

Oh I can't wait to see this...

I can't wait until you present evidence that drug-resistant bacteria somehow disproves evolution. Or that anything disproves, evolution, actually. If you manage that, you are set for life as one of the greatest scientists of history. Good luck!

[Alchemist]

Don't you get it moron?

This is proof that anti biotic resistance is not an evolutionary phenomena!

I have proven here that anti biotic resistance is a natural phenomena. Not a recent phenomena! You were the guy who kept insisting that because of our usage of antibiotics, bacteria became "modified".

Did you not use the word "modified"?

This means that bacteria never did become modified.


Stop being so childish and admit you were wrong!

There aren't any proofs of evolution! You even refuse to present proofs after I showed how weak they were.

[ozymandias]

Don't you get it moron?

This is proof that anti biotic resistance is not an evolutionary phenomena!

Where is the proof? You did not prove any such thing. All you proved was that whatever caused the antibiotic resistance to these three naturally occurring drugs happened prior to previously thought. It very easily could have evolved a long time ago, especially considering there was natural selection pressures to evolve such a resistance.

I have proven here that anti biotic resistance is a natural phenomena.

And I agree it is a natural phenomena. That's what evolution is.

Not a recent phenomena!

No one is saying it was recent, or that evolution only occurs in modern times -- quite the opposite. Evolution has occurred since life first started.

You were the guy who kept insisting that because of our usage of antibiotics, bacteria became "modified".

And you still have not disproven that, and have instead presented videos showing that it has been modified, and have admitted the fact that the video shows microevolution occurring.

Did you not use the word "modified"?

This means that bacteria never did become modified.

You might what to check yourself. You already admitted in the other thread that it did.

Stop being so childish and admit you were wrong!

Stop being childish and claiming I am wrong, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

There aren't any proofs of evolution!

There are plenty. You have even seen them. You just don't have a basic understanding of science, and thus erroneously dismiss them.

You even refuse to present proofs after I showed how weak they were.

I have never refused to present proof, and have done so repeatedly, and not once have you managed to disprove my evidence. Please remember, sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself, or calling people names, is not proof of anything regarding evolution. You need actual scientific evidence, which you have failed to provide, and consistently ignore when I present it.

[sanman]

OK Douchebag...

These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.

Are you a douchebag?

No, but you are. What does that conclusion have to do with disproving evolution? Anti-biotic resistance is the result of natural selection, and not merely the result of medical engineering. Proof of Darwinism.

So you've only undermined your own arguments and reinforced ours!

[ozymandias]

No, but you are. What does that conclusion have to do with disproving evolution? Anti-biotic resistance is the result of natural selection, and not merely the result of medical engineering. Proof of Darwinism.

He seems to forget the 'natural' part of 'natural selection'...

So you've only undermined your own arguments and reinforced ours!

Pretty much standard move on his part. He either does that, or make a personal attack, or more frequently, both.

[ScimitarXEdge]

kudos to Sanman and Ozymandias for frying Alchemist's pea brain.


he seems not to realize how the fact of anti-biotic resistance in nature produced new species of bacteria lol

[Alchemist]

lol @ "new species" of bacteria...

you guys are a bunch of dweebs.


That statement of your is wrong on so many levels its not even funny.

You guys have lost all your marbles. You have twisted the debate far away from biology and into some kind of a fictitious narrative where you three stooges can believe what evolution is.

LOL again @ "new species". Please...show me the name of the "new species" .. what did it change from into what? What was it called and then what did it become? If scimitar shows this proof I swear I will just leave the forum.

I am calling your bluff out ... you fools!

[Alchemist]

ozy read this carefully: Bacteria ALWAYS has had resistance to anti biotics!

The onus is on you to show proof that one time it didn't have THEN became "Modified" to have it!

Since you cannot PROVE this, you fail to show that it is an example of EVOLUTION.


SIMPLE!


can you simpletons deal with that?