Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[Alchemist]

You're randomly throwing around jargon to make yourself sound intellectual.

Tell me, why is it that bacteria are able to develop resistance to traditional anti-biotics that have been repeatedly used against them? They were not resistant before and those anti-biotics were considered a useful treatment back then. But now they have developed resistance over time, so that the same anti-biotic is no longer adequately effective against them.

This is proof of evolution.

To reiterate for the nth time...

Strains of bacteria found even from 30,000 years ago have resistance to antibiotics.

Therefore the premise of your question is flawed!

[sanman]

To reiterate for the nth time...

Strains of bacteria found even from 30,000 years ago have resistance to antibiotics.

Therefore the premise of your question is flawed!

No, your premise is flawed - deliberately by you, since you seek to obscure facts with fiction.

Your premise is that everything already had resistance to everything, and that no new resistance was acquired. That's a lie.

Obviously, the whole utility of anti-biotics is that there are particular bacteria which have no resistance to them. That's a fact, and that's the whole basis for the use of anti-biotics.

Nextly, some bacteria have acquired resistance to anti-biotics, through evolutionary adaption. The resistance was not there before, but came later on, due to repeated exposure to the anti-biotics. Proof of evolution.

You're deliberately just playing a game here, and why you seek to obscure accurate scientific facts is upto you to disclose. You cannot be a God-fearing person if you're willing to lie so deliberately and play such games. Other people can see your behavior, and will draw obvious conclusions about the kind of person you are. You only discredit yourself with your obvious stubborn gamesmanship. Your comments say more about you than about the subject you're pretending to argue on.

[ScimitarXEdge]

see precisely what I predicted his responses are almost completely rhetorical projecting rather than knowledgeable responses.


look at the red herrings he comes up with, a new species can't exist because it hasn't been taxinomically categorized yet? really? How is that even a logically tenable refutation on any account?


He's simply denying the evidence, based on pure false appeals.

[Alchemist]

Rhetorical projection?
Funny, that is precisely what you keep doing.
You have no knowledge your self so you keep copy pasting links that you your self don't even understand.
It is not categorized or named because it doesn't exist...the paper it self was a hypothetical projection!
You are so lame, you introduce a new gene as a new species! and I am the one who is not knowledgeable? You don't even know how DNA codes proteins, and every time I challenge you to debate on the science you make silly mistakes like that. Have some shame, you buffoon. You couldn't even understand 2/3rds of my argument because the knowledge was too heavy for you...and I am making red herrings? Your pathetic. My arguments are based on scientific knowledge, yours are based on appeals ..."see he is making red herring, he is doing this ..he is doing that"....people don't need you to interpret what i am doing, so spare us the drama.

[ScimitarXEdge]

really? because i have provded several sources which have concluded that new species of bacteria have been found due to mutations in their anti-biotic resistance

this is rhetorical projection. If you're saying my responses to your rhetorical proclamations, are themselves rhetorical then you're commiting Tu Quoque logical fallacies.

your counter response can be summarized as "haha ha ...you call that evidence? That's not true hahahha....it doesn't even have a name yet"

Which is as bogus an argument as it gets, because that means something only exists if it has a name? so if we applied that logic Oxygen only existed when people put a name on it?

Just based on logical fallacies alone your position lacks demonstrable support.

[Afghanistan2010]

Brother Alchemist,

check out the new thread regarding "the living fossils" defeat of the evolutionists.

[sanman]

Both Afghanistan2010 and Alchemist benefit from the fruits of modern medical science that is based on basic scientific theories like evolution. And yet while they benefit from modern medical science, they continue to speak against it. They are hypocrites.

Other than mental illness, it's impossible to explain why people would oppose the very medical science that heals them. They want the fruits of this medical science, and yet they want to reject the basis for it.

They clearly imagine themselves superior to the vast body of professionals who are clearly more qualified and more accredited than them. They are simply fools.

It's not worth arguing with fools, since fools are detached from logic and reality, living in their own imaginary world. Fools try to consort with other fools, so that they can draw more strength of foolishness from each other, and exhort each other on.

You are clearly self-deluding people, who have no basic ethics or rational instincts.

You cannot be God-fearing people, because of your willingness to deceive yourselves and others right in front of God. People who do this obviously cannot have any respect for God, and that's why they are accursed and doomed.

[faye]

haha, sanman, that is such a funny, intellectual putdown of all those millions who don't choose to believe as you do. god bless you, child, lol.

[sanman]

faye, science is more than belief - science is a credibly verifiable description of reality.

I'm not sure if you're claiming that all standards of credibility are equal, or whether you're claiming to have non-scientific beliefs that are more credible to you.

faye - tell me what you believe in. Do you believe that the physical universe is based on certain laws and rules? If so, then what rules do you feel it's based on?

Note that the various commonly accept scientific theories have been shown to be in conformance with each other. Religious debaters who oppose Darwin's theory of evolution also typically oppose various other scientific theories, whether on the formation of the Earth and cosmos, or on other various laws of nature.

Ultimately, their opposition to science is driven by political and parochial interests, and not out of any desire to rigorously explain the nature of our universe.

[Alchemist]

really? because i have provded several sources which have concluded that new species of bacteria have been found due to mutations in their anti-biotic resistance

A fabricated lie.

Since you are delusional you may believe that you have done so. However, I have shown that you did not understand your "source's" properly therefore you failed to deliver a "new species". You made reference to a newly discovered "gene", but that was again, a polymorphic variant of a subgroup of genes....ops sorry ...using big words that are beyound your understanding.

this is rhetorical projection. If you're saying my responses to your rhetorical proclamations, are themselves rhetorical then you're commiting Tu Quoque logical fallacies.

your counter response can be summarized as "haha ha ...you call that evidence? That's not true hahahha....it doesn't even have a name yet"

Which is as bogus an argument as it gets, because that means something only exists if it has a name? so if we applied that logic Oxygen only existed when people put a name on it?

Just based on logical fallacies alone your position lacks demonstrable support.

Oh...enough drama girl.

[faye]

science is ok, it has it's uses but humanity existed without it for a long time. the earth was a lot cleaner in those days, the water, the air..............

[ScimitarXEdge]

A fabricated lie.

basically you're accusing them of conspiracy theories; in other words denying evidence ....you lost this debate then.

you're the one getting hot headed and having a temper tantrum whenever evidence is presented.

[sanman]

science is ok, it has it's uses but humanity existed without it for a long time. the earth was a lot cleaner in those days, the water, the air..............

fair enough - but science is the study, while technology is the use of science to build things, which of course has led to the pollution and other problems that you mention

Man continues to improve his scientific and technological understanding however, and so we may potentially advance to the point of getting these problems under control. We may minimize our environmental footprint to minimize our pollution, we may control our birthrate and our population, we may colonize Mars and redistribute our population, we may preserve endangered species and even resuscitate them along with lost species.


But religious people love to have lots of kids - because they say God told them to. They don't really give any thought to environmental consequences, and perhaps their idea of population control is to massacre a bunch of unbelievers (what happens when all the remaining believers are the same as you - who do you massacre then?)

[ozymandias]

Some bacteria have had the ability to metabolise citrate. It isn't a new function.

But this is not 'some bacteria', this is a bacteria that did *NOT* have such an ability. That's the point.

However, note that after 20 years of experimentation, no new species did or could have evolved

Depends on the definition of speciation used. There are new species, if you look at the characteristics of the bacteria -- they are clearly doing things that they could not before. Your definition of speciation is flawed, though, since these are asexual bacteria.

despite the stressor induced, for the ability to metablize citrate came with a "fitness cost". And for a trait to be considered "adaptable", according to evolutionary theory, it must increase fitness!

And in the given environments, it did increase fitness. You are stuck on this idea that what is most fit in one environment must be most fit in all, and that is clearly not true.

Meaning that in the same culture of glusose + citrate, the citrate metabolizer should out compete the glucose metabolizer but that was not the case.

But it clearly was the case -- as the new species overwhelmed the old.

If this experiment were as successful as it hoped to be, it would have been heralded as indisputable proof of evolution...

You mean like it has been?

but it has been mediocre to say the least!

*sigh*

Apparently the bacteria is soooooo new, it still doesn't even have a name. Maybe we should call it Scimiteria X. Edgia...since you discovered it!

LOL

Dummy! this is based on a hypothetical mathematics but not real or tangible proof of a real species!
You are so desperate that you just jump at the closest thing. Read carefully, not selectively.





Note that no where in the actual paper do they dub it as a "new species" of bacteria! Because it is not!

This is a gene that is found in 11 different species of bacteria. Am I changing goal posts? or is my fault you don't even understand the evidence you are presenting ...due to your own ignorance.

NMD1 is a subgroup of genes from metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL), and is similar to VIM. You have to understand that the core beta lactam ring for penicillins, cephalosporins, monobactams, and carbapenems are the same! There are over 300 beta lactamese enzymes that are known off. Don't fall for the media hype son... Learn to accept the facts like ozzy... This is a natural phenomenal because the essence of things have *Not* changed! Hence ...NO...evolution! So stop with the Delusions!



"denying the evidence" ... what evidence? You are so stupid, that you called a newly discovered gene a new species! That is a classic layman mistake!

*sigh*

Yes, genes and species...that's just semantics.

You are so bull headed and ignorant that you still refuse to accept the data that even ozy admits to - that neanderthals and homo sapiens had sex and had viable offspring.

Doesn't make them the same species. Way to selectively quote me to misrepresent what I actually stated.

You chose to selectively read passages out of context to say that they didn't have "viable offspring" when even the title of the paper clearly states - "humans and neanderthals interbred".

So what? Speciation is a slow process as two pools drift apart and become less able to breed with each other. It is not an overnight, single generational thing.

You have a psychological issue buddy.

Gain some real knowledge. Then come debate with me. You know you are not on my level of understanding of the biology we are discussing here.

That's true -- he is far above your abilities.

[ozymandias]

By the way lameway Zelmay,

As long as they can mate, they are of the same species.

You could mate with a dog. Does that make you the same species? Your definition says you are. Donkeys and horses not only can mate, but they can have offspring. Your definition says they are the same species. What about asexual bacteria? They must all be their own species, because no two of them can mate at all.

Face it, you are using a flawed, incomplete definition. No wonder your conclusions are flawed.