Is antibiotic resistance evidence for Darwinian evolution?

[N6NZE]

Widespread use of antibiotics has resulted in the mutation of many disease causing bacteria making them resistant to treatment. In 2007, the CDC reported 19,000 deaths from methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Researchers will continue developing drugs to attack new bacterial targets. Novel compounds called quorum sensing inhibitors, which disrupt bacteria's communication systems and are less likely to promote "evolve" resistance, are also in the works.

[sleanos]

@onijester56 If there is no distinction scientifically between macro evolution and micro evolution there you have a BIG problem, as Berkley university(just for example, look up their website and what the teach on evolution) teaches that there is a distinction while supposedly still being evidence as to how all life evolved to eventually what we see today.

[onijester56]

Sadly, the problem lies in your misunderstanding of Darwinian Evolution.

Mutations act on currently-existing bases, meaning that some other base willtend to be given up to enable the mutation. With little junk DNA, obviously bacteria face more sacrifice in some fundamental function, which generally results in a decreased fitness in the "wild". Demonstrating 'modification by natural selection', a major component of Darwinian Evolution.

So the answer to the title IS "Yes". Lolz-ROFL-Giggity.

[sleanos]

@onijester56 You drank too much of the kool-aid friend ;)

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

Yes, antibiotic resistance is one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution. Deal with it.

[sleanos]

@MomoTheBellyDancer It's called adaptation, which we have no problem with. But that in and of itself plays no part in building, evolving an organism from simple to complex and everything in between. It's the reason why we have people who look differently based on their environments as well, but they are still people, not evolving into something non-human. Deal with it.

[zebraone100]

Both phases of the experiment clearly illustrate Darwin's natural selection.

"...as mutations are DESTRUCTION or NEUTRAL on DNA. They NEVER add new genetic info..."

Classic creationist misdirection. It would almost be true if base pair mutations were the ONLY form of mutation associated with DNA replication, but its not. IE. Gene duplication.

Gene duplication + base pair mutations allows for original gene function as well as new gene function. In other words, NEW information.

[sleanos]

Now listen to what you JUST said. Gene DUPLICATION. Did you really add anything new there? No, the gene was duplicated and then the DNA was deleted to bring about an alteration. Continue down that line for centuries. You don't get ANY kind of evolution from simple lifeforms to more complex. If that were so, we would have seen massive changes in bacteria and fruit flies into something other than what they are for which science has tested due to how quickly we can study their generations.

[ikvsabre]

"You don't get ANY kind of evolution from simple lifeforms to more complex"

You REALLY don't understand evolution at all.

EVOLUTION IS NOT A LADDER

[sleanos]

Sorry friend. I understand it perfectly. Try reading the Berkeley university overview of evolution at their website sometime. Darwinian Evo is a TREE LIKE structure, but the premise is the same, it states that complex lifeforms developed/evolved from simplistic ones over long periods of time, despite ANY genetic proof of this, nor any physical observations. All we have are SPECULATIONS/GUESSES as to origins of life, how it came about and how we got here.

[ikvsabre]

You understand ZILCH. Evolution is not a "treelike structure". The "tree" is used to ilustrate the divergent paths of species back to their common origin. But it is NOT a ladder. There are thousands (perhaps millions) of species of simple organisms today, and they are ALL part of that "tree". By your reckoning, they'd all be gone. You understand NOTHING.

"despite ANY genetic proof of this"

Go look up mitochondrial DNA sometime.

[sleanos]

1) IF you follow certain species on the TREE LIKE pattern used to illustrate divergent specie paths, then it DOES act as a ladder. You say evo is NOT a "tree like pattern", yet say the tree like pattern is used to illustrate divergent specie paths back to origins... SO WHICH IS IT???

Sorry, don't commit a logical fallacy by putting words in my mouth. Never said there woulnd't be simple organisms alive today. Mito-DNA is proof of a common desinger as much as it is evo friend.

[devil238]

Wow, amazing. Really.

Why aren't you publishing these findings to a respected university yet?

I am truly in awe.

[sleanos]

These findings ARE published both in the scientific journals as well as in the creationists journals now.

[devil238]

I'd like to know what journals and if they were peer reviewed by a respectable University.

Not one of these backwards creationist "Universities", somewhere with some weight.

[sleanos]

Then look them up for yourself. That's part of the problem with people who attack the findings of creationists BLINDLY on here. You just don't take the time to do your homework and expect to be spoon fed. RESEARCH buddy... it's good for your brain.

[GodGuided]

So humans are a down grade form apes according to darwins theory? WOW i never thought of that, apes are smart, they don't built t.v.s and cities that destroy trees, but they do like to play with poo.

[cyric1313]

this is a great vid. every evo junkie i've told this to just doen't seem to understand. i'll direct them to this vid in hopes of clearing up misunderstandings.

5*'s

[PeyokWarrow]

What this video shows is well known by Science, and is in fact in favor of Evolutionary Theory.

It shows how the enviroment SELECTS the organisms. I'll make it easy for you creationist:

All averwhelming data supporting evolution shows Birds and Mammals come from antique Reptilians, who come from antique Amphibians, who come from antique Fish... This Evolutionary path shows how new organisms are BEST ADAPTED to new ENVIROMENTS... (1/2)

[sleanos]

Extremely ludacris. Gators, sharks, bacteria, trilobytes are said to be some of the most ancient lifeforms on the planet virtually unchanged. WHY do we not see ANY of these species changing into presently or even noticebly into ANYTHING other than what they are. Adapation and slight variations in appearance DO NOT give us evidence that birds/mammals came from reptiles, who came from amphibians. Darwin Evo (tree of life) is PHILOSOPHY, not science.

[magick205]

Actually, other than the trilobites being extinct you are right about these creatures being for the most part unchanged. This is because these creatures are very well adapted to the environmental nice that they fill. And there is, even among these forms quite a bit of change in their morphology. Crocodilians had much more hooked snouts to prey on fish. Some sharks had Anvil-like fins. And bacteria...they fit their nice perfectly. Without them, no humans.

[sleanos]

trilobytes being extinct is like saying sharks are extinct. a FALSE generalization. We have MANY variations of the trilobyte in existence today the SAME way we have variations of the other creatures I just mentioned. However, according to the science we know there are GENETIC limitations/boundaries to the morphology than can occur. A crocidile or shark even "millions of years ago" would never produce anything but a croc or shark respectively. Darwin Evo is false.

[magick205]

"We have MANY variations of the trilobyte in existence today" Really? Perhaps you mean arthropods? But, trilobites themselves went extinct by the end of the paleozoic. I'm afraid your second assertion is entirely incorrect. If we can create an entirely artificial genome, artificial plasmids, artifical chromosomes, we can create anything. Our only barrier is the knowledge of what gene does what in what pathway.

[sleanos]

Note: I did not say we have the trilobytes of the "paleozoic era". I said we have VARIATIONS of the Trilobyte today. Genetic variations and adaptations of the common type(s). Nice straw man argument though. And sorry buddy, all we can do is MANIPULATE PRE-EXISTING LIFE to creating artificial genomes/plasmids/chromosomes. We can't CREATE life at all. Not sure where you get your science from.

[magick205]

Right. You do mean arthropods. Glad we got that cleared up. And I said nothing about creating life, yet. We are getting closer. The HHMI Szostak lab has an excellent source of data on modern abiogenesis theory. As far as everything else, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th Ed, and Introduction to Genetic Engineering, 2nd Ed. Artifical chromosomes are very much part of the bioengineering landscape. Plasmids are lots of fun.

[sleanos]

Nope I don't mean arthropods because spiders are include in that classification. Trilobytes and spiders may share some commonalities for classification purposes but they did not evolve one from another nor share a common ancestral relative. Abiogenesis was disproved LONG ago. Science is wasting money trying to prove life can come from nonlife, instead of refocusing that money/time in taking care of REAL world problems and improving people's lives. Evolution does nothing to help people.

[magick205]

"Evolution does nothing to help people." Really? Well, perhaps if you're ever in a court case where DNA evidence is introduced, you should immediatly recuse yourself based on that statement. Thanks to the Innocence Project the science developed on the basis of evolutionary theory has freed 14 people wrongly convicted in 2008 alone. And trilobites (correct spelling BTW) are very much extinct. Even the majority of YECers agree on this point.

[sleanos]

It's not just me saying that evolution helps nothing. Some of the top BIOLOGY/GENETIC/Microbiology scientists in the world as well as noble peace prize winners have said the same thing. THe SCIENCE of DNA & genetics is what is used in the court of law along with foresincs. Has NOTHING to do with dawrinian evolution (tree of life). You don't read so well do you? I did not say trilobytes exist today, but variations of it are in existence. So stop with the straw man arguments please. It's tiring.

[atlant80]

You do realize that evolution through natural selection is the entire backbone of modern biology. It allows you to take something from one field of biology, and compare it to something in a totally different field. Also, please provide quotes where top scientists say that evolution is useless. That would be interesting. And abiogenesis (the modern theory) has never been disproven. Spotaneous Genoration was, but that is not modern abiogenetic theory.

[sleanos]

You do realize that natural selection produces NOTHING. It simply selects. Evolution requires a mechanism to explain how one kind of animal can become a totally different kind of animal not just speciation at a micro-level which adaption & genetics perfectly explains. Evolution wants you to believe that MUTATIONS is responsible for "tree of life" type of evolution and that is plainly false.

[sleanos]

"Until the early 19th century people generally believed in the ongoing spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter — abiogenesis."

You can play semantics with terms all you want, however you'll find that even many enclopedia explanations and science textbooks would be at difference with you "custom" definition. Must be nice to bend definitions to your will.

[sleanos]

Profession Louis Bournoure - Director of Researcgm National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, March 8, 1984

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Many more statements by Sir Arthur Keith, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, and others. Have you done any serious research or do you like to argue for argues sake?

[atlant80]

"Genetic variations and adaptations" And what would the mechanism of this be? Mutation and natural selection? Because unless you are talking about LaMarkian evolution, the only way to produce adaptation to help creatures to survive and reproduce is natural selection. So, yeah, that is evolutionary theory right there.

[sleanos]

No, sorry that is only A PART of evolutionary theory that most creationist and intelligent design adovocates have no problem with and we can prove in the hear and now. Natural selection, genetic adaptations allow speciation within the different animal kinds, but does not explain at all one kind of animal becoming something totally different. Mutations don't explain it as well, as mutations are DESTRUCTION or NEUTRAL on DNA. They NEVER add new genetic info to DNA that did not already exist.

[crissyhowes]

so you one of those people who thinks radio carbon dating is a myth and we lived along side dinosaurs, and as Science found the great meteor that killed the dinosaur in the gulf of Mexico how did man survive. did he pray

[sleanos]

Radio carbon dating is not a myth, but is fallible when used against thigns of KNOWN ages. No dating method is infallible and are best guesses based on ASSUMPTIONS about our past prior to any written records. Yes we lived alongside dinos, NOT like Fred Flinstone of course. The meteor you refer to is the umpteenth answer given by scienctists as to the destruction of dinos. Give it sometime, that answer will change again as it has over the course of the last few hundred years.

[crissyhowes]

can you explain why no humans Fossil's have been found in the same sedimentary layer as Dinosaurs?? In fack there are no human fossils

at all if you don't believe evalution, because humans as you think magicaly apeard haven't been here long enougha to become fossil's

[sleanos]

If humans died alongside dino's you would not naturally find them in the same sedementary layers NOR would you find them necess. in the same vacinity. You erringly assume a Flinestone/bedrock relationship. You're mixing what you perceive as truth for an old age earth along with the fossil record and mixing it up with what creationists believe about a young earth. Read Bones of Contention and many other sources of literature.

[crissyhowes]

I did say you would find them next to each other , explain why we find no homo Sapian

fossils????

[sleanos]

You will have to clarify this rather AMBIGUOUS question please.

[sleanos]

Try this little experiment. Drown a lizard and a mouse together in a big container. The rate at which they sink/float based on physiological structures affects the level that they can be found in the rocks. A lizard sinks much quicker. A mouse will tend to float before sinking. Now apply this to flash floods/ sediment landslides on people and dinasaurs. You would NATURALLY find dinos at lowerlevels of rock due to their composition.

[crissyhowes]

you can't sink though a sedimentary layer that has already set in time, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about , why not go to university or even collage and learn how sedimentary layers work , your god would be embarrass how dumb you are .

[sleanos]

I can't help it if YOU don't understand the process fully or misunderstand what I'm saying. Picture an OCEAN or HUGE body of water. Picture Volcanoes erupting and massive earthquakes. There would be ALOT of movement, a lot of water mixing with sediment to allow heavy objects to SINK further before the commotion ends and allowing the layers to settle.

[sleanos]

This conversation is over seeing that you can't reframe from namecalling and being rude and have a NORMAL and RESPECTABLE conversation about such a controversial topic. Control your emotions/passion instead of letting it control you and your words.

[charlycont]

this video is wrong, that may be for one experiment, but there are so many variants left! i mean.. we already have the prove that they mutate and from there on they stay resistent.. i mean.. duhh.. this is crap. this is no answer to antibiotic resistance.

[sleanos]

Yes but they are weaker than their parents. So if this were a real life situation, natural selection picks them off. And by the way, it's still bacteria even with any adaptations and antibiotic resistance's normally found are due to a loss of information in the genetic code. You don't get bacteria to every biological lifeform we have today by stripping away/mutating DNA which is foundational in Darwinian evolution for it to be true.

[crissyhowes]

dead end to darwin's theory? there are some many hole in that idea,

Go to a museum and stand next to the skellington of a guy from the middle ages, or a roman, or if you live in america the earliest you can find and ask your self are we changing, What people keep leaving out of the Darwin debate is time , not a year 10 years its thousands millions of years

[sleanos]

Time seems to be the "magical ingedient" for darwinists.

Just invoke "time", which is EXACTLY what they accuse Creationists of - Just invoke "God".

All the time in the world will not change a human into anything but a human. Look at dwarfs, pygmies, 8ft+ men/women of history, skinny people, obese people. We have a HUGE diversity of what people look like, but they are STILL PEOPLE - HUMAN BEINGS. They are not evolving into anything else.

[crissyhowes]

Rev 14:7 ... Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

time is the main ingediet doo, but you don't get that if the world is only 6000 years old .

[sleanos]

According to the Bible and external world evidence, there is good reason to believe that the earth is approx 6000+-1000 years old. Hence not enough time for darwinian evolution. Mathematicians/probability anaylysts have computed the result of natural selection/mutations in the darwininan equation and have basically said that not even 4.8 billion years old was enough time for darwinism to happen. You need INFINITELY more time than what science thinks is the age of the universe.

[Slabbers]

A correct understanding of evolution and genetics removes any problems. There is no problem with rice and amoebae having much more genetic material than humans, because not all the information is useful. How do you explain the apparent disparity between the size of these genomes and the organism's resultant complexity?

[sleanos]

Easily, we do not share common ancestry with rice or an amoeba. Please explain how an simple amoeba (which is still highly complex) with a genome size of 670,000,000,000 base pairs can ever "evolve" into a present human with 2,900,000,000 base pairs which is INFINITELY MORE complex by LOSING GENETIC INFORMATION.

[Slabbers]

You're the one with all the explaining to do. I'm saying not all the genetic information is relevant to making an amoeba or a human. You have to explain why God created simpler organisms with massively large amounts of genetic information.

[sleanos]

Your asking a spiritual question now, why did God create simpler organisms with massively large amounts of genetic information. The Bible's answer is God chooses to use the simple and foolish things to confound the wisdom and self-pride of those who reject His saving Grace in Jesus Christ. Your turn, now give us a scientific explanation as I requested in my previous comment.

[SuperShibbyDude]

You asked how amoebas with the modern number of genetic base pairs evolved into modern humans. This question suggests that humans evolved from an amoeba/human ancestor identical to modern amoebas and that amoebas have not evolved since.

The understanding of evolution in which humans are the more evolved than other organisms is called a teleological view, which is now considered an obsolete view in modern science.

[sleanos]

What did we evolve from then if not an ameoba or simple some other single celled organism that we know of as fact? Amoebas are still amoebas today regardless if they changed slightly via from their ancestral counterparts. Point is they are NOT evolving into anything else but an amoeba.

[sleanos]

"teleological view" obsolete only because most secular science admits they cannot test the supernatural. This does not mean that it is false nor invalid, just outside the scope of current science. And when you find organisms more sophisticated than man in terms of space exploration, music & art, and searching for answers to life outside of ourselves, etc. let me know because we are the dominate more highly "evolved" species on planet earth.

[SuperShibbyDude]

Today's view of evolutionary paths is that of phylogenetics. Modern amoebas evolved just as long as humans after the common ancestor. This means that the common ancestor could have had even fewer genetic base pairs than modern humans. Thus, it doesn't matter if today's amoebas have more pairs.

[sleanos]

Then I'll ask you again, according to science, what did modern humans evolve from and where is the science that conclusively proves this or at least gives overwhelming evidence in it's claims showing how it happened, not just pointing to similarities.

[Slabbers]

You are arguing against a strawman version of evolution and genetics. Your confusion comes about from this vague concept of genetic "information" - one minute you say all genetic material is valuable, so presumably information, but then you have the problem of all the "lesser" organisms that have more genetic material. This concept of "information" and your idea that some organisms are "better" than others is confusing you I think.

[sleanos]

I'll say it again then, what is the definition of evolution that YOU are going by, because it seems as if you all use something different, even when I post up a definition used by Berkely University you all seem to disagree with it. So what is YOUR definition of evolution. Let's start with that.

[Slabbers]

The Wikipedia definition is as good as any : "Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next". Evolution is, I'm sure we can both agree, a fact. The theories that explain what happens when evolution continues for a long time are the bit you seem to be struggling with.

[sleanos]

Darwinian evolution is FALSE, FICTION, FANTASY, NOT FACT. SOME elements that comprose the theory are true, like adapation, mutations, natural selection, however NONE of these have ever proven that YOU derived from ANYTHING other than a human being over time. You would pick a def that is pretty plain in it's statement ;) I don't argue if you mean change over time, the REAL question is WHAT KIND of changes and does genetics prove it. That is what the discussion is REALLY about.

[FuhkTheSystem]

why do you guys insist on defending your "views" on simple facts... if you have faith (belief with out reason or evidence) then why do you try to provide evidence for it. Insecure in our ignorant ways, are we?

[sleanos]

1) We are commanded to give reasons for our faith

2) To counter all the childish and ignorant straw man arguments such as the one you just gave "faith (belief without reason or evidence)

Let's remember something, it's hard core atheists and darwinists who insist there is NO evidence for creation and try to disprove everything creationists and IDers bring forth in science. Why do they spend so much time trying to disprove evidence that isn't suppose to exist?

[FuhkTheSystem]

Why? because some of us feel that it our duty to stop you from spreading your lies onto future generations. This is a secular nation. Go start your own United States of Christianity somewhere in the "holyland". And you can base your government on religion.

[sleanos]

Whether you like it or not, there is science, empirical facts and from that, we have TWO religious/philosophical beliefs or interpretations on origins of life. 1) God in the beginning or 2) Nothing or the Universe just made itself which is what you subscribe to. And your remarks reek of bigotry and hatred. Like it or not our own government is based on many "religious" principles. Thou shalt not kill/steal/etc... right down to the structure of our court systems.

[FuhkTheSystem]

THOSE ARE BASIC HUMAN PRINCIPLES! dont claim them as religion. If there were no 10 commandment would you be out killing, stealing, raping, come on dude!?! ppl are assholes with or without religion, and others are kind decent and caring in the same manner. And yes sadly there is religion in some of our government, though that is not the way it was intended. Partisan groups have worked it in little by little by lobbying, we win some, we lose some (i.e. "under god")

[sleanos]

Ur right, there r basic human principles, and I don't claim they come from religion, they come from God. Who's God is a different matter. Read some history some time on just what kind of positive impact the bible when RIGHTLY understood has had on mankind.

[sleanos]

Did you know the Bible promotes vegetarianism as the HEALTHIEST choice for mankind? So what made you become a vegetarian?

[Slabbers]

This isn't your video anyway, you've copied it from those frauds and perjurers at the Discovery Institute. This is a vanity page, with monitored comments. Presumably you simply don't allow comments that show you up too badly, but we shall soon see if this discussion continues...

[sleanos]

You are obviously VERY ignorant to the countless of other comments and statements made by others on my site. I let valid comments and questions go through and do block IGNORANT and vulgar statements on here for obvious reasons. Remember, YOU came to MY site dropping comments. No one invited you into this discussion. Please stop crying me a river.

[Slabbers]

Sleanos, you didn't respond to any of my arguments with anything other than ridicule and abuse. You didn't rebut or address a single point. I am quoting actual science, you are regurgitating tired creationist flannel. The reason I brought up junk DNA is because I am intrigued as to what the hell you mean by "information" anyway? Please explain.

[sleanos]

Sorry friend, YOU DID NOT present ANY science to back up the statements you made. I did respond to your arguments. Put the evidence where your mouth is. Back up what you are saying with actually experiments (urls) that prove it and not the reverse. I can back up what I'm saying simply by reading the fine line on whatever experiment you'd like to toss my way. Read the comments on many of the other videos on my site for evidence of this also.

[neuronstorm]

This vid seems to make the silly assumption that evolution must always produce an organism fitter in every way. There's no such rule. It's perfectly logical for a resistant strain to be less fit overall and outcompeted by non-resistant strains once the selective pressure it evolved for has been removed.

[sleanos]

That's precisely the point, what evolutionists say happens in nature, NEVER happens in the laboratory. And the mutated ANYTHING never seem to be fitter or equal to the parent. Evolution states that everything should be getting better, more complex, etc from a single cell to all the diversity of life.

[neuronstorm]

Evolution does NOT state everything should be getting better. You are making stuff up.

Consider flightless birds & sightless eyes of certain moles.

Features can be lost.

You really WANT to misunderstand evolution don't you? Why don't you just read a proper book on it??

[sleanos]

Why don't u address BOTH points instead of nitpicking. I've heard from evolutionists themselves that evolution is to stream line organism making them MORE FIT (better) as well as more complex over the darwinian evolution dream timeline.

[neuronstorm]

You know very well that a resistant bacteria is fitter than it's parent in terms of surviving in the presence of the antibiotic it is resistant against. It may be weaker than it's parent in other regards. So what? If the mutation increases the ability of the organism to survive, or the mutation doesn't hinder survival - it may become prevalent.

[sleanos]

If it's weaker and out survives its parent, so what? We have adaptation at best. At the genome level, it's survival was still due to a LOSS of genetic information, not an increase in NEW genetic material that it did not have before. NO EVOLUTION TOOK PLACE BY Darwin's definition and this fits fine with ID and creation theories as well as expected and predicted.

[neuronstorm]

Why do you insist on seeing a child as either 'weaker' or 'stronger'? It may be weaker against one predator and stronger against another. Which genes get passed on may depend on which predator was more prevalent. That's just one easy example. Sorry - you just seem to be trying to make a big topic too simplified... and I don't understand why you're doing this.

[sleanos]

The resistance is STILL due to a LOSS of genetic information. NO GAIN in NEW non-existence genetic information, so can be explained perfectly by adaptation and other concepts. This is NOT a case for evolution, it's still BACTERIA my friend.

[neuronstorm]

New information certainly can be added to the genome through mutations. This can and has been measured in bacteria. Look - we can sequence DNA - we can do the measurements. You seem to be pulling up old invalid arguments because you are seeking evidence for a particular conclusion. I don't see how science will ever 'disprove' god - nor is it even trying to.. you seem to fear it will and are resisting science because of this.

[sleanos]

Ok, give me an example of New genetic information being introduced into the genome of ANYTHING by mutations. Gene duplication doesn't count, because it is information that was duplicated, there ALREADY. Extra/duplicated chromosomes cause disease -down syndrome. Not 1 mutation has EVER been know to add to the genome ANYTHING that wasn't there already to begin with, even in the rare cases of slight beneficial outcomes of mutations.

[Slabbers]

Gene duplication does increase the potential of an organism, because the duplicated parts are then also subject to mutation, and so can change from the original organism. We have a large section of DNA that was identical to our ape like ancestors, but it fused, and then changed after that. According to you view of genetic information, this actually reduced the amount of "information", but we don't seem to be doing to badly...

[sleanos]

With Gene duplication you have NO net increase in NEW genetic information that was not there previously already. And No mutation has ever been know to INCREASE genetic information. It is mostly neutral or overall decreases the fitness of the organism in the long run, despite any rare short term benefits IF any at all. Go sit under an x-ray machine if you think mutations are so great to cause diversity of life from simple to complex.

[Slabbers]

My point about gene duplication is that it increases the size of the genome - according to your own argument, all genetic material is useful, there is no junk, so by your own argument, an increase in the size of the genome means a "better" organism. So rice, and amoebae must be the best, right?

[sleanos]

An increase in the genome by duplication alone gives NO NET INCREASE in new genetic information to better the organism for darwinian evolution to occur. If the rice and amoebae have a greater genome that humans do, then that means humans have been evolving over time by LOSING genetic information. Complete opposite of what darwinian evolution actually predicts and states via genetics.

[sleanos]

"We have a large section of DNA that was identical to our ape like ancestors, but it fused,"

You're killing me with your Ken Miller explanations. Please do some real homework and stop regurgitating what that deceiver is spewing. Got access to genetic research online and not just darwin evo propaganda? Please use it.

[Slabbers]

Rice has an enormous genome, roughly 50,000 genes: about twice the size of the human genome. The rice genome, and our own, contains large amounts of "junk" DNA that serves no useful purpose, is simply neutral. Is this "information" too? You seem confused about what exactly this "information" is, and you also seem confused about what constitutes a "better" organism. There is no "better", there is only more suited to a specific environment.

[sleanos]

That is the LAMEST explanation I've heard yet. You REALLY need to study up on exactly what you are calling "JUNK" DNA. There is no such thing. EVERY piece of "information" encoded in your DNA is necessary and serves a purpose. You sound like ancient doctors who said your appendix and tonsils serve no purpose and are vestigial, when this is SOOOO far from the truth also based on continuous medical research.

[sleanos]

Also please site where u are getting ur definition of evolution from. If u are coming from the stance of simply change in alleles over time, fine, that's a starting point, but don't insult my intelligent when we BOTH KNOW it implies so much more than just that.

[neuronstorm]

Evolution is the process by which changes which improve the survival rate, or ability to sexually reproduce are statistically more likely to be passed on to offspring and become dominant over time. This occurs against the backdrop of a changing environment & competing organisms. A change which was previously an advantage - could become a disadvantage. I don't understand your objections.

[sleanos]

U justed stated a tautology my friend whether u know it or not. Evolution is true because it increased the survival rate, etc. So r u saying that mutations that are harmful are not evolution by ur definition? Because most are.

[neuronstorm]

Mutations that are harmful are quite common - but most mutations are neutral. Clearly mutations that are purely harmful will have a *higher probability* of disappearing. Do some research on sickle cell anaemia. Here is a mutation that is difficult to classify as plain harmful or plain advantageous. It helps people survive in malaria infested areas - but it is certainly a bad thing otherwise!

[sleanos]

Yes I know most mutations are neutral. Having sickle-cell anemia only protects a VERY small percentage of people from getting malaria. Also, how does getting 1 serious disease provide proof of forwards or even horizontal evolution by protecting in a small amount from another disease. It is a bad example and STILL due to a loss of genetic information.

[sleanos]

I can't believe you are buying into the "can't tell if having sickle cell anemia" is plain harmful or plain advantageous. U try getting it and tell me if it is harmful even if it may increase ur chances of getting malaria by a little but, but makes you susceptible to other diseases.

[neuronstorm]

If it saves someones life, but the price is to suffer with a lifelong painful disease - then it is beneficial in that the individual is not dead!

Now that science has given us some anti-malarial agents - CLEARLY sickle cell anaemia is not a good thing to have. If you're not in an area where malaria is rampant also CLEARLY it's not an advantage. For populations in Africa & Asia before treatments.. are you really saying the distinction is clear?? good grief.

[sleanos]

Having sickle cell anemia was never a good thing, even if it did give u a slight advantage to get another disease, yet it exposes u to others. Do u even know HOW MANY people are protected from getting anemia when they had sickle-cell? VERY FEW. And the ones that had sickle cell have gathered a GROUP of genetic disorders now. This is evolution in reverse friend and a very poor example.

[sleanos]

The patients just don't live a lifelong painful life with the disease. Sickle-cell exposes them to MANY diseases that they would not have naturally gotten had they NOT HAD sickle-cell. This did nothing to improve the survival of the person/organism but exposed them to other diseases which natural selection would pick them off as well if intelligence didn't step in to treat that disease as well.

[Hooya2]

Wow, where to begin... No new bacterial species have arisen huh? There is no such thing as a bacterial species. Why? Bacteria reproduce asexually. Thus, bacteria are defined as "strains", and millions of bacteria strains have been witnessed arising in nature.

To the rest of this vid: evolution adapts to the environment, it doesn't make things just better overall.

[sleanos]

The term as used here "species" is indicative of your term "strains". The point is it is still bacteria and nothing else. Bacterial strains arising in nature still come from bacteria. This is not evolution in process.

[mzvelveeta]

2. 150 years is *nothing* in evolutionary time. And anyhow, what we have to have is *one experiment* lasting 150 years if we're going to use that time period as our "oh wow, we have no new bacteria species" measurement. (Reminds me of real estate offices with 150 one-year agents saying that they have 150 years combined experience. It's meaningless.)

[sleanos]

In effect then you've disqualified antibiotic resistance in bacteria as proof of evolution which is precisely what creationists and ID's say.

[mzvelveeta]

No, I haven't. You're confused.

[sleanos]

Yes you have. For if that experiment on bacteria and mutations is "meaningless" simply because of the "length of time", so are the all the "bacteria-related" experiments for how else are you going to PROVE darwinian evolution occured at the genome level if not in the laboratory.

[mzvelveeta]

1. A lab is not a savanna. When a population encounters selection pressure in the real world, it is extremely unlikely that that pressure will just disappear one day and everything will go back to the old environment (as it does when they take away the antibiotic).

[Desertphile]

There is no such thing as "Darwinisn evolution."

[sleanos]

Modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, and the evolutionary synthesis. The ideas of the modern synthesis have sometimes been called neo-Darwinism

[daro2096]

And now because they can find no proof for their silly theory they now say well since we can't find any proof that means it must have happened quickly.

Scientists in the journals know Evolution is a dead horse but the kids are still taught it at school. Tell a five year old that dinosaurs lived 65 million years old and guess what they are going to believe you. They believe everything you tell them at that age.