1 2
#946066
"Excuse me, but bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not proof of evolution."
WRONG!!!!
Jesus Christ Arcade
4/25/2009 11:33:22 AM
#946071
Eden
If it takes billions of years to evolve, how could bacteria be the only organism to evolve in one century when there are thousands of years of human history and biological study without any others?
Because it is not the number of years that is important, but rather the number of generations.
And bacteriae,due to their short reproduction cycles are able to develope thousands of generations within a single year, whereas humans, for example only produce between 3-5 geberations in 100 years.
Too few generations to observe evolution at work ;)
4/25/2009 11:40:20 AM
#946080
Brain_In_A_Jar
Because it is not the number of years that is important, but rather the number of generations.
Not only that, the number of mutations necessary to alter the biochemistry of a bacterial strain such that it becomes resistant to a given substance will be many orders of magnitude smaller than that required to get from bacteria to bipeds.
4/25/2009 11:59:40 AM
#946081
aaa
Youtube, where logic goes to die.
4/25/2009 12:02:20 PM
#946087
Horsefeathers
"Excuse me, but bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not proof of evolution."
Excuse me, but it most certainly is.
"The bacteria that are resistant were already to begin with."
Really? Why did penicillin work so well when it was first discovered but now a number of bacteria it used to kill easily are effectively immune to it?
"If it takes billions of years to evolve, how could bacteria be the only organism to evolve in one century when there are thousands of years of human history and biological study without any others?"
Let's see. Humans reproduce at a rate of about 1 offspring every few years for most people to a maximum of 2 - 4 in general. Then it takes somewhere between 18-25 years before that generation typically begins to reproduce (and recently that's being pushed back to the mid to late 30s).
Bacteria, on the other hand, reproduce exponentially and do it anywhere from every few minutes to every few days.
See if you can figure out why humans don't evolve as rapidly.
4/25/2009 12:17:02 PM
#946091
WMDkitty
No. Just... no. And bacteria reproduce *extremely* fast, thus they *evolve* at a very high rate of speed, too.
4/25/2009 12:19:35 PM
#946092
"Excuse me, but bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not proof of evolution."
Yes it is.
Just because your pastor told you that according to Darwin bacterium x dinosaur = platypus doesn't make that true.
4/25/2009 12:20:42 PM
#946096
Ken
When your brain is exposed to information, does it just... shut off?
4/25/2009 12:24:33 PM
#946099
Canadiest
Generations plus massive reproduction, thousand upon thousands to our one, limited only by our resistance and how many hosts they can spread to. If humans did that we'd cover the planet in decades (I do mean cover)
Weeds could outdo us too y'know and they're slow by comparision
4/25/2009 12:27:33 PM
#946108
Efrain
Isn't this a repost?
4/25/2009 12:40:15 PM
#946115
atrasicarius
lrn2science
4/25/2009 12:56:45 PM
#946116
Clown
You are right. All those microbiologists and biologists are stupid and blind. *snickers*
4/25/2009 12:59:09 PM
#946118
Dio Fa
Excuse me, would you like to buy a one-way ticket to Mexico City real cheap?
4/25/2009 1:01:51 PM
#946125
Zoo
Yeah. . . no. One, you don't understand how evolution works. Two, it has been OBSERVED in the lab that bacteria of -different- species will trade genes, including ones that make them resistant. Three, they didn't have to be resistant to begin with, since mutations CAN add information. Four, who says only bacteria have evolved? Numerous species have been observed, even by creationists, to evolve.
4/25/2009 1:34:31 PM
#946130
LDM
How do people this stupid survive?
4/25/2009 1:38:57 PM
#946134
Osiris
How about bacteria that evolved to eat nylon. Yes nylon, a man made product that was never before encountered in nature, but near the end of the 20th century nylon eating bacteria evolved in landfills around the world.
This is proof of evolution, since evolution applies equally to all organisms including bacteria, plants, fungus, and animals.
4/25/2009 1:56:53 PM
#946136
They were resistant to begin with?, tell it to my grandfather, who caught flu, AGAIN.
4/25/2009 2:14:37 PM
#946153
Giveitaday
Excuse me
There is no excuse for such willful ignorance.
but bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not proof of evolution.
You can repeat that as many times as you like, but that won't make it true. Multiple antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria such as MRSA are a perfect example of evolution in action.
The bacteria that are resistant were already to begin with
Some individual bacteria may have had a mutation making them resistant to begin with, and that resitance was passed on to it's offspring and giving rise to new antibiotic resitant strains of that bacteria. In other words, evolution in action.
If it takes billions of years to evolve
In evolution it's not the number of years, but the number of successive generations. For a long lived lifeform it takes millions of years to achive substantive change. But for a life form which can go through several successive generations in a matter of days or weeks it takes far less time for it to fully adapt to it's enviroment.
how could bacteria be the only organism to evolve in one century when there are thousands of years of human history and biological study without any others?
For starters, bacteria is not a single type of organism, but rather a category that includes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of different organisms. As for the "one century" part of your question, the reason it's happened in the last century is because that's roughly the same amount that antibiotics came into widespread usage, therefore changing the enviroment of, and placing different selective pressures on, a host of different bacteria that effect humans and other animals that recieve antibiotic therapy.
It's not all that complicated once you take out your earplugs and quit yelling "Goddidit! Goddidit! I can't hear you!"
4/25/2009 2:46:55 PM
#946164
Papabear
Because they reproduce much more quickly than larger organisms. Plus, we are talking about evolving one specific trait, not bacteria evolving into large, multi-cellular organisms. That generally take much longer.
4/25/2009 2:57:19 PM
#946168
John
The bacteria that are resistant were already to begin with.
No, they mutated. The mutation happened to give them resistance. How could a bacterium already be resistant to antibiotics that didn't exist 80 years ago? Did God say 6,000 years ago "hmmm, in 1942, humans will start killing bacteria with penicillin, so I'd better give a few of them immunity, so they can carry on like the animals after the Flood and replenish the earth"? Did He also give bacteria the ability to eat nylon chemicals on Day 5?
4/25/2009 3:01:25 PM
#946192
onoma
excuse me, but you FAILED.
4/25/2009 3:45:56 PM
#946208
Nowonmai
Excuse me, but bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not proof of evolution
No excuse for you, but you're wrong.
4/25/2009 4:19:25 PM
#946210
Rev. Dread
Forgive my ignorance but, it occurs to me that it's also a matter of volume. Individual cells in a person's body do mutate. Sometimes called cancer if it is larger in scale, the reason this is not called evolution is that it is one small astronomical fraction of the whole, rather then the 1:1 ratio of a bacteria.
Am I wrong?
4/25/2009 4:24:26 PM
#946224
Mrs. Antichrist
Bacteria go through thousands of generations in a short period of time, which is why they evolve so quickly. Microorganisms have been proving evolution for decades.
4/25/2009 5:55:13 PM
#946248
Rev. Dread--
No, evolution is defined as a population change. An individual can mutate but not evolve. The mutation then has to be passed on genetically and spread throughout the species.
4/25/2009 7:10:34 PM
1 2