Could you please tell me how these new drug-resistant bacteria keep appearing, even though they never existed before?
Creationists: Explain
- Thread starter Melange_Thief
- Start date
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
One thing you have to remember is that bactera has a function. In the tummy, healthy bacteria helps us to digest our food. In nature, bacteria helps organic matter that has died, to break down and return to a natural state that other plants can use.
Most plants have a natural defense against: mold-fungus, virus and bacteria. That is why there is healing medicine to be found in plants. Healthy people often are not effected by bacteria. It is all around them but it does not attack them.
But because there is sin in the world, and death though sin, sometimes bacteria will attach a person and do just exactly what bacteria does, cause them to decompose. This could result in death, as back in the 1920 something like 100,000 people a year died from bacteria.
In order to fight disease, like infections, the doctors try to kill off the disease and do as little damage as they can to the person who has the infection. In some cases though, this does not always work and the cure can be worse than what ails you.
Upvote
0
Micaiah
Well-Known Member
In the case of the antibiotic, streptomycin, the ribosome of the bacteria is altered by a point mutation, resulting in the loss of genetic information. This causes resistance to the antibiotic.
This is not a case for evolution, since for humans to evolve from single celled creature, the genome must have undergo a substantial increase in size and complexity. This has never been observed to occur. The question of how the first DNA was spontaneously formed by random chance is still unanswered. To accept this has occured you need to have faith in evolutionary theory.
I prefer to place my faith in God, and the truth He has revealed in Scripture!
Upvote
0
Evolution does not rely on knowing how the first self replicating organism came into play. It only deals with what happened after it did and the evidence shows us that speciation happened (animals in the past were much different than animals today, animals developed into new species over time as shown in the fossil record and in genetic studies of relation.)
Also, as has been mentioned before, natural selection is not random chance. The more you repeat this, the more you show you do not understand the scientific theory of evolution and what it really says. You are arguing against a strawman.
There are several mutation types that have been shown that increase the amount of information in genes. Duplication is one of them, creating twice the amount of information for mutations to act on and change. This gives natural selection more opportunity to select for survival. This selection process is anything but random.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/dup_favorable.html
Can A Duplication Mutation Be Beneficial?
Yes. For example:
"A mosquito species called Culex pipiens can now survive massive doses of organophosphate insecticides. The mosquitoes actually digest the poison, using a suite of enzymes known as esterases. The genes that make these esterases are known as alleles B1 and B2. Many strains of Culex pipiens now carry as many as 250 copies of the B1 allele and 60 copies of B2."
The Beak of the Finch p.254
The mosquitoes acquired B1 and B2 by two mutations. They then acquired the huge number of copies by duplication mutations. They benefit because the extra copies cause their bodies to produce extra esterase. Whenever a huge amount of insecticide is sprayed, mosquitoes that have lots of resistance are the most likely to live and reproduce.
Until 1984, California mosquitoes had neither B1 nor B2. They acquired all those copies in a single decade.
Upvote
0
And just where are these magical barriers? Does Chick say?
Science has looked for them (see phylogenetic studies) but they aren't there.
Upvote
0
Today at 07:14 AM Micaiah said this in Post #5
In the case of the antibiotic, streptomycin, the ribosome of the bacteria is altered by a point mutation, resulting in the loss of genetic information. This causes resistance to the antibiotic.
I submit it's an increase in information. The original information was: "bind all molecules with this general shape". Now the information is: bind all molecules with this general shape except specifically the antibiotic. It's an additional instruction and thus more information.
This is not a case for evolution, since for humans to evolve from single celled creature, the genome must have undergo a substantial increase in size and complexity. This has never been observed to occur.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it an increase in the size of the genome has been observed several times. As one example:
9. Double dose of DNA. Science 285: 195, 2 July 1999. A rat species, visach rat, has 51 chromosomes instead of the 26 of other rat species. All chromosomes are doubled except the sex chromosome.
How do you define "complexity" in the genome? After all, the DNA strand is a sequence of 4 bases. How do you decide that one sequence is more complex than another? If you mean the addition of new functions/complexity in the organism, that too has been observed. Would you like some examples?
The question of how the first DNA was spontaneously formed by random chance is still unanswered. To accept this has occured you need to have faith in evolutionary theory.
It didn't form by random chance. It formed by synthesis by proteins:
JR Jungck and SW Fox, Synthesis of oligonucleotides by proteinoid microspheres acting on ATP. Naturwissenschaften, 60: 425-427, 1973. "Oligonucleotides" is a fancy word for DNA or RNA.
Now, how did information arise between proteins and DNA. This is also taken care of by non-random chemistry.
"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048
I prefer to place my faith in God, and the truth He has revealed in Scripture!
I hate to tell you, Micaiah, but most evolutionists have faith in God. In fact, they have faith that God told them the truth in His Creation. Apparently you don't have faith in God; instead you have faith in yourself and your interpretation of Scripture.
In the case of the antibiotic, streptomycin, the ribosome of the bacteria is altered by a point mutation, resulting in the loss of genetic information. This causes resistance to the antibiotic.
I submit it's an increase in information. The original information was: "bind all molecules with this general shape". Now the information is: bind all molecules with this general shape except specifically the antibiotic. It's an additional instruction and thus more information.
This is not a case for evolution, since for humans to evolve from single celled creature, the genome must have undergo a substantial increase in size and complexity. This has never been observed to occur.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it an increase in the size of the genome has been observed several times. As one example:
9. Double dose of DNA. Science 285: 195, 2 July 1999. A rat species, visach rat, has 51 chromosomes instead of the 26 of other rat species. All chromosomes are doubled except the sex chromosome.
How do you define "complexity" in the genome? After all, the DNA strand is a sequence of 4 bases. How do you decide that one sequence is more complex than another? If you mean the addition of new functions/complexity in the organism, that too has been observed. Would you like some examples?
The question of how the first DNA was spontaneously formed by random chance is still unanswered. To accept this has occured you need to have faith in evolutionary theory.
It didn't form by random chance. It formed by synthesis by proteins:
JR Jungck and SW Fox, Synthesis of oligonucleotides by proteinoid microspheres acting on ATP. Naturwissenschaften, 60: 425-427, 1973. "Oligonucleotides" is a fancy word for DNA or RNA.
Now, how did information arise between proteins and DNA. This is also taken care of by non-random chemistry.
"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048
I prefer to place my faith in God, and the truth He has revealed in Scripture!
I hate to tell you, Micaiah, but most evolutionists have faith in God. In fact, they have faith that God told them the truth in His Creation. Apparently you don't have faith in God; instead you have faith in yourself and your interpretation of Scripture.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Since when did sin have anything to do with bacteria? It sounds like this is your own idea.
And bacteria such as salmonella doesn't even decompose the body! Different types of bacteria feed off of different things, and the bacteria that decompose you are different from the ones that can kill you.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Oh, ok, when I think if bacteria I think of infections. I did not know you had something else in mind. Take acme for example. Some people produce an oil that attracts bacteria and causes an infection. The bacteria will just eat away the skin, but put some alcohol on it to kill the bacteria and it amazes me that the skin will grow back again. Often there is some scar tissue, but at least the skin regenerates itself and your not left with a hole in you body from where the infection use to be.
Upvote
0
Mutations brought on by man made anti biotics. It's not evolution it is adaptation via mutation.
Upvote
0
Today at 05:10 AM Badfish said this in Post #13
Mutations brought on by man made anti biotics. It's not evolution it is adaptation via mutation.
Anti-biotics do not cause the mutations in the bacteria. They kill of bacteria and ones that have a random mutation that allows them to survive the anti-biotics, live to reproduce giving us a new dominant strain of bacteria.
There is no difference if what kills the bacteria is man made, or natural, the effect is the same.
Bacteria don't mutate to survive, mutations allow them to survive, there is a difference.
Populations evolve, individuals don't. It's not like the bacteria are exposed to anti-biotics and then a mutation happens as a reaction to it to allow them to survive.
Upvote
0
Yes they mutate and they form strains that are resistant to certain antibiotics, also with the new resistance comes a new look, voila! A new breed because of mutation.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Just clarifying the "Mutations brought on by man made anti biotics" bit. Of course, it sure looks like evolution. Random Mutation, Natural Selection, New Strain. 3 for 3.
Upvote
0
The bacteria that surround us are balanced in the natural world.
Bacteria can mutate rapidly, but the design of our world has numerous bacteria that protect us from the mutants.
As man has produced antimicrobial agents, they have destroyed the protecting bacteria as well as the mutants, leaving us open to new bacteria. Like most natural disasters, it is not the design of the system that is at fault, but man's ill-conceived use of the system.
Bacteria can mutate rapidly, but the design of our world has numerous bacteria that protect us from the mutants.
As man has produced antimicrobial agents, they have destroyed the protecting bacteria as well as the mutants, leaving us open to new bacteria. Like most natural disasters, it is not the design of the system that is at fault, but man's ill-conceived use of the system.
Upvote
0
Recent estimates are that there are five million trillion trillion (that is 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) bacteria on this planet.
Do you think man has discovered every strain? I kinda doubt it. So when a new one pops up, it could just be a new bacteria we are not familiar with, giving the appearance that a *new* bacteria has been born, when in reality it is just a similar but different strain.
Do you think man has discovered every strain? I kinda doubt it. So when a new one pops up, it could just be a new bacteria we are not familiar with, giving the appearance that a *new* bacteria has been born, when in reality it is just a similar but different strain.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
A lab cannot possibly even come close to reproducing all the conditions or factors in the real world that could cause bacterial mutations.
We can't discount the possibility of *new-found strains* being erroneously perceived as newly *evolved* strains.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
