Creationists: what is the mechanism of adaptation.

[Cheeky Monkey]

I've heard a lot of creationists want to contrast what they see as evolution with a process they call adaptation. Let's take the case of a population of bacteria becoming resistant to a particular antibiotic. How does that actually take place, in the creationist's view? How does a population go from being killed off in the millions by an antibiotic to not noticeably reducing when challenged by said antibiotic?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does a population go from being killed off in the millions by an antibiotic to not noticeably reducing when challenged by said antibiotic?

As far as I know, the part of the bacteria that is targeted by the antibiotic is lost on the next generation.

If you look at a bacterium like a giant stadium, the antibiotic storms through one of the doors into the stadium and kills the host.

The next generation is built without that door, so the next antibiotic has to target another door.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

As far as I know, the part of the bacteria that is targeted by the antibiotic is lost on the next generation.

Ok but I'm specifically asking about how that loss is achieved. In evolution by natural selection there would exist in the population of bacteria, some who did not have that target site simply due to the variation in a population from random mutation. In the next generation these bacteria would be the ones that bred.

Is that the same as your understanding of the process?

If you look at a bacterium like a giant stadium, the antibiotic storms through one of the doors into the stadium and kills the host.

The next generation is built without that door, so the next antibiotic has to target another door.

 

[dad]

I've heard a lot of creationists want to contrast what they see as evolution with a process they call adaptation. Let's take the case of a population of bacteria becoming resistant to a particular antibiotic. How does that actually take place, in the creationist's view? How does a population go from being killed off in the millions by an antibiotic to not noticeably reducing when challenged by said antibiotic?

I would suspect that they evolve. However, that would not give us say, a donkey. It might, over time, give us bacteria that can survive the best way that they can, and according to how they were made, and the laws in place now.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I would suspect that they evolve. However, that would not give us say, a donkey. It might, over time, give us bacteria that can survive the best way that they can, and according to how they were made, and the laws in place now.

I see, but about 5% of a genome in an organism could change given enough time right?

 

[lesliedellow]

I've heard a lot of creationists want to contrast what they see as evolution with a process they call adaptation. Let's take the case of a population of bacteria becoming resistant to a particular antibiotic. How does that actually take place, in the creationist's view? How does a population go from being killed off in the millions by an antibiotic to not noticeably reducing when challenged by said antibiotic?

Since they can no longer deny evolution in the bacterial world, they have changed tack, and now they say, "Ah yes, we know that organisms can adapt to their environment, but nobody has ever seen a cat give birth to a dog."

When invited to buy a science book aimed at the general public, and which is about evolution, the invitation is naturally declined. Presumably they are afraid of what they might find there.

 

[CabVet]

I see, but about 5% of a genome in an organism could change given enough time right?

No, an invisible arbitrary wall stops the genomes from changing more than what is needed to become a different "kind" (whatever it is that a kind means).

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

No, an invisible arbitrary wall stops the genomes from changing more than what is needed to become a different "kind" (whatever it is that a kind means).

I figured that they think the "last" gene knows not to mutate.

 

[EternalDragon]

I figured that they think the "last" gene knows not to mutate.

Mutations do not help a species develop into something better or different. It only gets worse. They certainly do not alter a body plan to change muscle ligaments, bones and blood vessel pathways for fins, wings or beaks.

 

[CabVet]

Mutations do not help a species develop into something better or different. It only gets worse. They certainly do not alter a body plan to change muscle ligaments, bones and blood vessel pathways for fins, wings or beaks.

I have an answer for you, from answers in genesis:

Feedback: Are There Beneficial Mutations? - Answers in Genesis

 

[lesliedellow]

Mutations do not help a species develop into something better or different. It only gets worse. They certainly do not alter a body plan to change muscle ligaments, bones and blood vessel pathways for fins, wings or beaks.

If a mutation is deleterious, members of the species carrying that mutation die out - because it is deleterious. On the other hand, if it is advantageous, members of the species carrying that mutation are more likely to live long enough to pass on the modification to their descendants. That is how natural selection works.

Furthermore, there is no limit to the possible ways an advantageous mutation might change an organism. The greater the change, the more mutations, over many generations, it is likely to need. Mutations are random (unless you assume that they are preordained by God) and so they have no set goal (unless you assume that they are preordained by God), but natural selection will weed out all but those members of the species for which the changes have been beneficial.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Mutations do not help a species develop into something better or different.

If a mutation spreads through a population it can't help but make the population different with respect to heritable characteristics.

It only gets worse.

Demonstrably untrue.

They certainly do not alter a body plan to change muscle ligaments, bones and blood vessel pathways for fins, wings or beaks.

Why not? Are genes magic and know what not to change?

 

[dad]

I see, but about 5% of a genome in an organism could change given enough time right?

I won't dispute the math, since I don't really know. There wasn't enough time for present state style evolving from nothing to what we have though. It is also lunacy to think that what we see in life could have gotten here by chance, and with no creator.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I won't dispute the math, since I don't really know. There wasn't enough time for present state style evolving from nothing to what we have though. It is also lunacy to think that what we see in life could have gotten here by chance, and with no creator.

Maybe but there's less than 5% genetic difference between chimps and us which means from a common ancestor less than 2.5% change each. There's less difference there than between a horse and a donkey which you guys claim came from a common ark ancestor so time's clearly not an issue.

 

[dad]

Maybe but there's less than 5% genetic difference between chimps and us which means from a common ancestor less than 2.5% change each.

Not at all. That shows God has a sense of humor! Chimps are not really like man at all far as I can tell. A dog is closer. They have more traits that are man like. Loyalty, for example. I can't think of a creature that is less like man, thinking quickly about it. Donkeys can be stubborn, and rebellious. Science should relate to that. Cats can be clean, and cunning. Squirrels can be saving, and security conscious. Rats can be dirty, and sneaky. Etc etc etc. Chimps do what...make silly faces, and put fingers in armpits!!?

There's less difference there than between a horse and a donkey which you guys claim came from a common ark ancestor so time's clearly not an issue.

Since Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem, I declare a donkey a separate kind. So there.

 

[lasthero]

Chimps do what...make silly faces, and put fingers in armpits!!?

Primate cognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Not at all. That shows God has a sense of humor! Chimps are not really like man at all far as I can tell. A dog is closer. They have more traits that are man like. Loyalty, for example. I can't think of a creature that is less like man, thinking quickly about it. Donkeys can be stubborn, and rebellious. Science should relate to that. Cats can be clean, and cunning. Squirrels can be saving, and security conscious. Rats can be dirty, and sneaky. Etc etc etc. Chimps do what...make silly faces, and put fingers in armpits!!?




Since Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem, I declare a donkey a separate kind. So there.

Nice. So religion isn't just into stereotyping people, value judgements on the rest of the animals is also de rigor. But of course I knew you'd believe whatever you want to regardless of facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mutations do not help a species develop into something better or different.

So why are humans and chimps different if not for the mutations that separate their genomes?

They certainly do not alter a body plan to change muscle ligaments, bones and blood vessel pathways for fins, wings or beaks.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all. That shows God has a sense of humor! Chimps are not really like man at all far as I can tell. A dog is closer. They have more traits that are man like.

You are wrong. Chimps and humans share more DNA than chimps and gorillas.

 

[lesliedellow]

Where is your evidence for this claim?

You know creationists. For their own claims they need no evidence. For any contrary claim, a pile of evidence as high as Mount Everest wouldn't be enough (as I have recently discovered on another thread).