Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MRSA - would you?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 46 of 68 (530618)
10-14-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
10-14-2009 4:58 AM


So directed panspermia is not a scientific hypothesis because it is invoking a designer ?
You have brought this up before and were slammed down. Again I ask. Show us where this was seriously advocated by an evolutionary biologist as a serious claim. You have already been shown that any reference to Crick is false. Do I need to show you the evidence again?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 4:58 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 3:41 PM Theodoric has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 47 of 68 (530626)
10-14-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by caffeine
10-14-2009 8:09 AM


Re: Bacteria
This is a bit unfair... ...they simply said that something was still a bacteria
Not unfair in the slightest - it points out the standard creationist canard that an X is still an X, whatever level X happens to be.
Had they a more detailed knowledge...
And there-in lies my point...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 10-14-2009 8:09 AM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 48 of 68 (530642)
10-14-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
10-14-2009 5:09 AM


What was the exact mutation that produced the resistance ? As an example, for an antibiotic to infect a bacteria, it has to get insdie the cell. This is done by on of the types of transporting protein in the membrane, which usually transports nutriments. So if the antibiotic chemically ressembles nutriment A, then the protein transporting A will also transport the antiobiotic. If, by a mutation, the protein transporter becomes none-functional, then the bacteria will become resistant to the antibiotic, but this will have been done through a loss of a function, that to be able to transport nutriment A in the cell.
Why don't you find out before you start typing this gibberish?
It isn't as simplistic as resistance to antibiotic = increase in information.
Yes it is, actually!
The mechanism is that an alternative penicillin binding protein (PBP2a), is produced in addition to the "normal" penicillin binding proteins. The protein is encoded by the mecA gene, and because PBP2a is not inhibited by antibiotics such as flucloxacillin the cell continues to synthesise peptidoglycan and hence has a structurally sound cell wall.
Note that there is no loss of function, no loss of information. The opposite is true: the bacterium has evolved the ability to survive flucloxacillin therapy, by acquiring a new gene (extra "information"). MRSA flourishes, and is now a prominent cause of morbidity & mortality in humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 5:09 AM slevesque has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 49 of 68 (530650)
10-14-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Izanagi
10-14-2009 7:43 AM


Re: Drawning a line
Hi Izanagi,
Izanagi writes:
Fine, then stop calling ID science. Don't argue the "science" of ID. Call it what it really is - religion.
Izanagi, I have been here since March 2007. You can search my profile threads I have participated in and you will never find one, NOT ONE where I called ID science. In fact you will find quite the opposite.
I think those that promote such are delusional, being deluded by Satan.
Creation has to be accepted by faith. Once a person is born again they will have all the evidence they need. But there is no way of sharing that evidence with anyone, because to the natural man it is foolishness.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Once a person accepts that God is, he has no problems with anything else.
Just like those who accept that the universe existed at T=10-43 have no problem with the BBT.
Just like those that accept that life came from non life have no problem with evolution.
All three are based on assumptions.
Therefore all three are based on "FAITH".
Now if anyone has scientific verifiable evidence for any of the three I would love to see it.
In 30 months of asking for such evidence none has been presented.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 7:43 AM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 3:52 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 10:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 50 of 68 (530658)
10-14-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Izanagi
10-14-2009 8:41 AM


Re: Bacteria
Izanagi writes:
As you said, macroevolution is just adding on more information. The bacteria added more information and therefore macroevolved.
You are putting words in my fingers as I have never typed or said that.
Izanagi writes:
What this bacteria has done has evolved, but it is still on the road to becoming something else.
What is that something else?
Then in the next sentence you qualify that something else.
Izanagi writes:
I have no doubt that it will become a new species of bacteria, which evolution predicts.
So it became a modified version of the same thing not something else.
Izanagi writes:
If enough changes occur, then a new species is "born."
And as long as it remains the same critter it does not produce macro evolution.
Give me scientific evidence of where any critter ceased to be that critter and became a totally different critter.
Izanagi writes:
Again, evolution is a slow process, but adaptation to the environment is one step in that process.
Why does the fossil record show things appearing all of a sudden and not over a long period of time?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 8:41 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 1:48 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 57 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 4:16 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 51 of 68 (530683)
10-14-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
10-14-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Bacteria
Give me scientific evidence of where any critter ceased to be that critter and became a totally different critter.
Define "totally different". Humans separated from chimps about 6 million years ago. We had a common ancestor. I don't think we can say we are "totally different" from chimps, nor any other creatures, however, as all living things are related to one another, albeit distantly for the most part.
But this thread is about one kind of "critter", Staph. aureus, becoming MRSA, which is, I guess, a different kind of "critter".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 12:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:52 PM Blzebub has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 52 of 68 (530699)
10-14-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blzebub
10-14-2009 1:48 PM


Re: Bacteria
Hi Blzebub,
Blzebub writes:
Define "totally different". Humans separated from chimps about 6 million years ago. We had a common ancestor.
Can you provide verifiable scientific evidence of this common ancestor?
Or is this another one of them we know it is so because we believe it and accept it to be so.
Blzebub writes:
But this thread is about one kind of "critter", Staph. aureus, becoming MRSA, which is, I guess, a different kind of "critter".
But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions. Like a Ford car and a Chevrolet car. They are very different but both are a car.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 1:48 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 3:21 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 54 by Blzebub, posted 10-14-2009 3:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 55 by Coragyps, posted 10-14-2009 3:28 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 58 by bluescat48, posted 10-14-2009 7:39 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 68 (530708)
10-14-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
10-14-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Bacteria
The ignorance... it burns!
But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions.
Do you have any idea how many different kinds of bacteria there are!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 54 of 68 (530711)
10-14-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
10-14-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Bacteria
Can you provide verifiable scientific evidence of this common ancestor?
Define "verifiable". Have you done any reading on this subject? If so, please indicate what difficulties you have encountered.
But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions. Like a Ford car and a Chevrolet car. They are very different but both are a car.
Well done. All critters are the same, just different versions. If you understand that, you understand evolution and common ancestry. That's why I asked you what you meant by "totally different".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 55 of 68 (530712)
10-14-2009 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
10-14-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Bacteria
Can you provide verifiable scientific evidence of this common ancestor?
I can. But it's off-topic here, and has only been discussed about thirty times since you've been at EvC, ICANT.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 68 (530718)
10-14-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
10-14-2009 12:02 PM


Re: Drawning a line
Izanagi, I have been here since March 2007. You can search my profile threads I have participated in and you will never find one, NOT ONE where I called ID science. In fact you will find quite the opposite.
I think those that promote such are delusional, being deluded by Satan.
The ID people are deluded by Satan?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 12:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 57 of 68 (530725)
10-14-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
10-14-2009 12:35 PM


Re: Bacteria
I apologize for saying that you think that ID is science.
That said...
Why does the fossil record show things appearing all of a sudden and not over a long period of time?
This has been explained ad nauseum and is also off-topic. The question is, how can creationism explain the apparently sudden adaption of antibiotic resistance?

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 12:35 PM ICANT has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 58 of 68 (530771)
10-14-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
10-14-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Bacteria
But they are both the same type of critter as they are bacteria just different versions.
By that it would be the same as saying all animals, plants & fungi are just different versions of the same thing. Bacteria are all the same as eukaryota (animals, plants & fungi) are all the same.
There are 8 listed groups of bacteria:
Firmicutes - Low G + C gram poitive
Actinobacteria - High G + C gram positive
Eobactreia - green non-sulphur
Cyanobacteris - green photosynthetic bacteria
Planctobacteria - example Chlamydia
Proteobacteria - example E. coli
Sphingobacteria - Green Sulphurs
Spirochetes -
The Ancestor's Tale Richard Dawkins, pp 543-544, 556
Each of these are equilivant to Animals, Plants, Fungi, Slime molds, Microsporia, Entaoeba, Flagellates, Ciliates, Trichomonads & Diplomonads of the Eukaryota.
and the Methanosarcinales, Halobacteriales, Arcaeglobales, Methancoccales, Thermoproteales, Sulfobales & Disulurococcales of the Archaea
Edited by bluescat48, : missing page #

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 59 of 68 (530794)
10-14-2009 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
10-14-2009 12:02 PM


Evidence has been shown to you, ICANT
Hi ICANT,
In 30 months of asking for such evidence none has been presented.
No, the problem is that you don't understand the evidence that has been shown/explained to you. You have been shown evidence to support evolution, you have been explained what T=O actually means (not what ICANT thinks it means), and you have stubbornly ignored all of it.
You even tried to take your own topic off-topic just to avoid the evidence that was being shown to you.
It's not that you haven't been shown the evidence, it's just that you can't recognize it as evidence because you don't undestand what you are discussing.
And now you are trying to waste Izanagi's time with your same tired talking points.
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 12:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 60 of 68 (530953)
10-15-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
10-14-2009 9:11 AM


I don't remember ever bringing this up, perhaps are mistaken with someone else
anyhow, the original statement was that a designer is outisde the realm of science. I wanted to know if this included intelligent alien designers who would have put life on earth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 10-14-2009 9:11 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Theodoric, posted 10-15-2009 11:44 PM slevesque has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024