[_ Old Earth _] Medical Schools and Evolution

[Barbarian]

Wild bacteria?

Yep. Lab cultures are standardized and carefully cultured to keep them the same. Necessary for many procedures. Wild bacteria are not so cultured. So we have lab versions of E. coli that are no longer E. coli, but the standard definition of the species. Some of them have mutations that never existed in nature.

"evolution of resistance"

Yep. New mutations are frequently noted in cultures that never had them before.

Or more accurately "mechanics of resistance".

The mechanics, in science, are the biochemical bases for resistance. The evolution of resistance refers to the actual mutations involved.

We too possess mechanisms of resistance that come into play with all sorts of infection. We have learned to artificially trigger these mechanisms by vaccination.

There is a very efficient way of dealing with new antigens; the immune system is capable of producing specific Igs, with a shape unique to the antigen. However, the evolution of resistance is also documented, such as a particular change in the cell membrane that provides resistance to bubonic plague and coincidentally to HIV. One mutation did it.

There have been several other mutations noted in immunity. I could look up the details if you'd like. There are also some new bacterial mutations that have been directly observed that did not exist in the wild.

The resulting resistance isn't evolution but a triggered response.

As I pointed out, new mutations for resistance are well-documented.

 

[Rick W]

Yes, mutation was the consensus not that long ago but research into the actual mechanism of bacterial resistance to outside threat reveals a pre-existing biological method inherent within the bacteria. It is that mechanism biological scientists hope to disrupt. If resistance was by means of mutation then scientists have little chance of success since another mutation would simply occur nullifying previous efforts against previous mutations. In other words, man would be doomed to constant infection. But today we do have a chance to disable the defense mechanism related to drug-resistance in bacteria.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In the sense that all living things have the mechanism to evolve. This what Flemming was warning about, contrary to Async's denials. He not only warned about the evolution of resistance, he frequently and publicly warned about it.

As I said, he did not use the word 'evolution' in the Nobel acceptance lecture. Why do you think that he didn't?

Because he wasn't talking about resistance in the lecture. However, as you learned, Flemming repeatedly warned about the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Would you like me to show you again?

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, many forms of resistance to antibiotics have been demonstrated, some of them never seen in wild bacteria, to antibiotics that did not exist before humans synthesized them. Would you like some examples?

I'm not sure what your point is, here.

Just pointing out that Flemming was correct when he warned about the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Clearly those potential resistances PRE-EXISTED, but were not potentiated because the antibiotics hadn't hit them yet.

Wrong again. I've shown you some examples of new mutations for resistance before. Would you like me to show you again?

But this is another of your red herrings. The main thrust of my 2 previous posts is to show that Chain, Skell, and many others have no use for evolution theory in their practical work.

You think it's odd that a chemist isn't very knowledgeable about evolution?

Barbarian obeserves:

Dr. Hall has identified a number of such cases, as have other researchers. Would you like to learn about those?​

No

I thought not. Pretty hard to deny what's directly observed.

they're basically irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution theory is useful in the design of biological experiments and practical outcomes. It simply isn't.

Hall has already found a way to design antibiotic protocols to head off likely new mutations causing antibiotic resistance.

Abstract
The TEM family of beta-lactamases has evolved to confer resistance to most of the beta-lactam antibiotics, but not to cefepime. To determine whether the TEM beta-lactamases have the potential to evolve cefepime resistance, we evolved the ancestral TEM allele, TEM-1, in vitro and selected for cefepime resistance. After four rounds of mutagenesis and selection for increased cefepime resistance each of eight independent populations reached a level equivalent to clinical resistance. All eight evolved alleles increased the level of cefepime resistance by a factor of at least 32, and the best allele improved by a factor of 512. Sequencing showed that alleles contained from two to six amino acid substitutions, many of which were shared among alleles, and that the best allele contained only three substitutions.
Barry Hall,
Experimental prediction of the natural evolution of antibiotic resistance.Genetics. 2003 April; 163(4): 1237–1241.

Barbarian chuckles:
And Async, isn't it remarkable that we get a dissenting view of evolution and biology from someone lacking any training in biology?

Edison went to school for 3 months.

Edison hired engineers and scientists to do his work. He didn't invent the light bulb; he didn't even patent the first usable one. But he was a great publicist.

Einstein was a patents clerk in Berne.

Einstein had a bachelor's degree in mathematics and physics from Eidgenoessische Polytechnische, and a PhD in physics from the University of Zurich. Did you really think he did all that he did, without training in physics?

So where do you go from there?

The usual suggestion. Go and check on it. It will be a revelation. The rest in the next post.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That alone should be an important clue for you. Because science doesn't discriminate against creationists, it's possible for a creationist to be a scientist. But we don't see any world-class biologists who are creationists, because evolution is so critical to biology that a biologist without an understanding of it, is impaired. Chemists can be ignorant of it in their work, as Skell demonstrates.

We don't?

Show me.

Francis Collins

Darwinian evolutionist. Headed the Human Genome Project.

Bill Phillips

William Nathaniel "Bill" Phillips is an American entrepreneur and author. He is the author of the fitness book Body for Life: 12 Weeks to Mental and Physical Strength. He is the author Eating for Life, founder and former editor in chief of Muscle Media magazine and the former CEO of EAS, a performance nutritional supplement company. Bill and Shawn Phillips, his brother, also made a promotional movie called Body of Work which was filmed in Las Vegas, Nevada and chronicled the very first EAS Challenge. On June 21, 2010, Phillips latest book, "Transformation: The Mindset You Need. The Body You Want. The Life You Deserve" was released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Phillips_(author)

What world-class contributions to biology do you think Bill did? His biography isn't very edifying.

Brian Heap FRS
Heap is a member of the International Society for Science and Religion. During his tenure as president of that organization, they released this statement:
In 2008 the ISSR released a statement declaring "that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Science_and_Religion

I don't find any world-class discoveries in biology by Heap, and he sure doesn't seem to be a creationist.

John Houghton FRS

His degree was in physics. And he's another member of ISSR, which makes it very unlikely he'd be a creationist.

Ghillean Prance

From an interview with Prance:
Some people think that believing the Bible to be God’s written word is incompatible with believing certain scientific theories, notably evolution. Have you faced such a crisis?

No, I haven’t had a crisis with it, but I have thought about it a lot. Sadly, some of my scientific colleagues are put off the Christian faith because some people say that evolution and the Bible are incompatible; that you can’t be a Christian unless you believe that evolution is wrong. But the Bible isn’t a scientific textbook. To me, the important thing is that – as the Bible says – in the beginning God created. The Bible tells us that when God created he saw that it was good. Creation is something that brings pleasure to God. How he created is not as important.

Bob White FRS

He's a geophysicist. But he did say this in an interview:
Did humankind evolve from something in the primordial slime or were we created by a special act?


I believe in an historic Adam and Eve. I believe in the fall. I also believe that evolutionary scientific theory is a very powerful way of explaining the relationships between all living organisms. The theory of evolution has been around for a long time. We keep getting more tests on it and the theory gets stronger each time. For example, we can test the human genome (something Darwin had no conception of being able to do) and discover that it is 98.5% the same as that of chimpanzees in terms of DNA. We also have retroviral inserts in our genomic structure that can be tracked back through our ancestral species. But I believe passionately that humans are more than just animals. We are animals plus we’re made in the image of God.


I believe in God’s intervention, but I don’t think God parachuted onto the planet two ready-made people who had DNA very close to the animals. That would have been trickery. My view is that he breathed life into animals and turned them into humans – made them have the ability to respond and relate to him, made them morally responsible for their actions – and human history goes on from that moment.
http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/faith_v_science/P9/

Conway Morris FRS

Simon Conway Morris FRS (born 6 November 1951) is an English paleontologist who is best known for his detailed and careful study of the fossils of the Burgess Shale, and the eventual scientific concept of Cambrian explosion. The results of these discoveries were celebrated in Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould. Morris's own book on the subject, The Crucible of Creation, however, is critical of Gould's presentation and interpretation.

Morris, who is a Christian, is most popularly known for his theistic views of biological evolution. He has held the Chair of Evolutionary Palaeobiology in the Earth Sciences Department in Cambridge University since 1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Conway_Morris\

You want me to debunk the last two, or is that enough?

all believe in God, and are presumably creationists of one sort or another.

Bad assumption. A mixed bag, but certainly not world class biologists who are creationists.

So no go, for that claim. But aren't you being just a bit parochial?

Had to look up a couple of them, especially that guy who was peddling steroids for body builders. Amazing.

 

[Asyncritus]

I think it's about time we had a discussion about the meaning of the word 'evolution'.

I am not talking about the same thing you're talking about. Bacterial resistance has been known about since the first antibiotic was discovered.
I am talking strictly about the generation, origin or whatever term you wish to use, of new species, genera, families and higher taxons, which was Darwin's intention.

If we can agree on that description, we can avoid this silliness about the 'evolution' of resistant strains of bacteria (which is your sole refuge), and conflating that with what I mean, and what I imagine everybody else on the board understands by the term 'evolution'.

For the record, I know and accept that bacterial resistance does occur and does change. That is not a point I wish to debate - it is not debatable, but it is irrelevant to the subject I am discussing.

 

[Barbarian]

I think it's about time we had a discussion about the meaning of the word 'evolution'.

If you want to talk science, it's "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

I am not talking about the same thing you're talking about. Bacterial resistance has been known about since the first antibiotic was discovered.

I am talking strictly about the generation, origin or whatever term you wish to use, of new species, genera, families and higher taxons, which was Darwin's intention.

Speciation has been directly observed. Even many YE creationists now admit that evolution of new species, genera, (and sometimes families) is a fact. They need that to fit all the animals in the Ark, assuming that all the other species, genera, and families evolved by hyperevolution in a few thousand years.

Perhaps we could just agree to discuss on what level, if any, it doesn't work anymore?

If we can agree on that description, we can avoid this silliness about the 'evolution' of resistant strains of bacteria, and conflating that with what I mean, and what I imagine everybody else on the board understands by the term 'evolution'.

Some people here aren't convinced of evolution of new features within a taxon. But I'll note your position, even if I discuss the issue with others.

For the record, I know and accept that bacterial resistance does occur and does change. That is not a point I wish to debate - it is not debatable.

Noted. I will try to remember not to include you when discussing those who deny the fact.

 

[kevinmaynard]

I think it's about time we had a discussion about the meaning of the word 'evolution'.

I am not talking about the same thing you're talking about. Bacterial resistance has been known about since the first antibiotic was discovered.
I am talking strictly about the generation, origin or whatever term you wish to use, of new species, genera, families and higher taxons, which was Darwin's intention.

If we can agree on that description, we can avoid this silliness about the 'evolution' of resistant strains of bacteria (which is your sole refuge), and conflating that with what I mean, and what I imagine everybody else on the board understands by the term 'evolution'.

For the record, I know and accept that bacterial resistance does occur and does change. That is not a point I wish to debate - it is not debatable.

...
Both the blackcaps and the finches demonstrate the important role that behavioral shifts may play in the early stages of speciation, as well as the many ways these shifts can arise. For example, the blackcaps' split was triggered by a persistent, human-caused change in the environment, while the finches' split was kicked off by a fluke series of natural events. The behavioral shifts that result in reproductive isolation also differ between the two cases. The change in the blackcaps' migration pattern is genetically controlled, while the finches' unusual song, which contributed to their divergence, is a learned trait.

These two examples make it clear that the division between species is not a black-and-white issue. Rather, speciation occurs as many different sorts of traits (physical, behavioral, and genetic) diverge from one another along a continuum. Because of this, biologists sometimes disagree about where to draw the line between incipient species — about when a division has become deep enough to warrant a new species name. Whatever we choose to call them, these two cases clearly illustrate how a lineage can split and begin to make its way down two separate evolutionary paths.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

 

[Asyncritus]

Bill Phillips won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997.

You should have had a bit more common sense than that.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Bill Phillips won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997.

You should have had a bit more common sense than that.

That Bill Phillips isn't a biologist. He is a physicist. I don't know what Bill Phillips was originally referenced. There were no links pointing to any of the names to show their credentials.

 

[Asyncritus]

...
Both the blackcaps and the finches demonstrate the important role that behavioral shifts may play in the early stages of speciation, as well as the many ways these shifts can arise. For example, the blackcaps' split was triggered by a persistent, human-caused change in the environment, while the finches' split was kicked off by a fluke series of natural events. The behavioral shifts that result in reproductive isolation also differ between the two cases. The change in the blackcaps' migration pattern is genetically controlled, while the finches' unusual song, which contributed to their divergence, is a learned trait.

These two examples make it clear that the division between species is not a black-and-white issue. Rather, speciation occurs as many different sorts of traits (physical, behavioral, and genetic) diverge from one another along a continuum. Because of this, biologists sometimes disagree about where to draw the line between incipient species — about when a division has become deep enough to warrant a new species name. Whatever we choose to call them, these two cases clearly illustrate how a lineage can split and begin to make its way down two separate evolutionary paths.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

The definition of a species often depends on the taxonomist. It is a movable feast.

However, the standard opinion is that two different species cannot interbreed in the wild, and that is the definition or description I work with.

You will note that this excludes any form of evolutionary change of species.

If species X mutates, and produces species Y, then Y cannot breed with X any longer, and both have reached an evolutionary dead end.

If a species has reached such a dead end, then it is impossible for it to be the ancestor of say another genus, and certainly not another phylum.

Therefore, if we have a fish of whatever description, there is no way for it to become an amphibian or a reptile. It is stretching the bounds of credulity to even consider the possibility.

Equally, it is impossible for an amphibian to become a tyrannosaurus, or a tyrannosaurus to become a bird, using them as representatives of their respective groups.

 

[kevinmaynard]

The definition of a species often depends on the taxonomist. It is a movable feast.

However, the standard opinion is that two different species cannot interbreed in the wild, and that is the definition or description I work with.

You will note that this excludes any form of evolutionary change of species.

If species X mutates, and produces species Y, then Y cannot breed with X any longer, and both have reached an evolutionary dead end.

If a species has reached such a dead end, then it is impossible for it to be the ancestor of say another genus, and certainly not another phylum.

Therefore, if we have a fish of whatever description, there is no way for it to become an amphibian or a reptile. It is stretching the bounds of credulity to even consider the possibility.

Equally, it is impossible for an amphibian to become a tyrannosaurus, or a tyrannosaurus to become a bird.

We have artificially bred dogs to the point of speciation. A chiwawa can't breed with a St Bernard naturally, but they both exist.

 

[Barbarian]

Bill Phillips won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997.
You should have had a bit more common sense than that.

You were presenting a physicist as a world-class biologist? I pointed out that there were no world-class biologist who were creationists. You offered "Bill Phillips" as one. And now you tell us he isn't even a biologist?

What is that about?

 

[Barbarian]

If species X mutates, and produces species Y, then Y cannot breed with X any longer, and both have reached an evolutionary dead end.

Explain to us why X can't continue on as X and later split into X1 and X2, and Y can't later split into Y1 and Y2. Even many creationists admit that much.

 

[Asyncritus]

Just a quote from ICR: http://www.icr.org/article/4404/

Quote:

Darwin’s tree illustrated a long macroevolutionary past that never happened. Darwinian gradualism would predict that over time different species should show a series of slight, successive modifications of genes from simple to complex. However, the tree of life “lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence…. [D]ifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.”4 Finally, evolutionary biologists seem to be catching up with creation biologists.5

Michael Syvanen, co-editor of Horizontal Gene Transfer (1998) and a medical biochemist at the University of California at Davis, told New Scientist, “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely.”4 For example, one geneticist at the University of Texas at Arlington has found a nearly identical family of DNA “in widely divergent tetrapods.”

The same sequence is found in certain animals willy nilly, and is thus “incompatible with [classic Darwinian] vertical inheritance.”6 But without vertical change onward and upward, can the new crazy-bush-like, cross-branching DNA sequence comparisons point to any kind of evolution at all?

[Clearly not....]

French researcher Eric Bapteste and biologist Ford Doolittle in Canada “are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong—just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.”4 The data show that gene distribution patterns are so untidy that neo-Darwinian evolution cannot explain them. Thus, a new mechanism has been suggested.

[Of course, of course!]

Donald Williamson, a retired marine biologist, proposed that, at least in starfish, new kinds formed “by the random fusion of two separate species, with one of the partners assuming the role of the larva and the other that of the adult.”4

But how can non-breeding, separate kinds “fuse,” when the biochemistry of reproduction is so highly specified for each kind that “inter-kind breeding” has never been observed?

He suggested that “once in a million years it works: the sperm of one species fertilises another and two species become one.”4 Thus, a new version of the Hopeful Monster theory—whereby new kinds are generated not by mutational singularities, but by reproductive singularities—adds to the list of possible mechanisms for evolution.5


It gets silly, doesn't it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Explain to us why X can't continue on as X and later split into X1 and X2, and Y can't later split into Y1 and Y2. Even many creationists admit that much.

If they are genuinely 'species' then by definition they cannot interbreed, and produce fertile offspring. Though of course, there's the odd exception - but that's the point: it's the 'odd exception'.

And again I point out, that hybrid vigour does not = new species, and absolutely not new genera and families.

There is no upward movement - because there is no new genetic material.

But see the above quote.

A bit more:

This holds that whole genetic modules corresponding to core biological functions can be mixed and matched to varying degrees between generations, within a breeding kind.7 This would allow organisms to adapt to changing environments according to specifically created parameters, but it would not produce the new genetic information that would be needed for upward evolutionary development.

Thus, horizontal gene transfer and facilitated variation, as they occur only within breeding kinds, are consistent with both the creation model and the data.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Explain to us why X can't continue on as X and later split into X1 and X2, and Y can't later split into Y1 and Y2. Even many creationists admit that much.

If they are genuinely 'species' then by definition they cannot interbreed, and produce fertile offspring.

Most speciation doesn't occur by hybridization, but there are demonstrated cases of it happening. What I was asking was why you thought a species could evolve, but the new species couldn't further split.

Though of course, there's the odd exception - but that's the point: it's the 'odd exception'.

Except for YE creationists (who need to have super rapid evolution to get all the species from a few "kinds" on the Arc) an occasional speciation every decade or so, is sufficient.

And again I point out, that hybrid vigour does not = new species, and absolutely not new genera and families.

But of course, most speciation is not by hybridization. You were misled about that.

There is no upward movement

Evolution is not about "upward." It just increases fitness.

because there is no new genetic material.

No, that's wrong. New alleles evolve regularly. Would you like some examples of new genetic material?

This holds that whole genetic modules corresponding to core biological functions can be mixed and matched to varying degrees between generations, within a breeding kind.

Interesting hypothesis, but observed speciations don't do it that way.By definition horizontal gene transfer happens between different kinds. As you learned a long time ago, any new allele in a population increase information in that population. Would you like to see the numbers again?

Thus, horizontal gene transfer and facilitated variation, as they occur only within breeding kinds, are consistent with both the creation model and the data.

No, that's a complete misunderstanding. Would you like me to show you some examples?

 

[Rick W]

You should have had a bit more common sense than that.

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/reminder.51316/

 

[Asyncritus]

All this is beside the point which I repeat it for emphasis.

There is NO UPWARD MOVEMENT.

Horizontal transfer occurs - no problem there. However, we are seeking, according to the type of evolution I am discussing, a great deal of upward movement.

For example, the sort of movement that would create a bird from a reptile, or worse yet, a unicell from a bacterium or whatever other fanciful origins they may be claimed to have.

But at the end of the day, the fossils are the final arbiters of evolution's destiny, not molecular genetics, which can and will be interpreted in any number of ways before the day is over.

Remember the 'junk DNA' fiasco which has been comprehensively wrecked many times over now?

The fossils are still speaking loudly, that evolution did not occur.

 

[Asyncritus]

You seem to think that there are vast numbers of speciation events, or at least that is the misleading impression you convey.

Talkorigins lists a pathetic handful, mostly hybrids of plants and some debatable animal speciations.

Try here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

As I have repeatedly taught you, rates of speciation alleged to exist as in the above article, can in no way account for the numbers of species found in the Cambrian explosion, assuming a 'common ancestor' and the relative paucity of years between the alleged 'origin of life' and the Explosion.

Given those enormous difficulties, I think it would be a good plan to abandon the idea of evolution. It simply didn't happen.

BTW, I don't much care what the YEC people say about speciation rates. They have the even more enormous difficulty of solving the question of how all these extant species appeared from an event 6/7000 years ago. They therefore have to invoke speciation events at an unparallelled rate.

Won't work, in my view.

 

[Rick W]

Speciation?
So all life is within one evolutionary tree?
Might each type been created within their own "evolutionary tree".