Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dr. JDD Gets It


In a comment to a prior post Dr. JDD captures in a nutshell typical Darwinist dismissal and bluster disguised as argument:

Darwinism Critic:: “I don’t accept evolution”

Darwinist: “Evolution has been proved many times! Just look at antibiotic resistance! You are stupid for not accepting evolution! I am justified in not engaging with you anymore because you don’t even accept observed facts.”

-Darwinist leaves-

Critic: “Actually I meant Darwinian evolution…”

-Darwinist in the distance- “that’s not a thing…”

Critic: “I meant macro-evolution”

-Darwinist on the horizon- “no one in science even uses that term. All your arguments are rejected. I win!”

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,,
Isn't evolution amazing? It's always surprising the scientists, falsifying their predictions! However, it's reassuring to know that these scientists are hard at work merging their findings with evolutionary theory. With this discovery, it seems that evolution obviously also works backwards in time! Or maybe it proves that ancient aliens also overused antibiotics. Or maybe that evolution anticipated the introduction of antibiotics. I'm sure glad that Science has put an end to superstitious speculation! ;-) -Q Querius
Evolve sorry to break this to you, but antibiotic resistance is not evidence for your atheistic position, but is evidence for the Intelligent Design position: Is antibiotic resistance evidence for Darwinian evolution? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp moreover, as if that was not bad enough, antibiotic resistance is ancient, far preceding the arrival of antibiotics! (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012 Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183# bornagain77
Evolve, what is this Atheist obsession with the sky? Sky daddy, designer-in-the-sky etc. Don't Atheists realize the sky is a thin layer only a hundred or so miles above their heads? When Jesus walked this Earth, He explained that the Kingdom of God was "not of this world". Not of this world Daddy or Designer-not-of-this-world would be a little more appropriate/intelligent. Just saying. ppolish
Bacteria are exquisitely designed to adapt to a large variety of environments. Or, they are the "most evolved" and most successful organisms on the planet. Given enough time and generations, all organisms will eventually evolve into bacteria. Take your pick. -Q Querius
///Darwinist: “Evolution has been proved many times! Just look at antibiotic resistance! /// Just about the only evidence for evolution creationists won't deny because it doesn't challenge their fictitious designer-in-the-sky. Evolve
H: A perhaps more revealing way to put that is, no authority is better than his or her facts, reasoning and underlying assumptions/models. That is, GIGO . . . as well we know from computing: garbage in, garbage out. But also, 99+% of our thinking, reasoning and knowing depends critically on authorities viewed as credible sources. The real issue is that authorities can err and that we should audit them. But equally, our own reasoning is subject to being finite, fallible, too often blinkered by biases and gaps, and also by ill-will. KF kairosfocus
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galile Fantastic quote melvinvines. Just poached it from your site ;) humbled
"Evolution Credits Itself with Modern Wonders" It’s astounding how evolutionauts try to credit evolution with all kinds of miraculous modern conveniences, devices, and cures, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with those... http://evillusion.wordpress.com/27-evolution-credits-itself-with-modern-wonders/ melvinvines
@3: Should be "...is not unreasonable" dgw
The biochemical level is the key. Morphological explanations are descriptive. The demand for quantifiable explanations at this late date are not unreasonable. According to the Central Dogma, genotypes are expressed as phenotypes through transcription and translation. New phenotypes require synthesis of novel proteins. However, the search space for these proteins is enormous. Random genetic mutations (Darwinian evolution) entail a local search that optimizes a protein for its environment. Evolutionary search algorithms are good at finding minima in noisy error surfaces. Accordingly, species preservation is a result consistent with observation. However, these algorithms lacks the resources to perform a global search. Credible explanations for the origination of proteins are sorely needed. dgw
Professor James M. Tour asserts that no one can explain evolution at the biochemical level. Can anyone explain evolution even at a morphological level? For example, all evolutionists know that the whale evolved from the pakicetus. Can an evolutionist tell me what the very first offspring looked like that resulted from the very first mutation of the many that were destined to turn that pakicetus into a whale? And can the evolutionists answer St. George Mivart's skepticism regarding the ability of natural selection to preserve the incipient stages of evolution? I know David Berlinski has challenged evolutionists to account for the 50,000 changes (his abitrary number) that were involved in the evolution of the whale. My question is even at a higher level than that. All I am asking for is informed speculation. NeilBJ
Haha! This hits home. Many of my atheist aquaintences don't even know there is a distinction. There is plenty of evidence for change over time, but they don't know I'm not arguing that point. Bateman

Leave a Reply