nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 214:
Line 214: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 12:27, May 17, 2007
, 12:27, May 17, 2007→Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction: resistance, migration, and flood stories.
::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:23, 17 May 2007
::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:23, 17 May 2007
::: "''Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about.''". I'm sorry, I don't know what this is referring to.
::: Evolution could be described as the belief that a combination of two observed processes (natural selection and mutations) can result in creatures gradually changing into other types of creatures to the extent that all life has come from a single organism via this process. Creationists don't disagree that natural selection and mutations are real (both have been observed happening, and as I said, a creationist discovered and described natural selection before Darwin), but they do disagree that the combination of these two processes can lead to new organs, abilities, etc. (or more precisely, the new genetic [[information]] required for this). Not only has this part has ''not'' been observed, the opposite has been observed!
::: How did they already have the resistance? It depends on just how they have that resistance. I believe that it is not specific resistance to a given antibiotic as such, but rather some factor that results in them being resistant. Here is an explanation of one way this works (there are a number of different methods:
{{QuoteBox|Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner. <br /><br />
However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.}}
::: You can see from that explanation that the bacterium does not have a specific resistance to a given antibiotic, but a defect that ''effectively'' makes it resistant to antibiotics that work in that way.
::: Perhaps leopards and tigers did not always live in the same environment. Regardless, surely evolution has the same problem? How did leopards and tigers become different in the evolutionary scenario if they lived in the same environment?
::: Scientists don't have all the answers. Scientific research continues, because there are still things to learn, still questions to be answered, still problems to be solved. This should be even more the case with creationism, because creationism gets practically no funding (what it does get is mostly from private donations), yet evolutionists get (by comparison) vast amounts of funding. So no creationist claims to have all the answers to every last problem (although considering the amount of research they have been able to do, I think they've done remarkably well). One area that I can't give a really good answer on is the animal migration one. However, there are still some points that I can answer:
:::* Australia has no large carnivorous animals and not many medium-size ones either. Therefore, the kangaroo and koala have little in the way of natural enemies (except for disease, etc.). If there were larger carnivorous animals, the roo and koala would likely not fare very well. Carnivorous animals, on the other hand, would not survive so well where there are not other animals to eat. What this suggests is that as the animals spread around the world from Ararat, over many years, if not centuries in some cases, the vegetarians would migrate first, to be followed by the carnivores. So in some cases, the only vegetarians to survive would be the ones that kept ahead of the carnivores. If the kangaroos and koalas reached Australia first, and then rising sea levels following the [[ice age]] cut Australia off from Asia before the carnivores got there, the kangaroos and koalas on Australia would be protected and survive, whilst the ones remaining in Asia were wiped out.
:::* Animals will spread out to find new food sources, especially as populations increase and there is more competition for food. Rabbits were released in one location in Australia 150 odd years ago, and within a matter of decades had spread to cover half the continent. That is what happens; there is no way that animals would stay confined to the Middle East.
:::* Aborigines and other native peoples ''do'' have stories of the Flood, etc. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)