Darwins Nightmare

[root]

If creationism hypothosis is correct, then I think the Australian who thought up the idea of environmentally protecting Australia by utilizing gods creations should not have been the disaster that it has come to be. When does something that was perposely designed by a creator "change". When did a perfect family designed and created family car turn into a rally car that destroyed tje countryside. When did the perfect creation of a watch by a watchmaker start to have an alarm like big ben deathening everyone. If a creature was designed for a purpose, why does it change!!!!

I guess the answer must be because the creationist (if he was one) did not believe in Evolution.

He's fat he's ugly and he's adapting. a species which was introduced into the Australian state of Queensland 70 years ago to tackle insect pests in canefields and has since become an ecological catastrophe.

Weighing in at to up two kilos (4.4 pounds), the unwanted anuran has extended its range to more than a million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) in tropical and sub-tropical Australia, crushing native species in its relentless advance.

A team of University of Sydney toad watchers positioned themselves on the front line of the invasion, 60 kilometers (35 miles) east of the city of Darwin, and for 10 months caught toads, some of which they radiotagged and let loose again.

They were astonished to find that the creatures can hop up to 1.8 kms (1.1 miles) a night during wet weather, a record for any frog or toad.

But even more remarkable was the discovery that the first toads to arrive at the front invariably had longer hind legs than those which arrived later.

By comparison, the toads which are living in the long-established Queensland colonies have much shorter legs.

The case is being seen as a classic example of Darwinian evolution -- animals that are stronger, faster or smarter are able to stake out new territory and defend it against those that are weaker, slower or less astute.
The findings also neatly explain a puzzle surrounding the cane toad.

From the 1940s to 1960s, the critter expanded its range by only 10 kms (six miles) a year. Today, though, it is advancing at the rate of more than 50 kms (30 miles) annually.

The reason: with longer legs, the mutating species is able to travel further, faster.

The authors, led by Richard Shine of the university's School of Biological Sciences, say the cane toad is a chilling lesson for governments to combat invasive species as soon as possible, "before the invader has had time to evolve into a more dangerous adversary."

The paper appears on Thursday in Nature, the weekly science journal.

 

[HeiGou]

If a creature was designed for a purpose, why does it change!!!!

There is another example too - MRSA. Because of the over-prescribing of antibiotics, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (aka MRSA, or Golden Staph) has evolved to be immune to most antibiotics. If Golden Staph was created, why has it evolved resistance (and hence is a new species)? If evolution is not true, is it worth looking for new antibiotics to treat the new form of the disease? Moreover it is worth finding out how Golden Staph has evolved and finding a drug to target that? These things matter in science.

 

[Takumi]

There is another example too - MRSA. Because of the over-prescribing of antibiotics, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (aka MRSA, or Golden Staph) has evolved to be immune to most antibiotics. If Golden Staph was created, why has it evolved resistance (and hence is a new species)? If evolution is not true, is it worth looking for new antibiotics to treat the new form of the disease? Moreover it is worth finding out how Golden Staph has evolved and finding a drug to target that? These things matter in science.

MRSA is not a new species. It's still called staph aureus. If it were a different species, than it wouldn't be MR-SA.

 

[HeiGou]

MRSA is not a new species. It's still called staph aureus. If it were a different species, than it wouldn't be MR-SA.

MRSA is a new species. It is MRSA to distinguish it from other strains of Golden Staph. This is how you define a species among asexual bacteria. It has specific and recognisable traits.

Can you, or any other creationist, tell me how MRSA arose (given it was not MR until recently) and what ought to be done about it?

 

[Takumi]

The present system of binomial nomenclature identifies each species by a scientific name of two words, Latin in form and usually derived from Greek or Latin roots. The first name (capitalized) is the genus of the organism, the second (not capitalized) is its species.

MRSA has been around for just 40 years (since 1961)

It's still called Staph Aureus (Genus: Staph Species: Aureus), unless you don't agree with this widely known nomenclature. That's your prerogative.

The mecA gene is already there, expressed when triggered by beta lactam antibiotics and of course, notoriously Methicillin.

If someone's who's blind at birth, forced to depend only on his hearings and other available faculties, thus ADAPTING to his environment . Will he still be homo sapiens?

 

[HeiGou]

The mecA gene is already there, expressed when triggered by beta lactam antibiotics and of course, notoriously Methicillin.

It is there now. But it was not "triggered" in 1960. It is a recent occurence and moreover MRSA is rapidly replacing MSSA. Why is this? The penicillin binding proteins on the cell walls of the MRSA have changed "shape". How did this change arise?

If someone's who's blind at birth, forced to depend only on his hearings and other available faculties, thus ADAPTING to his environment . Will he still be homo sapiens?

Well no because he can still interbreed. Obviously standard definitions for species do not apply very well to asexually reproducing bacteria. But if you like I'll use "sub-species".

You have also not answered my question - if evolution does not happen, what is to be done?

 

[Takumi]

HeiGou,

Before those questions are answered, sub species do not even apply to MRSA or MRSE (methicillin resistant staph epidermidis, yes a different species of staph).

Scientists, microbiologists, clinical infectious disease specialists and many experts, in spite of the emergence of this STRAIN has not even named MRSA as a sub species, so; NO, it's not okay with me. I'm a scientist. I will follow the norm. Except those weird ones.

The gene that code for penicillinase has always been there. So has the gene that codes for beta lactamase, the enzyme that render beta lactam antibiotics inactive. S.aureus obviously didn't "think" it was necessary to use
when not necessary.

People who store guns in their house don't use them until it's necessary. It's still there.

Standard definitions of species do not apply well to bacteria? Bro, this is an accepted nomenclature in the scientific world. Even Darwin knows it. I hope.

Other kinds of antibacterial has been shown effective agains MSRA. Imipenem with combination (despite it being a beta lactam) of cilastatin or vancomycin have been proven successful for years.

This is turning into a therapeutic management for MRSA.

Anyway, I still think 40 years of adaptation of this bug is too early for anyone to claim it as an evolutionary process.

As I have mentioned, it's still an aureus. Not a different species, yet.

 

[HeiGou]

The gene that code for penicillinase has always been there. So has the gene that codes for beta lactamase, the enzyme that render beta lactam antibiotics inactive. S.aureus obviously didn't "think" it was necessary to use when not necessary.

Just out of interest, how do you know it was always there?

Obviously MRSA does not think, or "think", so what happened to activate this particular protein?

People who store guns in their house don't use them until it's necessary. It's still there.

You know why that is utterly irrelevant as a parallel don't you?

Standard definitions of species do not apply well to bacteria? Bro, this is an accepted nomenclature in the scientific world. Even Darwin knows it. I hope.

Nomenclature is a separate issue. Standard definitions - interbreeding and all that - are problematic with bacteria.

Other kinds of antibacterial has been shown effective agains MSRA. Imipenem with combination (despite it being a beta lactam) of cilastatin or vancomycin have been proven successful for years.

This is turning into a therapeutic management for MRSA.

Do you think that this treatment will remain effective for the next 40 years? Given that bacteria do not evolve and all that?

Anyway, I still think 40 years of adaptation of this bug is too early for anyone to claim it as an evolutionary process.

Really? Why?

 

[sumay28]

I believe if darwin were around today, he would have smacked himself on the forehead and said "i was such a fool". I don't think Darwin would still agree with his theory.

My opinion: the people who don't believe in creation are my ammunition for my faith. It only proves to me that it is true that knowledge can only been given by Allah.

 

[Takumi]

Just out of interest, how do you know it was always there?

Hei Gou, advanced reading in bacteriology and infectious diseases would help you out. Are you working? If you're really interested, you may spend some money for subscription to many medical journals. Although some are restricted to medical professionals only, but some are watered down to cater to the common public.

Obviously MRSA does not think, or "think", so what happened to activate this particular protein?

Mere exposure to beta lactam.

You know why that is utterly irrelevant as a parallel don't you?

It's just a simple analogy.

Nomenclature is a separate issue. Standard definitions - interbreeding and all that - are problematic with bacteria.

Nomenclature was not an issue until you proclaimed that S.aures is indeed another species. These terms are scientific and must conform to their accepted usage. I haven't read your conceding that your first impression that s.aureus was indeed another species, is incorrect. By it's name alone, we know it's not a new species. Strain, maybe.

Do you think that this treatment will remain effective for the next 40 years? Given that bacteria do not evolve and all that?

There are hundreds of therapeutic studies published every day. If, the resistance of the bacteria is indeed an evolutionary process and evolution is a science, then surely evolutionary theorists must find a way to predict s.aureus future evolutionary product. That onus is upon them. I'm a clinician. Like many others, we conjure modalities of treatment as the case is presented to us. The last thing in saving one's life is to ponder whether or not s.aures come from amoeba or the grandfather of homo erectus.

Really? Why?

Do you or any evolutionary theorist out there really subscribe to the idea that if an organism is left to survive in an environment foreign to its biological needs, somehow it will evolve to another creature. I'd like to see it.

In simple terms, would an evolutionary theorist live in the north pole without any protective clothing at all to prove that he will eventually evolve to a creature that will handle extreme cold and his digestive system will eventually change to only digest proteins instead of complex carbohydrates?

Peace.

 

[root]

There are hundreds of therapeutic studies published every day. If, the resistance of the bacteria is indeed an evolutionary process and evolution is a science, then surely evolutionary theorists must find a way to predict s.aureus future evolutionary product.

Evolution is comparable to history, and we cannot forsee nor predict the future with any certainty. It surprises me that you could think by such a manner

That onus is upon them. I'm a clinician. Like many others, we conjure modalities of treatment as the case is presented to us. The last thing in saving one's life is to ponder whether or not s.aures come from amoeba or the grandfather of homo erectus

.

By understanding the biological processes taking place with drug resistant bacteriums/viruses the potential to save millions of life should drive us to ask such questions. Besides all life is related, you should already know that.

Do you or any evolutionary theorist out there really subscribe to the idea that if an organism is left to survive in an environment foreign to its biological needs, somehow it will evolve to another creature. I'd like to see it.

If you live a few million years you would see it for yourself!

In simple terms, would an evolutionary theorist live in the north pole without any protective clothing at all to prove that he will eventually evolve to a creature that will handle extreme cold and his digestive system will eventually change to only digest proteins instead of complex carbohydrates

It would depend how rapid and severe the changes were, many life-forms go into extinction because they could not adapt. However, maybe we would see a return of full hair covering our bodies becuase the genes responsible are still with us though inactive just like you claim for your MRSA as quoted here, evolution rarely uses direct mutations for change but merely reactivates redundant genes.

The gene that code for penicillinase has always been there. So has the gene that codes for beta lactamase, the enzyme that render beta lactam antibiotics inactive. S.aureus obviously didn't "think" it was necessary to use
when not necessary.

 

[Takumi]

So, evolution is not an exact science. For all we know, as skeptical as evolutionary theorists as they are about creationism, they are in the dark. So, what benefit can evolutionary theorists bring to therapeutic regimens, such as incidents of infections of MRSA if they cannot predict the further extension of Staphylococcus aureus' so called "evolution"?

The cold virus mutates as frequently as we change our clothes, still, they are not new species.

Depending on the scientific fields, scientists depend on models, graphed from previous data that may predict future occurrences.

eg, the behavior of many drugs and their elimination from the human body are predicted using these models even if the drug has not been used yet.

I didn't claim that MRSA has that genes. Research in bacteriology proved it, in lieu to explain such resistance.

Maybe "return on hair", with the advent of technology and so much hype about the certainty of evolution, I would have guessed evolutionary theorists would have figured that out already. Maybe the legs will go to atrophy since the subject will be quite immobile, extreme or in realistic biological sense, the subject will die mainly due to hypothermia.

Since evolution thrives on the theory of the survivalism, it should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that if Charles Darwin were audacious enough to prove his point, he'd be living right now as a polar bear like creature roaming the north pole due to the evolutionary process.

Unless...

 

[root]

So, evolution is not an exact science. For all we know, as skeptical as evolutionary theorists as they are about creationism, they are in the dark. So, what benefit can evolutionary theorists bring to therapeutic regimens, such as incidents of infections of MRSA if they cannot predict the further extension of Staphylococcus aureus' so called "evolution"?

Firstly, evolution can and does make predictions as part of validating itself to a status of theory and creationism is not a theory. Secondly, biology is built upon the foundations of micro-evolution and they are so closely inter-twined that the two cannot be seperated so from this perspective the benefits are present for us all to see.

I am very surprised if not a little shocked that you seem to express dissapointment that evolution cannot with certainty predict the future any more than we can predict the social and cultural future of mankind. Finally, let us not forget that the potential disastarous mutation of the bird flu with a highly viralent human flu virus evolving and spreading is the stuff of evolution in action.

The cold virus mutates as frequently as we change our clothes, still, they are not new species.

Correct.

Depending on the scientific fields, scientists depend on models, graphed from previous data that may predict future occurrences.

Not strictly so, but I accept the point your making

Maybe "return on hair", with the advent of technology and so much hype about the certainty of evolution, I would have guessed evolutionary theorists would have figured that out already. Maybe the legs will go to atrophy since the subject will be quite immobile, extreme or in realistic biological sense, the subject will die mainly due to hypothermia.

Evolution through DNA shows a rich tapestry of biological history in it's ongoing process that is no more pre determined than our own history has been. Your right about hypothermia, the probability is that the subject would succumb to this but it's not a fact as always since too many variables are involved.

Since evolution thrives on the theory of the survivalism, it should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that if Charles Darwin were audacious enough to prove his point, he'd be living right now as a polar bear like creature roaming the north pole due to the evolutionary process.

That sounds more like reincarnation than evolution, besides on a macro-level one needs several millions of years and evolution evolves new species and does not repeat itself like a carbon copy. But ultimately would you call the "hobbit" human?

 

[Takumi]

Firstly, evolution can and does make predictions as part of validating itself to a status of theory and creationism is not a theory. Secondly, biology is built upon the foundations of micro-evolution and they are so closely inter-twined that the two cannot be seperated so from this perspective the benefits are present for us all to see.

If that is so, vaccines against the human cold could have been produced. Or the further mutation or "evolution" of the HIV virus could have been documented and drugs specifically targeting the RNA or DNA of these malicious virus could have been used. Unless, the evolution is just a "social" enigma that is desperate to take its place above all sciences.

I am very surprised if not a little shocked that you seem to express dissapointment that evolution cannot with certainty predict the future any more than we can predict the social and cultural future of mankind. Finally, let us not forget that the potential disastarous mutation of the bird flu with a highly viralent human flu virus evolving and spreading is the stuff of evolution in action.

I am. Social and cultural future of mankind are not considered elemental sciences are they? Yes, we designate experts in both fields as social scientists, but evolutionary theorists seem to want evolution to be included into mainstream science, that includes objectivity, modelling, reproducibility and plausible predictions based on current data.

Correct.

Thank you.

Not strictly so, but I accept the point your making

Thank you.

Evolution through DNA shows a rich tapestry of biological history in it's ongoing process that is no more pre determined than our own history has been. Your right about hypothermia, the probability is that the subject would succumb to this but it's not a fact as always since too many variables are involved.

The only thing that I can think of, are Yogis, who have been rumored to meditate in the mountains of Himalayas to reach ultimate spirituality; survived extreme cold weather. Other than that, solid facts on human biology show that death is inevitable.

That sounds more like reincarnation than evolution, besides on a macro-level one needs several millions of years and evolution evolves new species and does not repeat itself like a carbon copy. But ultimately would you call the "hobbit" human?

This point clearly proves that Staphylococcus aureus did not "evolve" into MRSA, which is the crux of of this discussion. MRSA was first documented 40 years ago. Many experts, including evolutionary theorists did not indicate that MRSA is a new species.

Unless of course evolutionary theorists with solid model based on facts can scientifically predict the future behavior or trait of Staphylococcus aureus , which; laterally speaking, they have not, I suggest we leave the nomenclature and of course, the treatment modalities to the experts.

I rest my case.

 

[root]

If that is so, vaccines against the human cold could have been produced.

The theory of evolution probably tells us why a vaccine cannot be produced!

Or the further mutation or "evolution" of the HIV virus could have been documented and drugs specifically targeting the RNA or DNA of these malicious virus could have been used.

Again evolution probably tells us why this cannot be the case. However some good news does exist on this matter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4696496.stm

Unless, the evolution is just a "social" enigma that is desperate to take its place above all sciences.

I don't thibk so myself.

The only thing that I can think of, are Yogis, who have been rumored to meditate in the mountains of Himalayas to reach ultimate spirituality; survived extreme cold weather. Other than that, solid facts on human biology show that death is inevitable

Evolution does not necessitate to just biological matter. A species ability to adapt does not rely solely on it's biology parse, the ability to forward think and anticipate dangers then plan to avoid dangers (gee I gotta get out of this wind chill) is equally important so to is good old luck, survival of the fittest is also survival of the luckiest and on with survival of the knowledgeable (reminds me of a survival book I read titled "no need to die". Either way death is not as you put it inevitable.

This point clearly proves that Staphylococcus aureus did not "evolve" into MRSA,

Yes it did evolve, your claiming it never evolved into another species outside of S Aureus, a new species of cat or dog can evolve, they are still cat and dog though if not classable as a certain kind of dog within x generations.

which is the crux of of this discussion. MRSA was first documented 40 years ago. Many experts, including evolutionary theorists did not indicate that MRSA is a new species.

Nor do they class the frog at the beginning of this thread anything else than a frog, however the evolutionary change is already beginning.

I rest my case.

Yes, you rest your case in dircetly not observing a change in species to which you need a considerable more time than 40 years.

 

[Takumi]

The theory of evolution probably tells us why a vaccine cannot be produced!

Please enlighten us!

Evolution does not necessitate to just biological matter. A species ability to adapt does not rely solely on it's biology parse, the ability to forward think and anticipate dangers then plan to avoid dangers (gee I gotta get out of this wind chill) is equally important so to is good old luck, survival of the fittest is also survival of the luckiest and on with survival of the knowledgeable (reminds me of a survival book I read titled "no need to die". Either way death is not as you put it inevitable.

Until now, evolutionary theorists are still in the dark about the "evolution" of the psyche.

Yes it did evolve, your claiming it never evolved into another species outside of S Aureus, a new species of cat or dog can evolve, they are still cat and dog though if not classable as a certain kind of dog within x generations.

Do you have any literature to support the claim that S.aureus did evolve? HeiGou claimed that MRSA is another species due to the evolutionary process. I provided the proof against that by just its nomenclature and scientific literature did not designate MRSA as another species.

Nor do they class the frog at the beginning of this thread anything else than a frog, however the evolutionary change is already beginning.

Can evolutionary theorists PREDICT using SCIENTIFIC models what this frog will have?

Yes, you rest your case in dircetly not observing a change in species to which you need a considerable more time than 40 years.

Do evolutionary theorists have any specific time, using their SCIENTIFIC modelling, based on their current data to predict at least the time NEEDED?

 

[root]

Quote:

Originally Posted by root
The theory of evolution probably tells us why a vaccine cannot be produced!

Please enlighten us!

You have probably heard the saying "You never catch the same cold twice", this is due to the number of flu viruses out thier, and since evolutionary they have a very high mutational rate it is all but impossible to vaccine for ALL current flu virus strains and the sheer number of new evolved strains.

Until now, evolutionary theorists are still in the dark about the "evolution" of the psyche.

You would proably need to explain this better as I don't really know what you mean by "psyche"

Do you have any literature to support the claim that S.aureus did evolve? HeiGou claimed that MRSA is another species due to the evolutionary process. I provided the proof against that by just its nomenclature and scientific literature did not designate MRSA as another

Sure:http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/11/7687

Here is a snippet for you to:

The origins of the major MRSA clones are still poorly understood. Kreiswirth et al. (11) proposed that all MRSAs were descended from a single ancestral S. aureus strain that acquired mecA, but more recent studies (12, 13) show that some MRSAs are very divergent, implying that mecA has been transferred between S. aureus lineages. The data from MLST can be used to probe the evolutionary and population biology of bacterial pathogens and to predict ancestral genotypes and patterns of evolutionary descent within groups of related genotypes. We have applied MLST to an international collection of 359 MRSA isolates, which includes examples of the previously described EMRSA and GISA clones, and compare these to a collection of 553 methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSAs). We demonstrate the limited number of major EMRSA genotypes and provide an unambiguous method for characterizing MRSA and GISA clones and a rational nomenclature. We also identify the ancestral MRSA clone and its MSSA ancestor and suggest the evolutionary pathways by which MRSA clones have repeatedly emerged from successful MSSA clones.

Can evolutionary theorists PREDICT using SCIENTIFIC models what this frog will have?

I really feel you are getting your knickers in a twist over the predictability of evolution. For a theory to be valid it requires that it should be able to make predictions based on the theory, you seem to be taking this literally and asking evolution to predict the future in the same manner that one would ask an historian to predict future history? which of course is nonsense. However highlighted in green may be of special interest to you.

 

[Takumi]

You have probably heard the saying "You never catch the same cold twice", this is due to the number of flu viruses out thier, and since evolutionary they have a very high mutational rate it is all but impossible to vaccine for ALL current flu virus strains and the sheer number of new evolved strains.

Of course, if evolution is an exact science, evolutionary theorists who are practicing medical sciences could have predicted the future strain of the cold virus, hence providing these date to pharmaceutical companies who have their drug production pharmacists who then will be able to make a vaccine to combat them. Don't you think it's worth it? Millions if not billions of dollars are lost due to employees taking the day off when they get the cold.

You would proably need to explain this better as I don't really know what you mean by "psyche"

Psyche: simply mental status

Please also refer to my post here: http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...ution-refuted-simply-12.html?highlight=takumi


PNAS is not a well established medical journal. That article was done retrospectively, as with almost all evolutionary hype out there. Of course, the National Academy of Science is also one of the organizations who advocate the evolution hypothesis. Never mind that.

Thank you for the link, though. It was a good read. I'm going to look for it in other journals, they have better peer review system.

It's interesting to note, notwithstanding the fact that contributors to the retrospective article claimed that MRSA had evolved, they still insist on using it's species name, aureus. Can evolutionary advocates be certain WHEN not to call this strain aureus, like they have distinguished Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, which belong to the same genus but entirely different species?

Evolution advocates have been campaigning to be accepted into the elemental science, surely by now (almost 200 years), they have come up with some objectivity, like many other elemental science.

I really feel you are getting your knickers in a twist over the predictability of evolution. For a theory to be valid it requires that it should be able to make predictions based on the theory, you seem to be taking this literally and asking evolution to predict the future in the same manner that one would ask an historian to predict future history? which of course is nonsense. However highlighted in green may be of special interest to you.

Root, I'm a scientist, a clinician who deals with mortality every single day. Predictability, like the the weather forecast, is my bread and butter. There's no time to "read between the lines" when it comes to therapeutic regimen for cancer, G6PD deficiency or even the haemophilia or many other genetically based disorders out there.

Can evolutionary advocates contribute to the field of medical sciences other than tell us retrospectively where a bug has evolved from?

If it can't which is very likely, I'd settle with evolution just staying there hypothetically existing in the midst on unpredictability of social behavior of Homo sapiens.

We just have to agree to disagree.

 

[root]

Of course, if evolution is an exact science, evolutionary theorists who are practicing medical sciences could have predicted the future strain of the cold virus, hence providing these date to pharmaceutical companies who have their drug production pharmacists who then will be able to make a vaccine to combat them. Don't you think it's worth it? Millions if not billions of dollars are lost due to employees taking the day off when they get the cold.

I read your link to past posts, and it would appear (to me at least) that you like predictability! In an almost conceit of hindsight. History has been described as one thing after after another, temptation to scour the past for patterns that repeat themselves to seek reason and rhyme for everything. This appetite for reason and rhyme affronts those who see history as a random and messy affair. The other flirtation of similarity is history described as seeing the past as aimed at our time like all the characters of history had nothing better to do than forshadow us, that the past worked to deliver our particular present.

Evolution, can be similarly described as one species after another evolutionary rhymes and patterns occur (like history) and it is for well understood reasons: darwinian & biology reasons mainly. But be warned, evolution like history is a random and messy affair also and like the characters of history, evolution is NOT a calculated affair like a carefully tuned "put-up" job calculated at bringing humanity eventually into existence.

It is for this reason and this reason alone that one cannot predict the future of a given evolutionary course, one can of course try at best to make an educated and well informed guess and afford a probability, but it will remain just a probability thus whilst you can make predictive statements in support of the evolutionary theory you cannot predict accurately what is in essence a random affair! By comparisom it would be like asking to predict where in a skin cell is a mosquito going to bite a human host!

Another way to see this as a modern day example is with bird flu, evolutionary biology shows us that the bird flu could mutate with a human flu virus and cause a world wide pandemic, evolution like the mosquito cannot predict which virus H5n1 may mutate with though we could take an educated guess that may or may not be correct. Our world and everything in it does not live within "predictable" controls.

It's interesting to note, notwithstanding the fact that contributors to the retrospective article claimed that MRSA had evolved, they still insist on using it's species name, aureus. Can evolutionary advocates be certain WHEN not to call this strain aureus, like they have distinguished Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, which belong to the same genus but entirely different species?

Given the example above with h5n1, if it did indeed mutate with a flu virus would it be "Bird flu" or "Human flu"? Your point I probably don't care to answer (And i don't mean to appear rude). As for the Neanderthol, it might surprise you that ultimately we cannot say neanderthals are a different species however, we in the sapien classification I believe they use the Mitochandrial DNA and Y Chromozone to establish human species, though I am sure not just solely.

 

[Takumi]

I read your link to past posts, and it would appear (to me at least) that you like predictability! In an almost conceit of hindsight. History has been described as one damn thing after after another, temptation to scour the past for patterns that repeat themselves to seek reason and rhyme for everything. This appetite for reason and rhyme affronts those who see history as a random and messy affair. The other flirtation of similarity is history described as seeing the past as aimed at our time like all the characters of history had nothing better to do than forshadow us, that the past worked to deliver our particular present

Evolution is like history, so it's not actually science. Thanks for validating my suspicion.

Evolution, can be similarly described as one damn species after another evolutionary rhymes and patterns occur (like history) and it is for well understood reasons: darwinian & biology reasons mainly. But be warned, evolution like history is a random and messy affair also and like the characters of history, evolution is NOT a calculated affair like a carefully tuned "put-up" job calculated at bringing humanity eventually into existence.

Evolution is messy. Not objective at all. As unpredictable as social sciences. At least, in social sciences, long term experimental procedures are plausible. Unlike evolution. Hot air? If you like you may want a subscription to many social sciences academic journal will tell you how, a 15-20 year studies have been carried out to determine factors that cause mortality, obesity or many other SCIENTIFIC conclusion. We call them epidemiological studies. These are real studies, with powerful statistical analyses that include bias, complex mathematical equations and controls.

With this data, epidemiologist can actually predict the food consumption of a certain geographical area, the birth and mortality rate of a certain group of people presenting pre-existing genetic traits and even the susceptibility to infectious disease. Can evolutionary advocates do that?

No. I know, don't tell me. It's comparable to HISTORY.

It is for this reason and this reason alone that one cannot predict the future of a given evolutionary course, one can of course try at best to make an educated and well informed guess and afford a probability, but it will remain just a probability thus whilst you can make predictive statements in support of the evolutionary theory you cannot predict accurately what is in essence a random affair! By comparisom it would be like asking to predict where in a skin cell is a mosquito going to bite a human host!

Predicting the exact location of a mosquito bite can be scientifically determined. Mosquitos bite mainly on dermal area where blood vessels are easily accessible. Now, that area has been determined. The possibility of a mosquito bite on your palm or your cochlear, for example, is near remote. Now, you had asked me, where on my skin would a mosquito bite me, now, that's as nonsensical as asking me, to which location will my food travel in the esophagus in the next second?

Another way to see this as a modern day example is with bird flu, evolutionary biology shows us that the bird flu could mutate with a human flu virus and cause a world wide pandemic, evolution like the mosquito cannot predict which virus H5n1 may mutate with though we could take an educated guess that may or may not be correct. Our world and everything in it does not live within "predictable" controls.

Mutation may represent some evolutionary traits but not absolute. Bird flu is observed presently due to many technical savoire faire. If technology is not avant garde, then the possibility of even finding out about bird flu is also, remote. Can evolutionary advocates proof that bird flu is NOT inherent?

Given the example above with h5n1, if it did indeed mutate with a flu virus would it be "Bird flu" or "Human flu"? Your point I probably don't care to answer (And i don't mean to appear rude). As for the Neanderthol, it might surprise you that ultimately we cannot say neanderthals are a different species however, we in the sapien classification I believe they use the Mitochandrial DNA and Y Chromozone to establish human species, though I am sure not just solely.

Root, similarly to HeiGou, you seem to refuse to accept the fundamentals of species naming. These human ancestors (as evolutionary advocates name them) are different species. If you have any qualms about them, write to the palaentologists and natural historians and biological scientists who determined that they are indeed different species.

Are you a scientist or not?