Is this proof that evolution is wrong?

Question

I've read that if you put bacteria to fungi most will die, but the ones that live produce offspring that resist the bacteria, thus evolution. Before we had animal doctors, if a dog has puppies, all of them were subjected to the same virus' and deseases, the geneticly weaker pups would die while the strong lived, and make stronger pups. Is that evolution, or were the pups that lived just geneticlly stronger? Also if I inherit a stronger tolerance for the effects of alcohol and tabaco from my mother, did I evolve?

Answer 1

Well sure but remember that evolution is based on genes too....
eg Cro Magnon, Neanderthal.....

You should've included this: If you have TB and take the medicine, but don't kill it, it will begin to reproduce and create drug resistant TB. but it did not evolve

Answer 2

No, this is evidence (not "proof") that evolution is right.

In both cases, there is variation in the population. Let's say one fungus, a bluish mold, spent a fair amount of energy pumping an organic molecule into the environment. It does poorly next to it's neighbors because it expends that energy. Along come some bacteria. Suddenly that mold, Penicillium, has the advantage over the other fungi and the bacteria because it produces penicillin.

The puppies don't have to be stronger or weaker. The runt of the litter may have a tissue type more resistant to the virus tan its siblings.

In both cases, the favorable trait is passed down to the next generation. That's evolution.

Answer 3

intel_knight is correct. Sorry, you didn't prove/disprove anything on evolution.

Research shows you won't become have a stronger tolerance for the effects of alcohol or tobacco, but a stronger ability to be addicted. Your brain would actually be hard wired to be addicted with the first use instead of having to go through the entire process of becoming addicted that most follow. The work on alcoholism was done on autopsy studies prior to all our CTs/MRIs. So instead of you becoming stronger, your mother actually built in a weakness into your system that could make your DNA weaker in the long run. The autopsy studies showed this happened for 3-4 generations after the person with problem created a child. It actually fulfills biblical statements of the sins of the parents being on the child to the 4th (and in some places 6th) generation. How else could someone explain to a less advanced race of people the genetics versus environment principles?

As for evolution, I believe God predicated every principle this world is built on . . . it's fine with me if He used evolution to create the world.

Answer 4

No. Just the opposite: This is evidence that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.

The process you describe is called natural selection, which is the mechanism by which species evolve. Any trait which contributes to the survival of an individual will be passed along to his/her offspring, who in turn will pass such traits to their own offspring, so that the species changes one tiny step at a time.

With regard to your last question, if your mother and you inherit any survival-enhancing trait from your ancestors, then that is another example of natural selection. Tolerance for the effects of certain stimulants may or may not prove to be conducive to the survival of your descendants; to answer that question, we can only wait and see.

Answer 5

No that is proof that evolution is right.

Creatures with more resistance to diseases, stronger immune systems, are more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. Over generations then that strength or resistance is incorporated in to the species. In some cases, if part of the population is isolated from the rest, or starts differentiating from others enough that parts of the population don't breed together, you can get a new species.

Answer 6

No.... you did not "evolve" The expression of your genes to have a higher tolerance to alcohol was in your parents genes already. For whatever reason, the expression you show was muted in your parents. Evolution takes considerable longer to take place.

A purely hypothetical example.... you wear narrow high heeled shoes. They hurt your pinky toe but you wear them anyways, as do your daughters and their daughters for a million generations. Over time, the shoes begin to cut the circulation in the pinky toes, infection sets in and they die. Some of the daughters begging to have smaller pinky toes. More of them live to produce children. But the shoes still hurt the pinky toes to some degree, and they are always complaining to their spouses, this results in them having fewer children. Over time the pinky toe begins to get smaller, eventually there is only a rudimentary vestige of the pinky toe left, the shoes fit without hurting, so they are happy and have lots of children. Now you can evolution has occurred. It might sound a bit silly, but similar forces of nature are always at work. Don't try to figure them out, God made the forces of nature, it's beyond comprehension!!!

Answer 7

Evolution occurs among species, not individuals.

If the genetically "weaker" pups die, they can't pass on their weak genes. The pups that survive AND procreate will have better PROBABILITY to pass those resistant genes to their offspring. THAT is evolution.

If your mother smokes/drinks, nothing is being changed in her DNA to make her or her offspring resistant to anything. If she was born with resistant DNA, there is a possiblity that she will pass those genes on to you.

Answer 8

You're really all over the place here. The short answer is no.

"Survival of the fittest" is the mechanism of evolution, so to speak. Organisms with traits which enable them to cope with their environment tend to survive, while the rest tend to die off. Evolution is basically the term for what happens over time, as the heritable traits of species adapt to changing conditions.

Answer 9

The examples that you are giving show that evolution is occurring, not that evolution is wrong. The theory of natural selection says that those who are better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and produce offspring, and therefore their offspring are more likely to inherit the genetic characteristics of their parents.

Answer 10

Selective breeding may contribute to evolution, or has simply been made possible by the evolutionary process. Where's the part that's supposed to be "proof" that the theory is wrong?

Or did you mean to demonstrate there is evidence to the contrary?