For those who think evolution is "just a theory".....?

Question

How do you explain the Superbugs (bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics)?? I mean, think about it....this is proof of evolution at the microscopic scale, IN OUR LIFETIME. For decades bacteria were treated with antibiotics, but due to people using antibiotics either too much or not long enough, the strongest bacteria survive to create a new strain.

I'll say it again, THE STRONGEST SURVIVE. The bacteria EVOLVE into something similar, but new. And it's not coincidence either.

There are several different strains of bug that have become resistant to medication in the last couple decades. Now why do you think that is? The bugs are evolving people. That's not theory, that's well documented, visual PROOF. So my question is, how can you possibly call evolution a theory when you know that?

I mean, if this measurable, provable thing can happen in a matter of decades...don't you think it can happen over millions of years on a grander scale??

Beingbad...you're a fool. Do you think humans have been scientifically studying chimps for thousands of years? Are you insane? That's a relatively very very new science, i.e. maybe a century give or take. How do you know they're NOT still evolving?

Answer 1

Basically they view it like this: You can pour 1 oz. of water into a glass, but you can't pour 8 oz. into a glass. They refuse to accept that small changes can add up to a big one. Yet they provide no mechanism that would stop small changed from creating larger ones. But to put it a real simple way, they are ignorant.

Answer 2

Well your last sentence sums up the other sides arguments perfectly.

They assert there is a difference between bacteria evolving to become resistant to anti-biotics as micro-evolution, but say that large scale changes over time can't be proven, which they call macro-evolution. This is of course fallacious on it's face, as the process of so-called "macro-evolution" is merely "micro-evolution" over a long period of time. Further, it is fairly impossible to prove it given the defintions they lay out as one necessarily requires it happen over a long period of time (by definition). Thus it's a fallacious definition, false diachotemy, and bad conclusion.

Further, the only real way they can assert that Evolution is impossible is if they take the Young Earth model, and say that the world has only been around for 6000 years. If that were true, then it is very true that Evolution could not have happened on the scale Scientists assert it has. This is of course attempting to refute an arguement by fallaciously attacking it's premises, and it should be obvious to see why it fails. It is true that if the world was 6000 years old, evolution would be impossible, but the world is not 6000 years old, thus this is not a valid arguement.

It's a good example, but trust me, they'll never believe it.

Answer 3

Why would you discount mutation as being the definition of what you are referring to? I would call it adaptation UNLESS you water down the definition of evolution. As I have witnessed, that's an attempt being perpetrated to this day by those who are interested in proving evolution to be fact.

I have witnessed this "evolving" of the definition here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

The Definition:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

whereas the definition which occured earlier was this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

Our Living Language : Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection assumed that tiny adaptations occur in organisms constantly over millions of years. Gradually, a new species develops that is distinct from its ancestors. In the 1970s, however, biologists Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed that evolution by natural selection may not have been such a smooth and consistent process. Based on fossils from around the world that showed the abrupt appearance of new species, Eldridge and Gould suggested that evolution is better described through punctuated equilibrium. That is, for long periods of time species remain virtually unchanged, not even gradually adapting. They are in equilibrium, in balance with the environment. But when confronted with environmental challenges—sudden climate change, for example—organisms adapt quite quickly, perhaps in only a few thousand years. These active periods are punctuations, after which a new equilibrium exists and species remain stable until the next punctuation.

Answer 4

For the most part you are correct. Science can bring that theory all the way up to the big bang. Right to the split second of the big bang. What caused the big bang is easy. God. The rest comes with the bang. Some say prove it. I say prove it not to be true. What if we find other life or they find us as if that hasn't ha[ppened. Simple. Part of the big bang the universe evolves as it was planned and so will this place we call home.

Answer 5

Well the problem is you are describing once again micro-evolution. (variation within a species) You are not describing anything that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a bug will evolve totally into another species like a lizard and eventually into a human.

Evidence like that likewise is very ineffective to demonstrate evolution. We're not talking about a new immune system that was formed as a result of stimulus, but we are talking about minor adapatations to an immune system which already exists.

That would be like arguing that people that get addicted to caffeine are evolving. Well no they arent, they are simply introducing high amounts of a drug into their system and it is merely reacting to it. There is no evidence to suggest that an overexposure to drugs and antibodies will help transform us into a new species, but merely cause unpleasant reactions within our current systems which are not going cause us to morph into other species over time.

Answer 6

the problem with this debate is that the terms people use have different meanings, "The Observed Theory of Evolution" is really a fact, and I believe in Creation. How?
Because you are talking about Bacteria becoming NEW Bacteria.
The idea that single celled organisms became multicelled organisms IS just theory (in science they call that a Hypothesis, because it has not been observed)
To believe in Creation you MUST believe in the observed theory of evolution.

Answer 7

Your absolutely right about natural selection. The strongest do survive and the weak die. This however does nothing to prove evolution. Show me a "missing" link of something that is changing from one animal to another and I will rethink my beliefs.

Answer 8

That's right, lady. I believe in evolution. It's a fact. BUt would you be kind enough to explain where did all of this evolution start from? I mean how did everything start? If we say this universe started with a micron (or a big bang for that matter) approximately 10 billion years ago), why didn't it start 12 or 8 billion years ago? What caused that big bang. Just think about it.

Answer 9

Your question is a good proof of evolution, but the creationists are not interested in facts - they will tell you that those are evil bacteria will only kill those who do not believe.

Answer 10

Why aren't chimps... eh hmmmm, man's closet link in the evolution theory still evolving? They have not evolved in the slightest in how many hundreds or thousands of years of recorded history.