English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

37 answers

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is NOT an example of evolutionary micro-mutation. It is an example of adaptation. Evolution establishes the theory of a process whereby a system is changing from one form into the next...like on those cute little graphics where they show an amoebic cell becoming a tadpole and so on and so forth. There is no evidence from the distant, near or present time of evolution ever occuring.

2007-09-24 04:01:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 7

Yes, the birth or death of any living thing within a population changes the genome of that population. This is the simplest example I can think of. The population, as a whole has evolved.

You should note that evolution does not occur within individuals, but only populations.


Edit: The delusional individual Jana11 posted (below or on the next page of answers) that there is no evidence for evolution. This person does not understand what evolution is or how it works. The adaptations are a result of evolution. For a population to become resistant to antibiotics, there would have to be a change in the genome due to the reproductive success of those individuals which are resistant becoming prevalent in the population. This is how evolution works.

Evolution does not mean one form changes to the next. Dogs do not become cats. Humans are not descended from rocks. Evolution does not work that way, therefore evolutionary theory does not address that false assertion.

2007-09-24 03:51:46 · answer #2 · answered by coralsnayk 3 · 4 0

Many evolutionary biologists believe that the ability to digest milk after pubescence (when lactose intolerance starts cropping up in most people) is the latest step in human evolution.

Of course, to actually "see it in action", you'll need a few thousand years to spare and force milk on those lactose intolerant, which would will cause disentary in most lactose intolerant, which will eventually lead to dehydration and death. The genetics of those who can digest milk will be made stronger, increasing their rate of survival.

A simpler example can be the "cockroaches in a drawer" analogy: There are cockroaches in the bottom drawer of your desk. The same species of cockroach, but some are taller and rounder, others are shorter and flatter. You're trying to kill these cockroaches by beating them with your shoe for twenty minutes a day. You kill mostly the rounder roaches, while the flat ones scuttle away. After several generations of cockroaches in your drawer (say about a year or two -- all jokes about roaches aside, bugs generally don't live very long) the roaches in the drawer are now all or almost all flatter cockroaches (and you're forced to resort to more drastic measures), because only the flatter ones survived to pass along their genetic material.

Unfortunately, at this current time, (conveniently upon "discovering" the evolutionary theory), humans are now calling the shots on whether a species survives, thrives or dies out, making the theory inapplicable, because our species can manipulate the world around it unlike any other. Furthermore, human evolution is now a non-issue, because societal preferences in mates are so diverse at this point that it will take a nuclear war or something like the Bubonic Plague pandemic to rework the human genome any more.

2007-09-24 04:13:17 · answer #3 · answered by Ruadhán J McElroy 3 · 2 0

Every living thing on earth today is evolving, including ourselves. But the rate is so slow that ordinaruly we cannot witness any significant change in a human lifetime, or even in a century. Still, many examples of natural selection in action can be observed, even in a few years time. And in primitive organisms that reproduce every half hour or so, like bacteria, significant changes can often be observed within a few days. Of course, some will say that these are simply examples of "microevolution", but in fact there is no such thing as microevolution. There is only evolution. happening over a short period of time, the changes are small (micro). Happening over great periods of time the changes are huge (macro).

2007-09-24 03:57:41 · answer #4 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 2 0

Yes. Every time a bacterium becomes resistant to an antibiotic. Also, insects that become resistant to pesticide. Moths that have changed color to blend in with their changing environment.

Most evolution, of course, takes place over hundreds and thousands of years, very slowly and gradually. Which is why you don't perceive it happening in most cases. Yet it does.

Again, you need to ask these questions in a science forum. If you're trying to trip up the bad, wicked atheists, your attempts are laughable.

EDIT: Folks, please note that this poster is currently contributing to other threads ridiculing evolution. She is a full-blown fundie and has no interest in debating, or being educated. She's just trying to trip people up. With very little success, I might add. She has a lot of pride (a sin for a Christian, of course) and is bearing false witness by pretending to really want to debate these answers. No matter how many logical answers you provide, she'll just say that we don't provide answers but merely attack Christians. Which is, of course, ridiculous, as the responses in this very thread prove.

2007-09-24 03:52:13 · answer #5 · answered by Cap'n Zeemboo 3 · 3 1

Well, in a way, yes. There have been many examples already listed in the bacteriological world.

But one way to look at it, and I'll do my best to summarize, is to take a look at "isolated populations" on the Earth. The Galapagos Islands, for example, and Australia/New Zealand for another example. There are animals in these places that exist nowhere else on Earth. Why is New Zealand full of flightless birds that exist nowhere else? http://www.terranature.org/flightlessBirds.htm

How do these varying species develop?

Also, take a look at the fossil histories that have been compiled. Ask yourself why there are times in the past when certain animals did not exist, then they existed, then they later did not exist again?

2007-09-24 04:07:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

yeah i agree with the dude at the top, but one thing you christians think is that "if evolution is true why dont we see it?" and the thing is that evolution occurs on a timeline that we cant fully comprehend. it takes hundreds of generations for evolution to occur, thats thousands of years. so we as a people cannot actually see evolution really. but it is fact, idiots claim "oh well its only a theory" its only a theory bc theres no way to test it in a lab environment. in order for a hypothesis to be a credible scientific theory it has to pretty much be proven to be true before accredited scientists will put their name to that theory, its not like the myth of creationism which cannot and will not ever be a "theory" bc theres no evidence to back it up.

2007-09-24 05:26:02 · answer #7 · answered by schfifty_55_five 2 · 0 0

One of the cutest is the new strain of bacterium that has arisen that is able to eat high explosives. The chemicals have only been in existence for a while, and the bugs have worked out a way to digest them.

Don't expect to hear about dogs turning into cats. That can't happen, and even if it could such a large-scale change would take millions of years to accomplish. If you want big demonstrations, you have as much chance of seeing a mountain rise out of a plain.

CD

2007-09-24 03:56:24 · answer #8 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 5 0

Every single species. Real-time experiments have shown that average mitochondrial genome mutation rates are around 6 x 10^-8 mut/site/generation. For humans it is 4.4 x 10^-8 mut/site/generation).
Evolution is proceeding today at the same constant rate predicted if humans and chimps were the same species 3-5 million years ago.

2007-09-24 03:59:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Definitely!

During the US Civil War (1865) the average height of males was 5'-6". Today it is 6'-0".
Why? Because we are constantly evolving. Evolving to fit the world around us.

2007-09-24 03:57:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ghri/bbc_virginshark.html

"Female hammerhead sharks can reproduce without having sex, scientists confirm. The evidence comes from a shark at Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska which gave birth to a pup in 2001 despite having had no contact with a male.

Genetic tests by a team from Belfast, Nebraska and Florida prove conclusively the young animal possessed no paternal DNA, Biology Letters journal reports.

The type of reproduction exhibited had been seen before in bony fish but never in cartilaginous fish such as sharks."

2007-09-24 03:53:14 · answer #11 · answered by Thrudheim 3 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers