While this doesn't prove that evolution is responsible for the way humans are today and how they evolved from an ape like ancestor, doesn't the fact that viruses become immune to antibiotics by adapting to their effects and therefore passing those adaptive traits to their "offspring" making antibiotics useless prove evolution at least is an occurrence in nature? If not, what evidence can you support your denial of this?
2007-11-10 21:58:43 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jack- "give god the upper hand" for what? Killing people? You're god sounds pretty cruel...
2007-11-10 22:04:29 · update #1
badcock4- who said anything about god? i asked if this proves evolution, not disproves god. according to you these things aren't mutually exclusive so why are you defensive.
Phil F- how right you are
2007-11-10 22:11:56 · update #2
Lucky S- and I encourage you to ask them. I may not have the answer but I would be interested to hear what you have to say.
2007-11-10 22:14:38 · update #3
Yes it is, though its bacteria that evolve to combat antibiotics - not viruses.
Creationists would claim that this was an example of microevolution though, not understanding that there's not real difference between micro and 'macroevolution', they use straw-man arguments of cats turning in to dogs because they have no desire to understand reality.
If people can reject a theory as strongly supported as evolution the chances are that reason and logic will be wasted on them.
2007-11-10 22:11:32 · answer #1 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think this would back up Evolution, but humans and animals can also become immune to things over time. Is it Evolution or just developing an immunity like with an immune system, but I suppose if all generations of the virus afterward have the immunity it would be strong evidence. It's a great question, but for me it raises others.
EDIT:
Cockroaches can technically do the same thing as a virus. They can pass down resistances to bug spray over time, but has the cockroach really changed all that much since the prehistoric era? The cockroach could always adapt. Maybe the fact that they can mutate is simply a part of who they are anyway, whether Evolution is true for the rest of us or not.
2007-11-11 06:08:53 · answer #2 · answered by Lucky S 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are mixing "apples and oranges" in your question. The fact that a species can evolve different characteristics as a result of natural selection can be clearly demonstrated.
Macro-evolution doesn't stop at saying that over time a species of animal like the wolf could become a Saint Bernard or a Beagle. It claims that a Fish can become a Frog and that in the long run a Frog can become a Prince given enough time.
2007-11-11 06:09:33 · answer #3 · answered by Martin S 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, because the bacteria is an adapted form of the same bacteria.
Adaptive evolution does not prove evolution from one type of life form to another.
Genesis 1
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
...
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
2007-11-11 06:36:01 · answer #4 · answered by AZ2CO 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are always people who will doubt such things. I know someone who says that God created life, but natural selection still happens. Personally I think that you've come up with a very good argument for evolution!
2007-11-11 06:08:02 · answer #5 · answered by Mordent 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
God created the earth and every thing in it. He has told us this, -----BUT, he didn't tell us HOW! Perhaps the thing that we are missing is if he uses evolution as a tool after the initial creation.
It seems that until we know the basics, we'll never understand the specifics
2007-11-11 06:05:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's a demonstration (proof is a misleading term) of mutation and natural selection, in other words, evolution.
2007-11-11 11:14:06 · answer #7 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this topic is plain confusing from any angle... watch a movie called, Unlocking The Mystery of Life... i haven't seen the whole thing yet as it takes quite a bit of mind power to watch it and take it all in at once... its a very full on movie... you may have to watch it a number of times to make full sense of it
2007-11-11 06:23:04 · answer #8 · answered by JGamer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is proof that evolution happens as you say, the part not proven is the particular order and theory of what happened to specific species. Although we have a good idea.
2007-11-11 06:01:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I like Jacks' redefinition of 'cruel':
'Sovereign'.
I'll go with that. Viruses are proof of invisible sky-god's sovereignty.
*wOot!*
2007-11-11 06:16:16 · answer #10 · answered by Bajingo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋