by Space Madness 89 Replies latest jw friends
Space Madness,
How about this:
Where do you get your statistics that 99.9% of people who believe in evolution don't understand it?
Why do you think that more people who believe in it don't understand it than say people who don't?
What biology text are you referring to?
Does your disbelief in evolution place you among the 0.1% who actually understand it?
If so, how have you distinguished yourself from amongst the other sceptics?
99.9% may seem absurd to you because you're in the medical and most the people around you understand evolution. In any other field and in most colleges 99.9% don't understand evolution. I have been in plenty of debates with college student majoring in political science, psychology, journalism, or any other Arts major who are hardcore believers in evolution but knows nothing about evolution or biology in general. If i was to amend my estimate, I would drop it from 99.9% to 99.2%.
What worries me SM, is this opinion (yours) is coming from someone who ironically does not understand evolution, made clear by your answers.
With that in mind maybe you can see how embarrassing the statistic of 99.9% amended to 99.2% is....
If you have added to the list people who think antibiotics have led to bacterial resistance, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG, they did not evolve the resistence before the exposure to antibiotics. The enviroment selcts the genes, antibiotic use alters the enviroment. You have misunderstood the textbook.
As for my enviroment, I have spent 7 years in higher education amongst students of all degrees. I have spent 10 years debating religion and evolution. The only people I have heard false claims about evolution from, have been those that deny it. The last person being a christian doctor 6 days ago, who, and I quote said "how could a bacteria think to evolve to a higher state, what is it's motive?"
So as useless as anecdotal evidence is (an important thing to remember), my experience has been the complete opposite, those that accept it understand it, those that don't can't define evolution to save their life, bar a few who claim micro and macro evolution are two different things.
The FIRST thing I ask someone who denies evolution is simply...please define evolution. I have never had someone get it right yet.
Actually your assumptions about me don't really hold any water. I am not in the medical field.
But you started this discussion with a claim that even you have trouble tying down. If people believe that evolution is a mechanism to explain much of what they see in the physical world, then they are applying a theory to explain things. If, however, they observe discrepancies, then even people that understand the theory rather well, would be inclined to say they don't understand what's going on. What exactly is a species, but a construct to distinguish a cat from a dog? When does a wolf become a dog and how does it make a difference? How much genetic variation is allowed before one sample is a distinct species from another? Can a genomic specialist distinguish two closely related animals without looking at them, but only examining DNA?
Then, of course, there are people who reject the concept of looking at the physical world entirely. But does their lack of understanding reflect a higher understanding?
Actually, Newton had no explanation for gravity other than its behavior: its force of attraction between masses and its ability to act over distance. He had no idea what might cause it. By comparison electro-magnetism is better understood.
But you still haven't even said which textbook you are holding up to criticism.
I don't know if this will help or hinder but here goes...
Evolution is the changes in the frequency of competing alleles in a gene pool.
Mutations in individuals happen more or less randomly - there is a small proviso here that we can disregard for the moment.
If a mutation builds a body that is better equiped to survive and reproduce then more copies of that allele will be passed on.
However it is the environment that provides the selection pressure.
Without antibiotics, a mutation that would make a bacterium more resistant may not thrive at all and the mutation is likely to disappear as quick as it appears.
However, antibiotics kills off most of the competition paving the way for the fortuitous resistant bacterium to prosper.
So on the one hand the selection pressure does not cause the mutation - bacterium do not "try" or "learn" how to resist.
However it is the selection pressure of the anitbiotics that dictates the winners and losers of competing alleles.
If you have added to the list people who think antibiotics have led to bacterial resistance, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG, they did not evolve the resistence before the exposure to antibiotics. The enviroment selcts the genes, antibiotic use alters the enviroment. You have misunderstood the textbook.
What you said makes no sense. If no bacteria is resistance prior to the creation of the antibiotic than all the bacteria would be destroyed. Let's revisit the text : " In reality, genes do not “know” when to mutate; the chance that a mutation will occur is independent of whether a new phenotype would benefit the organism. The only way antibiotic resistance arises is if some bacteria happen to have a mutation that confers antibiotic resistance before exposure to the drug."
You're reading comprehension is appalling.
Actually your assumptions about me don't really hold any water. I am not in the medical field.
The post wasn't directed at you. Why would I assume you're in the medical field?
Initially the antibiotic works well.... but you have no appreciation for the number of bacteria we are talking about and the biological process. Antibiotics do not work 100% for a start, just as the invention of a gun and bullet did not result in all humans instantly dying or all humans instantly dying whn a bullet is shot.
But, to explain, the longer that the bacteria are exposed to the new antibiotic,it the higher the chance they can survive exposure and evolve reistance. Why? the biggest issue in antibiotic resistance is giving too low a dose or the patient not finishing their prescription, stopping the pills when they feel better, allowing the bacteria to survive and adapt.
This is not just happening via doctors prescriptions, people are putting antibiotics in hand washes, domestic cleaning liquids etc, all exposing the bacteria to the new 'enviroment' without killing it.
I am afraid you are making evident you are part of your 99.9%
When you author and publish a biology textbook that's reviewed by other biologist I'll take your word for it. As for now I'm going to side with the experts over you.
Rethinking it, Snare, was your comment to me directed at my post 185 about reading comprehension, not post 188 about the textbook creating more misconceptions than it was clearing up?
I'm still scratching my head about your comment.
Hey, GrreatTeacher, this is totally off-topic, but for your avatar I recommend Tony the Tiger in a Jesus costume. Which, coincidentally, will render any opposing argument invalid.
--sd-7
