I got in a debate (turned into an argument) with my roommate today about this topic. Bacteria which is harmful to a person's health enters them. This person goes to see a doctor and is prescribed antibiotics. These antibiotics kill 99.999% of this bacterial species in the person. One bacteria picks up a plasmid encoding for antibiotic resistance, and survives. This bacteria replicates and the person must now take a different antibiotic. This is a quite simple example of evolution that occurs every day. How would one argue that this is not evolution or that evolution does not exist after this statement has been made? Thank you!
Well I guess you could say that that one resistant bacteria always existed (or was from a cell line that has). But that would be a pretty silly argument with lots of assumptions and speculations on the thoughts of a creator.
:O ... You guys ARGUED over germs!? Of course Evolution exists. But I mean... who argues over this stuff!? Go hug your roommate and restore the balance and love in your home @ once. tell him your germs and his germs are all the same anyways
Creationists distinguish between "microevolution" (development of different variants or strains within a given species)which they accept and "macroevloution" (evolution of one species into a different species)which they don't accept. They'd probably say the resistant germs microevolved.
This is what I was thinking, but "species" is a term defined by us, humans. We decided when speciation has occurred so the line between macroevolution and microevolution is very blurry. To some, the resistant bacteria is a separate species to the non resistant bacteria. To others, they are just variations of the same species. Saying microevolution exists but macroevolution does not would just weaken that side of the argument. We are arguing using real examples, and both of us are familiar with transformation of eubacteria ("germs, lol") so that was the example being used.
So one of us should bite the bullet and concede? If this is the case, what would it mean for that person's religious beliefs? This person's religion makes no sense in the presence of evolution.
I take it (s)he's the one you think should concede? If (s)he's a fundamentalist Christian, it would be tantamount to denying her/his faith. But if you believe, as I do, that evolution, both micro and macro, is the best interpretation of the available evidence, it's a shame to deny that just to keep peace with your roommate. Could you possibly agree to disagree?
The only people who will argue against such plain evidence are the ones who for whatever reason don't embrace much of anything science has to say. Some religious people object to anyone looking under God's robes. Evolution is nothing more than an organism's ability to adapt to a changing environment. The trouble starts with creation of the lifeform, and this is where religion gets into the act. x
