I think it's hilarious that one guy said he believed in evolution but didn't care if others didn't and I said I don't believe in evolution but didn't care if it was taught in schools, and everyone jumped down both of our throats. I think at this point y'all are just having too much fun fighting about it.
People disagreeing with you, and explaining why they disagree with you, is not "jumping down your throat."
I took special effort to write my posts in a way that expressed why I disagreed without coming off as unnecessarily hostile or combative, in fact!
My behavior in these sorts of discussions back in high school would have me banned under the current board rules, but I have matured as an individual since then, and I have also come to the realization that treating people who don't share my perspective as morons only causes them to double-down on their behavior/beliefs. It's better to address people as misinformed or uninformed, and try to phrase things politely but firmly. Even then, of course, there's no guarantee that some people might take offense at that, but at least I can honestly say that causing offense was never my intention.
It took two weeks for E. coli to go from being unable to tolerate a basic dose of antibiotics to super-mutant strains being able to thrive despite a 1000x dose of that antibiotic. That's evolution. It's a testable and predictable fact, and pretending it ain't so won't save us from a future of fully-resistant infections where we're back to people dying from a scratch on the face. Because we know the mechanisms of evolution and how it works, we're able to use counter-measures like telling people to use the entire course of antibiotics, not feeding them willy-nilly to animals, or even having temporary moratoriums on using certain antibiotics that everything is becoming resistant to so that the resistance eventually fades away (maintaining extra metabolic pathways or producing extra chemicals to get around antibiotics is energetically expensive after all, so if there's no need for it to survive, eventually strains that lose those characteristics and can spend more energy on reproduction and will win out).
If it's all just assumed to be magic or whatever and no one understands the mechanisms, then countermeasures cannot be developed or won't be followed because people don't 'believe' in it. Denial of reality could end up being the death of us all.
I just marvel at the complete immunity to irony it must take to discount decades and millions of man-hours of methodical research on a subject because "science is wrong sometimes" but then turn right around and say it's an indisputable fact that everything is actually controlled by a magic sky wizard who we can't see, hear, smell, or measure with any kind of equipment man has ever invented or ever will invent, yet all the proof you need was written by thousand year old dead dudes in book about magic boats and talking bushes.
It took two weeks for E. coli to go from being unable to tolerate a basic dose of antibiotics to super-mutant strains being able to thrive despite a 1000x dose of that antibiotic. That's evolution. It's a testable and predictable fact, and pretending it ain't so won't save us from a future of fully-resistant infections where we're back to people dying from a scratch on the face. Because we know the mechanisms of evolution and how it works, we're able to use counter-measures like telling people to use the entire course of antibiotics, not feeding them willy-nilly to animals, or even having temporary moratoriums on using certain antibiotics that everything is becoming resistant to so that the resistance eventually fades away (maintaining extra metabolic pathways or producing extra chemicals to get around antibiotics is energetically expensive after all, so if there's no need for it to survive, eventually strains that lose those characteristics and can spend more energy on reproduction and will win out).
If it's all just assumed to be magic or whatever and no one understands the mechanisms, then countermeasures cannot be developed or won't be followed because people don't 'believe' in it. Denial of reality could end up being the death of us all.
This adaptation to antibiotics can be treated by applying knowledge of evolution.
As it turns out, antibiotic resistant strains don't actually compete quite as well as normal ones under normal conditions.
So you have a superbug? What do you do? Well, take the patient off the antibiotics. The superbug begins to lose the competition for survival and get bred out.
Then you put the patient back on antibiotics.
In other words, the theory creates usable predictions that work.
@jwalk
1) Science IS wrong sometimes. Or at least, has been in the past. Pretty sure that is an indisputable fact.
2) The "magic sky wizard" is VERY disputable. It happens quite frequently, in fact.
3) The "evidence" of the "magic sky wizard" is actually much more current than the Bible, but most Christians tend to discount the newer evidence.
It took two weeks for E. coli to go from being unable to tolerate a basic dose of antibiotics to super-mutant strains being able to thrive despite a 1000x dose of that antibiotic. That's evolution. It's a testable and predictable fact, and pretending it ain't so won't save us from a future of fully-resistant infections where we're back to people dying from a scratch on the face. Because we know the mechanisms of evolution and how it works, we're able to use counter-measures like telling people to use the entire course of antibiotics, not feeding them willy-nilly to animals, or even having temporary moratoriums on using certain antibiotics that everything is becoming resistant to so that the resistance eventually fades away (maintaining extra metabolic pathways or producing extra chemicals to get around antibiotics is energetically expensive after all, so if there's no need for it to survive, eventually strains that lose those characteristics and can spend more energy on reproduction and will win out).
If it's all just assumed to be magic or whatever and no one understands the mechanisms, then countermeasures cannot be developed or won't be followed because people don't 'believe' in it. Denial of reality could end up being the death of us all.
This adaptation to antibiotics can be treated by applying knowledge of evolution.
As it turns out, antibiotic resistant strains don't actually compete quite as well as normal ones under normal conditions.
So you have a superbug? What do you do? Well, take the patient off the antibiotics. The superbug begins to lose the competition for survival and get bred out.
Then you put the patient back on antibiotics.
In other words, the theory creates usable predictions that work.
This is no longer true. Some of these environmental bugs that are moving into pathogen territory are so aggressive, they kill your microflora AND are unkillable. They come from a world of thousands trying to murder them for scraps every day. They are not scared of your microflora.
1) Science IS wrong sometimes. Or at least, has been in the past. Pretty sure that is an indisputable fact.
Just want to point out that the fact that science is so valuable to teach precisely because it is wrong sometimes. Because what proves a scientific theory wrong? Scientists, using more science.
Science has self-correcting mechanisms that only makes it more and more accurate as time goes on. It adapts and changes as more information becomes available.
@donnbobhardy, we do not comprehend the organic fascination of self-poisoning, auditory damage and sexually transmitted disease. Warned @donnbobhardy (0 points for 1 week) for "Kicked from thread: Not welcome"
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Actually, I'm not sure science can be wrong? Technically.
I mean, science means 'knowledge' and I'd argue that only true knowledge actually counts as knowledge - you can't have a 'correct mistake' or a 'true lie'. Science is all the knowledge we've acquired about the world. People can be mistaken about what they think is true and believe they have true knowledge when they're actually wrong, and put wrong things in alongside science. But that's on people, on scientists, not 'science'. Scientists continually refine their understanding to keep science as free as possible from human error.
I don't like describing science in religious terms, as that can conflate it as "just another religion."
Science is not a religion. Being a religious person does not mean you cannot be a scientific person, and vice versa.
However, one has to recognize that there is a point where science and religion diverge. At a certain point, facts and testable predictions must give way to faith and belief... and vice versa.
Now, not everyone can settle themselves with the divergence between science and religion. As far as individual beliefs go, that's one thing. But when one side is based on observational data and facts, and the other is based on blind faith... you can see why it's kind of disingenuous to play the "both sides" card when it comes to setting policy and the like.
As Philip K. Dick said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
Posts
People disagreeing with you, and explaining why they disagree with you, is not "jumping down your throat."
I took special effort to write my posts in a way that expressed why I disagreed without coming off as unnecessarily hostile or combative, in fact!
My behavior in these sorts of discussions back in high school would have me banned under the current board rules, but I have matured as an individual since then, and I have also come to the realization that treating people who don't share my perspective as morons only causes them to double-down on their behavior/beliefs. It's better to address people as misinformed or uninformed, and try to phrase things politely but firmly. Even then, of course, there's no guarantee that some people might take offense at that, but at least I can honestly say that causing offense was never my intention.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It took two weeks for E. coli to go from being unable to tolerate a basic dose of antibiotics to super-mutant strains being able to thrive despite a 1000x dose of that antibiotic. That's evolution. It's a testable and predictable fact, and pretending it ain't so won't save us from a future of fully-resistant infections where we're back to people dying from a scratch on the face. Because we know the mechanisms of evolution and how it works, we're able to use counter-measures like telling people to use the entire course of antibiotics, not feeding them willy-nilly to animals, or even having temporary moratoriums on using certain antibiotics that everything is becoming resistant to so that the resistance eventually fades away (maintaining extra metabolic pathways or producing extra chemicals to get around antibiotics is energetically expensive after all, so if there's no need for it to survive, eventually strains that lose those characteristics and can spend more energy on reproduction and will win out).
If it's all just assumed to be magic or whatever and no one understands the mechanisms, then countermeasures cannot be developed or won't be followed because people don't 'believe' in it. Denial of reality could end up being the death of us all.
Just to be clear, no one on this thread argued that antibiotic resistance did/does not evolve in bacteria.
This adaptation to antibiotics can be treated by applying knowledge of evolution.
As it turns out, antibiotic resistant strains don't actually compete quite as well as normal ones under normal conditions.
So you have a superbug? What do you do? Well, take the patient off the antibiotics. The superbug begins to lose the competition for survival and get bred out.
Then you put the patient back on antibiotics.
In other words, the theory creates usable predictions that work.
Well, crap.
1) Science IS wrong sometimes. Or at least, has been in the past. Pretty sure that is an indisputable fact.
2) The "magic sky wizard" is VERY disputable. It happens quite frequently, in fact.
3) The "evidence" of the "magic sky wizard" is actually much more current than the Bible, but most Christians tend to discount the newer evidence.
Geth, kick @donnbobhardy from the thread
This is no longer true. Some of these environmental bugs that are moving into pathogen territory are so aggressive, they kill your microflora AND are unkillable. They come from a world of thousands trying to murder them for scraps every day. They are not scared of your microflora.
Just want to point out that the fact that science is so valuable to teach precisely because it is wrong sometimes. Because what proves a scientific theory wrong? Scientists, using more science.
Science has self-correcting mechanisms that only makes it more and more accurate as time goes on. It adapts and changes as more information becomes available.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Warned @donnbobhardy (0 points for 1 week) for "Kicked from thread: Not welcome"
I mean, science means 'knowledge' and I'd argue that only true knowledge actually counts as knowledge - you can't have a 'correct mistake' or a 'true lie'. Science is all the knowledge we've acquired about the world. People can be mistaken about what they think is true and believe they have true knowledge when they're actually wrong, and put wrong things in alongside science. But that's on people, on scientists, not 'science'. Scientists continually refine their understanding to keep science as free as possible from human error.
In conclusion, science is God now.
Science is not a religion. Being a religious person does not mean you cannot be a scientific person, and vice versa.
However, one has to recognize that there is a point where science and religion diverge. At a certain point, facts and testable predictions must give way to faith and belief... and vice versa.
Now, not everyone can settle themselves with the divergence between science and religion. As far as individual beliefs go, that's one thing. But when one side is based on observational data and facts, and the other is based on blind faith... you can see why it's kind of disingenuous to play the "both sides" card when it comes to setting policy and the like.
As Philip K. Dick said, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar