It is a normal part of Bacterial Lifestyle. They have to adapt to survive, but I'm asking specifically what the evolution is. Even if the AntiBiotic is Synthetic, the bacteria by default still have to use the same molecular bases that are available to it.
The evolution is the change in the nucleotide combination and after that the selection on the offspring. You already agreed there is a change in the nucleotide arrangement "shift", "recombination" or whatever you call it.
I donÃ‚Â´t really get it, what do you think evolution is?
Wait a moment. There is no misleading and no misinformation. There are thousands of books about it and hundreds of university courses open to the public.
It's Adaptation, which is just a recombination of nucleotides... You and every other evolutionist on this planet want mislead/misinform the entire population mankind,...
What characteristics must a mechanism have for you to call it evolution?
Well, actually it really clearly and I mean really clearly is. Change in the genome and selection of a specific trait. Nobody ever stated evolution is something different.
that this is somehow evolution, when it clearly, and I mean clearly isn't.
I am now very interested in that demonstration and please use understandable terms or at least define what you mean by them like "shift" and "recombination" which you still havenÃ‚Â´t defined.
You will in fact keep stating it's evolution, when it's not, and it can actually be demonstrated as not being evolution.
not on itÃ‚Â´s own no. it just generates the necessary variability to have selection (and other mechanisms) to act on. Then you have evolution.
Mutation doesn't = evolution. Recombination of nucleotide bases does not = evolution.
I donÃ‚Â´t even think a debate has even started yet because we are still in the progress to define the first argument. Not rebuttal yet on any of our sides
This recombination of nucleotides is all that is needed for the Bacteria to find a way around the Antibiotic. This is not misleading, it's actually what it is, you just want to mask your problem with terms, because you have actually lost the debate.
I donÃ‚Â´t mask my points with terms. Clearly defined terms are crucial to even understand what your discussion partner has to say, and IÃ‚Â´m still trying to understand where your problem lies because you use some terms which are not defined or used in another meaning as they are used in scientific context.
To declare victory before you even clearly stated what your point is, is ... I donÃ‚Â´t know? childish?
Another piece of the puzzle. What do you mean by new? Does it have to use other nucleobases than Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine? Do you think the total amount of bases in the DNA is constant? What does recombination and mutation with the DNA? Could it be that the sequence of the bases are changed by this processes? What is the result of that? What happens at the replication step? Is replication always perfect?
This is not evolution, the Bacteria isn't using new nucleotides, and it isn't creating new nucleotides.
To have actually an argument you should give us a bit more than:
"nah, I donÃ‚Â´t feel like this is evolution because evolution methinks is bah bah."
Yes, so what? And what is recombination as you use it? The same as this:
The Bacteria, as a matter of fact already have the nucleotide bases contained within their DNA to recombine.
And why is this not qualified as changing the genetic makeup of the bacteria and all itÃ‚Â´s offspring?
Since this is true, and neither Skeptic, or McStone can show where the evolution is happening. Then my point still stands.
The debate is over, and evolution has yet again failed to show itself.
I didnÃ‚Â´t show? so please what do you think evolution is and why do the things I said donÃ‚Â´t qualify?
I hope you donÃ‚Â´t mean it when you said the debate is over because as i said I donÃ‚Â´t think we even started. We even didnÃ‚Â´t scratch the cover of the surface.