4 ms·

> The emergence of deadly, bacteria resistant hospital superbugs is on the rise according to the CDC. Given this crisis produced by natural selection, it's ama

• Retric 14y ago
  I thought it was interesting they completely avoided the evolution issue in there response to: How Do Certain Bacteria Become Resistant?
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • lutusp 14y ago
    I suspect the reason is that they want people to read the article without popping their intellectual circuit breakers and going offline. There's no reason to blow off 61% of your reading audience by saying the "wrong thing". I doubt the same topic would be covered in the same evasive way in Europe, where scientific literacy is higher.
• cobrausn 14y ago
  I'd say that number is probably higher - I know a number of people who believe evolution happens but think that humanity didn't evolve from monkeys. Because we are special, or something. I generally don't query further.
  • lutusp 14y ago
    > I'd say that number is probably higher ... It is higher among the educated, and lower among those with a HS degree or less: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lvtmmfl19eqfl0cpgxojzw.gif http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupS... (Obligatory reminder that schooling is no assurance of education.)
  • aethertap 14y ago
    I like to point out, when faced with that argument, that they are right! We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved with them from a common ancestor! That doesn't seem to help though...
    • lutusp 14y ago
      > We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved with them from a common ancestor! Yes, and (snicker, snicker) we therefore evolved from a creature that was "lower" than a monkey. :)
• sbmassey 14y ago
  As I understand it, these guys distinguish between "micro-evolution", such as the current topic, and "macro-evolution", which is the large scale monkey stuff they don't believe in.
  • lutusp 14y ago
    I hadn't heard that one. It sounds as though they're painting themselves into a corner. This reminds me of the rather funny Creationist response to the closing of one of the much-loved "gaps" in the fossil record. When a new fossil discovery appears to close a gap, they proudly announce that they now have two gaps -- one on either side. :)
• sp332 14y ago
  Natural selection only chooses from existing variations. Obviously "selection" cannot create new genetic information.
  • lotharbot 14y ago
    Evolution is the result of multiple forces. Mutation and gene flow add variation to a population (mutation creates variation; gene flow imports it from elsewhere). Selection and drift change the ratios of existing variations (selection chooses the "best"; drift is random fluctuation between equally viable variations.) When two different subgroups of a population go through the process separately, over time they can diverge enough to no longer be able to interbreed, and therefore become separate species. There are those who believe selection works within a species, while simultaneously believing the process as a whole breaks down or is inadequate on some larger scale.
  • lutusp 14y ago
    > Natural selection only chooses from existing variations. No, this is wrong. What we call "natural selection" includes the effect of various sources of genetic mutation. It is by this process that selection (the entire process) does create new genetic information. Another way to say this is that, without identifying and addressing sources of mutation, natural selection would not be a complete theory.