Pascal's Wager Debunked video

[Darwinist]

Speaking of Evolution: Macroevolution observed in bacteria.

Viva Darwin!!   

But that still doesn't explain how Jesus horses turned in to birds. 

[eytanz]

But that still doesn't explain how Jesus horses turned in to birds. 

A wizard did it.

[wintermute]

But that still doesn't explain how Jesus horses turned in to birds. 

Veeeerrrrry slowly.

[Thaurismunths]

The vast majority of E. coli are what yoghurt commercials like to call "friendly bacteria", living in your gut and breaking down food into something we can absorb. True, there are a few rogue strains that engage in shenanigans and bacteriological high jinx, but overall, we owe E. coli a high five.

And this particular mutation doesn't appear to cause a problem for antibiotics (unless anyone knows of any citrate-based antibiotics in common use?); they just learned how to eat something that was previously inedible.

Sorry, maybe I should have gone in to more depth.
Some E. Coli are harmful, some aren't, true, but not really my point. I meant that if E. coli can evolve suddenly (in evolutionary terms) to consume a new food source previously used for categorizing them (the significance being that it was a definitive feature of their behavior and therefore useful in both diagnosis and treatment) then it is reasonable to believe that all traits can 'jump' likewise. A logical extrapolation would be that if E. coli can do it, then all bacteria can, and if E. coli can change such a notable feature then all bacteria can, and if E. coli could evolve around common forms of detection and antibiotics, then all bacteria can.
This is more than a reaction from environmental pressures being exerted on a species, this is the ability for bacteria to suddenly jump, for no observable reason, in to something remarkably different.

Also, I know this is evolution. It's been going on for millions of years, and in reality things like this happen every day, but it's still something to be cautious and conscious about.

[wintermute]

Well, yes. Any time you have large populations of bacteria being controlled by large amounts of antibiotics (hospitals are the classic example), a tiny percentage of those bacteria will evolve to be able to survive the antibiotics being used, which gives rise to strains like MRSA, which are very difficult to deal with.

There's quite a few projects in the works to find was of controlling bacteria without antibiotics. The most promising approach seems to be phage therapy, which involves viruses that eat and destroy bacteria. It seems a bit like releasing tigers to deal with your snake infestation, but apparently they know what they're doing.

[stePH]

I remember Dr. John Cmar stating "antibacterial soaps are made of ass" on Chris "The Fixed Kitty" Fischer's podcast.

[Thaurismunths]

Well, yes. Any time you have large populations of bacteria being controlled by large amounts of antibiotics (hospitals are the classic example), a tiny percentage of those bacteria will evolve to be able to survive the antibiotics being used, which gives rise to strains like MRSA, which are very difficult to deal with.

There's quite a few projects in the works to find was of controlling bacteria without antibiotics. The most promising approach seems to be phage therapy, which involves viruses that eat and destroy bacteria. It seems a bit like releasing tigers to deal with your snake infestation, but apparently they know what they're doing.

I remember something from a biology class I took that talked about using the Disease A to prevent the Disease A in third-world nations.
It was something about how there were two strains of the disease, one made you ill, the other made you die. The ill version thrived in highly contaminated water supplies, where as the fatal one thrived in cleaner water supplies. The idea was to create (allow) conditions for the weaker strain to exist in the water supply, thus occupying the environmental niche: more people would get sick but fewer would die.
Obviously neither answer was as good as teaching the villagers not to poop up stream and teaching their oppressors not to be dicks.

[wintermute]

I remember something from a biology class I took that talked about using the Disease A to prevent the Disease A in third-world nations.
It was something about how there were two strains of the disease, one made you ill, the other made you die. The ill version thrived in highly contaminated water supplies, where as the fatal one thrived in cleaner water supplies. The idea was to create (allow) conditions for the weaker strain to exist in the water supply, thus occupying the environmental niche: more people would get sick but fewer would die.
Obviously neither answer was as good as teaching the villagers not to poop up stream and teaching their oppressors not to be dicks.

Sounds a lot like the original smallpox vaccinations using live cowpox viruses.

[Roney]

supose it just goas to show some of the cultural diferances between the uk and the states, having an athiest  groop over hear wuld be a bit like having a "i ware brown socks" groop . its a total non ishue

Yes and no.  The Humanist Society of Scotland got sufficiently cross at Radio 4's refusal to allow a humanist viewpoint on Thought For The Day that they started their own occasional podcast.

I know humanism != atheism but my point is that there are people in the UK who feel strongly enough about the need for a non-religious moral voice that they'll join societies.

(I'm fond of the HSS because I was married by one of their celebrants and the ceremony was extremely moving: not as dry as some civil weddings I've attended, and able to express the seriousness and joy of the occasion without appeals to a higher authority in which neither my wife or I believe.  But for the rest of the UK there's also the British Humanist Association.)