And? How does that support denying adaptation? Remember, he said, "evolved bacterial resistance to antibiotics is referred to as "adaptation" which is 99% incorrect." Even if the terms are used interchangeably, that would simply make his assertion self-contradictory, as it would then also be claiming that referring to it as "evolution" is "99% incorrect."
Easy to denigrate when people who tout science can't be bothered to understand what they're trying to use as a cudgel, and others who will flock to their defense as a knee-jerk reaction, without even bothering to see if they flubbed the science.
So, do you agree with billvon that referring to it as "adaptation" is "99% incorrect"?
Or are you just defending a political ally, science be damned?
You can give the stink-eye all you want
Billvon is, however, correct - the issue at hand (and what is causing issues with antibiotic resistance) is not the adaptation portion (which refers to singular or small groups of a sample) but the continued evolution towards resistance on the whole. Adaptation implies the bacteria becoming resistant after being in contact with the antibiotic - evolved resistance means the bacteria is already resistant to it.
Per his post, which you have so desperately twisted into a pretzel to try and discredit him (attacking the person much?):
Correct. Adaptation is the response of an organism to the environment. A bacteria that thickens its cell membrane in response to a more hostile environment is an example of adaptation. Evolution is a genetic (i.e. preserved) change in the phenotype of an organism, caused by mutation and natural selection.
Unfortunately, in an attempt to be politically correct, evolved bacterial resistance to antibiotics is referred to as "adaptation" which is 99% incorrect. The problem is not that single organisms BECOME resistant, the problem is that populations of organisms EVOLVE resistance over time. But since the anti-science right wing abhors the use of the term "evolution" the incorrect term "adaptation" has become common, and is now misleading people to think that the problem of antibiotic resistance is a temporary one, awaiting only a way to overcome an adaptation response that all bacteria show to antibiotics.
And as a result, people are dying.
Ergo, what he said is correct - adaptation is the response of an/the organism. Evolution is a genetic change.
The interesting part, Syne, is your dishonesty in all this... as you are the one that said:
Can you cite a source supporting the notion that resistant strains of a bacteria are indeed different bacteria species? If not,
then you can only be talking about adaptation. You do realize that not all evolution is adaptation, right?
Your claim, in that post, is that Billvon is claiming resistant
strains of bacteria (such as Staphylococcus aureus) are different
species of bacteria. He never made such a claim. What he stated, and what anyone who isn't operating on an agenda can read, is that certain anti-science groups hate the word "evolution" because they do not believe in "evolution", and so the word "adaptation" has been thrown around instead, despite being technically incorrect in this context.
Additionally, I do not see anything in Billvon's post "denying adaptation", as you claim:
he was outright denying adaptation
At no point did he "deny adaptation" - he merely (correctly) pointed out the fact that adaptation and evolution are not one and the same, despite the terms being used almost interchangeably (much the same as the evidence I provided should have shown you):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/misconcep_06
ust as it is tempting to take natural selection to extremes, it is tempting to look for the evolutionary advantage of any trait of an organism — in other words, to see
adaptations everywhere. Of course, the natural world is full of adaptations — but it is also full of traits that are not adaptations, and recognizing this is important. However, before we examine traits that are not adaptations, it will be useful to specifically define what an adaptation actually is and how we can determine whether or not a trait qualifies as an adaptation.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-evolution-and-adaptation
Elijah Williams, Undergraduate Zoology Major
Written Aug 9, 2016
Evolution can be defines as the change in the allelic frequencies within the gene pool of a population. The term “adaptation” is typically used to describe a newly mutated trait that increases fitness in a particular environment. This will lead to the alleles for that trait becoming more frequent throughout the population. In theory (assuming a dominant recessive relationship between two alleles), the more “fit” allele will go to fixation (every individual will have it) and the other will go extinct altogether given an infinite amount of time. In reality though the less fit alleles often manage to scrape by if they aren’t too harmful.
While adaptation usually refers to new traits, I think it can also refer to the natural selection of variations of existing traits. If you have a population that contains white rabbits and black rabbits and move the whole population into the tundra, the white fur could be considered an adaptation that gives those rabbits an advantage over the black ones even though it did not recently mutate into the gene pool. However most people just use adaptation to refer to traits that become frequent in response to the
current environment(e.g. white fur is an adaptation to winter snow in temperate forests, not the tundra) so you are probably fine just using it that way. Basically an adaptation is just any beneficial trait and whether or not a trait is beneficial is dependent entirely on the environment. Evolution is the process by which that beneficial traits spreads throughout a population.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adaptation
3: adjustment to environmental conditions: such as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulationb : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
4a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations <
Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality. — Stephen Jay Gould>;
also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) <Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of
evolution. —
Nature> <In Darwinian
evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. — Pamela Weintraub>b : the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) :
phylogeny
Now, that is not to say that adaptations do not, over generations, lead to evolution
At this point, Syne, your intentional dishonesty is in full display for all to see... I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but, heh, at this point, we know well that you have no such shame...
The simple point is this - Billvon stated that some groups despise the word evolution and deny that evolution exists (macroevolution in general). You challenged him to provide evidence of this, which he did... and then you started on this tangent that he somehow "denies adaptation exists". His claim that saying "adaptation" in place of "evolution" is incorrect is, at the simplest level, absolutely correct - if species of bacteria did not "evolve" resistance, but only "adapted" resistance, then there would be no problem - the adapted bacteria would eventually die out and that would be that. Evolved resistance, due to passing of genes down (such as in the case of E.Coli, which I believe a study by Richard Lenski showed, actually "developed" an entirely new gene!)
