Replies

"Bear with me, the hour is late."

I understand. I went to bed myself and woke up about an hour ago. Aaah, the joys of vacation.

"I believe you're saying Darwin is/was correct. I hope so because natural selection from random, natural mutations explains the antibiotic resistance of formerly sensitive pathogenic organisms after exposure to a previously lethal antibiotic, i.e. to the organism, if the patient finished the prescription, e.g. a patient didn't finish the complete course of treatment prescribed by the physician because the patient started to feel much better and didn't finish her/his medicine."

Actually, no. I was saying that Darwin was incorrect, and proved so, at least with the method of evolution that he proposed. Darwin never considered mutations as the means by which evolution occurs. From his amazing grip on scientific principles Darwin INVENTED a means by which evolution (which he admittedly knew to be impossible to observe - a theory developed from another set of theories = scientifically FUBAR)that neither he nor any other scientist of the time could prove or disprove and called them "pangenes."

The most common explanation for pangenetic evolution is the popular "Giraffe Story" (at least it used to be popular). Millions - billions, trillions - of years ago a horse ate all the grass from the ground that surrounded him. He was still hungry so he ate from the low branches of a tree. "Memory Genes" or Pangenes 'remembered' through the generations that the leaves provided more nutrition than grass so the horses developed a taste for the leaves instead of grass. Eventually the leaves from the bottom of the trees began to deplete, so the horses had to stretch their necks for higher leaves. The pangenes 'remembered' that necks had been stretched and subsequent generations were born with longer necks. Absurd? Yes. Disproved? Of course. When crimsons were able to be observed microscopically and the helix model of DNA developed, these pangenes were proved to never exist.

So, here is the theory of evolution hanging out in the late 1940's early 50's without so much as a theory for the method by which it occurs. So does the theory die. Of course not. Why? Because it hasn't been true science for years, why should it be now? Suddenly, NEO-DARWINISM is born, or the BELIEF that mutations are the driving force behind evolution.

I'm going to come back later with documentation that I don't have in front of me know. I haven't looked at this subject for years, so it may take some time, especially since I don't have access to my books (which I have labeled, marked, etc.). I'm in transition between duty stations and my Household Goods are somewhere between Darmstadt, GER. and Ft. Drum, NY.

Pathogenic resistance to antibiotics has never been proved to happen due to mutations. No one knows whether pathogens are genetically programmed to defend themselves by attaching to proteins that block antibodies or if a mutation actually occurs.
Let's assume that mutations are the means by which pathogens develop a defense against antibody's. What you read is that these pathogens have developed, after an intensive lab study, a defense against antibiotics through mutation. So is neo-Darwinism correct? No. Why? Because that is one beneficial mutation. It would take scores of subsequent beneficial mutations to ever change that pathogen into minnow - or more realistically a Super Disease immune to everything. Well, where is this Super Flu? Why haven't we seen a Super Virus mutate from the most common and most commonly mistreated virus? Because it doesn't happen. The pathogens develop a resistance to one kind of treatment at a time (sometimes 2 or 3 if it develops the right proteins) , simultaneously losing the ability to guard against other treatments. This is micro-evolution, better described as genetic variation within the genetic ability of a kind.
Micro-evolution is an observable, real process. Ex: An English Bull Mastiff and a Doberman Pincher are mated. Certain genetic qualities bred out of the offspring and after thirty generations you have new TYPE of the KIND dog... A Rottweiler. Now Rottweilers mated with Rottweilers will only give birth to Rottweilers because the genetic pool has been thinned so that the dominate, bred traits, win out during gestation. However, because of their lineage, Rottweilers do have the genetic ability to birth Berman's, and could be bred to do so. In all of this, a new species was never evolved, nor could have evolved. The same is true for the pathogens, however on a grander scale as thousands upon thousands of generations of pathogens can occur in the amount of time it took to develop Rottweilers.
By the way, a mutation did develop during the breeding of the Rottweiler. Two as a matter of fact. Both are debilitating. The first is that funny, extra finger we call the dewclaw which can immobilize an older dog, due to poor muscle development caused by the extra claw, if not removed early on. The other is a slightly wider hip placement caused by developing the Doberman's bone structure but the Mastiff's posture and mass, which cause Rott's hips to slip under their own weight too often.
Oh yeah, speaking of mutations... we are still assuming that mutations are the means that pathogens develop resistance to antibiotics. As you say, "natural selection from random, natural mutations explains the antibiotic resistance of formerly sensitive pathogenic organisms after exposure to a previously lethal antibiotic.." So does available genetic variations, however, neither has been proved nor disproved.

Again, I'm sorry for the lack of documentation. I hope these sound like well read arguments, because they are, and not babble. I search the Internet for supporting work.

Have you, by the way, read THE MIS MEASURE OF MAN by Stephen Gould, it has a lot to say about the subject you originally posted from one of the leading evolutionist minds of the past 50 years.