Posted on 08/23/2010 12:17:34 PM PDT by Publius804
Just 65 years ago, David Livermore's paternal grandmother died following an operation to remove her appendix. It didn't go well, but it was not the surgery that killed her. She succumbed to a series of infections that the pre-penicillin world had no drugs to treat. Welcome to the future.
The era of antibiotics is coming to a close. In just a couple of generations, what once appeared to be miracle medicines have been beaten into ineffectiveness by the bacteria they were designed to knock out. Once, scientists hailed the end of infectious diseases. Now, the post-antibiotic apocalypse is within sight.
Hyperbole? Unfortunately not. The highly serious journal Lancet Infectious Diseases yesterday posed the question itself over a paper revealing the rapid spread of multi-drug-resistant bacteria. "Is this the end of antibiotics?" it asked.
Doctors and scientists have not been complacent, but the paper by Professor Tim Walsh and colleagues takes the anxiety to a new level. Last September, Walsh published details of a gene he had discovered, called NDM 1, which passes easily between types of bacteria called enterobacteriaceae such as E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae and makes them resistant to almost all of the powerful, last-line group of antibiotics called carbapenems. Yesterday's paper revealed that NDM 1 is widespread in India and has arrived here as a result of global travel and medical tourism for, among other things, transplants, pregnancy care and cosmetic surgery.
"In many ways, this is it," Walsh tells me. "This is potentially the end. There are no antibiotics in the pipeline that have activity against NDM 1-producing enterobacteriaceae. We have a bleak window of maybe 10 years, where we are going to have to use the antibiotics we have very wisely...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I have no idea where you get this.
Anyone who has taken a biology course knows that you are not using the definition of evolution that they learned in college.
Google the term. Evolution is change in the gene pool of a population over time. That includes bacteria becoming more resistant to drugs, weeds to weed-killers, etc.
Evolve:
Biology . to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition: The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.
In your world, humans ‘evolved’ from that which was not human. Whales ‘evolved’ from that which was not a whale.
In mine, there is adaptation - Dogs can change form (breeds) yet are STILL dogs. We were created, and can adapt, not evolve into something different.
And perhaps, since ‘evolution’ is not a truth, but a theory, reading Genesis may help you.
Genesis 1:20
“And God said, Let the waters move and bring forth the moving creature that hath life”
I think most Evolutionary Biologists would agree with that statement.
Nice cherry picking, lets look further.... shall we?
Genesis1:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
Notice it says thathe created (CREATED) each beast, after its kind. NOT that He cretaed something and said to reproduce into other kinds. And to top it off, He created man in His own image, not from a lemur.
“What ever happened to swine flu?”
It put me out of commission for a solid week. Sick as a dog.
Full recovery, I hope. When were you sick?
It was last year. I think summer; I can’t remember.
“Evolution is a change in form.”
That’s not the definition, actually.
(And no, I have no interest in a evolution debate.)
Only if you agree that the theory of evolution that claims all life on earth evolved from the very first single-celled form of life. If you don't, then my comment still stands. Call me when the bacteria turns into a cat or something.
I should have said, "Only if you DISagree with the theory of evolution that claims all life on earth evolved from the very first single-celled form of life."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.