Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?
TrueOrigin Archive ^ | March 28, 2006 | Kevin Anderson, Ph.D.

Posted on 03/28/2006 2:37:59 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman

I'd rather take my chances with DDT than with sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia kills people and, apparently, that's one of the best examples of a "beneficial mutation" the evolutionists can come up with. Pretty sad when you think about it.


41 posted on 03/28/2006 7:40:16 PM PST by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

/ignored


42 posted on 03/28/2006 7:41:26 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

/ignored


43 posted on 03/28/2006 7:42:01 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The author has no knowledge of legitimate science. A mutation is just that, a mutation.

Most times the mutation is meaningless.
Somtimes the mutation decreases survivability.
Somtimes the mutation increases survivability.

However the author's ignorance is demonstrated in his confusing the appearance with the ability to pass it on.

It is all a question of how does the mutation affect the ability to pass the gene to the next generation.


44 posted on 03/28/2006 7:42:11 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
"I'd rather take my chances with DDT than with sickle cell anemia."

Again, before the 20th century, that wasn't an option. For most of human history, there was no DDT.

"Sickle cell anemia kills people..."

When you have only one copy of the allele you actually have a better life expectancy if you live in an area with high malaria infection rates. A single copy only makes one mildly anemic.

"that's one of the best examples of a "beneficial mutation" the evolutionists can come up with. Pretty sad when you think about it."

I wasn't going to be so harsh describing your understanding of the subject. That wouldn't be nice. :)
45 posted on 03/28/2006 7:48:48 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"Most times the mutation is meaningless. Somtimes the mutation decreases survivability. Somtimes the mutation increases survivability."

The vast majority of the time a mutation is negative.

In humans there are at over 800 known genetic diseases that decrease survivability and that's not counting the ones that resulted in non-viable eggs, still-bornes or miscarriages.

Meanwhile the only human mutations that have been suggested to me as beneficial mutations are as follows:


46 posted on 03/28/2006 7:54:20 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Now Danny Boy, you've been around these threads for a long time and you have been told repeatedly that a vast majority of mutations have no effect on the organism whatsoever. Catch up to 20th century science. It won't hurt.


47 posted on 03/28/2006 8:04:03 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
Sickle cell is supposed to confer some limited immunity to malaria but, when you think about it, shooting somebody through the head would prevent them from dying of malaria as well.

You really should do a little research before you post. From the first Google hit, Sickle Cell Society

Everyone has two copies of the gene for haemoglobin; one from their mother and one from their father. If one of these genes carries the instructions to make sickle haemoglobin (HbS) and the other carries the instructions to make normal haemoglobin (HbA) then the person has Sickle Cell Trait and is a carrier of the sickle haemoglobin gene. This means that this person has enough normal haemoglobin in their red blood cells to keep the cells flexible and they don't have the symptoms of the sickle cell disorders. They do however have to be careful when doing things where there is less oxygen than normal such as scuba diving, activities at high altitude and under general anaesthetics.

If both copies of the haemoglobin gene carry instructions to make sickle haemoglobin then this will be the only type of haemoglobin they can make and sickled cells can occur. These people have Sickle Cell Anaemia and can suffer from anaemia and severe pain. These severe attacks are known as Crises.

From Malaria and the Red Cell

Sickle trait provides a survival advantage over people with normal hemoglobin in regions where malaria is endemic. Sickle cell trait provides neither absolute protection nor invulnerability to the disease. Rather, people (and particularly children) infected with P. falciparum are more likely to survive the acute illness if they have sickle cell trait. When these people with sickle cell trait procreate, both the gene for normal hemoglobin and that for sickle hemoglobin are transmitted into the next generation.

...supposed to confer some limited immunity...

It confers enough immunity to be selected for.

48 posted on 03/28/2006 8:04:46 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Plague causes heart disease placemarker.


49 posted on 03/28/2006 8:05:16 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
...since it only protects against malaria by making half the blood defective. ...

This is absurd. hemoglobin-S is a recessive gene. If you only have one copy, you are normally asymptomatic. See my previous post.

50 posted on 03/28/2006 8:07:33 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

All of that is sad enough, but there's another sort of a thing which nobody ever talks about. If I'm a monkey, the only sort of mutation which would be of any benefit to me would be something which makes me a better monkey, bigger, stronger, more efficient (goes further on a bannana) etc. The girl monkeys are gonna like that. The first time, however, a monkey starts to develop ANY sort of a mutation wihch leads or tends in any way towards being anything other than a monkey, like horns, poison fangs, wings, or flippers, the girl monkeys are gonna be gone faster than you can blink.


51 posted on 03/28/2006 8:11:06 PM PST by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

I've been told all kinds of crap on these boards, but that doesn't mean I believe it.

How many mutations result in a non-viable egg? Unless you can answer that, you can't affirmatively say that most mutations are non-consequential.

Even if you are right, the ones that do affect an organism are still overwhelmingly negative compared to positive. They appear to weaken the gene pool over time, not strengthen it.


52 posted on 03/28/2006 8:12:36 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I know this is hard for you, but get a biology book and look at the genetic code. Then start substituting one base for another and see what the change is. You'll see many changes (i.e. mutations) don't even affect the amino acid coded for and many will substitute a leu for an ile or a val and vice versus and those changes, only in rare circumstances will affect the activity of the gene product. I don't know how old you are, but even if you're an old fart like me and you have taken any semblance of a biology course you have seen this stuff. After all it's over 50 years old :)
53 posted on 03/28/2006 8:19:11 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
"he first time, however, a monkey starts to develop ANY sort of a mutation wihch leads or tends in any way towards being anything other than a monkey, like horns, poison fangs, wings, or flippers, the girl monkeys are gonna be gone faster than you can blink."

Hint: The X-Men is not a scientific documentary. :)
54 posted on 03/28/2006 8:22:47 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
"This is absurd. hemoglobin-S is a recessive gene. If you only have one copy, you are normally asymptomatic."

Agreed if you only have one copy, you don't have sickle cell anemia.

But if you do have both copies, then you have sickle cell anemia. In that case, the normally round red blood cells become sickle shaped. They don't function correctly, and the body works constantly to remove the defective cells. Somehow this results in resistance but not immunity to malaria.

I mispoke when I said "half the blood defective". I don't know what percentage of red blood cells will take on the sickle shape at any given time in any given patient. But it's enough to confer resistance to malaria.

55 posted on 03/28/2006 8:26:30 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Agreed if you only have one copy, you don't have sickle cell anemia.

But you **are** resistant to anemia.

In fact, a lot of the commonest genetic diseases are the same sort of thing:

(Source: Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel")

Sickle cell - malaria
Thallasemia - malaria
Tay Sachs - tuberculosis
Cystic fibrosis - cholera

If you're a carrier for one of these, you're much less likely to die of the corresponding disease. If you marry another carrier, 1/4 of your children will have the birth defect, 1/4 will not have the allele at all, and 1/2 will be carriers, and hence, resistant.

Classical natural selection at work.

56 posted on 03/28/2006 8:36:46 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

But you **are** resistant to anemia.

obviously should have been ...resistant to malaria.

Gettin' late...


57 posted on 03/28/2006 8:39:23 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
But you **are** resistant to anemia."

Anemia or malaria?

"Classical natural selection at work."

If all classical natural selection did was select for deformities and disfunctions that gave some advantage in defeating an illness, you would never advance from one species to another. It de-evolution not evolution and it won't result in higher order creatures only lower order creatures.

But that's exactly the point. What we see of evolution shouldn't create higher order creatures, instead it should slowly result in weaker and weaker species. Because some of the many defects will get passed on and we aren't seeing any positive mutations to offset them.

58 posted on 03/28/2006 9:09:27 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The spread of resisting bacteria is beause the non-resistent ones are dead and thus not around to spread their dna like the resistant dna.

Not entirely, because bacteria can exchange plasmids in a way that would confer resistance to a bacterium that prior to receiving the plasmid would have succumbed to a given antimicrobial.

That having been said, bacterial resistance is not an example of evolution as the bacterium in question is not only still a bacterium, it is still the same sort of bacterium. You don't see Staph morph into Myco, or Strep into Hemophilus - much less seeing them change into Eukaryotic cells.
59 posted on 03/28/2006 9:13:10 PM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
False. There are countless examples of antibiotic resistance arising de novo in an isolated population in which it previously did not exist. This is so common that it's a frequent experiment for beginning classes in biology...

This simply isn't true. That first year experiment in biology consists of three colonies - a culture of resistant bacteria, a culture of non resistant bacteria, and a culture of non resistant bacteria in which a resistance plasmid has been introduced. The point of the experiment is to show the uptake of the resistance plasmid by non resistant bacteria and their subsequent increased survival rates vs. the colony that did not have the plasmid introduced.

If what you are claiming was actually the case, the non-plasmid colony would also be unaffected in numerous experiments of this type due to random mutations granting such resistance. Frankly, this just doesn't happen.
60 posted on 03/28/2006 9:21:10 PM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson