Posted on 12/03/2012 1:31:48 AM PST by neverdem
A deadly bacteria known as Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, is raising concerns in the medical community.
Jennifer Hsu in an Infectious Disease Physician at Sanford Health and has been closely studying this 'super bug' which is best known for it's ability to defy even the strongest of drugs.
“What has happened over time with increasing exposure to antibiotics the bacteria have developed ways to evade those antibiotics and they become resist to a certain class of antibiotics,” said Hsu.
In the United States, the bacteria have been found primarily in healthcare facilities and hospitals and are known to prey on the weak.
“Patients who are immune-compromised whether it be from medical treatments, chemotherapy for instance or patients that have had other severe illnesses that place them in the ICU-those would be risk factors,” said Hsu.
CRE infections are already an epidemic in several major cities including New York and Chicago, but Hsu said not to be surprised if we start to see them more frequently in less-populated areas.
“There's no reason to think that we won't see them in South Dakota and they won’t become increasingly common here but really our goal is to head that off before it happens,” said Hsu.
Experts said that there isn't likely to be a vaccine for this type of infection, but they are continually researching ways to prevent it from spreading. While doctors are fighting hard to keep it contained, it may be a battle they are not equipped to win.
"There is absolutely no reason to think that if we don't do a good job with infection control that this is going to stay in a hospital,” said Hsu.
Which may mean this 'super bug' is here to stay,always close-by and always a threat.
It’s not like anything was ever described as “random” because whoever was describing it didn’t recognize, or have enough data to establish a pattern.
To me, dear tacticalogic, to even use the word "random" is tantamount to a confession of "what we don't know."
Thus all the "random" in the world cannot establish a "pattern" in principle.
Do you believe that only scientific "data" can reveal "patterns?"
Why don't you just try your eyes: The world itself reveals "pattern." And where you see "patterns," you are probably looking at the outworking of natural laws.
Where do you suppose natural (physical & moral) laws come from? If they were the result of an "evolutionary process," then they couldn't be "laws" in principle.
Allowing that could lead to the perception that saying evolution is the result of “random” mutations could just be a misconception resulting from insufficient data, rather than an intentional, calculated act of malevolence against your religious beliefs.
My "religious beliefs" are not the main driver of my stated objections, dear tacticalogic. Nor do I believe you've said anything that "attacks" them.
Unless one wants to call Socrates' sense of "cosmic piety" a religious belief. Or Einstein's characterization of the Creator of the Universe as "the Old Man" a religious belief. Both these men have been profoundly influential on the way I think about the world I live in and its problems.
However, for the record, my religious beliefs are mainly RC. But I am not interjecting Catholic theology per se into my criticism of Darwin's theory.
Rather than agree with me, that "random" means "something we don't (and perhaps can't) know," you suggest this problem is tractable, provided we find a way that shows —on the basis of a sufficient number (how many???) of "observations" made and subsequently analyzed, in "real time" — if we're just patient enuf — perhaps eons of time are involved here — "random" will finally "resolve itself" (by what principle???) so to enlighten mankind as to how it IS possible to have an ordered universe arise from total disorder, all by its own bootstraps.
Sorry. Still sounds like a fairy tale to me.
Dear tacticalogic, you are a longtime colleague and collaborator, and I thank you for your conversations that, I have not the least doubt, have always been conducted in the spirit of good faith and good will.
May God ever bless you and your loved ones!
Doesn't "something we don't (and perhaps can't) know," not imply that it is also "something we don't (but perhaps can) know"? Historically, hasn't this always been the pattern? What at first appears to be random and unexplainable becomes predictable and explainable as we accumulate and corelate observations and deduce the patterns of cause and effect involved?
[[ Can you provide any data that say dice are not “random”? / No. Can you provide the data necessary to prove that they are? ]]
I can.... Dice can be and usually are LOADED..
Random is a perception.. based on faith.. faith that the dice are not loaded..
Loaded by the religious or the non-religious..
The data proves that dice can be loaded..
If they are not “the House” always wins anyway...
Then the “game” is loaded.. even with “pure” dice..
Many use the word “random” like Vizzini uses the word “inconceivable” in Princess Bride the movie..
They seem to not know what it means..
That's what passes for data?
[ That’s what passes for data? ]
No.. if you can “know” what random “IS” then it is no longer random!...
destroying the meaning of the word..
Random is like the word infinite.. words describing the unknowable..
They are like..... UNDATA.. or question marks..
Humans seem to HATE Undata.. they refuse to “embrace” the UNdata..
And use words like spirit, god, devine.. theory... even Utopia..
Unicorns are a stretch but I like the concept.. for artistic reasons..
and generate your own data. And be sure to let us know if you develop data that "prove" that dice are NOT random...
I'll just note that you want me to have to prove a negative.
If, within the limits of statistical capabilities, one can establish that there is no pattern, then random is the appropriate descriptive word. Where statistical analysis is not reliably applied, then the use of random is subjective.
God need not “invade” the material world via miracle in order to be in control of and have for-knowledge of the material world.
Now what do you think of the e.coli experiment that destroys your presupposition that every useful variation had to be present in the population from the beginning?
God is not “playing” dice if God knows beforehand every result.
The Bible says that the every result of a random drawing of lots is “from the Lord” - but you prefer to take Einstein's comment about his dissatisfaction with Quantum Mechanics over the Bible. Interesting.
You claim to be a Christian and yet take the word of Einstein over the word of God? /s
Amazing that at its core the basic creationist argument is that science = atheism and that nobody who disagrees with their ideas could possibly be a Christian.
Now are you ready to admit reality that in the e.coli experiment the useful variations derived were NOT present in the original population?
Your inability to admit reality, or learn anything about a subject you have discussed for years - really speaks volumes!
Jeepers, AMD, I didn't realize that Einstein was a "Deist." I rather thought he was a Platonist. HUGE difference there!
On the facts of his biography, Einstein was a non-observant Jew who passionately identified himself with "The Tribe" all his life, and made constant references to "The Old Man" as the creative and organizational principle of the universe.
You wrote: God is not “playing” dice if God knows beforehand every result.
Well of course, dear AMD, that is the entire point: "God does not play dice" because He doesn't have to: He already knows all things, all at once (so to speak), from "outside" the order of His Creation.
But we humans, captured within the net of space and time (so to speak), do not know as God knows, or what He knows from His Eternal Now.
You wrote: The Bible says that the every result of a random drawing of lots is “from the Lord” — but you prefer to take Einstein's comment about his dissatisfaction with Quantum Mechanics over the Bible.
Jeepers, AMD, that's a wild conclusion to leap to! I gather what troubled Einstein about QM was the "problem" of non-local causation. He was an exponent of Newton's elegant model of mechanics, which holds that all causation is local, the result of near-neighbor relations of bodies possessing mass. I do not at all see what this issue has to do with the Holy Scriptures: The Bible is not a scientific text, and it isn't primarily interested in "massive bodies"; it is interested in souls.
You also wrote this, which to me is a total canard:
Amazing that at its core the basic creationist argument is that science = atheism and that nobody who disagrees with their ideas could possibly be a Christian.This is news to me, a lower-case-"c" creationist, and a Christian: I do not equate science with atheism. There are simply too many theist scientists in history to disprove that holding — including Newton. (Also, e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Gallileo, Mendel, LeMaitre, etc., etc.)
You asked: "Now are you ready to admit reality that in the e.coli experiment the useful variations derived were NOT present in the original population?"
The fact that useful variations were not present in the original population, but arose "later," doesn't tell me much about any actual causal linkage between the former and the latter, which can only be subjectively inferred. (This is where the doctrine of natural selection comes from.)
But are our inferences necessarily "true?" Or are they more like "more-or-less-likely stories" that cover up our ignorance, thus to make us "feel better" in a world that we increasingly experience as hostile?
Because increasingly, the world is Godless?
Thank you so much for sharing your views, dear allmendream! God bless!
It was obviously NOT in the original population. They DNA sequenced the e.coli that gave rise to the twelve populations that they then let develop independently. The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations.
So where did it come from?
Are you ready to admit reality? Are you ready to admit that it was NOT in the original population?
The supposition that all useful variations were created from the beginning CAN be tested. It was tested - it FAILED that test. But I guess asking a creationist to accept evidence that contradicts their presuppositions is, evidently, asking WAY too much!
And accepting that e.coli can develop useful variations that did not previously exist in their direct ancestry is in no way “Godless” - but it is illustrative of why you have a major roadblock to accepting evidence that runs contrary to what you think about God, and thus why you have failed to actually learn anything about a subject you have discussed for years.
But I have ALREADY ADMITTED the possibility that "The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations."
I have no dispute whatsoever that Nature constantly "reconfigures" herself.
The question is: By what means, and to what end???
I do not believe in the least that Darwin has proposed any "rational" solution to this problem. I.e., the problem of biological speciation, let alone origin.
FWIW.
Too bad the same cannot be said for the many who claim that any such useful variations had to be there from the beginning.
Darwin's theory of natural selection of genetic variation is a useful and predictive theory in regards to predicting and explaining what happened with this e.coli experiment.
You may find it unconvincing about the origins of life - something this theory has no capacity to explain and is not at all covered by the theory - and no wonder!
As for speciation - do you think every single species that presently exists could FIT on the Ark? If not then you accept speciation.
What theory are you going to use to explain the speciation that has been observed and that must be inferred if all current species derived from those species that could fit on the Ark?
What theory explains it?
I’m always amazed by people that like to read “GODs” mind..
Some taking the “bible” as a psycological primer to God mind reading..
It seems to me that for 20 people reading the bible honestly you can come up with 20 different images of whats going on.. Says a lot for “the book” that this is so.. Where Jesus is never proved to have recommended bible reading.. Not that there many bibles to even read then.. or many people that could even read.. most all couldn’t..
Which is why I deduced there are many bible worshippers out there.. Not turning to the Holy Spirit as Jesus recommmend but turning to the bible instead.. Not that the exploits and opinions of the writers of the bible are flawed but that the books of the bible are merely “testimonys” of a few “believers”.. Course some say that having an “invisible friend”(Holy Spirit) is a mistake as well..
How could a lump of flesh read Gods mind anyway?.. If there is no God “we” all are in a heap of trouble I would say.. My preference is that there is a God.. Merely a preference cause I cannot prove it.. Could be thats my greatest asset.. being able to take a “leap of faith”.. and it is a leap...
Excusing that I actually have had a “VISION”.. from “someone” “somewhere”.. I choose to call the Holy Spirit.. Since the Holy Spirit has no actual “name” I cannot “bag” him/it... I must merely accept the “experience”.. and what an experience it was/is... I learned things I didn’t even have the intelligence to ask the right questions about..
A Hallucination?.. maybe, maybe not.. it was sure real to me.. What I learned “there” seems to be becoming more and more real every day.. Heck I know of no one that even read MY MIND..
One of the things I learned (( WAS ))..... Everything is happening exactly as it is supposed to.. Everything on this planet is totally is under control.. Might not seem like it to ME desireing other things to happen.. But it is.. GOD is in control.. Men are blessing and curseing themselves on their own.. Which is “What we are HERE for”... Spirits here for a human experience.. NOT humans here for a spiritual experience.. AND everything is proceeding just the way it is supposed to.. Perfect..
Is God KOOL or what?..
Nor do I. For me, discussions about speciation (and even possible theories about the generation of life) are discussions about the nuts-and-bolts "how" of creation. For me this stuff is enormously fascinating, but I seldom do more than lurk and read along. I readily admit the science guys (and the philosophers) are a lot smarter than me on the subject.
Some people look at an apparently automatic process and see a self-directed system; others marvel at the formula and the princple that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all. The more they discover about the nuts and bolts of creation, the more I marvel.
The "who" of creation is a settled issue for me. Once you know God that issue rather evaporates. The "why" of it I look forward to seeing unfold as eternity itself unfolds.
There are a lot of layers. The more you live, the more things you see. Some of which you can express and some you keep to yourself I think. Some don't rise to the level of words.
Is God KOOL or what?..
Amen brother.
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.