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.
I am Christian. I do not for one second believe that all God’s children were descendants of the Adam and Eve. Most especially since there are two different days of creation written of and about. Genesis 1:26 on the six day uses the plural of they and them. And at the end of chapter 1 God said his creation was good.
In Genesis 2:5 God said there was no man to till the ground, hence He made the farmer. At least a couple of thousand years later (Peter says a day with the LORD is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day) we are given the formation of the Adam... we are not told how long after the Adam was formed God put him to sleep and removed a ‘curve’ and made woman.
Most Christians cannot tell the difference in the two different days of creation of flesh bodies for the souls/spirit to travel this flesh journey.
Interesting to consider the ‘state’ the Adam was initially formed.
Evolution is a hoax, specifically because of the reason given for this flesh age. Christ said to ‘see’ the kingdom of God humans needed to be born of woman... Now that would exclude those first fully formed adults. Adam was not alive - living until the breath of life which means soul was breathed into his nostrils.
So why do you suppose a bacteria would have a stress induced gene for an error prone DNA polymerase - if not to create variation that did not previously exist?
The idea that all variation has to already be in a bacterial population for it to come about is easily tested. And that idea FAILS the test.
To deny that variation arises in non resistant populations due to incorrect use of antibiotics is idiotic and can only lead to the more rapid evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic strains of bacteria.
Creationism is once again useless if not actively harmful in explaining or predicting reality.
Could you provide a link to said statements you are claiming to be fact?
Or are you just regurgitating what you've been told or heard all your life?
“pooh-poohed as being........ unscientific”
Coincidentally, another “intellectual” in history used this same “argument” to dismiss critics of his theories. His name was Karl Marx.
So somehow the bacteria just so happened to evolve a mutation that gave it that ability. How convenient.
The idea that all variation has to already be in a bacterial population for it to come about is easily tested. And that idea FAILS the test.
Why and how? How about some support for your many statements instead of just expecting people to take what you say at face value.
To deny that variation arises in non resistant populations due to incorrect use of antibiotics is idiotic and can only lead to the more rapid evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic strains of bacteria.
Who's denying that?
You're beginning to froth at the mouth in your hatred of creationism. It's making you imagine things and not think rationally and making you unwilling to listen to reason.
Not sure that all creationists agree completely with that with that formulation (Note: I am more of an IDer than a creationist).
The problem is the ill-defined buzz-word "fit." The question has to be asked "fit for what?" For example, in sickle-cell anemia, the E-volutionist would definitely affirm humans are more "fit"(defined as survivability) when blessed with sickle-cell because it grants survivability in a malarial environment and therefore the prospect of progeny. Creationists might have a more nuanced understanding of "fit," if they bother to define it at all.
Would a world in which highly-adapted bacteria destroy all mammalian life be a more "fit" world? Some would say "yes." Others, "no." Others would say "define fitness."
A species can be more "fit" (as defined by the myopic E-vo) and yet signal degradation of the whole.
Why, do you think such a position is so stupid that no creationist could possibly hold it? Are you going to go after that poster the way you do me? Say they don't believe in God maybe because they disagree with you? Ping all your buddies because you are afraid to debate by your poor little ol’ self?
Or did God (ahem - the designer) have to intervene mysteriously in order for the antibiotic resistance to develop?
How do you explain how antibiotic resistance arises in a population?
Christians like Paul the Apostle, for instance.
If Adam was not the first man, Christian theology makes no sense. If he was an allegory, you're worshipping a Creator who is descended from a fictional character.
If a dictator gave order to shoot all the blonde people in his country, and a few generations later there were fewer blonde people around, would that be evolution?
You asked. “Who's denying that?”
So evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explains the development of antibiotic resistance?
Wow! What a useful and predictive theory!
As to variation in bacterial populations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
These experimenters took 12 IDENTICAL (in DNA) e. coli and tracked their changes since 1988. Some changes (variations that DID NOT EXIST in the original population) took place in all populations - adapting them to life in the petri dish; and other changes (variations that DID NOT EXIST in the original population) took place in only on population - notably the ability to metabolize citric acid.
So no need to take at face value my assertions that the idiotic idea that all useful variations must already exist somewhere in a population for it to come about has FAILED the test. Just a trifling need to educate yourself in the very basics of a field you have discussed for YEARS without availing yourself of even a basic education on the subject.
We are not given the names of those formed in Genesis 1:26. Where do you suppose the land of Nod was located wherein Cain found a wife? He had no sister yet, but he in short order found a mate.
This "The first man Adam was made a living soul;" was the first 'farmer' Genesis 2:5, and apparently it was already known the power of the devil to encourage, tempt us into sin, God already knew that this 'the first man Adam' would provide the blood line to Christ. Ever notice the control and care God Himself took to protect that blood line, in spite of what His children and the devil attempted to derail?
Hebrews 214 (also written by Paul) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
This death sentence of that first rebel took place before this flesh age began.
Those flesh bodies described in Genesis were given dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
It sometimes does amaze me that people believe that God was so unclear in Genesis 1:26 He then has Moses write a total different creation of the Adam and even had the Adam name the farm animals he was given. Course there is the millennium to teach what the majority have been mistaught.
DNA hard cold science demonstrates that not all God's children could have come from only two people, and Genesis does in fact describe two different days of creation of flesh bodies wherein their soul/spirit were placed in them to make them alive.
Exactly. It changed. Just as humans "de-volved" the highly useful trait of malarial resistance through sickle cell anemia. The end result is degradation of higher life forms, hence the term "devolution".
"Or did God (ahem - the designer) have to intervene mysteriously in order for the antibiotic resistance to develop?"
Maybe He did. Maybe He didn't. Maybe the Bible is right: Maybe physical corruption of the creation is related to the moral corruption of creation.
How do you explain how antibiotic resistance arises in a population?
Resistance existed in some of the bacterial organisms, somewhere, somehow. Otherwise, by definition, they'd all be dead. The ones that didn't have resistance died. You can't "develop resistance" in dead organisms. Anyway, are "more destructive parasites" the definition of fitness?"
And this is all beside the point, because it still doesn't explain how you got a brain. Which is what Big E-volution is supposed to explain. You don't need that brain to propagate (your definition of "fitness"), you could have easily done it as a bacterium. And a lot more prolifically.
Why, do you think such a position is so stupid that no creationist could possibly hold it (devolution)?
Did I ever say that?
If you'd get out of your box for a few minutes and consider that when (if) God (a creator) created a perfect specimen, it would be perfect and front loaded to adapt to ANY environment. Would it be so much of a stretch to then conclude that traits not needed could be lost?
What is *stupid* about that? It sounds more feasible than all those little bacteria deciding to adjust themselves to adapt to new stress, although you don't seem to be willing to entertain where THAT capability came from.
Say they don't believe in God maybe because they disagree with you?
Where have I ever said that? For that matter where has ANYBODY said that/ Sounds more like the kind of extrapolation that scientists must engage in when they see varation within species and conclude macro-evolution.
Ping all your buddies because you are afraid to debate by your poor little ol’ self?
Projecting again? Who said I was afraid. Your imagining it reveals more about you than me.
Bingo.
-Either that, or "Unintelligent Design."
*Useful and predictive*? For something common sense and an understanding of variation within species can indicate.
Nobody has to accept species to species macro evolution to understand variation within species.
And understanding that does not by default demand an acceptance of the ToE.
It means that an infinitely creative Creator programmed it into life when He created it.
How do you know he had no sister? Do you expect the Bible to list EVERY descendent of Adam and Eve? Or did they only have three sons?
-———If a dictator gave order to shoot all the blonde people -——
The question indicates your bias and ignorance.
It does however get to the nit of your ignorance. The procedure you describe is the basis for much of The Origin Of the Species. The process/procedure is Selection, man made selection and thus not natural selection, and thus not evolution. The process you describe is the same followed by breeders of plants and animals for thousands of years.
In the present if you observe carefully, it is used by dog breeders to produce yapping little psuedo-kids.
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.