Skip to comments.Evolutionists Couldn’t Have Been More Wrong About Antibiotic Resistance
Posted on 12/16/2016 2:27:06 PM PST by fishtank
Evolutionists Couldnt Have Been More Wrong About Antibiotic Resistance
Dec. 15, 2016
A colony of bacteria similar to the one analyzed in the study being discussed. (click for credit) A colony of bacteria similar to the one analyzed in the study being discussed. (click for credit) Back when I went to university, I was taught (as definitive fact) that bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotics as a result of the production of antibiotics. This was, of course, undeniable evidence for the fact that new genes can arise through a process of mutation and natural selection. Like most evolution-inspired ideas, however, the more we learned about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the more we learned that there was a problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.drwile.com ...
From the article:
” However, we now know that this just isnt true. Antibiotic-resistant genes existed long before people developed antibiotics.
I first wrote about this more than five years ago, when researchers found bacterial, antibiotic-resistant genes in permafrost alongside mammoth genes.
Obviously, people werent making antibiotics when mammoths were alive.
Thus, those genes existed long before human-made antibiotics. Later, I wrote about....”
Over time, the “facts” supporting evolution are inevitably revealed to be falsehoods.
“It turns out that some cases of antibiotic resistance in bacteria were not caused by antibiotic-resistant genes. Instead, they were caused by the deterioration of genes that exist for other purposes.”
That’s still a genetic adaptation. The mutation that would seem to have been for some other purpose provided an unexpected advantage for an individual in a given circumstance and that individual was then better suited to have offspring.
Every time the media comes out with another story about “superbugs” or “antibiotic-resistant, flesh-eating bacteria” it always gives the appearance of being hype, fear tactics and propaganda.
“This allows the bacterium to survive the antibiotic, but the degraded gyrase gene causes the bacterium to reproduce much more slowly.”
Seems to go in the opposite direction from “natural selection” theory.
Earlier story this thread is demeaning: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-watch-bacteria-evolve-antibiotic-resistance
Not really. Casual bigoted arguments about science don’t prove much.
Does someone need to be slapped?
None of thew studies say that antibiotic resistance does not occur as previously explained.
The studies merely say that there are strains that are resistant for undetermined reasons which do not seem to be a result of stochastic evolution.
This does NOTHING to undermine TToE. It just says there is more research to be done into bacterial resistance.
Nice use of non sequitur bit not unexpected.
Why does no one ever discuss Dinosaur hemorrhoids?
I mean the size, can you even comprehend the size of a hemorrhoid on an Argentinosaurus Huinculensis? How would it be treated, more importantly WHO would treat them?
>>Over time, the facts supporting evolution are inevitably revealed to be falsehoods.<<
There is yet to be a falsehood that undermines TToE in the slightest (this article does not do so BTW).
There have been attempts at hoaxes and some data have been reexamined to reveal more details about TToE. That is about it.
“Thats still a genetic adaptation.”
Not of the type necessary to support the production of new genetic information, which is a key point evolutionists need to demonstrate to support their thesis.
“The mutation that would seem to have been for some other purpose...”
There are no predefined purposes behind mutations. Evolution is supposed to be an unguided, blind, unthinking process. Purpose only comes from intelligence, or processes designed by intelligence.
As a microbiologist who used to study the transfer of antibiotic reistance genes between organisms, the author either had bad teachers or didnt understand what he was being taught. I have never heard that antibiotic resistance evolved due to human development of antibiotics. Antibiotics are naturally occuring molecules that have probably been around for millions of years. A good example is penicillin which is produced by fungi. In a large population of bacteria a few will have mutations that render them resistant to penicillin. When that population is exposed to penicillin those few will survive and reproduce. The mutations resulting in antibiotic resistance are pre-existing, random and spontaneous. They are not induced by the presence of antibiotics.
More “settled science” going by the wayside.
” I have never heard that antibiotic resistance evolved due to human development of antibiotics.”
Yes. This article is off.
The author of this seems not to know how Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin.
Wow it starts right off with a lie and then proceeds down dumb land from there. Nobody thinks antibiotic resistance only came to exist after antibiotics, we KNOW that those strains became more prevalent after antibiotics because we kept killing the other strains. But obviously resistance to toxins predates specific toxins. Kind of like how brewer’s yeast (highly resistant to alcohol) existed before we started drinking.
Until you get sick with one of them. There’s no propaganda on antibiotic resistant bugs, they’re very real, they’re becoming the dominant strains, and it’s really starting to suck for people who get sick. For all practical purposes a good chunk of our medical science is basically losing 100+ years worth of work because the stuff it exists to kill is becoming too resistant.
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.