Posted on 12/16/2016 2:27:06 PM PST by fishtank
Evolutionists Couldn’t 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 ...
Scientific knowledge is a result not of theories but of observations. This is key as pertaining to our discussion.
“Evolution is a religion.”
Pretty much is.
Unlike physics, biology, chemistry.
Evolution is very equivalent to climate science.
Ok, but that doesn’t mean this article on bacteria is any good at all.
It’s ignorant nonsense.
I like the crevos more than evos because the crevo are a bit more intellectually honest and don’t hide the religious basis for their point of view.
Oddly they often understand the science better than the evos (who are usually undereducated and on the lower end of the intelligence scale) and the crevos often make great points about eVo arguments and their lack of logic and understanding of their own claims.
Again, though, this article is not one of those.
Crevo scientific conclusions are nonsense.
It’s a funny but frustrating “debate”. Blind leading the blind, using science as their surrogate for their religious spats.
If the proteins endowing bacteria with antibiotic resistance have been translated on a broad scale by bacterial enzymes prior to the invention of antibiotics, then there is good reason to question our understanding of any causal relationship between antibiotics and bacterial antibiotic resistance.
How did Fleming discover penicillin!
Answer that and you’ll see the flaw in your argument.
bookmark
That’s why I said “question our understanding” of this causal relationship.
And it’s also why I stated “on a broad scale.”
There’s a lot wrong with your post, but the point you’re missing is anti-bio tics existed before we discovered them.
We didn’t invent them.
To be clear:
“If the proteins endowing bacteria with antibiotic resistance have been translated on a broad scale by bacterial enzymes prior to the invention of antibiotics ...”
Your premise is wrong. Antibiotics have been around a long time. Man discovered them, we didn’t invent them.
You mean, for example, the fact that granulocytes have antibiotics in them, as does saliva?
Point is, that’s no secret but it’s irrelevant.
What’s relevant is that the mutations conveying antibiotic resistance are
1) the result of a genetic decline or deficit not an increase or improvement
and
2) the effect on fitness or survivability is harmful, not beneficial
“You mean, for example, the fact that granulocytes have antibiotics in them, as does saliva?”
I’m talking specifically about the fungi that Fleming found the antibiotic in.
Remember, he found that a contamination with a mold caused the bacteria he was studying to not grow. It was because the mould produced penicillin.
Certain micro organisms naturally produce chemical anti-biotics as a defense and certain bacteria may have a defense against it.
“What’s relevant is that the mutations conveying antibiotic resistance are
1) the result of a genetic decline or deficit not an increase or improvement
and
2) the effect on fitness or survivability is harmful, not beneficial”
You sound as “just so” as the evos.
But that doesn’t change the fact that both the cause and the effect of so called micro evolution are the opposite of what the theory claims.
My point is antibiotics are ubiquitous in nature, this is widely known since Fleming, and it’s irrelevant.
Reality exists.
Fossils exist. You can categorize them, compare them to geological strata, and generally deduce with certainty that newer ones must have “came from” older ones.
Universe exists. You can observe it, measure it, time it, and conclude that what we see can’t possibly fit in a 10,000 year old timeframe.
Is the computer (phone, tablet, laptop, whatever) sitting in front of you existing & functioning as a matter of religion? or fact?
Even if the geological “column” were an accurate measure of temporal progression, and even if there were truly the appearance of transition from one species to another, such transition is only a possible explanation, not a necessary one.
Many of the 'human-made' antibiotics were initially isolated from bacteria, fungi and other organisms Those weren't novel agents although the context and quantity of their use was changed by humans.
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.