https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paenibacillus_vortex_colony.jpg
Article image
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paenibacillus_vortex_colony.jpg
Article image
From the article:
” However, we now know that this just isn’t 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 weren’t 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.
But DINOSAURS!
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.
Earlier story this thread is demeaning: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-watch-bacteria-evolve-antibiotic-resistance
Does someone need to be slapped?
Purposeful misanalysis.
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.
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.
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.
bookmark
I wonder why Dr. Wile doesn’t mention anything about the positive effect of gene duplications?
Either he heard wrong or was taught wrong
In the gene pool of the bacteria are some individuals with resistance. When all the others are wiped out, the resistant bacteria thrive and fill the vacuum. The bacteria do not evolve to resist the antibiotics, there are mutants in the population already resistant
The premise of the article is fallacious
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.
Most get the ideas of evolution form Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles......................................