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 ...
“Earlier story this thread is demeaning: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-watch-bacteria-evolve-antibiotic-resistance";
While interesting the design of the experiment is seriously flawed. The growth medium is a semisolid that is typically ~ 98% water and the antibiotics are water soluble. The antibiotic is free to diffuse in the water and the gradient will rapidly dissipate. In a few hours the antibiotic will be uniformly distributed in that medium.
I also found it interesting that they used the antibiotic Trimethoprim in the study. The lab I worked in during the 70’s was the first to identify and map the plasmid that conferred trimethoprim resistance.
“My point is antibiotics are ubiquitous in nature, this is widely known since Fleming, and it’s irrelevant.”
The point is that the author’s premise was a straw man argument the basis of which was factually incorrect.
I wonder why Dr. Wile doesn’t mention anything about the positive effect of gene duplications?
“This allows the bacterium to survive the antibiotic, but the degraded gyrase gene causes the bacterium to reproduce much more slowly.”
...
What if the bacterium has an extra gyrase gene due to mutation? One can be used for resistance, the other for reproduction.
Concisely describe the straw man in this case.
“I have never heard that antibiotic resistance evolved due to human development of antibiotics.”
Only in a very narrow segment of society will you hear the accurate explanation.
The political narrative derives primarily from pop culture, which is formed by and includes the misleading and false narrative in the media. Certainly in the media we find widespread implication that antibiotic resistance evolves directly from human use of antibiotics.
Mutations tend to degrade and downgrade the genome, not upgrade it.
Yep, gravity is observable, testable, and repeatable.
Evolution is none of those things.
“Concisely describe the straw man in this case.”
That antibiotic resistance genes did not exist before the human production of antibiotics. Furthermore that the discovery of antibiotic resistance prior to the manufacture of antibiotics is an argument against evolution.
“The political narrative derives primarily from pop culture, which is formed by and includes the misleading and false narrative in the media. Certainly in the media we find widespread implication that antibiotic resistance evolves directly from human use of antibiotics.”
So you are arguing that the premise of Dr Wile’s argument (and therefore his conclusion) is false?
“That antibiotic resistance genes did not exist before the human production of antibiotics”
Although I agree you won’t find this false argument in scientific circles, it’s very commonly believed, and widely implied, in the larger segments of society.
“Mutations tend to degrade and downgrade the genome, not upgrade it.”
It is true that most mutations are bad for the cell, but in certain environments mutations can enhance survival relative to that of unmutated cells. In such cases a mutation is an upgrade.
If I’m understanding your question accurately, my answer would start with: you are unable to deny the premise of Wile’s argument.
““That antibiotic resistance genes did not exist before the human production of antibiotics””
“Although I agree you won’t find this false argument in scientific circles, it’s very commonly believed, and widely implied, in the larger segments of society.”
Yes, reporters are scientifically ignorant as they are about most things. Please explain how the fact that something incorrect is commonly believed supports your arguments against evolution.
What you said.
But in the case of the anthrax mutation in the beginning of the article, the mutation results in decreased fitness, thus represents a downgrade.
“If I’m understanding your question accurately, my answer would start with: you are unable to deny the premise of Wile’s argument.”
You yourself have suggested that Dr wile’s conclusion is based on an incorrect premise that is widely believed. If you admit his premise is incorrect then it follows that his conclusions are incorrect.
I wasn’t linking the two.
But as for my arguments against evolution, they start with the fact that evolution is an imagined process that’s never been observed.
“But in the case of the anthrax mutation in the beginning of the article, the mutation results in decreased fitness, thus represents a downgrade.”
Whether or not a mutation is a downgrade depends on the environment the cell is in. In an environment containing quinolones, the mutation is an upgrade since unmutated cells cannot survive. In an environment without quinolines, the cell is at a disadvantage since it cannot reproduce as quickly.
I never stated precisely that his premise is false; rather, I stated that you won’t find such teaching in scientific circles. But surely there have been exceptions. Here is his premise:
“I was taught (as definitive fact) that bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotics as a result of the production of antibiotics.”
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.