This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Debate: Does antibiotic-resistant bacteria prove Darwin's theory of evolution?
MRSA is a bacterium which has EVOLVED to become resistent to antibiotics. Therefore, if someone gets infected then its extremely difficult for antibiotics to kill the Pathogens.
Many scientists think that we are using to many antibiotics and bacteria is becoming immune. This is a huge problem as how will we protect ourselves against these infectious diseases?
However, i am asking whether this evolution, that has taken place in our lifespan, proves, or helps prove, Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution?
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Robert Winner 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Robert Winner 50+
Bob.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Freddie Hayward
like we have different types of monkeys today.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
"If man evolved from chimpanzees then why are there still chimpanzees."
This at least is a species to species comparison. Ape is two levels higher. Humans are Great Apes which are Apes. Chimpanzees are Great Apes which are Apes.
So for the answer to your question to be of any relevance, your starting assumption must be correct. So first let's ask:
"Did man evolve from chimpanzees?". The answer is no. Chimpanzees and man evolved from a common ancestor. That common ancestor is not a chimpanzee (although arguably it is an Ape) or a man.
Your question is akin to asking "If I was born from my cousin X why is there still my cousin X?". In fact, you and cousin x are descended from grandpa Y who is neither you nor your cousin.
Done. Now you have two choices: either add what I just said to your knowledge of the subject and update your views (even if just that specific bit) or continue to repeat that false question to the exasperation of your peers. If you chose the latter, the only real victim of this choice is yourself, you would be willfully keeping yourself ignorant. Surely you have your best interest at heart?
John Frum 30+
Gordon Barker 10+
Evolution was an existing theory when Darwin was alive; his contribution to it was the concept of naturally occurring circumstances that favour an aspect of a species will allow that aspect to become dominant. Variability in the species was considered to be there already, circumstances selected one characteristic over another.
Clearly then, antibiotics can be considered a occurrence of something in the bacteria’s environment that will select more resistant bacteria and kill off the less resistant bacteria. Those bacteria that remain are less likely to be killed by antibacterial agents until stronger agents are found. This occurs in our life time because we are very long lived in comparison to bacteria which reproduce and therefore evolve at lightning speed by comparison.
edward long 100+
Entropy Driven
Bacterial antibiotic resistance shows how natural selection works. It started with Bacteria where few survived. Since the survivors resists the antibiotics, they reproduce and their offspring inherit this characteristic. Thus, this characteristic is now prevalent. It proves this principle. It's evolution. From that to the whole of life having common ancestors there's a very long way to go. Bacterial antibiotic resistance is still evidence of evolution, but it is not the ultimate evidence. But if we put all the evidence together, evolution is just undeniable.
edward long 100+
Entropy Driven
Those are interesting questions and it's worth answering most of them. But would take several comments. We might veer too much out of topic. I could try a new idea/question/debate? "Answering questions about evolution." At some point. Anyway, question 1 would be worth answering if I knew of any learned scientist who denied evolution. But I know of none. But I will try the other questions if you are interested. If not interested (and nobody else seems interested) then I will not bother opening that other idea/question/debate. Let me know.
edward long 100+
Entropy Driven
Don't "bravo" me yet. I was talking about answering questions about evolution, such as yours. Not about opening a false debate between creationism and forms of evolutionary theory (creationism is not science). I would rather answer questions and clarify misconceptions about evolution. Still for it? Anyone else interested?
(I will check in a couple of days to see if people are interested. If so, then I'll go for it.)
edward long 100+
Entropy Driven
I thought it could be fun. But apparently nobody but you and I might care.
So maybe much later.
Ken brown 30+
Entropy Driven
That we introduced the selection agent does not mean that it is not evolution. No, most of us did not carry any MRSA bacteria with us 20 years ago.
Ken brown 30+
EDIT Also from what i can remember is that it has to do with the condition of your skin, i'm not going to look it up as this was the prevalent information available to us at that time, you got a problem with it then be my guest and do the hard work for us and up date my actually crappy memory, i just remember how it took longer to gear up and strip out than it did to actually care for the patient.
Entropy Driven
People working in hospitals are more prone to carry such things as MRSA. I would not be surprised about that policy if there was suspicion that an MRSA outbreak could happen/was around. That does not mean we all were carrying such things 20 years ago. Today the probability is higher (because of the overuse of antibiotics), but still not all of us have it.
Gerald O'brian 50+
elizabeth muncey 10+
John Smith 30+
It is certainly evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, but Krisztian Pinter is technically correct in pointing out that a scientific theory cannot be proven.
BTW, scientists are actually creating "designer" bacteria through evolution: they throw a batch of bacteria in a petri dish with some material they want the bacteria to eat and after a while the bacteria evolve until they can digest the material.
Lejan . 30+
Bacteria resistence against antibiotics is based on mutation and selection according to Darwin, and due to the speed of reproduction rates, the misuse of antibiotics (quantity and false application) endanger its very effectiveness.
maureen kilroy
Now, doctors know better. Unfortunately, some patients are still wanting antibiotics for the sniffles. As a nurse, II and the doctors educated patients on why this is no longer done. They still want them anyway.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
all we can say in science is:
1. if an observation matches the model, we are happy
2. if the observation does not match the model, we need to either tweak the model, or abandon it
you can never ever prove theory.
Freddie Hayward
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Peter Law 30+
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/antibiotic-resistance-evidence
:-)
Freddie Hayward
Peter Law 30+
I don't thing anyone doubts that the resistant bacteria are already present in the population & are selected by natural selection. Call it evolution if you like, but it doesn't increase complexity.
""Genes for resistance to antibiotics, like the antibiotics themselves, are ancient.[1] However, the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections seen in clinical practice stems from antibiotic use both within human medicine and veterinary medicine. Any use of antibiotics can increase selective pressure in a population of bacteria to allow the resistant bacteria to thrive and the susceptible bacteria to die off. As resistance towards antibiotics becomes more common, a greater need for alternative treatments arises. However, despite a push for new antibiotic therapies there has been a continued decline in the number of newly approved drugs.[2] Antibiotic resistance therefore poses a significant problem.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
:-)
Entropy Driven
Are you saying that Bacteria carrying several genes that allow them to resist antibiotics are no more complex than bacteria that do not carry such genes? That would be quite a stretch even by creationist standards.
Alan Urdaibay
Gerald O'brian 50+
Well what do you think natural selection means???
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
But do you believe in mutation?
Alan Urdaibay
Since only a tiny fraction of bacteria have been identified, and since they transfer genetic material between each other - there being little in the way of a bacterial species, as such - it is not surprising that a new specie of bacteria can be identified. To summarize - they don't really have species so the comment is meaningless.
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
This does "further the Darwinist cause", because that is all there is to it.
Something else, since we're at it... I've always wondered. Do Creationists believe domestic cats were created by God?
Entropy Driven
Peter Law 30+
I doubt God created domestic cats; much more likely a big cat of some sort with enough variability to 'evolve'(if you like) into the many variations we see today.
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
So you can admit that evolution works on big cats. Do you believe in evolution for any other animal?
Alan Urdaibay
Peter Law 30+
Superbugs only exist in sterile environments. Put them outside with all the other bugs & they don't do so well. Their mutation is a disadvantage in any environment other than a sterile one; where their unmutated brothers & sisters are decimated by the antibiotics.
No one has ever argued with the fact that creatures adapt to their environment under the influence of natural selection. We see it every day & can test it in the lab; it's undeniable, every creature has this ability. What we cannot see or test is the theory that one type of creature can eventually morph into another type of creature . Darwinists call the change within a kind evolution, & show obvious examples; then talk as if the crossing into a new type is the same phenomenon. It's a play on words. There is no convincing evidence that such a thing ever happened.
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
What I don't understand is why God would work so hard at making it seem like an accident. Why did he arrange bones and genes in a way that really looks like we're all descendants of a common ancestor?
I mean, can you blame evolutionists?
Alan Urdaibay
Peter Law 30+
When I was 35 I came across the creation guys. They put the science together with the biblical narrative. This made sense to me, & makes more sense as I study it.
How you see things is based on what you expect to see.
When I see similar body plans, I do not see evolution, but a variety of near perfect creatures built by one maker & designed to survive in the same environment
When I see millions of millions of fossils buried deeply, I know they had to be buried rapidly to be fossils at all; so a fairly rapid worldwide flood makes more sense than the piecemeal deposition over billions of years espoused by evolution.
So this ordered & complex universe does not look to me like an accident, quite the opposite.
It is not difficult to line up fossils & make up a story about evolution; much more difficult to produce empirical evidence. I could dig up the bodies in our local graveyard & 'prove' that people are getting bigger/smaller/fatter/thinner, & given a reputation, people would believe me.
Evolution must make sense to those who refuse to consider a non-material explanation, it's sadly all they have. If you want an alternative, then try looking at things from a different perspective.
:-)
Alp Aygar
I have seen many creationists argue that natural selection and mutations cannot be real and after blindly rejecting these facts it is easy to see why they are against evolution. However you have accepted these facts but could not see that small changes that are made possible by mutations and natural selection, given large enough time, will eventually lead to a specie to morph into a new specie. We are talking about a time scale of billions of years which is more than enough for a specie to morph into another one. Small changes eventually lead to transformations.
Gerald O'brian 50+
What do you think might happen to two animals of the same species if they end up in groups living completely isolated from one another for millions of years? You must certainly agree that they might adapt to different environments and, given enough time, might end up becoming two very distinctive animals.
Is time the only trouble about the theory of evolution?
Alan Urdaibay
Peter Law 30+
Never heard of anybody denying natural selection.
Natural selection selects from pre-existing code. This code is finite within any creature, so the amount of variation is limited. This is obvious from breeding dogs, cattle, & corn; we always end up with dogs, cattle, & corn. If you want to believe otherwise, that's ok. There is no real proof though.
As most mutations disrupt the code the chances of new useful code appearing spontaneously is extremely remote. All the more so as it would have to have happened millions of times to give the desired results. Just not logical. We also have the small problem of body plans, which apparently have nothing to do with DNA coding. So we can mutate 'til the cows come home, it will not produce a new biological structure.
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
This reasoning is wrong, Peter, because mutated organisms don't carry the initial code anymore. They carry a new one, which can be mutated into yet another one. This is limitless, wouldn't you agree?
Peter Law 30+
There are a couple of problems with your scenario. Bill Gates & others have likened the DNA code to our computer code, but immensely more complex. Imagine we started introducing random code into Microsoft Word. How long would it remain usable ? Mutations will wreck the code long before any imagined benefit could take hold. Time & further mutations will only make matters worse; it's not going to happen. There is no reason to think nature is any different.
According to Stephen Myres the DNA coding has nothing at all to do with body plans, & no amount of 'beneficial' mutations can possibly produce a new organ, or body plan.
I just can't find any reason to believe in this stuff.
:-)
Alan Urdaibay
Gerald O'brian 50+
Also, you believe everything is the way it's supposed to be, like Feynman's joke about licence plates "You'll never believe the licence plate I saw on a car today. NL-5589!!!! Of all possible combinations, NL-5589!!! The odds are 1 to billions!"
You come from faraway and I don't think you'll ever grasp any of this unless you read a book about evolution. A good one, such as On the Origin of Species, or The Extended Phenotype. And even still, you'd have to let go to a lot of preconceptions you have about what life is. So I don't know... You might be too old for all this counter-intuitiveness.
Peter Law 30+
Sorry about the aids comment. I did of course mean malaria. Getting old.
Same point though, sometimes bad clouds have a silver lining.
I am familiar with the "eye evolution" arguments. Lots of different creatures have eyes of varying complexity, so we line them up in the correct sequence to infer evolution. I don't buy it, we always have to infer. There are 100million cable connections behind each eyeball. That is technology we can understand, but is light years ahead of our abilities, not time & natural selection.
Gerald
I am getting old right enough. I've been studying this for 50 years. In that time I think I have heard most of the arguments, seen most of the proofs, & read a book or two. I have found that materialists generally have little understanding of the religious or Id points of view. May I suggest "Signature in the Cell" , "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", or "Darwin's Black Box".
:-)
Gerald O'brian 50+
It doesn't try to explain life. It just makes the statement that, wow, life sure seems to be of supernatural origin.
I'd have a similarly hard time explaining how a laptop does NOT operate on magic, to people with no scientific knowledge.
So what books have you read about evolution ?
Peter Law 30+
That I think is the point. If life is scientifically & mathematically impossible by any natural force we know about, it must be caused by a force we don't know about. The more we learn, the bigger the deficit in our understanding. Putting a fancy tag (personal incredulity) on it doesn't really answer the question.
I'll pass on the Dick measuring contest re. Books.
:-)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Gerald O'brian 50+
It's explanatory. It's science.
So for instance, I don't see how one can be a Creationist after reading Darwin. Hence my curiosity as to whether you'd read "On the Origin of Species". I'd love your personnal opinion on what you found made no sense.
The more we learn, the more we understand. I don't know how you can deny that modern biology is tremedously deeper than pre-scientific revolution "natural philosophy". That solving problems raises new ones is independant of the fact that we do make progress.
Even if you were right, and if life was mathematically impossible, and Krisztian Pinter had to publicly dine on both his shoes... how is that an argument for Intelligent Design? Are you saying God is explained mathematically?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
People who doubt evolution as a theory might question whether one can assume from the case of bacteria a broad theory extending to all living things.