TED Conversations

Student,

This conversation is closed.

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?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 4 2012: Let's see: Certain strains of a bacteria are killed by a drug while other strains are unaffected by it. Does that prove that all life spontaneously came into existence and from that one common ancestor began to evolve by random selection of beneficial mutations over eons of time into the myriad life forms existing today? If that's proof I'm a monkey's uncle!
    • Nov 4 2012: Evolution does not explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life. Why can't creationists grasp this simple clarification?

      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.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2012: If evolution is undeniable why are there so many learned scientists who deny it?You must admit, Mr. Driven, that everything in Biology appears to be designed, yet evolutionists claim nothing was designed but came about by natural selection of random mutations over eons of time. One vocal Atheist evolutionist scientist (R. Dawkins) wrote, “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” One of the discoverers of the double helix DNA structure (F. Crick) said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed.” When a piece of ancient pottery is discovered it is accepted as a designed thing. But, when a new biological truth is discovered it is accepted as not being designed. Evolution promotes naturalistic thinking while rejecting logical thinking. Also, Entropy, if I may call you that, why does evolution offer no explanation for the appearance of such things as consciousness; intelligence; meaning; altruism; or morality. Did unintelligent, blind chemistry create these?
    • Nov 5 2012: Hello Edward,
      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.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2012: I think a rational, logical debate about the strengths and weaknesses of both Darwinian Evolution and Neo-Evolution compared to what is commonly called Creationism would be profitable providing the participants on both sides can be civil. I'll be watching for your post! Bravo!
    • Nov 5 2012: Hello again Edward,
      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.)
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2012: Sorry for the premature support. I have no idea what you are proposing. Please clarify.
    • Nov 7 2012: I am proposing that first I answer the questions you asked above (and/or clarify the misconceptions that could be behind them), after that if somebody else had some more questions/misconceptions, then answer those too.

      I thought it could be fun. But apparently nobody but you and I might care.

      So maybe much later.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.