Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Does Darwinian Evolution Explain Antibiotic Resistance?

William Dembski
February 7, 2006
Evolution, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

20 January 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5759, pp. 374 – 377
SCIENCE

Sampling the Antibiotic Resistome
Vanessa M. D’Costa, Katherine M. McGrann, Donald W. Hughes, Gerard D. Wright

Microbial resistance to antibiotics currently spans all known classes of natural and synthetic compounds. It has not only hindered our treatment of infections but also dramatically reshaped drug discovery, yet its origins have not been systematically studied. Soil-dwelling bacteria produce and encounter a myriad of antibiotics, evolving corresponding sensing and evading strategies. They are a reservoir of resistance determinants that can be mobilized into the microbial community. Study of this reservoir could provide an early warning system for future clinically relevant antibiotic resistance mechanisms.

Comments
Bacteria being poisoned don’t wait around for a lucky mutation to solve the problem. Absolutely not. They die. If one bacterium has mutated into a resistant form, it is then able to reproduce to fill the void left by its unresistant siblings. Natural selection favours survivors.Xavier
February 7, 2006
February
02
Feb
7
07
2006
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT

Joseph, introns?
In bacteria? Are you serious?

Introns in bacteria.-ds

oldcola
February 7, 2006
February
02
Feb
7
07
2006
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT

It doesn’t support random mutation plus natural selection. RM+NS is a passive mechanism. Bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics is an active response. It supports descent with modification and vindicates Lamarck.

How is natural selection any more passive or less active than bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistence? Antibiotics are merely applying the selective pressure that allows certain mutations to be favored; ie, natural selection.

Bacteria being poisoned don't wait around for a lucky mutation to solve the problem. They turn on a chemical defense complex that actively seeks a solution. See this Scripps research for an example. Random mutation by definition isn't responding to anything. It's a passive mechanism. -ds

aldo30127
February 7, 2006
February
02
Feb
7
07
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Has anyone (besides moi) read Not By Chance by Dr. Lee Spetner? This: "Soil-dwelling bacteria produce and encounter a myriad of antibiotics, evolving corresponding sensing and evading strategies. They are a reservoir of resistance determinants that can be mobilized into the microbial community." sounds alot like Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues"... For a look at what that might look like just check out the C++ compter language with its statements ("if-else", "if", "else", "goto", etc.). Look to alternative gene splicing for the biological version of the above statements. Introns are the key for recombination placement. Dr. Spetner discussing transposons: "The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events." It should also be noted that a population of bacteria "evolving" into a population of bacteria isn't even being debated. Therefore any use of such an event as evidence for anything being debated is dubious at best.Joseph
February 7, 2006
February
02
Feb
7
07
2006
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
It doesn't support random mutation plus natural selection. RM+NS is a passive mechanism. Bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics is an active response. It supports descent with modification and vindicates Lamarck.DaveScot
February 7, 2006
February
02
Feb
7
07
2006
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply