Evolution Intelligent Design News

New research: Antibiotic resistance is ancient

Spread the love

From Nature (September 22, 2011), here:

Antibiotic resistance is ancient

The discovery of antibiotics more than 70?years ago initiated a period of drug innovation and implementation in human and animal health and agriculture. These discoveries were tempered in all cases by the emergence of resistant microbes1, 2. This history has been interpreted to mean that antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria is a modern phenomenon; this view is reinforced by the fact that collections of microbes that predate the antibiotic era are highly susceptible to antibiotics3. Here we report targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to ß-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants. These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.

And not a result of Darwinism in action right before our eyes (!) after all.

In fact, the last time we saw Darwinism in action right before our eyes was the evolution of the Corvette (aka Berra’s blunder).

13 Replies to “New research: Antibiotic resistance is ancient

  1. 1
    Petrushka says:

    Actually it’s entirely Darwinian. A small genetic change having an impact on survival.

    Perhaps you were thinking it is just microevolution.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Notes:

    Bacteria ‘Invest’ (Designed) Wisely to Survive Uncertain Times, Scientists Report – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: Essentially, variability of bacterial cells appears to match the variability in the environment, thereby increasing the chances of bacterial survival,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112102.htm

    The secrets of intelligence lie within a single cell – April 2010
    Excerpt: Yet something amazing is happening here: because the damage to the Antithamnion filament is unforeseeable, the organism faces a situation for which it has not been able to adapt, and is therefore unable to call upon inbuilt responses. It has to use some sort of problem-solving ingenuity instead.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....-cell.html

    Revisiting The Central Dogma (Of Evolution) In The 21st Century – James Shapiro – 2008
    Excerpt: Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome (not replication errors). (of interest – 12 methods of information transfer in the cell are noted in the paper)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....revisited/

    Scientists Discover What Makes The Same Type Of Cells Different – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: Until now, cell variability was simply called “noise”, implying statistical random distribution. However, the results of the study now show that the different reactions are not random, but that certain causes (environmental clues) lead to predictable distribution patterns,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....204217.htm

  3. 3
    Joseph says:

    Actually, to be Darwinian, it needs to be demonstrated that it was via blind, undirected chemical processes…

  4. 4
    Petrushka says:

    You can start with a unicuture — a single cell — and gradually increase the concentration of antibiotic. You can track the mutations and judge whether there is foresight.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    as to the ‘randomness’ of mutations to DNA:

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century
    James A. Shapiro
    Excerpt: Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular
    contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). These expectations open up new ways of thinking about the role of natural genetic engineering in normal life cycles and the potential for nonrandom processes in evolution.
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?.....uXLSuXAB0Q

  6. 6
    thud says:

    So you’re trying to overthrow evolutionary concepts with a paper describing evolutionary concepts?

  7. 7
    NickMatzke_UD says:

    “1.1.1
    PetrushkaSeptember 22, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    You can start with a unicuture — a single cell — and gradually increase the concentration of antibiotic. You can track the mutations and judge whether there is foresight.”

    Yep, that’s the key point that creationists always forget about when they say “resistance was always present, selection just increased the frequency. In experiments with isolated monocultures the initial frequency of resistance was 0 with complete certainty.

  8. 8
    NickMatzke_UD says:

    correction, meant to say:

    Yep, that’s the key point that creationists always forget about when they say “resistance was always present, selection just increased the frequency.” In experiments with isolated monocultures the initial frequency of resistance was 0 with complete certainty.

  9. 9
    Joseph says:

    Right and mutations that confer resistance are not random witrh respect to fitness as they ensure it.

    That is the key point that evolutionitwits always forget.

  10. 10
    Joseph says:

    Judge? I know how you “judge” they are blind and undirected- they just are!

  11. 11
    NickMatzke_UD says:

    JosephSeptember 23, 2011 at 7:05 am

    Right and mutations that confer resistance are not random witrh respect to fitness as they ensure it.

    That is the key point that evolutionitwits always forget.

    Dude, go read Luria-Delbruck. Your statement is testable and has been found to be wrong.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    NickMatzke_UD, does it not strike you as even the least bit odd that even though neo-Darwinian mutations can be shown to be historically contingent (random) in certain contexts that the mutations are still not truly ‘accidental’ mutations, and thus truly random ‘Darwinian’ mutations, but are in fact found to be mutations that are the result of ‘natural genetic engineering’

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Nick, these ‘naturally’ engineered mutations, should, far from providing comfort to your neo-Darwinian atheism, send a cold shiver down your spine, because this ‘natural genetic engineering’, that Shapiro has clearly illustrated in his paper, is exactly the type of finding one would expect to see if organisms were indeed Designed to use their unmatched, and extremely sophisticated, computational abilities to ‘calculate’ correct molecular responses to varying environmental pressures. This is definitely not something we would expect to see from a neo-Darwinian perspective!!!:

    further notes:

    Systems biology: Untangling the protein web – July 2009
    Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. “Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured,” he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. “The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent,” he says. “The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....0415a.html

    Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, – June 2009
    Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,”We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....103205.htm

    further notes:

    Lenski’s work has shown that “evolution”, in so far as it is able to do anything, is ‘historically contingent’ (random), and thus undermines any arguments for evolutionary ‘convergence’ that neo-Darwinists have been making to explain finding the exact smae molecular sequences in widely divergent species. This following video and article make this point clear:

    Lenski’s Citrate E-Coli – Disproof of Convergent Evolution – Fazale Rana – video (the disproof of convergence starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the video)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682

    The Long Term Evolution Experiment – Analysis
    Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and variety of all the forms of life on Earth.
    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm

    Convergence Drives Evolution Batty – Fazale Rana – September 2010
    Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator.
    http://www.reasons.org/converg.....tion-batty

    Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? – January 2011
    Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats’ and whales’ remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated — all the way down to the molecular level.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42291.html

    Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design – February 2011 – Podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_16-08_00

    music:

    Moving Performance of Testify To Love by 12 Year Old Singing Sensation – Inspirational Videos
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KKZZ77NX

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Semi OT:

    Fazale Rana – The Cell’s Design – part 1 of 2
    http://www.mynewday.tv/tv-show.....rt-1-of-2/

    description of video:

    Armed with cutting-edge techniques, biochemists have unwittingly uncovered startling molecular features inside the cell that compel only one possible conclusion: a supernatural agent must be responsible for life! Fazale discusses scientific evidence that will evoke awe and amazement at God’s creative majesty.

Leave a Reply