Dr Rick

It appears that at least one strain of Staphylococcus aureus can incorporate the antibiotic vancomycin into its cell wall:

<img src="http://content.nejm.org/content/vol340/issue7/images/large/04f3.jpeg"width="100"height="200">

Morphologic Abnormality of the Vancomycin-Resistant Isolate PC-3 Grown in the Presence of Vancomycin.

The top panel shows a culture of PC-3 grown in tryptic soy broth without antibiotic. The bottom panel shows the same bacteria grown in the presence of 8 µg of vancomycin per milliliter. Cultures were harvested at the midexponential phase of growth and were prepared for transmission-electron microscopy. The bar represents 1 µm.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Thanks Doctor! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

(I won't pretend to understand what the pictures are showing me though. They look like cells to me... )

Cheers, Oolon

Dr Rick

I just posted the caption with the image to explain what we're seeing.

OT: Can someone help me post this image in a smaller size so it fits better on the thread?

Dr Rick

While I'm waiting for someone to advise me on how best to properly size images for posting, I thought I'd point-out what a nice example of evolution this particular strain of S aureus has made.

Antibiotics achieve their effectiveness primarily by interfering with some catalyzed reaction necessary for the metabolism or reproduction of a bacterium, and most bacteria evolve resistance by adapting enzymes to either break-down the antibiotic or to utilize a different metabolic pathway the antibiotic cannot affect.

For instance, penicillin works by inhibiting the linking of substrates (building blocks) used to build the walls which surround and protect bacteria, and penicillin-resistant organisms counteract the antibiotic by producing b-lactamase, an enzyme which breaks down penicillin so that it can no longer interfere with the building of these cell walls.

The PC-3 strain of S aureus treats vancomycin in a completely different way; however, actually acquiring vancomycin right into its own cell wall without dying. This is an unusual phenomena, but continued use of the antibiotic vancomycin is killing-off many S aureus strains without this or a similar mutation while allowing those with it to survive and reproduce, subsequently selecting for the increased survivability and reproduction of those organisms with resistance to vancomycin. As a result, we are now encountering S aureus infections in clinical practice that do not respond to vancomycin therapy; in the recent past they always did.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

CodeMason

Damnit UBB doesn't like to display its own code! Well, rbochnermd got it anyway, so it's fine.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]</p>

Dr Rick

Perfect, CodeMason; it obviously worked.

I can see from the UBB code what went into making the image smaller, but because I'm a computer dummy, could you please describe the steps for me as you posted it?

thanks.

Simulation

Note:
Reply 1 is to Oolon Colluphid's post
Reply 2 is to Peter Soderqvist's post
Reply 3 is to CodeMason's post

<a href="http://www.pbreview.com/forums/showthread.php?s=6f39d18fbf26540a7dccb401c901fc4d& threadid=31770&perpage=25&pagenumber=2" target="_blank">Original post</a>

To Reply 1:

1. "Having babies" does NOT increase the amount of complexity in a species. This contradicts the evolutionary need of increasing complexity in a species.

The fruit flies do not break the 2loT because there is NO NEW information. What is not openly publicized is that the second set of wings is not new information, nor is it functional. When the radiation damaged the gene, the halters were missing and in its place was another set of wings produced by scrambled DNA, which was ‘borrowed’ from the code that was ALREADY PRESENT.

Crippled Fruit flies are not evidence of evolution. In fact, doesn't that kind of hurt evolution? Were any beneficial mutations found from the radiated flies?

Crippled Fruit flies are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria. There have been no new species formed.

Yes, WE (intelligent humans) can cumulatively select good mutations, but natural selection which is blind, cannot.

What IS funny is why there are no records of intermediate forms between these specialized birds. There should be evidence showing multiple variations of the kinds between flying and flightless birds. Where are they?

The DNA molecule cannot form without its corresponding enzyme, DNA polymerase. Yet, DNA polymerase is a product of this manufacturing process. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

3. “Genetic mutations are rare events. The natural average mutation rate is about one mutation per million cell divisions.” <a href="http://www.osu.edu/units/cancer/handbook/genes.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.osu.edu/units/cancer/handbook/genes.pdf</a> This comes from an evolutionary source, making the case worse for themselves because evolution requires a lot of mutations. Methicillin resistant staph is not intelligent, as you state.

Reply 2:

Physicochemical processes that violate the 2loT would be the production of new DNA/ more complexity. 2loT = less complexity.

The problem with evolutionary hybridization is that, looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, these different species are in competition with each other. They each strive to be the dominant species, so why would they bond together. The other specie is using the resources the first specie needs. Why would they want to work together???!!! How do they know that their offspring will be successfull? And if that offspring is better than them, isn't that just competition? Why make offspring that will just kill you off sooner? Why make offspring, period? Isn't offspring using up your own resources? Why is there this need to produce offspring? Where did the original desire to reproduce come from?

It takes intelligence to make new species.

In your case of hybridization, I find that your definition of speciation is defined by the offspring not being able to reproduce with the parents because they are different species. Well how is this possible if two different species copulated in the first place? Is interspecie reproduction possible or not?

In your case of the Tragopogan hybrid, please show me 3 things.
1. Clear evidence that there was NO human intervention.
2. How they know that the parent species can not mate with the offspring.
3. That there is no way you couldn't produce the parent species from the offspring (is this really a new species, or just a variation within a species?)

Hybridization is contrary to evolution anyway because you are taking two complex species and replacing them with one. Less complexity. If evolution relies on hybridization, how did the first specie evolve without any other species to combine with?

You must be careful what you define as a new species. If a red orchid and a white orchid reproduce, do the make a new species? If a short human and a tall human reproduce, do they make a new species? Are you sure your 300 NEW species of orchids are really original, or are they just alterations of specific traits?

The reason some of our laws have been decided for evolutions case is because of scientifically incompetent politicians, not because of lack for evidence for creation.

Reply 3:

You produced nothing I haven't already covered, provided no challenges, and didn't explain how this mechanism works that assembles the pen.

Dr Rick

Order, information, and complexity are not all synonymous, nor do any of them mean the opposite of entropy. A person who cannot understand the definitions of these words will probably have great difficulty grasping the<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000109" target="_blank">2LoT</a>.

Peter Soderqvist

TO SIMULATION

Soderqvist1: Can you structurally define the word complexity in this context?
I define the word as the amount of microstates in a system (Logical entropy). I am bigger than my father is, and for the same reason, I have more cells than he has, and thus I am more complex, and have higher entropy, and I have more nucleotides too! But the reverse is the true, when we take the environment out side of the systems into consideration. For instance, I have lover entropy at 90kilo than at 88kilo, since 88kilobody weight, + 2kilo food in front of my nose, are less concentrated together, than I am as 90kilobody tissue as end product! The DNA synthesizing the amino acids into protein and these amino acids has higher entropy, than as protein. As I have pointed out earlier here, a life form autonomously exchanges energy and material with its environment, and it is dead, when it reaches thermal equilibrium with its environment!

The page of entropy is delivered without any technicalities!
<a href="http://www.svsu.edu/~slaven/Entropy.html" target="_blank">http://www.svsu.edu/~slaven/Entropy.html</a>

Soderqvist1: The DNA is the language of inheritance, and its alphabet is A. T, C, G, the genetic code is same in all life forms from bacteria to humans, a G nucleotide building block in humans are identical to G building block in a snail. The "code" of two wings is not same DNA message as four wings. The sequence of gene, or its alleles, or its sequence of nucleotides has changed. There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution when it comes to the sequence of nucleotides, since the same base governs both. A gene is a DNA replicator, and miscopying is its mutation. It somehow appears that, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't admit the same order, or sequence of nucleotides trough time, hence nucleotides disordered. 3 billion species are extinct, only 30 million species are alive today, because of waste and regard by non-random natural selection!


Whales with legs can be found here!
<a href="http://www.sciam.com/news/102700/3.html" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/news/102700/3.html</a>

Human evolution fossil, from Australopithecus, to Homo Habilis, to Homo Erectus, to Homo Sapiens!
<a href="http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/links/evolinks.html" target="_blank">http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/links/evolinks.html</a>

Soderqvist1: how do you know that? Shall we believe you only because you say so? There is no evidence for creation, as far as I can see in your messages, and if you, or your fellows have some, why don't you testify in these courts about it, as mentioned earlier here? Have you read the court verdicts, regarding the creationist's lack of evidence, etc? The creationists have no education in proper field of science, and for the same reason, are unable to testify about theirs so called scientific work! I think you have started in the wrong end, you should educate yourself in biology, before you criticize!

By the way, did you know that, some wasps species paralyzes their victims of caterpillars, through a sting, and puts in an egg into the victim's body, and after a while, it develops into a larva? And the larvae start slowly eating the body from the inside as food, he the larvae has a lot of food for a while; the tortured victim cannot do anything about it, because the victim is still paralyzed? Is this intelligent design by your god? Charles Darwin couldn't believe so!

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

Dr Rick

I don't recall ever seeing a single post that so completely managed to misstate physics, biology, and politics all at once.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>