Freethought & Rationalism Archive

B. H. Manners · 03-02-2003, 06:07 PM

Hello,

I was reading in 'Creation" magazine the other day that bacteria resistant to medicines either stole the ability from another organism or always had the abilitiy in some cases.

What do you guys have to say about this?

Here is a link given in the magazine: www.answersingenesis.org/anthrax

Doubting Didymus · 03-02-2003, 06:59 PM

well kinda, yeah.

If I read correctly, the point of this argument is to reinforce the old lie that natural selection can only filter the existing information. It can not create new information.

In this case, a population of bacteria contains a few individuals resistant to this, a few resistant to that, another few resistant to the other, and a few resistant to most, or all known, antibacterials.

So you attack the population with this, then that, then the other, and natural selection has filtered the existing population down to only those bacteria with resistance to most antibacterials.

Technically, no new information has been added, and if evolution relied only on natural selection it could never produce complexity. The missing piece of the picture is mutation, which DOES add new information. It throws the clay on the wheel for natural selection to carve down. This is why creationists generally deny that any good mutations exist, because even they can see that an influx of beneficial mutations, filtered by natural selection, is a ticket to unrestricted population change.

So, technically it's true. Natural selection is only a negative process, removing unfit traits from a population.

Edit:

Ahh, I see I was right. Their argument relies on this:

Quote:

No mutation is known to increase information content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations.

... Which is a lie.

B. H. Manners · 03-02-2003, 07:16 PM

I see what you are saying, I think. Their bitch was against using "natural selection" as proof of evolution per see via wiping out some segments of the population.

My question was more to the point of 1. Did the resistant bacteria get the ability to be resistant from other bacteria already possessing the ability, and 2. have there been strains of a certain said bacteria that have been resistent to a said antibiotic which normally kills members of the species it comes in ontact with? In other words have there always been some strep throat bugs that have been able to resist penicillan and all this talk of "antibiotic resistant bacteria" is really nothing new.

BH

Doubting Didymus · 03-02-2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

My question was more to the point of 1. Did the resistant bacteria get the ability to be resistant from other bacteria already possessing the ability

Not by any mechanism I'm aware of. I suppose its possible by conjugation or some such, but I doubt this is a significant factor in the kind of resistance development we're talking about.

Quote:

2. have there been strains of a certain said bacteria that have been resistent to a said antibiotic which normally kills members of the species it comes in ontact with? In other words have there always been some strep throat bugs that have been able to resist penicillan and all this talk of "antibiotic resistant bacteria" is really nothing new.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. This phenomenon is certainly not a recent development, if that's what you're saying. Resistant strands of bacteria have emerged in the past, particularly in hospitals, where selection pressure for antibacterial resistance is massive. Whether the resistant individuals left over after antibacterial armageddons were always there, or have only recently had a mutation that confers resistance is another matter and could only be settled on a case by case investigation.

Nic Tamzek · 03-02-2003, 07:31 PM

Sometimes we *know* that resistance was due to novel mutations and not lateral gene transfer ("stealing") or pre-existing resistance because we conduct the following experiment:

1) Take a bacteria population growing on a dish

2) Extract a tiny bit, dilute in solution, spread a bit of the solution over a new dish. One or a few spots will start growing on the new dish, each representing a colony founded *by a single bacterium*.

3) Let the new colony grow for awhile

4) Apply antibiotic. Most bacteria die, a very few don't. These will be identified as new spots growing on the dish, descended from bacteria that acquired *novel* resistance mutations during the growth of the daughter colony (from a *single* nonresistant ancestor).

5) Rejoice as you have disproven yet another creationist pseudoargument.

Following the YEC link, however, indicates that they are making additional arguments, basically along the lines that resistance mutations are never information-increasing because while the mutant bacteria may be more fit in antibiotic environments, they are less fit in 'normal' (YEC quotes) environments.

This is an idiotic argument because the same could be said for any adaptation, for example brains or wings. Neither is beneficial in the "normal" environment of, say, an earthworm. There really is no one "normal" environment that serves as the standard for what is beneficial, rather, certain things are beneficial in certain environments. Which is what evolution has been saying all along.

Plus I think there are examples where (1) a mutation results in resistance but e.g. slower growth rate but (2) further mutations repair the defects caused by the first resistance mutation and you end up with a bacterium just as "good" as the original but with drug resistance in addition. Biochemists will have to supply the refs for this one though.

Other YEC "information doesn't increase" arguments depend on assertions about enzyme specificity increasing or decreasing (both have been claimed to be "losses of information", ironically), or technical definitions of information.

All of them depend on tactical ambiguity about what they mean by information, so that when natural information increase on one definition is shown, they can move the goalposts and switch to a new definition.

For refutations, see:

various posts by Ian Musgrave on information increase and Spetner in t.o.

The Origin of "Information" via natural causes resource thread at AE

Nic Tamzek · 03-02-2003, 07:45 PM

Here is a good review of the situation "in the wild":

Quote:

J Intern Med 2002 Aug;252(2):91-106

Evolution and spread of antibiotic resistance.

Normark BH, Normark S.

Swedish Institute of Infectious Disease Control and the Microbiology and Tumor Biology Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Antibiotic resistance is a clinical and socioeconomical problem that is here to stay. Resistance can be natural or acquired. Some bacterial species, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, show a high intrinsic resistance to a number of antibiotics whereas others are normally highly antibiotic susceptible such as group A streptococci. Acquired resistance evolve via genetic alterations in the microbes own genome or by horizontal transfer of resistance genes located on various types of mobile DNA elements. Mutation frequencies to resistance can vary dramatically depending on the mechanism of resistance and whether or not the organism exhibits a mutator phenotype. Resistance usually has a biological cost for the microorganism, but compensatory mutations accumulate rapidly that abolish this fitness cost, explaining why many types of resistances may never disappear in a bacterial population. Resistance frequently occurs stepwise making it important to identify organisms with low level resistance that otherwise may constitute the genetic platform for development of higher resistance levels. Self-replicating plasmids, prophages, transposons, integrons and resistance islands all represent DNA elements that frequently carry resistance genes into sensitive organisms. These elements add DNA to the microbe and utilize site-specific recombinases/integrases for their integration into the genome. However, resistance may also be created by homologous recombination events creating mosaic genes where each piece of the gene may come from a different microbe. The selection with antibiotics have informed us much about the various genetic mechanisms that are responsible for microbial evolution.

(bolds added that refute key YEC omissions)

B. H. Manners · 03-02-2003, 08:40 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nic Tamzek
[B]Sometimes we *know* that resistance was due to novel mutations and not lateral gene transfer ("stealing") or pre-existing resistance because we conduct the following experiment:

1) Take a bacteria population growing on a dish

2) Extract a tiny bit, dilute in solution, spread a bit of the solution over a new dish. One or a few spots will start growing on the new dish, each representing a colony founded *by a single bacterium*.

3) Let the new colony grow for awhile

4) Apply antibiotic. Most bacteria die, a very few don't. These will be identified as new spots growing on the dish, descended from bacteria that acquired *novel* resistance mutations during the growth of the daughter colony (from a *single* nonresistant ancestor).

5) Rejoice as you have disproven yet another creationist pseudoargument.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me play the Creationist here for a minute. I could shoot back that the original bacteria WAS resistant to the antibiotic to start with, and through the curse of God blah blah blah it's offspring were not able to carry on that gene. When the antibiotic arrived on the scene the bacteria that did not get the gene from it's ancestor died while those who maintained the gene lived.

Happy Wonderer · 03-02-2003, 09:37 PM

I think a response would be that the emergence of resistance is a function of how many bacteria are in the second colony. If you apply the antibiotic soon after the colony starts, all bacteria will die. If you wait for a large population to emerge, then you get resistance. All bacteria dying indicates that the parent didn't have the mutation.

This is why antibiotics have any effect for treating human diseases; if bacteria were already resistant than they would have never been effective.

HW

Nic Tamzek · 03-02-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by B. H. Manners
Let me play the Creationist here for a minute. I could shoot back that the original bacteria WAS resistant to the antibiotic to start with, and through the curse of God blah blah blah it's offspring were not able to carry on that gene. When the antibiotic arrived on the scene the bacteria that did not get the gene from it's ancestor died while those who maintained the gene lived. [/B]

This would be easy to test by subjecting the original population (from the first petri dish) to an antibiotic and seeing if they were predominantly resistant or not. If the overwhelming number are not resistant then you have very high odds that the samples that you took from this population (to start the clonal cultures in new petri dishes) before you nailed it with the drug shared this nonresistance.

The point is that no matter what you start with, you can via sampling end up with many cultures, each of which is descended from a single bacterium. This single bacterium will, the vast majority of the time, have the traits of the parent population. Therefore any differences that develop in the descendents of the single bacterium are novel traits.

Creationists usually don't go for divine intervention in the lab anyhow...

nic

Coragyps · 03-03-2003, 05:01 AM

I have seen several creationists claim that antibiotic resistance is in a "hidden code" that God put in the first of the bacteria kind - just a couple of days ago, one claimed that He knew that penicillin would be invented some day, so he built the capacity to develop resistance into His germs so they wouldn't go extinct.

He didn't answer when asked how a haploid organism with a minimalist genome hid this gene......

03-02-2003, 06:07 PM	#1
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	resistant bacteria Hello, I was reading in 'Creation" magazine the other day that bacteria resistant to medicines either stole the ability from another organism or always had the abilitiy in some cases. What do you guys have to say about this? Here is a link given in the magazine: www.answersingenesis.org/anthrax

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2003, 07:16 PM	#3
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	I see what you are saying, I think. Their bitch was against using "natural selection" as proof of evolution per see via wiping out some segments of the population. My question was more to the point of 1. Did the resistant bacteria get the ability to be resistant from other bacteria already possessing the ability, and 2. have there been strains of a certain said bacteria that have been resistent to a said antibiotic which normally kills members of the species it comes in ontact with? In other words have there always been some strep throat bugs that have been able to resist penicillan and all this talk of "antibiotic resistant bacteria" is really nothing new. BH

03-02-2003, 07:31 PM	#5
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Sometimes we know that resistance was due to novel mutations and not lateral gene transfer ("stealing") or pre-existing resistance because we conduct the following experiment: 1) Take a bacteria population growing on a dish 2) Extract a tiny bit, dilute in solution, spread a bit of the solution over a new dish. One or a few spots will start growing on the new dish, each representing a colony founded by a single bacterium. 3) Let the new colony grow for awhile 4) Apply antibiotic. Most bacteria die, a very few don't. These will be identified as new spots growing on the dish, descended from bacteria that acquired novel resistance mutations during the growth of the daughter colony (from a single nonresistant ancestor). 5) Rejoice as you have disproven yet another creationist pseudoargument. Following the YEC link, however, indicates that they are making additional arguments, basically along the lines that resistance mutations are never information-increasing because while the mutant bacteria may be more fit in antibiotic environments, they are less fit in 'normal' (YEC quotes) environments. This is an idiotic argument because the same could be said for any adaptation, for example brains or wings. Neither is beneficial in the "normal" environment of, say, an earthworm. There really is no one "normal" environment that serves as the standard for what is beneficial, rather, certain things are beneficial in certain environments. Which is what evolution has been saying all along. Plus I think there are examples where (1) a mutation results in resistance but e.g. slower growth rate but (2) further mutations repair the defects caused by the first resistance mutation and you end up with a bacterium just as "good" as the original but with drug resistance in addition. Biochemists will have to supply the refs for this one though. Other YEC "information doesn't increase" arguments depend on assertions about enzyme specificity increasing or decreasing (both have been claimed to be "losses of information", ironically), or technical definitions of information. All of them depend on tactical ambiguity about what they mean by information, so that when natural information increase on one definition is shown, they can move the goalposts and switch to a new definition. For refutations, see: various posts by Ian Musgrave on information increase and Spetner in t.o. The Origin of "Information" via natural causes resource thread at AE

03-02-2003, 08:40 PM	#7
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nic Tamzek [B]Sometimes we know that resistance was due to novel mutations and not lateral gene transfer ("stealing") or pre-existing resistance because we conduct the following experiment: 1) Take a bacteria population growing on a dish 2) Extract a tiny bit, dilute in solution, spread a bit of the solution over a new dish. One or a few spots will start growing on the new dish, each representing a colony founded by a single bacterium. 3) Let the new colony grow for awhile 4) Apply antibiotic. Most bacteria die, a very few don't. These will be identified as new spots growing on the dish, descended from bacteria that acquired novel resistance mutations during the growth of the daughter colony (from a single nonresistant ancestor). 5) Rejoice as you have disproven yet another creationist pseudoargument. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me play the Creationist here for a minute. I could shoot back that the original bacteria WAS resistant to the antibiotic to start with, and through the curse of God blah blah blah it's offspring were not able to carry on that gene. When the antibiotic arrived on the scene the bacteria that did not get the gene from it's ancestor died while those who maintained the gene lived.

03-02-2003, 09:37 PM	#8
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	I think a response would be that the emergence of resistance is a function of how many bacteria are in the second colony. If you apply the antibiotic soon after the colony starts, all bacteria will die. If you wait for a large population to emerge, then you get resistance. All bacteria dying indicates that the parent didn't have the mutation. This is why antibiotics have any effect for treating human diseases; if bacteria were already resistant than they would have never been effective. HW

03-03-2003, 05:01 AM	#10
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	I have seen several creationists claim that antibiotic resistance is in a "hidden code" that God put in the first of the bacteria kind - just a couple of days ago, one claimed that He knew that penicillin would be invented some day, so he built the capacity to develop resistance into His germs so they wouldn't go extinct. He didn't answer when asked how a haploid organism with a minimalist genome hid this gene......

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.