Antibiotic resistance found in ancient bacteria

CBC News ^ | Aug 31, 2011 | Emily Chung

[Boogieman]

The same genes that make disease-causing bacteria resistant to today's antibiotics have been found in soil bacteria that have remained frozen since woolly mammoths roamed the Earth.

“We’ve shown for the first time that drug resistance is a really old phenomenon and it’s part of the natural ecology of the planet,” said Gerard Wright, a biochemist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

He led the study that was published online Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Wright said this evidence of ancient genes may explain how today's disease-causing bacteria have so quickly become resistant to modern antibiotics.

[Boogieman]

Strike anti-biotic resistance in bacteria from the list of examples of recent evolution. D'oh!

[GraceG]

Anti-biotics are produced in Nature by Fungi to keep bacteria from eating/competeing with them.

So it is not any wonder bacteria would have a defense for this. So the fungi end up needing to adapt to this via mutations and fungal breeding.

Life is a constant arms race.

[BUGSWOL]

This is one for Dr. Joseph P. Ferrel to look at.

[ScoutLaw]

I fail to see how this invalidates any evidence for evolution. Evolution is an observed fact, the exact mechanism remains in question, and no reason it couldn’t be how The Creator set things up, but the fact that these genes existed does nothing to change the evolutionary evidence of change in populations to produce anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

[DannyTN]

Yep, what creationists have said all along. Drug resistance is just selection not evolution.

[DannyTN]

Yep, what creationists have said all along. Drug resistance is just selection not evolution.

[st.eqed]

Will evolutionists stop using this as their proof that we evolved from dirt? Probably not. Their religion requires a deep faith. Science cannot be allowed to get in the way.

[ROTB]

>Evolution is an observed fact

Micro-evolution (birds turning into different birds that don’t interbreed), yes.

Macro-evolution (lizards turning into birds), no.

Genesis and evolution contradict each other. I suggest you read many articles at answersingenesis.org, and reconsider your opinion.

[Rudder]

Many antibiotics were derived from naturally-occurring molds.

So, evolution goes on and on and on...

[Boogieman]

“I fail to see how this invalidates any evidence for evolution.”

What you might have missed is that evolution apologists have cited the appearance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as an example of recently witnessed evolution in action. This discovery proves that bacteria did not develop this trait recently, so it invalidates that argument.

[Boogieman]

“Many antibiotics were derived from naturally-occurring molds.
So, evolution goes on and on and on...”

That’s a nonsequiter. Where is the evidence that fungi and molds didn’t have the genetic capability to produce antibiotics right from the get go?

[Rudder]

Where is the evidence that fungi and molds didn’t have the genetic capability to produce antibiotics right from the get go?

A creationist wants evidence? Where is the evidence that fungi and molds had the ability to produce antibiotics from the get go?

It's impossible to discuss science with a creationist, so I don't even try with a serious effort.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks.

[patton]

Smilla’s sense of snow. {{shudder}}

[null and void]

15 posts and no HTP?

[patton]

{{{{{{Shudder}}}}}

[Boogieman]

“A creationist wants evidence? Where is the evidence that fungi and molds had the ability to produce antibiotics from the get go?”

There is none! I’ll freely admit that we have absolutely no way of knowing what the genetic makeup of the early bacteria, molds, or fungi truly was (unless we find some miraculously preserved samples). However, if evolutionists feel free to base their pronouncements on pure speculation, then they at least need to demonstrate that an alternative speculation is not equally or more probable. Otherwise, they are merely telling “just-so” stories.

“It’s impossible to discuss science with a creationist, so I don’t even try with a serious effort.”

I won’t expect any serious replies then, so have a nice day!

[SunkenCiv]

Oh, that was just mean. ;’)

[BroJoeK]

ScoutLaw: "Evolution is an observed fact"

ROTB: "Micro-evolution (birds turning into different birds that don’t interbreed), yes.

"Macro-evolution (lizards turning into birds), no."

In effect, there is no micro- or macro- evolution.
There are only evolution facts (confirmed observations), evolution theory (confirmed hypotheses) and evolution hypotheses (insufficiently confirmed to be upgraded from "hypothesis" to "theory" -- these are also known as "informed speculations").

• The evolution facts (confirmed observations) include 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, aka "survival of the fittest".

• The evolution theory (confirmed hypothesis) simply projects these facts backwards in time millions and billions of years to arrive at common ancestors for all, or nearly all living things.
  Many confirmations make evolution a theory, not just hypothesis, including the fossil record, DNA analyses and inputs from virtually every other branch of science.

• Unconfirmed hypotheses relating to evolution include the origins of life itself.
  As of today three such hypotheses are often debated:
  1. Abiogenisis -- meaning life arose naturally from complex organic chemistry over billions of years.
  2. Panspermia -- meaning basic life chemistry arrived on Earth aboard comets or asteroids from elsewhere in space.
  3. Intelligent Design -- meaning some being other than "Mother Nature" actually brewed-up the chemicals of life and placed them here to grow, modifying them from time to time to better suit their changing environments.

Of these three hypotheses, the most scientific work has gone into investigating how abiogenisis might have happened.
The other hypotheses are not, so far, testable.

ROTB: "Genesis and evolution contradict each other..."

Genesis never was and never will be a scientific document.
It's purpose is not to explain the Universe scientifically, but to help explain to very ignorant human beings how they can achieve salvation.

Evolution science never was and never will be a religious exercise, since science is the opposite of religion -- where religion is entirely concerned with the spiritual, science only deals with material causes and effects.