Posted on 03/05/2006 9:30:31 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption.
Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria.
Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”
Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationresearch.org ...
See also:Mutations and evolution Q & A
No minor change in a species proves evolution. Nor does it disprove it.
Save it for that Day when you stand before the Great Creator. :)
I'll bring the popcorn for that show.
Small mutations accumulated over thousands or millions of years can easily explain changes of and emergence of species.
Ted Kennedy used to be a human being didn't he? Doesn't that prove evolution? Well maybe he wasn't really human, but human shape? Hmmm...on second thought...oh forget it...
Evolutionists sure do love Darwin...
While I completely agree with that argument, I really think the creationists are missing the point.
One need only to look at all the different breeds of dogs to realize the incredible variety whch can be selectively bred from a single ancestor.
Now consider evolution guided by a Creator and we can have peaceful coexistence of evolution and creationism. Are we so arrogant that we must assume a Creator would never want to put any "finishing touches" on His work, or even that He intended the world to be static and non-evolving.
NO!
When a bacteria crawls out of a petri dish as an protozoan, we can talk. As long as it's still a bacteria, there is no evolution.
gee, gene-swapping between species does not constitute evolution!
Of course not! Now help me move this goal post.
"This journal is peer-reviewed by degreed scientists, by the way. "
But they're not evolutionists, so their words, regardless, cannot be trusted. Only evolutionists are trustworthy.
At least the evolutionists keep telling me that...
Such evolution, however, has not been demonstrated to turn a coccus into a spirochete, much less a spirochete into a paramecium into a frog.
Archives
This sounds like a confused statement, evolution is a mechanism that facilitates CHANGE, cause is not a defining factor.
Yeah, right---SUUURRREE it is. Bad joke this early in the AM.
Considering the theory, and the length of time it would take for such an evolutionary transition. I doubt that this could be an observable event :-)
Not the case evolution is not static through various mechanisms it is proposed that is effects changes concurrently at molecular, cellular and species levels.
According to evoWiki, the author is editor-elect of the journal and on the board of directors of the Creation Research Society, which publishes the journal.
Highly objective peer-reviewing probablity: approximately zero.
LOL!
Of course not. It is an example of natural selection.
And many zealous religious evolutionites who post here do not know the difference between naturalselection and their idol "evoution".
The fellow who refers to himself as "Right Wing Professor" was extremely inept on this topic when he tried to smear Tom Bethell.
Sorry, wrong. It "is" an example of evolution.
"And many zealous religious evolutionites who post here do not know the difference between naturalselection and their idol "evoution"."
You obviously don't understand what comprises either. Evolution is comprised of two parts--genetic change and natural selection by the environment. Bacterial resistance involves both.
You can dumb down and try to redfine evolution all you want, but natural selection is natural selection which is the (or a) driving force for speciation over time.
But natural selection is not evolution.
It is a sad state when the ostensibly scientific minded do not even know basic concepts.
This is all because of your stupid politcalization of science as well. You want to argue and fight with people who believe the world is 6000 years old so because evolution can't be demonstarted in real time, the very obviously demoinstable natural selection is redfined to be evolution. Eh voila, a few words and you win your pathetic argument.
The bald men fight for the comb over and over again.
Why are you so stupid? What is your excuse?
I suppose this article isn't worth addressing because it isn't scientific also? Like the photosynthesis and thermodynamics threads?
And what does "archives" mean anyway?
In another 10 years, I could become a Democrat?
Course if you rely on science, they would still classify me as human.
Please make sure you are polite in dealings with frevolutionists.
I wouldn't know the answer to your question.
I'm a scientist, not a "Darwinist."
Why are you so rude? What is your excuse?
You're wrong, by the way. The accepted definition of evolution in the scientific community is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population. Going from having no antibiotic resistance plasmids to having a plasmid for antibiotic resistance is definitely evolution.
It is more arguable whether the acquisition of antibiotic resistance can be analogous to eukaryote evolution since eukaryotes do not have plasmids, and since bacteria tend to consider plasmids disposable--they keep them until the selection pressure is removed, then they are more trouble than they're worth and the plasmid is eliminated from most of the population.
OK, freak, define allele?
Really there is only one term for your comment, moronic.I'm sorry, the juxtoposing of your comments about being polite and telling me to shut up and not butt in are amusing. We don't need another Agammnon in the group.
This is all because of your stupid politcalization of science as well
Why are you so stupid? What is your excuse?
keep your mouth shut and don't butt in.
You are not a moderator or leader of any group.You are a member of my creationist ping list, of which I am the owner. Therefore, I am a leader. I am responsible for the image of this ping list alone, and I try to keep the reputation of the FR creationist community also. If you wish to be removed, I'll do that. But as long as you're part of the group, I'll intervene if someone is being rude.
Never.
Please, your rudeness is becoming tiresome. Do not continue to say rude and insulting things to me.
Sorry, my mistake, upon closer reading I see your discourse is admirably civil.
The definition using frequency of alleles is focused upon eukaryotes. Typically an allele is considered one sequence of a pool of functional sequences for a gene that occur at a particular locus of a chromosome. Bacteria of course do not have chromosomes, so in bacteria an allele is located in the genome or on a plasmid. This works all right for DNA viruses too, but for RNA viruses we need to modify the unspoken assumption that the genome in question is DNA based.
So a comprehensive definition would say that an allele is one possible productive RNA or DNA sequence for a gene located at a specific place in the genome of the organism in question.
Who is this imbecile? It is a demonstrated fact that the descendants of the original mutant microorganism inherit its antibiotic resistance.
Well, a couple more modifications. I checked and found that bacteria may have more than one chromosome, so the definition of allele still fits properly there. But instead of saying "genome" I should say "sum genetic material" to include any plasmids present in bacteria.
You are confusing life-cycle and evolution now :-)
"In another 10 years, I could become a Democrat?"
I think that would devolution or degeneration :-)
"Course if you rely on science, they would still classify me as human."
Science and its various domains of expertise have numerous ways to classify organisms :-)
Indeed, my good man.
Why use the term allele when it was coined well before the molecular understanding of genetics we have now.
Your definition, for example, uses concepts that post-date the term allele.
LOL--perhaps because I actually understand the science behind what is going on. I can only re-state:
Evolution consists of two separate processes operating synergistically. Those two process are alteration of the genetic material of some individuals of the evolving species (mutation), and selective survival of those individuals having the "favored" mutation in the current environment (natural selection).
Bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance involves both of those steps, so it is EVOLUTION.
As to stupidity--last time I looked, the academic title after my name was "PhD"---what's YOURS??
You have just mentioned some of the many misconceptions and misinterpretations that cause YEC folks to cling to their medieval position.
And, yes, hubris is at the root of it all...
This is revisionist re-definition of evolution. It is certainly nor Darwinian.
Natural selection is not evolution but is a mechanism by which evolution occurs.
Same for mutation.
You are mistaking mechanisms contributing to evolution with evolution.
Don't have the cojones to ping me on your latest smear, eh, tallhappy?
Same old same old. And I took you apart on the thread to which you refer. If you study it hard, you may come to understand how.
I still disagree. The differential reproduction of genotypes (natural selection) results in a population with a different frequency of alleles than the parent population (evolution).
Scientists do tend to make that mistake. Conflating the defining processes of a phenomenon with the phenomenon itself.
When will they ever learn?
I see it that speciation is evolution, not modfication of genomes. I think that was always the original idea as well. Defining it down came later and I think is a political move.
I have no idea who defines these things either.
To make you happy I will include you in every post I make from now on. OK?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.