Let us say some idiot Creationists supposes that “either I got infected with the resistant strain or I didn't - evolution cannot happen” and stops taking their antibiotics as soon as they feel better, but before all the bacteria are dead.
Those bacteria are now subject to stressful but not lethal levels of the antibiotic.
Under stress many bacteria start using error prone DNA polymerase to reproduce their genome instead of the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase - this increases their mutation rate. Thus any new variation (that did not previously exist in the population, but was created through mutation) that helps it survive the stressful levels of antibiotic tend to predominate in subsequent generations of the bacteria. This is known as natural selection of genetic variation. Note that the variation was created through error prone DNA polymerase in this example - it did not previously exist in the population.
Thus the bacteria comes back from an ineffective treatment of antibiotics as one that has developed antibiotic resistance. The idiot gets sick again, and now needs a different antibiotic than the one that would have been effective if they had used it correctly.
Thus we see the HARM that your anti-science denial of reality can cause. People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
"Let us say some idiot Creationists supposes that “either I got infected with the resistant strain or I didn't - evolution cannot happen” and stops taking their antibiotics as soon as they feel better, but before all the bacteria are dead.
Have you actually done much thinking about Creationism and evolution and (Big-E) Evolution?? Creationists DO NOT believe in stasis, as evidenced by the fact that all of them (or at least the Christian ones) believe that the various races of man differentiated from a single pair of individuals over recent time. In fact, you could say that Creationists believe in rapid De-volution, that is the rapid degeneration of the biosphere. Theologically, this comes from the Christian view that creation is in a state of progressive disarray, an understanding (whether they agree with it or not) that 98% of Evolutionists are utterly clueless about.
William Paley is dead and long gone and so are his ideas. So please re-formulate your objections to Creationism with an eye toward understanding what creationists are saying, not what you imagine they are saying.
FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU, I needed a good laugh today.
People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
Variation within species, not *evolutionary change*.
The ones who have contributed to anti-biotic resistance in bacteria are the medical professions, who supposedly have some background in biology which, according to evos, would include evolution, and so THEY should have known better and not over prescribed anti-biotics in the first place, which they should have foreseen would become resistant as an understanding of the ToE would have told them.
The patients CANNOT get antibiotics to use without a prescription from their doctors, who SHOULD HAVE known better with their education in science and biology, which SHOULD HAVE included the ToE.
The people most vocal about the overuse of antibiotics and warning of the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria were the naturalists, whom the scientific and medical communities pooh-poohed as being........ unscientific.
What smart bacteria. How clever of them to figure that out all by their little selves.
Think they ever heard of Darwin?
Consider other biological organisms which afflict mammals. For example
Have you ever treated patients for any infection? And if not, would you please tell the readers of your post a little more regarding the, as you say, "idiot crationists", about this propounded infection which was the harmful results of their "idiocy". You seem to forcefully put forth the claim that evolution of microbes (better said to be mutations) is the reason and only reason which results in harm from the development of resistance to antiobiotic chemotherpy (antibiotic chemotherapy being an older term for antibiotic therapy). It seems that one would logically conclude from your remarks that antibiotics and antibiotics alone are the ultimate arbitor of whether or not HARM is the result of this mutation in an organism (bacterial). I was taught that there are many factors in HARM done by infectuous agents. For example people with AIDS can be infused with dangerously toxic doses of antibiotics to the patient but will not abate the symptoms and signs associated with one and a number of species of microbes which could cause everything from pneumonia, multiple abcesses, sepsis, or any of dozens of other types of diseases. The dosage of the antibiotic was not in question as to efficacy, so there must have been other factors than simply the concentration of the antibiotc in solution involved in some of the organisms remaining viable. I was taught that, depending on the antibiotic, it efficacy might depend upon the possible delay in administration of therapy, administration of suboptimal doses of the antimicrobial compound, alteration in the metabolic state of the patient, synergism with other antibiotics, secondary infections, medical or physiological processes of certain bacteria may act to interfer with the cidal or static effects of other concurently administered antibiotics. Then, of course, there are independent patients which have slightly different physiologies which may result in ineffectual antibiotic therapy. For example a patient who is in acidosis (for a number of reasons, renal failure, congestive heart failure, sepsis, many kinds of idiopathic dysrrhythmias, etc.) will result in certain antibiotics which whill not change to a bioavailable form which results in death of the said bacterial organism. Other host determinents would be age, genetic factors (i.e. Glucose 6-Phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency may result in indeterminate rate of inactivation of isoniazide, pregnancy and the placental/blood barrier, or the effect of the blood/brain barrier which prevents certain drugs to be available in cases of various types of bacterial encephalitis, or any of a plethora of concurrent diseases the patient has, atopic allergy, insufficiency of blood flow to affected areas, or the inability of many, many drugs to penetrate the relative alkaline fluids of the prostate gland making prostatis more difficult to treat, and with fewer available choices, or heptatic function or renal function which often inactivate the drugs within a pharmakodynamic bioavailable serum concentration curve. Virtually all, (not necessarily injection abcess sites) abcesses are specifically not treated singularly, or even preferentially, by antibiotic therapy. The treatment of choice is drainage of the abcess. The reason for this is that there is a sequestration of the microbe within a pocket of pus. I have seen abcesses as large as NFL footballs. Antibiotics will never treat, singularly, such infections. Even small 1 cm. abcesses will not be eradicated with antibiotcs alone. The acidity of the pus pocket and lack of blood suppy into the abcess pocket will not allow antibiotic penetration and thus cure.
Now I think what you referenced was the MISUSE of antibiotics which cause failure of treatment. These would include treatment of untreatalble infections, treatment of FUO, improper dosages and duration of treatment, treatment with antibiotics with omission of necessary surgical drainage, lack of bacteriological information (from sensitivity studies, serotype of microbe, and other causes. Having been on the front lines for 30+ years, reality, not theoretical, I will grant, have observed, and have treated MRSA and others. When I first started in surgery Serratia marcessensdid not cause disease in human (except in very rare opportunistic occasions), however, now, we see it not uncommonly in UTIs. Certain strains of Enterococcus, the likewise occurrances. We see more and more of it. I know you must laugh when you read of the the flesh-eating bacteria. Fascitis has been around for millenia. But, the fact is that it does occur from time to time. Nosocomial infections are becomming more and more a problem and will become worse with cutbacks in payment Part B medicare payments. Research in study of mutations research as regards to microbes will likewise be receiving much less mony. I look for pharmaceuticals to cut way back in R & R over the next few years. You know, Maggie Thatchers remarks that the problem with socialism is that very soon the socialist run out of other peoples money. Mutation, transduction, transformation, bacterial conjugation are all valid areas of research and study.
Consider other biologicals which cause disease in man and mammals. The helminths are considerable in their devastation in certain areas of the world. Loa loa, Cestoda species, Lumbricoides species, Clonorchis species, Fasciola species, even amoebic infestations are cases in point. Thirty years ago, there were no more than 2 or 3 drugs use in ranching to kill various intestinal tapeworms and some external parasites such as lice and horn flies. Many of those parasites developed a tolerence to those drugs and are now completely ineffective. We have gone from piperazine which was effective in the '50s and are not completely ineffective. We now use Ivermectine or Novamectine or Cydectine. These are completely different drugs, in completely different classes of drusgs than the piperazine or thiobendazole. Yet, the organism, Taenia sagginatum remains the same species. Same species of worm, resistant to above drugs, now remain the exact same species of organims Taenia sagginatum. The same could be said of the 'evolution' of the beef (and human) liver fluke worm, Fasciola hepaticushaving evolved to Fasciola hepaticus. I could continue to speak on these mutations of other species, Clonorchis, Ascaris, Diphillobothum, Necator (hookworm) Enterobius (pinworms), or even ectoparasits of the order Siphoptera, or the malarial organisms, Plasmodium or even Leishmonia organism or amoebic species. The point is they all adapt to their challanges, but they stay the same species. I know you already know this, but you do not factor it into your colloquy, but rather move to the pejorative. You might even look at a book entitled, The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease look up the myriad diseases caused genetic or acquired deficiencies in enzyme systems in certain people. Lesch-Nyhan Disease is a particularly heinous condition, but incredibly interesting and due to a single genetic deficiency of an enzyme, hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase. I will not describe the manifest pathology. But I could point to carbohydrate metabolism deficiencies, Proteing metabolism deficiencies, Lipid metabolism deficiencies, Steroid metabolic deficiencies, Purine and Pyramidine metabolic deficiencies, and that of poyphyrines, connective tissue, those of blood born metabolic disease such as siclkle-cell, hereditary spherocytosis, thallacemias, and others all which have one singular thing in common. They all are due to mutations and they all 'evoloved' from Homo sapien to Homo sapien. They, all such afflicted, are human beings. Not Homo noeticus or another homo species. Maybe things are not always as crystialline in the nouminal world as they are in our minds. Just food for thought.
But don't you think it is a little harsh to reference the creationists as idiots. It tells me more about your mindset than theirs noetic ability. It does seem unkind and unnecessary. Your 'coda' seems unnecessary also. May I ask why you do that? I think Mormons are in theological error, but I would not be ugly to them simply because I felt they were in error. I would press my case, make my argument, but not be pejorative. What is the good in that? I look forward to read your reply.
I still wish for you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
I will tell you a story. I reread my post and in the next-to-last paragraph, referencing you declaration of creationists being idiots, I mistyped the word as, idyiotes, which I am sure would have resulted in your declaring proof of your claim regarding creationsists, even though you do not know whether or not I am a creationists. No doubt you would have declared it an "Act of God" and proclaimed victory.
Well, anyway, I thought it was humorous. Have a great day.