× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
New Topic  
Data Data
wrote...
Posts: 61
Rep: 1 0
11 years ago
That is, an addition of new information to the genome. Let it be known that I am not trying to be some intentionally annoying creationist, I just want to know.
Read 709 times
7 Replies

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
11 years ago
Yes. They put too much preventive antibiotics in chickens for example. So the bacteria had a lot of time to adapt.

Also, when you don't finish an antibiotics cure, some bacteria will survive and then there's a change you develop a resistance to antibiotics.
wrote...
11 years ago
Yes. Staph infections became a problem when bacteria evolved an immunity against antibacterial hand wash gels in many hospitals. Guess what happened? Washing with plain soap & water ended the infections!
wrote...
11 years ago
Initially it was believed to be an example of evolution and was widely hailed as evidence of evolution in action. Medical researchers followed that path  but it turned out to be a dead end. The reason it was considered a dead end is epidemiologists were able to replicate the resistance in the lab but when the compared the chromosomal DNA of the non-resistant bacteria against the chromosomal DNA of the bacteria that gained resistance they found no change. The chromosomal DNA before and after resistance was gained was identical (meaning evolution did not take place).

One thing that was noticed when continuing to culture bacteria is that the non-resistant bacteria did better compared to the resistant bacteria in cultures that did not contain the antibiotic, but once you add the antibiotic to the culture media the resistant bacteria grew at a comparable rate to the non-resistant bacterial in culture media without the antibiotic. This lead researchers to look at the bacterias metabolic pathways and ultimately to discover that the resistance was mediated by plasmids responsible for metabolism. In short the bacteria taught itself to use the antibiotics as food.

This new understanding of the metabolic pathways in bacteria helped to understand insect resistance to pesticides (bacteria in the insects gut digest food and the same process resulted in resistance to pesticides). Once resistance was formed in one insect other insects were able to pick up this resistance by eating the fecal matter of insects that were resistant and the resistance spread to the population very quickly. This has also been found to be the mechanism that allowed some bacteria to eat nylon.

Short answer, acquired bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not an example of evolution.
wrote...
11 years ago
The question is not weather it is an example of evolution because it depends on your definition of evolution and a definition like 'gradual change' is so general that no one disputes that that kind of evolution occurs.

A much better question is - what is the change on a genetic level and what causes the code to change?
wrote...
11 years ago
Yes, antibiotic resistance in bacteria meets all of the postulates in the ToE:

The variations are genetically based, they are heritable, the variations are selected for, and the descendants with the mutations are more fit relative to other members of the species.
wrote...
11 years ago
Isn't evolution the idea of a kind changing to a different kind? It is still the same staph bacteria. It's just a stronger form. By the way I am not a creationist, because they are not entirely accurate. However I do believe in creation just not to the extreme of inaccuracy.
wrote...
11 years ago
It depends on your definition of "evolution."

Evolution is NOT simply "change." Why have two words that mean the same thing? Evolution is directional.

Small-scale change allowing an organism to adapt to its environment is NOT evolution. Are we talking about the length of finch beaks again? The change in length of finch beaks may very accurately describe what is occurring; however, this small-scale variation within a kind is being misrepresented as proof for Darwinian evolution from one kind to another.

A small group of microbiologists may be redefining "evolution" for their own purpose, and may have posted a new definition on the web yesterday, but that just leads to misunderstanding, not evolution understood by the masses. They need their own distinctive term OTHER than "evolution," because Darwinian Evolution implies molecules to man and is a hoax.
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  990 People Browsing
Related Images
  
 807
  
 1054
  
 1096
Your Opinion
Do you believe in global warming?
Votes: 370