Evolution and bacterial resistance to antibiotics

ONE of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations. A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.

Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realised that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. 70

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.

In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.

Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken.

The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds." Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects.

In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!

http://www.harunyahya.com/

For the original article :

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html




Boring creationist claptrap. Got nothing original to say, biologist?

Biologist,
Evolution is not told in the story of life, we see it in the story of death.

The 'unsuited' die and do not pass on their genes, from bacteria to mammals. It used to include home sapiens too.

What does your hate-inspired holy book have to say about evolution or are you using the xian bible as fuel for this one? You know the one, the book you use as an earlier form of your own superstition and for which the believers will suffer as stated in 494 lines in your book.

Physfan

Good grief it gets old replying to this type of tripe.
Listen Biologist...
If bacteria A has a spot in its genes that codes for a streptomycin binding agent but does not produce much will die in the face of an onslaught of that antibiotic.
At the same time if Bacteria A has time to multiply into a colony of 5 billion bacteria A they will be mostly clones, but no, really a lot of them will be slightly different in metabolizing things and producing things. And guess why that happens?! Its Because theres a lot of different factors that cause slight mutations in the genes of the bacteria mutations that lead it to produce more more antibiotic resistant chemicals that deactivate things like streptomycin before its able to essentially cut giant holes in the NAM-NAG bacterial wall changing the osmotic pressure and thus lycing it. The ones that mutated enough in favor of producing more B-lactamases will survive. Theres more, not all bacteria that have been seen to produce resistance use R-plasmids or are even compatible with excepting genetic material from a pili. So the ones that don't automatically debunk your theory. Also to note it has been seen that the genes of a bacteria have mutated and actual become a lot better off in there environments different bacteria have developed immunities to sulfonamides by stop production of folic acid and developing pumps to take it from there enviorment instead live on to start synthesizing it again after another mutation and now the metabolise faster because now they bring in twice the material.. I could go on and on but my point is Biologist Lee Spetner is full of crap and if you spent anytime actually reading a real biology book you'd know that.
Additionally there are a ton of examples of additions to genetic material from bacteria to bacteria are you forgetting transposons, Hfr's, Frameshift Mutagens, or mishaps insertions by DNA polymerase? Really man do your homework explore both sides of the issue before presenting that garbage.

If you actually pay attention...Spetner is supporting evolution.
He clearly defines the mechanism of evolution....but twists it and makes grandiose claims.

In the end though...its still evolution.
No hand of God....
No magic....
Still follows the principle of evolution...he just wants to rename it...so that its not "evolution"

Dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Are you seriously trying to argue against micro-evolution? That is the part of the theory that is without a doubt proven. In fact, micro-evolution is often called the "fact of evolution" because there is no denying that aspect of it. Even most Creationists accept micro-evolution.



This post has been edited by Rusty Shackleford on Feb 7 2007, 01:37 AM

Biologists statements are true. Added information to the gene code has NEVER been observed. The bacteria is still a bacteria not a transitional form of any kind. Natural selection (micro-evolution) is not the mechanism for goo to you via the zoo evolution. Natural selection is well documented and observed, but in order for any form of life to "evolve" to another form of life information needs to be added to the DNA. The fact is that natural selection is ALWAYS a loss of information or a mutation which may be beneficial such as in the case of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

IMCREATED. A Pakicetus was originally a wolf like land creature. It's descendants today are whales and dolphins. A fair number of fossils from China now prove that today's birds came from dinosaurs (lizards). These are proofs of macro-evolution.

Mudskippers and tree climbing perch are fish which can navigate across land and even climb trees. Evolution in action which you can see today. These are proofs of macro-evolution.

The idea that natural selection involves a loss of information is cretinous. By definition, you will need more information to change to evolve to cope with something new. We have what is called "junk DNA" (because originally it was thought that it served no purpose). 90% of our DNA to be precise. Our DNA can combine with that to produce beneficial mutations to allow us to survive new problems.


Some easy reading on macro-evolution :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

While the SPECIFIC mutation in the bacteria that provided resistance to Streptomycyin resulted in a LOSS of information, that DOES NOT MEAN that ALL mutations follow this pattern.

Many mutations involve DUPLICATION of genetic material or NEW COMBINATIONS and are thus ADDITIVE.

Arthur

" I have gathered all these trees together to PROVE there is no forest!"

Sincerely,
Oxensraiser?

Biologist, The "researcher" you quote, "Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:
1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution."

Spetner's interpretation is wrong, period. However these genes are transferred or genetic material is "lost", whether by mutation or not, "survival of the fittest" (natural selection) is the force acting in their being passed on BY THE SURVIVORS. That is evolution!

"Though natural selection is decidedly non-random in its manner of action, other more capricious forces have a strong hand in the process of evolution. Genetic drift results in heritable traits becoming more or less common simply due to random chance. This aimless process may overwhelm the effects of natural selection in certain situations (especially in small populations)." wikipedia.

An isolated bacterial population being treated with antibiotics is an perfect example of this. Case closed. That is evolution in action!

Spetner and "Biologist" have completely missed the point here.

Susceptability to an antibiotic was never an evolved trait by a bacteria. The anntibiotic is a chemical that was produced by an organism evolved to take advantage of that weakness in the bacteria. The "loss of genetic material by mutation" is not that at all, it is a correction of a genetic weakness.

This is evolution.

I think this bad information (if you will pardon my use of the word) came from Jonathan Sarfati. Refuting Evolution: A Handbook for Students, Parents, and Teachers Countering the Latest Arguments for Evolution Master Books (1999) ISBN 0890512582 .

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Confounds transitional fossils with new information. Mistakes evolution with a straw man caricature which has momentum and long-term goals.
Echoes the old-school creationist line: "Creation of distinct kinds precludes transmutation between kinds" (Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 216). Which is not supported by observation.

Confounds the roles of natural selection and mutation in the theory of evolution. Weakens original argument.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Mar 29 2007, 09:40 PM

IMCREATED; some mutations will add genetic data, this is fully proven. In addition, some viruses will (accidentally) add genetic information instead of infecting.

The people who told you about 'no new information' were lying