Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
If evolution is false, how do we explain bacteria which has grown resistant to antibiotics?
You've just discovered pencillin, a wonder drug derived from fungus among us. In your enthusiasm as newest superhero to the world, you begin distributing the drug worldwide to cure all manner of bacterial infections.
Things are fine for a few years. Only a few people suffer anaphylactic shock and die from the drug itself, but the majority see their infections gradually dissipate.
More time passes. Sporadic reports come in about people with infections which are slow to heal or aren't healing at all in response to pencillin. OMGWTF, you utter in the early 1900s equivalent dialect.
The people suffering these infections are from the same region of the U.S., haven't travelled abroad. The infection itself exhibits similar characteristics aside from its seeming immunity to penicillin.
You gather up cultures of the bacteria from these oddball cases, then place them in petri dishes side-by-side with "standard" bacteria, then expose both to an equal dose of penicillin. Chillingly, the former happily continues to reproduce without regard to the penicillin, while the ordinary bacteria is decimated.
If evolution doesn't happen, how do we explain the survivability of these newer bacteria against a drug that destroyed their predecessors?
(Psst, I know penicillin actually is derived from mold, but moldus among us didn't sound right)
Wow, I would've expected at least a few quotes from scripture on this but not a peep as yet!
What would Darwin do??
Monica V: Interesting points, but I would argue the amount of genetic material is similar between the strains, but their configuration differs, allowing the resistant strain to continue to thrive in an environment made toxic to the nonresistant strain.
One person mentioned that macroevolution is basically a combination over long periods of time of many microevolutions. Something which speaks to this in our own genome is the presence of viral DNA and RNA which has been acquired over our (presumed) evolution. Some of this DNA is basically useless, vestigial, but some "foreign" DNA is responsible for structures and processes in our bodies which might not have been able to develop purely on their own, but instead due to the happy coincidence of being at the right place at the right time to favor these to be evolved into our genetic makeup.
Your scenario of the blind literally leading the blind after a disaster is interesting, but, what if bunches of humans emerge from underground military bases, or sunglass-wearing ones just get up and walk around, unaffected by the disaster which has blinded everyone else? Basically the same genetics, just fortunate to have not borne the brunt of the condition which blinded everyone else. Guess who most likely survives to procreate?
Also the disaster you mention doesn't say it wiped out people's reproductive capacity, nor that this blinding condition is somehow welded into the victims' DNA, so why should that condition follow into the affected survivors' children? The next generation may pop out with perfectly normal vision, so long as the blind parents can fit tab A into slot B in their perpetual darkness.
The Danimal: I think what you're describing neglects the impact of time. If bits and pieces of DNA combine over a few minutes, years, decades, it's probably not going to do a whole lot. It might just sit and get moldy and provide life to mold or other crap that likes that kind of environment.
Since DNA of other lower life forms has made its way into our own genetic makeup, this suggests that hugely long times are required to see significant changes that evolution seems to describe.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
We can't. No One Can, Without the Intervention of "Magic".
EDIT: of Interest:
[Not Beta-Lactam Resistance, Mediated By a Plasmid.]
Clear Evidence of Mutation:
- ?Lv 45 years ago
I am a Born Again Pentecostal Christian, and I am a Medical Laboratory worker by profession. It is my job to prepare microbiology materials and on occasion inoculate culture media myself, on behalf of the technologist, so I know all about bacterial antibiotic sensitivity and resistance- more than it is my actual job to know. The way you are talking about this seems as if you read about it in a magazine somewhere (reading about stuff in magazines is still good!) but have had not had formal training in the subject. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial species does not prove evolution. At first glance, it would sound as if the bacteria were evolving to develop immunity to antibiotics, unfortunately for evolutionists, that is not the case! How this is at all possible is a very interesting subject, availing of technical explanation that I may lack the expertise to adequately explain. However, you can read further and confirm this. The bacteria do not "evolve" or develop immunity; the immunity was already present. What has happened is that all the members of the species that do not have the immunity die out, while those which do have the immunity survive to propagate further, until only they remain. Bacteria do not reproduce sexually, but asexually. That is, there is no male-female mating, but bacteria basically fission new offspring which are identical to one another. When bacterial species are identified, they can be tested superficially and proven to be the same species- pass and fail the same agglutination tests, stain exactly the same, and look the same, but when exposed to antibiotics, they may react differently. The first man I worked under happened to be the discoverer of the world's first known strain of Penicillin-resistant gonococcus. As a laboratory assistant in Manchester, England, he "foolishly" did a sensitivity test on a baffling infection from an air-stewardess, which tested positive for gonnorrhea, but did not respond to Penicillin. This was considered impossible, and "high-end scientists" had proven conclusively that it was impossible for the gonococcus to produce the enzyme needed to destroy Penicillin. The young Black lab assistant who went on to be my boss proved that it was indeed possible- his South African White boss got all the credit, of course, and it was written up in the LANCET, without even mentioning my boss, who was the real hero, because he had to convince his boss that what he was saying was impossible was indeed the case. A new species of gonococcus did not evolve. It always existed. Why we were now able to find it was that this promiscuous stewardess had so abused penicillin, that the members of the species that were susceptible to it were eliminated, and those which were not- which were such a tiny minority, they were never noticed- now became dominant. Now, no one reckons with penicillin as protection from infection- unless they are suicidal. These antibiotics-resistant germs are not new species, but they are the same species that have always existed, but with characteristics that were not dominant, due to competition from other members of their species, which did not need their own special characteristic option. If this is not confusing enough, it has relatively recently been discovered that genes can "jump" from one germ to another. At the level I read this at the time, they only knew that it was happening, and not how it was happening. But this immunity is definitely nothing to do with evolution from one species into a completely different one. This was an old argument about evolution decades ago, when it was argued that a certain type of moth had evolved a darker colouration to be able to hide from bird predators in a certain urban area somewhere- I forget where, but the case is very well known. It was refuted by showing that what had actually happened was that as the light coloured trees were darkened by smog, the lighter-coloured moths were exposed to predators, and eaten. while the darker-coloured moths which had always existed, became hidden, and thus multiplied. The people who use these very old arguments to "prove" Evolution often know that they have been refuted, but merely go and abuse the ignorance of those who do not know the refutation. What sort of Science is that? Why lie to back up something that cannot be proven by the examples selected? When they convince people who happen not to know these refutations, does it give them a "big" feeling, seeing them go off to look silly among those who know about the solutions? They have been tricked into taking examples proving Natural Selection as proof of Evolution. This also goes for those who use invalid examples to back up Creationism, too! Life is wonderful and sophisticated, but these appearances are insufficient to prove the existence of a sentient supernatural creator, so that we must work harder if we want to convince even the highly intelligent.
- 1 decade ago
Well Evolution is right but i think the religious people will say something like this bacteria always has been the same just we discoverd it acts diffrently after we but it through a test.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Here's how I see it.The church and the scientific community have never seen eye to eye. The church has always felt that people should not look to close into how the world works and try to figure out how it works. Only god should know that. Scientific community has always felt we must know how the universe works and there's not nothing wrong with that.needless to say the two has has been at war ever since.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I don't believe that evolution is false..and I love reading Darwin...now you went and ask for scripture and they are going to answer you with a vengeance....
- 1 decade ago
Its Teh Evuhl Bacteriuh
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Am I the only one who finds it odd that Monica uses an example of evolution (population change over time) to disprove evolution?
- 1 decade ago
but evolution says that life just decided to happen one day. Do you truly believe that the single celled bacteria will grow into a multi-celled human being?
Think about the pyramids made in Egypt. Nothing more than rock stacked upon one another into a pyramid shape, yet you believe that humans must've created them, because they are far too complex for it to just happen. Then answer me this, what is more complex, the pyramids in Egypt, or the human body?
I believe the human body is far too complex to just happen, thus I come to the conclusion that God created man.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Apprently according to creationist there is a diffrence between mirco and macro evoultion.
For some reason creationist can't seem to understand that marco evoultion is just alot of mirco evoultions combined
- Monica VLv 61 decade ago
Bacteria doesn't grow resistant to antibiotics, neither do insects grow resistant to insecticide. In each case, the resistance is already present, only in a small portion of the population.
What happens is that the antibiotics kill off most of the bacteria leaving only the resistant strains behind to reproduce. The non-resistant strains are NOT producing resistant strains, it's just that the resistant strains are surviving.
In each clinical case, the resistance comes at the LOSS of genetic material - not a gain. Evolution requires a gain.
Also, regardless of the amount that any bacteria adapts, it is still bacteria. No bacteria has ever developed into a non bacteria. That is what would be necessary to suggest that macro-evolution is true.
Let me illustrate what's happening. If the entire earth suffered a disaster which blinded everyone, many people would die and lose their way. Yet you'd see people who were already blind suddenly arise as the dominant, advantaged members of our society, and the most likely to survive the oncoming months.
A little empirical science can clear up a lot of evolution dogma.