TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Debate: Does antibiotic-resistant bacteria prove Darwin's theory of evolution?

MRSA is a bacterium which has EVOLVED to become resistent to antibiotics. Therefore, if someone gets infected then its extremely difficult for antibiotics to kill the Pathogens.
Many scientists think that we are using to many antibiotics and bacteria is becoming immune. This is a huge problem as how will we protect ourselves against these infectious diseases?

However, i am asking whether this evolution, that has taken place in our lifespan, proves, or helps prove, Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 3 2012: Nah ! Natural selection is just favouring already-resistant bacteria.


    • Nov 3 2012: but it wasnt bacteria resistent it change/evoled ? that link is to a biblical site do you not think that it would be biased then/
      • thumb
        Nov 3 2012: Hi Freddie.
        I don't thing anyone doubts that the resistant bacteria are already present in the population & are selected by natural selection. Call it evolution if you like, but it doesn't increase complexity.

        ""Genes for resistance to antibiotics, like the antibiotics themselves, are ancient.[1] However, the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections seen in clinical practice stems from antibiotic use both within human medicine and veterinary medicine. Any use of antibiotics can increase selective pressure in a population of bacteria to allow the resistant bacteria to thrive and the susceptible bacteria to die off. As resistance towards antibiotics becomes more common, a greater need for alternative treatments arises. However, despite a push for new antibiotic therapies there has been a continued decline in the number of newly approved drugs.[2] Antibiotic resistance therefore poses a significant problem.""


        • Nov 4 2012: Peter,
          Are you saying that Bacteria carrying several genes that allow them to resist antibiotics are no more complex than bacteria that do not carry such genes? That would be quite a stretch even by creationist standards.
        • Nov 6 2012: There is no relationship between evolution and an increase in complexity. The reverse s perfectly possible and there are many known instances.
    • thumb
      Nov 4 2012: "Favouring already existing bacteria..."

      Well what do you think natural selection means???
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2012: Exactly that. However nothing 'evolves' by natural selection; it just gets selected from a set of existing options. To assist in the vindication of Darwin's theory, we would need a new improved bacteria to appear. One that hasn't existed before.

        • thumb
          Nov 4 2012: New bacteria do appear all the time, because of mutations.
          But do you believe in mutation?
        • Nov 6 2012: Natural selection does not describe evolution - it is a phenomenon associated with it. Natural selection is not the only force involved - genetic drift is also possible, for example.

          Since only a tiny fraction of bacteria have been identified, and since they transfer genetic material between each other - there being little in the way of a bacterial species, as such - it is not surprising that a new specie of bacteria can be identified. To summarize - they don't really have species so the comment is meaningless.
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2012: Sure it damages the bacteria so that the antibiotic cannot lock on & destroy it. Damaging things is not normally advantageous, & in no way furthers the Darwinist cause.

        • thumb
          Nov 4 2012: Well what if this damage causes damaged bacteria to supersede "normal" bacteria, for instance if antibiotics can no longer destroy them? Wouldn't you call this damage advantageous?
          This does "further the Darwinist cause", because that is all there is to it.

          Something else, since we're at it... I've always wondered. Do Creationists believe domestic cats were created by God?
        • Nov 4 2012: So having a variant of a gene that resists antibiotics is damage? Wow.
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2012: It's a bit like the flightless flies that don't get blown out to sea on a windy beach. Or the folks with sickle cell anaemia who are immune to aids. The mutation is only advantageous under specific conditions, but the overall fitness is reduced. Four punctures may be handy for getting under a low bridge, but not on the motorway. If you mutate any well designed system it's bad news.
        I doubt God created domestic cats; much more likely a big cat of some sort with enough variability to 'evolve'(if you like) into the many variations we see today.

        • thumb
          Nov 5 2012: Overall fitness? Are you saying that fitness is objective and not relative to environment?
          So you can admit that evolution works on big cats. Do you believe in evolution for any other animal?
        • Nov 6 2012: What people with sickle cell anemia are immune to AIDS? There is no association between sickle cell anemia and AIDS immunity.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2012: Hi Gerald.
        Superbugs only exist in sterile environments. Put them outside with all the other bugs & they don't do so well. Their mutation is a disadvantage in any environment other than a sterile one; where their unmutated brothers & sisters are decimated by the antibiotics.
        No one has ever argued with the fact that creatures adapt to their environment under the influence of natural selection. We see it every day & can test it in the lab; it's undeniable, every creature has this ability. What we cannot see or test is the theory that one type of creature can eventually morph into another type of creature . Darwinists call the change within a kind evolution, & show obvious examples; then talk as if the crossing into a new type is the same phenomenon. It's a play on words. There is no convincing evidence that such a thing ever happened.

        • thumb
          Nov 5 2012: I see. You believe in natural selection as a means of small adaptation. This matches the idea that the world is a few millenia old, I guess.
          What I don't understand is why God would work so hard at making it seem like an accident. Why did he arrange bones and genes in a way that really looks like we're all descendants of a common ancestor?
          I mean, can you blame evolutionists?
        • Nov 6 2012: You are mixing terms - you can't deny the existence of evolution because 'it's only natural selection' and use the word evolution in the same sentence. If the superbugs did develop as a result of mutation as you describe then evidently evolution did take place. If they then don;t survive well outside a hospital that's irrelevant. Evolution is evolution is evolution. Clearly there is nothing to stop some mutilations benefiting organisms outside a sterile environment.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2012: All my life I have marvelled at the world, the universe, the whole thing. Naturally, evolution was my first port of call. I was disappointed that there was no way to be certain that this was the way it had happened. Church was a meeting place for hypocrites, totally irrelevant to my search.
        When I was 35 I came across the creation guys. They put the science together with the biblical narrative. This made sense to me, & makes more sense as I study it.
        How you see things is based on what you expect to see.
        When I see similar body plans, I do not see evolution, but a variety of near perfect creatures built by one maker & designed to survive in the same environment
        When I see millions of millions of fossils buried deeply, I know they had to be buried rapidly to be fossils at all; so a fairly rapid worldwide flood makes more sense than the piecemeal deposition over billions of years espoused by evolution.
        So this ordered & complex universe does not look to me like an accident, quite the opposite.
        It is not difficult to line up fossils & make up a story about evolution; much more difficult to produce empirical evidence. I could dig up the bodies in our local graveyard & 'prove' that people are getting bigger/smaller/fatter/thinner, & given a reputation, people would believe me.
        Evolution must make sense to those who refuse to consider a non-material explanation, it's sadly all they have. If you want an alternative, then try looking at things from a different perspective.

        • Nov 5 2012: Hello Peter,
          I have seen many creationists argue that natural selection and mutations cannot be real and after blindly rejecting these facts it is easy to see why they are against evolution. However you have accepted these facts but could not see that small changes that are made possible by mutations and natural selection, given large enough time, will eventually lead to a specie to morph into a new specie. We are talking about a time scale of billions of years which is more than enough for a specie to morph into another one. Small changes eventually lead to transformations.
        • thumb
          Nov 5 2012: I hear you, but suppose for a minute the world is billions of years old.
          What do you think might happen to two animals of the same species if they end up in groups living completely isolated from one another for millions of years? You must certainly agree that they might adapt to different environments and, given enough time, might end up becoming two very distinctive animals.
          Is time the only trouble about the theory of evolution?
        • Nov 6 2012: It seems you like things because 'they made sense to me.' Fine - but it doesn't make sense to other people.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2012: Hi Alp.
        Never heard of anybody denying natural selection.
        Natural selection selects from pre-existing code. This code is finite within any creature, so the amount of variation is limited. This is obvious from breeding dogs, cattle, & corn; we always end up with dogs, cattle, & corn. If you want to believe otherwise, that's ok. There is no real proof though.
        As most mutations disrupt the code the chances of new useful code appearing spontaneously is extremely remote. All the more so as it would have to have happened millions of times to give the desired results. Just not logical. We also have the small problem of body plans, which apparently have nothing to do with DNA coding. So we can mutate 'til the cows come home, it will not produce a new biological structure.

        • thumb
          Nov 5 2012: "This code is finite within any creature, so the amount of variation is limited."

          This reasoning is wrong, Peter, because mutated organisms don't carry the initial code anymore. They carry a new one, which can be mutated into yet another one. This is limitless, wouldn't you agree?
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2012: Hi Gerald.
        There are a couple of problems with your scenario. Bill Gates & others have likened the DNA code to our computer code, but immensely more complex. Imagine we started introducing random code into Microsoft Word. How long would it remain usable ? Mutations will wreck the code long before any imagined benefit could take hold. Time & further mutations will only make matters worse; it's not going to happen. There is no reason to think nature is any different.
        According to Stephen Myres the DNA coding has nothing at all to do with body plans, & no amount of 'beneficial' mutations can possibly produce a new organ, or body plan.
        I just can't find any reason to believe in this stuff.

        • Nov 6 2012: It's very easy to demonstrate the evolutionary history of numerous organs. The eyes, for example, have been closely studied, and there is no evolutionary mystery at all.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2012: I can't explain evolution any further. I'd have to start at the begining. When you say "Time & further mutations will only make matters worse; it's not going to happen", you're leaving out the role played by natural selection, as if chance were the only drive of evolution.
          Also, you believe everything is the way it's supposed to be, like Feynman's joke about licence plates "You'll never believe the licence plate I saw on a car today. NL-5589!!!! Of all possible combinations, NL-5589!!! The odds are 1 to billions!"
          You come from faraway and I don't think you'll ever grasp any of this unless you read a book about evolution. A good one, such as On the Origin of Species, or The Extended Phenotype. And even still, you'd have to let go to a lot of preconceptions you have about what life is. So I don't know... You might be too old for all this counter-intuitiveness.
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2012: Alan
        Sorry about the aids comment. I did of course mean malaria. Getting old.
        Same point though, sometimes bad clouds have a silver lining.
        I am familiar with the "eye evolution" arguments. Lots of different creatures have eyes of varying complexity, so we line them up in the correct sequence to infer evolution. I don't buy it, we always have to infer. There are 100million cable connections behind each eyeball. That is technology we can understand, but is light years ahead of our abilities, not time & natural selection.

        I am getting old right enough. I've been studying this for 50 years. In that time I think I have heard most of the arguments, seen most of the proofs, & read a book or two. I have found that materialists generally have little understanding of the religious or Id points of view. May I suggest "Signature in the Cell" , "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", or "Darwin's Black Box".

        • thumb
          Nov 7 2012: Evolution, a theory in crisis. I've read it. It's very unscientific and again, its basic argument is what Dawkins calls the argument of personnal incredulity. Living organisms are very complex, hence they cannot be originated from randomness.
          It doesn't try to explain life. It just makes the statement that, wow, life sure seems to be of supernatural origin.
          I'd have a similarly hard time explaining how a laptop does NOT operate on magic, to people with no scientific knowledge.

          So what books have you read about evolution ?
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2012: Hi Gerald.
        That I think is the point. If life is scientifically & mathematically impossible by any natural force we know about, it must be caused by a force we don't know about. The more we learn, the bigger the deficit in our understanding. Putting a fancy tag (personal incredulity) on it doesn't really answer the question.

        I'll pass on the Dick measuring contest re. Books.

        • thumb
          Nov 7 2012: if they showed that evolution is mathematically impossible, i eat my shoes with a knife and fork in public.
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2012: By no means do I judge people on how many books they've read, Peter. I'm curious about what you read, because personnally I didn't find inconsistencies in the evolutionary litterature I've encountered. Things are very well explained in a way that does not require that you take a leap of faith, or take the author's word for it on the basis of his academic authority.
          It's explanatory. It's science.
          So for instance, I don't see how one can be a Creationist after reading Darwin. Hence my curiosity as to whether you'd read "On the Origin of Species". I'd love your personnal opinion on what you found made no sense.

          The more we learn, the more we understand. I don't know how you can deny that modern biology is tremedously deeper than pre-scientific revolution "natural philosophy". That solving problems raises new ones is independant of the fact that we do make progress.

          Even if you were right, and if life was mathematically impossible, and Krisztian Pinter had to publicly dine on both his shoes... how is that an argument for Intelligent Design? Are you saying God is explained mathematically?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.