Bacterial Drug Resistance Evolution

[banished_child_of_eve]

Just wondering....

How do creationists reconcile bacterial drug resistance and the rise of superbugs?

Bacteria and other microbes are incredibly useful organisms for observing rapid evolution due to their short life cycle. So it's been observed in real time that bacterial strains can develop genetic resistance to drugs, which demonstrates the basic ideology behind molecular evolution. The same basic principle applies to all other organisms with DNA (which are all living things by the way) and would be no different in humans, other than the difference in life cycle and size of the genome.

This is also of interest because antibiotic resistance is becoming an incredibly pressing issue. Some estimates predict that 10 million people will die of superbugs annually by the year 2050 if no solution is found.

So if creationists do not believe in evolution at all, how do they explain this problem? Or do they deny it as well?

 

[Speedwell]

Just wondering....

How do creationists reconcile bacterial drug resistance and the rise of superbugs?

Bacteria and other microbes are incredibly useful organisms for observing rapid evolution due to their short life cycle. So it's been observed in real time that bacterial strains can develop genetic resistance to drugs, which demonstrates the basic ideology behind molecular evolution. The same basic principle applies to all other organisms with DNA (which are all living things by the way) and would be no different in humans, other than the difference in life cycle and size of the genome.

This is also of interest because antibiotic resistance is becoming an incredibly pressing issue. Some estimates predict that 10 million people will die of superbugs annually by the year 2050 if no solution is found.

So if creationists do not believe in evolution at all, how do they explain this problem? Or do they deny it as well?

But they're still bacteria!--is the common response. Creationists have come to believe in some evolution; after all, the large number of species alive today could not have fit on the Ark. What it comes down to is that there was not a single common ancestor, but a number of them, identified with the the originally created "kinds" of Genesis

 

[banished_child_of_eve]

As a side note... would some fundamentalists consider a bacterial resistance crisis part of the apocalypse as described in the book of Revelation?

 

[banished_child_of_eve]

But they're still bacteria!--is the common response. Creationists have come to believe in some evolution; after all, the large number of species alive today could not have fit on the Ark. What it comes down to is that there was not a single common ancestor, but a number of them, identified with the the originally created "kinds" of Genesis

So the creationist argument you're describing is that multicellular organisms did not evolve from the same single cell ancestor as bacteria?

I would agree that the mystery the diversity and complexity of life is astounding. But the challenge I bring to the argument you raise is the existence of the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells (like ours). Each cell in our body contains a bacteria-like organelle with its own double membrane and circular DNA. The design suggests some sort of symbiosis between a primitive eukaryotic cell and a bacterial cell in which the eukaryotic cell provides protection to the bacteria, and the bacteria produces energy for the eukaryotic cell.

If humans did not evolve from a single-celled ancestor, why would each of our cells contain evidence for primitive single-cell symbiosis?

 

[Ophiolite]

So the creationist argument you're describing is that multicellular organisms did not evolve from the same single cell ancestor as bacteria?

I would agree that the mystery the diversity and complexity of life is astounding. But the challenge I bring to the argument you raise is the existence of the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells (like ours). Each cell in our body contains a bacteria-like organelle with its own double membrane and circular DNA. The design suggests some sort of symbiosis between a primitive eukaryotic cell and a bacterial cell in which the eukaryotic cell provides protection to the bacteria, and the bacteria produces energy for the eukaryotic cell.

If humans did not evolve from a single-celled ancestor, why would each of our cells contain evidence for primitive single-cell symbiosis?

Speedwell does not appear to be suggesting that we did not evolve from single celled organisms, just that they (bacteria) and us (eukaryotes and their predecessors) were the consequence of a distinct abiogenesis events.

Have I picked you up correctly @Speedwell ?

While this is not impossible, it seems unlikely and there is no evidence I am aware of currently that would support it.

 

[banished_child_of_eve]

So the creationist argument you're describing is that multicellular organisms did not evolve from the same single cell ancestor as bacteria?

I would agree that the mystery the diversity and complexity of life is astounding. But the challenge I bring to the argument you raise is the existence of the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells (like ours). Each cell in our body contains a bacteria-like organelle with its own double membrane and circular DNA. The design suggests some sort of symbiosis between a primitive eukaryotic cell and a bacterial cell in which the eukaryotic cell provides protection to the bacteria, and the bacteria produces energy for the eukaryotic cell.

If humans did not evolve from a single-celled ancestor, why would each of our cells contain evidence for primitive single-cell symbiosis?

I should make a self-correction:

Most, not all, of our human cells have mitochondria. Also some organisms have reduced or modified mitochondria. But by and large nearly all eukaryotes (including plants) have mitochondria.

 

[banished_child_of_eve]

Speedwell does not appear to be suggesting that we did not evolve from single celled organisms, just that they (bacteria) and us (eukaryotes and their predecessors) were the consequence of a distinct abiogenesis events.

Have I picked you up correctly @Speedwell ?

While this is not impossible, it seems unlikely and there is no evidence I am aware of currently that would support it.

Oh I see what you're saying @Ophiolite and I could find some merit in that line of thought.

I suppose my original question is referring to the creationist ideology that fundamentalist Christians prescribe to, which suggests that all things were created and have only existed on earth for the last several thousand years, leaving no room for evolution as I understand it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh I see what you're saying @Ophiolite and I could find some merit in that line of thought.

I suppose my original question is referring to the creationist ideology that fundamentalist Christians prescribe to, which suggests that all things were created and have only existed on earth for the last several thousand years, leaving no room for evolution as I understand it.

Speedwell's answer applies. The creationists make no distinction between bacteria. To them there is little difference between types of bacteria and if a superbug evolves it is still a bacteria, not a fish, or a monkey.

Also, on rereading the relevant posts I think I have picked Speedwell up incorrectly. His reference to distinct creation events is probably his description of the Creationist viewpoint. Initially I thought it was his own neat way of equating multiple abiogenesis events with the kinds of the Bible, but on reflection that approach seems inconsistent with views he has previously expressed.

@Speedwell my apologies for making a dog's breakfast of trying to interpret your intent. Trying to think coherently is not my forte at 2:00 am.

 

[banished_child_of_eve]

Speedwell's answer applies. The creationists make no distinction between bacteria. To them there is little difference between types of bacteria and if a superbug evolves it is still a bacteria, not a fish, or a monkey.

Also, on rereading the relevant posts I think I have picked Speedwell up incorrectly. His reference to distinct creation events is probably his description of the Creationist viewpoint. Initially I thought it was his own neat way of equating multiple abiogenesis events with the kinds of the Bible, but on reflection that approach seems inconsistent with views he has previously expressed.

@Speedwell my apologies for making a dog's breakfast of trying to interpret your intent. Trying to think coherently is not my forte at 2:00 am.

Ahh so if I'm understanding you correctly, creationists might not take issue with microbial evolution as long as the microbes remain microbes. They just don't believe that the complexity of multicellular life came from a single-celled ancestor?

 

[sfs]

Most, not all, of our human cells have mitochondria.

Nitpick: most human cells do not have mitochondria.

 

[sfs]

Creationists also argue that evolution of resistance represents 'degradation', or some such term, and not the creation of the kind of new, functional information needed for the evolution of increased complexity.

 

[banished_child_of_eve]

Nitpick: most human cells do not have mitochondria.

Where did you learn that? As far as I'm aware only erythrocytes (mature red blood cells) do not have mitochondria because they are merely gas transport cells. They lack many other features too like a nucleus and virtually all biosynthesis functions. They have a short life cycle and do not require energy so they do not require a mitochondrion. But any human cell with energy needs requires mitochondria, and cell types with high energy needs (muscle, liver, etc.) can require hundreds or even thousands of them.

 

[banished_child_of_eve]

Creationists also argue that evolution of resistance represents 'degradation', or some such term, and not the creation of the kind of new, functional information needed for the evolution of increased complexity.

Hmmm so acquiring a trait that protects against a man-made threat to its survival is degradation and not progressive adaptation???

I would argue that bacterial resistance is demonstrative of the same type of evolutionary arms race that has made the Sierra newt (prey) extremely venomous and the Sierra garter snake (predator) resistant to their potent venom. Look that one up, it's really fascinating.

But it's the same principle - one species develops a weapon, and the other develops a defense.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ahh so if I'm understanding you correctly, creationists might not take issue with microbial evolution as long as the microbes remain microbes. They just don't believe that the complexity of multicellular life came from a single-celled ancestor?

Correct. Keep in mind that just as Creationists grossly oversimplify matters by thinking that all bacteria are pretty much the same (well, they are just bacteria), evolutionists grossly oversimplify matters by thinking that all Creationists are pretty much the same.

That said, most do accept that micro-evolution is real. They deny macro-evolution, which is the emergence of new species (or genera, or families, or phyla, depending on the flavour of the Creationist). "No one has ever seen a bacteria turn into a fish; cats don't give birth to dogs!"

All creatures, they assert, were created as kinds. Good luck getting a consistent definition of kinds from the Creationist camp, though lumping the thirty or so species of cats into a single kind would be typical. Thus a pair of cats on the ark gave rise, through micro-evolution, to everything from the house cat to the jaguar, lion and cheetah. Equally, you will find some Creationists who would make kinds more restrictive.

 

[sfs]

Where did you learn that?

From the study that estimated that 70% of human cells are erythrocytes. I found it surprising. (Obviously, the fraction of cells actually lacking mitochondria depends on how many of those 70% are immature enough not to have lost their mitochondria yet, but it seems a reasonable bet that more than 50% of cells don't have them.)

As I said, nitpicking.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh I see what you're saying @Ophiolite and I could find some merit in that line of thought.

I suppose my original question is referring to the creationist ideology that fundamentalist Christians prescribe to, which suggests that all things were created and have only existed on earth for the last several thousand years, leaving no room for evolution as I understand it.

Yes, I think that is the basic belief, but it runs into serious trouble with the story of Noah's Ark, as I pointed out earlier. The creationist denies that we have a single common ancestor. Instead, there were multiple life creation events. God created different Kinds of creatures. How many of these different Kinds there were, or even what they were is obscure. The ancient traditional way of viewing it was that they were the various species which were then observed, not nearly so many as we know about now. But if you consider Kinds as species, as many as we know about now, then putting all the Kinds on the Ark becomes impossible.

Consequently, many creationists have come the conclusion that some form of evolution must have taken place after The Flood to account for why we have so many species today when there must, of necessity, been fewer on the Ark. How that worked and why nobody noticed it going on in the relatively short period since the alleged time of the flood is not explained.

But then, nothing about YECism makes sense to me.

 

[sfs]

Hmmm so acquiring a trait that protects against a man-made threat to its survival is degradation and not progressive adaptation???

Sure. Most resistance mechanisms that we observe arising involve the modification or loss of existing machinery, not the creation of anything new. The more sophisticated will point to Behe's paper that argues that a large majority of known adaptive mutations are loss-of-function. They'll also point out that resistant bacteria are generally at a disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics.

 

[pitabread]

Nevermind

 

[inquiring mind]

Sure. Most resistance mechanisms that we observe arising involve the modification or loss of existing machinery, not the creation of anything new. The more sophisticated will point to Behe's paper that argues that a large majority of known adaptive mutations are loss-of-function. They'll also point out that resistant bacteria are generally at a disadvantage in the absence of antibiotics.

 

[xianghua]

Just wondering....

How do creationists reconcile bacterial drug resistance and the rise of superbugs?

Bacteria and other microbes are incredibly useful organisms for observing rapid evolution due to their short life cycle. So it's been observed in real time that bacterial strains can develop genetic resistance to drugs, which demonstrates the basic ideology behind molecular evolution. The same basic principle applies to all other organisms with DNA (which are all living things by the way) and would be no different in humans, other than the difference in life cycle and size of the genome.

This is also of interest because antibiotic resistance is becoming an incredibly pressing issue. Some estimates predict that 10 million people will die of superbugs annually by the year 2050 if no solution is found.

So if creationists do not believe in evolution at all, how do they explain this problem? Or do they deny it as well?

its very easy. the bacteria evolve no new complex structue like a flagellum or a secration system. its basically a variation of the same bacteria. think about this: say that we had a car that can add small changes over time (say a car with DNA). such a car will never evolve into something like an airplane. so a bacteria will never evolve into something different.