Big Fraud: Evolution and Antibiotic Resistance ...

The resistance of a strain of bacteria to an antibiotic is often used as a "proof" or "verification" of evolution. In reality this occurrence is just another incidence of "microevolution", where genetic information is actually lost. Thus the resulting strain is actually less fit than the parent and loses out to the parent when the drug is removed. As usual, no new genetic information is created. This clip is from the documentary "Icons of Evolution", ColdWater Media, 2002.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Antibiotics
• Antibiotic
• Resistance
• Germs
• Mutation
• Mutations
• Disease
• Laboratory
• Creation
• Icons
• of
• Evolution
• DNA
• Natural
• Selection
• entropy
• degrading
• damage
• chemistry
• Science
• Genius
• Hero
• Politically
• Incorrect
• microbiology
• creation
• antimicrobial
• bacteria
• lab
• high
• school
• biology
• dogma

[alyosha24601]

You didn't understand. After the drug is removed the natural population will out-compete the drug-produced mutant and return to dominance. Why? Because there was never ANY evolution. Information that was already there was selected out, but when the stress is removed, it can't compete. Evolution is quack science.

[MumblingMickey]

@alyosha24601

If we carried out a sequencing of the genome for those organisms in the video...

Lets say we sequence the microbe before the drug was introduced.... and then we took another sequence after it 'reverted' back ...

Do you think both of those genomes would be the same? Would the second sequence have any differences from the first?

BTW, you can actually find out what the answer to that is. And I gotta say, you won't like it...

[MumblingMickey]

@SPACKlick

Y'know I can guarantee not a single creationist would assume if you put population of terriers in the wild they would magically (micro-evolve) back into a grey wolf.

These organisms didn't revert back to the parent strain, they just lost the previously adopted trait. ie. the organisms with the new trait had a costly add on, which others did not, and were out competed.... reintroduce the drug, or another one and they will react again. But their genome is being altered all the time.

[MumblingMickey]

@alyosha24601 He wouldn't be the first though, as I pointed out Morgan said the same and demonstrated it mathematically.

But Morgan was demonstrated to be wrong when we invented genome sequencing. He actually had an excuse for his error (no way of corroborating it).

Sanford has none.

Sanford is like Lord Kelvin, but insisting aircraft are impossible to a fellow passanger on a flight.

He is right about one thing though, the human genome in Caucasians is stochastic. Which means only one thing.

[MumblingMickey]

@alyosha24601 There is also a very great problem with Sanfords idea.Which is this...

We didn't have absolute demonstration he is wrong.

Excluding the issues of contamination, we actually do have a full genome sequence for organisms who are still extant today that died a very, very long time ago..ancient DNA samples,

In generations we are talking about 10k or more... no degradation or genetic load issues. Ergo Sanford can say it should effect our DNA... but the fact is it just doesn't.

[MumblingMickey]

@alyosha24601 And in other cases sexually reproducing populations are in fact BOTH sexes themselves.. or at least they have the ability to swap back and forward between the two... Salmon do this... after mating male salmon can in fact change sex to female... they can then be inseminated by males and then make their merry way back to their spawning ground where they lay their eggs and die.

the males that impregnated them might even have been born female!

[MumblingMickey]

@alyosha24601 Also you do realise that not only does there need to be a progression from asexual reproduction to sexual... but in some cases (where the environment is not consistent with having two sexes) there must also be a regression from two sexes to one...

Either that... or that species might become extinct. Now the fact is in most cases that exactly what happens... extinction, but in a small set of cases sexually reproducing population can revert back to asexual reproduction.

[MumblingMickey]

In fact on the subject of things that are 'left hanging' most universities insist that students tackle a subject that has hitherto not been addressed sufficiently by science in their thesis.

The result is that to get a degree or a phd in any classical science one has to complete a thesis which is unique... new knowledge must be added to the body of knowledge.

So your question is answered... assuming you know where to look. (hint: it won't be on AIG)

[MumblingMickey]

In fact not only was Morgan a good scientist but a Nobel Laureate..(Nobel prize in physiology 1933).

The funny thing about this is you wouldn't sit there and try to tell me that powered flight is impossible would you?

Yet in 1895... 7 years before the wright brother flew at kittyhawk Lord Kelvin the leading physicist of the era stated that heavier than air powered flight was simply impossible.

What would you say to him if he said that in say 1995? Would you think he was a fool?