anti-biotic resistance theory false?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
anti-biotic resistance is false.
The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
You should take your medication until the program is finished,
otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
infection spreads.
I suggest this story should be in most cases:
You should take your medication until the program is finished,
otherwise the variant bacteria that are more resistant to anti-biotics
will spread.
That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
population, and this resistant strain mostly goes out of control to
anti-biotics when a critical populationsize of resistant variant
bacteria is reached, not that you have to stop the mutation from
happening in the first place.
This finding would be counter-intuitive to natural selection formulated
as differential reproductive success, because there we are not looking
at real numbers but relative numbers. That is to say a resistant
bacteria may still be quite unlikely to reproduce, eventhough it is
more likely to reproduce as a non-resistant one.
Counter-intuitive and therefore ignored.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Therion Ware
On 29 Sep 2005 03:21:52 -0700 in talk.origins,
nando_r...@yahoo.com ("nando_r...@yahoo.com"
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to talk.origins
>Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
>faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
>anti-biotic resistance is false.
>
>The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
>You should take your medication until the program is finished,
>otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
>infection spreads.
>
>I suggest this story should be in most cases:
>You should take your medication until the program is finished,
>otherwise the variant bacteria that are more resistant to anti-biotics
>will spread.
>
>That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
>population, and this resistant strain mostly goes out of control to
>anti-biotics when a critical populationsize of resistant variant
>bacteria is reached, not that you have to stop the mutation from
>happening in the first place.
One would have thought that if there were strains of bacteria that had
prior antibiotic resistance then any amount of antibiotic up to and
including the full course wouldn't be effective: at best you'd get a
temporary recovery followed by a recurrence of the infection that was
down to the strain that had prior resistance.
And that fact that this doesn't happen makes a nonsense of your
argument.
>This finding would be counter-intuitive to natural selection formulated
>as differential reproductive success, because there we are not looking
>at real numbers but relative numbers. That is to say a resistant
>bacteria may still be quite unlikely to reproduce, eventhough it is
>more likely to reproduce as a non-resistant one.
>
>Counter-intuitive and therefore ignored.
Well, not so much counter-intuitive but ignorant of the facts.
allanm
Not a million miles out, though I'm not sure anyone who thinks about it
in selective terms formulates the problem in terms of prevention of the
occurrence of a resistant mutation in antibiotic-taking individuals.
And no-one should think that the antibiotic somehow *promotes* the
resistance mutation. Antibiotic use changes the environment, and gives
a selective advantage to the more resistant strains should they exist.
But yes, resistant variants are arising all the time - including those
resistant to antibiotics that haven't even been though of yet.
(Ultimately, these are all mutations).
I think the key is that resistance is often a multi-step process. If
one wanted to artificially breed a super-resistant strain, one would
take first-generation organisms showing some resistance to a low or a
non-prolonged dose. They will have some of the metabolic machinery
required to survive in that environment, which would form a basis for
the next step. Completing the course is an attempt to nip this in the
bud.
Matchstick
autod...@city-of-dis.com says...
> One would have thought that if there were strains of bacteria that had
> prior antibiotic resistance then any amount of antibiotic up to and
> including the full course wouldn't be effective: at best you'd get a
> temporary recovery followed by a recurrence of the infection that was
> down to the strain that had prior resistance.
Would it be possible for the anti-biotics to kill enough of the non-
resistant bacteria to allow the immune system to mop up the remaining
resistant bacteria on their own ?
--
Contact Address matchstick a t oofg d o t com
"The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic."
Ian H Spedding
>
> Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
> faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
> anti-biotic resistance is false.
Solely based on my - admittedly limited - understanding of the theory
of evolution through natural selection, the emergence of
antimicrobial-resistant bacteria is a good example of the process.
> The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
> infection spreads.
My understanding is that patients are advised to complete their course
of treatment, in the first place, to ensure that the infection has been
eliminated. This will also have the secondary effect of minimising the
chance that resistant bacteria might survive to become the source of a
resistant strain.
> I suggest this story should be in most cases:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise the variant bacteria that are more resistant to anti-biotics
> will spread.
>
> That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
> population, and this resistant strain mostly goes out of control to
> anti-biotics when a critical populationsize of resistant variant
> bacteria is reached, not that you have to stop the mutation from
> happening in the first place.
Bacteria, in common with other living creatures, are mutating all the
time. This process will occasionally, by chance, produce individuals
who are resistant to certain antibiotics. In an antibiotic-free
environment, this mutation is unlikely to confer a selective advantage
and could eventually mutate out of existence again. However, in an
environment where the bacteria are subject to a continuous challenge
from antiobiotics, only resistant individuals will survive to reproduce
and become the progenitors of a resistant population or strain. This
is straightforward natural selection.
> This finding would be counter-intuitive to natural selection formulated
> as differential reproductive success, because there we are not looking
> at real numbers but relative numbers. That is to say a resistant
> bacteria may still be quite unlikely to reproduce, eventhough it is
> more likely to reproduce as a non-resistant one.
In the face of an antibiotic challenge, resistant bacteria are more
likely to survive and reproduce than non-resistant individuals, in
other words, there is "differential reproductive success". Even if the
resistance mutation makes it less likely that resistant individuals
will reproduce, it will still be more frequent than their non-resistant
brethren who are all dead.
> Counter-intuitive and therefore ignored.
Intuition is a poor basis for understanding the world and it would be
better not to place too much reliance on it.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127989312.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
> faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
> anti-biotic resistance is false.
>
Oh, yes. You are soooo much more qualified to make this claim than
scientists that actually work within the field.
<snip>
Boikat
--
<42><
wade
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
> faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
> anti-biotic resistance is false.
>
> The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
> infection spreads.
No. This is not the reason, or at best it is incomplete.
First it needs to be understood that the majority or antibiotics
are bacteriostatic and not bacteriocidal. This are fancy words
to say that they stop the bacteria from growning rather than
kill them. That's not 100% accurate either but is close enough.
Generally speaking, antibiotics stop bacteria from growing and
other things kill them, like your immune system. By stopping
growth processes, bacteria generally become weaker and are
more susceptable to being killed or just plain dying. In effect,
the bacteria also become sick.
Second, mutations certainly occur. They occur all the time.
Many will have occurred prior to taking the antibiotics and
thus there will be population diversity before you even get
a chance to start taking an antibiotic.
Some of these mutations, it has been documented, help the
bacteria stave off the effects of the antibiotic. Often
they are not highly effective at this but they can provide
a competative advantage to subpopulations of the bactera.
Examples of such mutations include the existence of enzymes
that are partially effective at chemically destroying the
antibiotic (typically a hydroylsis), simply binding and
sequestering it, making more of the protein it targets so
that a given dose doesn't effect that subpopulation as severely
as those with less of the enzymes that the antibiotic targets
or enzymes that has a reduced preference for binding to
the antibiotic in the first place. Understand that some
antibiotics work by entering into a biochemical pathway and
mimicing a natural substrate then not reacting the way the
natural substrate does. So an enzymes that is supposed to
be part of a busy assembly line stops doing its job. If there
is a lesser affinity for the antibiotic, less of the
assembly line gets disabled and that bacterium is less
sick than others.
Now with all this going on, the problem with only taking
part of your course of antibiotics is that you are effective
at stopping 99+% of the bacteria that are making you sick
and start to feel better. Those bacteria largely die off.
The subpopulations that have an ability to resist are less
prone to die and thus when the antibiotic is removed the
proportion of more resistent bacteria is enlarged.
Moreover, as you stop taking the antibiotic, the concentration
of antibiotic in your system slowly decreases. Bacteria
that can tolerate a modest concentration of antibiotic
can start to grow and their population will out grow the
remaining normal bacteria. During this phase, any new mutations
that make that population even better at resisting residual
antibiotic concentrations provide yet a further competetive
advantage.
That's significantly more than a magic mutation just
making a bacterium resistant to an antibiotic.
> I suggest this story should be in most cases:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise the variant bacteria that are more resistant to anti-biotics
> will spread.
> That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
> population, and this resistant strain mostly goes out of control to
> anti-biotics when a critical populationsize of resistant variant
> bacteria is reached, not that you have to stop the mutation from
> happening in the first place.
This is mostly true and the straw man reason you are refuting
deserves to be refuted. I expect many people have simplified
the story to sound like the one you are arguing against.
The real key though, is to understand that even the slighly
resistent strains that already exist generally have their
growth slowed and are sickened when you take antibiotics.
If you take the full course, a high proportion of these will
also die or be killed by your immune system.
If you only take your antibiotic long enough to stop growth,
you have the biggest problem when relatively large numbers
of bacteria rebound as the concentration of antibiotic in
your system decreases.
A similar problem would occur if instead of taking the recommended
dose, you took 10% of that dose. Think of the rubric, "that which
doesn't kill us only makes us stronger".
> This finding would be counter-intuitive to natural selection formulated
> as differential reproductive success, because there we are not looking
> at real numbers but relative numbers. That is to say a resistant
> bacteria may still be quite unlikely to reproduce, eventhough it is
> more likely to reproduce as a non-resistant one.
>
> Counter-intuitive and therefore ignored.
Actually, your "refutation" is far closer to the well understood
problems with not finishing your antibiotics than is the story
you seem to want to refute.
So to recap, yes, population variation will exist before you
ever start taking antibiotics and that variation is probably
more significant to resistence than any mutations that happen
during the active treatment with antibiotics. This is especially
true as even "resistent" bacteria will tend to have their growth
rate slowed in the presence of antibiotics. Yes, both partially
resistent and non resistent populations of bacteria are reduced
during treatment with antibiotics. Yes, partially resistent
populations will become a more significant fraction of the
total population of bacteria.
But what you are not considering is the effect of the horse
race for renewed growth that occurs when the dose is finished,
especially if a significant number of bacteria are still around
because the antibiotic was only bacteriostatic and not
bacteriocidal.
There are additional effects owing to bacterial sex and
the ability to share multiple half effective strategies
but regardless, finish your course of antibiotics for your
own good and for the good of others.
Bryan Heit
Secondly, you can also extend the antibiotic resistance theories to a
more general theory of pathogen drug resistance. After all, bacteria
are not the only things which undergo this process. In fact, compared
to viruses, the ability of bacteria to evolve resistance is rather
pathetic...
Lastly, you've got the theory entirely wrong. You start with a false
premise - that there are two types of pathogens (resistant and
non-resistant). This is wrong. Rather, in naturally occurring
infections you tend to see a spectrum of resistance; even in
drug-sensitive strains. For example, you may find that most of a
pathogen in the body die when the tissue drug concentration reaches
5nM, but some will die at lower doses (say 0.01nM) and others at higher
doses (say 50nM). This spectrum is due to the fact that there isn't
usually a single gene for resistance. Yes, there do tend to be
specific genes which form that can degrade/inactivate the drug, but
that gene is only one of many which work together to produce
resistance. Likewise, resistant strains have been found which cannot
degrade the drug; rather, they've found a way to work around the
presence of the drug.
When a patient doesn't complete a treatment course they essentially end
up killing all of the sensitive pathogens, but leaving the more
resistant ones behind. This creates two problems - firstly, if the
infection reestablishes itself it will be more difficult to treat, as
higher doses of drug, or another drug all together, will be needed.
Secondly, you are more likely to have a somewhat resistant strains
evolve enhanced resistance then you are to have a sensitive strain
evolve resistance de novo. So the patient has essentially selected for
those pathogens most likely to evolve into a more dangerous form.
This is a common mistake made by most anti-evolutionists. They assume
that one form (i.e. the sensitive form) makes a huge evolutionary
"jump" to a resistant form. In reality you get a slow progression of
increasing resistance, until the resistance eventually reaches a point
where you can no longer treat the infection with the drug, as the dose
required becomes toxic to the patient.
Of particular concern are patients undergoing treatment for chronic
infections (i.e. HIV or TB). Often, these patients will stop taking
their drug(s) for a period of time, and then start taking it again, and
then go off again, on again, etc, etc, etc. Every time the patient
goes through one of these cycles they essentially are selecting for the
strains of pathogen which are more able to survive the effects of the
drugs. In the case of a mutation-prone species like HIV, this means
that drug resistance will evolve extremely quickly. There have been
documented cases where drug resistant HIV strains have evolved within
months of the introduction of a new drug!
Bryan
Last To Be Selected
> Counter-intuitive and therefore ignored.
Translation: Dumbed down to your ability and therefore ignored.
Stubborn stupidity is a character flaw.
wade
Bryan Heit wrote:
<< snip >>
> This is a common mistake made by most anti-evolutionists. They assume
> that one form (i.e. the sensitive form) makes a huge evolutionary
> "jump" to a resistant form. In reality you get a slow progression of
> increasing resistance, until the resistance eventually reaches a point
> where you can no longer treat the infection with the drug, as the dose
> required becomes toxic to the patient.
Unfortunately, this is a commonly presented dumbed down version
that is in fact repeated by "arm chair" evolutionists - a sort
of hopeful monster version of antibiotic resistence. So while the
original post was set up to demolish just such a straw man, the
sad fact is that that particular straw man is not without believers.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Would it be possible for the anti-biotics to kill enough of the non-
> resistant bacteria to allow the immune system to mop up the remaining
> resistant bacteria on their own ?
Precisely. If one does not "go for the jugular" enough resiastant
microbes live and multiply and spread.
Also resistance develops in steps so a massive dose of antibiotics still
kill the partially resistant microbes or enough of them.
Failure to take the full ten course of anti-biotics is anti-social
behaviour comperable to Typhoid Mary's refusal to get out of the food
preparation business.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Intuition is a poor basis for understanding the world and it would be
> better not to place too much reliance on it.
>
Common sense is the enemy of scientific progress.
Bob Kolker
nando_r...@yahoo.com
It depends much on psychology what story to tell to people.
I would understand better in terms of keeping numbers of resistent /
"stronger" bacteria down to not reach a critical population size, and
destroy them all.
When you are telling people you have to keep taking medication, for the
offchance that you will be the unlucky 1 in a million person, in which
a mutation happens which gives resistence, you are surely testing
people's altruism and math skills a bit much.
The reason why the 1 in a million mutation gets the unwarranted
attention, is because standard natural selection theory, differential
reproductive success, can't really be applied to populations going
extinct. There is no such thing as the fittest also dying in "survival
of the fittest".
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
> faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
> anti-biotic resistance is false.
Well, based on *your* understanding of natural selection, anything is
possible. Zero understanding of natural selection does give one rather
large scope in expounding one's ignorance about bacteriology,
infection, resistance, etc.
> The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
> infection spreads.
>
> I suggest this story should be in most cases:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise the variant bacteria that are more resistant to anti-biotics
> will spread.
How do these "variant bacteria" arise in your model? Did your God
design antibiotic resistance and only place it some of the bacteria?
Then why does the Luria-Delbruck experiments, and millions of other
experiments and lab exercises that allow even freshmen college students
to determine that new mutations causing resistance arise without
respect to need?
> That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
> population,
That rather depends on the size of the initial infecting population and
the rate of mutation to resistance. If the initial infecting
population size is small (and infection *can*, albeit rarely, arise
from a single bacterium -- usually you need a small -- hundreds to
hundreds of thousands -- but significant number of bacteria for there
to be a *guarantee* of successful infection, but most of the time, the
successful infection itself is clonal, with most of the infecting
bacteria being killed by aspects of the immune system that do not
require antibody formation and only one or a few being able to
replicate successfully), it is highly unlikely for any clonally derived
infection to already contain a resistance mutant. Bacteria are haploid
organisms without a diploid stage in which a resistance mutant could
hide.
And, of course, as the size of the infecting population increases, the
probability of acquiring a resistance mutant by new mutation also
increases, given a certain rate of mutation to resistance. Thus, by
truncating the population quickly, one reduces the chances of
resistance mutations occurring.
> and this resistant strain mostly goes out of control to
> anti-biotics when a critical populationsize of resistant variant
> bacteria is reached, not that you have to stop the mutation from
> happening in the first place.
First, there is often more than one way to become resistant to an
antibiotic. So it is often erroneous to talk about *the* mutation to
resistance. Often resistance is only partial; that is, the mutants
most likely to reproduce fast enough to cause *disease* (that is grow
to a large enough population size fast enough to have an effect on the
body; slow growers usually are taken care of by the immune system
before they have a significant effect) are those that are still
sensitive to higher doses of antibiotic. Ordinarily, in the absence of
antibiotic, the resistant strain is at a selective disadvantage
(reproduces slower) than the sensitive strain. In an
antibiotic-containing environment, the resistant strain often still
grows more slowly than the sensitive strain would in the absence of
antibiotic. But if they *can* grow in the presence of the level of
antibiotic used, you are directly creating competitive conditions
favoring second-site mutations that ameliorate the detrimental effects
of the initial resistance mutation on growth rates.
The above perfectly explains why one should use high enough doses of
antibiotic and persist in using it throughout the course of treatment.
The high doses still kills or retards the growth of most newly-arisen
resistance mutants so that the immune system can catch up and eliminate
them as well as directly killing off the sensitive variants.
Using the full course of treatment does not permit a period in which
there is strong competition for any secondary mutants that favor
bacteria with more rapid growth among a population already highly
enriched with resistant variants (which still usually do grow faster in
media without antibiotic than in media with it). Again, the
probability of these new secondary mutations occurring is determined by
the rate of that mutation * the population size. Thus selection under
conditions without sufficiently high doses and/or inconsistant use
favors not only the growth of resistance mutants, but the survival of
secondary mutants that ameliorate the deleterious consequences of the
resistant mutation.
> This finding would be counter-intuitive to natural selection formulated
> as differential reproductive success, because there we are not looking
> at real numbers but relative numbers. That is to say a resistant
> bacteria may still be quite unlikely to reproduce, eventhough it is
> more likely to reproduce as a non-resistant one.
Do you know what "differential reproductive success" means? It means
that "it is more likely to reproduce as a non-resistant one." So you
are describing a case where natural selection *is* occurring.
hers...@indiana.edu
Whatever "it" is. So much context is lost when you forget to include
the comments that you are responding to.
> It depends much on psychology what story to tell to people.
>
> I would understand better in terms of keeping numbers of resistent /
> "stronger" bacteria down to not reach a critical population size, and
> destroy them all.
Resistant bacteria are selectively favored only in particular
environments; they are not absolutely "stronger". In fact, they often
have slower growth rates than w.t. bacteria (are reproductively fit) in
environments without antibiotic (until or unless secondary changes are
made).
> When you are telling people you have to keep taking medication, for the
> offchance that you will be the unlucky 1 in a million person, in which
> a mutation happens which gives resistence, you are surely testing
> people's altruism and math skills a bit much.
The "unlucky" 1 in a million person is mismath. You mean the person
where the probability of mutation to resistance in the *population* of
bacteria approaches unity. If the mutation rate to resistance is 10^-9
(not unreasonable), there is a virtual certainty that it will have
occurred if your burden of bacteria has reached 10^10 bacteria (this
would be a colony of bacteria about the size of the "o" I just typed).
> The reason why the 1 in a million mutation gets the unwarranted
> attention, is because standard natural selection theory, differential
> reproductive success, can't really be applied to populations going
> extinct. There is no such thing as the fittest also dying in "survival
> of the fittest".
"Differential reproductive success" is not "survival of the fittest",
since it requires neither being "fittest" in all environments nor
"survival" past reproduction. And differential reproductive success
does not require that the species or population as a whole ultimately
survive or increase in number. It only requires that there be
variation and that that variation have a significant effect on
differential reproduction. Most of the time even individuals with
resistant bacteria are capable of killing all of them (even in the
absence of antibiotics). But during the time that the bacteria are
growing, there can still be *differential* growth of variants (even if
there is negative growth with the population size decreasing). Natural
selection can occur just as well during an overall decline in
population numbers as it can when the population number is
steady-state, increasing, or fluctuating up and down rapidly. Natural
selection has nothing to do with overall population levels. It has
everything to do with the differential *composition* of the population.
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Scooter the Mighty
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
> faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
> anti-biotic resistance is false.
>
> The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
> infection spreads.
>
> I suggest this story should be in most cases:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise the variant bacteria that are more resistant to anti-biotics
> will spread.
>
> That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
> population, and this resistant strain mostly goes out of control to
> anti-biotics when a critical populationsize of resistant variant
> bacteria is reached, not that you have to stop the mutation from
> happening in the first place.
I haven't read the whole thread and someone has probably pointed this
out already, but it's not very hard to actually do experiments to show
that bacteria indeed mutate.
Bacteria replicate by splitting into identical copies. If there were
no mutation, a flask of bacteria started from a single bacterium would
contain no variation at all. And yet such a flask, when plated on
antibiotic containing agar, will show a few resistant mutants.
Nice try, but this stuff has been studied a lot.
wade
> It depends much on psychology what story to tell to people.
Does it?
The medical advice, "finish the full course of antibiotics" is
sound. Does it need a story? Does the story need to be cute,
or compelling, or EZ to remember? Do I need to cite references
to J. Med. Chem.?
> I would understand better in terms of keeping numbers of resistent /
> "stronger" bacteria down to not reach a critical population size, and
> destroy them all.
>From a pragmatic point of view, I'll tell you whatever works. If
telling you something about the green cheese in the moon works,
I'll try that.
Now mind you, I don't trust a thing an MD tells me but I've had
the advantage of an education that allows me to dig out and evaluate
medical questions. I can't do the same for repairing a modern car
so I'm stuck trusting the mechanic (I long the the day of adjusting
my timing with a timing light and advancing/retarding the distributor.)
> When you are telling people you have to keep taking medication, for the
> offchance that you will be the unlucky 1 in a million person, in which
> a mutation happens which gives resistence, you are surely testing
> people's altruism and math skills a bit much.
I expect a number of MDs only "understand" things to that level.
But as good MDs, they do know the right action to take even if
they don't fully understand the reasons. MDs are expensive enough
without expecting them to understand more.
> The reason why the 1 in a million mutation gets the unwarranted
> attention, is because standard natural selection theory, differential
> reproductive success, can't really be applied to populations going
> extinct. There is no such thing as the fittest also dying in "survival
> of the fittest".
It also has a basic in reality. In the lab, you can specifically
design experiments that require that less than 1 in a million
mutation for survival and show that it happens consistently.
In fact, a 1 in a million event happens about 100 times in a
population of 100,000,000. But in vivo, there are far more
variant effects that occur and they require more than a 5
minute consultation to explain.
Still, I'll repeat that you were correct to refute the "understanding"
you had about why not to only take part of your course of antibiotics.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Scientists use common sense all the time. They also sometimes come to
the wrong (but reasonable!) conclusion when investigating a new field.
This is why we need many eyes to look at experiments; they need to be
varied, repeated, the conditions considered, and the papers
peer-reviewed. Precisely because common sense cannot be trusted.
Kermit
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
>population,
all he has to do know is realized these are caused by mutations and
his long hatred of evolution will be over.
>
>This finding would be counter-intuitive to natural selection formulated
>as differential reproductive success, because there we are not looking
>at real numbers but relative numbers. That is to say a resistant
>bacteria may still be quite unlikely to reproduce, eventhough it is
>more likely to reproduce as a non-resistant one.
and if all of its non resistant competitors are dead? that's how
natural selection works.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Aha, so there is something to it.
>
>It depends much on psychology what story to tell to people.
AHA!! now we've identified nando's problem
he wants to be a bacterial psychologist. he's been watching TV, seen
the dog and cat pyschologists, and wants to chase the idea down the
evolutionary tree...
GO TO IT NANDO!
>
>When you are telling people you have to keep taking medication, for the
>offchance that you will be the unlucky 1 in a million person, in which
>a mutation happens which gives resistence,
?? mutations are quite common in bacteria.
Mark Isaak
>Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
>faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
>anti-biotic resistance is false.
>
>The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
>You should take your medication until the program is finished,
>otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
>infection spreads.
>
>I suggest this story should be in most cases:
>You should take your medication until the program is finished,
>otherwise the variant bacteria that are more resistant to anti-biotics
>will spread.
>
>That is to say there mostly are already resistant strains in the
>population, and this resistant strain mostly goes out of control to
>anti-biotics when a critical populationsize of resistant variant
>bacteria is reached, not that you have to stop the mutation from
>happening in the first place.
You may be right.
But then, where did the resistant strains come from? If they didn't
evolve, that means God created the bacteria to be
antibiotic-resistant. Which means God *wants* us to die from disease.
If you don't accept the mutation idea, your obvious course is to
refuse to take any antibiotics at all, and let God kill you.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
eNo
--
`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊
,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,
eNo
"Test everything; hold on to the good."
"allanm" <allang...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:1127993619.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not entirely accurate, judging by the following paper, wherein it is
stipulated that rates of mutation increase when bacteria are exposed to
increased selection stress. For example:
"Because ciprofloxacin may induce repair pathways that involve RecA-ssDNA
filament formation, the drug itself may act to induce the mutations that
confer resistance."
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030176
hers...@indiana.edu
don't confer resistance. IOW, mutagens increase the rate of mutation
for that type of mutational event. It doesn't increase the specificity
of the mutational events to those that are beneficial.
The only examples (I know of) of mutations that are 'specified' are the
mutational events that have become domesticated. For example, mating
type switches in yeast, mu bacteriophage coat protein switches, and the
immune system's immunoglobin formation.
allanm
Granted, some antibiotics may act as general mutagens, speeding up the
occurrence of random mutation and therefore increasing the chance that
a useful one may arise. (Mutagenic medicines? Let's hope they are
prokaryote specific!). But I am unaware of an instance where a specific
mutation, resistant to the very agent causing the mutation, is directly
promoted, rather than consequential on scattergun mutation rate
acceleration.
There also remains the non-medicated population. Each such individual
will, on the average, be replicating more organisms than their
antibiotic-chugging peers, so they will have increased chances of
generating a resistant mutant, even though they themselves are not
providing an environment which would select for such a mutant. Whether
the rate increase of a mutagenic antibiotic balances out this
population-size effect depends also on the ratio of medicated to
non-medicated individuals. (Many non-medicated individuals won't even
know they have the bug!).
I'm not convinced that these researchers' hope - that
mutation-inhibition in medicated individuals will combat
resistance-development - will be realised.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
and guessed that the common story about antibiotic resistence is false.
Moreover the story seems to be false in a way that reduces the
motivation to fully complete the program.
It is too bad that you fail to give an honest, straightforward answer
on an issue of public health.
It is just inevitable that you have to principaly look at natural
selection on an individual basis to make sense of things, in real
terms, where being killed without reproducing is being selected
against. The relative formulation is deceptive, and more so the insane
conception of bacteria putting a value on reproductive success is even
more deceptive.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> All besides the point. I just took the formulation of natural selection
> and guessed that the common story about antibiotic resistence is false.
Because you don't understand ns, your guess is as ignorant as it is
false.
> Moreover the story seems to be false in a way that reduces the
> motivation to fully complete the program.
And that shows that you didn't read (or, more likely, understand) the
responses.
> It is too bad that you fail to give an honest, straightforward answer
> on an issue of public health.
When you remove the argument you are responding to, all you do is look
like someone who knows that he cannot actually defend his argument, but
merely wants the opportunity to expound his ignorance once again.
> It is just inevitable that you have to principaly look at natural
> selection on an individual basis to make sense of things, in real
> terms, where being killed without reproducing is being selected
> against.
Whoever said that being killed without reproducing is NOT being
selected against? It is. So is being slowed down in reproduction
without being killed. But ns is about an effect on the phenotypic (or
more often) genetic *composition of a population*, not about individual
fates. Are you saying that the genetic composition of a population is
unimportant? Changes in the genetic composition of a population
doesn't or can't happen? Or are you saying that you don't like to
think about these things that do happen; they bother your sensitive
soul and moral sense?
> The relative formulation is deceptive,
Why? I keep asking. You keep reasserting your ignorance as if it were
true.
> and more so the insane
> conception of bacteria putting a value on reproductive success is even
> more deceptive.
Reproductive success is as important to a bacteria as it is to humans.
They put tremendous amounts of energy and resources into attempts at
making more copies of themselves than would be required for mere
survival of an individual bacteria.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
wade
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> All besides the point. <<< snip >>
You are posting using google.
Next time you reply, please first click where it says "show options".
Now, if you click on the "reply" link up in the newly visible header
google will include the quoted text you are replying to.
If instead, you just click on the "reply" link at the bottom you don't
get the quoted text. That "reply" link at the bottom will still be
there after you click on show options but you don't want to use
that one because it never includes quoted text from the post you
are responding to.
Thanks you for your cooperation.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> Whoever said that being killed without reproducing is NOT being
> selected against?
The resistent bacteria are being selected against in real terms, as are
all the other bacteria, but the resistent bacteria are being selected
for in relative terms, even when they are in the process of going
extinct. You use selection in relative terms only, you therefore can't
say that resistent bacteria are being selected against, even when they
are in the process of going extinct.
It is not possible to make sense of it, which is why the faulty idea is
promoted that it is a matter of avoiding a mutation that makes the
bacteria resistent, in stead of keeping down the numbers of resistent
to below a criticial populationsize after which they run out of
control.
You tell the wrong story to people, and it results in more people not
finishing the medication fully.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128172496.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I've heard of "cognitive disonance" before, but this is a great example for
those who do not understand what "cognative disonance" is all about.
People quit taking their antibiotics because they feel better. The result
is that the few remaining resistant strain survive to reproduce and spresd.
That's all there is to it nando. Maybe it's different on nando world, to
which all i can say is "Welcome to Earth. Try not to piss off the natives.
Boikat
--
<42><
wade....@gmail.com
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hershey:
> > Whoever said that being killed without reproducing is NOT being
> > selected against?
>
> The resistent bacteria are being selected against in real terms, as are
> all the other bacteria, but the resistent bacteria are being selected
> for in relative terms, even when they are in the process of going
> extinct. You use selection in relative terms only, you therefore can't
> say that resistent bacteria are being selected against, even when they
> are in the process of going extinct.
Thus the term "differential reproductive success".
You are correctly noting that things are more complex than the
introductory cartoons about "bad" variants being killed and
eaten by lions while "good" varients make lots of babies and
live to a ripe old age. But you aren't telling us anything we
don't already know about multiple scenarios applicable to
differential reproductive success.
I'll note that you've been participating on talk.origins for
a long time. This latest seems to be a new realization on your
part. I'll assume that means the concepts you are now talking
about are less than obvious to those not trained in biology.
This is why the first discussion is usually so over simplified.
While the whole natural selection concept can seem trivial, it
has effects that are simply not always intuitive or obvious
even if they are the results of rather simple logic being
iterated over many generations.
Your now deeper understanding of how natural selection works
to alter populations can be applied to populations that are
growing, populations that are steady state, populations that
are in decline and hopefully the hardest one, to populations
that go through cycles of increase and decrease.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
finish your therapy on the offchance a mutation happens that makes the
bacteria resistent, as the story is now, then many people will risk the
1 in a million chance of mutation, given some circumstances where it is
inconvenient to keep taking the medication.
Well that story is not entirely untrue, but more to the point is that
resistent bacteria are already present, and need to be under constant
pressure from antibiotics to destroy them.
My guess is that the more true story would also be more effective in
motivating people to take the medication.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128180121.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> People make calculated decisions.
Based upon what?
> When the story is that you have to
> finish your therapy on the offchance a mutation happens that makes the
> bacteria resistent, as the story is now, then many people will risk the
> 1 in a million chance of mutation, given some circumstances where it is
> inconvenient to keep taking the medication.
And that is why "super bugs" evolve. It's a result of not listenting to
their doctors advice.
>
> Well that story is not entirely untrue, but more to the point is that
> resistent bacteria are already present, and need to be under constant
> pressure from antibiotics to destroy them.
Not true, since as has been explained, experiments have shown that the
resistance can grow to such a point that a culture control strain can bee
totally eradicated, yet a strain subjected to generations of increasing
strength of the antibiotic survive at the sme dosage level that totally
wiped out the control strain. If the resistance was there to begin with,
then it would be impossible to wipe out the control strain.
>
> My guess is that the more true story would also be more effective in
> motivating people to take the medication.
Yes. Take the full regime so that all the bacteria are killed.
Boikat
--
<42><
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hershey:
> > Whoever said that being killed without reproducing is NOT being
> > selected against?
>
> The resistent bacteria are being selected against in real terms, as are
> all the other bacteria, but the resistent bacteria are being selected
Let's make that "the resistant bacteria are *also* being selected..."
> for in relative terms, even when they are in the process of going
> extinct.
Well, all the bacteria in a person, both resistant and non-resistant
are becoming *locally* extinct in that individual. That is, if the
individual keeps taking his antibiotics, eventually all the bacteria in
his body will be killed (either by the antibiotic directly or by his
immune system 'catching up').
Of course, for bacteria, even success (continued growth) means that
eventually the host will die and local extinction will happen.
Bacteria depend on some small fraction of its population finding a new
host (a new energy rich environment). That is, bacteria have a
boom-bust ecology, with only a very small fraction of its previous
growth successfully finding a new host.
In addition to attempting to 'cure' the individual infected with a
bacteria, antibiotics also serve a public health purpose of keeping
that host's bacterial population low, thus reducing the chances of
spread to new hosts. If a particular host, however, has an infection
that has become partially resistant to the antibiotic, the
*composition* of the population of bacteria in his body will have
changed. Most surviving bacteria, *because of differential
reproductive success*, will be of the partially resistant variety.
Now, if he stops taking his meds before all the bacteria die, he runs a
risk of a recurrance of the infection or the chance that the population
will increase or survive long enough to infect someone else *with the
partially resistant variety* which were selected for.
This partially resistant strain now, as it grows in size, will have
secondary mutations that may make it *more* resistant to the antibiotic
than it was to start with. If the second patient or the first patient
with the recurrance tries the *same* level of antibiotic, he will be
selecting for strains that are even more resistant. Eventually, that
level of antibiotic will be unable to stop the continued growth of now
completely resistant strains.
Differential reproduction (aka, natural selection) matters. It matters
precisely because it changes the *genetic composition* of the
population and thus determines the genetic nature of the bacteria that
do spread to find a new host.
Let me repeat. Natural selection describes the change in the
*composition* of the population under the constraints of local
conditions. It does not matter if the population size itself is
increasing, decreasing, or fluctuating. That is simply a matter of the
carrying capacity of the environment, which always changes over time.
What matters for evolution is *which* characteristics gets transmitted
to the future, not how big the current population is. Natural
selection is *not* about gross numbers or population size; it is about
the phenotypic/genotypic composition of the existing population.
Now, let me ask a simple question. Is there or is there not such a
phenomenon as *differential reproductive success* where different
phenotypes are differentially successful in particular local
environments? If there is such a phenomenon, it doesn't matter if you
call it "natural selection" or "diddlysquat". It is a phenomenon of
living things that results in *change* in the composition of
populations to adapt to, specifically, the environments that the last
generation faced.
If the phenomenon of *differential reproductive success* empirically
exists, then you are simply denying reality because you don't like
empirical reality. You prefer a fantasy world where natural selection,
even though it exists, is never mentioned. If the phenomenon doesn't
exist, you have to present some evidence that it doesn't. You haven't
done so.
> You use selection in relative terms only, you therefore can't
> say that resistent bacteria are being selected against, even when they
> are in the process of going extinct.
I can certainly describe that the composition of the population of
bacteria has changed, and that this changed composition, being
heritable, will increase the chances that a resistant strain will be
transmitted to a new host. And that means that further change to
greater resistance is more likely.
> It is not possible to make sense of it, which is why the faulty idea is
> promoted that it is a matter of avoiding a mutation that makes the
> bacteria resistent, in stead of keeping down the numbers of resistent
> to below a criticial populationsize after which they run out of
> control.
Again, how do resistance variants in bacteria appear in your fantasy
world. There is ample evidence in my real, empirical world, that these
variants arise by mutation. And that selection produces populations of
bacteria highly enriched in resistant bacteria, which, when *they* find
a new host, can acquire further resistance mutations, making the
previous dose of antibiotic ineffective. Again, because bacteria are
haploid and have no diploid state, their phenotype is a direct
reflection of their genotype, and there are no hidden or cryptic or
recessive resistance variant alleles that can hide in a heterozygous
state.
> You tell the wrong story to people, and it results in more people not
> finishing the medication fully.
So telling them your lie that mutation is not responsible for the
increase in resistance variations is better?
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> People make calculated decisions. When the story is that you have to
> finish your therapy on the offchance a mutation happens that makes the
> bacteria resistent, as the story is now, then many people will risk the
> 1 in a million chance of mutation, given some circumstances where it is
> inconvenient to keep taking the medication.
Let's see. A 10^-6 chance of mutation to resistance in a bacterial
population of 10^9 (the number of bacteria in a colony the size of the
'o' I just typed) means that, on average, that person has 10^3
resistant bacteria by mutation alone, even in the absence of selection.
> Well that story is not entirely untrue, but more to the point is that
> resistent bacteria are already present,
Again, bacteria are haploid. Where do you think the resistant bacteria
in an infection that starts from a single bacterium could hide?
> and need to be under constant
> pressure from antibiotics to destroy them.
Yes. Finally something true. However, *because* there are resistant
bacteria that arise *by new mutation*, the composition of a
*population* of bacteria under pressure by antibiotics has changed. It
has gone from being almost entirely fully sensitive bacteria to almost
entirely partially resistant bacteria. Now, if these resistant
bacteria are the ones that spread to a new host, what does that mean?
Has the population now started out almost completely sensitive once
again, or is this new population genetically resistant to the
antibiotic?
> My guess is that the more true story would also be more effective in
> motivating people to take the medication.
So we should lie and tell people your story that selection does not
increase the frequency of resistant variants in the surviving
population of bacteria; that is that selection does not change the
composition of the population?
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
there also isn't a phenomon of differential lightintensity of stars,
differential mountainheight, differential gravitational success.
When making comparisons we are not describing a relationship in nature,
we are observing two facts, and comparing those facts. There is no
comparison occurring in nature, differential reproductive success
solely happens in the minds of Darwinists.
As far as I know, there is no lie in my story. My story may be
incorrect, because it was simply guessing, but as far as I know, the
main thing in finishing medication is to keep pressure on the more
resistent bacteria, so that they are also destroyed.
And as before, the reason Darwinists focus on mutation, is because it
just doesn't make sense that the fittest also die in survival of the
fittest.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
fitness of resistent bacteria by taking medication, that they are
selecting for resistent bacteria by taking the medication.
I guess most people would stop taking medication when you tell them
that, people not knowing that it is just bullshit relative numbers that
Darwinists are talking about, and increasing fitness, still means they
are going extinct.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128187546.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Go ahead and tell people your truth, that they are increasing the
> fitness of resistent bacteria by taking medication, that they are
> selecting for resistent bacteria by taking the medication.
Lie of ommision. You ommit the part about taking the full prescription for
the prescribed length of time to insure that the resistant strains are aslo
killed off. Was that an intentional ommision on your part, or are you
simply being intellectually sloppy?
>
> I guess most people would stop taking medication when you tell them
> that, people not knowing that it is just bullshit relative numbers that
> Darwinists are talking about, and increasing fitness, still means they
> are going extinct.
Does that string of words have an actual purpose?
Boikat
--
<42><
Matt Silberstein
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> in
<1128187072.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>There is no such phenomenon as differential reproductive success, as
>there also isn't a phenomon of differential lightintensity of stars,
>differential mountainheight, differential gravitational success.
>
>When making comparisons we are not describing a relationship in nature,
>we are observing two facts, and comparing those facts. There is no
>comparison occurring in nature, differential reproductive success
>solely happens in the minds of Darwinists.
Are there differences in mountain height or not? Are some mountains
higher than others or not?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>People make calculated decisions. When the story is that you have to
>finish your therapy on the offchance a mutation happens that makes the
>bacteria resistent,
gee. i am now working on my RN degree. we use vancomycin to treat
infections that are resistant to virtually all other antibiotics. if
resistance was rare, funny how it's common enough to cause us to
change our treatment of pathogens.
>
>Well that story is not entirely untrue, but more to the point is that
>resistent bacteria are already present, and need to be under constant
>pressure from antibiotics to destroy them.
'already present'. yes, that's called 'mutation'.
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Go ahead and tell people your truth, that they are increasing the
>fitness of resistent bacteria by taking medication, that they are
>selecting for resistent bacteria by taking the medication.
doesn't only happen with bacteria. happens with cancer cells too.
>
>I guess most people would stop taking medication when you tell them
>that, people not knowing that it is just bullshit relative numbers that
>Darwinists are talking about, and increasing fitness, still means they
>are going extinct.
>
gee. i notice you didn't address his mathematical analysis. and, no,
bacteria that are resistant to vancomycin do not go extinct. if they
did, we wouldn't have the problem we have today with resistance.
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There is no such phenomenon as differential reproductive success, as
>there also isn't a phenomon of differential lightintensity of stars,
>differential mountainheight, differential gravitational success.
>
>When making comparisons we are not describing a relationship in nature,
>we are observing two facts, and comparing those facts. There is no
>comparison occurring in nature, differential reproductive success
>solely happens in the minds of Darwinists.
>
and yet bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are spreading. they
are changing with time. that's evolution to everyone except nando.
hers...@indiana.edu
Really? That would mean all the evidence that it does happen is wrong.
Can you tell me how all the evidence that there is differential
reproductive success is wrong?
> as
> there also isn't a phenomon of differential lightintensity of stars,
So all stars have the same light intensity? That would surprise most
astronomers. Are you claiming that differences in light intensity are
purely a figment of the imagination of astronomers!
> differential mountainheight,
So all mountains are the same height? That would surprise most
mountain climbers and geographers. Are you really saying that
different mountains are all the same height and it is a figment of our
imagination that they differ in height!
> differential gravitational success.
Unlike reproduction, which can either occur or not occur, gravitation
*always* occurs when there are two bodies with mass. So you cannot
have *success* wrt gravitation. But you can have differential
gravitational forces. They are somewhat stronger on Earth than on
Mars, but less so than on Jupiter. So you are saying that you would
not have any greater gravitation attraction to the center of Jupiter
than to the center of the Earth?
> When making comparisons we are not describing a relationship in nature,
> we are observing two facts, and comparing those facts. There is no
> comparison occurring in nature, differential reproductive success
> solely happens in the minds of Darwinists.
So when, on a petri plate with antibiotics, I plate 10^9 bacteria and
the 1000 genetically resistant bacteria grow into colonies and the
9.999999 x 10^8 genetically sensitive bacteria don't, this is just my
imagination at work? That really all the cells, but the resistant and
the sensitive one, grew (or died) identically and I am just imagining
that the resistant ones selectively grew into the colonies I see on the
plate? Is that the way reality works for you?
> As far as I know, there is no lie in my story. My story may be
> incorrect, because it was simply guessing, but as far as I know, the
> main thing in finishing medication is to keep pressure on the more
> resistent bacteria, so that they are also destroyed.
Yes. But the more resistant bacteria are still *differentially*
surviving relative to the sensitive bacteria. The constitution of the
population has changed from start to end of the process.
>
> And as before, the reason Darwinists focus on mutation, is because it
> just doesn't make sense that the fittest also die in survival of the
> fittest.
Huh? Could you explain what you mean here? Mutation is the ultimate
source of all variation. And a source of variation is important for
evolution. The fittest may die, but the also, relative to the w.t.,
survive much longer. And that affects *differential* reproductive
success.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Go ahead and tell people your truth, that they are increasing the
> fitness of resistent bacteria by taking medication, that they are
> selecting for resistent bacteria by taking the medication.
Well, the fact is that that is exactly what happens. When you take
medication you are changing the environment so that resistant strains
are at a selective advantage.
>
> I guess most people would stop taking medication when you tell them
> that,
Then they would be ignorant and unable to understand simple ideas.
They would, IOW, be just like you.
> people not knowing that it is just bullshit relative numbers that
> Darwinists are talking about,
What makes you think relative numbers are bullshit? Your relative
chances of survival are quite different if I were to drop you off,
stark naked, in the middle of the Arctic Ocean than if I were to drop
you off in the same condition in your house, are they not?
> and increasing fitness, still means they
> are going extinct.
If you mean that the bacteria will use up the local resources and that
their survival, as a species, requires some fraction of progeny finding
another host, sure. Again, natural selection results in *change* in
the composition of the population that produces the next generation.
It doesn't guarantee that there will be a next generation; only that
the next generation has a certain composition.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
comparisons on reproductive success occurring?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
questioned why resistent bacteria dying should not be called being
selected against. You don't know, your argument is fundamentally a
mess.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128232697.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hershey I already showed you up for not understanding, when you
> questioned why resistent bacteria dying should not be called being
> selected against. You don't know, your argument is fundamentally a
> mess.
Here's a thought: Maybe the problem is *you*.
HTH
HAND
Boikat
--
<42><
nando_r...@yahoo.com
it's against your position, even when public health would be at stake.
AFAIK Darwinists are still telling the wrong story to people, giving
less motivation to finish the medication.
Such an issue certainly deserves investigation, a little more then
lallaballing about how stupid people in general are in understanding
natural selection.
It is evidently Darwinist scientists themselves who are stupid in
formulating natural selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128187546.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Go ahead and tell people your truth, that they are increasing the
> > fitness of resistent bacteria by taking medication, that they are
> > selecting for resistent bacteria by taking the medication.
>
> Lie of ommision. You ommit the part about taking the full prescription for
> the prescribed length of time to insure that the resistant strains are aslo
> killed off. Was that an intentional ommision on your part, or are you
> simply being intellectually sloppy?
That is not the story Darwinists are spreading. They are saying you
must finish the medication otherwise a mutation may occur, and a
resistent variant will come up, and the antibiotics don't work anymore.
As mentioned several times before, the reason they promote this story
is because it doesn't make sense in Darwinism that the fittest also
die.
So because extinction of the fittest doesn't make sense in terms of
survival of the fittest, they in stead say that a mutation may crop up,
which confers resistence, and after the mutation survival of the
fittest does apply, leading to the uncontrollable spreading of the
resistent bacteria.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>boikat wrote:
>> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1128187546.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Go ahead and tell people your truth, that they are increasing the
>> > fitness of resistent bacteria by taking medication, that they are
>> > selecting for resistent bacteria by taking the medication.
>>
>> Lie of ommision. You ommit the part about taking the full prescription for
>> the prescribed length of time to insure that the resistant strains are aslo
>> killed off. Was that an intentional ommision on your part, or are you
>> simply being intellectually sloppy?
>
>That is not the story Darwinists are spreading. They are saying you
>must finish the medication otherwise a mutation may occur, and a
>resistent variant will come up, and the antibiotics don't work anymore.
>
>As mentioned several times before, the reason they promote this story
>is because it doesn't make sense in Darwinism that the fittest also
>die.
man, does ANYONE understand what he's saying?
stew dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
> faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
> anti-biotic resistance is false.
>
> The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
> You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
> infection spreads.
Even with a full course you stand a chance of promoting mutation.
Over use of antibiotics are the real problem. The more they are used,
especially in animals, the more chance of viralent strains happening.
The full course is more to do with personal health as I understand it.
Stew Dean
Matt Silberstein
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> in
<1128226619.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Are there comparisons on mountainheight occurring in nature, are there
>comparisons on reproductive success occurring?
That we do or do not compare things does not change that there
differences. It only changes whether or not we know about them.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
constucted as events of organisms "pulling" on a particular same
resource at the same time, the comparison may have some independent
reality.
But it isn't constructed this way, AFAIK.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128266114.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The comparison is still basically just platonic. If it is essentially
> constucted as events of organisms "pulling" on a particular same
> resource at the same time, the comparison may have some independent
> reality.
Life, in general, is a web. There are lots of exampls of organisms
competeing for the same resourses, not only between individuals within a
species or population, but between species too. That is part of NS.
>
> But it isn't constructed this way, AFAIK.
Then maybe you should dig a little deeper, or you're going to be using the
"AFAIK" caveat a lot, and makes it look like you don't really know much
about anything
Boikat
--
<42><
Matthew Miller
> boikat wrote:
>> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1128187546.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Go ahead and tell people your truth, that they are increasing the
>> > fitness of resistent bacteria by taking medication, that they are
>> > selecting for resistent bacteria by taking the medication.
>>
>> Lie of ommision. You ommit the part about taking the full prescription for
>> the prescribed length of time to insure that the resistant strains are aslo
>> killed off. Was that an intentional ommision on your part, or are you
>> simply being intellectually sloppy?
>
> That is not the story Darwinists are spreading. They are saying you
> must finish the medication otherwise a mutation may occur, and a
> resistent variant will come up, and the antibiotics don't work anymore.
Please show where a biologist or physician is spreading such a story; I
don't believe you can find such an instance. What's going on here is that
you don't understand how antibiotic resistance comes about, but what you
think you understand is very skewed. Others have tried to point this out.
This sentance shows your misunderstanding: "They are saying you must finish
the medication otherwise a mutation may occur, ..." No physician says any
such thing.
What is a "darwinist" anyway?
Matthew
--
Are you so confident in your beliefs that you don't question them?
.
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Are there comparisons on mountainheight occurring in nature, are there
> comparisons on reproductive success occurring?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear or see it,
did it happen?
The fact remainst that mountains do differ in height and populations of
organisms with different phenotypes do differ in their reproductive
success. And that would still happen, just like the fact that trees
still fall in the forest even when no one is there to observe it.
Are you saying that there is no empirical material universe outside
your own mind? That does seem to be what you believe.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
Hard to tell whether you did or didn't, since my understanding is not
here.
> when you
> questioned why resistent bacteria dying should not be called being
> selected against. You don't know, your argument is fundamentally a
> mess.
Which argument is a "mess"? And why?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
For yet another time, natural selection involves *differential
reproductive success*, not "survival of the fittest" taken in its
strictest literalism. It always has. The person who first pointed out
that natural selection is NOT just "survival of the fittest" was a guy
by the name Chas. Darwin.
Yet you keep coming back to that phrase. Why?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
stew dean
unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > Ian H Spedding wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Intuition is a poor basis for understanding the world and it would be
> > > better not to place too much reliance on it.
> > >
> >
> > Common sense is the enemy of scientific progress.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
> Scientists use common sense all the time. They also sometimes come to
> the wrong (but reasonable!) conclusion when investigating a new field.
> This is why we need many eyes to look at experiments; they need to be
> varied, repeated, the conditions considered, and the papers
> peer-reviewed. Precisely because common sense cannot be trusted.
The two things almost garanteed about any bit of common sense is it's
not that common and it doesnt make much sense.
Anyone who is recommending 'common sense' policies for example has
basically run out of good ideas.
One of my favourite quotes from Albert Einstein..
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen."
Stew Dean
stew dean
Well if you're dead you can't reproduce, that's pretty defferential.
> there also isn't a phenomon of differential lightintensity of stars,
> differential mountainheight, differential gravitational success.
Hang on - you are saying that all stars are the same brightness,
mountains the same hight and gravity is constant regardless how big an
object or how far away.
I'm missing something here.
> When making comparisons we are not describing a relationship in nature,
> we are observing two facts, and comparing those facts. There is no
> comparison occurring in nature, differential reproductive success
> solely happens in the minds of Darwinists.
All creatures stand the same chance of reproduction?
If only life was that simple.
Stew Dean
hers...@indiana.edu
stew dean wrote:
> nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > There is no such phenomenon as differential reproductive success,
>
> Well if you're dead you can't reproduce, that's pretty defferential.
>
> > there also isn't a phenomon of differential lightintensity of stars,
> > differential mountainheight, differential gravitational success.
>
> Hang on - you are saying that all stars are the same brightness,
> mountains the same hight and gravity is constant regardless how big an
> object or how far away.
>
> I'm missing something here.
Like a good post-modernist thinker, he is saying that unless he,
personally, chooses to perceive it, the phenomenon doesn't exist. If
he walks out the 23rd story window because he doesn't think there is a
difference in gravitational attraction between his corpus and the air
molecules above his head and the concrete below his feet, he thinks the
fact that he doesn't choose to see a difference means he will gently
float along rather than...splat.
The problem with post-modernist thinking is the same as the problem
faced by Soapy Sam Wilberforce, that great proponent of Palean natural
theology. The first time their head comes in contact with reality, it
kills them.
Bob
>
>Like a good post-modernist thinker, he is saying that unless he,
>personally, chooses to perceive it, the phenomenon doesn't exist. If
>he walks out the 23rd story window because he doesn't think there is a
>difference in gravitational attraction between his corpus and the air
>molecules above his head and the concrete below his feet, he thinks the
>fact that he doesn't choose to see a difference means he will gently
>float along rather than...splat.
>
we can only hope...
nando_r...@yahoo.com
in simulating natural selection on a computer. This should reasonably
prove there is no such thing as comparisons occurring in nature, even
for retarded people such as yourselves.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128306838.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> As before, one does not need to calculate comparisons between variants
> in simulating natural selection on a computer.
True. It can be directly observed in nature.
> This should reasonably
> prove there is no such thing as comparisons occurring in nature,
Just differential reproductive sucess.
> even
> for retarded people such as yourselves.
Then what's your excuse?
Boikat
--
<42><
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
>
stew dean
All 'calculations' happen through causality. The maths of evolution is
carried out through interactions between an individual and the
environment. Nature doesnt work like a computer.
In effect the amount of calculations happening ever second to any give
creature is immense as the whole of exisance has some direct or
inderect effect on it.
In nature things are compared by how the cope with a given environment
or situation, that's why different individuals are more or less likely
to result in future generations of what ever that thing is.
Basic stuff retards can understand really. If you dead, you can't
reproduce. If someone is more attractive to you they stand a better
chance of reproducing. Thems the rules.
Stew Dean
hers...@indiana.edu
I agree that one does not *need* to calculate the comparisons. Doing
those calculations simply make the reason for the observed changes in
population composition obvious. But natural selection, the
differential reproductive success of different variants in a particular
environment, will still occur whether you make the calculation or not.
Just like stars will still differ in brightness and mountains will
still differ in height and objects of different mass will exert
different gravitational effects whether or not one calculates a
comparison. But such comparisons surely have utility. Doing these
comparisons is how we discovered how to measure the distance to stars,
how gravity is a function of mass, which mountains are most challenging
to climb, etc.
The important point is that *because* of the different rates of growth
which are *due to* different consequences (wrt reproductive success) of
an environment working on different phenotypes/genotypes, the
phenotypic/genotypic *composition* of a population will *change*. It
doesn't matter if you actually mentally compare the rates or simply
measure the different rates independently. The comparison simply makes
the result, which will happen regardless of whether you make the
comparison or not, quantitative and obvious. The genetic *composition*
(for cases where the phenotype has a genetic basis) of the population
will still change. That is, you will still get *differential
reproductive success* leading to change in the composition of a
population whether you actually do the calculation or don't do it.
Ignoring the *reality* that the reason for the observed change in
population is a consequence of *differential reproductive success* is
very post-modern of you.
I am so sorry that you feel that, in order to believe in God, one must
ignore parts of the material evidence that upset you and pretend that
material reality can be changed by your simply wishing that it were so.
But that you prefer to live in a fantasy world within your mind is not
my problem.
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
operating in nature, it only operates in the minds of Darwinists.
What happens in nature is events which select for or against an
organism, events which contribute to or diminish reproduction. And when
the organism reproduces it's form is preserved, all the original
organisms eventually dying.
That is the correct basic understanding of natural selection, no
bullshit comparitive relationships which don't exist. A simple
principle of selecting each and every individual form in terms of
reproduction, it is preserved or goes extinct.
Using this basic principle, we can well see that resistent bacteria
have their own selective regime, quite different from non-resistent
ones. We can see that at a critical populationsize (wild guess of mine,
since I've nowhere read anything about a critical populationsize) the
fitness of the resistent bacteria becomes stable in regards to the
negative selective factor of antibiotics.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
nature. No meandering about nature is so complex, there are so many
factors, show the comparison occurring, show exactly what the
comparison materially consists of. There are two organisms A and B, now
they are compared. How? Need more organisms to formulate comparison?
Fine, posit 2 A's 2 B's. etc.Show it.
As before, the only way I imagine you can do that, is have the
organisms "pulling" on the same resource with differing strenghts. That
may remotely be construed as a comparison occurring in nature,
although I don't know how to construe it that way, and I haven't seen
anything like that in Darwinist literature.
Failing that, the parsimonious conclusion is that the comparison is
only occurring in the minds of darwinists, and has no independent
existence in nature.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
wade
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Whatever, there is no such thing as differential reproductive success
> operating in nature, it only operates in the minds of Darwinists.
>
> What happens in nature is events which select for or against an
> organism, events which contribute to or diminish reproduction. And when
> the organism reproduces it's form is preserved, all the original
> organisms eventually dying.
So you are saying, if a population contains 99% non resistent
bacteria and 1% resistent bacteria and you apply an antibiotic
that kills 99% or the non resistent bacteria and 90% of the
resistent bacteria producing (calcualting ...) a population
that is now ~91% non resistent and 9% resistent, this isn't
differential reproductive success?
Oh, perhaps we need to explicitly say that you then allow the
remaining bacteria to reproduce up to the original population.
1,000,000 bacteria. 99% non resistent = 990,000
1% resistent = 10,000
+ antibiotic kill 99% = 9,900
kill 90% = 1,000
reproduce to 1,000,000 = 908,257 non resistent
= 91,743 resistent
That looks like differential reproductive success to me.
In reality, more things happen. For instance, when the regrowth
starts, the resistent bacteria take off first and grow faster.
> That is the correct basic understanding of natural selection, no
> bullshit comparitive relationships which don't exist. A simple
> principle of selecting each and every individual form in terms of
> reproduction, it is preserved or goes extinct.
And when it happens across a population with differential probabilities
of reproduction, you get differential reproductive success. I don't
see where this is controversial. It's just counting. You count up
the relative success and failure. There are long range consequences
when this repeats but where's the controversy in the counting?
> Using this basic principle, we can well see that resistent bacteria
> have their own selective regime, quite different from non-resistent
> ones. We can see that at a critical populationsize (wild guess of mine,
> since I've nowhere read anything about a critical populationsize) the
> fitness of the resistent bacteria becomes stable in regards to the
> negative selective factor of antibiotics.
I don't understand that. Critical with respect to what?
If you really care, trying checking out a beggining textbook
on microbiology. This would help you to understand some of the
basic things that can me repeatedly measured. That would make
it easier to address the topics you seem concerned about.
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128353200....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Whatever, there is no such thing as differential reproductive success
> operating in nature,
It sure the hell does.
> it only operates in the minds of Darwinists.
Because it's been observed in nature.
>
> What happens in nature is events which select for or against an
> organism,
What is the selection based upon? What's the filter?
> events which contribute to or diminish reproduction.
And what would those factors be?
> And when
> the organism reproduces it's form is preserved,
All forms or just the variants more suitable to the environment?
> all the original
> organisms eventually dying.
Everything eventually dies. The question is how many of them survived to
reproduce and passed on those traits that allowed them to survive long
enough to reproduce to the next generation. What would you call that
differential reproductive sucess?
>
> That is the correct basic understanding of natural selection, no
> bullshit comparitive relationships which don't exist.
But since not all individuals are equally suited to the environment, there
is differential reproductive sucess. Something is filtering the individuals
in order for selection to occur.
> A simple
> principle of selecting each and every individual form in terms of
> reproduction, it is preserved or goes extinct.
What's doing the selecting?
>
> Using this basic principle, we can well see that resistent bacteria
> have their own selective regime, quite different from non-resistent
> ones.
What would that be?
> We can see that at a critical populationsize (wild guess of mine,
> since I've nowhere read anything about a critical populationsize)
Then, like biology, evolution, and a wide array of other sciences, you
haven't studies ecology.
> the
> fitness of the resistent bacteria becomes stable in regards to the
> negative selective factor of antibiotics.
Something like what happens with natural selection, since population size
(two words, nando, two words) and antibiotics are selective pressures.
Sounds like you simply don't like the words "natural selection".
Boikat
--
<42><
Ken Shackleton
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Whatever, there is no such thing as differential reproductive success
> operating in nature, it only operates in the minds of Darwinists.
You don't accept that some members of a species are more successful at
producing offspring than others? If you do not accept that, then you
are proposing that all creatures born end up with the same number of
offspring? This is a ridiculous proposal. However, if you do accept
[the obvious] that some creatures [within a species] have more
offspring than others....then the next question is "Why?". Is it pure
random chance, or is there some influence given by the differing traits
of the individuals involved? Apparently, you are attempting to argue
that it's all chance, completely random...which clearly flies in the
face of the evidence.
>
> What happens in nature is events which select for or against an
> organism, events which contribute to or diminish reproduction. And when
> the organism reproduces it's form is preserved, all the original
> organisms eventually dying.
So....you now say that there is differential reproductive success. All
organisms do die eventually.
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128355568.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Formulate an exact observable instance where a comparison occurs in
> nature. No meandering about nature is so complex, there are so many
> factors, show the comparison occurring, show exactly what the
> comparison materially consists of. There are two organisms A and B, now
> they are compared. How? Need more organisms to formulate comparison?
> Fine, posit 2 A's 2 B's. etc.Show it.
>
Read it:
http://biosgi.wustl.edu/~lososlab/sciam.pdf
> As before, the only way I imagine you can do that, is have the
> organisms "pulling" on the same resource with differing strenghts. That
> may remotely be construed as a comparison occurring in nature,
> although I don't know how to construe it that way, and I haven't seen
> anything like that in Darwinist literature.
Then you are not very well read in "Darwinist litrature".
>
> Failing that, the parsimonious conclusion is that the comparison is
> only occurring in the minds of darwinists, and has no independent
> existence in nature.
The good news is there is independant existance of the observed phenomena of
which you seem to be speaking of in nature. The bad news is that you are
too blind to see it.
Boikat
--
<42><
Ken Shackleton
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Formulate an exact observable instance where a comparison occurs in
> nature. No meandering about nature is so complex, there are so many
> factors, show the comparison occurring, show exactly what the
> comparison materially consists of. There are two organisms A and B, now
> they are compared. How? Need more organisms to formulate comparison?
> Fine, posit 2 A's 2 B's. etc.Show it.
>
> As before, the only way I imagine you can do that, is have the
> organisms "pulling" on the same resource with differing strenghts. That
> may remotely be construed as a comparison occurring in nature,
> although I don't know how to construe it that way, and I haven't seen
> anything like that in Darwinist literature.
Competition for scarce resources is common in nature. It happens
continually.....ever see two birds fighting over a scrap of food? How
about male elephant seals fighting over females, stags in rut....there
are literally endless examples.
If you don't believe that it happens....I don't know how to reply.
AC
Not even him. He just hates evolution so much that he'll either create
fallacious appeals to consequences, or jumble up a word salad. He is, to be
frank, an idiot.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Walter Bushell
"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Basic stuff retards can understand really. If you dead, you can't
> reproduce. If someone is more attractive to you they stand a better
> chance of reproducing. Thems the rules.
Eh, there is current belief that a man can reproduce for up to two weeks
after death, if he has eaten enough conch prior to demise.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
control to antibiotics at a certan populationsize, now you may die.
Gee, Darwinists even don't give a shit about public health, they only
care about their theory.
As before, you tell the wrong story, you demotivate people to take
medication.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Walter Bushell
"Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Competition for scarce resources is common in nature. It happens
> continually.....ever see two birds fighting over a scrap of food? How
> about male elephant seals fighting over females, stags in rut....there
> are literally endless examples.
>
> If you don't believe that it happens....I don't know how to reply.
>
> >
More competition for prime breeding territories or in some species to be
top male.
Even Disney shows competition for territory among sea lions, for example.
Bulls without territory gather no females. Big territory many females.
Why do we debate someone without the brains doG gave an animal cracker?
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's too bad you don't understand resistant bacteria running out of
>control to antibiotics at a certan populationsize, now you may die.
>
>Gee, Darwinists even don't give a shit about public health, they only
>care about their theory.
virtually all biological scientists are darwinists. and they have made
truly astounding progress in the treatment of many diseases. nando's
hatred i'm sure doesn't preclude him from using medicine invented by
darwinists.
Walter Bushell
hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
That is a philosophically irrefutable proposition.
I prefer the multi ego version though.
> >
> > regards,
> > Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Walter Bushell
"wade" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> It also has a basic in reality. In the lab, you can specifically
> design experiments that require that less than 1 in a million
> mutation for survival and show that it happens consistently.
> In fact, a 1 in a million event happens about 100 times in a
> population of 100,000,000.
Boy, did I have a hard time trying to pound that into bank officers. :(
The bank I was in was merged into another bank which was merged into
another bank which in turn was merged into another bank.
>But in vivo, there are far more
> variant effects that occur and they require more than a 5
> minute consultation to explain.
>
> Still, I'll repeat that you were correct to refute the "understanding"
> you had about why not to only take part of your course of antibiotics.
stew dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's too bad you don't understand resistant bacteria running out of
> control to antibiotics at a certan populationsize, now you may die.
Mohammad, what you appear not to like is that there is such a thing as
differential reproductive success. The figures given in the last post
are illustrative, not actual.
> Gee, Darwinists even don't give a shit about public health, they only
> care about their theory.
We know deseases mutate. We know over use of antibiotics or incorrect
use of anitbiotics increases the chance of mutation whilst they are
vital in many cases.
Overuse increases the amount of times that resistance is selectable as
others have described. Incorrect use enables for less selection but a
higher potential population if it happens.
If we ignore evolution, pretend it doesnt exist, then there is direct
and real danger that over use of anitbiotics, that is using it without
the controls that are legaly in place today, then we will get more
anitbiotic resistant deseases and more deaths. We know because we have
seen it happen already - all the original anitbiotics we developed and
where effective have become less and less effective. That is a real and
measurable thing.
See..
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/
> As before, you tell the wrong story, you demotivate people to take
> medication.
Overuse of any medicine is usualy bad, in the case of antibiotics the
danger is much larger. Knowing what I know I have avoided using
antibiotics so far in my life (I have been lucky and had not major
accidents or life threatening deseases) and I also only take pain
killers when I really really need them (water is much more effetive for
mild head aches or hang overs).
In the US there is a bad culture of over reliance on medicinal drugs,
the are more freely advertised in the US than in the UK and more freely
available - they also have them for every minor ailment!
Nearly all medical professionals know and accept evolution regardless
of faith and understand the real and ongoing danger of antibiotic
resistance - you only need to see the rising amount of deaths from
hospital suprebugs to see that this is not some fantasy.
If you and the anti-evolutionist lobby get their way we're going to
kill a lo of people. I mean that.
Stew Dean
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128393655....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It's too bad you don't understand resistant bacteria running out of
> control to antibiotics at a certan populationsize, now you may die.
>
Does that string of words actually mean anything?
> Gee, Darwinists even don't give a shit about public health, they only
> care about their theory.
Gee. Resorting to flat out lies now? That's a good sign that, debate wise,
you've had your butt spanked, and you know it.
>
> As before, you tell the wrong story, you demotivate people to take
> medication.
Another lie, but if you want examples of someone telling people they don't
need to listen to them evil doctors, how about the scamming faith healers,
lying and killing in the name of God?
Boikat
--
<42><
catshark
>On 3 Oct 2005 19:40:55 -0700, "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
><nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>It's too bad you don't understand resistant bacteria running out of
>>control to antibiotics at a certan populationsize, now you may die.
>>
>>Gee, Darwinists even don't give a shit about public health, they only
>>care about their theory.
>
>virtually all biological scientists are darwinists. and they have made
>truly astounding progress in the treatment of many diseases.
Including this year's Nobelists in medicine. Here is a nice summary from
Carl Zimmer:
<http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/10/03/a_prize_bug.php>
>nando's
>hatred i'm sure doesn't preclude him from using medicine invented by
>darwinists.
Given Nando's level of awareness, it's doubtful he even knows.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The trouble with the world is that
the stupid are cocksure and
the intelligent are full of doubt.
- Bertrand Russell -
Rick Merrill
What a dumb reply! You make raw assertions and accuse your 'opponent'
of being 'blind' and 'unread'. That's called an ad hominem attack. For
example, if I were to assume that you couldn't read latin, but you can,
can't you?
boikat
"Rick Merrill" <rick0....@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:v7GdndMVcu2...@comcast.com...
Those aren't assertions, they are observations. As far as presenting
evidence that nando claims doesn't exist, he's been presented with articles
and links to articles more than enough times to know he's lying about the
"nonexistance" of the data he claims does not exist.
> That's called an ad hominem attack.
No, I'm actually attacking the basis of his blathercrap, claims that
evidence supporting the ToE dos not exist or is incorrectly interpreted by
those evil atheistic scientists, his continious whining about "value" in
scientific language (good, bad, and so on), misrepresentation of what the
theory actually says, and his continious attempts at "guilt by association".
For all I know, nando could be a nice guy (but you wouldn't know it from his
percieved attitude on this NG).
> For
> example, if I were to assume that you couldn't read latin, but you can,
> can't you?
I understand Latin to a (very) limited extent, however, that's not an ad
hom. You might want to look up exactly what an ad hominem argument is.
After that, you'll see that the actual ad hominem attacks have been from
nando when he starts calling someone "nazi". Look back along th thread,
he's called Hershey a nazi several times, yet I didn't see you jump in
accusing nando of ad homs. Gee, I wonder why?
Boikat
--
<42><
nando_r...@yahoo.com
antibiotics. I see you protest some idea to change the story to a more
accurate and more motivating one, purely out of ideological reasons to
defend a crappy theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Mark VandeWettering
Actually, accusing an ignorant opponent of ignorance is not an ad hominem
fallacy.
Mark
hers...@indiana.edu
stew dean wrote:
> nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Solely based on my understanding of natural selection theory, and the
> > faults in the standard formulations of it, I suggest the theory about
> > anti-biotic resistance is false.
> >
> > The current anti-biotic resistance theory goes as follows:
> > You should take your medication until the program is finished,
> > otherwise a mutation may occur and a resistant strain of the bateria
> > infection spreads.
>
> Even with a full course you stand a chance of promoting mutation.
Well, taking or not taking antibiotics does not specifically *promote*
a resistance mutation (well, to some extent, since static but stressed
non-dead cells do engage in an increased mutation *rate*, the change in
rate means more opportunity to generate a resistance variant). But the
presence or absence of antibiotic does not specifically *promote* those
mutations that cause resistance.
But not taking the full course does mean that you will have a higher
"burden" of bacteria before your immune system kicks into gear to
eliminate the bacteria from *your* body. And thus you will, because of
the larger population, have more opportunities to generate a resistance
mutant even at a constant rate of mutation to resistance. Any
resistance variant can then spread to the next host, where the
resistance mutation means that the antibiotic will not work as well.
>
> Over use of antibiotics are the real problem. The more they are used,
> especially in animals, the more chance of viralent strains happening.
>
> The full course is more to do with personal health as I understand it.
It certainly opens up the possibility of the population of bacteria
increasing in your body to the point where it can cause dis-ease again
if you let up too soon. And this second round of dis-ease may well be
a population with a higher frequency of resistance mutants due to the
prior use of antibiotics.
> Stew Dean
hers...@indiana.edu
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2005 21:16:59 -0700, in talk.origins ,
> "nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> in
> <1128226619.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Are there comparisons on mountainheight occurring in nature, are there
> >comparisons on reproductive success occurring?
>
> differences. It only changes whether or not we know about them.
Not only that, but, in this case the *consequences* wrt population
frequencies of variants in future generations, will also occur whether
we measure the comparison or not.
The only thing that not comparing the relative success will do is to
make us ignorant and stupid. Which, of course, is why nando wants us
to ignore it. Creationism requires ignorance of empirical reality.
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> Genocide is news | Be A Witness
> http://www.beawitness.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
> www.darfurgenocide.org
>
> Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
> http://www.savedarfur.org/
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The comparison is still basically just platonic. If it is essentially
> constucted as events of organisms "pulling" on a particular same
> resource at the same time, the comparison may have some independent
> reality.
>
> But it isn't constructed this way, AFAIK.
Let's see. Natural selection is differential reproductive success of
organisms in a particular specified environment (aka, a particular same
limited resource at the same time). Sounds to me like the comparison
has some independent reality.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> As before, one does not need to calculate comparisons between variants
> in simulating natural selection on a computer.
Since the definition of natural selection is *differential*
reproductive success, the word *differential* means that a difference
or comparison is required in order to observe natural selection.
How do you define natural selection so as to avoid comparison? And is
that definition the commonly understood one? Why is yours better?
What will I learn; what can I predict from your definition?
> This should reasonably
> prove there is no such thing as comparisons occurring in nature, even
> for retarded people such as yourselves.
Well, when a phrase is defined as *differential* reproductive success,
I do tend to think that a comparison is in order. Guess that makes me
retarded.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
question should be raised why doesn't the story say anything at all
about how this bacterium survives in the stomach. Why does the story
just focus on evolution of the thing?
The answer is this; there was a resistent bacteria that got into a
stomcach, the other bacteria were not resistant, therefore there was
differential reproductive success, of only the acid-resistent bacteria
reproducing. This story tells you absolutely nothing about how
acid-resistance works, and this story is the main theoretical framework
that these people use. Therefore how acid-resistance works is totally
unmentioned in the story.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Whatever, there is no such thing as differential reproductive success
> operating in nature, it only operates in the minds of Darwinists.
As long as organisms with different phenotypes in a species differ wrt
reproductive success, there will be differential reproductive success.
The only things that are required for differential reproductive success
is that there be differences in phenotype and that these differences
can (but need not) affect (on a population basis) average reproductive
success. The mind of Darwinist is not needed for there to be
differential reproductive success.
So which feature that *is* required do you claim does not exist in
nature? Are you claiming that there are no differences in phenotype?
Are you claiming that differences in phenotype cannot have any effect
(on a population basis) on average reproductive success?
> What happens in nature is events which select for or against an
> organism, events which contribute to or diminish reproduction. And when
> the organism reproduces it's form is preserved, all the original
> organisms eventually dying.
Yes. We know that organisms die and that reproduction allows the
traits of an organism (to the extent those traits are genetic in
nature) to be passed on to offspring. We also know that the
environment can (on average) produce significantly different
reproductive consequences for organisms with different traits. It
seems to be the last that you are denying. You seem to think that the
environment cannot (on average) produce different reproductive
consequences for organisms with different traits. But that idea is so
ignorant and contrary to observation, one has to wonder what you are
thinking.
> That is the correct basic understanding of natural selection, no
> bullshit comparitive relationships which don't exist. A simple
> principle of selecting each and every individual form in terms of
> reproduction, it is preserved or goes extinct.
Natural selection is *differential reproductive success*. You seem to
be in denial that differences in reproductive success (which does
happen in nature, whether observed or not) can lead to *change* in the
phenotype of a population. You seem to think that a population of
organisms is a platonic form and either it preserves exactly what it
always was or it goes extinct.
> Using this basic principle, we can well see that resistent bacteria
> have their own selective regime, quite different from non-resistent
> ones.
And natural selection only occurs if both variants exist in the same
environment. If that environment contains the antibiotic, one form
will be selectively favored *relative to* the other. This will result
in a *change* in the frequency of the two variant types. If the
environment doesn't contain the antibiotic, the other form may be
selectively favored (in most cases it is).
> We can see that at a critical population size (wild guess of mine,
> since I've nowhere read anything about a critical population size) the
> fitness of the resistent bacteria becomes stable in regards to the
> negative selective factor of antibiotics.
Sorry. A critical population size may be needed to ensure new mutation
to resistance in a population that started from a single bacterial
cell, but that is a consequence of the rate of mutation. The fitness
of resistant bacteria is due to the presence or absence of antibiotic
in the environment, not the size of the resistant population.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
hers...@indiana.edu
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Formulate an exact observable instance where a comparison occurs in
> nature.
All that is needed is for there to be an observable instance where a
*difference* occurs in nature. If there is a *difference*, any
observer can make a comparison. The *difference* and its consequences
will exist, however, even in the absence of an observer.
> No meandering about nature is so complex, there are so many
> factors, show the comparison occurring, show exactly what the
> comparison materially consists of. There are two organisms A and B, now
> they are compared. How? Need more organisms to formulate comparison?
> Fine, posit 2 A's 2 B's. etc.Show it.
>
> As before, the only way I imagine you can do that, is have the
> organisms "pulling" on the same resource with differing strenghts.
Duh. What do you think "in a specified environment" means? And what
is "differing strengths" but a difference in how organisms utilize the
resources of a specified environment (specifically, utilizing the
resources for the purpose of reproduction)?
> That
> may remotely be construed as a comparison occurring in nature,
> although I don't know how to construe it that way, and I haven't seen
> anything like that in Darwinist literature.
Then you have been misreading the Darwinist literature. What you
described is *differential* success in using a specified environment to
produce offspring. This is also known as *differential reproductive
success*, aka natural selection.
>
> Failing that, the parsimonious conclusion is that the comparison is
> only occurring in the minds of darwinists, and has no independent
> existence in nature.
A comparison is merely a recognition of a difference. The difference
exists in nature.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Bob
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I read the nobelprize story. To the point at issue in this thread, the
>question should be raised why doesn't the story say anything at all
>about how this bacterium survives in the stomach. Why does the story
>just focus on evolution of the thing?
>
>The answer is this; there was a resistent bacteria that got into a
>stomcach, the other bacteria were not resistant, therefore there was
>differential reproductive success, of only the acid-resistent bacteria
>reproducing. This story tells you absolutely nothing about how
>acid-resistance works,
really? no mutations? does nando think genes determine ANYTHING at all
or are they just window dressing?
stew dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Whatever, I've not seen any creationist protesting the limiting of
> antibiotics.
That's a good thing. I'm happy for other to believe got made everything
providing they don't let their views get in the way of saving lives and
the promotion of understanding.
> I see you protest some idea to change the story to a more
> accurate and more motivating one, purely out of ideological reasons to
> defend a crappy theory.
That doesnt make any sense. What exactly isnt making sense to you in
what I wrote. Give me something to work with and I can explain things
better. At the moment I havnt changed any story - the story is that
over use and incomplete courses can lead to increased chances of
antibiotic resistance evolving - and that's evolving as in evolution.
At this point there's usual some argument about micro and
macroevolution to which I usualy reply they're the same thing - like
cents and dollars are both money, one is simply more of the other.
And no there where not the resistant bugs around in the first place,
the resistance is new information evolving.
Over to you.
Stew Dean
Ken Shackleton
Nando.....acid resistance isn't an all or nothing situation. Any
population of bacteria will have some tolerance to changes in the pH
level of their environment since pH isn't absolutely constant in any
environment. As individuals, some will have more tolerance to these
changes than others.
If a population of bacteria finds itself in a situation where the
environment becomes progressively more acidic...they do not all get
instantly killed....some die and others survive as the pH falls. If the
pH levels off before they are all dead, then the remaining bacteria
will have a higher resistance [as a group] to an acid environment than
the previous generation. They will be able to reporduce and pass on
this resistance to their offspring.
Mutations in future generations will provide the raw material for
selection, and the process continues.
As this process continues, the population will become much better
equiped to deal with the acidic environment. If these bacteria then
find their way into our digestive tract, then the acidic resistance
will serve them well.
Perhaps the reason that some people develop ulcers is because they do
not tolerate these bacteria as well as other people and the stomach
increases acid production in order to lower the pH even further in an
attempt to kill them off.....it then becomes a biological arms race
between the bacteria and the stomach.
You seem to think in terms of all, or nothing. Life operates on the
curve, it is not a case of choices between extremes.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128440316.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Whatever, I've not seen any creationist protesting the limiting of
> antibiotics. I see you protest some idea to change the story
"change the story". Hmm, that gives the *reason* for taking anti biotics
for the prescribed ammount of time so that all the bacteria that cause an
illnes are killed is "made up".
> to a more
> accurate and more motivating one,
How about "take all the medicine or you will DIE!!!" That sounds pretty
motivation. Not much on bedside manner, but there it is.
> purely out of ideological reasons
The only reason you're making this argument isfor idiological reasons, and a
gross misunderstanding of the ToE..
> to
> defend a crappy theory.
What "crappy theory" would that be?
Boikat
--
<42><
boikat
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128442188.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I read the nobelprize story. To the point at issue in this thread, the
> question should be raised why doesn't the story say anything at all
> about how this bacterium survives in the stomach. Why does the story
> just focus on evolution of the thing?
Ah. Explaining the reason behind the emergance of resistance in the context
of the ToE, is simply a "story". Talk about transparent attempts at
dishonestly minimalizing the importance of the ToE.
>
> The answer is this; there was a resistent bacteria that got into a
> stomcach, the other bacteria were not resistant, therefore there was
> differential reproductive success, of only the acid-resistent bacteria
> reproducing. This story tells you absolutely nothing about how
> acid-resistance works, and this story is the main theoretical framework
> that these people use. Therefore how acid-resistance works is totally
> unmentioned in the story.
That's because *you're* telling the "story", and leave out the part where
the patient asks the doctor, "How does a bacteria develope acid resistance?"
and the doctor replies, "Have you ever heard of the Theory of Evolution?"
Boikat
--
<42><
Mark Isaak
>On 4 Oct 2005 09:09:48 -0700, "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
><nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I read the nobelprize story. To the point at issue in this thread, the
>>question should be raised why doesn't the story say anything at all
>>about how this bacterium survives in the stomach. Why does the story
>>just focus on evolution of the thing?
>>
>>The answer is this; there was a resistent bacteria that got into a
>>stomcach, the other bacteria were not resistant, therefore there was
>>differential reproductive success, of only the acid-resistent bacteria
>>reproducing. This story tells you absolutely nothing about how
>>acid-resistance works,
>
>really? no mutations? does nando think genes determine ANYTHING at all
>or are they just window dressing?
Nando's God created the bacteria to cause ulcers because Nando's God
is a sociopath who likes nothing more than to torture and kill people.
At least, that seems to be Nando's reasoning.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
stew dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I read the nobelprize story. To the point at issue in this thread, the
> question should be raised why doesn't the story say anything at all
> about how this bacterium survives in the stomach. Why does the story
> just focus on evolution of the thing?
The 'story' does.
> The answer is this; there was a resistent bacteria that got into a
> stomcach, the other bacteria were not resistant, therefore there was
> differential reproductive success, of only the acid-resistent bacteria
> reproducing.
As a human could not survive without certain types of bacteria this
couldnt have been the story.
Acid resistance is an environmental factor, it evolved like everything
else.
You are effectively saying first foxes where created and they twiddled
their thumbs until rabbits came along (or other creatures) to eat.
> This story tells you absolutely nothing about how
> acid-resistance works, and this story is the main theoretical framework
> that these people use. Therefore how acid-resistance works is totally
> unmentioned in the story.
Acid resistace is a factor in an environment, it very likely started
off very low as well (as creatures evolved digestive tracts). As
creatures evolved so did interdependent other creatures, all part of
one happy biosphere.
Or to put it another way we didnt evolve a fully formed brain then
along came the eyes - we started off with a proto brain and proto eyes
and proto everything else.
If you are expecting the story to have already mentioned every single
little factor then it probably has in some paper somewhere but it doesn
matter, evolution has it covered. You are effectively doing what Behe
did when he made a fuss about 'irreducible complexity' - trying to find
forms that he thought evolution didnt cover. He was a religously driven
biologist that managed to write a very thin book on the subject after a
lot of hard work only to have it refuted by examples of even more
reduced forms found by not so blinkered biologists - that and everyone
pointing out 'evolution is great for irreducible complexity - no one
said the last step had to be simpler!'.
That's the thing about evolution - you and probably a million others
far smarter than you have beat on it since it first came to light and
it's survived bigger and stronger. To more and more folks on this
planet, both religious and non religous, the evidence of evolution is
so mindboggling overwhelming you'd have to be in deep dienial to ignore
it.
Stew Dean