Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics
Antimulticulture
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com
Feb 3rd, 2006
One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence
for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many
evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as "an example of the
development of living things by advantageous mutations." A similar claim is
also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.
However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.
Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to
fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered
by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould produced a
molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked
a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from
microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.
Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics
over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria
that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not
affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole
population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.
Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting
to conditions."
The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation.
One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this
subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his
book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of
bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them
constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:
1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of
mutation.
Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in
2001:
Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these
antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic
molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these
genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well.
Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic,
most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of
genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.306
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind
that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for
Evolution. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not
only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new
information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads
around genes that are already in some species.307
So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information
is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred
between bacteria.
The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is
not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:
... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic
through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which
was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in
1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this
way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to
the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a
prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory].
The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in
the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic
molecule.308
Bacteria quickly become immune to antibiotics by transferring their
resistance genes to one another. The picture above shows a colony of E. coli
bacteria.
In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance
of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly
fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates
it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing
streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted
as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a
benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:
This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the
streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic
function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and
therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution. cannot be
achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are.
Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade
specificity.309
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that
bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the
"decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic
information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the
ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled."
(Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is
less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability"
prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic
resistance" develops.
Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic
information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as
evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are
thus mistaken.
The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT a
nd similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that
already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits
this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most
diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the
populations exposed to these man-made compounds."310 Some other examples
explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above,
are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects.
In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria
and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because
the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop
through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic
immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of
mutation:
The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random
mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian
Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any
information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been
observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be
NO!311
[ed. Evolution simply isn't science, the wankers pushing it simply
aren't scientists. Research and this will become very obvious, very
quickly...]
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Unite Against Multiculturalism!
"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors!"
Nog
Bacteria evolves. Viruses evolve. Christians do not.
mutated...@web.com
Have submitted the above article by 'Antimulticulture' to the SPIRITOS
Semantic Analysis Software Suite and found the following:
++ 8 internal contradictions
++ 17 non sequiturs
++ 7 incorrect references
++ 108 unsupported assertions
Sadly, having been repeatedly refuted, the I.D. community is now trying
to spin the Evolution Theory - I.D. Fantasy as some kind of scientific
controversy. Our researchers have visited
http://www_darwinismrefuted.com and found that it adds nothing useful
to the discussion.
Rory Telk
Senior Analyst - Project SPIRITOS
http://industrusmagic.tripod.com