Thursday 5 January 2012

Another icon of evolution tumbles-ice age microbial antibiotic resistance discovered

The following is from the latest Answers in Genesis news digest.

Are bacteria really evolving?

Back in 1988, explorers frozen in 1845 were autopsied at the University of Alberta, and six strains of bacteria isolated from their colons were revived. According to microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, “Three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.”

Now researchers have gone a step further. They have isolated bacterial DNA from Ice Age permafrost and found genes coding for resistance to several classes of antibiotics, including β-lactams, tetracycline, and glycopeptide antibiotics.

Then, focusing on the genes encoding vancomycin resistance, they recreated those gene products in the lab. The three enzymes thus produced worked together to resist vancomycin in the same way as their modern counterparts. They conclude, “Antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.”

So how did the bacteria already have suitable weapons years before their enemy was invented? Antibiotics and their antidotes are actually natural substances produced by fungi, algae, and bacteria. Dr. Gerry Wright explains, “Antibiotics are part of the natural ecology of the planet so when we think that we have developed some drug that won't be susceptible to resistance or some new thing to use in medicine, we are completely kidding ourselves. . . . Microorganisms have figured out a way of how to get around them well before we even figured out how to use them.” He adds, “Antibiotics are remarkable resources that need to be carefully husbanded.”

Some of this genetic material is in a form that can be transferred to other microorganisms. Microbiologist Dr. Stuart Levy, who has warned of profligate use of antibiotics for 30 years, explains, “What had been missed in the 1960s and 1970s was the ease with which resistance could appear,” he said. “Bacteria share these genes like baseball cards with each other.”

So is antibiotic resistance the poster-child of evolution? No. There was a time when people thought bacteria evolve resistance because they “need” to. But—as demonstrated in this study and in the 1988 one—the variations and mutations that confer resistance are already in the genomes of some bacteria. The “resistance information” does not necessarily develop in response to the antibiotic threat. Natural selection allows resistant bacteria to survive and reproduce, replenishing the bacterial population. And those surviving bacteria are still bacteria—the same kind of bacteria they were all along.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/12/31/news-to-note-12312011



3 comments:

  1. Well, that's silly. The following experiment has been done millions of times:

    1. Grow some bacteria in a dish

    2. Take a small sample from that dish, dilute it, and spread the low concentration bacteria out on new dishes.

    3. New colonies form on the new dishes, where each new colony was started with *one* bacterium.

    4. Repeat until you are convinced you have a bunch of colonies that all descend from one single bacterium.

    5. Apply antibiotic. Most of the colonies will die. A few will have dots where the bacteria keep growing. These new colonies descend from bacteria with resistance mutations that were not in the original ancestral bacterium.

    6. Congradulations, you have just demonstrated that antibiotic resistance can evolve *without* it "already existing".

    7. Go slam your head against the wall in recognition of the fact that creationists have been saying that antibiotic resistance doesn't evolve for decades now, when this experiment has been done since the 1940s at least.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, that's silly. The following experiment has been done millions of times:

    1. Grow some bacteria in a dish

    2. Take a small sample from that dish, dilute it, and spread the low concentration bacteria out on new dishes.

    3. New colonies form on the new dishes, where each new colony was started with *one* bacterium.

    4. Repeat until you are convinced you have a bunch of colonies that all descend from one single bacterium.

    5. Apply antibiotic. Most of the colonies will die. A few will have dots where the bacteria keep growing. These new colonies descend from bacteria with resistance mutations that were not in the original ancestral bacterium.

    6. Congratulations, you have just demonstrated that antibiotic resistance can evolve *without* it "already existing".

    7. Go slam your head against the wall in recognition of the fact that creationists have been saying that antibiotic resistance doesn't evolve for decades now, when this experiment has been done since the 1940s at least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @NickM

    I think you missed the ultimate point.


    But first, let's evaluate your reasoning.

    You said, "These new colonies descend from bacteria with resistance mutations that were not in the original ancestral bacterium."

    A mutation, though, occurs either when environmental factors alter the makeup of DNA or when a cell makes a mistake in copying its DNA.

    Therefore, since the new colonies developed their immunity from antibiotics as a result of mutation, the fact that the ancestral bacteria lacked that same immunity is beside the point.


    Also, the bacteria that developed immunity from the antibiotics eventually died out after being put back with a group of regular bacteria. As it shows, this Darwinian evolutionary process failed to demonstrate the Darwinian theory of natural selection.

    ReplyDelete

feel free to comment, good manners and lucidity are appreciated.