Is answersingenesis right about bacteria's resistance to antibiotics?

Question

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

It says that the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics isn't an example of evolution:

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.

Is all this correct?

Answer 1

No.  Not only is it wrong, but it is dishonest.

The addition of genes that degrade antibiotics (e.g. penicillinases) blows this lie out of the water.  Redefining evolution to their convenience and calling it adaptation is the lesser lie.

Answer 2

I would say this.

Bacterial resistance is evolution at work.  But you should not look bacteria as one single entity but a whole population.

How exactly does a bacteria evolve is one thing the poster (or whoever answered the question) don't understand at all.  I hope he knows about plasmids, 'emergency switches' of bacteria, etc.  When a pool of bacteria is subjected to a change in environment, ie sudden increase of salt concentration, introduction of an antibiotic, they all go in 'panic mood' and 'push the self destruction button' (figure of speech, not literally).  Basically, the bacteria tends to change some of its DNA bases, throw out a lot of plasmids, acquire things, interchange their DNA, etc.  Now, because of this random changes, there could at least one which would be resistant to the antibiotic, and there you go, you have an antibiotic resistant bacteria.  When the environment become 'constant', you have multiplication of this type of bacteria, but when there's another environmental change, bacteria do the panic button again, and you create a new bacterial species.

So, really there is no 'constant bacteria'.  In one pool of bacteria, there could even be millions of variation.  And this is brought by because of the genetic instability and flexibility of bacteria.  The one who posted such answer may have seen this kind of situation wherein there is a vast different bacteria, and you kill some and survive some (antibiotic resistant), well, it could be true, but remember that the mechanism I typed before is also at work.  So it is a hand-in-hand mechanism.

Mutation and natural selection are not to be taken very lightly!  I hope non-scientists will take precaution in using such mechanism and terms if they are not very aware of all of its concept.  Mutation is not always a loss of function!  You can have gain of function mutation!  A change on DNA base could provide a bacteria defense against antibiotics, and that is a gain of function!

Answer 3

Absolutly!!

The most important bacteria in our bodies, and most important period the Mitochondria ia a bacteria that has adapted to live within our own human cells. Not only this, but to produce our energy from ATP soley on our intake of nutrients and carbon.

bacteria had to evolve like every other living thing aroud us.

Answer 4

Does this help any? Something similar was posted...Good Luck!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Answer 5

Absolutely  

Answer 6

"The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection" IS evolution.  They're just trying to doublespeak their way around it.

It should be quite obvious that a random mutation is just as capable of generating a gain of 'functional systems' as a loss.  I mean, it's _random_, right?  Meaning there is no preference towards gain or loss, it's 50/50.  You're just as likely to get a positive as a negative, after that, natural selection eliminates the negatives and allows the positives to establish themselves.

And without proposing a mechanism by which these 'positive' mutations can compound over time to generate a significantly different organism, they don't have any dry ground to stand on.

Their argument is effectively that 1+1=2, but you can't continue that to get 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10, and they will not explain to you why you can't keep counting to 10.

Here is a recent example of bacteria evolving new, beneficial traits - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

Gain in total genetic material, gain in genetic variation, and gain of new genetically controlled traits have all been directly observed to evolve.  If none of those things qualify as 'functional systems' then nothing about 'functional systems' is relevant to evolution in the first place.

Answer 7

The answer to any question beginning "Is answersingenesis right about..." is

"Absolutely not".

Evolution is perfectly capable of evolving new "information" however you count it, not all antibiotic resistance is acquired at a cost to some other function.

Answer 8

I think the dead give away here is this last line...

-It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world...

This is not a scientific argument, so really there is nothing to address here about the merits of the position.

On the question of bacterial evolution, there are loss of function mutations and gain of function mutations, and they all play different roles in evolution.  But there is an interesting question here, and it's when does something stop being an adaptation and become evolution?  Now that question is not so easy to answer in a short way (for me at least) without assuming a lot about your background and understanding of the underlying biology of living things.  I'll just add a few links here that you will find interesting (perhaps).  I'll just say that molecular biology has really ripped these questions wide open, and created a new, and vastly deeper understanding and appreciations for the question of evolutionary relationships.  It started with the work of Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandle and really got traction with Carl Woese.

Answer 9

The article left out some important points about the mechanism of antibiotic resistance relevant to the question of "evolution". The author refers to the mechanism of antibiotic resistance solely as an alteration in the target of the antibiotic:

"If the bacteria have a mutation in the DNA which codes for one of those proteins, the antibiotic cannot bind to the altered protein; and the mutant bacteria survive."

At no other point in the article does it mention that antibiotic resistance can also occur by:

-preventing the uptake of antibiotics to the cell by changing the permeability of the membrane.

-Targeting the antibiotic itself by chemically modifying it, preventing it's function.

By omitting these two mechanism the author is being deliberately dishonest and misleading as both these mechanisms were well documented long before the article was written.

The mechanism of resistance mentioned by the author is likely to reduce the function of the target enzyme and is correctly classified as a loss-of -function mutation. In the absence of selection pressure from the antibiotic, individuals that possess this mutation will likely be at a disadvantage. However, the second two mechanisms (mentioned above) are gain-of-function mutations that will certainly confer an advantage in the presence of an antibiotic, and will at worst be a neutral trait in the absence of the antibiotic. Both of these mechanisms require specific genes. These genes no doubt evolved in conjunction with antibiotics themselves and are transferred between different bacteria by conjugation, transduction, and transformation.

In closing I refer again to the deliberate dishonesty in the cited article. This article is hosted by a supposed Christian organization, yet the author and editors seem content to lie in order to demonstrate their point. I wonder what happened to the prohibition of lying Christian philosophy?

Answer 10

No, it is wrong. There is a big difference between variation and evolution, and the article plays on a person's ignorance of the two. Maybe my explanation below can help.

Start with a colony of bacteria. In some individuals of the population, a mutation occurred that made those particular bacteria resistant to an antibiotic. When antibiotics are added to the bacteria's environment, the bacteria with the non-mutated gene will die, but the bacteria with the mutant gene will survive. This is a huge selective advantage - the individuals with the mutated gene will likely be the ones that reproduce successfully and increase in number within the population.

This fits all the criteria of natural selection. Was there a variation within individuals of a population? Yes, the mutated gene. Were some variations inherited by the offspring? Yes, the individuals with the mutated gene passed on that trait to their offspring. Were some individuals able to survive and reproduce better than other individuals? Yes, the non-mutated bacteria died while the mutated individuals survived. Was the differential survival and reproduction (Darwinian fitness) influenced by the heritable traits of individuals? Yes, since the non-mutated bacteria couldn't survive, their numbers in the population dropped while the mutated bacteria increased.

Putting it all together, the nature of the bacterial population as a whole will gradually change. What is evolution? The genetically based change in a population's traits over time. Did the bacterial population evolve? Yes.

Answer 11

> Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems.

False.  Mutation is usually neutral.  Some mutations can give the bearer a survival and reproductive advantage -- and natural selection will preferentially keep those new alleles.  So -- natural selection will act to increase the allele frequency of beneficial alleles, and this can be considered a gain in functionality.

If you're of European descent, you probably have a beneficial mutation -- lactose tolerance in adulthood.  Thanks to this, as an adult you can drink milk and use its sugars for energy.

=

This will also apply to bacteria.  Plasmids which help a bacterium to reproduce will increase in number in a population.  Mutations can occur in plasmids.  *shrug*

=

> to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.

False.  No proof God exists, nor that God designed bacteria.  If you read Genesis, you will not find any mention of God designing bacteria.

Further, bacteria are not a source of sin.

The author is biased -- a most unscientific bent.  If she had an ounce of integrity, she'd shred her diploma.

Answer 12

No.  Antiobiotic resistance of bacteria is genetic change in a population.  Therefore it is evolution.

Evolution is not "gaining functional systems"...it is genetic change in a population, simple as that