Why Antibiotic Resistance is Not Evidence for Evolution.

Antibiotic Resistance is commonly attributed to natural selection of various mutations resulting in an evolved microbe. Recent evidence strongly suggests this is not the case. It even goes so far as to disprove the theorized evolutionary mechanisms.

A commonly ignored phenomenon that accompanies studies of antibiotic resistance is the fact that this effect is quickly reversible. Even as quick as a few generation.

"It has been well-established that various species of bacteria, including E. coli, S. enterica and P. aeruginosa, exhibit resistance when they are exposed to successive steps of increasing concentration of antibiotics. This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations"

Source

This phenomenon is not just applicable to a few species of bacteria, but is a universal observation among bacterial resistance. To find more research articles with empirical evidence supporting this notion, follow references 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the source above.

So why is this not evolution? It is because these bacteria are adapting to antibiotics by using an already existent set of genes known as efflux pumps.



Efflux pumps effectively remove the antibiotic from the microbe. When a bacterial population is exposed to antibiotics, they adapt by increasing production of these efflux pump. This relatively well known mechanism is known generally as "epigenetics". The genes that create these pumps are already existent. It is not mutating. It is simply increasing expression, meaning that it makes more pumps. This allows a higher ability to remove antibiotics.

When researchers remove the antibiotic exposure from the resistant population, the population soon becomes vulnerable again. This is due to the bacteria resetting it's efflux pump production back to normal. This indicates that it is not evolution occurring, but instead it is adaption. The difference being that adaptation works with pre-set mechanisms already in place, whereas evolution requires new functions to be generated by an alteration to the genetic code.

This is the beginning of the end for evolutionary theory. Organisms have many adaptation mechanisms, but they are confined by their particular genetic code. It may take a while for this to become commonly accepted because evolution has had more dogmatic fervor than some of the most totalitarian thought regimes throughout history. It has become a religion of its own, relying on the non-questioning blind faith of the acolytes to perpetuate the machine. It relies on fantastical speculation and superficial science blogs to keep the support of the masses and it ostracizes dissenting expert opinions via the peer-review process.

Think for your self and analyze the evidence and you will realize that the immense beauty and intelligence of life could not have come to be by random genetic mutations. Releasing the theoretical anchor of evolution allows a new aspiration in philosophical inquiry regarding who we are and what our role is in the universe. We are not a meaningless mutant accident generated from ancient pond scum.

This is good news.

Old posts that further support this notion:

Evidence for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs

The impossibility of theorized evolutionary mechanisms

abiogenesis cannot happen by accident

the interconnectedness of biology could not have come to be via evolution

a reply to: cooperton

repeat after me :

evolution = the change in frequencey of alleles in a population over time

then realise - your OP falsifies your thread delusion

well done

a reply to: cooperton

The fact they lose resistance is also a feature of evolution. If the resistance is no longer necessary, then they adapt to no longer need that feature. Sorry, you disproved your own position.

>snip< This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations >snip<

That statement supports the argument for evolution; it does not disprove it.

Evolution occurs as the result of biological processes selecting traits that reinforce replication of the genome, which is precisely what is described by the above statement. As conditions change, selected traits change--which, in this case--includes reverting back to "status quo."

It is neither evidence for or against it.

It is evidence of adaption showing how organisms can quickly and easily adopt new traits to enable survival in harsh conditions that would otherwise kill them. This has been demonstrated in mice that lived in freezer warehouses too, and in moths during the industrial revolution in England.

However, none of these organisms become new ones or evolved into new species. They simply picked up new traits to enable survival.

It shows the existence of certain mechanisms that are supposed to be a part of the evolutionary process, but it doesn't go the distance in showing they do eventually create new, distinct species.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It is neither evidence for or against it.

It is evidence of adaption showing how organisms can quickly and easily adopt new traits to enable survival in harsh conditions that would otherwise kill them. This has been demonstrated in mice that lived in freezer warehouses too, and in moths during the industrial revolution in England.

However, none of these organisms become new ones or evolved into new species. They simply picked up new traits to enable survival.

It shows the existence of certain mechanisms that are supposed to be a part of the evolutionary process, but it doesn't go the distance in showing they do eventually create new, distinct species.

The time scale of evolution probably won't allow it to be observed.... remember we are talking changes that occur over hundreds of millions of years. The human mind can't even process how long that is in time.

a reply to: Edumakated

Then it will likely always remain a theory. People will simply assume it's true, but we'll never really know.

It may be like gravity where we know some things about it, but for others, they will likely always remain mostly theoretical and we'll never be able to fully prove them one way or the other.

anti biotic in general is poison for youre body ! it destroys youre resistance system on long term
so be very carefully with it ...big pharma is not

originally posted by: Edumakated
The time scale of evolution probably won't allow it to be observed.... remember we are talking changes that occur over hundreds of millions of years. The human mind can't even process how long that is in time.

I can. The shark has not evolved in 250 million years, apparently this is the only specie that was perfect at inception.

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

You're missing the point. Lol. The point is that there is no additional information created for this to occur, something that evolutionary theory requires.

Jaden

a reply to: cooperton

Only specific types of bacteria can outwit anti-biotics and survive to fight another day.....the same kind that cause the impacts we mistakenly call cancer.

They aren't "evolving" they are already evolved.

There are no "evolving superbugs" that is a BS STORY.....THERE ARE PLEOMORPHIC BACTERIA MAINSTREAM MEDICINE AND SCIENCE REFUSES TO DISCUSS NOR DISCLOSE FOR ONCE THEY DO SO THE GREAT CANCER CONJOB ENDS FOREVER.

If you google some videos of resonant frequency experiments and see the ones where they put sand on a round metal plate then applied varying resonant frequencies....you will see the sand forming specific shapes when specific resonant frequencies are manifested....it is repeatable and consistant….it is also a close parallel to Universal Evolution.....especially into the 5-start sentient life-form .

A pleomorphic bacteria morphing from its bacterial shape and size into its VIRAL SHAPE AND SIZE.....whereupon it jumps to the bloodstream and defeats conventional anti-biotic attacks.....is not evolution of a biological template ...it is execution of a biological template.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

evolution = the change in frequencey of alleles in a population over time

The mechanism described in the OP is an epigenetic alteration, not a change in allele frequency. Epigenetics involves already-existent genes being expressed more or less, which means altering the number of proteins coded for by a particular gene. In this case it is the efflux pump. Nothing to do with allele drift.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: cooperton

The fact they lose resistance is also a feature of evolution. If the resistance is no longer necessary, then they adapt to no longer need that feature.

The change is too transient and quick to be attributed to the theorized evolutionary changes that would culminate into a change of an organism. This is because it is using already-existing genes. There are no new genes, no mutations, just pre-set adaptation mechanisms that are capable of coping with various stress. Therefore antibiotic resistance is not evidence for evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

utter bollox

one question - are the allele frequencies in MRSA identical to earler clades of Staphylococcus aureus ?

a yes or no answer will suffice

"First comprehensive analysis of global impact of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) estimates resistance itself caused 1.27 million deaths in 2019 - more deaths than HIV/AIDS or malaria - and that antimicrobial-resistant infections played a role in 4.95 million deaths.

Estimates for 204 countries and territories confirm AMR as a global health threat, with worst impacts in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), though higher income countries also face alarmingly high levels of AMR.

Rapid investment in new treatments, improved infection control measures, and optimised use of antibiotics are among the measures that can help countries protect their health systems against the threat of AMR.

More than 1.2 million people – and potentially millions more – died in 2019 as a direct result of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, according to the most comprehensive estimate to date of the global impact of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

The analysis of 204 countries and territories, published in The Lancet, reveals that AMR is now a leading cause of death worldwide, higher than HIV/AIDS or malaria. It shows that many hundreds of thousands of deaths now occur due to common, previously treatable infections – such as lower respiratory and bloodstream infections – because the bacteria that cause them have become resistant to treatment."

www.ox.ac.uk...

....we should ....probably.....stop over using anti biotics, yeah i know, i know CRAZY IDEA right???

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

utter bollox

one question - are the allele frequencies in MRSA identical to earler clades of Staphylococcus aureus ?

a yes or no answer will suffice

Allele drift is using alleles that are already present in the genome. Allele drift, for example, is what is responsible for skin tone in humans. Surely not an example of evolution, it is just adaptation.

This not does disprove natural selection but is rather an example of regression to the mean

So all you guys are way smarter than I. But none seem to understand, evolution does not exist. Why, entropy.

You see if we were as old as they say, and if everything really evolved then you would not see entropy in every single living thing on earth.

A true and honest scientist admits this. Of course this just the elephant in room none of them will talk about, there are many more.

Well I mean, antibiotic resistance is not a evidence of evolution, rather it is the work of natural selection, which is a mechanism of differential survival by phenotypic/genotypic change