"Answers to Creationist" article in Scientific American is intentionally misleading

[JupiterJones]

From Scientific American:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Take a look at number 10, as an example of the weak agenda-driven logic of this article.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features

The author offers this as an example to refute the premise:

"...point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. "

However, antibiotic resistant bacteria is a result of natural selection of existing traits - not the generation of a brand-new trait - which is what #10 is really about.

From the FDA:

?The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism.

The antibiotic does not technically cause the resistance, but allows it to happen by creating a situation where an already existing variant can flourish. "Whenever antibiotics are used, there is selective pressure for resistance to occur. It builds upon itself. More and more organisms develop resistance to more and more drugs," says Joe Cranston, Ph.D., director of the department of drug policy and standards at the American Medical Association in Chicago. ?

The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections

This article is similarly weak on almost every point. It was obviously not written with truth in mind.

This thread is redundant

 

[jahawkin]

Maybe I'm missing your argument, but it seems pretty clear to me-

However, antibiotic resistant bacteria is a result of natural selection of existing traits

But those "existing traits" arose from mutations - the point mutations mentioned in the Sci. Am. article

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
From Scientific American:

[L=15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense]

It was obviously not written with truth in mind.

Funny how a "pastor" would talk about "truth."

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: SmackdownHotel

Originally posted by: PastorDon
From Scientific American:

[L=15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense]

It was obviously not written with truth in mind.

Funny how a "pastor" would talk about "truth."

Troll.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: SmackdownHotel

Originally posted by: PastorDon
From Scientific American:

[L=15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense]

It was obviously not written with truth in mind.

Funny how a "pastor" would talk about "truth."

Troll.

Blind leading the blind.

 

[Fausto]

"Answers to Creationist" article in Scientific American is intentionally misleading

Kinda like your "scientific" articles regarding the supposed link between homosexuality and pedophilia, huh? The KKK and other hate groups use similar methods attempting to turn the tide of public opinion against jews and minorities. You are no different. Go back under your rock, troll.

 

[JupiterJones]

Maybe I'm missing your argument, but it seems pretty clear to me-

However, antibiotic resistant bacteria is a result of natural selection of existing traits

But those "existing traits" arose from mutations - the point mutations mentioned in the Sci. Am. article

The point he is trying to refute has to do with the formation of NEW traits, and yet the example he discusses is simply the bringing forth of EXISTING traits. The question has to do with new features. With bacteria what you have is a broad range of antibacterial resistance. When you take antibiotics, but only kill 90% of the bacteria, the 10% left (with the highest resistance) repopulate and fill the void. Thus, generating a popluation of increased antibacterial resistance.

A mutation that brings into existance a new, beneficial trait is fundamentally different than a mutation that brings into prominance an existing trait.


From LordMaul:

Troll.

??????

 

[StageLeft]

Question: Don't we already have a thread on this?

Answer: YES.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Originally posted by: PastorDon


A mutation that brings into existance a new, beneficial trait is fundamentally different than a mutation that brings into prominance an existing trait.

That much is true...but I don't get what exactly you're trying to drive home. Probably a matter of semantics, as most of these kinds of thread always seem to center on.

 

[rahvin]

Yes skoorb there is a thread that already exists.

Lock me, I've been a bad Pastor.

 

[Turin39789]

This article is similarly weak on almost every point. It was obviously not written with truth in mind.

What about point 1? That evolution has been considered fact for a while now? And that the treatment of a scientific theory as mere conjecture is incorrect? It is like gravity. The fact of gravity is that things fall down. The theory explaining this, the attraction of bodies to each other etc etc, is a theory. But we are 99.999 percent sure its right.

At least all of the PHD's I talk to think this way. When did you get yours?

 

[LAUST]

Wasn't there already a thread for this PasterDong

 

[tcsenter]

However, antibiotic resistant bacteria is a result of natural selection of existing traits - not the generation of a brand-new trait - which is what #10 is really about.

The mechanism of acquiring resistance to antibiotics to which the author is referring involves point mutation. Another known mechanism of acquiring resistance is the transfer of genetic information between bacterial cells via plasmids, as discussed in following excerpt from the article (Google cache because the original is no longer accessible):

Scientific American: The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance

http://www.google.com/search?q=cacheKZx52Q0EbAC:www.sciam.com/1998/0398issue/0398levy.html

I had to remove the link and just use text because the link was coming-out screwed up. Cut and paste the URL.

Edit: DAMNED formatting! Now the link is showing with a Emotion Icon. Oh well, do the search on Google for the title of the article, it'll show up there.

And this one:

What Doesn't Kill Them Makes Them Stronger

And this one:

Antibiotic Resistance

And this one:

The Antibiotic Paradox

The FDA article you cite is essentially correct, but also incomplete. There are more mechanisms than just the passive means of natural selection by which antibiotics may become ineffective on bacteria. Science has shown that bacteria can ACQUIRE resistance as well, as a new trait.

Just goes to show the perils of attempting to challenge information of which you only have an 'internet surfers' understanding, Pastor Don. Cut-N-Paste 'authorities' can easily get into trouble.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I won't criticize Dr. Cranston b/c his words are taken out of context and invariably public consumption narratives reduce complex mechanisms to the lowest common denominator.

HIV is an excellent example of an organism with a tremendous capacity for change induced primarily by its poor fidelity and rapid replication. Drug resistance has been quite interesting with HIV. If you take 75% or more of appropriate antibiotic therapy for bacterial infections, the development of resistance is small. But for HIV you have to take 85-90% or more. Any less and you will promote the development of highly resistant strains.

Point 10 is false but people make mistakes all the time. By definition some mutations are termed "gain of function". So the writer may not know his genetics very well but that doesn't discount the primary point which is the necessity of mutations in evolution.

 

[JupiterJones]

tscenter,
Thanks for one of the better replies. I read, with a great deal of interest, the articles to which you pointed. Looking at one:

Antibiotic Resistance

"Over time and as a result of evolution, plasmids have developed genes to which allow their existance in the presence of selected antibiotics, and due to the transferrable property of plasmids, the spread of resistance to an antibiotic is made more efficient."

The assertion here is that spontaneous mutations, over time, have resulted in the development of new genes.

Spontaneous mutations arise most likely as a result of errors during DNA replication. They occur at characteristic frequency for any given organism. For E. coli, the rate of spontaneous mutagenesis is approximately 1 in 10­7.

It can easily be tested whether resistance occurs due to the bringing forth of an existing trait, or is due to spontaneous mutation.

Consider:

Mutations--Preexisting or Acquired?

The real question is whether the spontaneous mutation is a regular occurrence, or is it the formation of brand new genes. Here we may run into some problems of semantics (as mentioned above) as we are really butchering the language of genetics.

The conclusion from the article you referenced declares the affirmative. However, as research continues we see trends of recurring results. Notice, that the experiment that I referenced demonstrates that if acquired mutations occurred, they should occur at the same frequency in each plate. (Note: the spontaneous mutation rate for E. coli is about 1 in 10-7 per cell division.)

Now, the important thing here is that the introduction of brand new unique traits is not even considered. It is understood that spontaneous generation of resistance is a natural occurrence, occurring at a known rate.

This is a far cry from what would be required to evolve new phyla.

 

[Nefrodite]

should probably call this thread a repost. you should have just replied to the other thread

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite
should probably call this thread a repost. you should have just replied to the other thread

PastorDumbass doesn't like to hear anything contrary to his own point of view so he started his own thread.