Antibiotic resistance, evolution and public policy

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Syne, Feb 13, 2017.

  1. Kittamaru Giving up this insanity for Lent - back ~ 4/15 Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,901
    You can give the stink-eye all you want

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Billvon is, however, correct - the issue at hand (and what is causing issues with antibiotic resistance) is not the adaptation portion (which refers to singular or small groups of a sample) but the continued evolution towards resistance on the whole. Adaptation implies the bacteria becoming resistant after being in contact with the antibiotic - evolved resistance means the bacteria is already resistant to it.

    Per his post, which you have so desperately twisted into a pretzel to try and discredit him (attacking the person much?):
    Ergo, what he said is correct - adaptation is the response of an/the organism. Evolution is a genetic change.

    The interesting part, Syne, is your dishonesty in all this... as you are the one that said:
    Your claim, in that post, is that Billvon is claiming resistant strains of bacteria (such as Staphylococcus aureus) are different species of bacteria. He never made such a claim. What he stated, and what anyone who isn't operating on an agenda can read, is that certain anti-science groups hate the word "evolution" because they do not believe in "evolution", and so the word "adaptation" has been thrown around instead, despite being technically incorrect in this context.

    Additionally, I do not see anything in Billvon's post "denying adaptation", as you claim:
    At no point did he "deny adaptation" - he merely (correctly) pointed out the fact that adaptation and evolution are not one and the same, despite the terms being used almost interchangeably (much the same as the evidence I provided should have shown you):

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/misconcep_06
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-evolution-and-adaptation
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adaptation
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
    Now, that is not to say that adaptations do not, over generations, lead to evolution

    At this point, Syne, your intentional dishonesty is in full display for all to see... I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but, heh, at this point, we know well that you have no such shame...

    The simple point is this - Billvon stated that some groups despise the word evolution and deny that evolution exists (macroevolution in general). You challenged him to provide evidence of this, which he did... and then you started on this tangent that he somehow "denies adaptation exists". His claim that saying "adaptation" in place of "evolution" is incorrect is, at the simplest level, absolutely correct - if species of bacteria did not "evolve" resistance, but only "adapted" resistance, then there would be no problem - the adapted bacteria would eventually die out and that would be that. Evolved resistance, due to passing of genes down (such as in the case of E.Coli, which I believe a study by Richard Lenski showed, actually "developed" an entirely new gene!)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    795
    If something heads to a certain point, through design or otherwise, it is quite correct to say that it is heading "towards" that thing.
    If bacteria does not become resistant to that which it is in contact and can kill it, it will die out.
    Evolution, by default, is toward resistance in such scenarios.
    Either the bacteria resists and survives (evolution), or it dies out.
    This needs no intelligent design.
    Is not adaptation simply the arrival of a (beneficial) change / mutation within part of the populace, while evolution is the process by which that change affects every member of the populace?
    As such there does seem to be a clear distinction.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,763
    I think the whole issue can be summed up by stating a test claim:

    "The ability for an organism to adapt to change, is one that continuously evolves"

    Then draw your definitions from that.

    The words "adaptation" and "evolution" are two separate categories and trying to compare them as if in the same category is silly IMO

    Adaptation is a part of the definition of Evolution

    Like oxygen is to Earth's atmosphere IMO

    see category mistake
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,143
    Again, I am always glad when people like you consider me a fool. It would be akin to a KKK member calling me a racist. That sort of criticism I can live with.

    So insult away, and keep trying to push political correct terminology over science!
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  8. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    795
    Indeed, but they are conceptions that we can apply where it is appropriate.
    It is appropriate to refer to the evolution of bacteria toward resistance.
    That the term was applied due to hindsight is not in question.
    Adaptation leads to resistance of only part of the population that adapts.
    For the population as a whole to survive it must evolve such that the population retains that adaptation.
    If it doesn't, the population eventually dies off.
    It is the process of evolution that takes it from adaptation to being part of the base nature of the organism.
    Whether evolution can equally lead to non-beneficial mutations, that it is not limited in applicability to adaptation, is irrelevant.
    The process by which adaptation moves from the part to whole is evolution.
    Please stop arguing irrelevancies.
    I am making the point that no-one ever implied intelligent design, thus your reference to it was irrelevant.
    Strictly speaking, evolution is a process that includes adaptation.
    Otherwise you are simply stating the obvious and trying to make it seem as though you're correcting someone.
    You're not.
    Adaptation IS distinct from the process of evolution.
    Whether adaptation is required for evolution or not does not mean that there is no distinction between the two.
    It is recognisably different, the very definition of distinct.
    An egg is required for an omelette - are you trying to say there is no distinction between an egg and an omelette?
    So now you say there is a distinction?
    Please make up your mind.
     
  9. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    795
    I don't think this is strictly true, in that an adaptation that does not get passed on will not result in evolution.
    I think it more likely that an organism that is able to adapt more readily will likely evolve more.
    But that's just me thinking out loud.
    Are you suggesting we can not compare oxygen to the Earth's atmosphere?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think a better analogy would be between oxygen and oxidisation, although even then it's possibly not too good.
    With yours, you're saying that evolution simply includes adaptation among many other discrete things, that together make up evolution, whereas my understanding is that evolution requires adaptation, and is how an adaptation spreads to the entire populace (even if that involves the unadapted population dying off).

    But then I believe you can have a non-evolutionary adaptation - a short-term adaptation that never develops into an evolution of the whole.
    Not sure you can have oxidation without oxygen, though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,763
    another thread perhaps?
     
  11. Kittamaru Giving up this insanity for Lent - back ~ 4/15 Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,901
    *chuckles* Syne has himself twisted up in more knots than an Auntie Anna's Pretzel with his dishonesty and twisting of words... this is actually quite entertaining!

    Since most of your post is useless posturing and attempting to twist even more, I'll simply address your elephant in the room:
    Easy:

    Your own words Syne. You made the claim that Billvon somehow said that resistant strains are somehow different species - a false claim, and one you used in an attempt to use a strawman to discredit him.

    If you wish to claim that was NOT the intent of your post, then by all means - explain what you actually meant - it should be entertaining to listen to someone OTHER than Trump lie through their teeth

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,143
    Yep. And the political desire to use less accurate words to avoid attack by the right is driving the use of those words, resulting in a less-educated populace more likely to believe dangerously inaccurate science. It helps the right wing consolidate power, but ultimately hurts us all.
    =================
    Evolution by Any Other Name: Antibiotic Resistance and Avoidance of the E-Word
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050030

    Citation: Antonovics J, Abbate JL, Baker CH, Daley D, Hood ME, Jenkins CE, et al. (2007) Evolution by Any Other Name: Antibiotic Resistance and Avoidance of the E-Word. PLoS Biol 5(2): e30. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050030


    The increase in resistance of human pathogens to antimicrobial agents is one of the best-documented examples of evolution in action at the present time, and because it has direct life-and-death consequences, it provides the strongest rationale for teaching evolutionary biology as a rigorous science in high school biology curricula, universities, and medical schools. In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word “evolution” is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to “emerge,” “arise,” or “spread” rather than “evolve.” Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word “evolution” by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives.
    =============
     
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Shakespeare is correct ' A rose by any other name would smell as sweet '

    Antimicrobial resistance which
    “emerges”
    “arises”
    “spreads”
    “evolves”

    end up the same, microbes which resist antibiotics killing them

    Personally microbes which resist my attempts to kill them before they kill me scares the brown stuff out of me

    I don't care what you call how resistance happens

    “emerge”
    “arise”
    “spread”
    “evolve”

    it will still be the same brown stuff coming out

    re·sist
    \ri-ˈzist\
    • : to fight against (something) : to try to stop or prevent (something)
    • : to remain strong against the force or effect of (something) : to not be affected or harmed by (something)
    • : to prevent yourself from doing something that you want to do
    Full Definition

    • intransitive verb
    • : to exert force in opposition
      transitive verb
    • 1 : to exert oneself so as to counteract or defeat <he resistedtemptation>
    • 2 : to withstand the force or effect of <material that resists heat>
      synonyms see oppose
    Origin: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French resister,from Latin resistere, from re- + sistere to take a stand; akin to Latinstare to stand — more at stand.
    First use: 14th century
    Synonyms: buck, defy, fight, oppose, repel, withstand
    Antonyms: bow (to), capitulate (to), give in (to), knuckle under (to), stoop (to), submit (to), succumb (to), surrender (to), yield (to)

    Mirriam-Webster

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,143
    You probably should. If it's short term adaptation, then overuse of antibiotics is a temporary problem. If it's evolution, then the problem is going to continue to get worse.

    But that's not politically correct, so it's important to always call it "adaptation" or you will be attacked and ridiculed.
     
  15. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    You missed the larger picture

    I don't care what you call how it happens

    It happens

    so it's important to always call it "adaptation" or you will be attacked and ridiculed

    ???? Are you serious???

    Are you saying I have to call it adaption to be politically correct?

    The bug knows if I am being politically correct or not which affects the bugs reaction to antibiotics?

    If it's short term adaptation, then overuse of antibiotics is a temporary problem

    That does not compute and as someone remarked it's so far beyond wrong it's not even computed as wrong

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Baldeee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    795
    Quite possibly.
    This thread was apparently about the "Muslim ban" having begun.
    Now we're here discussing adaptation and evolution.
    For thread-drift this is more a skid.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Kittamaru Giving up this insanity for Lent - back ~ 4/15 Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,901
    The irony, here, is that you and Billvon are arguing for the same side - call it what you will, it is happening. The problem is that certain circles (especially in the bible belt) so incredibly abhor the word "evolution" that they will refuse to believe ANYTHING that even mentions the term.
     
  18. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    If I was a doctor and had a patient who abhorred evolution I would whisper to him, as I handed him a packet of sugar pill placebos,

    ' You have a super bug which has evolved to destroy your life force and the only way to save your life is to religiously take this medication which will reverse the evolution '

    Not ethical but heaps of fun

    Sorry god

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Kittamaru Giving up this insanity for Lent - back ~ 4/15 Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,901
    At one time, I'd have done the same...

    But after reading, time and again, how these fuckwits have allowed their own CHILDREN to die from perfectly curable conditions because they believe in "faith healing" and denounce modern medicine as "the work of the devil"... I'm just sick of it. Hell, we've had dozens of children the last five years or so die in Pennsylvania alone because of this bullshit... I cannot believe, in this day and age where information is so readily available, that parents would be so willfully negligent as to let their child wither away and die because of treatable conditions:
    http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/02/2-year-old_dies_after_faith_st.html
    Let that sink in... they "do not believe in ANY medical treatment"... what the flying FUCK?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,143
    OK.
    Yes, often you will. That's why scientists who publish papers on such things use "evolution" less and less, as the article I referenced demonstrates. Because there are people out there who will refuse to read anything with the word "evolution" in there, and will react angrily to anyone who uses it.
    Nope, it could care less.
    Sorry you don't understand it.
     
  21. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Agree unbelievable

    Could you streach ' faith healing ' for the kids by concocting some sort of mumbo jumbo with a few ' our lord ' thrown in and ' holy water '?

    Just for the kids

    Let the adult go and aim for a Darwin Award

    Kids put into welfare after parents buried

    Sad world

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Kittamaru Giving up this insanity for Lent - back ~ 4/15 Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,901
    Only a Sith speaks in absolutes...

    Can you provide evidence that antibiotic resistance cannot POSSIBLY start any other way (such as, through random mutation, lucky survival due to incomplete antibiotic regimen, etc)?

    Also, knock it off with the persistent red herrings - it is a well known fact that people deny evolution, and will decry anything with the word in it (fuck, it's also well known that people will disregard modern medicine in favor of "faith healing" and allow their kids to die because of it) - so, yeah... you've rather lost that tangent already.
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,906
    I couldn't think of a better example of survival of the fittest as the evolution of antibacterial resistant microbes.

    Yay evolution...................go for it guys

    Yay science:
    My recent coworker is working on developing/breeding phages to replace antibiotics given to cattle and swine.
    I read somewhere that a goat herd was training his goats to prefer to eat invasive vegetation eliminating the need for herbicides.
     

Share This Page