Kind of an odd question

How do bacteria and pests develop an immunity or a resistance to a pesticide or antibiotic? Is the process similar for bacteria as it is for pests?

SheikBen wrote:How do bacteria and pests develop an immunity or a resistance to a pesticide or antibiotic? Is the process similar for bacteria as it is for pests?

OOOHH, a short question requiring long answer.

Mike, I believe the "short" answer to your question is ....... mutation, ..... gene mutations.

When the chromosomes divide, via meiosis, mitosis, the genes are replicated resulting in two (2) “copies” of the original, …… and since it is not a perfect process ……. mistakes happen and said mistakes are called mutations. aka: the Mutant Ninja Turtles of cartoon fame and the “new strain” of Asian Flu that seems to appear every year,

Anyway, there are three (3) types of mutations and they occur noninfrequently in all life forms. And they are the “good”, the “bad” and the “junk”, as in “junk DNA”. And you gotta remember, a “good” mutation in one species …….. might be considered “bad” by another species. aka: new Asian Flu vrs. humans.

Now a “good mutation” only means that it provides an “advantage” for survival in their current environment.

And of course, a “bad mutation” only means that it provides a “disadvantage” for survival in their current environment.

A “junk mutation” means it is hither, nither and no practical purpose in their current environment.

Now when one speaks of “developing an immunity or a resistance” that means “in the species”, …….. and not in an individual organism, ok.

Now Mike, think of say 1,000 bacteria or pests of one species, with most of them having some mutations in their DNA. And you come along with some pesticide or antibiotic and you “spray” all of them with it. Now that alters their environment.

Now those that can not survive that change will be killed.

Those with an “advantage” will survive ……. and will reproduce ….. and all their offsprings will now have an immunity to that pesticide or antibiotic that you tried to “zap” them with.

Mike, and that is why it is important that when a Dr. prescribes an antibiotic ….. that you “take it all” as prescribed. If you don’t, it might not kill all those “bad-for-you bacteria” and the ones that survive are likely to “mutate” to become immune to that antibiotic, ….. aka: MRSA

And Mr. Moderator, don’t be letting anyone be too picky on how I stated the above, I just “winged it” from memory.

"Now when one speaks of “developing an immunity or a resistance” that means “in the species”, …….. and not in an individual organism, ok."--Sam

That was what I was looking for. If there is a particular mutation, is it going to be that the bacteria/pest does not process the antibiotic/insecticide as "well" as it is "supposed to?"

Well I must say that Sam provided a good answer, imo.

The ones who dont survive dont pass their weakness along.

And vice versa

SheikBen wrote:If there is a particular mutation, is it going to be that the bacteria/pest does not process the antibiotic/insecticide as "well" as it is "supposed to?"

Mike, in essence, yes, ........ but that is an outsider's "looking in" view. There is no "supposed to's" in nature (science).

Of course, bout everyone talks that way ........ and that is what causes mass confusion among the public. They accept such statements from professionals as "literal interpretations" . Now I'm not being critical, you are a sharp fellow and I believe you want to "understand things" when you read, hear or discuss them.

So, when you hear such things you have to know when to "turn your hat around" and interpret them for what they are. Fer instance, suppose I told you that "I made a cake from scratch the other day and it didn't turn out the way it was supposed to".

Betcha you "turned your hat around" on that one, right. It wasn't the cake's fault, it was my fault. The cake did turn out the way it was supposed to based on the ingredients, the mixing, the oven temperature and the baking time.

Mike, now back to your question, .... "is it going to be that the bacteria/pest does not process the antibiotic/insecticide as "well" as it is "supposed to?"

The question is never "does it or does it not process it", .... the question is "does or does not the cell(s) of the bacteria/pest react adversely to the antibiotic/insecticide" or "does the antibiotic/insecticide react adversely upon the cell(s) of the bacteria/pest"?

D-Con for killing rats is an example of the first one. It cause them to hemorrhage internally.

Penicillin is an example of the latter one, it attacks the bad bacteria.

Mike, another example of reacting adversely is …. just smell something that is rotten.



.

Sam,

That's why I put the words "supposed to" in quotes.

And probably why I stated ...... "Now I'm not being critical, you are a sharp fellow and I believe you want to "understand things" when you read, hear or discuss them."

Mike, it was your "does not process" that I wanted to clear up.

Mike, the terms antibiotic/insecticide specifically imply ...... that a bacteria/pest is "not supposed to" process them very well ...... because said antibiotic/insecticide is supposed to kill them.

And a (natural) mutation ain't supposed to do anything, ...... it is nothing more than a "copying mistake".

Now when those biogeneticists do their gene-splicing, thus in effect creating a mutation, then yes, that mutation is supposed to do something.

Now I didn't know how much you already knew ...... so I .............

Did my replies suffice to answer your question?

Sam, your answer is illuminating. If I am getting my head around this (and I may well not be able to), then the general presentation given by science is unnecessarily "dumbed down."

For a layman (which I obviously am), the message that gets out is "bacteria themselves adapt" as opposed to "bacteria themselves that are not killed off for whatever reason have progeny that are similarly not killed off." The message that we unscientific hear is one of Lamarckian evolution, the idea that somehow the organisms are changing, as opposed to the functionally advantaged bacteria taking over and the functionally disadvantaged dying out. The end result is the same (the bacteria population has become immune to the antiobiotic) but I don't think the presentation of the process is done justice.

Michael, given the right environmental conditions, .... a bacterium (1) does not last very long, ........ and that is because ...... it ain't very long before there will be 10,000, ...... 100,000, ....... millions of copies of that bacterium.

It is binary multiplication by the power of 2.

Start with 1, ya get 2, then 4, then 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 etc. etc.

You can watch them do it via a microscope.

There are two basic types, cocci (round) and bacilli (rod shaped).

The cocci are usually the "bad" ones such as Streptococcus and Staphylcoccus, as in MRSA, .... Methicillin Resistant Staphylcoccus Aureus.

And you can see from them names why the Doctor tells you ..... "You got a strept throat ..... or a staph infection ... and in need of antibiotics".

.

It is binary multiplication by the power of 2.

Also known as exponential growth.

Holy Crap!

Sam, do you know what this did for me?

You know I have always thought I understood the mutation thingie. I'm just not very scientifically oriented. That's Katie's bag.

You've confirmed that I have understood this for a very long time. You explained it very nicely and it pleases me to know I had that correct. Thanks!

Why thank you Steph.

And speaking of ..... MRSA, .... Methicillin Resistant Staphylcoccus Aureus,

I was watching a documentary on crocodiles yesterday or the day before and it was talking about their ability to heal really fast after an injury and without any signs of infection.

A researcher tried a drop of the crocodile's blood in a petri dish culture of MRSA and the antibodies or whatever in the crocodile's blood prevented the growth of the MRSA.

Well that is good news. I don't understand how they do what they do, but I do know these science whizzes will take whatever that is in the croc's blood and turn it into something that will kill MRSA or prevent its spread in people.

The sooner the better!

SheikBen wrote:Sam, your answer is illuminating. If I am getting my head around this (and I may well not be able to), then the general presentation given by science is unnecessarily "dumbed down."

For a layman (which I obviously am), the message that gets out is "bacteria themselves adapt" as opposed to "bacteria themselves that are not killed off for whatever reason have progeny that are similarly not killed off." The message that we unscientific hear is one of Lamarckian evolution, the idea that somehow the organisms are changing, as opposed to the functionally advantaged bacteria taking over and the functionally disadvantaged dying out. The end result is the same (the bacteria population has become immune to the antiobiotic) but I don't think the presentation of the process is done justice.

IMO, it's fair to say that the 'bacteria themselves adapt' in a lose or colloquial sense, Mike. If for no other reason that when one has a bacterial infection they are infected with a population of bacteria rather than an individual bacterium.

Though admittedly, this can cause some confusion.

If I might fill in some blanks Sammy left out: Yes, mutations can be good bad or neutral, but the vast, vast majority are bad or neutral. Which seems to indicate that natural selection needs something a little more potent than mere random mutations to select from in order for Darwinian theory to remain viable.

Also, though Darwinian evolution is often likened to an 'arms race' where both combatants get stronger and faster over time [think of the gazelle getting faster and faster as the lioness gets stronger and stealthier over time]. In practice, the arms race is more like 'trench warfare', where both combatants take desparate measures in order to survive.

To build on the analogy, instead of one side perfecting body armor in a laboratory they revert to blowing up their own bridge in order to keep the enemy from crossing the river into town.

In his book The Edge of Evolution Mike Behe gives a brilliant view of the 'arms race' between the malaria bug and the human immune system. In the case of the immune system, random mutations were able to confer immunity to malaria, but only at the cost of partially functional hemoglobin, i.e., sickle cell anemia in the humans that ended up with the mutation.

The same ditto holds for bacterial immunity verses antibiotics. Many of these so-called 'super bugs' like MRSA are only 'super' in the sense that they are resistant to antibiotics. They are actually less fit to survive in the wild, as it were, than their 'less evolved' cousins. If we quit perscribing antibiotics today MRSA would be extinct within the next decade and the 'net evolution' would be Zero.

If evolution works that way, it doesn't work.

The same ditto holds for bacterial immunity verses antibiotics. Many of these so-called 'super bugs' like MRSA are only 'super' in the sense that they are resistant to antibiotics. They are actually less fit to survive in the wild, as it were, than their 'less evolved' cousins. If we quit perscribing antibiotics today MRSA would be extinct within the next decade and the 'net evolution' would be Zero.

Where did you hear this? Where are these "wild" germ pastures? MRSA is just as fit as "its cousins". It is on the rise because it out competes its cousins.

Also, Behe's book left out one critical element in his example about malaria - the insect component.

Malaria isn't just between man and pathogen. It is a melange-a-trois between the three with the mosquito as Lucky Pierre.

darth omar wrote:IMO, it's fair to say that the 'bacteria themselves adapt' in a lose or colloquial sense, Mike. If for no other reason that when one has a bacterial infection they are infected with a population of bacteria rather than an individual bacterium.

Though admittedly, this can cause some confusion.

If I might fill in some blanks Sammy left out: Yes, mutations can be good bad or neutral, but the vast, vast majority are bad or neutral. Which seems to indicate that natural selection needs something a little more potent than mere random mutations to select from in order for Darwinian theory to remain viable.

Also, though Darwinian evolution is often likened to an 'arms race' where both combatants get stronger and faster over time [think of the gazelle getting faster and faster as the lioness gets stronger and stealthier over time]. In practice, the arms race is more like 'trench warfare', where both combatants take desparate measures in order to survive.

To build on the analogy, instead of one side perfecting body armor in a laboratory they revert to blowing up their own bridge in order to keep the enemy from crossing the river into town.

In his book The Edge of Evolution Mike Behe gives a brilliant view of the 'arms race' between the malaria bug and the human immune system. In the case of the immune system, random mutations were able to confer immunity to malaria, but only at the cost of partially functional hemoglobin, i.e., sickle cell anemia in the humans that ended up with the mutation.

The same ditto holds for bacterial immunity verses antibiotics. Many of these so-called 'super bugs' like MRSA are only 'super' in the sense that they are resistant to antibiotics. They are actually less fit to survive in the wild, as it were, than their 'less evolved' cousins. If we quit perscribing antibiotics today MRSA would be extinct within the next decade and the 'net evolution' would be Zero.

If evolution works that way, it doesn't work.

Evolution doesn't work that way ........ and that is why it does work.

Brian, why don't you save that silly assed conjecture for your Bible Lessons.

You want the whole frigging world to be dumb as a box off rocks so that you will appear to be smart, ....... right.

.

SamCogar wrote:

darth omar wrote:IMO, it's fair to say that the 'bacteria themselves adapt' in a lose or colloquial sense, Mike. If for no other reason that when one has a bacterial infection they are infected with a population of bacteria rather than an individual bacterium.

Though admittedly, this can cause some confusion.

If I might fill in some blanks Sammy left out: Yes, mutations can be good bad or neutral, but the vast, vast majority are bad or neutral. Which seems to indicate that natural selection needs something a little more potent than mere random mutations to select from in order for Darwinian theory to remain viable.

Also, though Darwinian evolution is often likened to an 'arms race' where both combatants get stronger and faster over time [think of the gazelle getting faster and faster as the lioness gets stronger and stealthier over time]. In practice, the arms race is more like 'trench warfare', where both combatants take desparate measures in order to survive.

To build on the analogy, instead of one side perfecting body armor in a laboratory they revert to blowing up their own bridge in order to keep the enemy from crossing the river into town.

In his book The Edge of Evolution Mike Behe gives a brilliant view of the 'arms race' between the malaria bug and the human immune system. In the case of the immune system, random mutations were able to confer immunity to malaria, but only at the cost of partially functional hemoglobin, i.e., sickle cell anemia in the humans that ended up with the mutation.

The same ditto holds for bacterial immunity verses antibiotics. Many of these so-called 'super bugs' like MRSA are only 'super' in the sense that they are resistant to antibiotics. They are actually less fit to survive in the wild, as it were, than their 'less evolved' cousins. If we quit perscribing antibiotics today MRSA would be extinct within the next decade and the 'net evolution' would be Zero.

If evolution works that way, it doesn't work.

Evolution doesn't work that way ........ and that is why it does work.

Brian, why don't you save that silly assed conjecture for your Bible Lessons.

You want the whole frigging world to be dumb as a box off rocks so that you will appear to be smart, ....... right.

.

What does the Bible have to do with it?

I'm actually open to the idea of common descent [what the 'dumb as rocks crowd' thinks of when they think of evolution]. OTOH, I fail to see where Darwinism explains it, if it is true. It has nothing to do with religion, my religion is fine regardless of the outcome of the debate, as my 'religion' begins and ends with my faith in Jesus Christ.

Actually, I think your 'religion' is threatened by my doubting Thomas ways. Indeed, if Danno was here, he would accuse you of 'projecting'.

If he was of a mind to, anyway.

darth omar wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Brian, why don't you save that silly assed conjecture for your Bible Lessons.

You want the whole frigging world to be dumb as a box off rocks so that you will appear to be smart, ....... right.

.

What does the Bible have to do with it?

GIMME A BREAK, ......... Brian.

If it is you thinking, ........ talking ......... or typing, ...... then all your thoughts and words about any and all subjects ......... are all based in/on proving the literal truth of your Bible.

darth omar wrote:I'm actually open to the idea of common descent [what the 'dumb as rocks crowd' thinks of when they think of evolution]. OTOH, I fail to see where Darwinism explains it, if it is true. It has nothing to do with religion, my religion is fine regardless of the outcome of the debate, as my 'religion' begins and ends with my faith in Jesus Christ.

HORSEPUCKY ........

You God will banish you to his hell ...... for lying, ........ Brian. So why do you persist in continuning such a devious, dishonest deception, ........ year after year ...... after year.

Brian, if you were actually open to the idea of common descent ........ then you would have actually made an attempt to educate yourself over the past 5 to 7 years that you have been posting your "religious dribble" on these Forums.

But you haven't done said, ....... because you keep posting the "same ole crap" year after year.

darth omar wrote:Actually, I think your 'religion' is threatened by my doubting Thomas ways. Indeed, if Danno was here, he would accuse you of 'projecting'.

If he was of a mind to, anyway.

(One sentence edited out by Ziggy, moderator.)



.

I'll let you in on a little secret my obtuse friend: I'm still trying to decipher what is literal and what is metaphorical in Genesis. That being the case, I can't very well be on a mission to prove 'the literal truth of the Bible' when I am unsure what the truth is.

Can I.

The only thing I am sure of is that God is not going to judge us according to how we reconcile the Bible with science. Hebrews 11 tells us that 'through faith we understand that the worlds were framed through the Word of God'.

Spiritually, I stand on that. That is the extent of my 'religion' when it comes to this issue. While we're on the subject of religion, how about you dropping the pretense that your atheism has nothing to do with this debate, because it sure isn't fooling me. Your atheism is threatened not by Genesis, but your absolute belief that nature can play Creator and conjure life from inanimate dust, as it were. You're an absolutist moreso than me; that is, it's not sufficient that Genesis be untrue; your atheistic belief system absolutely neccessitates that absolutely nothing besides matter and natural law are responsible for us being here or your atheism comes crumbling to the ground.

That's the real rub, isn't it, Sammy.

TerryRC wrote:The same ditto holds for bacterial immunity verses antibiotics. Many of these so-called 'super bugs' like MRSA are only 'super' in the sense that they are resistant to antibiotics. They are actually less fit to survive in the wild, as it were, than their 'less evolved' cousins. If we quit perscribing antibiotics today MRSA would be extinct within the next decade and the 'net evolution' would be Zero.

Where did you hear this? Where are these "wild" germ pastures? MRSA is just as fit as "its cousins". It is on the rise because it out competes its cousins.

Also, Behe's book left out one critical element in his example about malaria - the insect component.

Malaria isn't just between man and pathogen. It is a melange-a-trois between the three with the mosquito as Lucky Pierre.

MRSA has been around since the seventies and only exists and/or is on the rise because of the over use of antibiotics by the medical community. It's an excellent example of microevolution; or the sort of 'evolution' breeders and animal farmers are familiar with. I.e., there is every reason to think that these antiobiotic resistant strains of staph would revert back to their 'wild' form in an environment that lacked antibiotics with the Net Evolutionary Change remaining at zero; hence my point about Darwinian evolution not working that way

Behe is a professor of microbiology so I am confident he is aware that there is a third party involved with malaria.

Behe is a professor of microbiology so I am confident he is aware that there is a third party involved with malaria.

Then he was leaving it out because it didn't mesh with his "theories". Kind of not moral, don't you think?

MRSA has been around since the seventies and only exists and/or is on the rise because of the over use of antibiotics by the medical community. It's an excellent example of microevolution; or the sort of 'evolution' breeders and animal farmers are familiar with. I.e., there is every reason to think that these antiobiotic resistant strains of staph would revert back to their 'wild' form in an environment that lacked antibiotics with the Net Evolutionary Change remaining at zero; hence my point about Darwinian evolution not working that way

I understand how resistance against toxins and diseases happens, thanks. I have been preaching against overuse of antibiotics, particularly in the livestock industry for many years.

So evolution can happen in small ways but they never amount to anything?

Ridiculous.

Your statement about reverting back to wild forms is unfounded. Most insect species and/or populations, for instance, that were intensively exposed to DDT still retain their resistance even though it hasn't been used in most areas for decades.

The net result of your argument against evolution is zero.

TerryRC wrote:Behe is a professor of microbiology so I am confident he is aware that there is a third party involved with malaria.

Then he was leaving it out because it didn't mesh with his "theories". Kind of not moral, don't you think?

More like kind of not relevant. Are you sure you even understand his 'theories'?

TerryRC wrote:MRSA has been around since the seventies and only exists and/or is on the rise because of the over use of antibiotics by the medical community. It's an excellent example of microevolution; or the sort of 'evolution' breeders and animal farmers are familiar with. I.e., there is every reason to think that these antiobiotic resistant strains of staph would revert back to their 'wild' form in an environment that lacked antibiotics with the Net Evolutionary Change remaining at zero; hence my point about Darwinian evolution not working that way

I understand how resistance against toxins and diseases happens, thanks. I have been preaching against overuse of antibiotics, particularly in the livestock industry for many years.

So evolution can happen in small ways but they never amount to anything?

Ridiculous.

We only witness the small ways. The rest is extrapolation.

TerryRC wrote:Your statement about reverting back to wild forms is unfounded. Most insect species and/or populations, for instance, that were intensively exposed to DDT still retain their resistance even though it hasn't been used in most areas for decades.

The net result of your argument against evolution is zero.

I'll be nice and allow your point to stand. Doesn't it strike you as being even slightly implausible to propose that such humble 'evolutionary progress', where trillions of bacteria had to die and get out of the way so the ones that had the mutation which conferred immunity could pass the genes on, is capable of explaining how we evolved from simpler animals? Particularly, when bacteria produce new populations in as little as 45 minutes in some cases.

Even if ID is religion, I find it hard to believe that it works that way. My argument against evolution may be zero. But if that is the case, your argument for it is 0.00000000001.

We only witness the small ways. The rest is extrapolation.

So is everything in science. We infer electrons by measurement, not by looking at them.

More like kind of not relevant. Are you sure you even understand his 'theories'?

I understand what he proposes.

Regardless, how can he talk about malaria and man in an example and ignore the humble mosquito?

Makes no sense, like just about everything Behe proposes.

I'll be nice and allow your point to stand.

My point will stand, whether you "allow" it to, or not.