Amazon.com Widgets

Does antibiotic-resistant bacteria prove evolution?

  • Bacteria Adapt Fast

    Bacteria are so small, they can adapt very quickly (within a few generations) to conditions surrounding them. Because bacteria have such short lifespans, it has been relatively easy to see how hundreds of generations down the line there can be drastic changes in the DNA of the bugs. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria prove that life forms can adapt over time and survive.

  • Hell he jfdn

    Jdnijvn uidijngvini ighigh iuhgihih h ihgiuh uig hiughiu highi uhuighuihgihr iu rhgiuhiuhi hui hui hiughuirhgui hui hi hiu hih iuh uh uih uh uh ui hi hiu h ihi uh hh h h h h h hh h h h h h hh h h h hh h h h h

  • Hell he jfdn

    Jdnijvn uidijngvini ighigh iuhgihih h ihgiuh uig hiughiu highi uhuighuihgihr iu rhgiuhiuhi hui hui hiughuirhgui hui hi hiu hih iuh uh uih uh uh ui hi hiu h ihi uh hh h h h h h hh h h h h h hh h h h hh h h h h

  • Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a classic example of evolution

    The basic theory of evolution is "survival of the fittest." There is an environmental stress of some kind, for example, a draught. Because there is genetic diversity in any population, some members of the population, let's say of a plant, are more resistant to the draught and they survive. Their descendants have the gene for draught resistance, and now a new strain of draught plant. Over billions of years, this accounts for the transition to land, larger brains, etc. Now, let's use these same criteria on a bacterium. An environmental stress is placed into the bacteria's environment, namely, an antibiotic. Because of the genetic diversity in the population of the bacteria, there are some members of the population, let's say 1% for this example, who survive. So, 99% of the bacteria are wiped out, but the 1% who have the gene for being resistant survive. All of the descendants of that 1% now carry the gene and a new population is created which are antibiotic resistant. This is a perfect example of survival of the fittest creating a creature with a new trait that enables it to be better adapted to its environment.

  • One of many

    The current issue facing the world with antibiotics is a serious problem, but, more importantly, a living proof that evolution is real and happens on all scales, large and small. What happens to bacteria when most are killed are the same mechanisms that have happened for billions of years before.

  • Yes, antibiotic-resistant bacteria does prove evolution.

    Yes, antibiotic-resistant bacteria does prove evolution. It shows that over time, species can change and adapt to the ever changing world we live in. Because of the advents of soaps and sanitizers that kill bacteria, they have changed the way they act and therefore evolved to become something totally different.

  • Asexual Reproduction and resistance to anti-biotics are another silly attempt to prove Macro-evolution

    A bacterium, easily changing its shape of proteins of course can become resistant to antibiotics. Viruses can also mutate in this way but they are not even considered alive by most scientists. Asexual division of bacteria has nothing to do with a Gazelle turning into a Giraffe, which, even if possible mutations stretched their neck, created an entire new system to regulate blood flow to their brain, including a 2 Foot long heart, valves up the neck, and a sponge like system to keep blood in the brain, is simply SILLY. You can stare at petri dishes in controlled environments all day long, introduce toxins to make them mutate, or just wait enough time so that a MAN MADE antibiotic no longer works on a slightly mutated bacteria, is simply proof that micro-evolution does happen, especially when breeders select the traits they want, to change an animal slightly. Just blatantly saying this is PROOF of evolution or that it makes it a fact is ludicrous. If that is all you can produce, then it is simply proof to me that you have no clue of all the mechanisms involved in the first life, or any life following that. The fossil record simply rejects the idea of slow mutations over time turning mammals into totally new mammals, and modern genetics show this does NOT EVER EVER happen and has never EVER happened.. Sad that this is your best evidence. But by all means, keep staring at those petri dishes to prove your ideology - why don't you focus on disease prevention instead of creating more harmful bacteria to introduce into the world... One more note - you are simply seeing more VARIETY Not new species and you know it... This is very similar to your fruit fly experiments where the only thing you could prove is you could make a fly sprout another pair of dead wings. Yes we know you can cause harmful mutations... Get a life, Darwin is DEAD.

  • Antibiotic-resistant bacteria does not prove evolution.

    Antibiotic-resistant bacteria does not prove evolution. I do not think this had anything to do with the existence of man. However, our bodies are made up of bacteria. Thinking that this is what created mankind seems kind of false to me. We adapted to our environment and are able to survive because of what is around us, I am just not sure if that is what created us.

  • No, it proves modifications within a species.

    No, antibiotic-resistant bacteria does not prove evolution, because there can be mutations within a species without it becoming a separate species. Even among humans, there are many different types of races that have developed over time. Even so, we are all still human. A bacteria is still a bacteria, even if it has found ways to help it survive over time.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.