Antibiotic resistance, evolution and public policy

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

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    • Please don't insult other members, troll, miss the forest for the trees, quote-mine, miseducate, deflect or refuse to support your own claims.
    Moderator note: This thread has been split from the following thread:

    LOL! Common decision making is not the scientific method. Reasoning and rational thought are a huge part of the scientific method, not the other way around. But you'd know that if you understood science.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Like most leftists, you are degrading the perception of science by misusing its terms and claiming science is somehow on your side alone (very much like "if God be fer us, who can stand agin us", except you merely replace god with your talisman of science).
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    you are rambling...
    since when had DJT made use of the scientific method in constructing his executive orders?
    Name one order where he has actually relied on empirical evidence? ( surely he can properly justify at least one order?? yes??? maybe???)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Correct. You have it backwards; good science leads to common decision making. That's why there is widespread scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking, the causes of AGW, the process of evolution etc.
    Liberals have no claims on being on the same "side" as science; they merely use it as a tool. That, however, is in stark contrast to the current republican approach, which is to treat science as the enemy, and to deny its validity lest the science lead to the realization that one of their favorite politically motivated activities (i.e. support of coal, opposition to clean energy, anti-vaxxing, teaching of creationism) runs counter to the findings of science.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    "The scientific method is a continuous process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed" ~wiki
    In normal thought processes the basis of sound reasoning can be demonstrated by the "externalized" use of the scientific method.
    Suffice to say if a scientist has no method to his thoughts then the scientific method (SM) in practice is impossible.

    To suggest that the SM is only a tool for external use is ridiculous.

    With regard to this Travel ban Trump has failed to demonstrate any reliance on empirical evidence to support it. It is purely imaginary and fear inspired.

    One of the greatest achievements of mankind is the ability to apply the scientific method in his thoughts so that his actions and decisions are related to objective observation with out the over corruption due to fear and associated impulsiveness.

    If not for the SM we would probably still be praising the God Neptune every time we go down to a beach created by Zeus with the help of Mars and Venus.

    "The only power that mankind has over the universe ( God ) is with the use of the scientific method in his thoughts, decisions, actions and ambitions" ~QQ re: Pantheism
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    the problem with this is that even evolution scientists admit they have a way to go before their theory is evidenced properly.
    So whilst I may have a tentative belief that the science of evolution is correct it is qualified always by the fact that it could prove to be wrong.
    To claim that the theory of evolution is proved by a person claiming to be a scientists, is even worse that believing it to be false.
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Sure, a few, Jesus, etc.

    We all know what trump wanted, so why beat around the bush? He promised a ban on Muslims then back it down to "extreme vetting" after the primary. So this is him trying to do so.

    Executive orders don't need any scientific basis (as trump clearly shows) although a ban on people we have already given visas too is unconstitutional, says some judges and finally one judge even went so far as to strick the banning of people based on their religion is unconstitutional... who would have thunked a Bush appointee no less! That is how far Trump is from the mainstream.
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    ?? No one.
    Nope. But I have a far healthier diet - and have a far lower carbon footprint - that I would have had otherwise.
    Here's just one:
    A Nevada woman dies of a superbug resistant to every available antibiotic in the US

    By Helen Branswell @HelenBranswell
    January 12, 2017

    If it sometimes seems like the idea of antibiotic resistance, though unsettling, is more theoretical than real, please read on.

    Public health officials from Nevada are reporting on a case of a woman who died in Reno in September from an incurable infection. Testing showed the superbug that had spread throughout her system could fend off 26 different antibiotics.

    “It was tested against everything that’s available in the United States … and was not effective,” said Dr. Alexander Kallen, a medical officer in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of health care quality promotion.. . .

    “I think this is the harbinger of future badness to come,” said Dr. James Johnson, a professor of infectious diseases medicine at the University of Minnesota and a specialist at the Minnesota VA Medical Center.

    Other scientists are saying this case is yet another sign that researchers and governments need to take antibiotic resistance seriously. It was reported Thursday in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, a journal published by the CDC.
    . . .
    The unnamed woman — described as a resident of Washoe County who was in her 70s — went into hospital in Reno for care in mid-August, where it was discovered she was infected with what is called a CRE — carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. That’s a general name to describe bacteria that commonly live in the gut that have developed resistance to the class of antibiotics called carbapenems — an important last-line of defense used when other antibiotics fail. CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden has called CREs “nightmare bacteria” because of the danger they pose for spreading antibiotic resistance.
    . . . .
    There is international recognition of the threat, which an expert report published last year warned could kill 10 million a year by 2050 if left unchecked. In September, the UN General Assembly held a high-level meeting on antibiotic resistance, only the fourth time the body had addressed a health issue.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No. People who do not believe bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics are driving poor medical decisions. Some of those are doctors, and such people are directly contributing to the problem. Some of these are leaders, and these people are indirectly contributing to the problem by mocking such scientific claims.
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    I find all of this post strange

    No doctor I ever worked with in 40 odd years ever thought bacteria didn't evolve resistance to antibiotics

    They observed that they did. Every day they saw resistance increasing

    Patients who go to doctors expecting to be given antibiotics for

    something which antibiotics are not suitable coupled with

    not completing the course of antibiotics ' I feel OK now so I don't need the rest '

    so the stronger of the bugs who were not killed off are the ones who recover and grow stronger plus frequently the

    left over medication is used inappropriately along with

    doctors handing over medications ' just in case ' the patient gets sick and sues me for ' not doing all I could '

    Some of these are leaders, and these people are indirectly contributing to the problem by mocking such scientific claims

    I don't know any such class of people

    If you mean (and I am not sure I am interpreting correctly) those persons who don't believe in germs

    They don't contribute

    They die from the germs they don't believe in

    Is there something else you mean?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That's great.

    My wife met several in medical school. "You don't really believe all that 'evolution' politically correct BS, do you?" one medical student asked her once.
    Yep. And some of them are sufficiently brainwashed to ignore that, because evolution is politically correct BS.
    Yep. Ignorance of the populace is also a problem, and is amplified by politicians who deny science for political gain.

    Then let me help you. Here are some quotes from political leaders who deny science:

    “We had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, 2 years old, a beautiful child, went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic."

    "Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse they are bad for people's health."

    "Remember, new "environment friendly" lightbulbs can cause cancer. Be careful-- the idiots who came up with this stuff don't care."

    "If I take hair spray and if I spray it in my apartment, which is all sealed, you’re telling me that affects the ozone layer?' . .I say, no way, folks. No way."

    "Do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the Earth, the seas and all that’s in them. . . .I believe in that fundamental truth."

    "Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we."

    "I think there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution, and do believe that it is used to promote to a worldview that is anti-theist, that is atheist.”

    "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. To me, it's pretty simple. A person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own. . . .But, you know, if anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Here's one from
    No, Despite Often-Heard Claims, Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria Is Not Evolution
    Michael Egnor February 26, 2015 11:34 AM

    . . . .Evolutionary inferences are of no significant help to medical research. Inference to evolution is a narrative gloss on the real science in medicine. It is a point that I, along with others, have been making for years. Myers unintentionally provides striking confirmation that doctors and medical researchers don't refer to evolution because it's irrelevant to their science.

    Now Myers writes a follow-up post in which he insists that evolution is relevant to medicine, despite the virtual absence of evolutionary reasoning expressed in the medical literature. Specifically, he insists that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an example of evolution -- a common claim -- and he scolds doctors and medical scientists for not explicitly saying so in their research.

    You hear this all the time in the media.. . .This notion, however, is mistaken. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with evolution.[/quote]
    And because they deny the evolution of such bacteria (and use weasel words like "adaptation" or "resistance" or even "micro-evolution") they continue to misuse antibiotics, because (according to them) bacteria are not really evolving.
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member


    I was on the wrong tack

    I agree with the 8 examples you posted and could add a lot more but the point has been made

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    I used to read numerous examples of misuse of antibiotics by various groups

    To lazy to look them up to provide you with the links

    Suggest you find them for yourself

    If I provide you with them you might become a YaBut to me

    If you find them you are more likely to take them more seriously

    Good? (or odd) question

    I don't know

    How does it?

    They are not difficult species

    Just a stronger version

    OK talk about adaption

    You do realise that adaption forms part of evolution right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Correct. Adaptation is the response of an organism to the environment. A bacteria that thickens its cell membrane in response to a more hostile environment is an example of adaptation. Evolution is a genetic (i.e. preserved) change in the phenotype of an organism, caused by mutation and natural selection.

    Unfortunately, in an attempt to be politically correct, evolved bacterial resistance to antibiotics is referred to as "adaptation" which is 99% incorrect. The problem is not that single organisms BECOME resistant, the problem is that populations of organisms EVOLVE resistance over time. But since the anti-science right wing abhors the use of the term "evolution" the incorrect term "adaptation" has become common, and is now misleading people to think that the problem of antibiotic resistance is a temporary one, awaiting only a way to overcome an adaptation response that all bacteria show to antibiotics.

    And as a result, people are dying.
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I agree

    Do you think we should hand over the keys to Earth to the bugs while some of us are still alive?

    Enter into a negotiated truce

    Give them all the animals

    Promise not to produce antibiotics

    They agree to leave us alone

    Or should we go down swinging?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Whee, more hair splitting XD

    Adaptation, evolved resistance... at this point, whatever you wish to call it, the end result is the same - we are quickly running out of effective and proven ways to combat these "advanced" bacteria...
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, just oppose the anti-science forces when they appear.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You are incorrect on all three points. Adaptation exists. Evolution exists. We are now seeing pathogens evolve to resist antibiotics. And denying that results in dead people.
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    "you people"... huh, easy to denigrate when you dehumanize, isn't it bucko...

    I've seen bacterial resistance described as both adaptation and evolution:
    Seems pretty clear that both words are used, both in laymans terms AND scholarly circles...
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    If you think I "face planted" then great; I'm on the right track.

    I'll continue to stay on the side of science. You continue to spin and to redefine words.

Share This Page