Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Problem with Evolution

Page 8 of 13 [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Aug 2008, 1:23 pm

I am merely pointing out that there is a very good chance that any antibiotic or combination thereof can be eventually defeated by evolution.



Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

29 Aug 2008, 1:25 pm

Regardless of views; evolution fundamentally cannot be denied - for physical evidence; museums abound. Theory work and generic information abound.


_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?


Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

29 Aug 2008, 1:38 pm

Sand wrote:
I am merely pointing out that there is a very good chance that any antibiotic or combination thereof can be eventually defeated by evolution.


I suppose a general statement, simplified, could be all life functions under survival traits - or rather survival traits are an outbranching of deeper, more primitive and wholly chemical expansion properties that form the aggressive basis of life.
In other words; eat or be eaten. Antibitotics are, in a way, parallel opposites of harmful bacteria - whilst the antibiotics can "eat" the bacteria, it will - but the bacteria is still alive and adaptation takes course.


_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Aug 2008, 1:53 pm

Ishmael wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am merely pointing out that there is a very good chance that any antibiotic or combination thereof can be eventually defeated by evolution.


I suppose a general statement, simplified, could be all life functions under survival traits - or rather survival traits are an outbranching of deeper, more primitive and wholly chemical expansion properties that form the aggressive basis of life.
In other words; eat or be eaten. Antibitotics are, in a way, parallel opposites of harmful bacteria - whilst the antibiotics can "eat" the bacteria, it will - but the bacteria is still alive and adaptation takes course.


Antibiotics work by "putting a monkey wrench in the gears" of the organelles of the organism. By breaking down a critical system function or limiting it.



Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

29 Aug 2008, 2:01 pm

Hence, "eat" - unfortunately the little bastards eventually function without/around the interruption, etc., and something new has to be used..
It could be said medicine inadvertantly contributes to the evolution of bacteria, viruses and "superbugs", but what else can be done? If you've ever heard a virologist speak of the dangers of germ advancement, they aren't exaggerating.
Luckily, though, the chance of one developing too rapidly for humans to counter before extinction - whether by natural immunity or artificial - is quite low, else we'd all be dead already!
...Man, I sort of hate statistics, now.


_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

29 Aug 2008, 2:08 pm

Ishmael wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am merely pointing out that there is a very good chance that any antibiotic or combination thereof can be eventually defeated by evolution.


I suppose a general statement, simplified, could be all life functions under survival traits - or rather survival traits are an outbranching of deeper, more primitive and wholly chemical expansion properties that form the aggressive basis of life.
In other words; eat or be eaten. Antibitotics are, in a way, parallel opposites of harmful bacteria - whilst the antibiotics can "eat" the bacteria, it will - but the bacteria is still alive and adaptation takes course.


In nature, antibiotics are the way that fungi 'hip-check' bacteria and keep them in a separate space ... the antibiotics are excreted and inhibit the spread of bacteria into areas where fungi are hanging out.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

29 Aug 2008, 5:11 pm

Evolution as the principle of "simple to complex" is observable in realtime, everywhere. Something starts out simple and by process of revision, becomes increasingly complex, increasing in sophistication. The principle of evolution, micro-evolution, doesn't even beg the existence of a First Mover or God.



chever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

29 Aug 2008, 5:13 pm

Are you trotting out the old 'microevolution is fundamentally distinct from macroevolution' plank

It's not true btw


_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

29 Aug 2008, 5:33 pm

chever wrote:
Are you trotting out the old 'microevolution is fundamentally distinct from macroevolution' plank

It's not true btw


It's observable, and a non-nerd like myself is content with it. I'm more than willing to admit there are things I don't understand.

I can say, I don't know without risking self-injury.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Aug 2008, 5:42 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Exactly. Evolution at work in both directions. That's why restrained use of antibiotics is necessary. But it's obvious the original antibiotics are no longer used because the resistance to them is still in force. Not always, but most frequently, the life if an antibiotic is relatively short and new ones have to be discovered all the time. Medical researchers have repeatedly warned that we are running out of the capacity to devise new ones.


Another option is to use a cocktail of three or more different medications which act on various components of the molecular nanotechnology. That way it would require three point mutations or greater on specific parts of the genome, which would be statistically absurd in most cases.

But no such sensible measures will be put in place because the hacks we put in charge of the grunt work of clinical practice will never listen to the advice of researchers. Rather, they will continue to pass out antibiotics like party favors, and leave researchers with an ever-increasing workload to keep up with all the new mutations.

As far as the cocktail idea: a guy I know, who's starting his grad work at Harvard immunology this fall, did some cool stuff as an undergraduate involving T-even bacteriophage to fight infection. The reason this is better than antibiotics is because T-even bacteriophage, as a virus, will rapidly evolve along with the bacteria it is targeting, meaning that the adaptations of bacteria won't quickly confer resistance, if at all. It's an evolutionarily sound medication because it automatically adjusts to new bacterial mutations without anyone having to sit in a lab and invent a new drug. His plan is to use a double cocktail of different antibiotics and multiple strains of bacteriophage to do a really thorough job of wiping out a bacterial infection and practically eliminating the possibility of resistance developing.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Aug 2008, 5:51 pm

Who's to say, based on the premises of evolution, that the Bacteriophage virus won't mutate and become nondiscriminatory of cell type?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Aug 2008, 5:56 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Who's to say, based on the premises of evolution, that the Bacteriophage virus won't mutate and become nondiscriminatory of cell type?

T-even bacteriophage is a very well-established virus that is specific to attacking bacteria. In terms of basic types of viruses, it would be an extraordinary jump for it to mutate to attack human cells, as I assume you are fearing. The biggest jump we really see is from one type of animal to another; moving from attacking one domain of life to another seems very far-fetched.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Aug 2008, 5:59 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Who's to say, based on the premises of evolution, that the Bacteriophage virus won't mutate and become nondiscriminatory of cell type?

T-even bacteriophage is a very well-established virus that is specific to attacking bacteria. In terms of basic types of viruses, it would be an extraordinary jump for it to mutate to attack human cells, as I assume you are fearing. The biggest jump we really see is from one type of animal to another; moving from attacking one domain of life to another seems very far-fetched.
But in terms of hundreds of millions of years, who can say it won't turn into a sentient being?



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

29 Aug 2008, 6:04 pm

Wasn't all life on Earth originally unicellular? :chin:



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Aug 2008, 6:09 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Who's to say, based on the premises of evolution, that the Bacteriophage virus won't mutate and become nondiscriminatory of cell type?

T-even bacteriophage is a very well-established virus that is specific to attacking bacteria. In terms of basic types of viruses, it would be an extraordinary jump for it to mutate to attack human cells, as I assume you are fearing. The biggest jump we really see is from one type of animal to another; moving from attacking one domain of life to another seems very far-fetched.
But in terms of hundreds of millions of years, who can say it won't turn into a sentient being?

Human concerns do not span hundreds of millions of years.

And viruses would in any case be highly unlikely to ever develop sentience. It's not even agreed whether viruses are even alive, and their basic structure has not changed significantly in a very long time.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Aug 2008, 6:16 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Who's to say, based on the premises of evolution, that the Bacteriophage virus won't mutate and become nondiscriminatory of cell type?

T-even bacteriophage is a very well-established virus that is specific to attacking bacteria. In terms of basic types of viruses, it would be an extraordinary jump for it to mutate to attack human cells, as I assume you are fearing. The biggest jump we really see is from one type of animal to another; moving from attacking one domain of life to another seems very far-fetched.
But in terms of hundreds of millions of years, who can say it won't turn into a sentient being?

Human concerns do not span hundreds of millions of years.

And viruses would in any case be highly unlikely to ever develop sentience. It's not even agreed whether viruses are even alive, and their basic structure has not changed significantly in a very long time.


Human ability to observe is irrelevant when it comes to evolution anyway, so why should that even be a criterion to say it wouldn't happen? Also, how complex is bacteriophage compared to a protocell anyway?