Antibiotic resistance, evolution and public policy

[Syne]

Moderator note: This thread has been split from the following thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-muslim-ban-has-begun.158738
----

Absolutely! I use data on how my appearance may impact on my short and long term benefit. I look at predictions based on past outcomes to determine many things.. The scientific method is a huge part of any reasoning and rational thought. Trump has repeatedly failed to make use of the scientific method when constructing and justifying his executive orders...he operates on gut instinct and is a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

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.
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).

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.
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).

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???)

 

[billvon]

LOL! Common decision making is not the scientific method.

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.

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).

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.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"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​

 

[Quantum Quack]

For example, what negative impact do you think a lack of belief in evolution leads to?

the problem with this is that even evolution scientists admit they have a way to go before their theory is evidenced properly.
Example:
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.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Even genetically tested hereditary is subject to some pretty amazing errors... but none the less it is the best we have at the moment.

Sure, a few, Jesus, etc.

The Muslim ban now called a Travel Ban was invoked by an executive order that had no scientific** basis. It is thus premised on purely fear and imaginary threats.

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.

 

[billvon]

Who said science couldn't influence decision making?

?? No one.

But influence upon decision making is more often by social pressure than good reasoning, hence why smoking was so big and has held on so long after the consensus was reached. Or are you claiming to have zero carbon footprint, no vices or unhealthy diet, etc.?

Nope. But I have a far healthier diet - and have a far lower carbon footprint - that I would have had otherwise.

For example, what negative impact do you think a lack of belief in evolution leads to?

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.

 

[billvon]

So...people who don't believe in evolution are taking more antibiotics?

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.

 

[Michael 345]

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.

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?

 

[billvon]

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

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.

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

Yep. And some of them are sufficiently brainwashed to ignore that, because evolution is politically correct BS.

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.'

Yep. Ignorance of the populace is also a problem, and is amplified by politicians who deny science for political gain.

I don't know any such class of people

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."

 

[billvon]

You're going to need to cite examples of doctors or leaders denying or mocking the evolution of resistant bugs.

Here's one from Evolutionnews.org:
==================
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]
==================

Even most creationists agree that adaptation occurs, so few would have reason to doubt adaptation to antibiotics. . . .

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.

 

[Michael 345]

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

OK

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

 

[Michael 345]

Where's your data on antibiotic misuse by a particular demographic?

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

How does calling it adaptation (which is what it is) impair knowledge of bacteria?

Good? (or odd) question

I don't know

How does it?

Can you cite a source supporting the notion that resistant strains of a bacteria are indeed different bacteria species?

They are not difficult species

Just a stronger version

If not, then you can only be talking about adaptation. You do realize that not all evolution is adaptation, right?

OK talk about adaption

You do realise that adaption forms part of evolution right?

 

[billvon]

Can you cite a source supporting the notion that resistant strains of a bacteria are indeed different bacteria species? If not, then you can only be talking about adaptation. You do realize that not all evolution is adaptation, right?

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.

 

[Michael 345]

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.

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?

 

[Kittamaru]

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...

 

[billvon]

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

No, just oppose the anti-science forces when they appear.

 

[billvon]

billvon wasn't splitting hairs, he was outright denying adaptation, for which he got schooled.

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.

 

[Kittamaru]

billvon wasn't splitting hairs, he was outright denying adaptation, for which he got schooled. Unless you'd like to support his claim that "evolved bacterial resistance to antibiotics is referred to as "adaptation" which is 99% incorrect."

And you people claim to have some affinity for science.

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

I've seen bacterial resistance described as both adaptation and evolution:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/antibiotic_resistance.htm

Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.

Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.

Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.

Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.

It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.

http://thescienceofacne.com/how-do-bacteria-become-resistant-to-antibiotics/

Adaptation and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Epigenetic Adaptation (No Genetic Mutation)
Bacteria that consistently encounter sub-inhibitory levels of an antibiotic (concentrations of the antibiotic that are too low to kill it) can develop a temporary resistance to that antibiotic. This type of resistance is called Epigenetic Adaptation. This type of antibiotic resistance does not produce permanent genetic changes that can be inherited by subsequent generations of bacteria. Epigenetic Adaptation is roughly equivalent to an athlete who develops large muscles from weight lifting and physical training. Bacteria exposed to sub-inhibitory levels of an antibiotic can mobilize defenses such as pumps to expel the antibiotics, enzymes to break them down, or they can simply decrease the permeability of their cell wall to decrease their exposure to the antibiotic molecules.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_03

When treating a bacterial infection with antibiotics, take all your pills.
Just as mild doses can breed resistance, an incomplete regimen of antibiotics can let bacteria survive and adapt. If you are going to introduce a selective pressure (antibiotics), make it a really strong one and a long enough one to cause the extinction of the illness-causing bacteria and not their evolution.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/09/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance/

“We know quite a bit about the internal defense mechanisms bacteria use to evade antibiotics, but we don’t really know much about their physical movements across space as they adapt to survive in different environments,” said study first author Michael Baym, a research fellow in systems biology at HMS.

The researchers caution that their giant petri dish is not intended to perfectly mirror how bacteria adapt and thrive in the real world and in hospital settings, but it does mimic the real-world environments bacteria encounter more closely than traditional lab cultures can. This is because, the researchers say, in bacterial evolution, space, size, and geography matter. Moving across environments with varying antibiotic strengths poses a different challenge for organisms than they face in traditional lab experiments that involve tiny plates with homogeneously mixed doses of drugs.

http://mmbr.asm.org/content/74/3/417.full.pdf&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=100

SUPERBUGS AND SUPERRESISTANCE
Many of the bacterial pathogens associated with epidemics of human disease have evolved into multidrug-resistant (MDR) forms subsequent to antibiotic use. For example, MDR M. tuberculosis is a major pathogen found in both developing and industrialized nations and became the 20th-century version of an old pathogen.

Seems pretty clear that both words are used, both in laymans terms AND scholarly circles...

 

[billvon]

LOL! You're a joke, mate. You tried to sound smart and did a face plant instead. You keep arguing the straw man (boogieman) that someone denies superbugs or how they come about, yet you've failed to demonstrate that actually occurs.

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.