Mutations – selection: the bacteria resist

Mutations – selection: the bacteria resist


Mutations – selection: the bacteria resist Aha, here’s our patient! The patient has received all known antibiotic treatments to no effect! In conclusion: either he is not ill, or we have a new strain of microbes! Hmm! Or this could even just be a case of resistance to antibiotics. Let me explain… When the body is infected by bacteria… …it attempts to defend itself in several ways… …by increasing its temperature… …but mainly by using its immune system. As soon as a foreign body enters the organism, it’s detected straight away and alarm bells ring. Lots of white blood cells come along to identify the culprits… …and get rid of them. But sometimes these defences are overwhelmed by bacteria. That’s when the illness really begins. Luckily, since antibiotics were discovered, we can help patients protect themselves. These drugs destroy most bacteria,… …or create a hostile environment for them. Antibiotics soon became a quick-fix solution. For the slightest scratch, a course of antibiotics!!! It was so effective in preventing infections from developing… …that the use of antibiotics increased… …they became widely used to treat battery-farmed poultry and pigs. But before long the illness returns… …and antibiotic treatments suddenly stop working. What happened? Well, before bacterial cells divide, they duplicate their genetic material. This material is composed of DNA. Portions of the long molecule can hold precise information on the activity and development of the bacteria. These portions are what we call genes. Each gene is composed of a sequence of four elements called nucleotides,… …of which two are always matched in pairs because they are complementary. As DNA is copied very rapidly, errors in the copy frequently occur. These errors are called mutations. Most of the time these mutations are of no consequence, but sometimes they can be harmful to the bacteria. However, with such a high number of mutations, some of these copy errors can result in resistance to antibiotics. When in contact with the antibiotic, the resistant bacteria will be the only ones to survive. In fact the drug will have chosen THE resistant strain! And then, since there is no longer any competition for food, the bacteria can multiply very fast. It’s exactly like natural selection! Individuals with the most favourable characteristics reproduce more than the others… …and will be able to continue to evolve. Indeed, with antibiotics, we are reproducing what nature did 4 billion years ago that led to the evolution of species. Well miss, are you demonstrating here that the patient is suffering from acute Darwinitis? Hmm..you could say that… Aha! That’s exactly how I see it! Gentlemen, this case is very interesting! Let’s move on to something else! subtitles: Yannick Mahé

43 thoughts on “Mutations – selection: the bacteria resist

  1. @jimshelnutt At time "adding antibiotic" it is resistant, but at time "before mutation giving resistance" it wasn't!!! If this mutation hasn't occured when you add the antibiotic than the bacteria won't survive, but those of the bacteria that had a mutation turning them resistant are surviving…so there is evolution!!!

  2. @jimshelnutt The bacteria had a mutation in his DNA, and in this case, it was beneficial for it because it developed resistance to the antibiotic. This is especially frequent among bacteria because they multiply so rapidly. Random genetic mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolution along with natural selection (non-random) and genetic drift (random).

  3. @jimshelnutt The mutation caused the bacteria to be resistant to the antibiotic. Because the environment favoured that bacterium, it could survive to reproduce. It's really quite simple, and it is evolution.

  4. All-be-it I feel like something is wrong in the video ( Though I cant find anything. ) I'd like to add something incase theres a nut-job out there…When the DNA 'evolves' it usually degrades something. Theres dozens (Hundreds? thousands? Not sure on numbers.) of bacteriologists making these 'super bugs' and each time they succeed, the bacteria usually die off in a regular setting, since he mutation helped resistance and lowerd something else, like skill points in a game. 😛

  5. @jimshelnutt That's what evolution is. The environment changes, and anything that survives gets to pass on it's genetic code. The new population in now resistant to whatever change happened. A creature does not evolve, a population does.

  6. @borismex Contributions are welcome. So best is you contact us via the official web site of "Evolution-of-life" and we can then arrange how to upload the spanish-subtitled version on this youtube channel.

  7. This is a rather naive explanation. Bacteria are highly unlikely to become resistant from just one mutation. What happens is that some bacteria are able to survive longer due to many various mutations, and since all others are dead they are likely to meet and exchange genetic material with each other before they die from the antibiotic, the result is an even tougher bacteria, this process results in bacteria which are immune. This is why you must complete the course of treatment.

  8. This helped evolution in no way shape or form. The bacteria had information before hand that would help it. I suggest adaptation rather than just mutation. If you are in a hostile situation you accustom yourself, and you pass on such adaptations through things like epigenetics. What looks like natural selection was actually random chance. It could have been from the 0.01% of the bacteria not killed by the antibiotic. The patient died from stupid doctors who blamed natural selction.

  9. 1. The mutation was beneficial only in the context of antibiotics
    2. For the whole tree of evolution, a great amount of mutations are required, how likely is it that all of them would be beneficial ones.

  10. its not that it isn't correct, its that its missing a step. a molecule corrects any mistakes found in the DNA, however it is falliable(sp), without it mutations would be very common. or at least thats what i think the person is trying to say.

  11. might be a silly quesiton but, why can't we put anti biotics under the same conditions and selective stresses that the bacteria they have been eliminating has been under, in order to help them also evolve?
    Also why can't we simply tweak them by breaking the genetic code an mutating it, as dangerous as it may be?

  12. I think this is my problem. Anti-biotics are doing noting. It makes you cough sound like a walrus, thick mucus in your throat and sinuses. 3 people in my family have gotten it too so it is contagions. More and more people in public are sounding like walrus coughs. 

  13. Bacteria resisting antibiotics is an adaptive characteristic that bacteria already have. Like our immune system. They are adopting not mutating. This is bio 101. It almost supports evolution but it doesn't if you know how this actually works

  14. Nice video- here's another public engagement video relevant to antibiotic resistance by a couple of PhD students from Oxford!
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7zPzJPGp4

  15. Basically, logic dictates that a mutation is a change in the DNA. There's lots of causes of mutations. For instance, if someone gets exposed to radiation, chemicals, or even nuclear energy than they will mutate. Medicine can also mutate the human DNA. Also, mutations can harmfully damage someone's body chemistry. There is also genetic mutations. A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Gene mutations can occur very often. For example, let's just say a mutated lady was having a baby and after she gave birth, her newborn child was also a mutant because the lady's mutation was genetically passed on to her baby. Mutations are happening everyday and I think we should prevent the occurrence of mutations.

  16. Doesn't evolution work by a gain of information in a genome? When bacteria confer resistance there are several ways they can do this (but none prove evolution, they actually disprove). There is no new information created. A bacteria may get information transferred from another bacteria, but this is not new. The bacteria that become resistant also are less fit in the wild so this would show a loss of information. Also people like to use Lenski's experiment to show that bacteria evolve. Can someone tell me when anyone has observed a bacteria becoming something else? It has never happened. God has created and He has given us Jesus to save us from our sins. People need to repent and trust in the Savior.

  17. Bacteria may resist but since 1670 we have seen that no matter how much they change they don't evolve. They stay bacteria.  As for mutations…We are told that mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said….
     "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing — good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
    .
    Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
    .
    Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
    "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
    .
    "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
    .
    "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
    .
    "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts….These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
    (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
    .
    On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists – including some world famous evolutionists – admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc.  Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts
    .
    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of NeoDarwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HErmp5Pzqw
    .
    Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update.  You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator.  He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know, and love, Him, too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on?  Rhetorical Q.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *