The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Evolution of resistance--bacteria win again

Posted 15 November 2005 by Tara Smith

Resistance to antibiotics has been a concern of scientists almost since their widespread use began. In a 1945 interview with the New York Times, Alexander Fleming himself warned that the misuse of penicillin could lead to selection of resistant forms of bacteria, and indeed, he'd already derived such strains in the lab by varying doses of penicillin the bacteria were subjected to. A short 5 years later, several hospitals had reported that a majority of their Staph isolates were, as predicted, resistant to penicillin. This decline in effectiveness has led to a search for new sources and kinds of antimicrobial agents. One strategy involves going back to a decades-old approach researched by Soviet scientists: phage therapy. Here, they pit one microbe directly against another, using viruses called bacteriophage to infect, and kill, pathogenic bacteria. Vincent Fischetti at Rockefeller University has used this successfully to kill anthrax, Streptococcus pyogenes, and others. Another novel source of antibiotics has come from our own innate immune system, one of our initial defenses against microbial invaders. An enormous variety of organisms produce compounds called cationic antimicrobial peptides. A component of our own innate immune system, these are fairly short strings of amino acids (less than 100 a.a.'s) that have a net positive charge. It is thought that these peptides work primarily by disrupting the integrity of the bacterial cell wall, essentially poking holes in the wall, causing death of the cell. Since the peptides are targeted at the bacterial cell wall structure, it was thought that resistance would require a fundamental change in membrane structure, making it an exceedingly rare event. Therefore, these antimicrobial peptides might make an excellent weapon in the fight against multiply drug-resistant bacteria. Additionally, the remarkable diversity of these peptides, combined with the presence of multiple types of peptides with different mechanisms of action present at the infection site, rendered unlikely the evolution of resistance to these molecules (or so the common thinking went). However, evolutionary biologists have pointed out that therapeutic use of these peptides would differ from natural exposure: concentration would be significantly higher, and a larger number of microbes would be exposed. Additionally, resistance to these peptides has been detailed in a few instances. For example, resistance to antimicrobial peptides has been shown to be essential for virulence in Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella species, but we didn't *witness* that resistance develop--therefore, it might simply be that those species have physiological properties that render them naturally resistant to many of these peptides, and were never susceptible in the first place. Antimicrobial resistance is always a problem---it can render antibiotics much less useful, and make deadly infections almost untreatable. But resistance to these peptides could make us all vulnerable. The peptides of our innate immune system are one of our first lines of defense against an immense variety of pathogens, and we don't know what the outcome may be if we compromise this essential level of protection. But realistically, could such resistance evolve within the bacterial population? Dr. Michael Zasloff of Georgetown University was originally a doubter. In this 2002 Nature article, he states in conclusion:
Studies both in the laboratory and in the clinic confirm that emergence of resistance against antimicrobial peptides is less probable than observed for conventional antibiotics, and provides the impetus to develop antimicrobial peptides, both natural and laboratory conceived, into therapeutically useful agents.
Certainly in the short term, resistance was unlikely to evolve for the reasons I mentioned above. However, if these peptides are used over an extended period of time, could the mutations necessary to confer resistance accumulate? This was the question asked in a new study by Dr. Zasloff along with colleagues Gabriel Perron and Graham Bell. Following publication of his 2002 paper where he called evolution of resistance to these peptides "improbable," Bell challenged Zasloff to test this theory. Zasloff took him up on the offer, and they've published their results in Proceedings of the Royal Society. They tested this using strains of E. coli and Pseudomonas fluorescens. They started out growing these bacteria with low concentrations of a peptide antibiotic called pexiganan, a derivative of a peptide originally isolated from a frog. (Carl Zimmer has an excellent post on this same topic here). The experimental design was quite simple. They grew the bacteria, took a portion of the growth, and added that to a new tube with fresh media. Gradually, they increased the concentration of pexiganan in the growth medium. In all, they did 100 serial transfers of the bacteria (correlating to ~500-600 generations of bacteria), and the end result were--voilà!--bacterial populations that were resistant to the peptides. Creationists/ID advocates (such as chemist Phil Skell) often claim that "evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," or that "evolution has little to do with almost all research in biology and biotechnology", etc. etc. And sure, the theory of evolution didn't *directly* result in the discovery of peptide antibiotics. But advances in biotechnology do not exist in a vacuum, and we have seen what can occur from the misapplication of these types of technologies, unguided by an understanding of underlying evolutionary principles. Peptide antibiotics have not yet been used clinically to treat human infections, but imagine if they had gone into widespread use without a thought given to the evolution of resistance to these peptides. Imagine if they had gone into widespread use prior to an investigation of the relatedness of various peptides to those produced by humans. Imagine if, as a result of not considering these implications, we had lost an ancient protection against bacteria----which *evolved* over millions of years of host-pathogen interaction--due to a mere advancement in biotechnology. While I enjoy proving the evolution-doubters wrong, I hope it never comes down to that kind of situation in order to do so, and I hope this example is instructive to those who claim that evolution isn't useful.

96 Comments

k.e. · 15 November 2005

Strangely this example of evolution and the applied use of it is the one thing that will resonate louder in the minds of parents than any other belief, survival is natures greatest motor.
Presented with the choice between a man in a white coat with a cure and a pulpit thumper the ranks of the blind sheep would thin very quickly.
Somehow this message needs to be distilled and injected.

Tara Smith · 15 November 2005

Presented with the choice between a man in a white coat with a cure and a pulpit thumper the ranks of the blind sheep would thin very quickly. Somehow this message needs to be distilled and injected.

Not to drag my own thread off-topic, but you might be surprised. Many people have been told so often that scientists are such evil "atheistic" materialists that they inherently distrust them, and value the word of their pastors over experts in the field. This has already happened with vaccination--while some parents are worried about thimerosal, others have objections on religious grounds, as fetal tissue has been used in the production of some vaccines.

jim · 15 November 2005

Hey,

Would retiring an anti-biotic for a period of time (say 10-30 years), give enough time for bacteria to lose their immunity to the drug? I would think that the mechanisms (I've heard they're selective pumps) to grant anti-biotic immunity would be an evolutionary disadvantage if none of that drug were present.

By giving evolution some time to select against the resistent strains we might be able to begin a program of cycling through antibiotics in a given order using a defined period of use to ensure that we never run out of them.

Rich · 15 November 2005

Blog problems.

Normally its the technicalterms or challenging concepts that make it hard for me to fully understand an article. But Tara has a hot picture on the top right of her blog that lowers my IQ to room temperature. Thanks Tara.

*twiddles pen, awkwardly*

Christopher Letzelter · 15 November 2005

Tara wrote, "Not to drag my own thread off-topic, but you might be surprised. Many people have been told so often that scientists are such evil "atheistic" materialists that they inherently distrust them, and value the word of their pastors over experts in the field. This has already happened with vaccination---while some parents are worried about thimerosal, others have objections on religious grounds, as fetal tissue has been used in the production of some vaccines."
And this is happening in Amish communities in the Midwest, where children have contracted polio:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/national/08polio.html
Oddly enough, polio is never reported in societies where vaccinations are mandated; but in the Amish communities, where modern medicine is suspect and innoculation is rejected, these "dead" diseases reappear.
Maybe the Amish are feeling god's wrath? : )

Miguelito · 15 November 2005

I'm a geologist and not a biologist, so my grasp on biology literature is very poor.

Would anybody be able to recommend some references that show:

1) somebody mapping the genome of some bacteria
2) letting populations of that bacteria grow for many generations
3) remapping the genome of that bacteria to see where mutations in the DNA occurred
4) even better, said mutations enhance the survivability of the bacteria in certain environments

I am familiar with Richard Lenk's E. Coli experiments, but would like some more documentation to peruse if there is any.

Tara Smith · 15 November 2005

Would retiring an anti-biotic for a period of time (say 10-30 years), give enough time for bacteria to lose their immunity to the drug? I would think that the mechanisms (I've heard they're selective pumps) to grant anti-biotic immunity would be an evolutionary disadvantage if none of that drug were present. By giving evolution some time to select against the resistent strains we might be able to begin a program of cycling through antibiotics in a given order using a defined period of use to ensure that we never run out of them.

That has been tried to some extent, with mixed results. There's a review of some of the literature here, which basically concludes that we need more research on the topic.

theonomo · 15 November 2005

The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are. In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system. It cracks me up how you fundies think it is such a big deal that bacteria evolve. ("Evolve" is a strong word for it -- they do, after all, remain not only bacteria, but practically the same kind of bacteria.)

Fundamentalist Darwinian: "What?! You don't believe that the bat and the whale are close cousins and that this grizzly bear's many-greats-grandpappy was a fish? Well, I'll prove it to you: bacteria have been known to evolve resistance to antibiotics. So there."

Give me a break.

Tara Smith · 15 November 2005

I see you missed the entire point of my post, but thank you for your comments.

Ben · 15 November 2005

The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are. In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system. It cracks me up how you fundies think it is such a big deal that bacteria evolve. ("Evolve" is a strong word for it --- they do, after all, remain not only bacteria, but practically the same kind of bacteria.) Fundamentalist Darwinian: "What?! You don't believe that the bat and the whale are close cousins and that this grizzly bear's many-greats-grandpappy was a fish? Well, I'll prove it to you: bacteria have been known to evolve resistance to antibiotics. So there." Give me a break.

The level of ignorance you just demonstrated is amazing. But I bet it won't stop you from taking those 'fundamentalist Darwinian' medicines next time you have the flu, will you?

Tara Smith · 15 November 2005

Miguelito,

Would anybody be able to recommend some references that show: 1) somebody mapping the genome of some bacteria 2) letting populations of that bacteria grow for many generations 3) remapping the genome of that bacteria to see where mutations in the DNA occurred 4) even better, said mutations enhance the survivability of the bacteria in certain environments

There are 2 big roadblocks to many of us carrying out studies like that: 1) time and 2) money. Even with short generation times, it takes awhile to get them up to a significant number of generations, and then finding single nucleotide changes in a bacterium which may have a genome of 2-5 million base pairs or so is very challenging for those of us with small lab budgets. I can't think of anything like that offhand, but I'll do a lit search when I get a chance and see what I can find.

theonomo · 15 November 2005

Thanks, but I'll take medicines that are well grounded in science.

CJ O'Brien · 15 November 2005

they do, after all, remain not only bacteria, but practically the same kind of bacteria

This raises some interesting questions about "kinds." How many bacterial "kinds" are there? And, "practically"? I wasn't aware there was any wiggle room at all in the "kinds" to allow for qualification. Are they the same "kind" after the resistance has evolved, or aren't they? How do we tell?

Wislu Plethora · 15 November 2005

Fundamentalist Darwinian: "What?! You don't believe that the bat and the whale are close cousins and that this grizzly bear's many-greats-grandpappy was a fish? Well, I'll prove it to you: bacteria have been known to evolve resistance to antibiotics. So there."

— theonomo
In which the poster invokes what I call the Pee Wee Herman Argument (I know you are, but what am I? in referring to rational people as "fundamentalist") and proves once again that it's impossible to tell the difference between a well-constructed parody of creationist "logic" and the real thing.

Arden Chatfield · 15 November 2005

Evolve" is a strong word for it --- they do, after all, remain not only bacteria, but practically the same kind of bacteria.)

A strong word?? So, you'd only call it 'evolution' if they spontaneously changed into, say, raccoons, overnight?

The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are. In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system

So let me get this straight. You admit that bacteria evolve. But you claim that this evolving proves that they're designed. And therefore this proves evolution is false. That's one of the most ridiculous, self-referential attempts at 'logic' I've seen in years. Beautiful.

Thanks, but I'll take medicines that are well grounded in science.

Good for you. Next time you get sick, make sure the scientists who designed it didn't believe in evolution. Can't be too careful, you know.

theonomo · 15 November 2005

How many bacterial "kinds" are there?

Many.

And, "practically"? I wasn't aware there was any wiggle room at all in the "kinds" to allow for qualification.

Yes, there is wiggle room. They aren't exactly the same -- just practically the same. Maybe you should heighten your awareness of these matters.

Are they the same "kind" after the resistance has evolved, or aren't they?

They are practically the same kind.

Arden Chatfield · 15 November 2005

This raises some interesting questions about "kinds." How many bacterial "kinds" are there? And, "practically"? I wasn't aware there was any wiggle room at all in the "kinds" to allow for qualification. Are they the same "kind" after the resistance has evolved, or aren't they? How do we tell?

I'm sure Theonomo doesn't know the answer to any of these questions, but since they are 'kinds' one must assume they were all on Noah's ark.

theonomo · 15 November 2005

I'm sure Theonomo doesn't know the answer to any of these questions, but since they are 'kinds' one must assume they were all on Noah's ark.

I don't believe in the literal truth of that whole Noah's ark story. Thanks for trying to pigeon-hole me, though.

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

They are practically the same kind.

define "practically"

Katarina · 15 November 2005

Theonomo,

The reason scientists so often cite bacteria is that bacteria go through so many generations in so short a time, that evolution can be easily observed with them. However, this isn't the only observation of evolution and speciation, the observation has been made for higher organisms as well. Have you browsed through the TalkOrigins website?

The communication problem seems to stem from a conceptual problem. People who reject evolution cannot imagine why microevolution would lead to macroevolution, and macroevolution is the only way they define evolution. The only remedy to that is to do some work and read about what the theory of evolution says. If it still doesn't make sense, ask more questions and read more.

People at PT will usually make fun of you, unless you are asking a sincere question. Be specific in your question. Just by coming up with a specific question, you're halfway to understanding.

CJ O'Brien · 15 November 2005

Ask "how many," get told "many."
Realize you're probably talking to a creationist.
Maybe you should heighten your awareness of these matters.
Should I start with Genesis? Because I'm pretty sure there's no mention of bacteria.
Or do you have a more authoritative source on bacterial "kinds" in mind?

Miguelito · 15 November 2005

There are 2 big roadblocks to many of us carrying out studies like that: 1) time and 2) money. Even with short generation times, it takes awhile to get them up to a significant number of generations, and then finding single nucleotide changes in a bacterium which may have a genome of 2-5 million base pairs or so is very challenging for those of us with small lab budgets. I can't think of anything like that offhand, but I'll do a lit search when I get a chance and see what I can find.

— Tara Smith
Thanks, I'd appreciate that. I wouldn't know where to start on my own lit search on the topic: I'm trapped by my ignorance of biochemical technospeak. Even smaller scale studies (where they focus on only a relatively few genes) would be appreciated.

theonomo · 15 November 2005

define "practically"

prac·ti·cal·ly (prktk-l) adv. 1. In a way that is practical. 2. For all practical purposes; virtually. 3. All but; nearly; almost.

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

lol. right... so now explain how it works in the terms you use it in.

like several have already asked you.

why be a troll?

did you ignore what Katarina posted?

theonomo · 15 November 2005

Should I start with Genesis? Because I'm pretty sure there's no mention of bacteria. Or do you have a more authoritative source on bacterial "kinds" in mind?

Maybe you should try a textbook.

Rich · 15 November 2005

"I see you missed the entire point of my post, but thank you for your comments."

You've been playing with creationists too long. Absence of evidence of understanding does not imply missunderstanding. I got the point, but you get drawn to the topright hand corner of your blog.

*shrug*

Tara Smith · 15 November 2005

Heh. Rich, that wasn't directed at you. And I'm sure if it's ever so distracting, a post-it note would cover up the pic just fine. :)

theonomo, I'd be very happy to address any concerns/questions you have about evolution, and I'm sure others would do the same. I much prefer to have real discussion rather than sniping.

theonomo · 15 November 2005

I am well aware that as soon as anyone on this board expresses an opinion that does not fall in line with the Official Story that is handed down by the Darwinian Priesthood they will be ridiculed. No big deal. I just like to express my thoughts on these matters once in a while.

By the way, the debating techniques used on here are typical of Darwinian fundamentalists: mention that you don't think that the fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics is good evidence for macro-evolution and next thing you know you are being asked to deliniate all the different kinds of bacteria that have ever existed. It's the "quick -- swamp him with requests for irrelevant details that will take him hours to figure out" defense.

Tara Smith · 15 November 2005

But you haven't expressed any "thoughts;" you've called names and started with the ridicule yourself. How about we start over and you post your valid criticisms, and we'll forget all the "kinds" stuff.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 15 November 2005

I am well aware that as soon as anyone on this board expresses an opinion that does not fall in line with the Official Story that is handed down by the Darwinian Priesthood they will be ridiculed. No big deal. I just like to express my thoughts on these matters once in a while.

— theonomo
You're certainly free to express your thoughts. But what we'd like to see is intelligent discussion. To enable that, we need more than opinion, we need data and rational argument. If you have them, we'd like to see them. But simply questioning something with no supporting logic, or making blatantly incorrect statements about science will tend, I admit, to get you banged on the head with a stuffed eel-skin. Partly it's simply irritation at the same valueless arguments. We'd be delighted with something new and interesting.

By the way, the debating techniques used on here are typical of Darwinian fundamentalists:

Sorry, there are no Darwin fundamentalists here. There may be some in the world, but I've yet to see one post on this site. The posters I've seen here accept evolution as the best current explanation to fit the facts - nothing more. New evidence, new arguments, new paradigms could overturn that acceptance. Give it a try!

mention that you don't think that the fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics is good evidence for macro-evolution and next thing you know you are being asked to delineate all the different kinds of bacteria that have ever existed. It's the "quick --- swamp him with requests for irrelevant details that will take him hours to figure out" defense.

No, it's the "produce some evidence for this claim". As I say, we're so eager to find something really novel and supported to discuss that we get a little overenthusiastic. Sorry about that.

Rich · 15 November 2005

"typical of Darwinian fundamentalists"

Do shallow minds make broad-brush comments? More after the weather..

Surely the delimitation of "macro" and "micro" evolution is arbitrary, and VERY timescale dependent?

theonomo · 15 November 2005

But you haven't expressed any "thoughts;" you've called names and started with the ridicule yourself.

I did express my thought. Here is the thought I expressed:

The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are. In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system. It cracks me up how you fundies think it is such a big deal that bacteria evolve. ("Evolve" is a strong word for it --- they do, after all, remain not only bacteria, but practically the same kind of bacteria.)

The sniping, by the way, began with the remark about "pulpit thumpers" in the first response to your original post, so it predated me. It continued with people calling me "ignorant" and claiming that I believe all the kinds of bacteria were on Noah's ark. I guess I am wont to snipe back at snipers. Maybe I egged them on by referring to them as Fundamentalist Darwinians, but that is hardly more inflammatory than "pulpit thumper".

roger tang · 15 November 2005

I am well aware that as soon as anyone on this board expresses an opinion that does not fall in line with the Official Story that is handed down by the Darwinian Priesthood they will be ridiculed.

No, that's wrong. You're just self fulfilling your prophecy, offering up deliberately inane comments specifically designed to attract attacks, in order to pile up persecution points.

That's...practically...all your repertoire.

You MIGHT get a difference response if you tried to grapple with the issues honestly (it's occurred on other occasions). And, to be honest, you're going to have to learn the lingo and defend your thesis as scientists do--otherwise, you're just conceding the battle and saying that you CAN'T play with the big boys.

Or do you feel you're not up to the task?

theonomo · 15 November 2005

Well, I am sure that most of you will be pleased to learn that I have to leave now due to the fact that I have 12,000 words of a novel to write before Thursday and need to stop procrastinating. You may interpret it as me running away from a fight if you wish -- there is nothing I can do to stop you.

Tara Smith · 15 November 2005

I did express my thought. Here is the thought I expressed:

Noted. Now can you provide some evidence for that? First, the topic isn't about it being a "big deal" that bacteria evolve; it's about using the knowledge we have about bacterial evolution (and evolutionary theory in general) to inform decisions we make, specifically, in regard to biotechnology.

The sniping, by the way, began with the remark about "pulpit thumpers" in the first response to your original post, so it predated me. It continued with people calling me "ignorant" and claiming that I believe all the kinds of bacteria were on Noah's ark. I guess I am wont to snipe back at snipers. Maybe I egged them on by referring to them as Fundamentalist Darwinians, but that is hardly more inflammatory than "pulpit thumper".

I understand, but please note that was *not* directed at you, as you'd not even posted yet. If you self-identify as a "pulpit thumper," then you're simply allowing yourself to be insulted. I take no offense at your characterization of "Darwinist fundamentalists," because I don't consider myself to be one and won't let myself be baited in that manner. So again, can we just start over and get to the meat?

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

that's right, run away ;)

roger tang · 15 November 2005

I did express my thought.

Yes, and you did it on a very gross level, without much of the detail that's necessary on a scientific level. "Practically the same kind", for example, is a qualitative statement; it doesn't get you anywhere when you try to do research. It ignores all the detail work where science is done.

And, of course, your smartass comment about defining practically is not helpful.

Are you willing to get down into the nitty gritty detail and deal with science on the same level? or are you going to concede the battle?

Ron Zeno · 15 November 2005

Maybe I egged them on by referring to them as Fundamentalist Darwinians, but that is hardly more inflammatory than "pulpit thumper".

— theonomo
Nice after-the-fact justification there. Care to clarify what type of creationist you are?

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

Tara:

there is no meat, and he asked no questions.

he came, he saw, he preached, he left.

eos

Rilke's Granddaughter · 15 November 2005

The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are. In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system. It cracks me up how you fundies think it is such a big deal that bacteria evolve. ("Evolve" is a strong word for it --- they do, after all, remain not only bacteria, but practically the same kind of bacteria.)

— theonomo
I think that theo's 'point' demonstrates a classic problem of argument: he is begging the question. He is saying, in essence, "charactistic X is evidence of design" (in this case, the ability to evolve). But nowhere has he shown that characteristic X (a) can be designed, and (b) was designed. But it's a good example of the difficulties of argument with presuppositionalists.

Rich · 15 November 2005

In all seriousness, good luck with the Novel. The discussion will be waiting for you when you return.

Jim Harrison · 15 November 2005

People sometimes talk about antibiotic resistance as if it had an essence. But the term refers to a very heterogenous collection of mechanisms. The point isn't just nitpicking. It is often assumed that resistance to antibiotics would automatically diminish if we stopped using the antibiotics because antibiotic resistance has a cost to the bacterium. But the costs of resistance vary from considerable to nothing depending on the mechanism.

Consider the case of human resistance to malaria. The sickle cell allelle confers resistance to malaria but is fatal when it is homozygous. If malaria disappeared, natural selection would eliminate the sickle cell gene. But there are probably other mutations that increase resistance to the parasite by altering coat proteins. They may not have any metabolic cost at all and would presumably tend to persist even in areas without malaria. By this logic, some of the mutations that increase the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics may persist even in the absence of further use of the drugs.

RBH · 15 November 2005

Miguelito asked
Would anybody be able to recommend some references that show: 1) somebody mapping the genome of some bacteria 2) letting populations of that bacteria grow for many generations 3) remapping the genome of that bacteria to see where mutations in the DNA occurred 4) even better, said mutations enhance the survivability of the bacteria in certain environments
Richard Lenski has been doing a long-term study of E. coli. The bibliography is here. I don't believe he's done complete sequencing at beginning and end, but this paper and this paper give you a flavor of some of the findings. RBH

Arden Chatfield · 15 November 2005

But it's a good example of the difficulties of argument with presuppositionalists.

I was mostly impressed with how he'd evidently come up with a means of using the fact that things evolve to prove that evolution is wrong.

Ed Darrell · 15 November 2005

Theonomo,

Why not try expressing an opinion contrary to the general flow in a fashion that demonstrates genuine curiosity about life, rather than in an insulting, faux-superiority voice that drips with wish-to-denigrate-if-I-only-knew-what-I-was-talking-about ferocity?

You might get corrected if you get off base, but you won't get ridiculed until you put on that "kick me, please" tone of voice and content.

Rich · 15 November 2005

FAO Rilke's Granddaughter.

I can prove it, but I'd like to believe we live in a world where anything can be designed. To say otherwise would cap human potential. Its just a matter of time and smarts. Point (b) for me is the salient one.

roger tang · 15 November 2005

People sometimes talk about antibiotic resistance as if it had an essence. But the term refers to a very heterogenous collection of mechanisms. The point isn't just nitpicking. It is often assumed that resistance to antibiotics would automatically diminish if we stopped using the antibiotics because antibiotic resistance has a cost to the bacterium. But the costs of resistance vary from considerable to nothing depending on the mechanism.

Now, here's an example of dealing with the details, and examining the mechanisms. It's talks about the fine, not the gross; it makes predictions based ib the fine details of the mechanism.

Is theonomo going to answer in kind? Or will that worthy concede the battle?

RBH · 15 November 2005

Sorry -- I see Miquelito seems to be aware of Lenski's work. (Read the whole post, RBH!)

RBH

Miguelito · 15 November 2005

Richard Lenski has been doing a long-term study of E. coli. The bibliography is here. I don't believe he's done complete sequencing at beginning and end, but this paper and this paper give you a flavor of some of the findings. RBH

— RBH
Thanks for the links, but as I first mentioned, I'm already familiar with Lenski's work and was hoping that there was other stuff I'm missing out on. Gotta say, I love this site.

Arden Chatfield · 15 November 2005

Is theonomo going to answer in kind?

Pun intended? No, I predict theonomo will lie low for a while and pop up later on a totally different thread. This is a very common subspecies of IDC troll -- they come in, make a bunch of oafish, uninformed snide comments, get a hostile response, and when you step back and tell them "Okay, lay out your scientific objections to evolution. Answer the following scientific questions. The floor is yours", they cop an 'I'm above it all' attitude, say that they have something on the stove, and vanish.

CJ O'Brien · 15 November 2005

This is a very common subspecies of IDC troll

Practically the same kind, I'd say.

qetzal · 15 November 2005

Re jim's questions on retiring antibiotics (#57641):

Another problem is that bacteria can be quite proficient at acquiring genes from other microbes. Say there's an antibiotic that rarely works any more (e.g. penicillin G), because most target bacteria have acquired a resistance gene (e.g. beta-lactamase). If we retired penicillin G for long enough, we might well find that bacteria lacking beta-lactamase became predominant again.

However, there would still be a reservoir of resistance genes around somewhere. Once we began using penicillin G again, these would be readily re-acquired and resistance would be re-established almost immediately.

I recall a fascinating study that I learned about in grad school. A famous bacteriologist (whose name escapes me) had a large collection of enteric bacteria stored in agar stabs. These were collected at various times going back to the early 1900s (IIRC). That meant that many of them were collected before antibiotics were widely used to treat human disease.

He recovered bacteria from a bunch of these stored samples and tested them for antibiotic resistance. He found that samples collected before widespread antibiotic use were almost never resistant. Resistance began to appear quite soon after clinical antibiotic use began. Pretty soon, most samples were resistant to one or more common antibiotics.

In most cases, resistance was due to the presence of specific resistance genes. Interestingly, these genes showed features consistent with acquisition from another microbe. They were usually found on mobile plasmids (small pieces of DNA, kind of like mini-chromosomes, that can often be passed between different "kinds" of bacteria). They were often flanked by sequences characterisitic of certain DNA elements that can actually hop in and out of chromosomes (transposons, insertion sequences, etc.).

Further investigation showed that the sensitive bacteria collected before antibiotic use often contained essentially the same mobile plasmids, but without the "hopping" (transposable) resistance genes.

The conclusion was that these resistance genes already existed somewhere in nature. That makes sense, since most of the early antibiotics were derived from compounds that fungi made to inhibit bacterial growth. The resistance genes likely evolved as a response.

Enteric bacteria were able to pass the mobile plasmids back and forth with lots of other bacteria. Occasionally, these mobile plasmids would pick up extra genes from one host and carry them to another. Those extra genes would sometimes include antibiotic resistance genes.

Before clinical antibiotic use, enteric bacteria presumably gained no advantage from resistance genes, and probably incurred a modest energetic cost. Thus, the genes weren't maintained.

Once we began using penicillin et al., enterics that happened to have acquired beta-lactamase from some other bacterium were much more likely to survive. They could grow while sensitive bacteria were killed. Moreover, they could share their resistance genes with other bacteria via the plasmids. Those factors combined to allow an amazingly rapid spread of antibiotic resistance in the bacterial population.

This is all from memory, so some details may be in error, but I hope I've gotten the gist of it correct. This is the kind of thing that I find fascinating and awesome (in the literal sense) about science. I imagine it's akin to the awe creationists feel in the face of what seems to them to be evidence of God's ineffable design.

ag · 15 November 2005

Guys, hasn't theonomo indicated that his main interest is in his novel? All those comments of his must be just parts of his novel - they display unmistakable features of fiction. Alas, they portend a novel which will be boring.

AR · 15 November 2005

If, as theonomo believes, bacteria are marvelously designed in a way enabling them to successfully resist antibiotics, what does this say about the designer's attitude to humans who suffer from bacteria? He (she, it, they?) must have hated humans but have an inordinate fondness for bacteria. Or perhaps there were many designers, some designing humans, others designing bacteria, etc. who (which?) were fighting each other? Indeed a good stuff for theonomo's novel.

KiwiInOz · 15 November 2005

OT

I'm with Rich with regards to the photo, Tara. Don't ever take it down.

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

He (she, it, they?) must have hated humans but have an inordinate fondness for bacteria

damn, what should we conclude about the billions of bacteria that live symbiotically in and on us without causing us harm? "evil" bacteria were just vessels to produce the "good" bacteria that afore mentioned deity wanted for us? *rips hair out* aaaauggghhh! will this confusion never end! where are you when we need you to clarify these things, FSM? oops, i mean non-defined generic asexual benevolent intelligence?

Steve S · 15 November 2005

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 15, 2005 02:54 PM (e) (s) So let me get this straight. You admit that bacteria evolve. But you claim that this evolving proves that they're designed. And therefore this proves evolution is false.

Many of us don't come here to argue with dingbats like Cordova--and in fact find it a little annoying when people do--we come here for the comedy. I get more amusement from the creationists on PT every day, than from any single tv show I watch. When Cordova himself showed up on the Dembski thread to call Dembski's lies "speculation" and his deleting all the lies "editorial decision", I could have passed out from laughing. Creationists love to talk about designed things having function. Well in that case, the creationists must be designed, because they function optimally to make me laugh. "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

Mummert should have that carved on his tombstone.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

Would anybody be able to recommend some references that show: 1) somebody mapping the genome of some bacteria 2) letting populations of that bacteria grow for many generations 3) remapping the genome of that bacteria to see where mutations in the DNA occurred 4) even better, said mutations enhance the survivability of the bacteria in certain environments I am familiar with Richard Lenk's E. Coli experiments, but would like some more documentation to peruse if there is any.

Googling "nylonase" will get you started.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are.

Does the fact that antibiotic-resistant bacteria kill people, also indicate how marevlously well-designed they are? Is the designer working on bioweapons, or is the designer just really really cruel and malicious?

How many bacterial "kinds" are there?

Many.

Ya know, this is what I love most about ID "theory" --- its ability to give precise testable answers to scientific questions. Q. How many kinds of bacteria are there? A. Um, lots. Q. How old is the earth? A. Somewhere between 5,000 and 4.5 billion. We're, uh, not sure about it. Q. Did humans descend from apelike primates? A. Definitely not. Or, uh, maybe they did. We're, uh, still working on that. Q. What mechanisms does the designer use? A. Glad you asked that, since "mechanism" is the only thing that distinguishes design from evolution. But, uh, we don't have the vaguest idea what mechanisms it uses. Thanks once again, Theo, for showing everyone with such crystal clarity that ID has nothing remotely resembling science to offer.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

Thanks, but I'll take medicines that are well grounded in science.

So you're just a materialist naturalist at heart, huh.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

I am well aware that as soon as anyone on this board expresses an opinion that does not fall in line with the Official Story that is handed down by the Darwinian Priesthood they will be ridiculed.

(sniffle) (sob) Boo hoo hoo. Want some cheese to go with that whine? BTW, I hear that the Copernican Fundamentalists in the Astronomy Priesthood ridicules those poor flat earthers and geocentrists for questioning the Official Story, too. Why aren't you over there helping the poor oppressed geocentrists out?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

Maybe I egged them on by referring to them as Fundamentalist Darwinians, but that is hardly more inflammatory than "pulpit thumper".

Um, since ID is all about SCIENCE and is NOT ab out religion in any way shape or form, I'm a little puzzled as to why the phrase "pulpit thumper" would upset you so. After all, this is a *scientific controversy*, nothing more. Right? Unless, of course, IDers are just lying to us, under oath, when they claim that ID is science and not just religious apologetics . . . Is that it?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

OT I'm with Rich with regards to the photo, Tara. Don't ever take it down.

Tara, pay no attention to all of these computer-geek science-nerds. BTW, watcha doin' Friday night? :>

snaxalotl · 15 November 2005

you guys don't know how to quit while you're ahead. when you have a creationista enthusing about how god created evolution as a mechanism to accomplish his ends, you need to step back and consider just how much the fundies' views have been forced to adjust to scientific fact over the last few years.

Paul Flocken · 15 November 2005

theonomo--The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are. In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system.

Evolution is a consequence of two things: 1) Replication is always imperfect, in some way, when life reproduces, ensuring that progeny are different from parents and siblings (sexual reproduction guarantees this); 2) There are only limited resources available in a constantly changing environment, therefore life must compete for reproductive privilege.

How is it necessary that either one of these be intelligently designed? They exist quite naturally(nothing is perfect and the earth does not have infinite resources) I should think that a static system would actually be harder to design since it would require perfect replication to maintain its static nature and an unchanging earth to support it. And we all know that change is the only constant in the universe. Please explain why evolution would have to be intelligently designed.
Sincerely, Paul

Hrun · 15 November 2005

Just a tiny bit of nitpicking: Vince Fischetti works at the Rockefeller University not the Rockefeller Institute. Rockefeller University was originally founded in 1901 as the Rockefeller Institute, but it was granted the right to confer degrees in 1955 and thus became a University. ;)

Tiax · 15 November 2005

define "practically" prac·ti·cal·ly (prktk-l) adv. 1. In a way that is practical. 2. For all practical purposes; virtually. 3. All but; nearly; almost.

I think the question being asked is to complete a sentence like the following: Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if _____. For the term species, the answer is that they can be considered to be of the same species if they are capable of producing fertile offspring. Can theonomo (or anyone else who knows the answer) fill me in on this?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

I think the question being asked is to complete a sentence like the following: Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if _____. For the term species, the answer is that they can be considered to be of the same species if they are capable of producing fertile offspring. Can theonomo (or anyone else who knows the answer) fill me in on this?

I sure can. *ahem* Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if a creationist SAYS they are. And there you have it.

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

I'm collecting ideas for t-shirts.

so far i have:

Recovering Fundamentalist

Doctor of the Dark Side

any other suggestions?

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

oh, and of course Mummert's famous quote.

Tiax · 15 November 2005

I sure can. *ahem* Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if a creationist SAYS they are. And there you have it.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Touche. I might refine your definition to exclude the necessity of a creationist saying anything. Instead, how about: Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if their being so supports creationism.

Sir_Toejam · 15 November 2005

Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if their being so supports creationism

great, except i would change being to saying: Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if saying so supports creationism. that eliminates any potential for actual evidence being included.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 November 2005

I'm collecting ideas for t-shirts.

"Life evolves. Get used to it."

Ben · 16 November 2005

Thanks, but I'll take medicines that are well grounded in science.

Well, I hope the leeches, bleedings and surgery without anaesthetic work. After all, you can't use those Godless fundamentalist Darwinian inventions, can you. ;-)

Um, since ID is all about SCIENCE and is NOT ab out religion in any way shape or form, I'm a little puzzled as to why the phrase "pulpit thumper" would upset you so. After all, this is a *scientific controversy*, nothing more. Right? Unless, of course, IDers are just lying to us, under oath, when they claim that ID is science and not just religious apologetics ... Is that it?

Consider these quotes: Michael Behe: "But a Darwinist cannot invoke angels adding staples to traps, because the angels are on OUR side" Hank - "Now, your purpose is not to identify the intelligent designer, but to point in that direction?" Behe - "Yes. That's exactly right. I wrote the book. I try to stay completely in my role as a scientist although I'm certainly a Christian and I believe the designer is God." Philip Johnson: "The objective...is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." "Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible." Dembski: "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." Dembski: "I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done --- and he's not getting it." I'd be interested to hear how the IDers who keep earnestly claiming that ID isn't religious explain those quotes away.

Wayne Francis · 16 November 2005

Comment # 57935

Comment #57935 Posted by Tiax on November 15, 2005 09:21 PM (e) (s) define "practically" prac·ti·cal·ly (prktk-l) adv. 1. In a way that is practical. 2. For all practical purposes; virtually. 3. All but; nearly; almost. I think the question being asked is to complete a sentence like the following: Given two organisms, they can be said to be of the same kind if _____. For the term species, the answer is that they can be considered to be of the same species if they are capable of producing fertile offspring. Can theonomo (or anyone else who knows the answer) fill me in on this?

— Tiax
by this definition males with Downs Syndrome are a seperate species from the rest of Homo sapien? Are Lions and Tigers the same species? Are Lions and Leopards the same species? Are Tigers and Leopards the same species? The answer to all of theses are "NO" yet all of these combinations can produce not only viable offspring but fertile offspring. BTW Ligers are my favorite animal http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/ligerstand.JPG Forget Lions being king of the jungle....have that lion mate with a tiger and watch the offspring rule being 2x as big as their parents. The term "species" is a classification we put living organisms into. Though we normally refer to 2 populations that don't interbreed the term "species" does not require said populations to be genetically incompatible. Fertility and Viability is not a on/off switch but has varying levels of degrees. The reason males with downs syndrome are infertile is not because they have an extra chromosome because there are other conditions that cause extra chromosomes that do not make the male infertile and females with down syndrome have an extra chromosome but still can have children but with a 50% chance that their child will have Downs Syndrome.

jim · 16 November 2005

T-Shirt slogans:

Evolution Happens

jim · 16 November 2005

T-Shirt slogans:

Procreation

Arden Chatfield · 16 November 2005

BTW Ligers are my favorite animal http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/lig... Forget Lions being king of the jungle....have that lion mate with a tiger and watch the offspring rule being 2x as big as their parents.

It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic.

CJ O'Brien · 16 November 2005

I'd be interested to hear how the IDers who keep earnestly claiming that ID isn't religious explain those quotes away.

Aww, that's easy! Street Theater!

Sir_Toejam · 16 November 2005

Dembski's whole street theatre fiasco reminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit that John Lovitz used to do where they would do something absolutely ridiculous, then excuse it all by sayting "ACTING!".

I can just imagine Dembski playing the part of Lovitz in a skit of his entire life.

Sir_Toejam · 16 November 2005

t-shirt slogans so far:

Recovering Fundamentalist

Doctor of the Dark Side

Evolution Happens

Life evolves. Get used to it.

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." - Ray Mummert

steve s · 16 November 2005

The fact that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics just shows how marvelously well-designed they are. In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system. It cracks me up how you fundies think it is such a big deal that bacteria evolve. ("Evolve" is a strong word for it --- they do, after all, remain not only bacteria, but practically the same kind of bacteria.)

Basically, evolution implies intelligent design. Wow. This is just amazing. I can't stop thinking about it. What's so amazing is, of the 400-500 creationist objections to evolution documented on talkorigins.org/indexcc, this one is new. I have never seen this before. I am hereby submitting this argument to Mark Isaak, for inclusion on the Index to Creationist Claims. Pseudonomo, if you want credit for this argument, you should identify yourself.

qetzal · 16 November 2005

In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system.

You're right, steve s! The more I think about it, the more I realize this is the perfect, irrefutable argument for design. "Life is so complicated. It must have required an Intelligent Designer. What's that you say? Life evolved? Wow, it's even more complicated than I thought. Must have been a Really Intelligent Designer. Come again? No evidence of design, you say? Hoo, boy! Imagine how intelligent that Designer must be. He designed life to evolve so that we can't even tell it's designed! If that ain't proof of design, I don't know what is!" ;-)

CJ O'Brien · 16 November 2005

He designed life to evolve so that we can't even tell it's designed!

Sal Cordova can be induced to perform similar rhetorical backflips, I've noticed. And, steve s, I'm not so sure the ummm.. argument isn't "practically the same kind" as "frontloading," or as Sir Toejam (I think) has styled it, "pantloading."

Tiax · 16 November 2005

by this definition males with Downs Syndrome are a seperate species from the rest of Homo sapien? Are Lions and Tigers the same species? Are Lions and Leopards the same species? Are Tigers and Leopards the same species? The answer to all of theses are "NO" yet all of these combinations can produce not only viable offspring but fertile offspring. BTW Ligers are my favorite animal http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waynefrancis/lig... Forget Lions being king of the jungle....have that lion mate with a tiger and watch the offspring rule being 2x as big as their parents. The term "species" is a classification we put living organisms into. Though we normally refer to 2 populations that don't interbreed the term "species" does not require said populations to be genetically incompatible. Fertility and Viability is not a on/off switch but has varying levels of degrees. The reason males with downs syndrome are infertile is not because they have an extra chromosome because there are other conditions that cause extra chromosomes that do not make the male infertile and females with down syndrome have an extra chromosome but still can have children but with a 50% chance that their child will have Downs Syndrome.

Indeed, there are many intracacies to the definition of 'species', which were not well expressed in my condensed version.

Steve S · 16 November 2005

And, steve s, I'm not so sure the ummm.. argument isn't "practically the same kind" as "frontloading," or as Sir Toejam (I think) has styled it, "pantloading."

Frontloading is nearly the stupidest thought anyone's ever had. Even for creationism, frontloading is idiotic. Theonomo's argument is similar, but much cooler. I dare say, on coolpoints, it might be the greatest ID argument ever made. It appears to be the Russell's Paradox Proof of Intelligent Design.

KiwiInOz · 16 November 2005

OK, enough of being shallow (#57839). Tara, your writing brings microbiology to life in a way that my undergrad lecturers never did.

Cheers

Brian Spitzer · 16 November 2005

In fact, designing a system that is capable of evolving requires more intelligence and sophistication than designing a static system.
I saw part of a script once for a mock radio talk show, on which God was supposedly the guest. The script went something like this: HOST: ...So, we've got time for one more question. Evolution or intelligent design? GOD: Yes. HOST: I'm sorry? GOD: Three-and-a-half billion years with no maintenance. Now that's intelligent design!

Renier · 17 November 2005

Just interesting, from a local newspaper report :

16/11/2005 18:12 - (SA) Johannesburg - Research at Stellenbosch University may spell an end to conventional antibiotic treatment of many diseases, reports a Cape Town newspaper. The researchers, led by university's microbiology department professor Leon Dicks, revealed details of their progress in Stellenbosch on Tuesday. Although results have not yet been published in medical journals or peer-reviewed, Cipla Medpro, the third-biggest producer of generic medicines in South Africa, has committed millions of rand to the project, says the Argus. Dicks said the new product would be a powerful ally in the battle against disease. Children with middle-ear infections, and constantly subjected to courses of antibiotics - raising fears of resistance - were expected to benefit significantly. But Dicks, one of South Africa's top National Research Foundation-evaluated scientists, said the product could also offer a natural alternative to alleviate sinusitis or burn wounds. The alternative had its roots in lactic acid bacteria - a "good" bug always present in the body and introduced by foods, including dairy products and meat. It produced a peptide, or fighter-organism, that destroyed "bad" bacteria in the body. The mechanism it used to destroy problem cells differed to that of antibiotics, but was equally effective, the researchers claim. Cipla Medpro medical director Dr Nic de Jongh said the key difference from antibiotics was that lactic acid bacteria were already present in the body, which meant they were definitely safe. Unlike antibiotics, which destroyed both "good" and "bad" bacteria - upsetting the balance of the body - the lactic bacterium destroyed only "bad" bacteria. The peptide, or fighter organism, which the researchers found was produced by the lactic acid bacteria, also held possibilities in the field of probiotics. Dicks told the Argus the probiotic could be on shelves a year from now, but the antimicrobial peptide had significant testing ahead.

jim · 17 November 2005

Don't know if this would fit on a T-Shirt and isn't a "pro-evolution" saying, but it IS funny :) :

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,
his lamb thou shalt not slaughter,
thank Heavens there is no Commandment,
about coveting thy neighbor's daughter!

Tara Smith · 17 November 2005

Just interesting, from a local newspaper report

— Renier
Interesting. I think peptide antibiotics would be a better way to go, but we'll have to see. I hate it when people say stuff like this, though:

Cipla Medpro medical director Dr Nic de Jongh said the key difference from antibiotics was that lactic acid bacteria were already present in the body, which meant they were definitely safe.

Bah. Yes, commensals are usually our friends. But just because something is "already present in the body," it doesn't mean it's "definitely safe" ! Many of us carry Staph aureus and Strep pyogenes, but they're not "definitely safe." Just my annoyance...

Wislu Plethora · 17 November 2005

lactic acid bacteria were already present in the body, which meant they were definitely safe.

Stomach acid isn't even "safe" in the esophagus. Just because matter is "safe" in isolation in the body doesn't mean it's safe in general.

Renier · 18 November 2005

Well, it's a good thing that they seem clear on the scientific method, therefore clearly state that lots of testing still needs to be done. Just think, if ID people did this it would be "Something designed the peptides to be used by humans, and since the designer is intelligent we can ASSUME it is safe. Bring the needle!" :-)

Question. What are the odds that we will start finding bacteria strains that learns (evolves) to resist the peptides?

Tim Hague · 18 November 2005

t-shirt slogans

— Sir_ToeJam
How about 'Darth Darwin' or 'Darth Darwin's Apprentice' I like 'ID Scientit' as well (nice fundie typo that)

Tara Smith · 18 November 2005

Question. What are the odds that we will start finding bacteria strains that learns (evolves) to resist the peptides?

That's really hard to say. A lot would likely depend on how they'd be used--if they were saved as a kind of "last line of defense," it might take a long time. Or there may be some out there already that are resistant, and could transfer this to others, making them all but useless in no time. But odds are good that at *some* point if they're used commercially, resistance will appear.