Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Bacterial and Viral Evolution

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    ... Exactly. There is always some resistance to most antibiotics among the variations present in a population of bacteria. When the antibiotics are
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On 31 Oct 2002 at 21:32, Winston wrote:

      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Mike Sims
      > To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:51 PM
      > Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Genetics + Evolution Proved.
      >
      > If anti-biotics were NOT introduced into the host,
      > would there still be bacteria evolving which are
      > resistant to anti-biotics? IOW, Is the *resistance*
      > random and NOT a result of the ati-biotics themselves?
      > It's just that the anti-biotics enhance natural
      > selection (speed it up) in the bacterium?

      Exactly. There is always some resistance to most antibiotics among
      the variations present in a population of bacteria. When the
      antibiotics are introduced, it is those with the most resistance who
      survive. And, in each generation that is exposed to the antibiotic,
      any mutation that arises that further enhances the organism's ability
      to deal with the antibiotic will also be strongly selected for.
      Among billions and even trillions of reproductions occurring in any
      given population (i.e. hosted by you), there are bound to be some
      variants that are quite a bit better at it than their parents. If
      those manage to survive and infect other hosts, then the antibiotic
      will, in time, become useless as this particular strain becomes
      ubiquitous. Sometimes you can pull their fangs by giving the
      antibiotic in question a holiday. A better way might be to evolve
      phages that will eat the bacteria. The phages are better able to
      stay on top of the game because they, too, are evolving.

      Dave Oldridge
      ICQ 1800667
    • Winston C. Moran
      ... Yep. Most, if not all cold sores are due to herpes. IIRC, over 80% of the population carries some form of herpes. There is, of course, the more virulent
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In DebunkCreation@y..., Mike Sims <mikesims10670@y...> wrote:
        > You know ... about three times a year, I get a cold
        > sore on my lip in exactly the same place. I use an
        > ointment called Zovirax, which, when applied early
        > enough, keeps the worst part of the outbreak to a
        > minimum. I am told that this is the herpes virus.


        Yep. Most, if not all cold sores are due to herpes. IIRC, over 80%
        of the population carries some form of herpes. There is, of course,
        the more virulent and sexually trasmitted Herpes Simplex 1 Virus,
        that is not as ubiquitous as the more benign types.


        >
        > My question is, How does this critter live in my body,
        > why doesn't my immune system get rid of it, and will
        > there ever be a way to completely kill it?

        I don't know a whole lot about Herpes, but my *guess* is that the
        virus finds refuge in certain types of cells and remains dormant
        until the immune system is weakened due to stress or other factors.
        By finding refuge and remaining dormant the viri avoid the immune
        system altogether.

        One thing to keep in mind is that the immune system performs one hell
        of a balancing act: It must attack invaders of many different types,
        while NOT attacking its own cells. If the immune system misfires, it
        will cause many types of auto-immune diseases. Unfortunately, this
        does happen to some people, and leads to diseases such as Lupus. So
        it's not easy for the immune system to target all cells where the
        viri are "hiding" because that can be detrimental to the host. This
        is why many pathogens live in us. They use our immune system to their
        advantage, and when given a chance they may sprout again.

        However, during the course of evolution, some of these one-time
        pathogens may in fact be helpful. Symbiosis occurs when a host and
        invader reach an "agreement". THe invader agrees not to spread
        everywhere, and we agree not to attack the invader. In return, the
        invader provides a barrier against pathogens by competing for
        resources, and even synthesizing some of our enzymes. Again, all of
        this makes sense in light of evolution.

        Winston
      • Winston C. Moran
        ... A better way might be to evolve ... Recently, I saw a TV program where they show a clinic in Russia that uses phages to treat a variety of
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In DebunkCreation@y..., Dave Oldridge <doldridg@h...> wrote:

          <snip>

          A better way might be to evolve
          > phages that will eat the bacteria. The phages are better able to
          > stay on top of the game because they, too, are evolving.


          Recently, I saw a TV program where they show a clinic in Russia that
          uses phages to treat a variety of infections. Apparently, some
          studies are now on-going here in the U.S. I see no reason why we
          could not evolve a group of phages capable of taking care of many of
          the now resistant bacterial infections. The nice thing about the
          phages is that they are specific to the bacteria, and are incapable
          of infecting mamalian cells.

          Careful application of these would be a great boon to our medicine.
          I would guess, though, that some of the pharmaceuticals that benefit
          from selling their anti-biotics may not be too keen on phages. ;>

          Winston
        • Dave Oldridge
          ... Yep saw the same show....and as long as we are threatened by the bacteria, the phages would actually benefit from our culturing them. ... Maybe, but it s
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On 1 Nov 2002 at 14:13, Winston C. Moran wrote:

            > --- In DebunkCreation@y..., Dave Oldridge <doldridg@h...> wrote:
            >
            > <snip>
            >
            > A better way might be to evolve
            > > phages that will eat the bacteria. The phages are better able to
            > > stay on top of the game because they, too, are evolving.
            >
            >
            > Recently, I saw a TV program where they show a clinic in Russia that
            > uses phages to treat a variety of infections. Apparently, some
            > studies are now on-going here in the U.S. I see no reason why we
            > could not evolve a group of phages capable of taking care of many of
            > the now resistant bacterial infections. The nice thing about the
            > phages is that they are specific to the bacteria, and are incapable of
            > infecting mamalian cells.

            Yep saw the same show....and as long as we are threatened by the
            bacteria, the phages would actually benefit from our culturing them.


            > Careful application of these would be a great boon to our medicine. I
            > would guess, though, that some of the pharmaceuticals that benefit
            > from selling their anti-biotics may not be too keen on phages.

            Maybe, but it's science and it's medicine. They can probably get on
            track and patent their own phages.

            Dave Oldridge
            ICQ 1800667
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.