So the Discovery Institute's most recent addition has chosen to reply to my post about tautologies. (Once again, I'm not linking to him; I will not willingly be a source of hits for the DI website when they're promoting dangerous ingorance like this.) Typically, he manages to totally miss the point:
Darwinist blogger and computer scientist MarkCC (why don't they use their real names?) called me a lot of names a couple of days ago. The most profane was that I am a 'bastion of s***headed ignorance.' Profanity seems to be a particular problem with the computer-math Darwinists. A dysfunctional clad, perhaps. They're dysfunctional because, as Aristotle wrote, effective rhetoric has three characteristics: logos, ethos, and pathos. Effective rhetoric appeals to the best in reason, ethics, and emotion. When I'm called unprintable names merely for expressing my skepticism about the relevance of Darwin's theory to the practice of medicine, I've already won the 'ethos' and 'pathos' skirmishes. I can concentrate on the logos.
Yes, Dr. Egnor. Let's make sure that we focus on issues of style rather than substance. Because we both know that you have nothing to say in response to the substance of my criticism of your pigheaded ignorance.
First - I do go by my real name. As anyone who takes the most cursory glance at my blog can see, my name is "Mark Chu-Carroll", but since that's a bit long, I tend to use the abbrevation of my email address: MarkCC. Not that what name I go by has anything to do with the points I made, but since Egnor feels that the fact that I abbreviate my name is an issue worth commenting on, I thought it was worth pointing out what an idiotic comment it is - particularly since it's quite clear that it's part of a tactic: distract the reader, by focusing on irrelevant issues like style, in order to obscure the fact that he has nothing to say about the actual issues that were included in the post he's allegedly responding to.
Second - I don't consider myself a "darwinist blogger". I consider myself a math blogger with basic literacy in science. And anyone who's actually literate in science recognizes the reality of the process of evolution. Calling someone a darwinist is part of the ongoing campaign by the DI and their cohorts to paint anyone who recognizes scientific fact as part of some kind of fanatical pseudo-religious movement of Darwin worship.
And third - another style versus substance issue. Yes, I used profanity in my criticism of Dr. Egnor. When I watch someone who I care deeply about suffering, and someone like Dr. Egnor dismisses the cause of his suffering with a pigheadedly ignorant casual handwave, I get rather pissed off. Dr. Egnor isn't personally responsible for my father's illness. But people like Dr. Egnor, with their practice of casually dismissing the ongoing process that produced the bacteria that nearly killed my father, are, to a great deal, responsible for the way that these highly resistant bacteria have developed and proliferated over the last several years.
Mark took umbrage at my podcast comment that Darwinism wasn't indispensable to understanding antibiotic resistance in bacteria. His father seems to have had a very hard time with a resistant strain of bacteria, and he blames me and my view of Darwinism, sort of. I've treated thousands of people with serious infections, and I've dealt, in a very first-hand way, with the difficulties of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. I'm sorry about his dad's illness. But Mark hasn't shown any real insight into medicine or into what doctors actually need to understand in order to deal with serious infections.
Actually, Dr. Egnore is the one who isn't showing much real insight into the science of the biology that underlies his medical practice. He wants to wave his hands around, shout "tautology, tautology" as if it actually said anything about the actual science, and pretend that the cause of antibiotic resistance is no big deal, nothing to worry about.
And that brings us to the point that Egnor continues to either ignore or handwave his way past. 20 years ago, there were virtually no widespread strains of staphylococcus that were resistant to multiple antibiotics. 10 years ago, multiply resistant strains were becoming common - but staph infections that were resistant to methicillin and vancomycin were quite rare. Today, methicillin resistant staph is common - infection with methicillin-resistant staph is one of the most common complications from major surgery in American hospitals. How did that happen? The answer is: evolution.
Dr. Egnor wants to ignore that, by dismissing the undeniable fact of the process of change in common bacteria as a tautology: "Bacteria that don't get killed by antibiotics don't get killed by antibiotics". Yes, that is a tautology. But as I pointed out in my previous post, any legitimate scientific theory can be stated as a tautology. And in this case, that tautology is the most remarkably clear statement of exactly what's happening to common bacteria. We overuse antibiotics; the bacteria that don't get killed by the antibiotics don't get killed by antibiotics, and so they're the ones that reproduce and spread. Repeat that process for a couple of decades, and you get bacterial straints like the staph strain that infected my father - a bacteria that's resistant to all penicillin family antibiotics, to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation cephalosporins, to methicillin, and to vancomycin.
Dr. Egnor also wants to ignore the fact that the staph strain that infected my father is dramatically different than the staph strains of 20 years ago. It's got a different cell-wall structure; it uses different enzymes for a variety of its reproductive functions. Through his denial of the reality of evolution, Dr. Egnore further ignores the simple fact that by careless prescription that doesn't consider evolutionary effects, he's helping to produce the truly terrifying superbug: at the moment, there are two distinct mechanisms that produce dramatic multiple antibiotic resistance: glycopeptide resistance, and β-lactam resistant. At the moment, we haven't seen single straigns of bacteria with both glycopeptide and β-lactam resistance modes. But we know the genetics - and there is nothing incompatible between the glycopeptide resistance mutation and the β-lactam resistance mutation. A staph strain with both of those would, effectively, be entirely resistant to pretty much every antibiotic we know of. Good doctors are incredibly careful about how they use antibiotics - to make sure that they do not do anything that's likely to help produce this terrifying new potential strain.
Do Doctors need to be aware of evolution? Does awareness of evolution have anything to do with how Doctors should respond to infections? As an answer, let me tell you a bit about what my children's pediatrician has told us:
- As a pediatrician, she does not routinely prescribe antibiotics. For a basically healthy child, no matter what the infection, she won't prescribe antibiotics for at least 4 days, to give the child's immune system a chance to defeat the infection on its own.
- She does not prescribe antibiotics for any illness until there is hard proof that it's caused by bacteria.
- When she prescribes antibiotics, she does it in a very strict way. The first prescription for a child without drug allergies is always penicillin.
- After the first time that they prescribe antibiotics, the practice keeps careful track of exactly what has been prescribed to which child when; they follow a strict rotation process with antibiotics to try to not repeatedly prescribe the same antibiotic to a child within a six-month period.
Why such a strict process? Because bacteria are evolving resistance to antibiotics. By following a strict process like this, they minimize the quantity of antibiotics that they prescribe, and they try to prevent a chronically ill child from becoming a walking incubator of resistant bacteria. (And yes, when talking about this, she does specifically say that bacteria are evolving resistance.)
So - yes, I do blame Dr. Egnor's way of thinking for my father's illness. By ignoring the fact of evolution within bacteria, his mode of thinking about these problems provides the common excuses and practices that have led to the modern crisis in antibiotic resistance.
And in response to this, Egnor basically continues to wave his hands around, denying reality, taking refuge behind semantic games.
Mark, your dad's illness didn't happen because his doctor didn't know enough about random mutation and natural selection. Our battle against bacterial resistance to antibiotics depends on the study of the intricate molecular strategies bacteria use to fight antibiotics, and our development of new antibiotics is a process of designing drugs to counter the bacterial strategies. We use molecular biology, microbiology, and pharmacology. We understand that bacteria aren't killed by antibiotics that they're resistant to. We understand tautologies. Darwin isn't a big help here.
No, my father's illness didn't happen because his doctor didn't know enough about evolution. His surgeon is actually quite aware of the process by which resistant bacteria are evolving, and takes as many reasonable steps as he can to both combat resistant bacteria in his patients, and to avoid contributing to the evolution of more resistant bacteria. But his illness is the result of the actions of many doctors - doctors like Dr. Egnore who ignore reality, and don't practice medicine with an awareness of how their actions contribute to the evolution of the other species that surround us. It's people like Dr. Egnor who hand out antibiotics like candy, because after all, bacteria don't evolve, and so their prescription practices can't possibly contribute to a process that doesn't happen. It's people like Dr. Egnore who's attitudes allow the use of third generation cephalosporins - which are restricted for use in humans - to be used in cattle feed. Because after all, evolution doesn't happen, so what harm can it possible do to have volumes of these antibiotics floating in the manure pools that are used to produce the fertilizer that used to grow the vegetables we eat?
No, Dr. Egnor. You do not understand tautologies. You do not understand science. And you are a disgrace to your profession, and a danger to your patients.
Not to mention that you're an asshole.
Comments
Egnor seems to be happy making up his own personal theory how antibiotic resistance magically appears, rather than using the vast body of scientific evidence -- and medical evidence.
I suppose he teaches that each prysician should come up with his own theories about illnesses and cures. Like, say, Evil Spirits.
Posted by: _Arthur | March 17, 2007 10:09 PM
MarkCC said: "No, Dr. Egnor. You do not understand tautologies. You do not understand science. And you are a disgrace to your profession, and a danger to your patients."
To give credit where it's due, he seems to be a fine neurosurgeon from the couple of reports I've read regarding surgical cases of his.
Regarding his antibiotics prescribing practices, since I don't know what they are, I can't say whether he's a danger to his (and others') patients in that regard. I would imagine there are antibiotics prescribing protocols at the facilities where he works that he most likely follows.
Regarding the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, my working theory would be the old reliable "Never attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by stupidity." That is, I'd guess that over-prescription of particular antibiotics can be explained less well by some anti-evolution movement among physicians, than by office staff accustomed to filling out prescription pads for the same drugs pushed by the same companies' pharmaceutical salesmen and time-pressed doctors scrawling signatures on those prescriptions with their attention focused elsewhere.
"Not to mention that you're an asshole."
I'd have to agree there. There certainly seems to be a political-religious agenda behind the particular instances (Terri Schiavo, evolution) where this doctor who apparently knows full well what constitutes proper medical and scientific evidence (he's published papers in professional journals in his field) chooses to ignore science and logic in favor of rhetorical nonsense.
Posted by: Jud | March 17, 2007 10:31 PM
Well done Mark. Topical, direct, and on point.
Posted by: John Wilkins | March 17, 2007 11:05 PM
Dr. Egnor is an asshole. He knows full well he is wrong. I guess he is trying to get some money from the ID people. If he was ever my doctor I would fire him. He did say one thing I agree with...."Darwin isn't a big help here.", that is because Darwin is no longer alive. On the otherhand both gentics and understanding evolution is very helpfull in combating and understanding bacteria evolution. :-)
Posted by: Anonymous | March 17, 2007 11:41 PM
Your kids do seem to have a reasonably aware pediatrician. Good for her.
Posted by: bad Jim | March 18, 2007 3:41 AM
I don't understand how it is that you can explain, in a few paragraphs, a phenomenon that I had never heard of before, and have it make perfect sense to me and convince me that this is a major problem, and yet there are people out there who have the biological background to really understand the details and yet simply refuse to believe it.
Not to mention that Dr. Egnor's explanation of how the problem should be dealt with seems to be nothing more than pigheadedness. Yes, I can see that studying "the intricate molecular strategies bacteria use to fight antibiotics" and using this knowledge to create new antibiotics is a good idea, but why ignore a medical practice that might help, and certainly won't hurt? Are there any potential dangers to rotating antibiotics, or any reason not to do it other than some additional paperwork?
Posted by: Susan B. | March 18, 2007 3:53 AM
Egnor Dissembled thusly:
Darwinist blogger and computer scientist MarkCC...
If ever Egnor's intellectual dishonesty were to be laid bare, this is it. He apparently understand mathematics and mathematicians even less than he understands evolution. Mathematicians could give a flying fuck about Darwin per se. All they care about is the math, just ask Noam Chomsky. He was surprised when presenting his ideas to a group of mathematicians, how little they were interested in his lack of credentials, and how much interest they had in his math. If the math didn't back evolution, the mathematicians like MarkCC would be against it, it is as simple as that.
Egnor and his ilk know their political agenda can't handle the formidable implications of such things as divergent fields like mathematics and biology independently verifying each other on the subject of evolution. So they have to invent the "Darwinist Comspiracy" to try to explain it away. The problem is that the idea of a conspiracy between the science bloggers evaporates instantly the moment one examines their frequent and sometimes heated disagreements on a whole host of issues. Notice how little you see of that on creationist/intelligent design sites.
A blind man could see this with a cane. The only conspiracy among scientists is to deal with the evidence. The conspiracy among Egnor and the rest of the creationists/Iders is to pretend there is a conspiracy any time the evidence goes against them.
Posted by: MarkP | March 18, 2007 3:57 AM
I have a modest proposal.
Instead of calling ID advocates, ID advocates, we should call them "Johnsonites" in honor of Philip Johnson.
It's my opinion that calling advocates of the theory of evolution, "Darwinists" is an attempt to reduce a working scientific theory to a cult of personality.
We should return the favor.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | March 18, 2007 6:08 AM
It seems as if you good doctor is ignorant of a vast amount of literature. Here are a few examples (cross-posted to Mike's blog) - the list is pretty much endless:
Woodford, N. and Ellington, M.J. (2007) The emergence of antibiotic resistance by mutation. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 13, 5-18.
The emergence of mutations in nucleic acids is one of the major factors underlying evolution, providing the working material for natural selection. Most bacteria are haploid for the vast majority of their genes and, coupled with typically short generation times, this allows mutations to emerge and accumulate rapidly, and to effect significant phenotypic changes in what is perceived to be real-time. Not least among these phenotypic changes are those associated with antibiotic resistance. Mechanisms of horizontal gene spread among bacterial strains or species are often considered to be the main mediators of antibiotic resistance. However, mutational resistance has been invaluable in studies of bacterial genetics, and also has primary clinical importance in certain bacterial species, such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Helicobacter pylori, or when considering resistance to particular antibiotics, especially to synthetic agents such as fluoroquinolones and oxazolidinones. In addition, mutation is essential for the continued evolution of acquired resistance genes and has, e.g., given rise to over 100 variants of the TEM family of beta-lactamases. Hypermutator strains of bacteria, which have mutations in genes affecting DNA repair and replication fidelity, have elevated mutation rates. Mutational resistance emerges de novo more readily in these hypermutable strains, and they also provide a suitable host background for the evolution of acquired resistance genes in vitro. In the clinical setting, hypermutator strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been isolated from the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, but a more general role for hypermutators in the emergence of clinically relevant antibiotic resistance in a wider variety of bacterial pathogens has not yet been proven.
Roumagnac, P. et al. (2006) Evolutionary history of Salmonella typhi. Science, 314, 1301-1304
For microbial pathogens, phylogeographic differentiation seems to be relatively common. However, the neutral population structure of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi reflects the continued existence of ubiquitous haplotypes over millennia. In contrast, clinical use of fluoroquinolones has yielded at least 15 independent gyrA mutations within a decade and stimulated clonal expansion of haplotype H58 in Asia and Africa. Yet, antibiotic-sensitive strains and haplotypes other than H58 still persist despite selection for antibiotic resistance. Neutral evolution in Typhi appears to reflect the asymptomatic carrier state, and adaptive evolution depends on the rapid transmission of phenotypic changes through acute infections.
Nilsson, A.I. et al. (2006) Reducing the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance by amplification of initiator tRNA genes. PNAS, 103, 6976-6981.
Deformylase inhibitors belong to a novel antibiotic class that targets peptide deformylase, a bacterial enzyme that removes the formyl group from N-terminal methionine in nascent polypeptides. Using the bacterium Salmonella enterica, we isolated mutants with resistance toward the peptide deformylase inhibitor actinonin. Resistance mutations were identified in two genes that are required for the formylation of methionyl (Met) initiator tRNA (tRNAi)(fMet): the fmt gene encoding the enzyme methionyl-tRNA formyltransferase and the folD gene encoding the bifunctional enzyme methylenetetrahydrofolate-dehydrogenase and -cyclohydrolase. In the absence of antibiotic, these resistance mutations conferred a fitness cost that was manifested as a reduced growth rate in laboratory medium and in mice. By serially passaging the low-fitness mutants in growth medium without antibiotic, the fitness costs could be partly ameliorated either by intragenic mutations in the fmt/folD genes or by extragenic compensatory mutations. Of the extragenically compensated fmt mutants, approximately one-third carried amplifications of the identical, tandemly repeated metZ and metW genes, encoding tRNAi. The increase in metZW gene copy number varied from 5- to 40-fold and was accompanied by a similar increase in tRNAi levels. The rise in tRNAi level compensated for the lack of methionyl-tRNA formyltransferase activity and allowed translation initiation to proceed with nonformylated methionyl tRNAi. Amplified units varied in size from 1.9 to 94 kbp. Suppression of deleterious mutations by gene amplification may be involved in the evolution of new gene functions.
Courvalin, P. (2005) Antimicrobial drug resistance: "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future". Emerging Infectious Disease, 11, 1503-1506.
Evolution of bacteria towards resistance to antimicrobial drugs, including multidrug resistance, is unavoidable because it represents a particular aspect of the general evolution of bacteria that is unstoppable. Therefore, the only means of dealing with this situation is to delay the emergence and subsequent dissemination of resistant bacteria or resistance genes. Resistance to antimicrobial drugs in bacteria can result from mutations in housekeeping structural or regulatory genes. Alternatively, resistance can result from the horizontal acquisition of foreign genetic information. The 2 phenomena are not mutually exclusive and can be associated in the emergence and more efficient spread of resistance. This review discusses the predictable future of the relationship between antimicrobial drugs and bacteria.
Denamur, E. et al. (2005) Intermediate mutation frequencies favor evolution of multidrug resistance in Escherichia coli. Genetics, 171, 825-827.
In studying the interplay between mutation frequencies and antibiotic resistance among Escherichia coli natural isolates, we observed that modest modifications of mutation frequency may significantly influence the evolution of antibiotic resistance. The strains having intermediate mutation frequencies have significantly more antibiotic resistances than strains having low and high mutation frequencies.
Posted by: SteveF | March 18, 2007 7:42 AM
I don't think so. I think he's so blinded by his religious beliefs that he honestly, genuinely believes that evolution has nothing to do with antibiotic resistance. Of course, as Mike the Mad Biologist pointed out, he actually describes the evolution of bacterial resistance fairly well; he simply labels it as "not evolution."
Posted by: Orac | March 18, 2007 8:07 AM
Heh. I wonder what he'll say about me if he ever deigns to address my challenge. Of course, I'd be happy to e-mail him my "real" name if he e-mails me to request it. Or he could just ask DaveScot.
Posted by: Orac | March 18, 2007 8:08 AM
May I suggest that against religionists one has to use arguments which they can understand?
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
Friedrich von Schiller
German dramatist & poet (1759 - 1805)
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 18, 2007 8:18 AM
A note on acceptance of evolution and overprescription of antibiotics:
I live in the Czech Republic, where acceptance of evolution is at something like 85%, reckon more like 99% of those with postsecondary degrees. So you would reckon that physicians would think about diseases in evolutionary terms and be careful about antibiotic prescription? WRONG. Every time I get bloody anything it seems, I get a script for Augmentin. I have one unopened pack in the fridge, a couple years past expiry, and I've never bothered to fill the others, because I've never had a culture taken and even the doc giving the prescription admitted that what I had was viral, but said I should take the meds anyway 'just in case.' And this is very common practice here--the only advantage I see is in a placebo effect, because most Czechs I know firmly believe their dreadful cold or bronchitis or 'angina' (I'm still trying to figure out what that is, since it has nothing to do with the heart) gets better once they start antibiotics.
Concerns over bacteria developing resistance are just not part of the medical paradigm here, at least for GPs, though the younger docs might be more savvy, as I think the med school curriculum here has recently got out of the 50s.
Oh, Orac would also love the amount of herbal meds my GP recommends...
Then there was my chronic otitis externa, which I finally went to an ENT for. Even though she took a culture and no pathogens were found, just ordinary skin bacteria, she still put me on antibiotic drops. For months. All this time I'd noticed--pardon if this is TMI--black residue in my ear, looking for all the world like shower mold, but I thought, heck, if there was such a thing as fungal otitis externa, my ENT would know about it, wouldn't she?
After 6 months of this, I finally Googled around for it and found an NHS site that said that most chronic otitis externa is fungal and that antibiotics are contraindicated. I still haven't got rid of the condition completely but I keep it well under control with supermarket 8% vinegar diluted 3:1, as per a pharmacist friend's advice (you cannot get acetic acid ear drops in this country).
Posted by: Antiquated Tory | March 18, 2007 8:55 AM
MarkCC,
Well stated and clear explanation of the evolutionary effects of selection induced by antibiotic use. Your pediatrician shows appropriate acumen in this area.
Another example from an area that I am more familiar with by experience is the rotation of pesticide use in raising foods. If one uses the same pesticide over and over again all you will accomplish is the creation of insects that will eventually eat your pesticide for breakfast and your crop for lunch. If you rotate the use of different pesticides you can mitigate the evolutionary effects of pesticide induced selection and probably raise your crop with fewer pesticide applications at lower concentrations. These effects have been known in agriculture for about a hundred years.
Where has the good doctor been? The practical applications of an understanding of evolutionary theory are everywhere.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | March 18, 2007 8:59 AM
The inherent stupidity and implied ignorance of Mr. Egnor's last quote is truly mind-boggling. I think, by his own logic, Egnor could be succesfully sued for malpractice by a savvy and shrewd attorney if one of his patients developed a resistant infection.
I guess multidrug resistant tuberculosis has always been around, too. What a complete tool.
Posted by: Jeb Baugh | March 18, 2007 9:42 AM
One thing that Egnore seems to be avoiding is that, while a simple statement of evolutionary theory may be tautological, there are also the quantitative and descriptive aspects of it. It not only says that "bacteria that aren't killed aren't killed", it says that, "If X% of bacteria aren't killed when you prescribe Y, then in N generations, you can expect 99% of bacterial to be resistant to Y" (like you say, the worst math is no math); and that "the mechanism behind the development of resistandce is a mutation in gene A, which will produce effects B C and D"
Posted by: James | March 18, 2007 9:49 AM
Jud:
I don't mean to suggest that there's anything like a deliberate conspiracy to misprescribe antibiotics in a way that leads towards the evolution of resistance. What I'm trying to say is that the willful ignorance and stupidity of people like Egnor causes foolish behavior: if you don't believe that bacteria are evolving, you're likely (out of nothing more than pure laziness) to not be as careful about how you prescribe antibiotics. If you look at my description of what my kids' pediatrician does, it's a lot of work to prescribe antibiotics properly. If you don't believe in the danger, you're not going to do the work. And if you look at prescription records and patterns, you'll find that the majority of practicing physicians still are not doing it.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 9:58 AM
bad Jim:
Yes, our pediatrician is wonderful. We're crazy about her :-) But it's no surprise really; she's a member of the teaching faculty at Mount Sinai in NYC. We found her by recommendation from my internist, who is also a Mt. Sinai faculty member.
We've learned, the hard way, that there is a huge difference in average quality between random doctors in private practice in the suburbs, and faculty members at teaching hospitals. (Not that there aren't great doctors in private practice - just that the average private practice doctor isn't nearly as good as the average teaching faculty doctor.) A few years back, before my kids were born, I had surgery for severe gastric reflux. About a year after the surgery, I developed a bunch of weird and extremely painful symptoms. I spent two years dealing with suburban doctors, going through every horrible test you can imagine, making no progress on figuring out what was wrong or what to do about it. I finally agreed to see the doctor who is now my internist, out of desparation. One visit, and she knew exactly what was wrong; got on the phone to get me an immediate appointment with a gastroenterologist whose research focused on exactly my problem; and one visit with him, and the problem was solved. Two years of suburban doctors => no progress; 2 *days* of faculty doctors => solution.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 10:05 AM
For those who think anti-biotic resistance is evidence for evolution, please read the following:
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?- In a word- No.
And please check out the credentials of the author.
Also ID is NOT anti-evolution. If anything ID could be considered anti-the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over the evolutionary process. As Dr Behe stated:
Posted by: JoeG | March 18, 2007 10:39 AM
In line with Jim51's comment, I read a disturbing story recently. Apparently weeds have not been able to adapt to the herbicide Roundup. Unfortunately, Roundup also kills some desired plants. Now some people have found bacteria with a resistance to Roundup and are attempting to transfer the resistant gene to "good" plants. Am I wrong in thinking that this is just asking for trouble?
Posted by: clem | March 18, 2007 10:58 AM
JoeG: we can't read that, because you didn't give the link.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 18, 2007 11:02 AM
There is no link embedded in the text, so I presume you are the author. Whatever credentials you may have, you are not willing to cite on your blog, which simply says that you "fix things". Come back when you have something credible to offer.
Mark, this post is one of my all-time favorites (up there with Cosmic Variance's "Dark Matter Exists" post).
Posted by: JimV | March 18, 2007 11:05 AM
JoeG:
The link you point at is an exercise in deceptive nonsense. It actually admits to evolution as the cause of bacterial antibiotic resistance - but then redefines evolution so as to exclude what's happening to bacteria. It's pure semantic word-play to avoid the inescapable truth.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 11:23 AM
MarkCC: I don't want to talk past each other here, because I agree with everything you've said. I just want to bring out a slightly different point related to Antiquated Tory's comment above.
That is, I agree with the following: "If you look at my description of what my kids' pediatrician does, it's a lot of work to prescribe antibiotics properly. If you don't believe in the danger, you're not going to do the work."
And I also agree with this: "And if you look at prescription records and patterns, you'll find that the majority of practicing physicians still are not doing it."
But I'm not inclined to think that the majority of what we see in prescription patterns is caused by doctors not believing there's a danger. (Of course, my thinking could readily be changed by data.) Rather, I think that although most doctors realize the danger (including Dr. Egnor, though he is, as usual on subjects to do with evolution, quite deliberately not "getting it"), a minority are both willing and able to do the level of office organization necessary to take the precautions your pediatrician does.
Additionally, I agree that doctors who decry evolutionary theory, beyond blinding themselves to the supporting scientific and medical data, are working against lifesaving medical progress in areas such as the acceptance of prescribing patterns that will minimize bacterial evolution of antibiotic resistance.
Posted by: Jud | March 18, 2007 11:24 AM
Posted by: mark | March 18, 2007 11:25 AM
Denying evolution is as dangerous and as profoundly stupid as denying the germ theory of disease. Is disease a more complex concept than Pasteur realized? Of course. But that's no excuse not to wash your hands, maintain sterile technique, and avoid dissecting corpses immediately before aiding in childbirth.
In a sane and rational world, Dr. Egnor would be locked away for the protection of society.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2007 11:37 AM
Clem,
Your comment...
"Now some people have found bacteria with a resistance to Roundup and are attempting to transfer the resistant gene to "good" plants. Am I wrong in thinking that this is just asking for trouble?"
The short answer to your question is *I am unsure, but concerned.* It seems that horizontal gene transfers have been quite common in the history of life. At least one prominent biologist (Margulis) is convinced that symbiogenesis is a primary source of evolutionary innovation. It seems well accepted that there have been bacterial and viral genetic insertions into the human genome as well. So I am concerned that as we create genetically modified organisms we may create things with a life of their own with potentially unforeseen consequences.
I am out of my depth here, so I too would welcome comments and references from others that may help me learn more.
JIm51
Posted by: Jim51 | March 18, 2007 11:37 AM
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
This is NOT deceptive nonsense to those who understand what is being debated. "Evolution" has several meanings.
Even in the strictest YEC model of biological evolution variation is allowed. IOW bacteria "evolving" into bacteria is OK. Linneaus was searching for the "Created Kind" when he gave us binomial nomenclature. He put the "Kind" at the level of "Genus"- meaning speciation is OK in the YEC model of "variation within the 'Kind'".
"Evolution" is NOT the question. Nor is it being debated. What is being debated is whether or not "the blind watchmaker" has SOLE dominion over the evolutionary process.
IOW did populations "evolve" solely by culled genetic accidents - or were they designed to evolve?
And what Dr Egnor is saying is that it is unnecessary to think that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor because such a premise is not demonstratable in a lab nor in the wild and effective cures need to be demonstratable in both.
So I take it "the inescapable truth" is you don't know what is being debated, you don't care to know and that when presented with "the inescapable truth" you sit there and deny it.
Thank you.
Posted by: JoeG | March 18, 2007 11:44 AM
Dominion? I don't think you've quite grasped the concept, JoeG.
The whole point is that culling genetic variation is sufficient to explain the diversity we see - and there's no evidence whatsoever for a magic sky man with dominion who done it.
See The History of Creationist Thought
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2007 11:54 AM
What a load of crap, Joe. If ID is so compatible with standard evolutionary theory, why does nearly every IDist rant conclude with "therefore, evolution is wrong and a Designer did it"? Why do IDists spend all their time attacking "Darwinist" straw men rather than proving the utility of their design inference? For Designer's sake, how do you explain the wedge document?
And, for the record, ID is the watchmaker argument. Why do you think a lot of the ScienceBloggers (PZ, at least) have started referring to "Paleyists". Paley's watchmaker argument is exactly the same as the ID argument: This Feature (e.g., watch in the sand, the eye, etc.) is not simple! Therefore, it was Designed.
Posted by: Joshua | March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
People who agree with Shelly Batts that religion is OKAY, this is for you, so you can better understand why religion must be stamped out...
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. 29 Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her
Deuteronomy 7:1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. 2 Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Leviticus 21: 9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire.
Shelly, I would like to buy into this Bible stuff like you do, but it seems too violent for modern society. Here is how a moderate Christian defends abortion...
"The Book of Exodus clearly indicates that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person (Chapter 21:22-23). That verse indicates that if a man pushes a pregnant woman and she then miscarries, he is required only to pay a fine. If the fetus were considered a full person, he would be punished more severely as though he had taken a life."
That is the kind of stuff that Christians like Shelley are fine letting others believe. Here is another example...
"By our deepest convictions about Christian standards and teaching, the war in Iraq was not just a well-intended mistake or only mismanaged. THIS WAR, FROM A CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW, IS MORALLY WRONG - AND WAS FROM THE VERY START. It cannot be justified with either the teachings of Jesus Christ OR the criteria of St. Augustine's just war. It simply doesn't pass either test and did not from its beginning. This war is not just an offense against the young Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice or to the Iraqis who have paid such a horrible price. This war is not only an offense to the poor at home and around the world who have paid the price of misdirected resources and priorities. This war is also an offense against God."
Seems like that Christian has actually arrived at the right destination (one of the few who has), AMAZING! I guess the only problem remaining here is the compass (RELIGION), which can be unreliable and is easily misinterpreted.
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/
Leviticus 20: 27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.
Cheers to PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (and myself), who can see the danger in sadistic "fairy tales".
Posted by: Augustine | March 18, 2007 12:03 PM
JoeG said: Also ID is NOT anti-evolution
Then why are all their arguments variants of "here is a weakness in evolution"?
This is NOT deceptive nonsense to those who understand what is being debated.
It is on Trueorigin, isn't it? The whole site is deceptive nonsense.
Even in the strictest YEC model of biological evolution variation is allowed.
Your religiousity is leaking through again. Science doesn't "allow" or "not allow" things, that's what gods do.
IOW did populations "evolve" solely by culled genetic accidents - or were they designed to evolve?
To demonstrate that this is anything more than a semantic ploy, and is actual science, please give a hypothetical experimental result that would imply that latter, but not the former.
Posted by: MarkP | March 18, 2007 12:28 PM
I wonder what Egnor thinks about domestic animal breeding. For example the various strains of dogs are obviously bred to a purpose. How much of a leap is it between this and bacteria 'breeding' to with the ends of defeating antibiotics?
Posted by: Frank Furtive | March 18, 2007 12:33 PM
It's my experience generally that surgeons are as ignorant of infection as they are of bedside manner. Sterile fields are pretty much as far as they go: they rip the shit out of people's bodies, and then leave it to OTHER doctors to figure out the little issue of whether the patient will die of post-surgical infection or not.
Posted by: plunge | March 18, 2007 12:42 PM
Clem & Jim51 -
The situation with Roundup is even worse. Resistance was introduced over 10 years ago in several crops, including oilseed rape (canola). It has already escaped (certainly in Canada: I'm not sure about elsewhere): Oilseed rape is a weed in many places, and hte gene is likely to find itself in other brassicas as well (e.g. cabbage).
In one sense this isn't so bad: Monsanto make Roundup, and also the resistant crops. So the more resistant the weeds become, the less Roundup they get to sell.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 18, 2007 12:47 PM
If it comes from MarkP it must be deceptive nonsense. Pharyngula is deceptive nonsense. Also I am NOT a christian and don't have any "religiousity". Your ignoarnce is very telling. Read the article and check out the credentials of the author. Or wallow in your ignorance.
Start by reading "Not By Chance"...
The DI has explained "The Wedge Document" and it appears that only anti-ID zealots don't understand it:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349
IDists do NOT conclude "that evolution is wrong therefore a designer did it".
IDists take the data and weigh it against the options. That is what science should do. And one option is that we owe our existence to an intentional design. The anti-ID materialistic option is sheer dumb luck- including the laws that govern this physical realm. Either that or the metaphysical "the universe is 'just is'" (the way it is).
BTW "culling genetic variations" do NOT explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. Only wishful speculation does that.
Posted by: JoeG | March 18, 2007 12:59 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 18, 2007 1:01 PM
Sure it does. Mutation, selection, and drift -- that's all you need.
And why should I check out anyone's credentials? The ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 18, 2007 1:11 PM
Incorrect. Chance is only part of evolution - and 'luck' has nothing to do with chance in any formal sense. Chance produces variation, and selection winnows down the variation to the viable strategies. Sometimes chance can also affect the population gene pool directly, such as through genetic drift, but this has no tendency to produce adaptations of the kind you're so concerned about.
The genetic differences between chimps and humans are very small, as your behavior suggests. It would be quite easy for relatively modest evolutionary changes to lead to both from an earlier form.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 18, 2007 1:16 PM
What's up? Can't I post links?
Think about it. Once something can reproduce, mutate, and inherit, evolution is inescapable: due to mutation, there will be variation in the population, and the environment (in this case the antibiotics) will cause some part of this variation to have fewer surviving offspring than the rest (in this case by killing it). No design necessary. You are simply making an unnecessary assumption, and you know what scientists do with unnecessary assumptions, don't you.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 18, 2007 1:17 PM
Now the link in plain text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony
That's what scientists do with unnecessary assumptions.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 18, 2007 1:18 PM
David Marjanović:
Putting more than one link into a post will throw your post into the moderation queue. MarkCC is pretty good about getting legitimate posts out of the queue and into the threads where they belong, but given that he's not a superintelligent AI (like Orac), there may be a small delay.
You can sign in with a TypeKey identity and use more links (although I've had a TypeKey-authenticated message still get stuck in moderation at least once). The problem is that, at least for me, the comment shows up as "Anonymous".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 18, 2007 1:26 PM
Given some of the crap being posted on
Tara Smiths' blog by the HIV/AIDS deniers, which sounds much like the evolution deniers like Egnor, I wonder what his opinion is about HIV/AIDS. Since many of the clowns over at the Discovery Institute are also HIV/AIDS deniers (e.g. Johnson, Wells), it would be interesting to ascertain Dr. Egnors' views on the subject.
Posted by: SLC | March 18, 2007 2:28 PM
So Creationists agree that variation is okay, and that changes in frequency of variations over time is okay? And they don't deny that mutations occur?
So how much change is "allowed" before the Intelligent Designer says "Stop!--any further change would be considered evolution, and that is forbidden!" Certainly, details of the concept of species for bacteria can be argued, but I don't see any meaning to the idea that bacteria constitute only one "kind" in any sort of species (or genus) sense. Indeed, the notion of "kinds" is merely a means to help Creationists deny that evolution has occurred.
JoeG is also mistaken in his claim that ID is not anti-evolution. If that were true, then the ID Creationists would not be pursuing the "teach the gaps and weaknesses in evolution" strategy of trying to bring pseudoscientific nonesuch into public schools. They would instead be presenting scientific theory; that the Disco Institute now claims they do not wish for ID to be taught is evidence that there is no science there.
Posted by: mark | March 18, 2007 2:46 PM
Dr. Egnor would most certainly have learned evolutionary theory during his training. My training in the biological sciences overlapped much of the pre-med program and virtually every biology-related course involved coursework on evolution to some extent or another. Egnor's selective memory may not be a good practice when it comes to ignoring the role of evolution but certainly one he is capable of exercising. Perhaps this is why hospitals have taken the proactive step of protecting their legal asses from such ignorance by establishing a myriad of controls (such as rotating drug therapies). Egnor's selective egnorance is, in part, counteracted by the procedures and policies the hospitals employ.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2007 3:10 PM
Joe:
That may be the argument that you are interested in making. But it is clearly not the argument that Egnor is making, or that I'm discussing here.
Egnor states, in absolutely unambiguous terms, that "Darwinism" and "random mutation and natural selection" are complete irrelevant to antibiotic resistance.
That is clearly not an argument about whether there's an intelligent agent involved in the process of evolution - it's an absolute denial that evolution plays any role in, or has any relevance to, antibiotic resistance.
No. That it not what Egnor says. That might be what you want him to say - but it's not what he said. He has said, repeatedly, that evolution plays no role in antibiotic resistance.
An excellent summary of your own position. You're completely ignoring the actual debate that's taking place - that is, whether an evolutionary process plays any role in the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria - and instead debating whether or not there is an intelligent agent somehow involved in the evolutionary process.
Until Egnor admits that the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an evolutionary process, any debate about what form that evolutionary process takes is irrelevant.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 4:24 PM
JoeG galloped thusly:
If it comes from MarkP it must be deceptive nonsense. Pharyngula is deceptive nonsense.
None of those sources have a long track record of posting deceptions and distortions. Those creationist sites do, which is why I don't bother reading them.
The DI has explained "The Wedge Document" and it appears that only anti-ID zealots don't understand it
Dover dude, Dover. This has all been settled in the fairest arena our system has. Your side had their chance to defend themselves, and those that didn't bravely run away got shredded. You guys got caught with your pants down replacing "creationism" with "intelligent design", and we aren't going to forget it.
IDists do NOT conclude "that evolution is wrong therefore a designer did it".
They most certainly do, since that is the only argument they have. Again, this has already been exposed, repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again isn't going to persuade anyone. But I'm sure you impressed Duane Gish, because that was quite a gallop of unsupportable assertions.
Posted by: MarkP | March 18, 2007 4:27 PM
Joe:
So, you're supposedly not a Christian, but you swallow the nonsense from "trueorigins" without question; and you blindly dismiss anything from MarkP or PZ Myer, again without question; and you accuse MarkP and PZ of being deceptive without bothering to provide any support for your claims of their deceptiveness; and you defend Egnor's claims without even bothering to see what they actually are.
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 4:29 PM
Mustafa:
I appreciate your point about linking to Egnor's rants - and that's why I provide enough information in the article to make it easy to find his stuff if you really want to. But I won't provide direct links - direct links are effectively subsidizing the DI. I think that the information I provide is enough to be considered a citation of the source; but it doesn't provide an easy hit-boost to the DI pages.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 4:34 PM
Anyone else notice that Egnore misspelled 'clade'?
Posted by: slpage | March 18, 2007 4:40 PM
One last point in response to JoeD:
As I've said before: one of the really beautiful things about real math and science is that credential are irrelevant. Math and science stand on their own, on the quality of their evidence/proof.
A mathematical proof could be written by Grigori Perelman, or it could be written by a second-grader. It doesn't matter: a mathematical proof is either valid, or it isn't. If it's invalid, then it doesn't matter if someone as qualified and credentialled as Grigori Perelman wrote it - if it's got an error in it, anyone who pointed out that error would "outweigh" Perelman.
A scientific theory is based on the quality of its reasoning, and how well the theories predictions match observations of the real world. Again, it doesn't matter whether the theory is proposed by someone like Richard Feynman, or some 16 year old from East Podunk. The theory stands on the quality of its evidence and its predictions, not on the credentials of its author. If the 16-year old from East Podunk can do a better job of explaining the evidence than Richard Feynman, then even Feynman himself would have agreed that his theory should be discarded in favor of the better theory.
In the case of evolution, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. From fossil matches, to genetic sequences, to biochemistry and biochemical processes in living things, to developmental processes, to observed events - everything supports evolution from a common ancestor.
Try sitting down something and actually reading through some of the evidence for various clade trees. You can derive distinct heirarchical relations based on multiple different chemical markers, developmental similarities and differences, fossil evidence, and genetic similarities and differences - and then when you compare the resulting heirarchies, they'll be virtually identical. Multiple sources of evidence, interpreted via distinct processes will result in the same hierarchical ancestry relationships.
That's absolutely astonishing. It's incredibly compelling evidence, and no other theory that's been presented so far by anyone can explain that evidence, or predict that incredible perfect hierarchy at all, much less as well as the the theory of evolution.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 4:48 PM
And please check out the credentials of the author.
Check out JoeG's credentials - he is a 'scientist' because he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE.... in electronics engineering...
And liniing to creationist propaganda websire 'Trueorigins'? Fantastic!
And don't bother reading creationist Spetner's silly book - he thinks all proteins are enzymes, and has admitted that beneficial mutations occur. He's just trying to prop up his truly bizarre creationist position (such as all birds coming from 365 original kinds of bird and all mammals from 365 'kinds'....)
Posted by: slpage | March 18, 2007 4:49 PM
Developing new antibiotics takes TIME, and that seems to be what Egnore doesn't grasp. Sure, we'll always find new ones, but they don't appear or get approved over night.
By realizing that Evolution drives genetics, and being careful about when to proscribe antibiotics, we can limit the rapidity at which bacteria become immune. Take a drug out of rotation for awhile, and it is possible for it to become effective again.
But willy-nilly proscribing new drugs just because biochemists are hard at work developing new anti-biotics is dumb. It takes years. And with some of the new Staph strains out there majorly resistant to whole classes of antibiotics, it may only be a short period of time before a new superbug appears that is resistant to all existing antibiotics, and the possible new drugs to fight it are years away...
Now, I do think we should look into Phage treatments as well. When viruses co-evolve with the bacteria they predattate, immunity doesn't happen. The Russians have had some success, and I'd like to see more research in this field.
Posted by: Daniel | March 18, 2007 4:52 PM
slpage:
Emphasis added to phrase which nearly induced a spit take.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 18, 2007 5:36 PM
Wow.
I trust he's keeping track of his patients; anyone placed a bet on how fast he pushes antibiotic resistance in his own patients, compared to the doctors who are being careful out of awareness of selection pressure?
I'd bet there's a clear difference in a decade (not much, it's a wild ass guess on no data).
But gad, who but a nonbelieving MD could be such a powerful force for selection of resistant bacteria, eh? Irony.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | March 18, 2007 5:55 PM
Daniel:
It's actually even a bit worse than you say.
Because of my father's recent illness, I've been doing a lot of reading about bacteria and antibiotics. One of the things that I didn't realize before was just how few fundamentally different antibiotics there are. There are a relatively small number of basic mechanisms by which antibiotics work. Most of the time, new antibiotics are members of an existing family - that is, they work by essentially the same mechanism as earlier antibiotics in the family.
For example, one of the most common kinds of antibiotic is called a β-lactam antibiotic. β-lactam's include the entire penicillin family, all four generations of the cephalosporins, and all of the carbapenems. β-lactam's work by interfering with the bacteria's ability to generate cell walls when they divide - in particular, one of the types of components of many bacterial cell walls is called a penicillin-binding protein - because it's what the penicillin latches onto and deactivates; and without the PBPs, the bacteria can't produce cell-walls.
The different drugs do have differences, which are important. But one of the things that's been happening recently is that the resistance mechanisms have been getting more versatile, so that they're resistant to entire families. For example, the main strength of the carbapenems has traditionally been that they're relatively immune to β-lactamase, which is an enzyme produced by many resistant bacteria to neutralize penicillin-family β-lactams. But recently, many bacteria have developed different approaches to β-lactam resistance - they're using radically different proteins to form their cell walls, so that they don't use PBPs at all. PBP-less bacteria are immune to not only current β-lactam antibiotics, but to all possible future β-lactam antibiotics.
Antibiotics based on fundamentally different modes of action are extremely rare. There are only about a dozen fundamental families of antibiotics; and even they aren't entirely distinct - the cepaholosporins, penicillins, and carbanapems are all β-lactam antibiotics.
So even with the new antibiotics that are coming down the pike, my reading (which is, admittedly, the reading of someone who's not particularly qualified in the area) is that there's currently one type of antibiotic with a new mode of action currently under development.
(And yes, I agree that phage therapy is interesting. But there are some questions about the honesty of the reporting of preliminary results, as well as questions about what effect resistance to phage drugs would have on bacterial ecology.)
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | March 18, 2007 6:13 PM
Yes Splage I was just rushing to post before I did a search to see if someone else pointed it out. The gall of an IDiot dropping the term clade but then denying what it alludes to is staggering.
Posted by: BradS | March 18, 2007 6:18 PM
And please check out the credentials of the author.
Ah yes -- he's editor-in-chief of the "peer reviewed journal" in which his article was published -- "Creation Research Society Quarterly". Naturally, any objective observer like Joe would take what this author says as gospel and ignore what is said by the thousands of biologists who disagree with him.
This is NOT deceptive nonsense to those who understand what is being debated. "Evolution" has several meanings...
Joe doesn't understand the paper he cited, which argues that
This is utter nonsense that shows a lack of basic understanding of the concept of "fitness", which is defined entirely in terms of reproductive success in a given environment, not in terms of the possession of this or that physiological characteristic.
Posted by: truth machine | March 18, 2007 7:21 PM
The anti-ID materialistic option is sheer dumb luck
No, the materialistic option is natural selection. If you weren't dumber thatn dirt, realpc ... er, I mean Joe G. ... you could grasp what those words mean.
Posted by: truth machine | March 18, 2007 7:33 PM
Since Egnor (and JoeG) believes in frontloaded resistance mechanisms, it would be interesting to see him explain that.
clem, Jim51:
I'm not familiar with Roundup or the safety concerns, but as it happens Larry Moran just blo