Many students tell me that professors say in lectures that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is evidence for the validity of the "Theory of Evolution." In this clip is a response to this claim, and it is part of an episode in the Journey of Certainty titled: Is the "Theory of Evolution" actually useful?
Thirdly: bacterial resistance to antibiotics. There are many types of bacteria that have undergone genetic changes making them more resistant to antibiotics, and thus more deadly to humans. True, but what does this have to do with "His Excellency" (evolution)?
They say that understanding how evolution leads to increased bacterial resistance is important in limiting the spread of infectious diseases. Evolution? What does evolution have to do with the subject? And what is its relation to bacterial resistance? What is the relationship between random mutations and blind selection with the mechanisms that amazed you, making you describe bacteria as intelligent, and attribute to them divine descriptions such as knowledge and will, as we explained in the episode "Worshippers of Microbes"?
If we take, for example, the ability of bacteria to resist the first known antibiotic, "penicillin"; how did bacteria manage to do that? They did so through various means, each of which is highly complex and precise, such as the production of the enzyme "beta-lactamase" (Beta-lactamase).
This enzyme is composed of hundreds of amino acids arranged in a precise order with no room for randomness, which in the final stages of its production undergoes modifications at very specific sites to take on a three-dimensional shape, so that this enzyme performs a specific task: targeting the weakest point in the antibiotic to neutralize its effect.
Where is the randomness and chance in all of this? This scientific paper, for example, talks about one of the types of "beta-lactamase" consisting of 263 amino acids. Have you seen in bacteria random failed attempts to manufacture chains of lengths more and less than this length (50, 100, 200, 300) with random arrangements of amino acids before bacteria randomly arrive at this enzyme?
If you leave the matter to randomness as you say, then the land, sea, and air will be filled with these failed attempts before bacteria reach the production of this enzyme. So, did bacteria reach the production of this enzyme precisely and repeatedly through random evolution without seeing countless random attempts?
Then, researchers produce a new antibiotic that resists this enzyme, so bacteria produce another type of "beta-lactamase," researchers produce another antibiotic, and it produces a third, fourth, and fifth type; until you feel that you are dealing with an organism that has large research and study centers, not with microscopic creatures that millions of which gather on the head of a pin! All of this is in just one mechanism out of the many mechanisms of bacterial resistance, so what does this have to do with randomness or chance?
By the way, several prominent figures in the field of antibiotics have expressed their displeasure at involving "His Excellency" (evolution) in the discoveries in this field:
Skell said in his article: "There is no doubt that my own research in antibiotics during World War II did not receive guidance from Darwinian evolution, nor did Alexander Fleming when he discovered the inhibition of penicillin on bacteria."
Skell says: "Recently, I asked more than 70 prominent scientists: Would they have done their work differently if they saw Darwin's theory as wrong? And their answers were all the same: No." He adds that he examined the distinguished discoveries in biology during the past century and found that, as always, Darwin's theory did not provide tangible guidance, but was brought in after the discoveries as an attractive literary spark; exactly as "His Excellency the President" is brought in to cut the project's ribbon!
Skell says: "From my conversations with distinguished researchers, it has become clear that modern experimental biology derives its strength from the availability of new tools and methods, not from delving into historical biology."
Professor Skell was bold in criticizing Darwinism, and when the National Academies of Sciences issued the book we are discussing, Skell - who was, by the way, one of the members of the academy - responded with an article in the journal "Policy and the Life Sciences," in which he said: "People must look very carefully at the unnecessary and misleading involvement of speculative historical, philosophical, and religious ideas in the worlds of experimental science."
Of course, Skell did not escape the attacks of "the mercenaries of myth" who described him as a "cowardly creationist" and as a "liar or ignorant." This is a brief overview of the relationship between achievements in the field of bacterial resistance and "His Excellency."