Just another threat to life and limb.

>>In a striking display of just how pervasive the superbug menace actually is, researchers have revealed the discovery of antibiotic-resistant genes in remote Arctic soil samples. The genes in question were only first identified a few years ago and have rapidly spread across 100 countries, into areas thousands of miles away with almost no human presence.

“Polar regions are among the last presumed pristine ecosystems on Earth, providing a platform for characterizing pre-antibiotic era background resistance against which we could understand rates of progression of AR (antibiotic-resistance) ‘pollution’,” explains David Graham, an environmental engineer with 15 years experience studying the transmission of AR genes around the globe.<<

https://newatlas.com/superbug-antibiotic-resistant-gene-arctic-soil-study/58240/

PermeateFree said:

Just another threat to life and limb.

>>In a striking display of just how pervasive the superbug menace actually is, researchers have revealed the discovery of antibiotic-resistant genes in remote Arctic soil samples. The genes in question were only first identified a few years ago and have rapidly spread across 100 countries, into areas thousands of miles away with almost no human presence.

“Polar regions are among the last presumed pristine ecosystems on Earth, providing a platform for characterizing pre-antibiotic era background resistance against which we could understand rates of progression of AR (antibiotic-resistance) ‘pollution’,” explains David Graham, an environmental engineer with 15 years experience studying the transmission of AR genes around the globe.<<

https://newatlas.com/superbug-antibiotic-resistant-gene-arctic-soil-study/58240/

Nice work.

This confirms what has been claimed for many years – that overuse of antibiotics does not create new antibiotic-resistant genes, it merely selects for genes that have always been there.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Just another threat to life and limb.

>>In a striking display of just how pervasive the superbug menace actually is, researchers have revealed the discovery of antibiotic-resistant genes in remote Arctic soil samples. The genes in question were only first identified a few years ago and have rapidly spread across 100 countries, into areas thousands of miles away with almost no human presence.

“Polar regions are among the last presumed pristine ecosystems on Earth, providing a platform for characterizing pre-antibiotic era background resistance against which we could understand rates of progression of AR (antibiotic-resistance) ‘pollution’,” explains David Graham, an environmental engineer with 15 years experience studying the transmission of AR genes around the globe.<<

https://newatlas.com/superbug-antibiotic-resistant-gene-arctic-soil-study/58240/

Nice work.

This confirms what has been claimed for many years – that overuse of antibiotics does not create new antibiotic-resistant genes, it merely selects for genes that have always been there.

So it confirms your preconceptions?

It’s surprising how often that happens, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Just another threat to life and limb.

>>In a striking display of just how pervasive the superbug menace actually is, researchers have revealed the discovery of antibiotic-resistant genes in remote Arctic soil samples. The genes in question were only first identified a few years ago and have rapidly spread across 100 countries, into areas thousands of miles away with almost no human presence.

“Polar regions are among the last presumed pristine ecosystems on Earth, providing a platform for characterizing pre-antibiotic era background resistance against which we could understand rates of progression of AR (antibiotic-resistance) ‘pollution’,” explains David Graham, an environmental engineer with 15 years experience studying the transmission of AR genes around the globe.<<

https://newatlas.com/superbug-antibiotic-resistant-gene-arctic-soil-study/58240/

Nice work.

This confirms what has been claimed for many years – that overuse of antibiotics does not create new antibiotic-resistant genes, it merely selects for genes that have always been there.

So it confirms your preconceptions?

It’s surprising how often that happens, isn’t it?

one would have thought that no evolutionary biologist would have said that anyway. I thought “new genes” came about by mutation by radiation or some such. then natural selection said whether they were a benefit or not.

They are ‘new’ because they are usually genes that haven’t existed in that particular organism before…as far as we know. Eg. a gene from a plasmid, F’ conjugation etc etc.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Nice work.

This confirms what has been claimed for many years – that overuse of antibiotics does not create new antibiotic-resistant genes, it merely selects for genes that have always been there.

So it confirms your preconceptions?

It’s surprising how often that happens, isn’t it?

one would have thought that no evolutionary biologist would have said that anyway. I thought “new genes” came about by mutation by radiation or some such. then natural selection said whether they were a benefit or not.

No, not “create new antibiotic-resistant genes”, but select for anti-biotic resistant genes, that might or might not be new.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So it confirms your preconceptions?

It’s surprising how often that happens, isn’t it?

It certainly is. Happens about 95% of the time.

It’s amazing how good the use of logic is as a predictor of facts.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So it confirms your preconceptions?

It’s surprising how often that happens, isn’t it?

It certainly is. Happens about 95% of the time.

It’s amazing how good the use of logic is as a predictor of facts.

I can give plenty of examples where my logic has failed.

In this case I claim no credit for the viewpoint. I’m just quoting a leading researcher in antibiotic resistance from near the time when it was first discovered. The view “antibiotics don’t create new genes, they merely select for genes that are already present in the wild” was not apocalyptic enough for the media.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So it confirms your preconceptions?

It’s surprising how often that happens, isn’t it?

It certainly is. Happens about 95% of the time.

It’s amazing how good the use of logic is as a predictor of facts.

I can give plenty of examples where my logic has failed.

In this case I claim no credit for the viewpoint. I’m just quoting a leading researcher in antibiotic resistance from near the time when it was first discovered. The view “antibiotics don’t create new genes, they merely select for genes that are already present in the wild” was not apocalyptic enough for the media.

The point though (apart from the fact that no scientist would say that antibiotics “create” new genes), is that the observation provided no evidence of how long those genes have existed.

All we can say with reasonable certainty is that they have not existed “for ever”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

It certainly is. Happens about 95% of the time.

It’s amazing how good the use of logic is as a predictor of facts.

I can give plenty of examples where my logic has failed.

In this case I claim no credit for the viewpoint. I’m just quoting a leading researcher in antibiotic resistance from near the time when it was first discovered. The view “antibiotics don’t create new genes, they merely select for genes that are already present in the wild” was not apocalyptic enough for the media.

The point though (apart from the fact that no scientist would say that antibiotics “create” new genes), is that the observation provided no evidence of how long those genes have existed.

All we can say with reasonable certainty is that they have not existed “for ever”.

Mutation rate tells us the rate at which useful new genes are generated. Tens of thousands of years on average, if not longer.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I can give plenty of examples where my logic has failed.

In this case I claim no credit for the viewpoint. I’m just quoting a leading researcher in antibiotic resistance from near the time when it was first discovered. The view “antibiotics don’t create new genes, they merely select for genes that are already present in the wild” was not apocalyptic enough for the media.

The point though (apart from the fact that no scientist would say that antibiotics “create” new genes), is that the observation provided no evidence of how long those genes have existed.

All we can say with reasonable certainty is that they have not existed “for ever”.

Mutation rate tells us the rate at which useful new genes are generated. Tens of thousands of years on average, if not longer.

Well I know next to nothing about it, but if the useful mutation rate for simple things like bacteria is 10’s of 1000’s of years on average, I will be very surprised.