Doug: I never said anything about LexA being strongly, weakly or not conserved at all.

And I never said you did. You asked us not to leave out LexA, so I thought a bit of its evolutionary history was in order.

Doug: It might have everything to do with evolution, but certainly not with the view of evolution that you hold to.

Actually, it seems to fit the evolutionary paradigm quite well. LexA is a family of ancient descent!

I'm commenting on the fact that the response is coordinated and hierarchal. Reflecting something other than RM&NS. And this is a prime example that gets brought out to show the power of NDS.

Doug: Don't leave out LexA.

The LexA binding sequence is conserved among related bacteria and monophyletic for several phyla. Here's the phylogenetic analysis.

Mazón et al., Reconstruction of the evolutionary history of the LexA-binding sequence, Microbiologia 2004

chunkdz: Ok. so in addition to the risky prediction that "organisms keep evolving", we can add the Ledergerg's prediction that antibiotic resistance exists in nature.

The Lederberg Experiment demonstrates that the mutations are random with respect to fitness.

chunkdz: But it is duly noted that your examples are between 56 and 130 years old.

Yes, you do need to try to catch up.

chunkdz: Not quite relevant to a discussion of Big Pharma fighting superbugs.

But more than sufficient to either cause you to modify your previous statement that "we can't predict what evolution will do," or to demonstrate that you won't.

chunkdz: The drug companies will be funding nanotech and gentech labs, not evolutionary biologists.

Zachriel: That is incorrect. Even though most evolutionary biologists do basic research, their results are of great value to medicine, and they are, indeed, employed by drug companies.

chunkdz: Never said they weren't.

Despite what you claim, drug companies will not be abandoning research into evolutionary biology.

chunkdz: I just don't think that "drug cocktails, patient compliance, and avoidance of overprescription" came about through any prediction from evolutionary biologists. I think they are reactionary, not proactive towards combatting resistance.

This is a life and death issue. The reason we use drug cocktails is because pathogens rapidly evolve. Here's a simplified description of why drug cocktails are used, and the relationship with evolution.

Consider drug A. Let's say there is a 10^-8 probability of a mutation resistant to drug A. If there are about 10^8 organisms per host, then there is an expected rate of one resistant pathogen per host. Then this pathogen then spreads through the population.

So we introduce drug B. Let's say this drug works by a different mechanism and has a 10^-8 probability of a mutation resistant to drug B. If there are about 10^8 organisms per host, then there is an expected rate of one resistant pathogen per host. Then this pathogen, which is resistant to both drug A and drug B, spreads through the population.

But, if instead of giving the drugs *sequentially*, we give a *simultaneous* cocktail of both drug A and drug B, which work by different mechanisms, then the probability of both mutations occurring in the same organism would be 10^-16. This will strongly inhibit and delay the evolution of a strain resistant to the cocktail.

Of course, in real life, the population is not stable, but changes rapidly during the onset of an infection, and during treatment. Lindi Wahl has done some good work in predicting the evolution of multiply-resistant strains in dynamic populations, such as HIV.

Don't leave out LexA.

Yeah, Lederberg didn't predict that, did he?:grin:

That was in response to your false statement that "we can't predict what evolution will do." …Hence, I pointed to simple and relevant predictions, including the Lederberg Experiment.

Ok. so in addition to the risky prediction that "organisms keep evolving", we can add the Ledergerg's prediction that antibiotic resistance exists in nature.
But it is duly noted that your examples are between 56 and 130 years old.
Not quite relevant to a discussion of Big Pharma fighting superbugs.

That is incorrect. Even though most evolutionary biologists do basic research, their results are of great value to medicine, and they are, indeed, employed by drug companies.

Never said they weren't. Ho Humm…

You asked for "predictive methodology that can head off resistance". When I point to such methodologies, and research into new technologies that are firmly based in evolutionary biology, you wave your hands.

I didn't wave. Honest. I just don't think that "drug cocktails, patient compliance, and avoidance of overprescription" came about through any prediction from evolutionary biologists. I think they are reactionary, not proactive towards combatting resistance.

chunkdz: If somebody comes up with a predictive methodology that can head off resistance before it becomes a problem, then they will begin to win the war.

Let me know when someone is able to predict when changes to an archaebacteria in response to such and such environmental factors lead to eubacteria.

For instance, RecA is a protein implicated in initiating rapid evolution in bacteria under stress. Disrupting RecA could delay the evolution of resistance. This has nothing to do with ID "science," but everything to do with evolution.

Don't leave out LexA.

This is a coordinated, hierarchal response to an obstacle in the environment. This isn't some organism blindly and unknowingly 'hoping' to be the lucky recipient of a random mutation that might just endow it with the ability to overcome the insult.

It might have everything to do with evolution, but certainly not with the view of evolution that you hold to.

chunkdz: The drug companies will be funding nanotech and gentech labs, not evolutionary biologists.

chunkdz: It's important to know what evolution has done in the past.

If knowing what evolution has done in the past is important, then hiring evolutionary biologists would be expected. Your statements appear contradictory.

chunkdz: If somebody comes up with a predictive methodology that can head off resistance before it becomes a problem, then they will begin to win the war.

You asked for "predictive methodology that can head off resistance". When I point to such methodologies, and research into new technologies that are firmly based in evolutionary biology, you wave your hands.

Zachriel: University students duplicate the predictable evolution of antibiotic resistance every day.

chunkdz: When I asked you ""¦what prediction has evolutionary biology made that led to the creation of an antibiotic?" I expected an answer other than they predict that evolution will happen.

That was in response to your false statement that "we can't predict what evolution will do."

This is the original exchange:

chunkdz: Bacterial resistance is dealt with by modifying lead compounds and exhaustively testing them on microbes.

Zachriel: The problem is that the organisms keep evolving.

chunkdz: No, the problem is we can't predict what evolution will do.

Hence, I pointed to simple and relevant predictions, including the Lederberg Experiment.

chunkdz: The drug companies will be funding nanotech and gentech labs, not evolutionary biologists.

That is incorrect. Even though most evolutionary biologists do basic research, their results are of great value to medicine, and they are, indeed, employed by drug companies.

chunkdz: what prediction has evolutionary biology made that led to the creation of an antibiotic?

I never made that claim. However, evolutionary biology has been important in understanding the origin of resistant strains of bacteria, and in the development of treatment strategies. The cost of developing these new strategies is much less than the cost of developing new antibiotics. It's because we can make empirical predictions that the development of these effective strategies is possible. Saving lives.

"”

You started this thread with this claim.

chunkdz: Bacterial resistance is dealt with by modifying lead compounds and exhaustively testing them on microbes. We have organic chemistry to thank for this, not evolutionary biology.

Bacterial resistance is "dealt with" by understanding how this resistance evolves.