When a virus becomes resistant to an antibiotic, does this mean it's "evolving"?

Has it ever "evolved" into anything other than a virus, or is it just proving what we already know about evolution? (Call is "micro evolution" if you wish, even though I hate that term)

Update:

Oh, and if this is the best proof you can even come up with then your theory fails.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Best answer

    Really and truly you will never learn anything useful on a creationist web site. They generally don't understand science, have no idea what evolution is and no concept at all about the vast weight of evidence that underscores evolution's scientific validity. If you had bothered to do even a small amount of legitimate research you would know just how silly you appear when you quibble about "viruses and antibiotics" (sic) as if evolution could fail by such an ignorant and childish argument.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Maybe.

    It means that of a population of viruses, only those who can survive to the antibiotic, will left more descendants, so in a brief period of time, most if not all viruses in your will be resistant to that drug. That's why we need to create new antibiotics once and again, because every virus or bacteria can become resistant to them.

  • 8 years ago

    [Aside: Others are correct that it's *antivirals* that kill viruses ... not antibiotics. You really should learn some BASIC biology, before deciding you reject and argue against one of its core principles.]

    Yes. If the virus is changing genetically, it is "evolving" ... by definition of the word "evolving." [1]

    To 'evolve' means simply to "change genetically". A virus doesn't have to change into something "other than a virus" to qualify as evolution.

    In other words, you don't get to REDEFINE what the word "evolve" means, in order to match your rejection of it.

    The creationist argument that "it's not 'evolution' until there is massive change into 'something different' ", is equivalent to trying to "disprove" the theory of gravity as follows:

    Creationist: "I define 'gravity' as the force between planets and stars. And thus I reject 'gravity' on the grounds of lack of evidence."

    Science: "But in science, we define 'gravity' as the force between ALL matter ... which is why we see an apple falling to the ground as evidence of gravity."

    Creationist: "I don't care how scientists define 'gravity.' By MY definition, an apple falling to the ground is not 'gravity'. Call it 'microgravity'. But 'microgravity' is in no way evidence of 'macrogravity'. I simply refuse to believe that the same force that causes an apple to fall to the ground can cause planets to orbit the sun."

    Science: "But that's the WHOLE POINT. Gravity is a concept that explains the orbit of planets around stars as the *accumulation* of the same force that affects apples. It's just a SCALING of the same principle."

    Creationist: "I don't care. I choose to define 'gravity' MY WAY. That is what allows me to reject that there is any evidence of this 'theory of gravity' idea whatsoever."

    ... "Oh, and if this is the best proof you can even come up with then your theory [of gravity] fails."

    It's a bogus, small-minded, anti-scientific argument ... called the 'straw-man' argument.

    It is part of the arsenal of BAD arguments that are the bread-and-butter of creationist web sites.

    ----

    Source(s): [1] Definition of 'evolution' ... from biologyonline.org: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yes, it's exactly what we call evolution: a modification in a being's physiology and genotype after a few generations (because of the apparition of a mutation that proved to be useful to the being's survival in response to a change in its environment, and as the ones with the mutation survived more, they reproduced more).

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yep...sure does. It's a antibiotic resistant virus, which is quite a bit different.

    And viruses aren't even necessarily alive....but they are still able to evolve.

  • Sam
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Viruses evolve all the time as evolution is a fact. And that fact proves your god doesn't exist.

  • 8 years ago

    *sigh*

    First off, VIRUSES don't become antibiotic resistant. BACTERIA do. Viruses don't respond to antibiotics.

    Second, yes. Bacterial evolution is obvious and observable in antibiotic resistance. And we have indeed witnessed speciation in bacteria- one bacterial species evolving into a new one.

    If you expect a bacterial population to magically evolve into amoeba in a single step, you have no idea how biology works.

    @Jessica-

    Yes, your "god" magically created viruses able to adapt- so they could kill off humans better. Great logic. *sigh*

  • 8 years ago

    So what did the virus become? a rabbit? An elephant?

  • 8 years ago

    It just means that God designed the virus to be able to adapt.

  • Moi
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    no - it's adapting

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.