Antibiotic Resistance is commonly attributed to natural selection of various mutations resulting in an evolved microbe. Recent evidence strongly
suggests this is not the case. It even goes so far as to disprove the theorized evolutionary mechanisms.
A commonly ignored phenomenon that accompanies studies of antibiotic resistance is the fact that this effect is quickly reversible. Even as quick as a
"It has been well-established that various species of bacteria, including E. coli, S. enterica and P. aeruginosa, exhibit resistance when they are
exposed to successive steps of increasing concentration of antibiotics. This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with
high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the
environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations
This phenomenon is not just applicable to a few species of bacteria, but is a universal observation among bacterial resistance. To find more research
articles with empirical evidence supporting this notion, follow references 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the source above.
So why is this not evolution? It is because these bacteria are adapting to antibiotics by using an already existent set of genes known as efflux
Efflux pumps effectively remove the antibiotic from the microbe. When a bacterial population is exposed to antibiotics, they adapt by increasing
production of these efflux pump. This relatively well known mechanism is known generally as "epigenetics". The genes that create these pumps are
already existent. It is not mutating. It is simply increasing expression, meaning that it makes more pumps. This allows a higher ability to remove
When researchers remove the antibiotic exposure from the resistant population, the population soon becomes vulnerable again. This is due to the
bacteria resetting it's efflux pump production back to normal. This indicates that it is not evolution occurring, but instead it is adaption. The
difference being that adaptation works with pre-set mechanisms already in place, whereas evolution requires new functions to be generated by an
alteration to the genetic code.
This is the beginning of the end for evolutionary theory. Organisms have many adaptation mechanisms, but they are confined by their particular genetic
code. It may take a while for this to become commonly accepted because evolution has had more dogmatic fervor than some of the most totalitarian
thought regimes throughout history. It has become a religion of its own, relying on the non-questioning blind faith of the acolytes to perpetuate the
machine. It relies on fantastical speculation and superficial science blogs to keep the support of the masses and it ostracizes dissenting expert
opinions via the peer-review process.
Think for your self and analyze the evidence and you will realize that the immense beauty and intelligence of life could not have come to be by random
genetic mutations. Releasing the theoretical anchor of evolution allows a new aspiration in philosophical inquiry regarding who we are and what our
role is in the universe. We are not a meaningless mutant accident generated from ancient pond scum.
This is good news.