Antibiotic Resistant Staph Infections

LinuxGeek8 writes "There's a news update on a previous article about the first case of antibiotic resistant staph infections. The woman who has the infection is being kept up to 6 months in an isolation room. She is taking an antibiotic that is working, after many others did not. "In the scheme of public health threats, this has to rank close to the top," David Ropeik, director of risk communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, said of antibiotic resistance."

Comments

Re:or plague

[Omega Hacker]

Heck, with things like this developing its a wonder anti-evolutionist 'creation science' people can show their faces in public!

Only true lunatics and those totally ignorant of basic science have ever claimed that evolution doesn't exist. Specifically micro-evolution. Any true scientist can point to hundreds, probably thousands, of fully documented, incontrovertible instances of micro-evolution. Bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics is a perfect example.

Macro-evolution (proto-mammals flopping out of the ocean, etc.) on the other hand has no such scientifically incontrovertible proof. Every "link" between one species and another consists mostly of wishful thinking and fabrications by the scientists who expound on the theory that somehow random mutations over the last billion years can produce sentient homo sapiens. A basic grounding in mutation theory and common arithmetic shows the absurdity of it, to start.

The reality of the matter is that God can do whatever He wants, however He wants. If that involves some variant of macro-evolution, He'll make it work, natural laws or not (He who writes the laws can change/ignore them at will). However we came to this point (x,y,z species in the year 2002) is for Him to know and us to try to figure out. My disagreement with "strict" macro-evolutionary theory is that the science used to construct the theory is suspect at best, and total fabrication at worst.

The may be right, they may be wrong, since after all reality is what God says it is (think "The Matrix" and the black cat), but when it comes down to it, Ockham's Razor really says it all.

Re:And this is

[Jace of Fuse!]

One slice of roast beef fits in my hand, as does 50.

hah hah. I said the same thing, but I was actually being serious when I said the palm of your hand.

A slice of roast beef, if balled up, might just fit in your hand perfectly if you clasp your fingers around it. Maybe two slices. It's going to be different slightly for everybody, and it's hardly scientific to use "the palm of your hand" as a way to gauge how much you should eat.

The reason I've been told the palm of your hand is a good rule of thumb, though is because a "handful" of meat, the size of "your hand" is a close aproximation of about how much meat someone your size should probably be eating.

I know it sounds silly, but believe me, if I were to say you shouldn't have any more than 2 ounces of meat a day, someone could turn around and say "But I'm 6'5" and 270 lbs of hulking mass." If that's the case, that person's palm is probably also about 6 inches wide, and he very easily might need more than a couple of ounces.

Of course, I'm not a nutritionist myself, I just have the rather unpleasant curse of knowing a few, so I can't lay out a proper diet plan for you. But I can tell you it seems to be pretty much agreed upon by those who should know that you really, truely, honestly, do not need to be eating very much meat.

This is of course not the same as saying "Don't eat meat." Do not confuse the two statements. Apparently, protein is NOT the only important thing you get from meat.

Re:And the creationists will say?

[myowntrueself]

Something I always thought would be a cool creation-by-god scenario would be this;

God creates the universe, all of infinite space and time.
After all, can't God create infinities?

What this scenario gives us is an infinite past and future all created by God and existing at once. In Gods perception (if it can be said that God has perception) everything that ever has or ever will exist appears together and non-sequentially.

Personally I hold the view that God is/was one and indivisible, yet needing to understand itself, God created/s all of existance from its own substance in order that everything that can be experienced is experienced and since all things are God, once all that can be experienced has been experienced, God can recombine reality and understand itself.

Or something like that, to be honest I am not exactly sure what I believe. But I know I must believe something.
Anyhow, at some stage in the infinite future, all will become apparent.

Maybe my personal experience of selfhood is really God remembering my life in that infinitely far future.

Re:And the creationists will say?

[namespan]

I had a weird thought the other day. What if you were a higher-dimensional being, and lived outside the timeline of the universe and could see its development? If you could touch/shape it in the right way, wouldn't influencing events be sort of like pruning a tree?

Crazy stuff, I know, half-lucid, not talkin' sense, but it's a wisp of an idea...