The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

I wanted to know what Dr. A thinks not some study about bacteria. And this is total mystification anyway, first of all using bacteria which have thousands of times the genetic potentials as diploids do in their "packed" genome, in answer to a discussion about diploid animals so who knows if any of it is relevant to start with.Mutations before selection? What does this have to do with this discussion?THE QUESTION WAS DO MUTATIONS SIMPLY PRODUCE THE SAME ALLELES YOU ALREADY LOST OR WHAT? NOBODY HERE HAS SAID THIS BUT DR. A.KINDLY ADDRESS WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING DISCUSSED. That's what I would expect, it's not what he said. I don't care if it's a mutation, it makes no difference to what I'm arguing AS I"VE SAID OVER AND OVER. You still have to GET RID OF THE OTHER COLORS. To get a new trait to characterize the new population you have to eliminate the competition and that is a REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERSITY. It doesn't matter if you're selecting a mutation or getting rid of mutations, you don't get the new variety without the reduction. Why not indeed? I was sticking to Dr. A's example, HIS one-at-a-time scenario, that's why all alleles at all times didn't come up. Ask HIM what he meant, not me.As I said, your post was irrelevant.

Not really. The plate replica experiment uses indirect selection to arrive at a population that is made up of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This involves several rounds of indirect selection, but the result is a resistant population where none of the ancestors or descendants have ever came into contact with antibiotic.When you replicate a master plate onto antibiotic plates using a "stamp" you still have the master plate. When you observe resistant mutants on the replica plates you can know where they originated from on the master plate. You can use something like a toothpick to sample the bacteria from that area. You grow these bacteria up for a few generations and then replate them making on an antibiotic free plate which is a new master plate. By repeating this process 2-3 times you can end up with a population that is >99% antibiotic resistant.

I do not claim to be a geneticist or even to have more than the most rudimentary understanding of genetics. That much I DO however claim to have, quite a bit more than many of you impute to me to judge from the level of questions I am asked from time to time.Beyond that I have learned quite a few things from this discussion already that I find useful for my argument. I know that's not how it's supposed to work, according to you all, it's supposed to overthrow my argument.If your understanding of genetics is so sophisticated that you cannot talk on the level of basic genetics, and especially if you refuse to try to grasp the less than technical language of a layman -- or simply have no talent for that effort -- it would be better if you didn't post on the subject here at all because all you can succeed at is mystification and abusive talk, and I'm sure no-one here would like to think it's his intention to be mystifying and abusive.Thank you.Dr. A, I have a few books and a whole binder full of printouts from websites on evolution in general and specifics like population genetics, speciation, genetic diversity, natural selection, genetic drift, mutations and the like. If you have a book you'd like to recommend please do so, and I'll see if it's something I think I need and can afford. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not what you said in the previous post. You said, "I'm asking: is this how evolutionists think mutations work?". That was your question. If you want to know what Dr. A thinks without anyone commenting then send him a personal message. Mutations create alleles that have never existed in the population before. Your genome probably contains between 1 and 3 alleles that are not found in anyone else in the population, and were not present in either of your parents. The average bacterial genome is 2-4 million bases. The human genome is 3 billion bases. Can you please explain how a genome with 1,000th of the DNA has more "potential" (whatever that means)? Also, please explain why it requires mutations to unlock this potential, and why these mutations occur before they are useful. And before that you have to increase the genetic diversity, and this occurs through mutation.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I was addressing Dr. A, but in any case you did not answer the question about whether mutations replace exactly the same alleles that were lost. I want to know if evolutionists believe this. Please leave bacteria out of it. Nobody but Dr. A suggested that this happens. Just answer for yourself whether it happens or not. Preferably in diploid species. Bacteria are a cop-out and a mystification in a discussion with a nonscientist. If they have no junk DNA they probably have functioning possibilities that genomes with 95% junk DNA don't have. And your remark about mutations does not answer the question I was asking. Oh wow, more of the same irrelevant old refrain. This is SUCH fun.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Missed this in previous post. So you are disagreeing with Dr. A who appeared to be saying that if an allele is "needed" mutation will come up with it, which nobody else had said here.But of course he puts up a lot of obfuscating smoke full of abusive language and will of course deny saying anything of the sort simply because I noted it.Right, ONLY new alleles, that's what others have said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I did not say that, and anyone who says that I did is a liar or a fool. I will of course deny saying anything of the sort because you made it up.This is why you can't quote me saying any such thing.And you must know this perfectly well. You just showed your hand. You attribute to me an opinion that you say I will deny holding. Now why would I deny holding an opinion which I actually held? I wouldn't. You must know that that is not my opinion.You just showed your hand.---Question for the moderators: you know how we talked about my use of the word "liar"? Please message me, I wish to discuss the issue further.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

From your Message 628If you didn't mean that particular mutation -- "both alleles" sounds particular to me, and when you say mutation produces "the" new allele, also just as particular. But perhaps you didn't mean it that way even if it still looks like it, but at least you seem to be saying that some kind of mutation can at least be counted on to fill the "need."You all can misread me and I have to take a dozen posts to try to straighten it out and then even if I succeed nobody bothers to notice. But if I misread you I'm accused of making it up and subjected to a ton of abuse as well.Look if this kind of miscommunication is just going to continue let's just stop talking to each other altogether. I'd REALLY appreciate it if you would stop talking to ME. To all: I need a break again badly. Today's collection of misrepresentations, straw man stupidities, accusations and abusive talk is getting to me. So long until MUCH later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are asking us to omit a large portion of the experimental evidence on the grounds that you find it mystifying? But you find everything mystifying. The solution to this is not for us to stop speaking the truth, but for you to go away and learn something.You do not abolish the significance or the relevance of the facts by being too ignorant to understand them. The word "irrelevant" is not actually a magic word that will make all the facts that you don't like disappear.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, you have once again used your fantastic powers of misunderstanding everything to misunderstand something that would be clear as day even to a child. Oh, my heart bleeds for you. People "misread" you, do they? Tut tut.Project much? Or you could take my repeated advice and read a textbook on genetics. Then want must be your master. If you want to run away from a debate that you're inadequate to participate in, then I am glad to see your back.So we're both happy.What would make me really happy is if you would use your self-imposed exile to read a basic textbook on genetics. But I'm not going to hold my breath.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I think you're contemptibly ignorant of genetics. Do you have some more specific question? If this meant anything, it would be wrong. No, of course not. Please stop reciting ridiculous falsehoods about what I have said.You are deceiving no-one and disgracing yourself. And for the mutation to arise involves an increase in genetic diversity.Oh, for pity's sake. How often do we have to explain this to you? Taq understands what I meant. He doesn't have to ask me anything. Of all the participants on this thread, only you are enough of a frickin' fool to exhibit such a level of drooling dribbling shambling incomprehension as to be confused over my point.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I would disagree with anyone who states the above. I would disagree because of the mountains of experimental evidence which demonstrate that mutations arise independently of the needs of the organism. Projection much? Your posts are a lesson in obsfucation and gobblygook. You have such phrases as "blurring the character of a species" and other notable nonsense terms.

For once I believe that you are telling the exact truth. If you only want to discuss these matters with someone who is as ignorant as you, then I would suggest that you post on a creationist website. There you will find plenty of ignorant halfwits who will lap up your blundering stupid nonsense. Then may I suggest that you read them?

Why? They are much less mystifying than eukaryotes, actually. You don't even have to keep track of diploid traits and recombination. Just asexual reproduction. Their DNA mutates just like ours, and given their short generation time and the ease with which they can be grown they make for the perfect model organism in genetics. If you want to learn the basics of genetics then you must understand genetics in bacteria. Again, it is known that mutations lead to antibiotic and bacteriophage resistance. These "possibilities" didn't exist in the original parent population. They only came about through mutation. For example, mutations in the tonB gene lead to bacteriophage resistance in E. coli. This bacteriophage resistance was not functioning in the original bacterium that was used to supply the population for the experiment.Even more, you claim that mutations do away with function. Now you are claiming just the opposite.

You heard that large booming noise that came from the direction of Las Vegas?That was my irony meter.