Summations Only

Hi zi ko, Yes, but you will need to start a new thread for it, that would not add to the debate here and my thread has not been (and not likely to be) opened for discussion (admin and I are considering different or new options for this kind of thread). And this would be discussed on your new thread, yes? I'd be interested, if you choose that path.Enjoy.

Hi Tangle,How about a review of where we got to on the lizards and mice, what the problems were, and maybe some suggestions of where to go.This would be a reinstatement of the topic to bring it back in line, and then Percy can enforce strict adherence to that statement.Enjoy.

Hi Zi Ko,People really do want to discuss guided evolution with you, but you keep bringing it up in existing threads on other topics. If you propose a topic on guided evolution over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I will review it as quickly as I can.--Percy

It seems so.But why do you ignore the third scenario, which is a most propable, as it is on line with the recently reinvented Lamarckism, that is of the the change of whole genome (epi- and deep genome) caused by information flow from environment? On last case we wouldn't expect the same gene target nor the exact same mutation.The sacred caw of randomness in Darvinism should not deter scientits from exploring all possibilities.

Hi Zi Ko,People really do want to discuss guided evolution with you, but you keep bringing it up in existing threads on other topics. If you propose a topic on guided evolution over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I will review it as quickly as I can.--Percy

Why should we pay attention to it? What research and evidence do you have? Those are the questions you need to answer in a new thread.Scientists are not interested in what you can imagine. Scientists are interested in how you can bring evidence to bear on a question of interest. Since you have not brought this evidence to bear there is simply nothing to ignore. Science is not "consider the fantasies of a crackpot". It is quite different from that.

quote:

---

Evolution is as complicated as 1-2-3

​

A team of researchers at Michigan State University has documented the step-by-step process in which organisms evolve new functions.

​

The results, published in the current issue of Nature, are revealed through an in-depth, genomics-based analysis that decodes how E. coli bacteria figured out how to supplement a traditional diet of glucose with an extra course of citrate.

​

...

​

In the Nature paper, Blount and his teammates analyzed 29 genomes from different generations to find the mutational pieces of the puzzle. They uncovered a three-step process in which the bacteria developed this new ability.

​

The first stage was potentiation, when the E. coli accumulated at least two mutations that set the stage for later events. The second step, actualization, is when the bacteria first began eating citrate, but only just barely nibbling at it. The final stage, refinement, involved mutations that greatly improved the initially weak function. This allowed the citrate eaters to wolf down their new food source and to become dominant in the population.

​

We were particularly excited about the actualization stage, Blount said. The actual mutation involved is quite complex. It re-arranged part of the bacteria’s DNA, making a new regulatory module that had not existed before. This new module causes the production of a protein that allows the bacteria to bring citrate into the cell when oxygen is present. That is a new trick for E. coli.

​

The change was far from normal, Lenski said.

​

It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed, he said. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed.

---

http://news.msu.edu/.../evolution-is-as-complicated-as-1-2-3

To the Catholic ScientistI suppose why you are using E. coli adaptation in this thread is because you believe it is a case for evolution.The adaptation of E. coli has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with adaptation. E. coli could already transport citrate into the cell and partially use it in wild, but under low oxygen conditions. There is but a few allowed mutations to take place to refine the process to allow full utilization of citrate as a food source. The mechanism was present in E. coli and only needed to adapt in controlled ways to accommodate full utilization.A new species of E. coli did not arise, in fact the variant remains heterozygous to the original variant.The Creationist view is then as follows:

quote:

---

Given the selective pressure exerted by the media of a limited carbon source (glucose) but abundant alternative carbon source (citrate), the cells with slightly beneficial mutations would be selected for and increase in the population. Alternatively, if the mutational effects were neutral the cells with these mutations might remain in the population just by chance, since they would not be selected for or against. Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering currently existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment. Further understanding of Lenski’s research is valuable for development of a creation model for adaptation of bacterial populations in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. A Poke in the Eye? | Answers in Genesis

---

Now are you up to separating designed adaptation from the dogma of evolution? Alternatively, are you claiming evolution is adaptation that leads to speciation? If so, you need a real example of a speciation event, and please do not invoke the magic of time.

Based on your description, the distinction between adaptation and evolution seems to be that you like using the word adaptation. Why don't you articulate why a change caused by mutation, and propagated in a population by selection is not evolution?You 'admit' that E. coli could only poorly use citrate, and acknowledge that the 'adapted' bacteria, which have been demonstrated to be physically different from the original E. coli can fully utilize citrate. You even acknowledge that the source of the changes for the 'adaption' is mutation. We expect that the 'same mechanism' would produce the same results, so when you talk about 'refining the process' all you are really doing is talking nonsense with your fingers in your ears.Using your definition of adaptation, a land mammal can become 'adapted' to living in the ocean, but despite the development of changes that allow it to swim more efficiently and to hold its breath under water longer, you'll claim that the land mammal could already swim and hold its breath so no evidence of evolution has been produced.Given your word usage, I'm perfectly willing to accept that humans and chimpanzees adapted from a common ancestor.What's a species of a bacteria anyway?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You need some remedial work on your understanding of the definition of evolution. Evolution produces adaptations through a process of descent with modification and natural selection. An experiment that produces adaptations cannot have "nothing to do with evolution." It wasn't intended as an example of speciation, and drawing dividing lines between species of bacteria is fraught with difficulty anyway.Your message reads as if you forgot your point before your reached it. Were you trying to say that the ability to consume citrate was already present in the bacteria and that therefore further development of the trait wasn't an example of novelty? The actual novelty was the ability to absorb citrate in the presence of oxygen, an ability the E. coli did not previously possess.Or are we going to get into a debate about how novel something has to be before it qualifies?--Percy

So time = magic?Events happen outside of time?What an odd way of thinking.

My friend NoNukes. Very good to converse with you again. I always seem to learn something.My point of viewTo be precise, an adaptive mechanism for metabolizing a new food source is adaptation.The bacterium always retains its unique form (morphological form) in this case an E. coli. The example of a land dwelling mammal returning to the sea, supposedly inducing legs to become flippers; is pure speculation and not scientific. The observed stasis in identified species is a historical fact.

quote:

---

The most salient feature of life has been the stability of its bacterial mode from the beginning of the fossil record until today and, with little doubt, into all future time so long as the earth endures.
Stephen Jay Gould

---

http://www.brembs.net/gould.htmlFrom retrovirus to whale genomes, there is a limit to the change in a given species.To put a point on my uneducated argument: Gene plasticity in bacteria is real, but there is a barrier to macro changes in the Morphology of a species.Furthermore, mutations can and often reverse themselves; An A to G mutation for instance can revert back to a G to A mutation. By this type of event, expression of innate information in the genome can be concealed and (at a later time) restored by subsequent mutations.I am clearly saying that adaptive mutations can and do reverse themselves but some types of deleterious mutations are fatal to an organism (HOX sequence damage) and are not capable of changing an organism to another species. By the way a HOX mutation is exactly what is needed to revert a leg to a fin.This observation has been obvious to the Creationist but ignored by the evolutionist.There is no mechanism know in evolution that actually creates new gene sequences.No new gene sequences NO MACRO EVOLUTION.

You might claim that the Creationist invokes the magic of a creator. I maintain that the evolutionist’s plight is much worst. Observable chemistry and physics does not cooperate with the theory of evolution. He must maintain that an entity such as time (without any intent to create) must take the place of an all-knowing all-powerful creator.The evolutionist’s job is simple; he must locate a new chemistry and a new physics to support the unsupportable premise of spontaneous gene sequence genesis.Invoking more time does not satisfy the untenable nature of the suggestion.

Describe that barrier.

The "evolutionist" (a term that I still maintain is a creationist invention and red herring) does not need to invoke any kind of "new" chemistry nor physics. At least, not so long as we accept the time-frame of earth history that has become apparent by the evidence.That tired old "time as magic" canard is part and parcel of young-earth creationism which ignores the long history of our planet in favor of an extremely shortened chronology of less than 10,000 years. Invoking the correct amount of time, as per the evidence and not as per YEC prejudices, presents no known problems.