Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
I told you, already. If the trait had been present in the founder individual than all colonies would have survived; any particular mutation is highly unlikely so only a small - not even noticeable - number of bacteria would have lost the trait and been killed by the antibiotic.
Half of the colonies could not have lost their immunity.
But half of the colonies could have mutated to the point they were immune.
That does not compute.
crashfrog writes:
Because antibiotic resistance was not initially widespread we know that it was the acquired trait, rather than the reverse as you propose. Because the bacteria were clonal and the species is haploid we know the source was mutation. And we know that mutation is random.
That is a contradictatory statement.
"Because antibotic resistance was not initially widespread."
So it did exist just everybody did not have resistance.
Then you follow with, "we know that it was the acquired trait".
So you are saying it was an acquired trait because everybody initally did not have the trait.
That don't compute either.
What does compute is that some bacteria received the trait from their parents and others did not receive the trait for some reason and they died.
Now your statement, "was not initially widespread" proves my point thanks.
The information was in the DNA.
God Bless,
Here you admit antibotic restance existed.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."