Some mutations sound too good to be true

This is a fascinating post though I think it's over my head so I'll have to get you to explain some things if I can find the right questions. While I want to think about everybody's input here, I have a feeling yours is going to be the most fruitful if I can get a grasp of it. By "genetic solutions" you mean genetic changes of one sort or another that lead to such resistance? So you have different sources of resistance in different kinds of genetic effects? And maybe even different kinds or degrees of resistance? See, already this is a different idea of mutation than I've had, that it is persistent and even only "arguably" an anomaly -- rather than a random completely haphazard occurrence. This makes it something closer to what I figured had to be going on, to something built in, a normal predictable process of genetic behavior. This is what I'd like to get a better understanding of if I can.It also appears to be a different view than what some others are saying here, although maybe this is a misreading and you can reconcile the various views. Wouldn't that depend on how many possible combinations of factors are inbuilt in the coding system to begin with? Doesn't it also depend on just how many of these mutations enhance the genetic makeup of the organism rather than causing genetic diseases? Also, even if they don't have effects on the phenotype, doesn't the fact that something in the DNA has been changed suggest that all is not well with the organism at that level? I mean aren't we talking about a sequence that produced a particular protein no longer producing it? How can that be a good thing for the overall functioning of the organism in the long run? I did see some discussion of plasmids on the other thread but I barely grasp the concept.You seem to be saying that misrepair is nearly a "normal" process.But how often does it produce something beneficial? Or something that emerges as a trait, and how often is that trait of benefit to the organism or even just neutral as opposed to negative or deleterious? I understand that "trait" is getting to a completely different level of biology though, and that a single mutation may not produce any observable change. These questions are klutzy I think, but maybe they'll get sharper eventually. I need some unpacking of this if I am to understand it. Thanks.

Hi Faith, My two or three posts have been an attempt to show you that I have the same idea that mutations are a "normal built-in process." The threads I linked you to go into more detail. Message 21 is pretty representative of how I post at EvC. I didn't assert that any of my beliefs were supported by scientific evidence. And I am not usually reprimanded for my posts.I was trying to let people know that they can examine my personal ideas about DNA mutations without worrying about upsetting my faith in the Bible because my ideas about DNA mutations are NOT the Bible (the Bible doesn't explain DNA processes). Also, by stating my beliefs (regarding the fall/Flood), it gives insight into my musings.However, your concern may be valid since AdminBen did specify stricter rules for this thread -- that is, science and only science.Instead of editing my post, I invite AdminBen to feel free to let me know (by posting in this thread or by any other means) if he is uncomfortable with Message 21 in any way per the guidelines for this thread. If he is, then, in the future, I will try to be more careful in this thread.I have always considered EvC to be Percy's playground, and, as such, have decided that I will either play by his rules or not play at all. I would expect no less from people participating in a forum I was running (were I to run a forum).--Jason

Not to pull out my imaginary admin mode on you, but to quote a great nadkicker of this forum: If you feel that there is an impenetrable shield protecting you from science, why even bother participating in this thread?Your statement there have a bigger impact on those of us that are dedicating our lives to science than you think. Basically, you are asking us to commit our time to explaining things to you and then say, "oops, I forgot to tell you that everything you say will go in one of my ears and go out the other."I think it is better for you to stick with the theology and religious forums from now on.

OK. As usual there is so much happening on the thread that knowing where to start is a problem, so I was saving your links until after I thought through some of the other posts. But that may have been the wrong starting point.I got the impression from Ben that even MENTIONING the Bible on this side of the forum was off limits, but yes, whatever they have to say about it is the rule.

Not meaning to pull out my nitpicking stick on you, but I think this is where it is appropriate for me to point out something that, although may seem minor to non-science people, is of great importance to the rest of us.The word theory, in science, is only strictly used for an idea or explanation that have to have at least a certain level of certainty. In the case of TL's idea, it is a hypothesis and shalt remain as such for a very long time, at least until it has gained the support of much compiling evidence.I think part of the problem between the evo vs creo debate is that creo's just don't/won't understand how hard it is for something to become a theory. To give you a frame of reference, it is harder for something to become a theory than for me to cut off my arm. We don't and shouldn't use the word so liberally.

A bacterial generation can be as short as a few seconds and the rate of increase in population is exponential. If anything, I find it amazing that after a few nights worth of growth that there are so few individuals who have gained the mutation to resist anti-biotics, considering just how many mitotic processes the culture goes through in just a few hours.

Lam, Hypothesis! That's the word.Thanks.

Hi Jason,I'm glad to see Faith is on top of this one. This thread is all about examining scientific facts of how mutations occur, how often they occur, and thinking about if, scientifically speaking, it should be "surprising" that such mutations lead to beneficial changes. Your pet hypothesis is game for another thread / another time. For here, it's off topic.Faith is also right about mentioning faith in this thread. The view here is that doesn't care about faith. It cares only about empirical observations and trying to explain them / model them. As such, there's no need to mention faith here. Those with and without faith can do science, and mentioning faith can only distract from the empirical issues we're trying to focus on here.Please keep this in mind when posting on this thread. It's a good rule of thumb for posting on all science threads.If you need further clarification, please follow the "General discussion..." link below and post to that thread. In the meantime, I really need you to stick to "science-only" very strictly. It took a fair amount of work even to get this thread started, so I'm very wary of it being pulled off of the main point--to ask questions and examine a scientific theory.Thanks.AbE: Changing "theory" to "hypothesis" Also, thanks to everybody for really thinking about staying right on topic. Glad to see the effort of all posting in this thread. Keep it up!This message has been edited by AdminBen, Monday, 2005/09/19 10:32 PM

---

Really? What bacterium is that for?TTFN,WK

Faith,Since you answered my post this thread has grown rapidly. A lot has been explained already, so I'll just pick some points from your reply to me and comment on them.First this. You said: A bit further on in the thread, Wounded King explained random mutation to you, to which you replied with: Well, I hope the following will further help your understanding. Random mutation is "normal" and predictable in the same sense that traffic accidents are. We know that traffic accidents happen, they're a fact of life, and insurance companies use statistical predictions to calculate risks. Likewise, random mutation is a fact of life, because the copying process just isn't perfect. In that sense, you might say mutation is a built-in aspect of the genetic process, but only in that sense. The randomness lies in the fact that it is uncertain which particular mutations will happen. But that some of the copied DNA will have mutations is a near certainty, just as it's a near certainty that some traffic accidents will happen.So, yes, mutation is a "random completely haphazard occurrence", but it's also a "normal predictable process of genetic behavior". Sometimes, you can have both.Next, a quick word about the lottery analogy. I said

quote:

---

Buying a lottery ticket isn't a sure fire way of acquiring a lot of money, but some people do win the lottery.

---

How about if I rephrase that in terms of mutation? "Having a mutation isn't a surefire way of acquiring resistance to antibiotics, but some bacteria do acquire resistance." Does that clear up the analogy?Finally, some praise is in order. Judging by how you handle things in this thread, I'd say it's certainly not beyond you. You are doing great so far, keep it up. And I think your assessment of Wounded King's input is right on the mark. I think he's one of the more knowledgeable people here, where the scientific details behind evolution are concerned. And he always seems willing to oblige, provided you treat him well, so keep him an eye on him.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 20-Sep-2005 08:51 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Here's where I think you are getting caught up. I think you are thinking of the mutations as being a single on off principle. (ie The bacteria either IS or ISN'T resistant.)Here's an experiment. (fair warning it's late and this may not make as much sense as it seems to right now).Take random single bacteria X. It has a degree of resistance to Antibotic 1. In this case, it's very little resistance. Just like you have very little resistance to cyanide poisoning. If the dose is small enough, you will survive. Same here.Allow bacteria X to reproduce a billion times. Some of these billion "offspring" will be slightly more resistant, slightly less resistant, exactly the same, very resistant or not resistant.Going statistically, the largest group should be "exactly the same" with the slightly one way or another coming in second and the very one way or another not represented.Now we have two different possibilities. We hit this group with Antibotic 1 in massive doses over an extended period of time. High concentration. OR We hit is with a more mild, but still lethal dose of antibotic. Low concentration.If we hit it with high concentration, all the no resistant, low resistant and normal resistant versions will die off right away. If we keep up the concentration, the slightly resistants and very resistants will likely die as well. Leaving us with nothing. Only the extremely rare Completely Resistant strain would be left, and chances are slim that we'd have one in our one batch.However, if we hit it with a low concentration (the real life equivelent of someone who takes half their prescription, feels better and stops taking the pills) we'd expect that the no resistant and low resistants would die. Maybe the normals live, maybe the die. They slightly and very resistants thrive.The extremely rare beneficial mutation of complete immunity doesn't need to have taken place if the doses are not one hundred percent lethal.This is the process by which we are raising all sorts of very resistant stains.

I was referring to a single cell dividing into two daughter cells and then those daughter cells dividing yet into more daughter cells. I could be wrong, but each one of those is a generation.

Okay.

content deleted. I completely misunderstood Nuggin. I thought I was seriously disagreeing with his post, but I wasn't.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-20-2005 05:35 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-20-2005 05:36 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-20-2005 05:38 AM

Nuggin, Actually, I was under the impression that no two cells are ever "exactly the same," due to the copying "errors."