I am still amazed about the experiment presented by Rrhain on the first page. Just a question for comprehension: The experiment seems to be repeatabel ... and the ratio of surviving bacteria matches within a confidence interval, perhaps of 95%, right?
Let try to make a simplified model. I have to guess the numbers but hopefully there is someone who is better informed and may help me with assuming the following:
1 stem E. coli bacterium of K-type
- let them reproduce to get a population of 10 000 000 000
This means rounded 34 generations.
- Assuming the new bacteria (K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage) have to exist in numbers to survive, say 0.1 % = 10 000 000
To yield an comparable number the mutation must have occurred several times or
one time at an early stage, example given at generation 14.
Is it that likely that the mutation happens, and get inherited even if there is no positive selection until the T4 phage comes in? There should be an idea how many roads a mutation can go in order to calculate the likelihood. The grand total of mutations may be subtracted by those which lead to tethal outcome. if the more or less neutral mutation may bear a positive effect on future events like the advent of the T4 phage it may be a huge number to get the proper one.
There were a lot assumptions because of missing background, but I hope there will be postings to adjust those. Anyway, I hope I made clear why I doubt the explanation.
crashfrog wrote
quote:
They have that built-in, random mechanism of adaptation. It's called "mutation and natural selection." It's the mechanism the experiment proves exists, and it's the same mechanism that does the same thing in all other organisms.
Why propose an additional, unknown, untestable mechanism when we already have one that explains it just as well? How would you determine the difference between your unknown mechanism and the evolutionary mechanism, since the results are exactly the same in every case?
Actually, I am not a scientist in this field, so I don't know if this proposed mechanism will be untestable. It simply appears to me that the given explanation of the phenomenon is not convincing. Just as if there is thunder ther must have been a god calling.
quote:
So I see, but the problem is, you don't doubt my evidence or reasoning, you doubt the conclusion.
What makes you think this way? I am just focused on the phenomenon presented and curious about a good explanation. Perhaps you can show me were I got it wrong.
This message has been edited by scot-free, 06-11-2004 03:55 PM