Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
109 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,277 Year: 6,389/6,534 Month: 582/650 Week: 120/232 Day: 5/54 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Disabling Bacterial Resistance
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3415 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 12 of 60 (216644)
06-13-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
06-13-2005 12:35 PM


It demonstrates non-randomness in mutations. Non-randmoness in mutations, is by definition, a move away from evolutionary models, and is indicative of design.

Not really. It certainly demonstrates that mutation rates are tied in to the cellular environment and that an enzymatic change to that environment can affect the rate of mutation, but it doesn't mean that any specific mutation is occurring at a higher frequency so the position and nature of the mutation is still as random, in as much as it is stochastic, as ever.

Of course no one who is actually familiar with molecular genetics claims that mutations are completely random in frequency and character but we will elide over that strawman for the moment.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 06-13-2005 12:35 PM randman has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3415 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 18 of 60 (216749)
06-14-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
06-13-2005 8:26 PM


Re: Rate of Mutatability
One of the biggest problems I have with a lot of current genetic research is the fairly consistent assumption of constant (or relatively constant) rates of mutation as an environmental factor.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. Certainly such an assumption is often made, but it is certainly not currently represented as based upon a weight of evidence. Rather it is an assumption for conveniences sake. There is plenty of current research on variable rates of mutation and variable 'molecular clocks' but to account for such variability in any long evolutionary time scale would be a pretty mammoth task.

It seems a reasonable approach in a small population scale genetic study to assume a relative constancy in mutation rates given a homogenous environment for that population.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2005 8:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2005 9:05 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3415 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 53 of 60 (217618)
06-17-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 10:53 AM


You just seem to be endlessly repeating a tautology.

Obviously if an organism lacks something which it needs to survive then it will not survive. You haven't shown any way in which this has any relevance to evolution. What you would have to show is that all of the organism's ancestors would also have needed that same thing in order to survive.

So, in fact, it is just the same old irreducible complexity argument yet again since to make sense you need be able to show that the integrated systems could not co-evolve from rudimentrary precursors.

It wouldn't prove much anyway, because species from the beginning NEED in order to survive.

What do they need? If you have found out what the minimal requirements are for something that could be called living then you should really let us all know. Can you show that the neccessary components for a primitive self replicating system could not arise from inorganic material?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 10:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 11:44 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3415 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 55 of 60 (217643)
06-17-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
06-17-2005 11:44 AM


So in fact your argument is completely empty, in that it is not only hypothetical but that it can never be anything other than hypothetical. There are numerous examples of pathways for the evolution of irreducible complexity (depending of course on which flavour of IC is doing the rounds this month). Where is even a hypothetical barrier to their evolution?

IMO

well, yes. That seems to pretty much sum up your argument. In your opinion it couldn't happen, and that should be good enough for everybody.

Notice anything? The true positive is to prove it, not disprove it.

How lovely and disingenuous, what about all the evidence which does suggest such systems are evolveable, such as the many extant examples of systems which represent rudimentary forms of more complex systems in other organisms? Or the experiments where amino acids have arisen from a simulated prebiotic atmosphere organic or self replicating nucleotides have been generated? You are the one making a claim, if it is a claim which has no evidence to support it then we know how much credence we should give it.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2005 11:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022