Disabling Bacterial Resistance

gnojek and randman, one thing that often gets confused is a 'random event' and 'events happening at the same frequency'.Mutations are, as far as anybody can tell, random events. That does not mean that all mutations have to occur at the same frequency.For example, imagine we each have a die, one with six numbers and one with twenty numbers. You roll the one with twenty numbers and I roll the one with six numbers. Now, it will be completely random whether we roll a 'one'. However, the frequence of me and you rolling a one will be completely different.The same is true for mutation hotspots- different frequency, yet still ranom (i.e. not directed).

This is false. Evolution (as understood here) is the change of genetic material over time in a population of organisms due to processes like natural selection. So, only if you find NO genetic changes in the population can you say that a species survived without evolution. What is this why you are asking about here. Are you looking for a underlying reason? Are you looking for causes? Speciation happens. We can observe it in numerous examples. Well, then you should state what you are talking about. I have the feeling there is this fuzzy definition of 'kinds' coming up, right? Fish stays fish kind? Monkey stays monkey kind? But how do you determine what is a fish and what is a monkey? And, are you suggesting that (micro)-evolution explain how guppies and sharks had a common ancestor? Is a whale fish kind or mammal kind? How about a penguin? Again, if genetic change occured due to processes like natural selection then they survived with evolution, not without. You have yet to show an example of anything 'surviving' without evolution. Sexual reproduction (and even asexual reproduction) leads to changes in the genetic material. If these changes have any effect on the organism, then evolution is inevitable. False. Animals are not supposed to evolve for any reason, they just do. In this case it is not necessary to become man due to the niche change. However, looking at our population numbers it certainly seems to be a temporary advantage to do so. If it was not advantageous, then non-human apes could have spread out of Africa and colonized earth... but they didn't. Again, you may not think it was necessary, but it certainly didn't seem to hurt. In fact, when you look at the competition over habitat within all ape species, then it certainly seems like those large brains kick some mighty butt. Just look at those strong mountain gorillars sitting in their rain forest, only surviving because some humans like watching them. Hmm, sounds to me like a deistic answer for a normal biological process. So, to you it seems logical that a book written a few thousand years ago that postulates the universe was created in six days is a correct source for understanding nature. Well, so be it.

Hmm, seems like you left the most interesting part out. What is your definition of a kind? I.e. what is the evolution that in your mind can happen, and where does it all of a sudden not happen anymore.And, if you doubt that there is enough time for evolution to deal with life threatening situations, I would suggest you read the book 'The Beak of the Finch'.In fact, your whole argument seems to be premised on the preconception, that in order for some new development to be useful, it has to be manifested immediately and completely. In some cases that may be true, however, that is not the only way selection works. It does not mean that either you are adapted and you survive or you are not adapted and you die.For example, in your running example, the likelyhood of a fast runner surviving will be higher than that of a slow runner. That does not mean that all slow runners will be dead and all fast runners survive and that is it. No, in every single generation, if running fast is advantageous, the faster runners will reproduce more than the slow runners, so, over time, the overall population becomes faster.And, to avoid confusion, don't use terms like 'reason'. Evolution is an observable process. There is no reason for evolution just like there is no reason for gravity.And similar like to the term reason you state that a human brain was never 'needed'. Well, I never claimed that a human brain was needed. It was merely advantageous, as you can see from the fact that the animals with the large brain rapidly spread out over the whole world and are the only ape species to colonize all continents. And, they are also the only ape that is not threatened by extinction. So, if in the end all other apes are dead, will you then see that having a large brain is an advantage to survival for large apes?

Mike, you are either not listening or you are purposefully disregarding what multiple people are trying to tell you: For evolution to occur it is not necessary for the newly evolved trait to be NEEDED. It is sufficient that the new trait is a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.You and I both have shown that large brains are not needed to colonize the Savannah. And population dynamics clearly has shown that having a large brain is a competitive advantage that human apes have over all other apes. We are rapidly outcompeting them in their own specialized habitats now, so that eventually the only surviving great apes will be living in our zoos. The same is true for the fast runner example. There is no logical problem, the problem lies in your unwillingness actually contemplate the arguments in front of you instead of tearing down a straw man.I'll spell it out here again: Any SMALL increase in running speed and any SMALL increase in brain power is not NEEDED to survive, however, they do give a competitive advantage over slower or dumber animals, therefor they are selected for. Over time this process can lead to brainiacs like us or speedsters like Cheetahs.And if you doubt that this is how the process works, read up a little about how we are creating bacteria that can deal with oilspills or other contaminants. The process is surprisingly simple: You start with bacteria that would die in an environment containing the amounts of oil found in oilspills and you let them grow in medium containing small amounts of oil that would inhibit their growth but not kill them. Grow for a number of generations, then increase the concentration. Repeat until the concentration tested reaches the concentration of oil in the spill. Along the way test for those bacteria that deal with the increasing oil concentration by breaking it down. Voila, evolution at work. And if you think that this is too artificial a scenario, imagine what happens at the borderline of an oilspill. You have a concentration gradient of oil, much like in the experiment and more and more oil resistant bacteria are able to further and further explore a new environment with higher and higher oil concentrations.

Mike, this statement is wrong and it is at the core of your problems. I have shown you before that it is wrong. And you have agreed that it is wrong:1) Large brains are beneficial for survival.
2) You CAN survive without a brain the size of humans.or1) running fast is benificial for survival
2) you can survive without running as fast as a cheetah

Mike, these are two different statements. You made both. You can decide whic one of these two false statements you would like to have addressed first.

Well, Mike, this is where the problem starts. I should not need to figure out what you mean. You should be able to state a sentence that states what you mean.So, do you still mean:1) If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive.and2) I said a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive.Both statements are pretty clear and both statements are easily falsifiable. To show 1) is false I merely have to show that some predecessor could survive without the trait that is beneficial for survival. To show 2) is false, I merely have to show that a trait can be selected for even if you can survive without it.Is the fact that both statements of yours are easily falsifiable the reason that you start confusing the issues by adding things like 'necessity based', 'arbitrary selector', 'all of the information in the gene pool', ...? So, do you stand by your statement and do you wish to learn that both statements are obviously false? If so, which one would you like to start with?

Mike, I don't quite follow you here. But never mind that, we can get back to statement 1) at a later time after we deal with 2).So, to summarize,

quote:

---

Mike the wiz says: "[...] a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive."

​

Hrun says: "To show [the above statement] is false, I merely have to show that a trait can be selected for even if you can survive without it."

​

Mike the wiz says: "Yes, if a trait isn't needed, yet is selected, this would falsify it."

---

Hrun's example: Being able to speak in humans is certainly a treat that can be selected for. Communication and speech allowed humans to cooperate in groups, exchange information and pass on information to offspring, thus preserving knowledge through generations. In fact, it is thought that this trait is one of the primary competive advantages humans have over other great apes. Yet, as anybody can see, for example by looking at my deaf-mute cousin who is happily married and has two kids, the ability to speak is neither required for procreation nor for survival.Therefor, I have shown that Mike's initial statement is false. Speech is an example where a certain trait can give a competitive advantage, thus can be selected for, even though it is not required for survival or procreation.This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-15-2005 03:47 PM