Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 77 (578414)
09-01-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
08-31-2010 2:26 PM


So I propose a new name, "The Bacteria Diet Theory".
The capacity of bacteria, yeasts, and fungi to evolve the ability to exploit new energy sources is just one of the many propensities of life the theory of evolution explains.
That's it.
No, that's just all you're able to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 2:26 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:30 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 22 of 77 (578575)
09-02-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 1:30 AM


I would say, well, does that explain everything?
No, it explains that random mutation can alter genes and therefore alter phenotype, because phenotype is specified by genes.
That's true of bacteria but it's also true of more complex life - our phenotype is determined by genotype, so changes to genes will change our phenotype.
None of these types of simple mutations are creating any new kinds of potential structures.
Please be very specific why you think an auxotrope reversion mutation in bacteria doesn't create a new "structure." If there's no additional structure then what is the mutation doing?
Bacteria simply divide.
True, but they divide at different rates, because it takes energy to divide (and they're subject to predation.) Bacteria that can't exploit any of the available carbon sources don't divide at all, because they have no source of material for growth. (The new bacteria have to be made of something.) Bacteria that can exploit an energy source have a marked advantage over those that can't; bacteria that can synthesize a nutrient de novo from simpler constituents from the environment have an advantage over those who are limited to collecting the nutrient (histidine, for instance) from the environment.
There are a thousand different reasons for the reproductive success of species which are competing in a eat, be eaten, be noticed, be handsome, be strong competitive scenario of Darwin's natural selection.
That's absolutely true. The great genius of Darwin is that it doesn't matter. It's all under the rubrick of natural selection. All of it - every source of differential reproductive success in organisms is natural selection, it doesn't matter whether its bacteria or bobcats. Different organisms in completely different environments - natural selection applies to them all.
That's the universality of the theory of evolution - it explains the history and diversity of literally every living thing on Earth. Everything that has lived on Earth. It's a fantastically robust and useful theory, precisely because it specifies some very general mechanisms - random mutation and natural selection - that apply to literally everything that lives or has lived.
You have no evidence for it in nature so why claim you have.
We have an abundance of evidence. You're simply unwilling to try to understand it. Any time you decide to end this ridiculous, ignorant posture, we're here to inform you as to the actual state of biological science.
Any time you ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:30 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 4:42 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 77 (578702)
09-02-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 5:06 AM


But here is the really intriguing part.
No, here's the really intriguing part - I know you've seen 29+ evidences for Macroevolution, and Beneficial Mutations, because I've linked these things to you. I know you've seen bacterial evidence of complexity-increasing mutations because I showed it to you. I know you've seen evidence of common descent by modification in this thread, because Taq showed you the journal article in Message 14.
But for some reason, all that stuff "doesn't count." Bacteria don't count, even though they have the same genetic basis as all other living things, because, well, they're bacteria and we're not. (Why be so human-centric? Evolution explains the evolution of bacteria and humans, as well as everything else.) Common descent doesn't count because, well, you couldn't understand the words in the paper. TalkOrigins articles don't count because they're from TalkOrigins and written by scientists, I guess. And all the other ample evidence of structure-forming mutations we've presented in this thread and the Evolution of Skeletons thread don't count because, well, I'm not sure, because you never responded to it, you just ignored it. And of course evidence in books doesn't count because, well, who the fuck knows?
Plus I know that Wounded King has also claimed that there is so much evidence that's its a complete canard to start a thread or even suggest otherwise.
I'm just going to tell you, now, that you don't know what the word "canard" means, because you're not even remotely using it correctly.
plus Granny will tell you that its all in a book
Yes, information is frequently found in books.
Or perhaps its a secret club, and you have to join and go through hazing first?
You just have to open the books and read them. You have to follow the links that are being given to you. You have to read the journal articles that are being presented to you, instead of ignoring them.
You have to stop asking for evidence and then completely ignoring all attempts to give it to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 5:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:17 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 77 (578721)
09-02-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:17 PM


Nope, supposed evidence for macro-evolution is NOT evidence for mechanisms.
But this is the same shell-game you've been playing throughout, Dash. When you ask for evidence of random mutation and natural selection, we provide it, but then you complain that it's not evidence for the vast history of common descent of organisms.
But when we provide evidence for the vast history of common descent of organisms, you complain that it's not evidence for random mutation and natural selection!
It's impossible to please you because you never understand exactly what claim we're providing the evidence for. You always play this game - evidence for one claim is not evidence for another, which is "what you were asking for all along" (even though you weren't), so you ignore it.
Evidence for macroevolution is evidence for macroevolution. You rejected it because it's not evidence for random mutation and natural selection. But bacterial evidence was given as evidence for random mutation and natural selection, and you rejected it because it wasn't evidence for macroevolution.
When we tell you "all you have to do is ask"? What we're saying is this: stop playing this dishonest game where you reject evidence for one claim because it doesn't support another. If you want evidence for random mutation and natural selection, and are then shown it, don't open threads like this one to complain that it doesn't support macroevolution, because that's not what we presented the evidence for.
Every single part of the theory of evolution can be substantiated with mountains of evidence. You just have to ask, and understand what the evidence is being presented for.
Whoops, we are still on the Bacteria Diet.
Yes, because bacterial experiments substantiate the mechanisms you've asked for evidence for. Subsequently you've complained that they aren't evidence for macroevolution and common descent by modification.
Well, ok. I gave you 29+ evidences for that. You just complained that they didn't substantiate random mutation and natural selection!
Do you think we're all so stupid that we're not going to catch on? Please.
Don't you think it would be more fair if I have to open the books and read them, you also should have to read them?
I have read them, Dash. That's how I know what's in them. When I give you textbook citations I'm opening my own textbooks, for the biochemistry classes I'm taking, and copying the information right out of them.
And when are you going to reply to, or even notice, Taq's post on ERV's?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:17 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 77 (578723)
09-02-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:31 PM


Dash -
Do both bacteria and higher organisms have DNA?
Do both bacteria and higher organisms replicate their DNA as they reproduce?
Do both bacteria and higher organisms use DNA sequences to construct proteins?
Do both bacteria and higher organisms use proteins to interact with their chemical environments, metabolize nutrients, and perform other biochemical tasks?
Please be honest. If you can honestly answer these questions you'll be forced to conclude that bacteria are effective model organisms for higher organisms, and therefore that observations of mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection in bacteria substantiate their existence in higher organisms - and, moreover, that phylogenies constructed from ERV sequences prove that this, in fact, is the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:31 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 77 (578732)
09-02-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:40 PM


I keep putting this burden on you to provide evidence for something other than bacteria changing its diet
Why? Bacteria are a perfectly appropriate model organism for demonstrating random mutation and natural selection.
You don't like it, for some reason that you can't explain, but why should I care?
Its so unfair.
No, it's just stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:40 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 77 (578733)
09-02-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:52 PM


Do both bacteria and otters crack open seashells with rocks?
Why does that matter?
Do both bacteria and humans know how to throw a frisbee?
Why does that matter?
Do bacteria and bartenders make good listeners for drunks at 2 a.m.?
Why does that matter?
Do bacteria and Tyra Banks have the same ideas about the best angle to tilt your chin for dramatic effect?
Why does that matter?
Please be specific. Bacteria are a perfectly appropriate model organism for showing random mutation and natural selection because of their genetic similarity to all other organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:52 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 77 (578775)
09-02-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 1:01 PM


The bacteria proves it, that's why chimps and crashfrog don't have pockets!! Who needs more proof.
Don't bacteria have DNA? Isn't their DNA used to synthesize proteins?
What does DNA have to do with pockets? Can you show me the gene for pockets in human pants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 1:01 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 3:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 77 (579218)
09-03-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by barbara
09-03-2010 7:26 PM


Re: "The bacteria Diet Theory"
Our DNA is more bacterial than HUMAN.
No, it's not. There's barely any sequence identity between bacteria and humans at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by barbara, posted 09-03-2010 7:26 PM barbara has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 77 (579382)
09-04-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Bolder-dash
09-04-2010 11:55 AM


Re: It's a bad name
Non-responsive, Bolder-dash. It's not make-believe just because you refuse to admit it's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 77 (579527)
09-04-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bolder-dash
09-04-2010 10:15 PM


Re: It's a bad name
Its not real because you dreamed it.
Dreamed what? Be specific.
You've long stopped making any kind of sense, Dash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 77 (579528)
09-04-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Bolder-dash
09-04-2010 10:26 PM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
First off, what does the fossil evidence tell you about RM/NS being the mechanisms of change? Nothing is the answer.
Are you claiming that organisms in the past did not undergo random mutation, or are you claiming that organisms in the past did not undergo natural selection? Or are you making both claims?
Since we observed organisms in the present undergo both of these processes, why should we believe that they didn't do so in the past as well? Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:26 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:06 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 68 of 77 (579556)
09-05-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 12:06 AM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
The point is demonstrating that these two things are sufficient to produce all the meaningful complex structures of life.
Finally, you're asking intelligible questions. If you wanted to know how we know that random mutation and natural selection can produce the varieties of life we see today, why didn't you say so before? Honestly.
1) Complex structures of life are determined in organisms by the content of their genetics - that is, by sequences of DNA.
2) Random mutation can produce any arbitrary DNA sequence. Mutations can add any base and subtract any base, duplicate or eliminate any gene, and make any sort of modification to DNA sequences.
3) Natural selection preserves random mutations that move an organism towards adaptation, and eliminates those that move an organism away from adaptation ("maladaptation.").
Logically, therefore, random mutation and natural selection in concert can produce theoretically any possible complex physical structure of life.
It is estimated that the total diversity of proteins among all known species inhabits a very small fraction of the probability space, that these proteins are clustered in the probability space, and that approximately 1% of all randomly-generated polypeptides exhibit kinase activity.
Mathematically that indicates that it's possible to "walk" from any one protein to any other by means of "steps" comprised of single amino acid substitutions, deletions, or additions (all of which are fairly common mutations.)
Living things are not discreet and essentially different; living things occupy a smooth continuum of change in form and capability. You've been presented with a portion of that continuum in the form of the smooth continuous pattern of hominid skulls leading from our oldest evolutionary ancestor to modern humans. But that pattern is universal among living things on Earth. The biological world has almost no true novelty; every living thing is just a modified other living thing. Humans are modified apes. Apes are modified mammals. Mammals are modified lizards. Lizards are modified fish. Fish are modified worms. Worms are modified polyps. Polyps are modified molds. Molds are modified bacteria. Bacteria are modified... whatever the first living thing was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:59 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 77 (579669)
09-05-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 12:59 AM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
This about what we can prove. What we can demonstrate.
That random mutation and natural selection can produce any arbitrary DNA sequence, that morphology of organisms is determined by DNA, and therefore that random mutation and natural selection can account for any morphological feature of any organism, living or dead.
That's what I can, and have, demonstrated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:59 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(5)
Message 76 of 77 (579673)
09-05-2010 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 9:50 AM


Mutations can't not be random
I would say I believe that random mutations happen to some species maybe (in fact I have no way of knowing if any of them are truly random, but perhaps a few are).
Why wouldn't they be random?
Chemistry is random. It happens according to physical law, sure, but at a molecular level a reaction happens because of a completely chance interaction between two molecules in solution. We know that it's random because that's how molecules move in solution - randomly. We know that because it's called "Brownian motion" and it's observed, directly, to be random.
Because these interactions are random, that can add randomness to a chemical reaction. For instance, the reaction of an asymmetric alkene with acid produces several different alcohols:
because the hydronium ion (H3O+) can add to the double bond (the two lines) at either end, and the product can re-arrange itself into a more stable form (the major product.) You'll always get these products, and always in a certain proportion when the reaction is performed at a specific temperature. In that sense, chemistry isn't random at all.
But if we could somehow zoom in on the reaction flask and see molecules interacting and reacting with each other, we wouldn't be able to predict how any specific molecule was going to end up, because whether the hydronium attacks the double bond at the terminal end or the internal end is entirely random - it's simply a matter of how much specific kinetic energy those molecules collided with, and that energy is basically random.
All of chemistry is like this. Chemical reactions are reliable because they're stoichiometric , that is, they follow statistical determinations. We can't say how any particular 3-methyl-1-butene is going to react, but we can calculate with great precision how many of them are going to form 2-methyl-2-butanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, and 3-methyl-2-butanol.
All of this is the long way around to tell you that mutations of DNA are also chemical reactions, they occur when mutagens interact with the DNA molecule, and where they do that is a completely random thing. What they may do there is also random. Trying to mutate a specific location in DNA in a specific way is such a difficult problem that it's taken us 40-50 years to learn to do it. Mutating DNA randomly is incredibly easy, because randomness is the default state of chemistry. Getting chemistry to not be random is very difficult indeed.
So that's how we know - we know - that mutations are random - because mutation of DNA is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are random. Expose DNA to a mutagenic substance and it's inevitable that DNA will mutate. Where and how it will mutate is random, according to inviolable physical laws which you can test with a children's chemistry set.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 9:50 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024