Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic variability in a bacteria species
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 7 of 36 (580162)
09-07-2010 11:56 PM


Re: Bacteria
Hi everyone,
In Message 69 I comented to Jeff Davis saying "Penicillin was first used in 1871 but was not mass produced until just before the invasion of Normandy. It was great for colds in the 50's.
So bacteria had 40 years to raise immunities before the ninties.
Now where those immunities came from is another question."
jar promptly informed me the immunities came from mutations.
I then introduced a paraphrased Lederberg experiment in Message 71.
After which I made the following statement:
ICANT writes:
The immunity was already in their DNA.
So my statement where did those immunities come from.
Evolutionist says they had acquired a mutation prior to being exposed.
I say the DNA information contained the immunities when they were created.
To which Moose pointed me to this thread.
Anybody game to clear my misconceptions up?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 11:58 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 9 of 36 (580170)
09-08-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
09-07-2010 11:58 PM


Re: Bacteria
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
I've done so in the other thread.
No really.
I will bring my last post over here and you can answer it here.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 11:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 10 of 36 (580171)
09-08-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
09-07-2010 11:58 PM


Re: Bacteria
Hi crash,
Here is my post at Message 80.
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
A bacterium has only one parent, they reproduce by fission (not by sexual intercourse) and the "child" of a bacteria (traditionally called a "daughter") receives the full compliment of its mother's genetics. That's not true of diploid species like humans or pea plants (which obey Mendel's laws) but it is true of bacteria. They have a single parent, all of whose genes they inherit.
Check out the experiment I was pharaphasing Here
The experiment was started with a lot of bacteria in the beginning.
They were allowed to grow into several different colonies.
Then the colonies were stamped and stamped on a plate with penicillin on it.
Some colonies survived and some did not.
Penicillin was then introduced on the original plate and the same colonies on it died.
Thus my conclusion that some of the original bacteria had immunity and some did not.
The immunity had to exist in their DNA and was not acquired during the experiment.
I moved my questions to the thread Moose mentioned so lets go over there.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 11:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 1:07 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 12 by pandion, posted 09-08-2010 1:28 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 13 by frako, posted 09-08-2010 5:20 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 17 of 36 (580317)
09-08-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
09-08-2010 1:07 AM


Re: Bacteria
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
Yes. All clones of a single individual, called the "founding individual."
Where does the statement found Here say what you said?
1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the original plate.
I don't think that 1. means 1 bacteria.
I understand the statement to mean more than one as they are to be spread out on a plate.
It nowhere says all these bacteria was from a single bacteria.
crashfrog writes:
The antibiotic resistance was acquired during the initial culture
That is an assumption.
Since the so called single individual that is your founding individual was not exposed to penecilin you have no way of knowing whether that individual had an immunity to penecilin.
crashfrog writes:
We observed neither of those. We observed that some colonies replicated and some did not -
Yes that is obvious as all did not survive when exposed to penecilin.
crashfrog writes:
thus proving that resistance was an acquired trait, acquired during the "log phase" of the experiment (the initial culture
Well no there has been no proof that the trait was acquired during the "log phase".
It is proof that something has occured.
Either the original single individuall bacteria as you put forth had to have no immunity and some of its offspring gained immunity or the original single individual bacteria posessed immunity and then some of the offspring lost that immunity and their offspring did not have the immunity.
We are in agreement that the bacteria that survived had the immunity prior to exposure to penecilin.
We just don't agree on how that immunity began to exist.
My question then is if the immunity was not in the DNA how did any bacteria survive until today?
It makes no difference what antibiotic science can come up with there are bacteria that are already immune to that antibiotic.
That supports that the DNA has those immunities already in it.
crashfrog writes:
This proves that random mutation was the source of the acquired resistance.
One assertion does not prove another assertion.
There are two possibilities.
One possibility is that the immunity trait was acquired.
The other possibility is that the original individual had immunity and some of the offspring and their offspring did not receive that immunity due to a bad mutation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 1:07 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2010 5:46 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 19 by Taq, posted 09-08-2010 5:56 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 6:15 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 09-08-2010 6:21 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 36 (580504)
09-09-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Wounded King
09-08-2010 6:21 PM


Re: Bacteria
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes:
Well it doesn't but then that site isn't the original paper, it is a simplified precis. The actual original replication experiment paper can be found here (PDF).
Where does this paper mention the experiment that I referenced from Berkeley?
This experiment was concerning accumulating resistance.
The one I referenced when exposed to penecilin some colonies died and others did not. But when exposed to the penecilin none gained resistance they were either immune or they died.
When you click explore at the bottom of the page I referenced it takes you Here
Which says:
In the U.S., where people use shampoos with particular chemicals in order to kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to the chemicals in those shampoos. There are two possible explanations for this:
Hypothesis A:
Resistant strains of lice were always thereand are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death.
Hypothesis B:
Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.
Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct.
Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.
In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear1.
Is this lesson being taught at Berkeley correct?
Back to the bacteria.
How many different mutations are possible in bacteria?
Because if there is one mutation in 10 billion that survive why would that one mutation be a trait of immunity?
Couldn't it just as easily be a netural mutation?
Couldn't it just as easily be a delentious mutation?
Couldn't it just as easily be the ability to digest nylon?
If mutations are truly random as proposed isn't it possible that there are hundreds of mutations that could arise rather than a mutation of immunity to penecilin?
But my further question is why isn't it possible for the DNA to contain the immunity?
There are people who have immunities that are not active in their offspring but is active in later descendants. Why could that not be possible in bacteria?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 09-08-2010 6:21 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Wounded King, posted 09-09-2010 2:51 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2010 4:34 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 09-09-2010 7:24 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Jack, posted 09-10-2010 5:45 AM ICANT 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