Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture?

Becuase if the bacteria already had a latent antibiotic resistance it would have given them a completely different result to the one they observed. They would not have observed the resistance trait arising in line with the established mutation rate. The original Lederberg paper can be read here.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

The bacterial populations were grown from a single bacterium. If that single bacterium was resistant to antibiotics then nearly the entire population would have been resistant. That was not the case. Instead, only 1 out of billions of bacteria were resistant, and this resistance came about due to a mutation that occured prior to the bacteria being exposed to antibiotic. The mutation was not a reaction to the presence of the antibiotic.This experiment has been done time after time after time. The mutations observed in this experiment, and others like it, are random with respect to fitness. I can cite specific biochemical pathways that further demonstrate how mutations are random, if you like.

So the experiment prooves that there are randon mutations. It does not prove that they are the only ones.
According to my "speculative theory"(http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com): 1. random and directed mutations can coexist. 2.In onecell organisms randomness is seen more often. 3.The experiment conditions energise random mutations.

My answer is the same as message 123--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a biologist or something alike.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

You say you are not a biologist and yet you want people to take you seriously?I don't get why you think your armchair philosophising has any likely hood of getting any traction in biological circles when biologists on this very site are telling you your ideas and bollocks.I don't want to sound mean but you don't seem to know much about the scientific method.

This is totally contrary to the evidence, in fact the only evidence at all of anything that might constitute a directed mechanism, such as those examples put forward by Wright and Shapiro, are in single celled organisms. What does this even mean? There are some experiments that can induce elevated rates of mutation but the replica plate experiment set up we were discussing isn't one of them.TTFN,WK

"Speculative theory" is an oxymoron within the confines of science.Also, we have shown experiments which demonstrate random mutagenesis. Where are your experiments which demonstrate guided and directed mutations which would make a significant impact on evolution?

the question of environment guiding eolution towards specific adaptations, together with natural selection and random mutations
is i think, solved ( see epigenetics, J Shapiro wright, Pigliucci ect). The era of simple answers and simple exlanations has gone.The element and concept of complexitveness in both questioning and answeing is now prevaling. This is a fact.This is the base we have all to agree.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

Shapiro and Wright had been studying bacteria only. But they say that macroevolution in multi cell organisms is mainly information driven. The replica plate had its own characteristics that they may didn't enhance mutation rates.

You either don't seem to know the work of Shapiro, Wright, Pigliucci, Yablonca, studies in epigenetics.

Sigh.You have been shown that you are very wrong about what you believe the epigenetics studies show by WK and Taq so many times int this thread it beggers belief.You idea about empathy drivng evolution is unsupported.Give it up or do some fucking research.Armchair theorising is a waste of time, no better than having a mental wank.Edited by Larni, : mental wank.

Well fine, but the fact that they say that isn't any sort of evidence. Without some sort of data to support it that is just an assertion or the expression of an opinion.Of course by using a term like 'information driven' you have once again highlighted your lamentable inability to define any of the terms you use meaningfully. After all I have already provided links to papers showing how natural selection can work to transfer environmental information into the genome, which to my mind would satisfy a requirement for information as a driver of macroevolution.TTFN,WK

We have been saying the same thing, that species evolve through information that moves from the environment to the population through the filter of natural selection. This doesn't explain why the clones on the replica plate came from the same spot on the master plate. The only explanation for this is that the mutation occurred on the master plate before the bacteria were exposed to antibiotics on the replica plates.

How does epigenetics explain the differences between humans and chimps?