Hey again Shadow,
I'd be glad to continue the discussion of the CRISPR system that we had on the '
Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?' thread. As a brief response to your question ...
is the CRISPRS system an example of a dedicated non random, beneficial change that evolutionary theorists have excluded to this day?
The answer is no. It is no on several levels, for a start it is not ignored by evolutionary theorists, indeed there are numerous articles discussing the evolution of CRISPR associated genes, the use of CRISPR regions in producing phylogenies, the implications of the system for the ongoing dialogue on the role of horizontal transfer in evolution and the differences between bacteria and prokaryotes in this regard.
Secondly as we discussed previously there is substantial doubt that the system is non-random in any meaningful way. There is evidence supporting the theory that the spacer sequences are taken randomly apart from a small motif bias. The only way in which it is non-random is in the incorporation into the CRISPR locus, but that is an aspect of the CRISPR mechanism.
Finally there is nothing to support the contention that the mutations are uniformly beneficial since you are of necessity only surveying the post selection population since the bacteria must be exposed to the phage for the CRISPR system to operate so you will have lost any neutral or deleterious incorporations at the CRISPR loci.
The CRISPR system as a whole is certainly beneficial but it is not a product of itself. As I pointed out before, almost all of the same arguments apply to the human adaptive immune system the only difference is that in unicellular bacteria the acquired 'immunity' can be inherited.
If so how can one have a debate when a valid point is ignored by the so called scientific experts, because it does not fit into their theory.
How can we have a debate when as a response all you do is post huge chunks of quote from other people instead of making a reasoned argument yourself? If you really want to debate CRISPRs I'm game, either in a new topic or in a great debate, but I want to debate with
you not with a giant wall of text taken from various different papers, e.g.
Message 735. Citations are supposed to support your argument not
be your argument.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Fixed typo in subtitle
™ Version 4.2
