Theory of De-evolution!!!!!

quote:

---

I disagree, De-evolution is as good an explanation.

---

This is false. Let's look at the experiment again.We have E. coli bacteria that are susceptible to being killed by phage (the virus).The phage kills all the E. coli except for a few, which then outcompete the rest of the E. coli. If this were de-evolution, then ALL of the E. coli would have died, since they all become "weaker". However, some E. coli are able to acquire resistance (getting stronger) through a mutation.Next, we reintroduce the phage. Since all of the E. coli are resistant to the phage, it requires a beneficial mutation in the virus to overcome the resistance. If this was de-evolution, none of the viruses would be able to infect the E. coli. It is only through a beneficial mutation that the virus is able to reinfect. If some of the E. coli de-evolved in this step, they would be outcompeted by the non-de-evolved, still resistant bacteria. Therefore, an evolved virus is the only explanation.Sorry, your de-evolution makes no sense in the scenario. In fact, it has been clearly refuted.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What energy? You still haven't answered that question. There's no such thing as "genetic energy." Genes don't transfer energy; they sequence protiens.

---

​

Metabolism!

---

The amount of energy needed to construct any 100 base pair sequence is the same: 100 ATP's. Metabolism has no effect on the sequence of base pairs.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 12:57 PM

quote:

---

You must remember that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenisis

---

From a creationists point of view the origins of all species was not from a single progenitor but from many different species initially. De-evolution would have it, that, from this onset accumulative genetic copy errors would occur which would indeed, by the rigours of the environment, be naturally selected for removal, but this would not stop the accumulation of gentically inherited errors/weaknesses.

quote:

---

life does not adheer to any rigid categories.Like the spectrum its a smooth gradation between species, spred out over time. It has no rigid divisions, or classifications. Can you really not understand this?

---

All of the various facets of frequency emissions in a given area are present at exactly the same time, from one end of the spectrum to the other. By comparing this metaphor to life it lends more to an initial complexity of facets (species) within the spectrum of life, and, like the winding down solar masses and other causes of frequency emissions in the closed system of the universe the dimmer knob is being turned.

quote:

---

From a creationists point of view the origins of all species was not from a single progenitor but from many different species initially.

---

Citing evidence, what were the orignally created organisms?

quote:

---

De-evolution would have it, that, from this onset accumulative genetic copy errors would occur which would indeed, by the rigours of the environment, be naturally selected for removal, but this would not stop the accumulation of gentically inherited errors/weaknesses.

---

So they are removed but they still accumulate? Which is it, removed or accumulate?Also, what about beneficial mutations? They have been observed, and they have been observed to accumulate in the population over generations. Can you show me the data that led you to believe that the errors accumulate faster than beneficial mutaitons?

quote:

---

The phage kills all the E. coli except for a few, which then outcompete the rest of the E. coli. If this were de-evolution, then ALL of the E. coli would have died, since they all become "weaker". However, some E. coli are able to acquire resistance (getting stronger) through a mutation.

​

Next, we reintroduce the phage. Since all of the E. coli are resistant to the phage, it requires a beneficial mutation in the virus to overcome the resistance. If this was de-evolution, none of the viruses would be able to infect the E. coli. It is only through a beneficial mutation that the virus is able to reinfect. If some of the E. coli de-evolved in this step, they would be outcompeted by the non-de-evolved, still resistant bacteria. Therefore, an evolved virus is the only explanation.

---

Have they found the the mutant gene?It would be interesting to see the further development of this study! Perhaps this mutation is not beneficial in other areas?
Not forgetting that you'll only live as long as your food is in supply, A sensible phage virus would ration itself! It is quite possible that, given the environment, reactivation of gene's present has occured, not mutation (natural immunisation) Vice versa.BTW How old are these organisms? How long have they held their genetic form?(curious)

quote:

---

The amount of energy needed to construct any 100 base pair sequence is the same: 100 ATP's. Metabolism has no effect on the sequence of base pairs.

---

But "they" have an effect on metabolism.

A very silly statement indeed! Of couse, a given mutation may not be beneficial in other areas. A mutation can only be beneficial relative to it's environment. Even a very "good" one may be neutral if it doesn't confer long term reproductive success. "Sensible"? What in the world does this mean in relationship to a [i]virus[/b] for pete's sake? You're forgetting that there is no foresight in evolution. First reproduce: then the consequences. Do you have any reasons, other than wishful thinking, to claim "quite possible"? This sort of unsubstantiated, ad-hoc explanation is just another silly statement. So? Please explain why you think this is relevant.

quote:

---

Can you show me the data that led you to believe that the errors accumulate faster than beneficial mutaitons?

---

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchThis didn't lead me to decide by any stretch but if you can get past the ICR label you might find it a good read.From a global perspective, and being that environment has its place in evolution/de-evolution pehaps the extinction rate might be a clue (looking at life as a corporate entity).cheers.

From the first sentence (your ICR citation):

quote:

---

The single most significant biological event since creation is undoubtedly the Curse on creation as a result of Adam's sin.

---

You would think that such a significant event would be detectable. Why hasn't anyone been able to detect it in every organism alive? But let's go further and see if they have a leg to stand on.

quote:

---

In a recent review, Wren7 discusses three possible origins for bacterial pathogenicity, our understanding of which has been greatly expanded by genomic research:

​

1. Lateral gene transfer in which bacteria transfer genes for pathogenicity or antibiotic resistance from one cell to another.

​

2. Antigenic variation in which the bacteria have active mechanisms that produce varying types of antigens in order to elude the host defense systems.

​

3. Genome decay in which the genomes of pathogenic organisms lose many important genes that are no longer essential in the host environment.

​

Of these three themes, genome decay is most consistent with the creationist idea of a degenerating creation.

---

Please explain why any of those three things require genome decay? Let's go through each one:1. Lateral Gene Transfer (LGT): This means that a bacteria recieves an already functioning toxin gene/s from another bacteria. It is adding functional genes to a genome, hardly what I would call decay.2. Antigenic mutations: I would hardly call changing antigenicity a decay process. In fact, I would call it a beneficial mutation in that the bacteria are able to avoid death. This is "strengthening" of the genome.3. Losing genes: Being that the bacteria still live fine in it's environment, I find it hard to believe that this is de-evolving. These are considered neutral mutations since they do not affect the bacterias fitness, or reproductive success.This site seems to be failing horribly at every step. Let's keep going.

quote:

---

From ICR:
An important feature of the genomes of M. genitalium and M. pneumoniae is the genes that they lack. Although both species retain the ability to synthesize proteins via translation, neither has the capability of synthesizing amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.18 Thus, all amino acids must be obtained from the host via transport across the mycoplasma cell inner membrane. The absence of important biosynthetic genes is believed to be a hallmark of genome decay.

---

Therefore, animals can be considered genetically decayed from plants, since we have lost the ability to synthesize our own glucose. This is really pathetic. The mycoplasma species don't have to produce their own amino acids BECAUSE THEY ABSORB THEM FROM THE HOST, just as humans absorb our glucose from other animals and plants. This is no different. If they were so genetically decayed, why are they able to survive in the human host? Or any host for that matter.

quote:

---

In the evolutionary model, pathogenicity and parasitism is thought to progress from very virulent (aggressive) forms to harmless or even mutually beneficial relationships. Advocates claim that natural selection will favor hosts that are resistant to the parasite and parasites that are not rapid killers of their own host environments. Thus, as time progresses, the parasites evolve to less virulent forms, and the hosts become tolerant of the more benign forms of the parasites.

---

And in their conclusion ICR writes:

quote:

---

In the evolutionary model, pathogenicity and parasitism is thought to progress from very virulent (aggressive) forms to harmless or even mutually beneficial relationships. Advocates claim that natural selection will favor hosts that are resistant to the parasite and parasites that are not rapid killers of their own host environments. Thus, as time progresses, the parasites evolve to less virulent forms, and the hosts become tolerant of the more benign forms of the parasites.

---

Which is why we have the presence of hundreds of commensal bacteria in our gut, on our mucous membranes, and on our skin. This is also why we see large parasites, such as the tapeworm, that cause minimal damage to the host given sufficient resources. That, and they have yet to show that mycoplasmas threaten the existence of the human species, which would need to be done to fulfill a refutation of the above evolutionary argument. They would also have to show that the human body is incapable of resisting mycoplasma infections. I am guessing since not everybody has this infection that the body is able to repel such infections on a regular basis.And this, in regards to mycoplasma:

quote:

---

In the case of the mycoplasmas, I propose the opposite interpretation. Rather than starting out as a virulent relationship, the human/mycoplasma relationship may have been harmless or beneficial at creation. In this interpretation, important genes were lost from the mycoplasma as time progressed, rendering the mycoplasmas increasingly dependent on their hosts for survival. Thus, the pathogenicity of these organisms may be an indirect consequence of the loss of important genetic information. This interpretation is remarkably consistent with the traditional creationist understanding of a now degenerating world.

---

And where is there evidence that mycoplasmas and humans once enjoyed a commensal relationship? Nowhere. Where is the evidence that mycoplasmas and humans will never have a commensal relationship? Nowhere. They start with the conclusion (genetic decay) and shoehorn in their evidence, or lack thereof. Is this the best you have?

quote:

---

From a global perspective, and being that environment has its place in evolution/de-evolution pehaps the extinction rate might be a clue (looking at life as a corporate entity).

---

Looking at life using your logic from a corporate standpoint, given the loss of jobs in the last five years we should expect that everyone in America will be jobless in about 100 years. However, just like evolution, new jobs open up and industries create more jobs. Nature also creates new species where there are opportunities.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 03:02 PMThis message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 03:03 PM

It starts out being outcompeted, to be sure. But cospecific competition represents a ratchet that you can't go aganst - a mutation that decreases resistance to the phage won't spread in this situation, and certainly won't result in the formation of the plaques observed.So there's only one explanation - first the bacteria evolved a resistance to the virus, and then the virus evolved to counter the resistance. No other explanation is coherent with observation, and so your theory of "devolution" is falsified by this counterexample. It simply isn't, though. Devolution is not coherent with these observations; it's falsified by them. Had any of the bacteria "devolved", they would have immediately been outcompeted by their conspecifics, and no plaques would have formed.The observation of the plaque areas falsifies the assertion that devolution has occured. As LM has pinted out, metabolism is not genetic energy. It takes the same amount of metabolic energy to generate good mutations as it does bad ones, or to replicate active codons as it does pseudogenes.

It's not necessary to. We've eliminated all possibilities but evolution. Ergo, evolution is the best explanation of what occured. Um, viruses don't eat. So "regulating food supply" doesn't make sense. Viruses lay inert until they infect a cell. They don't need to "ration their food supply". No, observation refutes this. Had "deactivated genes" reactivated, they all would have done it, and there wouldn't have been plaque areas when the bacteria were innoculated.Because there were plaque areas, we know that something happened to a few of the bacteria that didn't happen to the others. This can only be mutation. All known organisms have the same "genetic form", a double helix called DNA constructed of base nucelotides called guanine, cytocine, adenine, and thymine. That's still not "genetic energy"; this comment of yours is a non sequiter. Metabolism has no effect on the "quality" of genes, as you asserted.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!*wipes tears off*

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

quote:

---

It would be interesting to see the further development of this study! Perhaps this mutation is not beneficial in other areas?

---

But it is beneficial in their environment, in fact more beneficial than the original genome. This is the point of natural selection and evolution, adapting to your environment, not every possible environment.

quote:

---

A sensible phage virus would ration itself!

---

A virus can no more ration itself than a car can ration gas. It is a genetic machine, devoid of anything but a protein coat and DNA (and some protein here and there). It is devoid of any metabolism whatsoever. A phage eats nothing, it only causes other cells to make copies of itself.

quote:

---

BTW How old are these organisms? How long have they held their genetic form?

---

They have been around for billions of years, as far as science is able to measure. They may have been an unsuccessful attempt at creating sexual reproduction among bacteria. The resemble living organisms genetically, but they differ greatly in their physiology and morphology. Phages completely lack metabolism, regulatory mechanisms to cope with the environment, and quite a few other drastic departures from what we call "life".

quote:

---

But "they" have an effect on metabolism.

---

And that effect is due to the genetic makeup of the bacteria. Therefore, DNA determines metabolism, not the other way around. Saying that metabolism has any bearing on the sequence of DNA in the genome is like claiming wet sidewalks cause rain. Afterall, every time it rains the sidewalks are wet, therefore wet sidewalks control the weather.

This is the closest you've come to producing a testable hypothesis. So let's make a prediction based on this statement and test it. What you are talking about is the accumulation of mutations over time - this can be tested by comparing DNA sequences.So what's the prediction?When you compare the DNA sequences of all of the species thought to be of a particular 'kind' (like 'Cats' for example), you will be able to see how they are all related to each other, and eventually trace them back to a single 'kind progenitor' species -and then no further back! On top of this you should be able to do this with all extant species, and be provided with a set of discrete family trees, each relating to a separate 'kind' .Result:This is not what you see, so the theory goes out of the window.