Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Bacteria: All that evolution and still not one flagellum

Bacteria: All that evolution and still not one flagellum:

Fast-Reproducing Microbes Provide a Window on Natural Selection

Nothing like a window with a view. In this case we can view the limitations of culled mutations.

These changes have emerged through spontaneous mutations and natural selection, and Dr. Lenski and his colleagues have been able to watch them unfold.


Natural selection- whatever survives, survives. Whatever survives and reproduces, survives and reproduces. Whatever reproduces the most, reproduces the most.

Spontaneous mutations. Spontaneous is the new word for "we don't know what the heck is going on".

26 Comments:

  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger Leon said…

    Spontaneous mutations. Spontaneous is the new word for "we don't know what the heck is going on".

    LOL. Way to ignore 100 years of research that discovered the chemical causes of mutation.

     
  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/mutationbg.cfm

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Way to ignore 100 years of research that discovered the chemical causes of mutation.

    Umm we understand the causes of mutations like a 5 year old understands a computer's operating system.

     
  • At 9:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From Rich's link:

    A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Sometimes mutations in DNA can cause changes in the way a cell behaves. This is because genes contain the instructions necessary for a cell to work. If some of the instructions to the cell are wrong, then the cell may not know what it is supposed to do!

    Umm there is nothing that says mutations are permanent. IOW once a mutation occurs and gets passed on there isn't anything from said mutation in some gene from reverting back to its original state.

    And therein lies the problem with evolutionitwits. They think that mutations are permanent and therefore there must be some type of ratcheting process.

    But that is far from reality.

    Traits can be lost only to appear again- evolution does NOT follow any direction- whatever survives, survives.

     
  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Umm there is nothing that says mutations are permanent. IOW once a mutation occurs and gets passed on there isn't anything from said mutation in some gene from reverting back to its original state."

    Reverting back suggest some defaulting/ resetting mechanism. This isn't true. It is subject to change that will persist until another change. Now you know how mutations occur Joe. I hope this helps your education.

     
  • At 2:51 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Seriously? You're quoting a passage that says "a mutation is a permanent change..." to prove that mutations aren't permanent changes? You may want to rethink that.

    You may also want to think about the following: if there was a mutation to of Cell 1 from "state A" to "state A'" everyone (including you?) would in fact call this a mutation. Now, if Cell 1 were to, at some point in the future, be found in "state A" again, everyone (including you?) would call this a mutation--a mutation from "state A'" to "state A".

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    First of all, what do you mean by "ratcheting process"? If it's what I think you mean, no scientist on earth thinks of evolution in those terms--rather creationists like yourself set up that misunderstanding of science to feel good about yourselves.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Umm there is nothing that says mutations are permanent. IOW once a mutation occurs and gets passed on there isn't anything from said mutation in some gene from reverting back to its original state."

    Reverting back suggest some defaulting/ resetting mechanism.

    Not at all. Any mutation can occur- including a mutation which takes a recently mutated locus and mutates it back to what it was originally.

    IOW if there was a codon with the sequence AAT and that codon receved a mutation which changed it to ACT there isn't anytthing to say the 'C' is permanent. That is because the next generation we could see AAT back again.

     
  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You may also want to think about the following: if there was a mutation to of Cell 1 from "state A" to "state A'" everyone (including you?) would in fact call this a mutation.

    "state A" is equal to "state A" so why would anyone think a mutation occured?

    YOU may want to rethink your analogies. So far you have never given one inkling that you understand genetics nor science.

     
  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    First of all, what do you mean by "ratcheting process"?

    Going by what was printed on RICH'S link, it appears that evolutionitwits think that mutations are permanent and therefore are free to accumulate. That would be akin to a ratcheting process- that is if you know what a ratchet is and chances are you do not.

     
  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "mutations are permanent and therefore are free to accumulate"

    Muddled thinking Joe. It's only a mutation when it happens, then it's part of the genome thereafter. Given UCA, its almost all "mutations" in your misused sense.

    But at least you know how they happen now.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "mutations are permanent and therefore are free to accumulate"

    Muddled thinking Joe.

    I agree but that is evolutionary thinking for ya.

    It's only a mutation when it happens, then it's part of the genome thereafter.

    Not necessarily. Ya see UV can cause a mutation is some skin cells- SOME not all.

    However if a mutation happens in the germ-line and that cell becomes another organism, then that mutation will be in that organism's genome but it does not have to remain in that state for all the rest of the generations (ie become permanent).

    And as a matter of fact there isn't anything in a sexual reproducing population that says even the most beneficial mutation will get passed on to the next generation.

    IOW it is obvious in sexual reproducing populations that mutations are far from permanent.

    Given UCA, its almost all "mutations" in your misused sense.

    UCA is not a given and it isn't even a scientific concept- that is until someone can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    Until then UCA cannot be objectively tested and the "evidence" that allegedly supports UCA can also be used to support totally different concepts.

    But at least you know how they happen now.

    No body knows Rich. We think we have a grasp on it but again it could very well be that mutations are part of the pre-programmed genetic algorithm. And until we decipher that algorithm we will only be probing in the dark.

     
  • At 12:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And as a matter of fact there isn't anything in a sexual reproducing population that says even the most beneficial mutation will get passed on to the next generation."

    That's where 'natural selection' comes in. RM rolls the dice, NS favours higher numbers.

    "We think we have a grasp on it but again it could very well be that mutations are part of the pre-programmed genetic algorithm. "

    OMG. Well, we have the genome now, Joe. And you can understand what any man does, so I suggest you get finding this genetic algorithm*


    *To avoid conflation I would suggest you use "genetically stored algorithm."

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And as a matter of fact there isn't anything in a sexual reproducing population that says even the most beneficial mutation will get passed on to the next generation."

    That's where 'natural selection' comes in. RM rolls the dice, NS favours higher numbers.

    Natural selection is also a result- just ask Allan McNeil:

    “Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:
    Variation
    Inheritance
    Fecundity
    which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”
    - Allan McNeil

    Also that does not even address my point- that being that even the most beneficial mutation may not even get passed on to the next generation.


    "We think we have a grasp on it but again it could very well be that mutations are part of the pre-programmed genetic algorithm. "

    OMG. Well, we have the genome now, Joe. And you can understand what any man does, so I suggest you get finding this genetic algorithm*

    You should worry about your own position Rich- you know the position which cannot even account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species such as chimps and humans.

    Heck we have sequenced both genomes and yet the more we know the less likely UCD becomes. And that is because soon it will be realized that in order for such a transformation to even have a chance a certain number of mutations will have had to have become fixed in each generation. And that is something that is pretty much impossible.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is nice that you once again refuse to address the meat of the opening post and instead want to argue the peripheral issues-

    The meat being the fact that after all that "evolution" not one flagellum "evolved"- a flagellum that would have helped the organism get to the food as opposed to having to rely on the food going to the organism.

    IOW science is demonstrating the limits of evolution.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Also that does not even address my point- that being that even the most beneficial mutation may not even get passed on to the next generation."

    But if it offers advantage (and you said beneficial) then it has a greater *chance*

    Joe, you've made a bald assertion advocating front-loading. Evolutionary mechanisms have been observed. I've seen no genetic evidence of front loading. I would suggest you need to get past the handwaving and into science.

    "Heck we have sequenced both genomes and yet the more we know the less likely UCD becomes."

    Bald assertion.

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html;jsessionid=A4D7007E8150806ABA3BA55390D2C109

     
  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Also that does not even address my point- that being that even the most beneficial mutation may not even get passed on to the next generation."

    But if it offers advantage (and you said beneficial) then it has a greater *chance*

    Not necessarily. According to evolutionary scientists even the most beneficial mutation has a better chance of being lost than it does of becoming fixed.

    Joe, you've made a bald assertion advocating front-loading.

    Rich ALL you have are bald assertions. Obviously you don't have any data or else you would have provided it. Heck you can't even provide a hypothesis for your position!

    Evolutionary mechanisms have been observed.

    Observed to do very little- one new protein-to-protein binding site in over 100 years of research- and that was in HIV!!!!

    I've seen no genetic evidence of front loading. I would suggest you need to get past the handwaving and into science.

    You should talk- again there isn't any scientific data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms.

    "Heck we have sequenced both genomes and yet the more we know the less likely UCD becomes."

    Bald assertion.

    No Rich it's true. Ya see pretty soon it will be clear that a certain number of mutations would have had to have become fixed in the population each generation in order to account JUST for the genetic differences observed.

    And then once genetics demonstrates that such a transformation is impossible then it will be game, set and match.

    Ya see Rich the article in the OP demonstrates the limits of evolution and natural selection.

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    The link you posted doesn't work.

    If you are so stupid that you cannot use HTML tags then don't bother with links as they tend to get truncated. Also if you cannot support what is on the link then don't bother posting bald links. By posting only bald links it is a sure sign that you do not understand what is being said on that site.

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "But if it offers advantage (and you said beneficial) then it has a greater *chance*

    Not necessarily. According to evolutionary scientists even the most beneficial mutation has a better chance of being lost than it does of becoming fixed."

    Ah, joe - your lack of understanding of math is showing.

    think of lottery tickets that win 10% of the time rather than 5% of the time...

     
  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Your lack of understanding biology is amusing.

    Ya see Rich it doesn't matter how many offspring if not one gets the beneficial mutation. It also doesn't matter how many offspring get the beneficial mutation if said mutation is only beneficial in narrow environmental circumstances and that environment changes drastically.

    And again it is evolutiopnary biologists which stated that even the most beneficial mutation has a better chance of being lost than it does of becoming fixed.

    "Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress."

    (snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

    "Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

    Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

    It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary."
    —geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti in “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?”

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Rich,

    Numbers are meaningless unless you follow each and every generation.

    Ya see even if couple AB has 10 offspring and couple CD only has 5, those 5 can still out-reproduce the 10.

    IOW numbers aren't everything...

     
  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you also appear to be borderline enumerate.

    In your big 'family example', you have failed to grasp that there is a heritable trait that will confer survival advantage beyond one generation. So the filter is still in action, and always will be.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In your big 'family example', you have failed to grasp that there is a heritable trait that will confer survival advantage beyond one generation.

    Wrong again Rich- as usual. As I said even the most beneficial mutation has a better chance of being lost than it has of becoming fixed.

    Random effects can wipe out even the most beneficial traits.

    So the filter is still in action, and always will be.

    I know that Rich and that is why I said:

    Numbers are meaningless unless you follow each and every generation.


    And I see you are still too stupid to understand and use HTML tags...

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why talk origins is not a good reference:

    First, creationists proclaim that mutations are harmful.

    Notice how Maxx didn't provide a reference for that piece of pap.

    And if he can't even get that right chances are the rest of his essay is bullshit.

    BTW even the most beneficial traits are not guaranteed to get passed on. That is why sexual reproduction put an end to universal common descent.

     
  • At 5:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fitness from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy- a much better source of information than talk origins will ever be.

    Enjoy...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home