15 Nov 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobI'll look at it again, I didn't see that.
I'm understanding you now.
That ability came about by a point mutation, meaning, two mutations happened which set up the organism for the third mutation which led to the ability of this colony of e.coli to import citrate under aerobic conditions. Whichever way you look at it it demonstrates that the premise from TK's cut and paste in the OP is wrong.
Kelly
15 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayMore info is contained in later articles in the series. This is from part 3
I'll look at it again, I didn't see that.
Kelly
With these details in hand, we can now improve our accounting for the number of mutations involved in the entire process, from potentiation, through actualization, and on to a certain point of refinement (which remains ongoing in the LTEE):
The first potentiation mutation (total = 1)
The second potentiation mutation (total = 2)
The actualization mutation (total = 3)
Duplication of the Cit+ tandem array (at least once, more likely twice) (total = 4 or 5)
Mutation(s) to improve Cit+ function with moderate copy number (at least one, likely more) (total = 5 or 6, or more)
As we can see, at a minimum the entire process involved at least 5 mutations, and more likely 6 or more. An additional important point to note is that these mutations did not occur simultaneously, but were spread out over thousands of generations.
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-3-tinkering-over-the-edge
15 Nov 13
Originally posted by Proper Knobtks
More info is contained in later articles in the series. This is from part 3
[quote]With these details in hand, we can now improve our accounting for the number of mutations involved in the entire process, from potentiation, through actualization, and on to a certain point of refinement (which remains ongoing in the LTEE):
The first potentiation mut ...[text shortened]...
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-3-tinkering-over-the-edge
KJ
16 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSo why are you here discussing something you don't believe? Shouldn't you be at the science forum to discuss what you do believe? You and your buddies complain about religion at the science forum and then come here to complain about religion at the spirituality forum.
Then we should all be worshiping the devil. Alas, another being that doesn't exist, however.
It's hypocritical to complain about a few people who invade your precious space when you obviously feel free to come here en masse to disrupt this board. Stop trying to disrupt this forum, and let the people who want to be here talk about subjects this forum was specifically designed for. You can pretend science has all the answers at the science board without coming here to pretend you know everything about spirituality, can't you?
Or by simply being here is it your intention to imply science is a religion? Use that splendid logic you are all so proud of exclusively possessing, and convince me you have the right to trample on anyone you please in the name of science.
16 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Oh please, do you really think I was only talking about sonhouse? His feud with RJ is what it is. I was talking about all of the hypocrites from the science board who've complained to moderators, and discuss among themselves how inappropriate it is for anyone to discuss religion at the science board... and then come here to disrupt this board, and show their disrespect to people they don't agree with.
This forum is for the discussion of religion.
And Sonhouse would not have to contribute one-liners if it were not for inane posts like
It is EVIL-LUTION or DEVIL-LUTION that you believe in.