The design argument

Originally posted by JS357
So they screwed up. So? Does this disprove evolution?

It isn't an established fact. so those making claims have to prove them no
one has to disprove them. If they failed in proving their point, they failed.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It was an interesting read, and the words "evolution" "mutation" and "adaptation" were liberally sprinkled throughout the entire paper. But the bacteria containing the damaged gene didn't adapt or mutate.

A damaged gene, is a mutation. Selection of that mutation, is evolution. It is true that the mutation happened prior to the use of the drug and there were probably several variants of that gene in the population. But unless you claim that God made some bacteria with a damaged gene, you have to admit that it mutated at some point in history. That is how evolution works. That you don't seem to understand the very basics of evolution, probably explains why you think it doesn't happen.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The only thing a damaged gene can do is be copied and carried over to the next generation... it can go along for the ride, but that's all it can do.

Wrong. Damaged genes can produce new effects that may be beneficial (or harmful).

Originally posted by JS357
So they screwed up. So? Does this disprove evolution?

I don't see how it could disprove evolution, since the results of their investigation didn't reveal anything about evolution one way or the other... that was my point. So it didn't make sense to see constant references to evolution and evolutionary processes throughout the paper.

The article that linked to the paper referred to it as a follow up, but didn't say anything about what came before the follow up. The paper itself didn't reveal anything about a previous paper, so everything I've said about this mysteriously implied first paper is speculation on my part.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A damaged gene, [b]is a mutation. Selection of that mutation, is evolution. It is true that the mutation happened prior to the use of the drug and there were probably several variants of that gene in the population. But unless you claim that God made some bacteria with a damaged gene, you have to admit that it mutated at some point in history. ...[text shortened]... m to understand the very basics of evolution, probably explains why you think it doesn't happen.[/b]

You can call a damaged gene a mutation. You can also call a dead possum lying in the middle of the road a mutation, because it can't do anything either... except decompose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Wrong. Damaged genes can produce new effects that may be beneficial (or harmful).

Well no kidding. The missing enzyme must have served some useful purpose, even though that purpose wasn't absolutely critical to the survival of the bacteria.

Originally posted by lemon lime
One of my favorite mutation stories is a follow up paper, about a failed attempt to completely eliminate a nasty little bacteria that causes stomach problems. Medical biologists came up with a chemical that only interacts with a particular enzyme (produced by the bacteria) and creates a poison that kills the bacteria. The poison quickly breaks down and be ...[text shortened]... that everyone will know which side of the evolution debate those particular scientists support.

That's an extremely nice story, although I'm not sure how it is a response to my post. Can we establish now that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed, or is your point that you question all of the experiments showing it?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's an extremely nice story, although I'm not sure how it is a response to my post. Can we establish now that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed, or is your point that you question all of the experiments showing it?

That's an extremely nice story, although I'm not sure how it is a response to my post.

What kind of response were you expecting? You said:

Well, if that's your only problem, I'm happy to report that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed.

That nice. Would you care to give me a thumbnail sketch (in your own words) of what you'd like me to see? Or are you only willing (able?) to post links as your answers? Maybe we don't actually need to say anything, we could just post links back and forth as our responses.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]That's an extremely nice story, although I'm not sure how it is a response to my post.

What kind of response were you expecting? You said:

Well, if that's your only problem, I'm happy to report that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed.

That nice. Would you care to give me a thumbnail sketch (in your own words) of what you ...[text shortened]... e don't actually need to say anything, we could just post links back and forth as our responses.[/b]

Well, it seems a bit curious to me that your response to new information (that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed) is to dismiss it straight away without even investigating the claims. The study I cited is just one of many. Maybe you could consider reading some of these papers so you can form an opinion about their methodology? If your problem is that you have no subscription to Science magazine then maybe I could look for some papers in open access journals for you. Unless, of course, you are not really interested in what we actually know about mutations.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, if that's your only problem, I'm happy to report that beneficial mutations have indeed been observed. See e.g. Perfeito et al. Science 317, 813-815 (2007).

I looked at your report I saw this:

"The rate at which new mutations arise in
natural populations and their fitness effects are of key importance in evolutionary genetics. Classical mutation accumulation
experiments have indisputably shown that among
the spontaneous mutations that affect fitness,
those that cause deleterious effects are far more
common than those that cause increases in fitness. Whereas there are currently several direct
and indirect estimates of the deleterious mutation rate in different organisms, data are lacking
for beneficial mutations"

What I did not see are direct reports on beneficial mutations, I saw a lot of
theoretical work, nothing that said we found this mutation. Maybe you
could point me to it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I looked at your report I saw this:

"The rate at which new mutations arise in
natural populations and their fitness effects are of key importance in evolutionary genetics. Classical mutation accumulation
experiments have indisputably shown that among
the spontaneous mutations that affect fitness,
those that cause deleterious effects are far more
com ...[text shortened]... of
theoretical work, nothing that said we found this mutation. Maybe you
could point me to it?

You can find an experimental study for example in Perfeito et al. Science 317, 813-815 (2007).

Originally posted by KellyJay
The topic is the design argument, I don't believe anyone on either side of
the debate has anything other than faith to support their beliefs on the
topic. I do believe that the universe has been molded to support life as we
see it, I don't believe it was caused by nothing.

in this thread you made this comment in reply to me saying there was no scientific evidence for a designer -

"LOL, really zero scientific evidence, no bias here!"

now maybe its me, but this looks a lot like you are saying there is a lot of scientific evidence.....

so kelly, is there any scientific evidence or not?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
in this thread you made this comment in reply to me saying there was no scientific evidence for a designer -

[b]"LOL, really zero scientific evidence, no bias here!"

now maybe its me, but this looks a lot like you are saying there is a lot of scientific evidence.....

so kelly, is there any scientific evidence or not?[/b]

I also told you why I said it, that there is nothing that full proof. You can
dismiss anything brought to you as evidence just by saying it isn't
scientific, the very fact you dismiss everything simply shows that is all
you will ever see or accept, NOTHING. No point talking to you with that
mindset, it is as closed as it can possibly be.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The issue is I have is the thought that if a good mutation occurs it stays,
when the claims are they come randomly. If they come randomly then
the same good that came could be the next one that leaves, there would
never be a piece of DNA that was immune to leaving or getting changed.

Natural selection doesn't ask anything, it is a filter, that only ge ...[text shortened]... , those we can see. The magical change from a say a simple cell
to a zebra has never been seen.

The magical change from a simple cell to a zebra has never been seen? Is this statement tongue in cheek Kelly?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I also told you why I said it, that there is nothing that full proof. You can
dismiss anything brought to you as evidence just by saying it isn't
scientific, the very fact you dismiss everything simply shows that is all
you will ever see or accept, NOTHING. No point talking to you with that
mindset, it is as closed as it can possibly be.

" You can dismiss anything brought to you as evidence just by saying it isn't
scientific"

i could try, but i would be wrong. i don't get to decide if its scientific or not. the scientific method decides if its scientific or not.

if you provide me with scientific evidence....and i say its wrong...then im an idiot.

so before you decide that im just going to say anything that i disagree with is not scientific evidence.....could you provide me with some....


.....or accept there is none.