|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2007 : 14:33:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
(and yes, in the case of the Nylon Bug, the mutation actually produced a better bacteria, from the bacteria's point of view.) |
Indeed, a case can actually be made that the new bacteria is better, from nature's point of view.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 15:44:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
I didn't ask if you could present information. I asked if you could produce it.
|
The reason I asked this question is that the ID crowd* is very fond of claiming that mutations can't cause increases in (i.e. make new) information but that "intelligence" do it all the time. I just can't see that any ID supporter has produced any new information (by their definiton, whatever that is) either. It's always the same old arguments (information) told over and over again.
*I'm not including Jerome in the ID crowd. He is just a troll with no interest in any discussion what-so-ever. His sole aim is merely to rile people with his copy-and-paste ramblings. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2007 : 17:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This nylon bug you are all in love with thinking it some proof is nothing more than a 98% less efficient creature. This is a defect not an advantage. The frame shift mutation caused this creature to have a deformity that would not allow it to survive in nature. This is the best you have to show an increase in DNA data changing a creature into something "better"?
|
See Jerome, I warned you about these kinds of statements more then once. Not being knowledgeable in the science behind evolution is one thing. It's okay to ask questions. It would have been ligitamate to ask how a creature that is 98% less efficient than it's parent species could be thought of as better. But nooooo….
You had to attack it based on an argument from incredulity grounded in ignorance. And then you flaunt that foolishness with the laughing icon.
That is exactly why you get treated the way you do. Do you actually believe you are expert enough to disregard the significance of the nylon bug based on your expert grasp of the subject? The nylon bug is nothing less then astonishing and you just wave it away with the assurance that you have a complete understanding of what you are reading and how to apply it. And that makes you look like a fool to those of us who have some background in the science that the nylon bug supports. Along with the others who have commented, let my help you out here.
The nylon bug has no competition for its food source. So sacrificing 98% efficiency does not really matter much. In time, one would expect to see some fine-tuning of the natural selection variety, especially if competition for the same food source by another kind of nylon muncher comes along. But right now, 2% efficiency is all the bug needs to survive, because it has plenty of food. Remarkably, it has carved out a niche that is so unique, that from a practical point of view, the bug is perfect. As long as it is happy to eat all of the time, and apparently it is, it has everything it needs for survival. And that makes it superiorly fit in its niche.
Evolution is about what works for any species to survive. It's not about efficiency. If there is no advantage for survival in the given niche, the organism perishes. It's as simple as that. If the mutation had not caused the nylon bug to have a new food source, its inefficiency would have killed it off. But the nylon bug, as luck would have it, has a taste for a food source that no other organism can eat. Bingo… Successful adaptation through mutation. A new species. Evolution!
It does not matter that it can't survive without its highly specialized diet present. What matters is it does survive and it dines on a food that didn't exist before the last century.
If you can wave away the significance of that, well… I dunno. You can sit there and be ignorantly incredulous while the rest of us marvel at this breathtaking example of the tenacity of life and its diversity, now extending, by way of natural selection, in to areas that had never even occurred to us before…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 18:51:09 [Permalink]
|
You guys are great! I am just to dumb to understand?
The Negoro (Negoro, et al., 1992) paper which first identifies nylC is not documenting the origin of a totally novel gene but simply the identification of a previously undiscovered one. The only sequence comparison they do is between the K172 and K17251R strains from which they find the nylC gene sequences are identical.
The origin of the pOAD2 plasmid does not seem to be well documented enough that ancestral non-nylon degrading sequences can actually be identified in the wild, only inferred. |
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=544&m=1
Is there any evidence that this "bug" is new from something else?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 19:04:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You guys are great! I am just to dumb to understand? |
No, you're too dishonest to admit you don't understand. So you once again try to justify your misunderstanding by failing to acknowledge your prior errors and instead bringing another, "new" one into the mix.The Negoro (Negoro, et al., 1992) paper which first identifies nylC is not documenting the origin of a totally novel gene but simply the identification of a previously undiscovered one. The only sequence comparison they do is between the K172 and K17251R strains from which they find the nylC gene sequences are identical.
The origin of the pOAD2 plasmid does not seem to be well documented enough that ancestral non-nylon degrading sequences can actually be identified in the wild, only inferred. |
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=544&m=1
Is there any evidence that this "bug" is new from something else? |
Yes. You dishonestly neglected to mention the other papers referenced in that creationist's thread, focusing on one strain and one plasmid from a post far down the page, when other evidence exists, is discussed in that thread, and is more compelling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 19:06:58 [Permalink]
|
Yes, the old ID canard that mutations that increase fitness in one environment necessarily means less fitness in another environment seems to be hard to extinguish. On oft cited example of this in the aforementioned nylon bug as well numerous instances of antibiotic resistance. The ID claim is that bacteria that acquire antibiotic resistance are less fit then their antibiotic sensitive siblings in a non-antibiotic environment. Even if we grant the ID crowd that this measurement of fitness has any bearing on evolution, the IDists claim is still wrong. The biological cost of antibiotic resistance sums up the experimental results of quite a few papers and gives quite a good picture of the fitness costs associated with antibiotic resistance. The fitness of mutants that acquired antibiotic resistance was compared to the fitness of the wild type, in the wild-type's original environment. As the paper says:
| but mutants with no measurable costs have also been observed. One example of a ‘no cost' resistance mutation is the 42nd codon AAA (Lys)®AGA (Arg) substitution of the rpsL gene, responsible for resistance to high concentrations of streptomycin in S. typhimurium and other enteric bacteria |
| Although occasionally, in the absence of antibiotics, drugsensitive revertants have evolved in most cases, adaptation to the costs of chromosomal resistance in vitro and in vivo has been through compensatory mutations (Table 2). In the majority, but not all cases, the second site mutations compensating for the cost of resistance have been identified. These occur by additional (or alternative) mutations at the same locus as the resistance gene, intragenic suppression, or at other loci, extragenic suppression. |
So, even if fitness decreases in the "original" environment (which it doesn't necessarily), further mutations can outcompete the wild-type - in both antibiotic and non-antibiotic environments. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2007 : 19:11:36 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
You guys are great! I am just to dumb to understand? |
I don't know, but apparently you suffer from an ego problem. One that will not allow you to not be the worlds greatest authority on everything…
I will not waste my time on this anymore.
You're welcome, by the way…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:10:24 [Permalink]
|
Ohh, no, information that may harm my faith system. Does not count! Does not count!
I am not stating what is fact, only that there are questions. The faith that is present in this topic is worthy of southern baptist.
Reread your statements to me; you will find if you change what I am saying to that of a disbelief in a tenet of a religious faith your answers are the same. No facts, only, it is sooo obvious only a dumb persons can not see.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Ohh, no, information that may harm my faith system. Does not count! Does not count! |
No, that's your dishonesty chiming in - you don't even understand what your latest objection really means, so when called on your failure to grasp the concepts, you instead claim that people here are saying it doesn't count. It does count, but not like you think it does.| I am not stating what is fact, only that there are questions. |
The questions have been answered, you just refuse to acknowledge that fact.| The faith that is present in this topic is worthy of southern baptist. |
All coming from you.| Reread your statements to me; you will find if you change what I am saying to that of a disbelief in a tenet of a religious faith your answers are the same. No facts, only, it is sooo obvious only a dumb persons can not see. |
"No facts"?!? Now you're truly denying reality, Jerome. And that makes all this talk of "faith" just a projection of your own personality faults.
Besides, I certainly didn't call you dumb. I called you dishonest. I know you're not stupid, which makes your dishonesty all the worse. Look at the claims you've made in this one post:- "No facts..." That's something you know is not true, if you've read the replies to your posts.
- "...only, it is sooo obvious only a dumb persons can not see." Again, that's something you know isn't true, if you've read the replies to your posts, which you claim to have done.
- "...only that there are questions." You've stated much more than that, and you know it.
I could go on, but the evidence is clear. You, Jerome, are unable to have a civil discussion because you seem to be unable to maintain any sort of honesty. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:32:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer said:
| I have discounted it due to the nature of WND's penchant for taking valid sources out of context. |
The quote from NASA is relevant. I care not what the articles conclusions are. Are you suggesting that the quote is wrong?
|
I'm saying the quote is out of context and misleading with following commentary. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:34:32 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
I am not stating what is fact, only that there are questions. |
But you bring those questions up as arguments. You are not asking honest questions. You are searching the internet in hopes of finding something, anything to further an argument. Fuck the nylon bug. You weren't really interested in that 98% thing that I explained anyhow. No acknowledgment, nothing. What you were interested in was an argument. So you moved on.
I ain't buying it anymore Jerome. You couldn't give a rats ass about this subject.
You say you like to discuss. Baloney. You are here to argue. And the subject of the argument is way less important to you than the argument itself.
You are a bore.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:35:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, you have evidence that DNA information has been increased due to mutations?
|
Oh, Christ. We aren't gearing up for another misapplication of the second law of thermodynamics claiming that Earth is a closed system again, are we?
|
What is the answer? Your assumption as to how the question was formed is irrelevant. I am not claiming the earth as a closed system.
|
You have not defined your terms, therefore putting any response in a hole because you can then choose the definition of the terms to negate it.
I've seen this argument far too many times to fall for it.
Define the terms and explain why this cannot be explained by genetic mutation happening over many millenia. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 20:37:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Calling Jerome a colossal idiot may have been (and I apologize) something of an understatement.
|
I'm sure the idiots accept your apology.
He has a promising future in law, though. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 21:21:41 [Permalink]
|
| Valiant Dancer said: "You have not defined your terms, therefore putting any response in a hole because you can then choose the definition of the terms to negate it." |
This made me laugh. When I define my terms using the dictionary it is claimed that the dictionary is incorrect. In fact I was also accused of plagiarizing the dictionary when I defined my term. The only definitions generally allowed by me are those that suit the argument against my statements(as if I did not know what I meant). It seems that any disagreement is defined by my inability to think or my lack of honesty; with lots of assumptions as to my purpose thrown in. The arguments against the assumptions of what is thought I mean are the ones that I find most revealing.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:03:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
When I define my terms using the dictionary it is claimed that the dictionary is incorrect. |
No, you ignore the context of words when choosing which definition to use.| In fact I was also accused of plagiarizing the dictionary when I defined my term. |
No, you were accused of plagiarizing because you offered no reference to the work that you'd copied-and-pasted from, nor any hint that you'd simply copied-and-pasted.| The only definitions generally allowed by me are those that suit the argument against my statements(as if I did not know what I meant). |
You obviously don't know what you mean when you say things like "genetic data," because you cannot define them precisely.| It seems that any disagreement is defined by my inability to think or my lack of honesty... |
You could have honest disagreements, it happens here all the time. You appear to choose not to. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Man Can Almost Create Life
