Quote:

The peppered moths actually gained pigment and did not lose it. And we do not know yet what exactly happens in their DNA - you seem to know more than all the scientists. Can you then explain what you mean with "corrupted" as opposed to "modified"?



I've already addressed this in the other thread, but I must ask, if the melanic data already existed, without knowing EXACTLY what's happening on the genetic level to cause the entire thing to become melanic instead of just part of it, we can still conclude that the melanic data wasn't written from scratch via mutation. More than likely, if a mutation was involved (which it need not be since its also likely that this moth existed in the first place as probably no more than 1% of the population) whatever genetic 'device' controls the pattern of melanism could have gotten shut off, or what have you. That's still not evolution.

However, based on the genetic evidence, its more likely that the original form was melanic and that the lighter variation is what was mutated since on the allele, dark is dominant. Mutations are generally not dominant.

Fact of the matter is that we'll probably never know for sure, because we can't go back in time and try and get a proper study of the population ratios (which would prove right off the bat whether it was a mutation or not in the first place). All I'm proposing is that this be filed under inconclusive. At best.

What I mean by corrupted is that it might get rewritten in such a way that it no longer has use. Let's say the gene that controls wing growth gets rewritten, the wings no longer grow. Its corrupted compared to its original purpose to have no more purpose.

Quote:

This is only half true. Staphylococcus aureus originally did not produce that enzyme. It aquired the genes from another species, Staphylococcus sciuri. But the original form of these genes don't cause penicillin resistance either. In Staphylococcus aureus the aquired genes mutated into a new penicillin resistant form that didn't exist before. Only that mutated form then produced the enzyme in sufficient quantities.



You basically restated everything I said. Except you added the irrelevant step of aureus getting it from sciuri. The mutation on said gene was the loss of control of the enzyme production. In the wild, this type of mutation would cause the bacteria to be less fit, because its wasting resources on uncontrolled production of this enzyme. In the case of penecillin being introduced however, it is more fit because this enzyme is produced in large enough quantities to prevent penicillin treatment. This mutation didn't write the ability for the cell to produce the enzyme, it unwrote the ability to control production. So, please, explain to me how this is evolution.

Quote:

Large scale mutations can't happen in a lab. In experiments you'll always get only small mutations unless you wait several thousand years.



And these mutations usually cause some loss of the overall order of the original genetics or at best simply have no effect, as also demonstrated in the example above. Tell me how piling thousands of these onto any species will eventually cause any organism to become some other organism over billions of years. I see what you're saying, we can't see the actual transition, but we can see the device that supposedly causes it to happen, and that device always reduces order or usefulness or has no effect (sometimes it rarely will be beneficial, but that's irrelevant), it doesn't write anything from scratch. Said writing from scratch is a requisite of evolution.

Quote:

This is the reason why the development of an eye needs hundred thousands of years, while a mutation causing the loss of an eye happens within decades.



Well, one of these is observable, the other one lies solely within the imagination of enlightened individuals. I think I'll stick with what we know can actually happen.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with any fundamental difference between a "good" and a "bad" mutation that you seem to assume.



I shouldn't refer to them as good or bad, that was a bad choice of words to convey what I was trying to say. There are good and bad mutations that we have observed. It would be more accurate to call mutations either progressive or regressive. One is 'upwards' the other is 'downwards' respectively, whether or not they end up being good or bad is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution requires that mutations eventually lead upwards and write data that never existed in the first place. I've since shown you how all the examples where scientists have assumed this has happened have turned out to be false, and are actually regressive, usually leading to a loss of fitness in the wild. Thus the idea of a progressive mutation is a fantastic idea, but an imaginary one nonetheless.

Quote:

I see that you've firmly made up your mind that mutations are generally bad and 'good' mutations won't happen.



Like I said, they aren't all bad. Its just whenever scientists claim something new is happening that never happens before, they're ignoring the obvious conclusion that this something new comes at a loss, or already existed to begin with. For instance, the bacteria producing this anti-penicillin enzyme in such large quantities was definately new, but they already were able to produce it, and they lost the ability to control it. That's a good mutation considering they would otherwise be wiped out by penicillin, but its genetically regressive, thus negating its purpose to evolution. It would be progressive to show that they never could produce the enzyme in the first place, and some random mutation gave them the ability to produce this enzyme, even in trace amounts. However, we know that they didn't gain this from nowhere, they just got it from another species. I'm still not convinced.

Quote:

And I'm afraid no one will be able drag you into a lab and show you beneficial mutations in action.



They probably won't have to. I'll hopefully be spending a lot of time in my future doing a great number of experiments myself. But who knows what the future holds.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/15/06 17:44.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."