Replies

Yes, guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Ever heard of that?

Even a genius can come up with an idiotic idea or two, sometimes three or four! ;)

Nope! Not a logical fallacy at all.

What is fallacious is your attempt to spin your way around the argument. You can't logically divorce the source from a statement that you call "idiotic". It doesn't work. And, yeah, otherwise highly intelligent people can do or say stupid/idiotic things, but, in any case, they are the ones that the "stupid" or "idiotic" statements or deeds came from, and therefore, LOGICALLY speaking, they are being called "idiots", even if on one particular instance, and even if indirectly.

Adaptation is evolution.

You may want to call it that, but, adaptation is a characteristic, already built into the DNA of a species. Therefore, it's not evolution in the sense that the DNA has evolved to give a species the power to adapt to an environment. If it's the same exact DNA, it's not evolution; it's strictly the adaptive abilities of a species being put into effect.

Semantics. Darwin's theory becomes “Adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation”, but the mechanism is exactly the same.

Again, adaptation is not evolution. They are separate mechanisms, and what is happening with your defenses is that, you're the one using "adaptation" in order to make the mechanism of evolution sound true. You're the one adapting your argument in order to try to win the argument.

Yes, mutations happen every generation.

Evolution was defined as the progression of life from one species into a different species, even if most of their DNA and characteristics are the same. That evolutionary jump has not been observed nor cataloged. If you do know of any one instance where the jump was indeed made, then, could you kindly point it out?

DNA cannot be perfectly replicated, as such every time it is copied errors are introduced by DNA polymerase.

Errors in nature are not the same as "evolution". Freaks in nature happen all the time, but, it's not a natural progression from one species into another. But, even where nature goes awry and errors result, which one of the "errors" can be said to then have become a "new species"? Point it out, please.

In other words part of the bacterial stress response is to induce mutations.

What you want to call mutations, others would call "adaptations", and though at first glance a "change" seems to have occurred, the DNA of the bacteria says differently. The acquired DNA sequence from a human did not change the bacteria into another species, but it did give the bacteria a temporary trait that could make it harmful (or more harmful) or neutralized.

I repeat, the immune system is interested in identifying a foreign 3-D structure and KILLING it,

That part is understood and there is no argument there.

not identifying a foreign 3-D structure and introducing new DNA into it in the hopes that now it will behave itself.

That's the part which is not fully understood yet. So, why is it a one way street where a bacteria can acquire DNA, and the opposite can't be true, where the body's defenses attempt to change the characteristics of an invader through it's own "invasive" mechanism, namely trying to neutralize or damage or kill the invader by changing its composition?

Yeah, I know, you can try to explain away everything through the knowledge base that already exists, but that knowledge base keeps changing on a daily basis.

“He also showed that this human sequence is present in about 11 percent of the screened gonorrhea isolates.”

I said 10%, please excuse the rounding error. The 10% or 11% is irrelevant to the argument I made.

My argument is that, no matter what the percentage affected, the human DNA within the bacteria might have been an attempt from the human defense mechanism at neutralizing or killing the bacteria. Sure, it might have been the bacteria stealing for its own purposes, that portion of DNA from the human host, but, that's just a one-sided argument.

If the human sequence is present in 11% of the bacteria and it is advantageous in the human environment - then eventually 12% of the bacteria will have the trait. If it is disadvantageous in the human environment - then eventually less than 10% will have it.

Again, I'm not talking percentages or advantages/disadvantages.

I'm talking about the "possibility" that the DNA within the bacteria might have been the reverse of what the researchers postulated.

It is a mathematical inevitability.

So, mathematics proves your point? Not if your assumptions are wrong about the points that I was making. Your mathematics cannot enter into the real point that I was making.

Now why don't you try to tell me how the immune system would hope to eliminated a pathogen by introducing detrimental DNA to some 11% of the population - when that addition is just going to “wash out” in subsequent generations through less reproductive viability, loss of plasmid DNA, or mutation - because it is detrimental.

You made a lot of assumptions and wrong conclusions about what I was saying. Your mathematics don't enter into what I postulated. I could end up being 100% wrong (and I'm sure you're going to say that I am), but, I'm not the one using 10% or 11% to try to justify my hypothesis. I'm not a researcher, and I'm not a mathematician, but, I don't just accept at face value what so many in the scientific community would like for us to believe, especially when the science is still "evolving" and there is so much yet to be explained, no matter what the subject.

Guilt by association IS a logical fallacy, one I did not engage in, but one you apparently embrace when it lends itself to you feeling unwarranted umbrage.

Adaptation is through a CHANGE in DNA. Change in DNA is mutation. “adaptation is a characteristic, already built into the DNA of a species” is only true if by “built into the DNA of a species” you mean that inevitable CHANGE is a feature “built into the DNA”. You come far closer to the truth when you say “What you want to call mutations, others would call “adaptations””. Adaptations are though changes in DNA. Changes in DNA are, by definition, mutations.

“If it's the same exact DNA” that is my point, it is not a change in how the DNA is expressed, it is a change in the DNA itself. Expression of error prone DNA polymerase during stress ensures that it is not “the same exact DNA”.

Evolution is neither “progression” and neither does it imply or necessitate a change into a different species.

Evolution is not progression, I have told you that before.

Evolution is not speciation, any more than gravity is planet formation. Planet formation is the RESULT of gravity, but gravity itself is not dependent upon a planet being formed.

An immune system “Catch and release” program would never be as effective as a “Catch and KILL” program. That is what makes your argument so facile.