The mutants are the only survivors in the lactose environment. Only an complete idiot would call this “adaptation for the worse”.
Further, the article did not show anywhere that there was any gene duplication.
The article never claimed any gene duplication occurred. Like everything else you write, you pulled that out of your posterior.
The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates.
The ebgA is a cryptic enzyme. There is nothing here saying the mutants did not survive just as well in the original conditions (It was probably never assayed since it is totally irrelevant to the study). The ebgA mutations were unquestionably favorable in that now they survive in the lactose only growth medium. There just isn’t any way to get around this fact.
The mutants are the only survivors in the lactose environment. Only an complete idiot would call this “adaptation for the worse”.
Asked and answered more than once already. You seem to have the dishonest habit of repeating the same stuff that has been refuted a few hundred posts before as if it had been completely ignored. Here's the answer which you are not refuting in any way and are completely ignoring:
To: RightWingNilla
The bacteria survived far BETTER in the new environment. How they survive under previous conditions is irrelevant.
Of course it is relevant. You are claiming this is a favorable mutation, so it must be compared to how the bacteria functioned previously.
BTW - this is similar to the case of the nylon bacteria. -me-
Yes this is evolution. The selection of mutations which give rise to novel traits. You must be a closet Darwinist.
No, this is not evolution, this is adaptation - and adaptation for the worse:
I refer you again to the word COULD in the article. Further, the article did not show anywhere that there was any gene duplication. All it showed was that two DNA base pairs were altered. NO NEW INFORMATION WAS ADDED. In addition (and I am sure you forgot about it) one of the summaries you cited (see post#1213) said the following:
The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme. Post# 1213 .
So what we have here is another example of a mutation which decreased the functioning of the system except in the one specific circumstance, and which did not add any new genetic information to the organism, and does not show, in any way the expression of any new mutated genes.
As it is obvious to anyone, you cannot have evolution without the addition of additional genetic information. A single celled organism has some 600 genes and some one million base pairs of DNA, a human has some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion base pairs of DNA. You cannot get from a bacteria to a man without adding new genetic information and you (and evolutionists) are still unable to show it ever happening. And again I refer everyone to post#1271 where it can be clearly seen why this cannot happen by random means as evolution claims. It would require the co-evolution of an entirely new system to support the expression of the gene as well as an entirely new system of relating the new gene to the rest of the organism, as well as a complete rearrangement and addition to the developmental program of the organism to enable this new gene to work. In other words, utterly impossible.
1301 posted on 7/23/02 9:05 PM Pacific by gore3000
Your example does not show:
1. greater complexity.
2. greater genetic information.
3. the duplication of and expression of a new gene.
4. better functioning under normal conditions.
In short it does not show anything necessary for evolution to be true. What it does show is adaptation to the environment. One last thing, it is even doubtful that this can be called a mutation. The specificity of the change, suggests (but does not prove) that it may have been due to deliberate adaptation by transposons. As I said at the start of this discussion 4 - 2 does not equal 6. You need additional expressed genes for evolution to be true and such has never been shown.
1311 posted on 7/24/02 5:56 AM Pacific by gore3000
932 posted on 8/7/02 6:15 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 897 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The article never claimed any gene duplication occurred. Like everything else you write, you pulled that out of your posterior.
Our whole discussion has been about gene duplication, guess you forgot. Anyways what that means is that there has been nothing added to the genome through this mutation and you need plenty of additions to get from the million or so base pairs of a small single celled organism to the 3 billion or so base pairs of a human. In short, mutations which have not created any DNA, cannot be the source of evolution. You and your fellow evolutionists need to be reminded of that.
It would be nice if you would read the stuff you yourself post (or rather which I posted because you refused to post what was in your links yourself):
These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates.
PMID: 6793063 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] - (in full here )
Of course your problem is that this was an experiment and the lactose is not the normal nutrient for these bacteria. So again under normal circumstances the EBG mutation was deleterious to the functioning of the organism in question.
BTW - this is the 3rd thread I refute this very same nonsense on, don't you have any shame?