avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Mike,
| Quote | | Yes, most experiments tend to have a conclusion in mind. So why carry out the experiment in the first place? Hmmmm... |
Yes, of course I realize they were trying to induce mutations to allow the bug to eat nylon. My surprise was that they seemed to know about the need for the first enzyme mutation, and they artificially supported the two tier process to providing food for the middle step, indicating that they didn't expect success if they simply put the bug on the nylon. No doubt, in the original strain at the factory dump, the fact that there were multiple substrates available, took care of the problem. Nonetheless, in order to recreate it, they did indeed engage in some human assistance, intelligently applied.
| Quote | So it appears that Spetner was talking about an earlier experiment, not this one. But your emphasis that it happened in a very short time only decreases the probabilities.
How? Show me the math. Otherwise your handwaving here. |
Speaking of things which are obvious...I don't know how to calculate probabilities, but that won't be necessary. Let's say you need a mutation, and your chances of hitting it are one in a thousand. Would you be more likely to be successful if you have 3 months or three years?
| Quote | | Spetner is correct in saying that a nylon eating bug that eats nylon strands in your car needs both mutations to survive BUT HE IS INCORRECT IN RELATING THAT POINT BACK TO THE SOUP WHERE THE BUGS WERE ORIGINALLY FOUND. He has no clue about how the first mutation for enzyme1 interacted with all the messy intermediaries in the chemical ooze. |
OK, but is he wrong that the two mutations occured? His calculations involve the full thirty years of time. His point was merely that two separate mutations events were required.
| Quote | | The two original bugs are referenced. They started with a bug called PAO1 that had no nylon eating characteristics at all. |
Yeah, I stated that wrong. When I said first, I meant 5501, the first of the mutant strains.
| Quote |
Luck plays no part in THIS game. |
So it's a determined process?
| Quote |
But the expermenters didn't consider the mechanism your referring to as relevant...
I choose a) but who knows. c) has a certain allure, and who can "trust" the Japanese after WWII anyway. |
Point being, there begins to be some interesting things turning up about how these one-celled organisms deal with various stressors, that they seem to have yet another confoundingly organized and convenient way of knowing when and how to solve problems by altering their genomes in a controlled way. I do realize that antibiotics were not a factor in this particular experiment.
It's not only that the ceaseless hostility is hard to take and takes the fun out, but worse, it lets me know that I am not in a rational environment.
1) What part of the experimental results (NOTE: not the expermenters conclusions) were the result of intelligence/intelligent design/purposeful direction/etc...?
The part where they set up the parameters of the experiment itself and the part where they carefully supported the first mutants so they would not die until they became the second mutants. And perhaps also, the one-celled organisms themselves, and their ability to direct mutations uncannily at the right time.
2) What is the estimated probability (rough WAG) of this experimental result being repeated by another lab?
I'd say it is extremely high.
3) Could another experiment use a totally different starting bug and still end up with a nylon eating bug at the end?
I have no idea but I can only suppose that at least several could do it. There must be reasons why some organisms are closer to that talent than others.
|
