Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)|
|Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.|
A-a-a-a-n-n-n-d... the bullshit flag comes out again. It's very easy to SAY something doesn't work but let's look at this another way. I don't want you to "disprove" evolution to me. What I would like is some of your criticism applied to a real situation.
The dreaded nylon eating bacteria is quoted and cited often. Here's an experimental write-up and result.
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
In this study, we investigated the possibility of creating a new metabolic activity that would degrade the Ahx oligomer in a strain that is not inherently capable of such degradation.
Some Experimental Results
After the cells accumulated the required genetic alteration to make a cryptic region active, cells grew in the nylon oligomer medium. The high frequency (1023) of the hypergrowing mutants of parental strain PAO1 on medium containing Ahx might be a result of a high mutation rate under the condition of starvation.
In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the process of adaptation.
Now comes the hard part. I think you said that you disagree with the evolutionary mechanisms that the experimenters used in deriving their conclusions in this study. However the study has measurements and data that I think both you and I (and the board) can agree are accurate. Things like growth rate, controls, chemical balances, etc.
Please quickly parse the paper (only 2 pages long) and tell me;
1) Which mechanism cited you disagree with.
2) What mechanism you think is occurring to explain the data presented.
Now comes the HARDER part (which I'm not asking at present but which is still a valid point). Apply your mechanism to all the other studies that assert a similar phenomena and see if your mechanism has explanatory power over ALL these cases.
Your assertions about mutations can only be valid if your explanations have descriptive power over ALL the evidence.