JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 19 2007,18:14) | | Quote (JAM @ Oct. 17 2007,20:35) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 17 2007,18:31) | | Yes, I would be interested in seeing that. |
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/174/24/7948?view=long&pmid=1459943
I apologize because I garbled it; unfortunately, it's more bad news for your hypothesis.
It turns out that it was the same bug, Flavobacterium. One of the nylonase genes was deleted, and selection produced a completely new one. |
While these results are interesting, they don't really meet the criteria of my prediction since they started with the already frame-shifted bacteria. If you remember, my prediction involved the pre-frame-shifted bacteria Acromobacter guttatus. |
First, if you'll do me the courtesy of rereading what I wrote, I noted that it is still bad news for your HYPOTHESIS, which is an accurate assessment. Your hypothesis makes many testable predictions, and your hypothesis is global, not just about one species.
Second, frameshifts happen to individual genes. The term "frame-shifted bacteria" is gibberish.
| Quote | | My prediction was that if that bacteria was subjected to nylon, the same frame shift would occur. |
But your hypothesis makes a very clear prediction in this case, too. Moreover, your prediction was based on a false assumption, because more than one enzyme is involved. In this case, we started without one of the two, and got a completely different new one from a different origin to replace its function. This falsifies your hypothesis.
In case you've forgotten, here's your hypothesis, improperly stated as a prediction:
| Quote | | It's my prediction that random mutations are only neutral or deleterious - never advantageous. |
|
