avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Hello Steve's Sibling Mike,
Things are quite confusing so I'll have to try to clarify a bit. You say that "the experimenters created an environment where a bug that produced the first product of nylon digestion would thrive (they called this bug PAO5501) whereas the PAO1 bug would starve."
So this means that it was done in such a way that there was an artifically created survival island. What conditions could that have been? What did the bugs eat ? Then, "The experimenters then took this PAO5501 bug and placed it into an environment that only a bug that produced the second product of nylon digestion would thrive." Hmmm...but Spetner is talking about the probability of whichever bug that survives on nylon that he was aware of. If there is a newer set - I do not know how much it does or does not relate to his older set.
Yes, I know 5501 had the first enzyme mutation. What I am wondering is what did that allow it to do so that it to survived and generated the next level of mutation?
It sounds like they knew what they were going for in advance? And perhaps that is because they were trying to recreate earlier nylon eating bugs? So if they created them stepwise, then it is already a bit intelligently designed, no?
| Quote | | I explained clearly in the last post WHY it was a bit disingenuous because of the detailed analysis of comparitive experiments whose results speak directly to this experiment. THIS is why you can't just say "Their guessing so it's no good". You have to show WHY the guess is no good by investigating the past precedence evidence and find flaws in reasoning or judgement to "break" the links of the present experimental conclusions with any supporting evidence. This is not meant to be onerous to the challanger but a necessary step to have any factual or logical basis to challange the experimental conclusions. |
But what did they guess? What I saw in the article was that they stated they didn't really know how it happened, except that it was the result of stress, with which I agree. And I never said their guess was no good, I simply said we don't understand the mechanisms by which bugs seem to come up with just what they need when they need it. | Quote | Spetner never referenced (so I suspect was not aware) this experiment. If Spetner saw the experimental results then what he claimed (his calculation of a small probability of two alterations) would require a bit of rework in the mathematical assumptions. Because the process happened from scratch (pure PAO1 bug) in three months. I know I wouldn't carry on with my improbability claims if someone showed me what I was claiming had actually occurred in three months.
|
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. Spetner isn't doubting that it happens, what he is doubting is that it is a process with no direction. He thinks random processes would not just happen to come up with such focused mutations at the right time.
| Quote | | I had told you that there are TWO different bugs already identified before this experiment. |
Now I thought you said they had to create the first one. | Quote | | As I stated above, the experiment laid out a supporting basis of findings to support the stated conclusions. Spetner doesn't deal with the supporting evidence at all. |
What conclusions does Spetner disagree with?
| Quote | And it also seems that Spetner is being a bit hypocritical by "ignoring" enzyme1 development (while then calling it improbable) while at the same time criticising an experiment because "50 tests were not enough so they ignored some other capability.
|
This is the bit which confused me before. Spetner's point about the two separate mutations is that it is even more unlikely to have two lucky chances occur than one. What's the 50 experiments comment about?
| Quote | | I would say that the mutation rate is increased when the bug finds itself in a starvation condition. |
Yes, but other conditions cause it, too, or we wouldn't have antibiotic resistance.
Yes, I should look for some reference on this, although I generally have a hard time finding what I'm looking for. I guess I have lousy googling skills as well.
Ichthyic,
| Quote | | do you know what projection means? |
Yes, I do, and I find it a particularly useful concept. Projection is what k.e. did in his shocking post, and that is why I said we had gotten a picture of his inner world.
Or, maybe he is right and I am an insane theofascist who must be stopped.
Serendipity,
You do love to talk over my head. I never said that science would accept other dimensions without proof, or at least clues to their existence. I merely mentioned other dimensions for reasons I have long since forgotten, and got a response from somebody, as though it were a silly or magical idea. And my point was that IF there are other dimensions, they will be just as real and just as much part of our reality as the three or four we currently approve of. And they came back with the problem that we can't see them. So then my point was, don't let that be such a barrier, in light of what we have already discovered that was unseen or dreamt of a mere 2 or 3 or so hundred years ago.
As to whether there is anything smaller than quanta, I am not sure. A quanta is the smallest unit of energy? If it is the smallest unit, then by definition there is nothing smaller. Where do the proposed strings fit into this picture? By the way, the book I mentioned reading is called Beyond The Big Bang.
At any rate, I'm perpelxed by your last post (in English, that is). I didn't know about a Biblical ID model. I guess there could be one. But why did you post it? If I would look for ancient wisdom as regards cosmology or human history, I'd probably look at Hindu sources.
I find the Biblical Genesis creation mythos rather nice, and reasonably compatible with science, and open to many different possible interpretations.
OK, Cedric, I'll give your question a try. But I don't even know how a scientific model is properly presented, so I'll go to wiki or something. As to whether ID has one, I don't know. As to whether ID is a theory or just an inference, I don't know. Probably I should know, since I am sure I've seen it discussed. But I don't find that question all that important.
Demallion,
You ask how I can explain why the process listed above isn't sufficient. First off, there is no process listed above, except that that author of that quote (and I have stressed this twice now that it wasn't me) believes that further mutations could accomplish an IC system. An unspecified IC system. So somebody says that he sees no reason why more mutations couldn't accomplish an IC system.
So what you are asking is why don't I think the mechanism of NDE, which is really random mutation, isn't sufficient. I hope you realize it's a pretty big question.
Of course, finding it insufficient, I then have to wonder - so what the heck did happen? Wouldn't we all like to know.
Let me point out that the scepticism over NDE isn't that small adjustments like that don't happen, but that they can lead to new body plans, or IC systems.
Henry,
| Quote | | Yep. 100,000 years is certainly less than 200,000 years. Wonder why the quoted material omitted the actual dates being compared? |
So do the evolutionists have a theory to account for this oddity? And please don't let this comment be mistaken for my subscribing to a Noah's ark history of the human race. I'm just wonderin'.
|
