afdave
Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006
|
Quote | Okay, AFDave: Let's begin again. Your broken link should be this one.. This paper is not "research" it is a literature review, and a poorly done one at that. A cursory search for papers that directly contradict what "Kevin Anderson, Ph.D." was saying in his "review of the literature" comes up with some fast results: |
Did I say it was "research"? Did I say this guy performed all the relevant experiments himself to support his conclusions? Are you taking the absurd position that for anyone's papers to be worth anything, they have to do the original research themselves? I have no problem with it being a literature review. Why do you? All researchers do literature reviews and come to conclusions, both Evo and Creo. Stop your whining. It's a good literature review and your lame attempts to show otherwise don't hack it.
Quote | http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/1289 "Effect of rpoB Mutations Conferring Rifampin Resistance on Fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis" Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1289-1294, Vol. 48, No. 4 Quote ... resistance mutations appear to confer no cost (<1% reduction in fitness), at least as measured by in vitro assay systems. For example, certain rpsL mutations (streptomycin resistance) in M. tuberculosis , Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium , katG mutations (isoniazid resistance) in M. tuberculosis , and gyrA and parC mutations (fluoroquinolone resistance) in Streptococcus pneumoniae confer no measurable reduction in growth rate. |
Your guy is saying <1% cost = no cost. Come on.
Quote | Fitness costs conferred by mutations that [do]alter target molecules may also be partly or fully ameliorated by compensatory mutations without loss of resistance. Such compensatory evolution has been observed in vitro, in experimental animals, and in clinical situations. Thus, the occurrence of cost-free mutations and compensatory evolution suggests that antibiotic-resistant bacteria will not disappear as a result of restricted use of antibiotics |
Really? Prove it. Don't just assert it.
Quote | Your boy, Kevin Anderson, also claims that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified. He somehow believes that lateral transfer happens miraculously: Quote Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated
Point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase and dihydropteroate synthase genes of Plasmodium falciparum and resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in Sri Lanka. Hapuarachchi HC, et al (2006). Am J Trop Med Hyg 74: 198-204 Quote Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is the second-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sri Lanka. Resistance to SP is caused by point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum. |
Deadman ... read carefully, my friend. He's talking about the ORIGIN of the genes. He does not claim that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified. Quite the opposite. The whole article is about how they DO, but that it is not because of "adding something" but rather it's because of the LOSS of something. "He says that "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the ORIGIN OF THESE GENES, but such an ORIGIN has never been demonstrated ." See that word "ORIGIN" ??
Nice try at rebutting, but you have to do better than that.
*************************************************************************
RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION (for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms'
Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution. The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see? This means that a little, single celled organism a billion years ago could have likewise 'evolved' into a multi-celled organism, which in turn continued to evolve into the diversity of life forms we see today. Isn't this wonderful?" Neat fairy tale, yes.
The Anderson paper cited on 5/24 in this thread clearly shows that the developed resistance is the result of either a rearrangement of genes, horizontal gene transfer, or a LOSS of function, not a gain. These are not the types of mechanisms which evolutionists so desparately need to support their theory.
The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution. This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive.
Notice also the Evos desparate attempt to portray me as a "child-abuser" ... why you may ask? Well ... I contribute content to a Bible based, creationist kids web site at www.kids4truth.com . Oh ... and maybe because I take my kids to church and teach them the Bible is true. Child abuse! What a joke. These guys are really scraping bottom.
Anyway, another leg of the shaky table just got broken for me.
(Note: My original post on 5/24 was entitled "RESISTANT BACTERIA ..." then on 5/24, I wrote "DISEASE RESISTANT BACTERIA ..." -- this was an error ... I meant to write "ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA")
-------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|