Posted on 02/28/2011 12:05:32 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Variations in skin color provide one of the best examples of evolution by natural selection acting on the human body and should be used to teach evolution in schools, according to a Penn State anthropologist.
"There is an inherent level of interest in skin color and for teachers, that is a great bonus -- kids want to know," said Nina Jablonski, professor and head, Department of Anthropology, Penn State. "The mechanism of evolution can be completely understood from skin color."
Scientists have understood for years that evolutionary selection of skin pigmentation was caused by the sun. As human ancestors gradually lost their pelts to allow evaporative cooling through sweating, their naked skin was directly exposed to sunlight. In the tropics, natural selection created darkly pigmented individuals to protect against the sun.
Ultraviolet B radiation produces vitamin D in human skin, but can destroy folate. Folate is important for the rapid growth of cells, especially during pregnancy, when its deficiency can cause neural tube defects. Destruction of folate and deficiencies in vitamin D are evolutionary factors because folate-deficient mothers produce fewer children who survive, and vitamin D-deficient women are less fertile than healthy women.
Dark skin pigmentation in the tropics protects people from folate destruction, allowing normal reproduction. However, because levels of ultraviolet B are high year round, the body can still produce sufficient vitamin D. As humans moved out of Africa, they moved into the subtropics and eventually inhabited areas up to the Arctic Circle. North or south of 46 degrees latitude -- Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Western Europe and Mongolia -- dark-skinned people could not produce enough vitamin D, while lighter-skinned people could and thrived. Natural selection of light skin occurred.
The differences between light-skinned and dark-skinned people are more interesting than studying changes in the wing color of moths or, the most commonly used evolutionary example, bacterial colonies, according to Jablonski. Adaptation to the environment through evolutionary change becomes even more interesting when looking at the mechanism of tanning.
"In the middle latitudes tanning evolved multiple times as a mechanism to partly protect humans from harmful effect of the sun," Jablonski told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science today (Feb. 20) in Washington, D.C.
Tanning evolved for humans so that when ultraviolet B radiation increases in early spring, the skin gradually darkens. As the sun becomes stronger, the tan deepens. During the winter, as ultraviolet B wanes, so does the tan, allowing appropriate protection against folate destruction but sufficient vitamin D production. Tanning evolved in North Africa, South America, the Mediterranean and most of China.
Natural variation in skin color due to natural selection can be seen in nearly every classroom in the U.S. because humans now move around the globe far faster than evolution can adjust for the sun. The idea that variation in skin color is due to where someone's ancestors originated and how strong the sun was in those locations is inherently interesting, Jablonski noted.
"People are really socially aware of skin color, intensely self-conscious about it," she said. "The nice thing about skin color is that we can teach the principles of evolution using an example on our own bodies and relieve a lot of social stress about personal skin color at the same time."
Jablonski noted that the ability to tan developed in a wide variety of peoples and while the outcome, tanablity, is the same, the underlying genetic mechanisms are not necessarily identical. She also noted that depigmentated skin also developed at least three times through different genetic mechanisms. Students who never tan, will also understand why they do not and that they never will.
Provided by Pennsylvania State University
I don't know.
We are all one family through THE Adam, who was the progenitor of David and Yeshua on Earth.
I agree.
If you cannot open your mind to something that explains a lot of the inconsistencies of Scripture, it is your loss.
Actually, it is your loss for there is a warning to anyone who would add or subtract from scripture upon pain of penalty.
If you believe that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings created, and all people came from them, how do you reconcile that they must have had their children marry each other, then their grandchildren, their great grandchildren.
Such a situation can be very easily reconciled. Remember that God made Eve *directly* from Adam's flesh. That would make Eve related to Adam in the first order. Even if you could explain away the "incestuous" relationship of Adam and Eve's children with a second creation story, you still have a dilemna on your hands.
Ah, but I bet you never thought of it that way....
Actually the scripture states that God took from Adams “curve”, which is translated as a rib. I would infer that that meant he took from the helix curve of the DNA. IOW, he used the DNA material from Adam to replicate each creation. Isn’t that how it should be done? If there were only one living member of species, scientists would “clone” a female to keep the specie alive.
Aside from semantics, I’m not sure what your point is.
RE: Cease being uncertain that you could call that evolution through the theory of natural selection of genetic variation, because it is exactly the mechanism that Darwin described.
OK, let’s understand what I am trying to say. By Darwinian evolution, I mean DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION THORUGH NATURAL SELECTION.
What did he mean by that ?
I take it to mean in your response that one can demonstrate a beneficial mutation … with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance.
Now, Darwinian Evolution at least posits that Various different modern species share a common ancestry. Since the time of the common ancestor, the divergence into the various modern species has involved changes much greater than microevolution. This is the idea of “common descent.”
I am really not sure whether you accept this notion. I think there is excellent evidence for common descent of some groups of species. If you do not accept common descent, at least for the cases I cite, I would be interested in hearing what alternative interpretations you can offer for the observations I cite.
I believe the point you want people reading this FR thread to EVENTUALLY accept is ( although you did not state it, I think it can be implied by your posting zeal ) —— All of the nucleotide discrepancies between modern species, or between a modern species and its ancestral species, arose as a result of random mutation (including gene duplications, insertions and deletions caused by naturalistic processes) and natural selection, without the intervention of an “intelligent designer.”
So, Darwinian theory, which is the prevailing theory of evolution, teaches that this development occurred through random heritable variations in the organisms followed by natural selection. I shall denote the word evolution used in this sense as Darwinian Evolution. When evolution is discussed for popular consumption, it is most often Darwinian Evolution.
I hope I am not misrepresenting your understanding.
So, having explained my understanding of your terms, I have to qualify my terms now.
Mutation and selection can lead to “microevolution,” i.e., small changes in gene frequencies that follow an environmental shift and leave a population on average more fit to cope with the new environment. I think you accept this, since I think it corresponds to what you mean by Evolution ( as you use the term ).
I hope I am not misunderstanding you because my response is based on that understanding of the Darwinian evolution as it applies to bacteria.
My response to this is that many scientists observe that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance FAIL the test of representing the mutations necessary for Darwinian evolution ( as described above).
All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms. Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant. The mold was found to produce something that could lyse and kill the bacteria. That something was a molecule later named penicillin.
Afterwards, other antibiotics were found to be produced by other microorganisms, such as soil bacteria. Soil has long been recognized in folk medicine as a cure for infections.
The antibiotics produced by these microorganisms serve them as a defense against attack by other microorganisms. Some microorganisms are ENDOWED (who and what endowed them, is not the scope of this response) with genes that GRANT resistance to these antibiotics.
This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell.
Unfortunately for human health care, the organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have, to our misfortune, succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution ONLY IN THE LIMITED SENSE that it is an ADAPTIVE hereditary change.
It is an example only of BUILT-IN ADAPTATION ( I know evolutionists dislike terms that imply design, but I can’t think of another word for now). It is NOT the type of evolution that can make something ELSE out of a bacterium.
The genetic change is NOT the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Darwinian Evolution. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium’s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are ALREADY in some species.
It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide.
Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way.
BUT.... although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it CANOT SERVE AS A PROTOTYPE for the kind of mutations needed by Darwinian Evolution.
The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and DEGRADES its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.
This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a LOSS OF SPECIFICTY and therefore a LOSS OF INFORMATION.
The main point is that Darwinian Evolution cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are.
Darwinian Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.
So, am I saying that your understanding is wrong? No.
I am saying that any conclusion AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS PREMATURE.
The mutations needed for Darwinian Evolution have NEVER been observed.
No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Darwinian Evolution that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information.
The question is: Are the mutations that have been observed ( e.g. Bacterial resistance) the kind Darwin’s theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NOT YET. NOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THE EVIDENCE IS INCONCLUSIVE.
Many have lost information. To support Darwinian Evolution, one would have to show MANY examples of random mutations that ADD INFORMATION (emphasis on MANY ).
Unless the aggregate results of the genetic experiments performed until now is a grossly biased sample, I must WITHOLD VERY STRONGLY ANY CONCLUSION that Darwinian evolution is an explanation of how life developed from a single simple source. And bacterial resistance IS NOT ( NOT YET IF YOU PREFER ) an example that one can cite.
Which is why I responded to the other poster as I did. One need not be a Darwinian Evolutionist to understand biology ( and to teach it in school for that matter ). That was the original statement that sparked our exchange.
Natural selection of genetic variation.
Your quibbles about “gain” and “loss” of information are semantic dodges. The “information” in DNA is changed in an adaptive response that “gains” information, in that it no longer can be killed by an antibiotic.
You have proposed no scientific mechanism whereby antibiotic resistance can be gained by a bacteria, thus if one wishes to EXPLAIN how antibiotic resistance to a novel antibiotic is acquired one is either left looking like a slack jawed moron, or one can utilize the theory that explains it.
You can call it “micro” all you want.
The only scientific explanation you are able to put forth to explain it is the one proposed by Darwin.
Natural selection of genetic variation.
Even “answers in genesis” uses natural selection of genetic variation to explain differences in human populations.
What scientific explanation do you have for skin color differences in human populations again?
And why would a bacteria have an error prone DNA polymerase with controlled expression during stress?
Has the environment (presence of antibiotics) stressed the bacteria population killing many of them? Yes
Do bacteria mutate? Yes.
Do some mutations make bacteria immune to some of these antibiotics? Yes
Has the genetic code been modified? Yes
Do other bacteria “descend” from these modified bacteria? Yes
Do they survive in the same environment? Yes
Could we say that this is descent with modification? Yes
Can the mutated gene still carry out its original function? Possibly, but probably (and in most instances) not as well
Are these mutations on the road to developing new genes for more complex biological functions? No - at least the ones we know about.
Are these bacteria on the road to ever being anything other than bacteria? No, not that we can tell.
Do these bacteria, with their mutations, environmental selection, descent with modification, prove that this mechanism can lead to greater biological complexity? No
Does this prove that uni-cellular organisms can evolve into multi-cellular organisms? No. Is this mechanism proven out to the point that we can say it is the mechanism whereby cold blooded creatures can modify and descend into warm blooded creatures; flightless creatures can modify and descend into winged creatures; creatures with gills can modify and descend into creatures with lungs; sightless creatures can modify and descend into the creatures with sight - complete with the brain functionality to interpret what they “see”; etc, etc. No.
The chasm is large. Time doesn’t help when there is no mechanism to result in the change needed.
The mechanism of mutation, selection, descent with modification has been proven for bacteria gaining immunity but has not demonstrated that it can lead to more complex biological functions, it is assumed that this mechanism can cross the chasm but never demonstrated. And to many of us, it seems a very poor, shaky assumption. — and this is the gist of the matter, semantics aside. The only thing we have seen descended from bacteria, fruit flys, and people are more bacteria, fruit flys, and people, whether changed, unchanged, mutated, adapted, “evolved”, etc.
THAT is why a bacteria has an error prone DNA polymerase with controlled expression during stress. To create that variation that selection will act upon.
The development of an enzyme that can digest nylon IS the developing of a “new” gene with a new complex biological function - and it was done using the EXACT SAME MECHANISM.
A bacteria becoming something other than a bacteria is no more necessary towards saying that evolution happened than a planet forming is necessary towards saying that gravity happened.
Evolution does not necessarily increase “complexity” either. Nor does it necessarily involve mutlicellular life arising from unicellular life.
But the mechanism is the same.
The “chasm” is quite small. Only a 2% genetic DNA and a 6% genomic DNA difference exists between humans and chimps. A rat and a mouse are separated by a larger “chasm”.
Now given that.....
1) DNA is the hereditary material
2) DNA cannot be copied with 100% accuracy
3) Variations are subject to natural selection
What is going to STOP this “descent with modification” such that over six million years a 2% genetic and 6% genomic DNA difference accumulate in separate populations?
What is going to stop it?
I somehow am beginning to doubt whether you know the difference between a discussion and exchange with hysterics (and the appropriate usage of words like “delusional”).
I am trying to have a civil conversation with you without getting personal but unfortunately, you want to make it personal. WHY ?
Gain or Loss of information are NOT semantic dodges. They are CRITICAL to the Darwinian Evolution. If apes evolved to men, there clearly is a GAIN in cognitive ability. If as Richard Dawkins conjectures, winged like animals might have evolved in the Darwinian sense because certain animals needed to gain the ability to jump higher to acquire food from tall trees, then the wings are GAINS of abilities, and hence INFORMATION.
Now, if an antibiotic is no longer killed by an antibiotic and question is this -— is it because it evolved in the Darwinian sense, or is there a pre-existing ability to adapt?
THAT has always been the question.
The fact that there is not currently a clear and unambigous explanation for this does not then argue unambigously for the Darwinian explanation.
BTW, There is no theory requiring mutations to lose information. I can easily imagine mutations that gain information. The simplest example is what is known as a back mutation. A back mutation undoes the effect of a previous mutation. If the change of a single base pair in the genome were to change to another and lose information, then a subsequent mutation back to the previous condition would regain the lost information. Since these mutations are known to occur, they form a counterexample to any conjecture that random mutations must lose information. An important point I make , and which needs emphasis here, is that, as far as I know, no mutations observed so far qualify as examples of the kind of mutations required for Darwinian Evolution.
In each case in which the molecular change was known, not one could serve as a prototype for the mutations required by Darwinian Evolution.
In all the cases I’ve read about, it was the LOSS of information that prevented the mutation from serving as a prototype of those required by Darwinian Evolution.
The back mutation likewise cannot serve as a prototype of the Darwinian-required mutations. Here, the reason is not that it loses information—it actually gains information.
But the information it gains is ALREADY IN the biocosm and the mutation contributes NOTHING NEW ( an important requirement for Darwinian Evolution ).
DarwinianEvolution is not accounted for if the only information gain was by back mutations.
Suppose a mutation causes a protein to become more adaptive in a particular environment.
Then by the Darwinian thesis, it is already so well evolved that something is always likely to be lost when a modified, mutated protein becomes prevalent in the face of a new selective pressure.
Darwinists imply that the loss is one of information, because that’s the context of this discussion. But then, according to you, after that modification, it is again well evolved, so the next time it undergoes an adaptive mutation, it must again lose something. Continuing the process, the protein will continue to lose something.
You have just consigned the evolutionary process to a dead end!
You have tried to argue that a combination of gene duplication, random mutation, and natural selection, can add information to the collective genome of the biocosm which then proves Darwinian Evolution.
Unfortunately, this is nothing more that offering possible scenarios—it is argument by just-so-stories.
But the argument against Darwinian Evolution does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it.
The telling blow against Darwinian Theory is that examples of INFORMATION ADDITION ( not those that are already pre-existing) have never been exhibited. The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution. It is actually evidence against evolution because if Darwin were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many.
Please note again, this is not to say that Darwin’s theory is false. It is simply to say that the Scientific requirement for it to be considered true in the case of bacterial resistance REQUIRES BETTER EVIDENCE than what you have presented and insisted so far.
But then, let’s get back to thre original point I make -— you don’t have to appeal to Darwin to understand the mechanism of antibiotic resistance. Many competent scientists are also sceptics.
The ONLY thing so far discussed that could possibly explain how a novel antibiotic can induce a change in bacterial populations such that they are now resistant to that antibiotic is ......
Natural selection of genetic variation.
There is, and has been, no other possibility discussed.
So when asked to explain how antibiotic resistance to a novel antibiotic can develop in a population, you either stand there like a slack jawed moron - or you utilize the theory that explains it.
When asked to explain why bacteria have stress induced expression of error prone DNA polymerase (repeatedly) you either stand there like a slack jawed moron, talk about something else, anything else - or you utilize the theory that explains it.
When asked to explain why human populations have different skin color somewhat in relation to the different sun exposure that population has been subjected to, you either make up a magical mystical explanation, or you utilize the scientific theory that explains it.
The scientific theory that explains it is evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
DNA “information” is in regulation of gene expression and what useful protein that gene codes for.
That “information” is subject to change, change is in fact inevitable.
You can talk about “loss” or “gain” of information all you want.
Does a car engine that can burn unleaded fuel instead of leaded “lose” or “gain” information?
Does a car with greater speed and performance but less mileage “loss” or “gain” information?
If a gorilla developed a more upright posture, would that be a “loss” or “gain” of information?
RE: That “information” is subject to change, change is in fact inevitable.
Yes, but is it DARWINIAN EVOLUTION ? I change and in fact am changing -— from better to worse as my health deteriorates. That is hardly Darwinian Evolution. I call it devolution ( for want of a better word ).
Teaching biology without the theory of evolution is like trying to teach astronomy without teaching the theory of gravity.
You can describe the speed and rotational velocities of all the stars and planets, but will have no idea HOW it all happens.
You can describe a million and one biological facts, but will have no idea HOW they happen.
RE: There is, and has been, no other possibility discussed.
So when asked to explain how antibiotic resistance to a novel antibiotic can develop in a population, you either stand there like a slack jawed moron - or you utilize the theory that explains it.
I am not telling you not to utilize a theory, I am simply asking you and everyone else NOT to take it as THE SOLE or ONLY explanation.
There is no philosophical obligation to provide a naturalistic Darwinian explanation of origins. There may not be one. But I encourage all to keep looking.
But please remember that the solution to the problem of the origin of proteins, or the origin of life, may not be where you are looking.
Just keep an open mind. That’s all I sak.
A new variation of the bacterial Penicillinase enzyme that binds Methocillin under conditions that select for Methocillin resistance is “DARWINIAN EVOLUTION” in that it exhibits precisely his theory....
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation. In this case a “descent with modification” that is a useful modification that is a “gain” of information - the information on how to ‘disarm’ Methocillin.
It is “DARWINIAN EVOLUTION” every time new variation arises that is subject to selective pressure.
Sorry, much as I like to agree, I cannot.
Why? because the resistance IS ALREADY PRESENT in a small number of the bacteria except for the occasional point mutation.
The nonresistant bacteria die, while the resistant bacteria survive and begin to multiply just about the time a patient thinks he is getting better.
Maybe this has happened to you or someone you know. Your doctor does another culture and sensitivity test, discovers that you are now infected with a resistant strain of the same bacteria, and orders a new antibiotic. This time, if there are no bacteria carrying a gene for resistance, you get better. You were lucky; many people die from hospital-acquired infections—over 300,000/year. Some had other problems, which made them more susceptible to deadly infections, but many of these people had a NORMAL immune system.
Resistance to an antibiotic develops in several ways, all of which relate to the bacteria’s gene pool, which is the sum total of genetic material available to a specific strain or species of bacteria. Resistance does not come about by haphazard mutations developing genetic material to code for one or another means of resistance, but from genetic material THAT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED in the bacteria’s gene pool.
I’ll cut and paste some relevant quotes from textbooks (with my emphasis in CAPS).
From a reference text, Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, p. 219, 1990, Drs. Kenneth Mayer, Steven Opal, and Antone Medeiros write:
“Genetic variability is essential in order for microbial evolution to occur. Antimicrobial agents exert strong selective pressures upon bacterial populations and favor those organisms that are capable of resisting them, Genetic variability may occur by A VARIETY OF MECHANISMS. A Point mutation may occur at a nucleotide base pair, a process referred to as microevolutionary change. Point mutations may alter the target site of an antimicrobial agent, thereby interfering with its activity.”
The authors are careful not to state that new genetic material evolves. They do say that some individuals in a bacterial population are already “capable of resisting.”
Science News, Januaey 16,1993 makes the following observation:
” The oldest examples ever found of microorganisms, preserved in detail in amber, are virtually identical with modern species, these organisms have remained in a state of evolutionary suspended animation since the dawn of the age of the dinosaurs. This phenomenon is termed morphological stasis”
This morphological stasis is true for dozens of living organisms that once had the honor of being identified as index fossils, such as the tuatara, the coelacanth, and the sea snail Neopilina galatheae.
If anything, one should realize that antibiotic resistance emerging in non-resistant bacteria is probably an inappropriate example for Darwinian evolutionists to cite as evidence for evolution.
There is no scientific evidence to show that resistance, regardless of how it is acquired, is the kind of activity that would eventually give rise to a whole new organism.
Evolutionists may assume that, given enough time, a series of mutations honed by natural selection would produce a new organism. It may be logical, but I’d like to see more scientific proof before jumping on the bandwagon.
The long time required for such change would make observation almost impossible.
Genetic variability - when you start with a single line of bacteria grown from a single individual - can ONLY come about through mutation.
“Give rise to a new organism” is back to your old delusion again - that unless the bacteria changes in a way that would lead it to becoming other than bacteria - or a different “type” of bacteria - then evolution didn't occur.
So why do bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase and why is it expressed during stress?
How could a bacterial line in a lab develop resistance to Methocillin?
How did people end up with different skin color in different human populations?
Because of beneficial adaptation to the environment through natural selection of genetic variation.
It is the ONLY scientific explanation for any of the three phenomena.
re: How could a bacterial line in a lab develop resistance to Methocillin?
I am not going to deal with skin color just yet, but Methocillin, because this is where our exchange is stuck.
Let’s look at what is KNOWN, before we jump into a conclusion we deem CERTAIN.
The appearance of bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics is often touted as evidence for the “molecules to men” Theory of Evolution.
However, as I said before and as has been observed in the lab ( the literature is abundant on this ), things like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) for instance, is just the most recent in a long line of bacteria that has shown evidence of resistance to antibiotics that previously was clearly susceptible to a certain antimicrobial agents.
But if we looked at it, there are numerous mechanisms, e.g. loss of enzymatic activity can result in metronidazole resistance, mutations associated with antibiotic resistance involve the LOSS or REDUCTION of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic, the antibiotic transport system was REDUCED or ELIMINATED, a regulatory system or enzyme activity was REDUCED or ELIMINATED, etc. and several bacteria, including Escherichia coli, construct a multiple-antibiotic-resistance (MAR) efflux pump that provides the bacterium with resistance to multiple types of antibiotics, including erythromycin, tetracycline, ampicillin, and nalidixic acid are just a couple of them.
Understanding that there are MULTIPLE OBSERVABLE reasons for bacterial resistance to antibiotics helps to see this ability as the result of a complex and often diverse interactions rather than a simple and straightforward ability of organisms to change over time.
BTW, I am not stating that bacterial resistance to antibiotics does anything to substantially change the core components of bacteria. As with all other mutations, information is being LOST or ALTERED in some way.
And I emphasize, NO NEW INFORMATION IS BEING TRANSMITTED and this is a BASIC REQUIREMENT for the types of changes predicted by Darwinian evolution. Single cell bacterial remain single cell bacteria.
So, I said this before and I have to say this again...
While such mutations are excellent examples of bacterial ADAPTATION, they are actually the antithesis of the mutational change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
Ironically, these mutations are, in fact, verifiable examples of a complexity being mutated to a level of greater simplicity.
So, I repeat myself, but it bears repeating - bacterial and insect resistance DOES NOT NECESSARILY support Darwinian Evolution classically defined as the natural selection of mutations ( I already defined my terms ).
Darwinian Evolution requires information-building mechanisms that ADD NEW INFORMATION to DNA.
In virtually all cases, bacteria or insect resistance is a result of the EXPLOITATION OF EXISTING SYSTEMS, or is due to a transfer of genes.
In the rare cases where a mutation is involved, development of resistance involves only a LOSS MUTATION such as one that produces a deformed ribosome.
This is confirmed by the fact that resistance is acquired very rapidly, in far too brief a period for the evolutionary emergence of complex biochemical or physiological systems. Mutation caused resistance results in less viability in the wild, and as a result the resistant stains cannot compete.
Show me first, that there is NEW DNA INFORMATION ADDED, then maybe we can have a basis for agreement but not until.
Again, the caveat, I am not saying that the Darwinian theory is wrong as it applies to developing resistance to Methocillin, I am saying that drawing a conclusion from what has been observed to Darwinian Evolution is PREMATURE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
For some reason, Creationists understand both sides,
but evos just can’t seem to grasp the Creationist view and interpretation of the same evidence.
It boils down to
Creationists: adaptive ability (ie, INFORMATION) was always there in the organisms’ makeup.
Evos: adaptive ability is GAINED by the mechanism of mutation. These mutations are inherently random, but are fortuitous enough to add just the exact information necessary for a species to survive environmental stress.
I was reading a book the other day, and I introduced some random misspellings. The story turned out much better this way, so I published it as a new book.
Information is being CHANGED. Not lost or gained. CHANGED.
Is information “lost” when the 2011 model of a car has less speed and performance but greater fuel economy?
Adaptation (such as the gain of antibacterial resistance) through natural selection of genetic variation is EVOLUTION through natural selection of genetic variation.
The MECHANISM is exactly the same, you just want to call it “micro evolution” or “adaptation”, but it is a distinction that exists only in your own mind - a distinction that makes absolutely no difference in what mechanism is responsible for it.
I appreciate your response.
However, I am not a creationist by an means.
I however, APPRECIATE the arguments that creationists or Intelligent Design proponents present, especially their observations of the weaknesses in the evidence presented by evolutionists.
I respect people on both sides of the aisle who are OPEN to the evidence, and who admit that a lot of what happened in the past cannot be reproduced in the lab by ordinary scientific observation.
I am the sort of person who prefers to let the evidence speak for itself and would rather people be honest and say -— this supports the evidence, but at this point in time, we are speculating.
An attitude like that would indeed by refreshing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.