Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nylon-eating bacteria"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::::Here ya go. Have fun... [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp]--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ::::Here ya go. Have fun... [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp]--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thanks for the citation. It is VERY interesting, and well written. It does, however, have some flaws. Now, this would be better flushed out by a bench researcher, as my bench days are over, but let me just leave a few points. First, the article actually gives no evidence that evolution/NS did not play a part here. Most of their specific complaints are invalid. For example: | ||
| + | Point 1) They point to the usual argument that it "suggests design". This is an opinion. | ||
| + | Point 2) This is a simple dismissal of evolution without evidence. | ||
| + | Point 3) They say chances are very low of the mutated plamid naturally occuring, and give a number (unclear from where) of 1 x10 to the 12th. Well, of couse chances are very low. That is why bacteria are so darned good for observing natural selection. With their short generation time, and logarithmic growth phase, even unlikely events can occur with reasonable frequency. If you have, say, 10 (a very small number) of bacteria exposed to a new environment, over the course of a few DAYS, there will be BILLIONS of daughter cells exposed to the new environment, giving plenty of opportunity for a new mutation to occur and be amplified. | ||
| + | [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:14, March 23, 2007
- "The latter claim that the plasmids in the bacteria allow for it to adapt to different food sources, and that this is an irreducibly complex feature"
Which would simply prove that IC features can evolve. Is there a creationist response to this experiment which isn't actually self-defeating? Tsumetai 12:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Whoever put that in....do they even know what the heck a plasmid is??? It makes ZERO sense to anyone with a shred of knowledge in biology Tmtoulouse 13:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- I know. I was trying to get the gist across, but I am admittedly a bad person to try and push an ID argument. Maybe someone else has a different argument that supports their claim more forcefully? Also, I was just trying to put something in here that didn't make the claim that the bacteria sat around dormant until the invention of nylon. Any biologist that can make better sense of this is more than welcome to fix what I wrote.--Dave3172 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- If someone has a link to a discussion from an ID perspective I will try.... Tmtoulouse 13:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the citation. It is VERY interesting, and well written. It does, however, have some flaws. Now, this would be better flushed out by a bench researcher, as my bench days are over, but let me just leave a few points. First, the article actually gives no evidence that evolution/NS did not play a part here. Most of their specific complaints are invalid. For example: Point 1) They point to the usual argument that it "suggests design". This is an opinion. Point 2) This is a simple dismissal of evolution without evidence. Point 3) They say chances are very low of the mutated plamid naturally occuring, and give a number (unclear from where) of 1 x10 to the 12th. Well, of couse chances are very low. That is why bacteria are so darned good for observing natural selection. With their short generation time, and logarithmic growth phase, even unlikely events can occur with reasonable frequency. If you have, say, 10 (a very small number) of bacteria exposed to a new environment, over the course of a few DAYS, there will be BILLIONS of daughter cells exposed to the new environment, giving plenty of opportunity for a new mutation to occur and be amplified. Palmd001 14:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)