Archive for Wednesday, April 5, 2006

Fairy tale science

April 5, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

Your March 23 article about the "Evolution Is A Fairy-Tale For Grown Ups" billboard on Interstate 35 brought interesting responses. Earlier, the 2005 Biohawk, the alumni newsletter of the Kansas University Division of Biological Sciences, had evolution as its main theme, sprinkled with quotes from Chancellor Hemenway and professors Leonard Krishtalka, Craig Martin and Erik Lundquist. Their quotes state that Darwinian evolution is the bedrock of science and of KU as an academic and research institution. They believe that any attack on evolution is unscientific (religious and political motives).

Frankly, there have been no public debates on the evolution "debate" in recent times, certainly not by any KU advocates of evolution. It is time for the university's best scientists to defend evolution as science against its critics. On counterpoint, anti-evolutionists with strong scientific credentials can defend entropy, the antithesis of evolution, as the scientific law of change in the universe.

The real debate is science versus evolution. I suppose that the evolving religion of Darwin, whose only academic training was in religion, did play a vital part in his development of evolution. But the present-day evolutionist debaters will need much better arguments than crystal formation, refrigerators and closed systems to defend evolution against entropy. Undoubtedly, the religion of Darwin has become science. The frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale for children, but it has become science at Kansas University.

David Penny,

Lawrence

Comments

DuQuesne 9 years, 3 months ago

Entropy, indeed.

I'm still waiting for the creationists to reach equilibrium. Thermal or otherwise.

-Schuyler DuQuesne

xenophonschild 9 years, 3 months ago

Yes, please; let's have the creationists prove their postulates. Let's have them prove anything! And this "argument" about entropy is specious nonsense. Yes, all living organisms run down - but it is what they do while they are alive that counts, not simply the facts that they are born, mature, reproduce, grow old, and die.

Penny sounds very much like an adherent of the "wedge" people, those who seek to create controversy about evolution, even when there is none, and then "teach the controversy," in a sophisticated maneuver to introduce faith-based religion disguised as science. Let's not allow them to fool us again.

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 3 months ago

"Frankly, there have been no public debates on the evolution "debate" in recent times, certainly not by any KU advocates of evolution."

Hilarious. Nor have there been public debates about gravity, quantum mechanics, or electricity. Let the creationists debate their "science" where science is debated, in peer-reviewed journals and scientific meetings.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

No controversy? Sounds like you guys think there is based on your comments.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Let's see, who is David Penny. Oh yeah he has a concrete or construction company or something like that and somehow he is sitting there telling everyone about entropy. David I suggest instead of funding a PR campaign with clear underlying religious motives maybe you could actually go back to KU and learn exactly what entropy really is.

I just love this quote "The real debate is science versus evolution". This is freaking hilarious. This is coming from a guy who puts a billboard up advertising a biblical website and insists that this clearly shows "evidence" against evolution. As nightmare says "Let the creationists debate their "science" where science is debated, in peer-reviewed journals and scientific meetings."

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Ah Gr, You disappeared on me. Did you get your feelings hurt?

wonderhorse 9 years, 3 months ago

Marion

Of course you can fly. All you have to do is throw yourself at the ground and miss. Silly.

ouroboros 9 years, 3 months ago

Apparently, neither the LJ World or Mr. Penny were present last night at the KU's Dole Center for Lawrence Krauss' excellent presentation. Mr. Krauss' credentials and activities as a scientist and citizen are well documented. The views of Mr. Penny and his ilk are not defensible, peer-reviewed science. The have run from their original buzzword - creationism - to intelligent design, and now, unable to posit an argument that even a God-fearing judge will support (the Dover case), are attempting to invoke entropy as their piece de resistance.

Good luck in your smear campaign, Mr. Penny, you will probably be successful. Many adults can't even correctly answer the following True-False statement: "The earth revolves around the sun and takes one year to do it."

Some people are afraid of science because it is founded on the scientific method (if you don't know what that is, borrow ANY junior high science text). Religion is not. Science doesn't exclude the possiblity of ANYTHING - it simply requires that ANYTHING be tested before it is assumed to be a fact. Faith on the other hand, requires one to believe something without scientific proof. That's NOT a bad thing, it's simply the difference between faith and science.

Believe anything and everything you want Mr. Penny, but don't call it science unless you can test and demonstrate - let alone prove - your hypothesis. Come out of the closet, call your efforts what they are: a public relations campaign to infuse religion into our culture by using "the evil scientists" as your foil.

bankboy119 9 years, 3 months ago

I still haven't seen any "facts" from the evolutionists, just that what people who believe in creation present are not "facts." We do not evolve into other species, theory of evolution is flawed, case closed.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"We do not evolve into other species, theory of evolution is flawed, case closed."

Idiocy abounds. Case closed

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"it simply requires that ANYTHING be tested before it is assumed to be a fact."

I think that's the controversy. Some things are presented as facts in school that cannot be tested.


Kodiac, it is my opinion that when people resort to name calling, they feel they have lost the argument and name calling is the best they can do.

Another tactic is to first bring up an issue, (evidence of evolution happening as in antibiotic resistance) and when it is addressed (resistance was already present) then sidestepping and sidetracking the issue (saying, of course resistance was present, it evolved in the past. - What happened to evidence of evolving...it exists so it must have evolved? - not very scientific) and then pretending not to see the relation to similar possibilities (antibiotic resitance preexisting vs nylon digesting preexisting). And then when conceding it does look like a possibility of a plasmid developing nylon degrading abilities, blanketing with paste after paste - after name calling. So, you can call it being sensitive, or you can call it being sensible.

And then I remember someone attempting to suggest the space shuttle has become less complex.....

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Uh gr,

It might be helpful if you actually rehash the whole conversation.

Correct me if I am wrong but you were claiming since antibiotics did not exist before we discovered them and since they are bacteria that were already resistant to those antibiotics before we started using them, this would mean that since resistance was already present it was proof of design and not a result of evolution. . I merely pointed out to you that antibiotics such as penicillin were already being produced by other organisms naturally and did not just come into existence when we discovered them. Something that you failed to include or mention in your little analysis. Not very scientific.

You were also cutting and pasting information from pro evolution sites claiming that even they agreed with what you were trying to show. I pointed out to you that you were cutting and pasting partial information from these sites and not revealing all of the information. This is a common tactic of creationists and IDers. I think this is a deceptive practice Gr and I think you are lying when you do this.

So which is it Gr. Are you a liar or do you not understand what it is you are doing.

Obviously you did not read the entire arguments that I found regarding the Nylon experiements. That information showed again and again the statements you obviously copied from creationist sites were misleading, and used deceptive practices to cover up what the original researches actually showed.

I suggest you also take some coursework on information theory and learn how the terms complexity and reducibility are actually used in this field.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"I suggest you also take some coursework on information theory and learn how the terms complexity and reducibility are actually used in this field."

Another words gr,

Explain to us how and where the term "irreducible complexity" is defined in information theory.

Clue: If something is complex then it can be reduced. If something is irreducible then it is not complex, it is in its simplest form.

Using these definitions, is it possible for earlier versions of the space shuttle to be more complex than the space shuttle that is designed now? Certainly computers themselves have gone that route. Vacumm tubes to transistors etc.

"people resort to name calling, they feel they have lost the argument and name calling is the best they can do."

Maybe you aren't actually calling me a name but when you cut and paste a statement like "And then I remember someone attempting to suggest the space shuttle has become less complex....." I have to wonder if you feel like you have lost the argument Gr....

KWCoyote 9 years, 3 months ago

Hey, don't forget to demonstrate your faith by handling snakes and drinking poison. That's in the Good Book too.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

ljreader,

Oh, and don't forget when God made the Sun stand still (Joshua 10:13) in the sky so the Israelites would have time to finish off the last of their enemies! Actually, since the movement of the Sun across the sky is just the illusion of relative postion and motion, and it is really the Earth which moves (and the ancestors of these creationists wanted to burn Galileo for proving this) the Earth would have had to go from 1000 mph at the equator to 0 in less than a second. Are there any Christian physicists out there who can explain why all objects on Earth did not immediately go into low trajectory orbit and the oceans sweep across the continents in massive tsunamis? I guess God held everything down.

Plus, since the creationists just giggle with ignorant joy about Piltdown and Nebraska man, thinking one flaw destroys evolution (though both of these errors were exposed by scientific methods, not creationists, though they've been riding these tired horses and others for over fifty years) try this on for size. Tell me how there could be one demoniac of the Gerasenes in Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27, but two demoniacs in Matthew 8:28? One flaw in the Bible (and there are dozens, if not hundreds more) and you are discredited. If this is wrong, what can you be right about?

I read once about a physicist who delivered a lecture on the origins of the universe. During the question and answer time afterwards, a little old lady stood up in the back and said, "You are a very clever young man, but your ideas are all wrong. Actually the Earth sits on the back of four giant elephants who stand on the back of a giant turtle!" The physicist, thinking he had her, asked her what the turtle stood on. "That's easy", she replied. "It's turtles all the way down!"

Case closed Former Born-Again Christian who used to believe all this crap.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac: "Correct me if I am wrong but you were claiming since antibiotics did not exist before we discovered them and since they are bacteria that were already resistant to those antibiotics before we started using them, this would mean that since resistance was already present it was proof of design and not a result of evolution."

False. Only that since they were already resistant, it is NOT proof of evolution.

"I merely pointed out to you that antibiotics such as penicillin were already being produced by other organisms naturally and did not just come into existence when we discovered them."

That was the point I was making. It does not prove evolution as you were trying to, at least initially, suggest. No lying involved. You failed to show how the sites I quoted were incorrect. But, that may be because we were saying the same thing but talking about two different things. I was targeting what you initially said and if you switched, then we weren't on the same page.

I think you should forget the nylon thing while you're ahead. What is it you want me to say? I believe it absolutely proves evolution? I'm not sure what you're saying about disproving statements I made. I only said it does sound like something was developed. Cannot prove evolution. Maybe supporting evidence until it is further understood.

About the space shuttle, were you being sarcastic towards the Intelligent Designers?

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

gr,

Good Bob, man are you daft? What we call antibiotics are defensive chemicals which some microorganisms evolved to keep other microorganisms at bay, probably billions of years ago. We were lucky enough to escape the control of people like you in the Middle Ages so that scientists could have a chance to find such things without being burned at the stake, like Galileo and Copernicus nearly were for challenging church dogma. Unfortunately, because of evolution, we are losing these 'drugs' as the 'disease' organisms develop 'resistance' to them. Soon we will be back to dying from simple infections, because the micros and their shorter generation times will always be able to out-evolve us.

What Kodiac is trying to argue is not whether one organism evolved the capacity in the first place millions or billions of years ago to defend itself against other ones. (Besides, what kind of god makes a world with so much death, war and disease at every level, anyway?) What he is arguing is that the rapid rate at which all antibiotics discovered in the last century have lost their efficacy is evidence of the ability for microorganisms to adapt to their environment. You IDists have been forced to admit that this is the case. Microevolution. Thirty years ago, when I was a creationist, even that was anathema. But no matter what the weight of evidence you will never admit to Macroevolution, a splitting of hairs.

Science does not claim to know all the answers. You do. Science is a process which shuns absolute belief and encourages doubt, always ready to change if new data warrants it. You cannot do this because god is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So why don't you tell me why there was one demoniac in Mark and Luke and two in Matthew? Your absolutist drivel is unsupportable, because the Bible is unsupportable. Gone with its infallibility is everything you claim to stand on.

"Well, when I get new information, I rethink my position. What, sir, do you do with new information?" John Maynard Keynes

SpeedRacer 9 years, 3 months ago

Odd that this letter should appear the same day as the reported discovery of Tiktaalik roseae in Nature. However, regardless of all the evidence, Mr. Penny clearly illustrates that evolution is fickle.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You know gr we can play this game if you want to because we have it all right here ready to cut and paste...

Lets take this one step at a time so we do not misunderstand each other...

This is your original argument gr (I cut and pasted this from your original message):

"I found many examples of resistant organisms which have nothing to do with new information. It is usually loss of information which prevents the pesticide, antibiotic, or organism from attacking it. In bacteria, there are examples of bacteria crossbreeding with others to transfer existing resistance. And, think how crop breeders use certain bacteria to insert genes from one plant species into another. I also found mention of bacteria being thawed from sources before antibiotics were developed, which were resistant to them. http://www.bmb.psu.edu/courses/micro106/... (bottom of first paragraph) Better find something more credible than TalkOrgins."

Ok so do you see your sentence right there that says "I also found mention of bacteria being thawed from sources before antibiotics were developed, which were resistant to them." Explain to me why you said that statement. Remember we can always go back and check your original messages so I suggest you stay honest and tell us if you are changing your mind now or if you were mistaken somehow.

If you want to turn this into a fruitful discussion then I suggest stay with only one topic at a time. Don't worry I will bring up the cutting and pasting patterns you employ and deal with the Nylon experiments.

Let just concentrate on the above statement because I really want to make sure I understand what exactly you were trying to say.....

pelliott 9 years, 3 months ago

Dave Penny isn't the one who owns the concrete company. I think that's Bill Penny, who always seemed logical and rather nice. If you want serious scientific debate, then go the normal route. publish, peer review. The endless call for podium justice makes sense only to people who think the truth or evidence is revealed from the pulpit or stage. Scientific study is usually thousands of little facts, carefully followed and weighed. If Dave wants the podium on the subject he should join toastmasters. They put a lot of effort in staging information for arguement. Actually I think toastmasters is kind of cool. Promoting ID over evolution by staged debate and advertising is effective for keeping the sad little debate in the public eye. but again I say, if ID has scientific merit use scientific methods, publish and peer review.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

75x55

Ok, laughing boy. You tell me what's up with the sun standing still, or even the contradictions in the Bible such as the demoniac problem I pointed out above. I know you can't, and that just completely undermines your already weak position.

The problem with you, is you depend on material like Jack Chick's 'Big Daddy' tract for your science. Or maybe you watch that joke program on TBN where hillbillys sit around and expound on 'Siuntifik noludge' like it says in the Bible. You attribute what you can't prove to 'mirkles', yet laugh at science. You are the joke.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Hm well sounds like good advice 75x55. I wonder if you apply the same standard to evolution. Maybe the statement for you should read....

"Make the effort to investigate rather than cut-n-pasting creationist blog material and you might be surprised"

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

75x55,

I couldn't tell if you are directing your last remark to me, but I'll take it.

First, all it takes is one contradiction to destroy the Bible's reliability as an infallible source. If one thing is incorrectly translated (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that) then none of it can be trusted. And the contradictions in the Bible are not rare, they are legion. Science on the other hand makes no claims to infallibility, so proving any scientific theory false does not discredit science, it is rather called doing science, because that is what scientists do- discredit inaccurate, outdated theories and fine tune them to more accurately describe reality when new data become available. Creationists, on the other hand are eternally forced to make reality fit the (mostly) unchanging scriptures, with no room for correction and the contortions which you are willing to go through to do this would make any honest man cringe.

As for my lack of Biblical studies, how do you know what I've studied? Has god given you miraculous vision to see my college transcripts and private library? I actually still study the Bible, and view it as a fairly reliable source of historical information from the book of Judges on, with the occasional whopper thrown in for good measure. But Genesis is a trove of mythology, and bears no correspondance to anything close to being a valid source for scientific information. But bring your Bible Quiz on brother, I'm more than willing to play Q&A.

And you bear false witness against me if you accuse me of cutting and pasting anything I wrote above. It's all mine brother, and I challenge you to prove me wrong on that. Thou shalt not do stuff like that without proof, LOL. I should have you stoned. That's one of the big ten, bearing false witness, isn't it?

As for my bad attitude, well, I'm sorry but you maniacs are driving our world back to the Middle Ages, with nuclear weapons in the trunk. I am quite concerned about this (I know, I know- oh ye of little faith, but...). Any sane person in a vehicle being driven by a deranged maniac who is rambling about seeing and hearing things which are not there is going to be upset if he can't hit the brake or grab the wheel. The fact that your fanatical, creationist counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are heading for the same historical intersection with nuclear weapons in their trunk too, upsets me even more, so you'll have to forgive me for resenting your attempts to destroy modernity, not to mention the human race, and my attacking the absurd superstitions which are fueling them. Talk about self-fulfilling prophesies.

"George Bush is all the proof of evolution that I need. If he's not descended from an ape, who is?" DanQuixote

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac: "Ok so do you see your sentence right there that says "I also found mention of bacteria being thawed from sources before antibiotics were developed, which were resistant to them." Explain to me why you said that statement. "

I said that statement in response to your post right before that: "In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.

Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides."

What that post said to me was, you were saying is that Lederberg's experiment showed bacteria developed resistance. Disease organisms and insects developed resistance. Implying that the developing was observable. I showed that wasn't true - they were already resistant to them. My statement is not saying this is proof that bacteria were designed - only that mutation was not observed and did not occur - no experimental evidence of evolution. Berkeley's site supports this with the following statement: "So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic."

It seems very clear to me. Am I not understanding something?

ben_ness 9 years, 3 months ago

Just out on the Drudge Report, in the past few days, scientist have made what is considered one of the most important discoveries in the history of evolution. It is believed by evolutionary scientists that this fossil, the Tiktaalik, is "the missing link"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Actually, SpeedRacer mentioned this yesterday. At least this seems like something to look at and consider rather than fossilhunter's whale-fragment claim.

"It is believed by evolutionary scientists". As opposed to creation scientists?
Your bad. ;-)

ben_ness 9 years, 3 months ago

gr - I don't believe there is such thing as a creation scientist. For the record, as somebody who has very limited knowledge of the bible, ID, and evolution my beliefs lean towards evolution as a viable theory.

As a Kansan I am embarassed and ashamed that a group of businessmen have decided to litter the roadways with a billboard calling evolution a fairy tale for grown ups.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

ben_ness,

Great job, brother. Thanks for the link. This is another nail in the coffin of the anti-scientific magic, superstition, and myth which have held the human race down for so many thousands of years.

I concur on your view of the term "creation scientist" as well. Talk about an oxymoron. Keep up the good work.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Ben, I agree that it may not be the most wise thing to post such on billboards.

Dan, if this is a "nail in the coffin", the article indicated it would be the "first" for water to land animals.

So, Dan, do you suppose there is the possibility of dis-proving evolution?

ben_ness 9 years, 3 months ago

conservativeman - once again, you have done a great job of embodying, through your blogs, the average mindset of a conservative kansan. It is my understanding that Evolution is a theory that has existed for centuries. The reason it has recently reared it head in the media and in blogs like this is due to the KSBOE, and ignorant billboards in Olathe, KS. The unfortunate thing is that most of you live in a bubble in Kansas, and don't realize how the rest of the US views this. You, and everybody else who has pushed the creationist agenda in KS, have succeeded in turning a great state into something the rest of the US enjoys making fun of and laughing....don't you understand?

wonderhorse 9 years, 3 months ago

"First, we have to get to the point in time when evolution is proven."

See, this is why the theory of evolution still exists. It is the best explanation for the facts we have. I don't think evolution will ever be proven, anymore than the theory of gravity can be proven. You might be able to disprove it (hasn't been done yet), but proving it is probably impossible.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You said "What that post said to me was, you were saying is that Lederberg's experiment showed bacteria developed resistance. Disease organisms and insects developed resistance. Implying that the developing was observable. I showed that wasn't true - they were already resistant to them."

You obviously have not read Lederberg's actual paper. I have pointed out previously where you could go to read it. As I said previously you have lifted a statement from that paper that was referring to how to avoid preadaptive species. Another words, the Lederbergs came up with a method for testing organisms that had not been previously exposed to an external environment such as an antibiotic and were able to show that through mutations the organism was able to become resistant to it. If you had actually read the paper gr you would know this instead of appearing as an idiot. But instead of reading the original article, you were relying on bits and pieces from other websites to make your arguments. I do not even have to ask you if you had read the paper in question because it is extremely clear that you have not.

The statement in Talk origins was "In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations". This is exactly what this paper found. If you look at the 2nd statement that you are talking about from Talk Origins which says "Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides." Again this is supporting the idea that mutations created the resistance.

Please stay with this topic only gr for right now. Please tell me again why this is the "opposite" of what Talk Origins is saying.

wonderhorse 9 years, 3 months ago

"It requires "faith" to believe in the "theory" of evolution. Religion is built upon faith, therefore Evolutionists are practicing a religion, Evolutionism."

No, it requires something called "reasoning". You need to interpret the facts that exist, and come up with a logical conclusion. I cannot logically believe that there was actually a boat that had two of every animal on earth and floated around for 40 days.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Oh by the way Gr,

Joshua Lederberg is a really cool guy. He won the Nobel Prize in 1958 for his work in genetics specifically with mutations which has been instrumental in providing clear evidence for evolution. Thank-you for making me actually go look at Joshua Lederberg and reading what is considered to be a very important paper in the field of evolution. You continue to help me with finding out why evolution is a fact which I really do appreciate....

wonderhorse 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac

"...why evolution is a fact...."

You do such a good job of carrying the standard (no, I am not being sarcastic. I'm serious on this one), why are you making this statement? Evolution is a theory, plain and simple (you know, like gravity).

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Wonderhouse,

I guess I have to ask what do you mean by "theory" or at least define the way you are using. The word theory has certain usage in science that does not mean the same thing as the word theory is used in everyday life . So I am curious, then is gravity not a fact? hmmm...

It is all about semantics.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Wonderhorse

If there is a wall in front of me and I test to see if I can actually walk through the wall and I find that I keep failing to do it over and over again, when can I start calling it a fact that I cannot walk through walls?

wonderhorse 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac

Officially, gravity is a theory.

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "

First definition, www.dictionary.com.

The problem is, science cannot absolutely prove gravity, they can only watch things fall every time. Thus, a theory. Personally, I would take it as a fact, because every time I fall down, it hurts.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

gr,

Can evolution be disproven? Yes. If the Intelligent Designer were to appear in my living room right now, give me a big hug, (or whatever my designer would want to do to show me its affection) and then take me on a tour of its creation, complete with explanations as to how and WHY it did everything, then I would certainly change my mind, but I'd still be pissed off at it for leaving so much evidence of evolution on this planet to blind us to its existence. Until then, the Big Bang is just as logical an explanation as an infinite, eternal, all-knowing, all-doing thing which made me and then left me alone to fend for myself on this god-forsaken planet with no help from it.

wonderhorse 9 years, 3 months ago

conservative

So a boat really floated around for 40 days with 2 of every species of animal in it?

By the way, DQ is incorrect above. Evolution has nothing to do with creation.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

ConMan

"They have Joseph Smith as their founder/prophet" Funny you should mention him. Recently, thanks to the science which you so hate (while tapping away on a keyboard connected to a computer which was "created" by science) the Mormon religion was proved to be a pack of lies. DNA markers, ConMan, DNA markers. Mutations. The stuff of evolution. The Lamanites have no Middle Eastern markers in their genes, and the central teaching of Mormonism is gone. They've proved one manufactured myth system wrong now, just a few hundred unsubstantiated unintelligently-designed superstition-structures to go.

And gr, I've changed my mind. I don't need the hug and tour. I'd believe evolution was proven wrong if the Intelligent Designer would just make the sun "stand still" in the sky for a couple hours like it did for the Israelites so they could kill a few thousand more of its creations way back in the pre-scientific days when its power seemed to be a lot stronger, at least here on Earth. All in a day's work. See if you can swing that one and I'll see you in church on Sunday. Or Saturday, whenever you go. For now, I guess I'll just assume that the Designer is just so busy somewhere designing things so far away from here that the light hasn't even gotten here yet that it doesn't have time for us anymore.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

Ohhh, pleeeaaassee, forgive me. I'm sorry.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Conservativeman,

In response to your posts here are a few items from TalkOrigins.org:

All observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits, how far away it is, and so forth (Sacks 1995). To dismiss absolutely everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous.

Most of the evidence of evolution is not the sort about which interpretation is in question. The evidence consists of such things as the following: certain trilobite species are found in certain geological formations; many more varieties of marsupials are found in Australia than elsewhere; bacteria in test tubes have been seen to change in certain ways over time; flies share some traits that other insects do not; and millions of other such facts, none of which are in dispute.

The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it, anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution.

However, a fact gets to be considered evidence for a theory if it fits that theory and does not fit or is not covered by competing theories. (Ideally, the theory should predict the fact before the fact is known, but that is not essential for the fact to be evidence.) The millions of facts referred to above fit this criterion, so they qualify as evidence for evolution.

This is not about religion or faith or about having a belief system. Explain to us how this is the same as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

Hey ConMan,

Who designed the Designer?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

What is lightness? What is warmth? What is life? What is the Universe? What is beyond the Universe? What is Infinity? Where are we going? What are we doing? How long do we live?

Yes the world is full of incomprehensible questions Conservativeman. That is what makes life so exciting.

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

ConMan,

So its OK for IDeists to say they don't know what the first cause was, but you get to ridicule scientists who don't have all the answers either? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I like the old lady's answer I cited above better- "It's turtles all the way down!"

DonQuixote Man of La Munchies

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Conservativeman,

Saying that something is faith based or is a religion carries no weight. It means nothing. It is an empty statement made by one who has been clearly swayed by religious dogma. I tell you what, you find a better theory then evolution that explains the natural world and get that published and peer-reviewed in actual scientific journals then we can talk. Until then, you have absolutely nothing to talk about.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Good God Almighty. I see. So Science (remembering that this is not something you hate) or maybe you are referring to evolution itself (which I guess is only the tip of the "iceburg" or maybe you meant to say the Ice Borg) is responsible for abortion, communism, drug abuse, war, murder, and social problems, essentially all of the human problems we have today.

And then to top it all off, humans are responsible for coldness and darkness. Man I think I must be really screwed up here.

I think I am so dumbfounded, I just can't reply to this post....

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Uh well conserveman, it is time for me to leave. I apologize I can't continue this delightfully intellectual conversation with someone as brilliant as you but alas, some friends are waiting on me and I must go and partake in that wonderful endeavor called Life. I sincerely wish you luck on your path of illumination and may you always find happiness and peace whereever you go. Peace be with you brother.....

DanQuixote 9 years, 3 months ago

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.

Fade to black.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiak, It's true. I didn't read Lederbergs' paper. Do you have an on-line link of a copy of it? I searched for it on-line, but was unable to find it. And I blindly copied and believed what an university, a supposed dispenser of knowledge, had on it's web site. I did not lift the statement from the paper but from the site. A web site with the word, evolution, in its URL. I may be un-informed or lazy and believe that an university web site, while not "peer-reviewed", would not put incorrect information out for the public. But, I don't see how that gives you the right to call me an idiot.

So, as I had asked before without receiving an answer, are you saying Berkeley's site is incorrect? And is the opposite of what the REAL research said and what Talk Origins said?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You are right in calling me on the name calling. I want to apologize to you Gr. There is no reason for me to do that and I will make a promise to you to stop doing it. Thank-you for calling me on it.

Go to google, cut and paste this title into the search box:

Lederberg, J. and E. M. Lederberg, 1952. Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406.

The top reference that comes up is this one

Scholarly articles for Lederberg, J. and E. M. Lederberg, 1952. Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406.

This is a copy of the article and it should come up in a pdf format.

I can't remember if I even went to the Berkely site to read it. I remember thinking about some of the sites that were being cited using bits of information here and there and that maybe you misunderstood the relationships of those items to the actual article in question. Let me know what the site is so I can read it and try to understand what you are talking about.

Kodiac

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Ah, so we both weren't reading the other's reference. Guess kind of hard to understand each other. Here it is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml

I found Lederbergs' and now will have to absorb it.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Dan: "Can evolution be disproven? Yes. If the Intelligent Designer were to appear in my living room right now, give me a big hug," blah blah blah.

So, the only way evolution can be disproved is by the supernatural?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Ok now I see why you are saying the things you are saying from what that website was saying. But the overall paper in question was looking at a method for being able to exclude or include preadaptive species which then can be used to answer a number of questions regarding mutations such as randomness or variation. The Berkeley site was looking at was the idea of mutations being random. They were not saying anything about variation arising from mutations (in the Berkely site I mean). The Lederbergs paper however did look at both random mutations and the ability for organisms to eventually gain resistance through mutations. In the paper from the Lederbergs, it was important to show the some species were preadapted, another words had already been exposed to a certain environment which is the part of the paper that the Berkely is focusing on. Please note that there is nothing being said about variation or even what the entire Lederberg paper was about. It was simply refering to a small part of the paper to demonstrate that mutations were random and part of the answer to that question was the need to be able to show that you actually can have preadapted species.

I think from your message it sounded like you thought they were saying that the since the resistance was already there that would mean that resistance could not have come from mutations which is true when you are dealing with pre-adaptive species which was shown in the Lederberg paper. But when you can eliminate those types of species as the Lederbergs did with their novel method, then you can show resistance in a species evolving from beneficial mutations which again was done in the Lederberg paper. Hence the reason why all the variations come from mutations

So do you agree with the idea that the original paper was actually answering several different questions regarding mutations through the use of a special technique and that the Berkely site and TalkOrigins are not in conflict with each other and did not come to opposite conclusions.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

I guess we weren't touched by that noodly appendage.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac,

You're right, it was a neat experiment! The purpose was to address a similar problem of: you can measure the speed, or you can measure the position, but you can't measure both. The mere act of obersvation affects the observation. Their method is kind of like test crossing. The original is not affected.

At a quick glance at Lederbergs' paper, I thought it did conflict with Berkeley's site. I had to read fully to understand what they were meaning. Some phrases such as, "what we mean by spontaneous mutation or preadaptation" were unclear as to whether the intent was to include two different items or to equate two words. I believe they meant to equate the two based on the context. Spontaneous (or random, or preadapted) vs. directed. Of course, I believe they meant spontaneous mutation, in other words, preadaptation, happened in the past. But, their experiment did not address that - it only showed the possibility since it didn't happen due to exposure.

Here's what I got out of it. By taking a non-selected dish, replicating it on selective media, and then noting the position of the phage resistant bacteria, each replica showed the same fixed positions. They were concerned that selecting the bacteria could change them. If that were true, they would find random positions on the replicas. They didn't. "If the resistant cells did not exist already in clones on the initial plate, they should occur in only a random distribution in serial replicas from a confluent film of growth."

They then took the colony positions, without exposing them, and incubated and increased their numbers. All subsequent colonies were resistant. Likewise, they did the same with Streptomycin with the same results. "We conclude that resistance to streptomycin, as to phage, is a spontaneous mutation that occurs independently of the presence of the selective agent." The selection did not affect the previous mutation. "In particular, neither the adaptive change nor its inheritance depends upon a specific environment, which is what we mean by spontaneous mutation or preadaptation."

While acknowledging directed responses in enzyme formation, they state, "However, no un-equivocal case of a mutation specifically directed by and adapting cells to a chemical agent has yet been defended, despite numerous attempts of varying clarity (e.g., Barer, 1951)."

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

I'm not sure if I understood you to get the same thing. I'm a little confused by, "But when you can eliminate those types of species as the Lederbergs did with their novel method, then you can show resistance in a species evolving from beneficial mutations which again was done in the Lederberg paper. Hence the reason why all the variations come from mutations". Neither do I understand you appearing to distiguish between variation and mutation about the paper. Lederbergs' didn't distinguish a difference.

I conclude Berkeley's site agrees with the paper. While Lederbergs' dealt with a method for observation with affecting the observation, their conclusion about resistance being prexistent is fully supported by Berkeley's site.

From TalkOrigins: "In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). " Maybe it's only nomenclature, but the paper did not address "single individual". And the paper spoke against "arises" as they conclude it was already there.

"Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations. " The paper never mentioned how many chromosomes the bacteria had. It said there was variation (preexisiting mutation) in the original population - the whole purpose of the paper.

"Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. "
By including that statement, I took it to mean TalkOrigins said Lederbergs said bacteria developed resistance. The paper said they don't "develop" - it is there before the experiment started.

"It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides. "
And that is TalkOrigins' interpretation.

So, sorry, but I see that not only is Berkeley's site in conflict with TalkOrigins, but also Lederbergs' paper in conflict with TalkOrigins.

We are talking about the same paper, aren't we?
"REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS, JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY, Vol. 63, No. 3, March, 1952"

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You don't have to go through the whole paper. Read the last sentence of the summary in the paper. Here is what it says:

"These observations, therefore, are cited as confirmation of previous evidence for the participation of spontaneous mutation and populational selection in the heritable adaptation of bacteria to new environments."

This is exactly what TalkOrigins is saying. The Berkley is just using the paper to talk about how to answer the question of random mutation. That is not I repeat not the point of the Lederbergs paper. The Lederbergs paper is talking about variation arising from mutations. I am not sure how cleared we can make this for you Gr. That last sentence is in a nutshell what TalkOrigins is saying. All spontaneous means is something that is produced freely or naturally. So all it means by spontaneous mutations is that they arose naturally, another words they were not there before, hence NO RESISTANCE was present before. Populational selection means after several generations of bacteria grew in the NEW environment (an environment they had not seen before) the spontaeous mutation (again something occurred naturally) was selected for and presto you have bacteria that are now resistant to the exposed environment that did not have resistance before. SOOOOOOOOO that means the variation came from mutations. I can't figure out how to make it any clearer Gr. If you can't understand this or if you object to this then you are disagree with what the paper is saying. Read it again and again until you understand it.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You said this:

"spontaneous mutation or preadaptation" were unclear as to whether the intent was to include two different items or to equate two words. I believe they meant to equate the two based on the context. I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand what is meant by spontaneous mutation. Explain to me using a dictionary definition of spontaneous and a dictionary definition of preadaptation, how they are equal?!!!????? How hard can this be. A preadaptation by definition is something that does not arise spontaneously. So they are in fact opposite of each other, are they not.? You did not find this in the article Gr. You said that this was the context of the article "Spontaneous (or random, or preadapted) vs. directed." Why did you say this. I have no choice but to conclude that you are lying Gr. I know you can read. Why on earth did you change the meaning here. Are you trying to distort this or do you truly not understand what it is you are saying.

In fact it says they are contrasting spontaneous mutation and natural selection against preadaption and directed mutation in the very first paragraph of the paper. Are you trying to be disingenius Gr. Are you ignoring this? How can we continue an intelligent discussion about this if you cannot understand that what you are saying is completely incorrect.

Gr point specifically to where you saw this statement in the article word for word as you are saying it or it means how you are saying it?

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiak, I think we've found the problem in our communications. Not the solution, yet, but what the problem is.

If you have noticed, I have repetitively asked people to define their terms (evolution, whatever). Instead, they point me to classes, and they point me to the dictionary. But, they have missed the point. It's not what the dictionary means, it's not what I mean, but it's what THEY mean by the term. It's very important not to try to impose one's own definitions, but to find out what the author's definitions mean. One can't interject their own definition of terms in place of the author's, and then make some conclusion.

Here is a good example of this. As I said, at first glance, I thought you were correct. Because, I, like you, had some idea of what, "spontaneous mutations", meant. However, after reading the full paper, and then going through it again to make sure I understood it correctly, the Lederbergs meant something different than my definition.

Surely you understand that "using a dictionary definition of spontaneous and a dictionary definition of preadaptation" would do absolutely no good in understanding the paper if Lederberg had a different definition in mind. Here it is again: "In particular, neither the adaptive change nor its inheritance depends upon a specific environment, which is what we mean by spontaneous mutation or preadaptation."

Do you understand, they mean that the specific environment does NOT cause an adaptive change. They are using a narrow sense of the word of spontaneous meaning random versus directed mutation. That is the whole point of their paper - random versus directed.

Plugging that definition in, "These observations, therefore, are cited as confirmation of previous evidence for the participation of spontaneous mutation and populational selection in the heritable adaptation of bacteria to new environments" means confirmation for the participation of preadapted mutations. True, they may believe the mutations happened sponateously in the past, hence freely and naturally as opposed to directed in their experiment, but show me where evidence of new mutations happened IN their experiment?

"In fact it says they are contrasting spontaneous mutation and natural selection against preadaption and directed mutation in the very first paragraph of the paper."

Note, they add "as 'preadoptation' and 'directed mutation', respectively." Respectively means their term, preadaptation, goes with spontaneous mutation, and directed mutation goes with specific induction.

You did read the whole thing and not just the last sentence or summary, right? And did read my post which outlines their statements which backs up what I'm saying?

"You don't have to go through the whole paper." That statement shocks and appalls me!

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Oh good grief,

Gr, Of course I went through the whole paper but I was merely pointing out to you that all you need to do is read the conclusions as a way of understanding the whole paper. Another words, it helps to know what exacty you are reading when you already know what the summary or conclusions because it will often keep you in a good frame of reference. Hence the reason many textbooks nowadays put a synopsis of the chapter at the beginning to help the reader focus better. It is the I read scientific papers. I go read the conclusions or summaries first so that I have an idea of what the paper is trying to show.

And again you are wrong about the wording. Are going to have to reprint the whole paper here?

I have little time left but I will give you a for example you said "Note, they add "as 'preadoptation' and 'directed mutation', respectively." Respectively means their term, preadaptation, goes with spontaneous mutation, and directed mutation goes with specific induction. You are completely wrong here Gr. COMPLETELY. Read the sentence again. In fact why don't you print word for word the whole sentence and then try to make your statement again. Please note to include the word CONTRAST AGAINST and while you are at it look at the words in quotes. Spont. Mutation contrasted against "preadaptation" and natural selection contrasted against "directed mutation". Specific induction refers to preadaptation and directed mutation.

"True, they may believe the mutations happened sponateously in the past, hence freely and naturally as opposed to directed in their experiment, but show me where evidence of new mutations happened IN their experiment?"

Reread the result Gr and pay attention to when they are talking about indirect selection.

More on this later

Bye Bye

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiak, You keep saying look up the words. But, that's where the problem is. If you go back and read your previous post, you'll see where you keep saying, means, so that means .

I'm sorry, but I must come across as trying to make it say some off the wall thing. Likewise, please realize that's what I'm thinking of you. However, I'm allowing for that cognitive dissonance thing. Honestly, I'm believing what the article says.

"In accord with similar discussions in evolutionary biology (Huxley, 1942), we may denote the concepts of spontaneous mutation and natural selection in contrast to specific induction as 'preadaptation' and 'directed mutation', respectively."

Couldn't find "contrast against". While there may be ambiguity, I do believe one could say, 'preadaptation' goes with spontaneous mutation. It may also go with natural selection. Directed mutation either goes with natural selection or specific induction. I believe preadaptation goes with both spontaneous mutation and natural selection as those two are thought to work together. Specific induction, what the article was concerned about, would go with directed mutation.

I read the results again, and here's the statement I copied, again: "If the resistant cells did not exist already in clones on the initial plate, they should occur in only a random distribution in serial replicas from a confluent film of growth." Here's more: "In several experiments, at, least half and often nearly all of the resistant mutants on the replica-plates recurred at congruent sites." I suppose there could be some ambiguity there, but what I take it they really mean is that with the replica plates, some didn't have colonies at all the sites as others did. The most you could say was ambiguous rather than saying absolutely new colonies.

Another, "It should be reemphasized that the indirect selection line itself has not been exposed to the phage at any time." They selected the spots in the original and purified it before testing for the mutation.

"Replica plating thus provides a technique for isolating resistant or otherwise adapted mutants without altering the media in which the bacteria are grown."

"We conclude that resistance to streptomycin, as to phage, is a spontaneous mutation that occurs independently of the presence of the selective agent."

But, hey, let's not copy and recopy the whole article. You said the last sentence in the summary made the point.

"These observations, therefore, are cited as confirmation of previous evidence for the participation of spontaneous mutation and populational selection in the heritable adaptation of bacteria to new environments."

Let's start with just that. What is the previous evidence?

Keeping in mind their statement, "However, no un-equivocal case of a mutation specifically directed by and adapting cells to a chemical agent has yet been defended, despite numerous attempts of varying clarity (e.g., Barer, 1951)."

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Do you understand specific induction. It is referring to the idea that a mutation is specifically induced. Directed mutation is a specifically induced mechanism. For example, it has been proposed that a specific chemical might induce a certain mutation to happen. This is directed mutation which is under alot of scrutiny but has never been shown to be true. Natural selection is not a specific inducing mechanism. Natural selection is depends on natural events. Mutations are selected based on what enables an organism to survive and reproduce. This is not specific induction. Preadaptation is also seen as a specifically induced mechansim. Spontaneous mutations are not specific. They arise spontaneously. So you see you cannot "contrast" specific induction with directed mutation. Specific Induction is defined by preadaptation and directed mutation. The sentence says "specific induction as preadaptation AND directed mutation" Diagram the sentence.

Got to go again.

Later

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I was wrong about preadaptation. I'm afraid my little knowledge of historical biology is not as good as it should be and consequently my initial thoughts on preadaptation was wrong. I found a definition of preadaptation....

Preadaptation implies that features evolved before they were needed for the function they eventually served, but not before they were needed at all. Many organs and features originally evolved for use in one manner, which incidentally predisposed them for use in another manner. Once an organ or feature used for one purpose also becomes usable in a new and more advantageous manner, natural selection will adapt it for the new use.

So now I have to reread the article with that in mind because my initial thought was that preadaptation was referring to specific adaptations for a specific trait such as antibiotic resistance that were already present of which I saw as being the opposite of spontaneous mutation. But after reading that definition above it actually refers to adaptations that were advantageous for one thing and evolved to become advatageous for another.

Is this what Lederbergs are referring to when they say preadaptation? I am not sure. I have to reread this. What is clear though is they are indicating in this article is that they have no evidence for "directed mutation" which refers specifically to a mechanism where a substrate or environment specifically induces a mutation.

Will have to get back to you later.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

So I reread the result section and essentially, what the Lederbergs are saying is that mutations in the bacteria occurred independent of the presence of the selective agent. Another words the agent itself did not cause the mutation to happen (this would be known as directed mutation), the mutation happened spontaneously. I agree with that conclusion.

I found this sentence in the result section that says "The hypothesis of preadaptation would be further strengthened if adapted mutants could be isolated in pure culture without direct exposure of the bacteria to the selective agent." So in view of the preadaptation definition I found above, what they are talking about is a predisposition of a feature in the organism allowed them to utilize that predisposition through beneficial spontaneous mutation. So again this is about evidence against directed mutation itself and has nothing to do with the idea that bacteria could already be resistant to a antibiotic or phage. So preadapted mutants are referring bacteria that had certain types of adaptations whose generations have evolved spontaneous mutations to be able to be specifically adapted for the antibiotic or phage in question.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

So the sentence of "In particular, neither the adaptive change nor its inheritance depends upon a specific environment, which is what we mean by spontaneous mutation or preadaptation." is not equating spontaneous mutation with preadaptation. They are 2 separate but related terms. This sentence is still saying this is not a directed process.

So further down I read, "The status of a microorganism's reaction as realized at any time, i.e., its phenotype. will reflect its immediate history, but its competence to react is an intrisic quality subject for the most only to sporadic, indeterminate mutations". The terms "sporadic, indeterminate mutations" is referring to spontaneous mutations.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

So lets revisit your comments from above.

You said:

"Couldn't find "contrast against". While there may be ambiguity, I do believe one could say, 'preadaptation' goes with spontaneous mutation. It may also go with natural selection. Directed mutation either goes with natural selection or specific induction. I believe preadaptation goes with both spontaneous mutation and natural selection as those two are thought to work together. Specific induction, what the article was concerned about, would go with directed mutation."

I think the key here is spontaneous mutation and natural selection are being contrasted with specific induction which is clearly defined in view of directed mutation. I am not sure why they are using preadaption here unless there is some historical reference such as the paper cited in that sentence Huxley (1942).

You said:

"I read the results again, and here's the statement I copied, again: "If the resistant cells did not exist already in clones on the initial plate, they should occur in only a random distribution in serial replicas from a confluent film of growth." Here's more: "In several experiments, at, least half and often nearly all of the resistant mutants on the replica-plates recurred at congruent sites." I suppose there could be some ambiguity there, but what I take it they really mean is that with the replica plates, some didn't have colonies at all the sites as others did. The most you could say was ambiguous rather than saying absolutely new colonies."

I am not sure what you are trying to say here Gr. All it is talking about is the clonal occurrence of the mutants. See the term "mutants". These are organisms that show a spontaneous mutation that allows them to be resistant to the medium containing the phage. When it makes the statement "If the resistant cell did not exist already in the clones on the intial plate" they are talking about any resistance among the other bateria not containing that specific mutation, another words if the other bacteria had resistance, then you would see a random distrubution on serial replicas but since they do not, the clones from the mutants, the ones that have the beneficial mutation to resist the phage, are the ones that end up on the serial replicas. The other statement that you referred to is again talking about the resistant "mutants".

To be continued

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

You said:

"These observations, therefore, are cited as confirmation of previous evidence for the participation of spontaneous mutation and populational selection in the heritable adaptation of bacteria to new environments."

Let's start with just that. What is the previous evidence?

They are talking about preadaptive mutations here. So at the top of the result section you have Burnet, Luria Delbruck, Newcombe etc...

Keeping in mind their statement, "However, no un-equivocal case of a mutation specifically directed by and adapting cells to a chemical agent has yet been defended, despite numerous attempts of varying clarity (e.g., Barer, 1951)."

All they are saying here is that no evidence has been found for directed mutation...

Still not sure what you are trying to show here. Maybe you can clarify for me....

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

So, you're going to have to catch me up. It appears that maybe we are merging towards agreement?

You say, "So in view of the preadaptation definition I found above, what they are talking about is a predisposition of a feature in the organism allowed them to utilize that predisposition through beneficial spontaneous mutation. So again this is about evidence against directed mutation itself and has nothing to do with the idea that bacteria could already be resistant to a antibiotic or phage. " Which introduces a new term, predisposition, but I'll assume what you mean. Not sure that's supported and it appears contradictory. However, then you say, "So preadapted mutants are referring bacteria that had certain types of adaptations whose generations have evolved spontaneous mutations to be able to be specifically adapted for the antibiotic or phage in question." Which does seem to be supported. Not sure where we're standing now.

Back to the article intro, "In accord with similar discussions in evolutionary biology (Huxley, 1942), we may denote the concepts of spontaneous mutation and natural selection in contrast to specific induction as 'preadaptation' and 'directed mutation', respectively."

You indicated that directed mutation belongs with specific induction. Would you agree preadaptation belongs with spontaneous mutation working with natural selection? Maybe preadaptation is not technically the same as spontaneous mutation, but the Lederbergs are using the term to include it for the purposes of their paper - hence is why they restate "which is what we mean by spontaneous mutation or preadaptation" to make sure it's clear to the reader?

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Guess the posts crossed paths. On posts 1:50 and 1:56, I think we are in agreement.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

As I said Gr Specific Induction is being defined as preadaptation and directed mutation. Again I am not sure why the Lederbergs are defining specific induction with preadaptation. I think that I will have to hunt down the Huxley paper to find out why the Lederbergs are using that term that way. Again while the meaning of sentence may not be very clear, let us be very clear on what is being contrasted using the structure of the sentence. When you indicate 2 items as the Lederbergs did in this case spontaneous mutations and natural selection (2 separate concepts) and then say later 2 more terms as in this case preadaptation and directed mutation and then afterwards say respectfully, there is only one way you can diagram that sentence. Spont mutation is being contrasted with preadaptation and natural selection is being contrasted with directed mutation. There is no other way to read that sentence. As I said I don't know enough to know why they said it this way. The sentence says "specific induction AS 'preadaptation' AND 'directed mutation'. They have linked both of these terms to specific induction. I am not sure why but that is the way sentence is being worded.

It is easy to see how Natural Selection is being contrasted against Directed mutation. Think about it. Natural Selection is nonspecific and it does not induce a mutation. It only selects mutations that are beneficial to the survival of the organism. Directed mutation is a mechanism that is specifically inducing a mutation in response to some kind of substrate.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Also I said that preadaptation and spontaneous mutation are not being shown to be equal in this paper or have the same meaning. They are 2 separate terms. They are not equivalent.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Spontaneous mutation - mutations that occur naturally or freely.

Preadaptation - Preadaptation implies that features evolved before they were needed for the function they eventually served, but not before they were needed at all. Many organs and features originally evolved for use in one manner, which incidentally predisposed them for use in another manner. Once an organ or feature used for one purpose also becomes usable in a new and more advantageous manner, natural selection will adapt it for the new use.

These are not the same....

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Ok, would you agree that by putting terms in quotes, those two terms are defining terms, important to the paper - 'preadaptation' and 'directed mutation'? Otherwise, why are they in quotes? By enclosing them in quotes, and throughout the paper contrasting these concepts, these would be constrasted in their defining statement?

You say "no other way to read that sentence". But, could there be the slightest possibility they intend (spontaneous and natural selection) to be contrasted to (specific induction)?

I think we agree, natural selection is contrasted to directed mutation. So, natural selection is on the opposite side of directed mutation. Being on the opposite side of directed mutation would mean, of the quoted terms, natural selection is on the same side (I may have spoken wrong in using, "equated") as preadaptation. Likewise, specific induction would be on the same side as directed mutation (and you agreed with that, right?) This leaves spontaneous mutation by itself at the beginning. If you join it using the conjuntion, "and", with natural selection, you have first part (spontaneous mutation and natural selection) contrasted with second part (specific induction) as the first term ("preadaptation") contrasted with the second term ("directed mutation"), respectively.

I think the Lederbergs would be embarrassed if they knew somone was spending this much time in picking apart their statement which I doubt they spent very much time thinking about.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

So back to the original argument.....

Talk Origins says....

In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.

And the Lederberg's concluding statement...

"These observations, therefore, are cited as confirmation of previous evidence for the participation of spontaneous mutation and populational selection in the heritable adaptation of bacteria to new environments."

I see no opposite conclusion there. It is true that the Lederbergs paper doesn't specifically say a single individual or a single chromosome, but the Lederbergs paper does show spontaneous mutations being responsible for the variation in these bacterial species which has allowed them to adapt to a new environment. Variation does come from spontaneous mutations.

Your resistance arguments have fallen apart Gr. I don't think you understand what the Lederbergs paper shows. Resistant strains were not already there. They appeared as spontaneous mutations, not from previous resistant bacteria. Otherwise they would have gotten a random sampling distrubution not a clonal distribution as the paper by the Lederbergs indicates.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

think we agree, natural selection is contrasted to directed mutation. So, natural selection is on the opposite side of directed mutation

You did not say that before but I am glad to see we are actually in agreement here.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Being on the opposite side of directed mutation would mean, of the quoted terms, natural selection is on the same side (I may have spoken wrong in using, "equated") as preadaptation

I do not agree with that. Preadaptation is clearly being defined along with directed mutation to be specific induction.

I don't think the Lederbergs would be embarressed. In fact I wish I could still talk to them to find out what did they mean by the sentence.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm I must apologize Gr. I guess I just looked at that again and realized that preadaptaion would be defined as spontaneous mutations with natural selection. Ok that is a little clearer. So the term specific induction is directed mutations and by preadaptation they are talking about spontaneous mutations with natural selection. Ok. I am sorry for all of the arguments. I was wrong. But what does it mean from an overall perspective. There still is no prior resistance and the spontaneous mutation was still responsible for the variation.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

I think it was confusing to me because I kept thinking it was referring to previously adapted organisms. But now it makes more sense to me because preadaptation is referring to organisms before the actual adaptation. When you look at it that way then the usage of the term makes a lot more sense because these organisms don't actually have the adaptation until they undergo the spontaneous mutation and subsequent natural selection processes.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

If you're not there yet, you're almost! So, in light of how you now understand it, do you still have a question about whether there was or was not prior resistance in the experiment?

They found prior resistance of their organisms due to past spontaneous mutations enabling the organisms to be pre-adapted to the new environment before exposure. Agree?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

There was no prior resistance in the experiment. Explain to me how you came up with the statement. Read the definition that I gave for preadaptation.

Here I will copy it again....

Preadaptation implies that features evolved before they were needed for the function they eventually served, but not before they were needed at all. Many organs and features originally evolved for use in one manner, which incidentally predisposed them for use in another manner. Once an organ or feature used for one purpose also becomes usable in a new and more advantageous manner, natural selection will adapt it for the new use.

Another words preadaptation does not mean they had prior resistance specifically to the substrate such as the phage or the antibiotic. In fact the Lederbergs articles specifically says if there had been prior resistance we would have seen a random sampling distrubution. They did NOT FIND prior resistance because they saw a clonal sampling distribution. In fact clonal distribution refers to the idea that a single individual with the spontaneous mutation clones itself. Hence the reason why Talkorigins is talking about a single individual.

So that means that Talkorigins site did not come up with opposite conclusions. All the variation did come from mutations. DO YOU AGREE?

I have noticed you have ignored my previous responses to your statements of which I only can assume that you are trying to avoid talking about these things. I also do not like your implications of "you are almost there". Please do not make those kinds of statements. To me they are misleading because it implies that we agree with each other and do not reflect our actual overall disagreement.

I will state it for the record Gr, there was NO PRIOR resistance to the antibiotic or phage in these species and this resistance came about through spontaneous mutation. Hence the variation came from the mutation. Exactly what Talkorigins is saying.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

I'm sorry, but was only attempting to state that we agree on their opening definition. I realize that we don't agree on most other things. I was only happy hoping to suppose we agreed on one statement in their paper. Wouldn't you like to be agreeable on whatever we can?

I only didn't address your previous comments as I was trying to stick to the one sentence. Without agreeing on the meaning of it, there was no point talking of anything else. I had thought in light of your previous post, you were in agreement. Guess not. Let's concentrate on what their article says before being able to compare it to anything.

According to the paper, resistance DID come about through spontaneous mutation. Which of course means variation came from the mutation. However, show me where the Lederberg's show this mutation came about during their experiment?

"these organisms don't actually have the adaptation until they undergo the spontaneous mutation and subsequent natural selection processes."

That's in agreement - at least your words. Preadaptation, according to the paper, are those organisms which aren't adapted - only preadapted due to the past spontaneous mutations. The petr-dish new environment subjected them to a selection process. Not the individual bacteria, but the population of bacteria then became adapted.

Spontaneous mutation arises naturally without exposure to mutagens. The Lederbergs' did not address whether this mutation was used for other purposes predisposing them to be used in their experiment. Once exposed, the bacteria as a whole (many died out), became adapted. Their use of the terms can fit the dictionary's.

"In fact the Lederbergs articles specifically says if there had been prior resistance we would have seen a random sampling distrubution."

I couldn't find that idea, but I did find the following statement in the article:

"If the resistant cells did not exist already in clones on the initial plate they should occur in only a random distribution in serial replicas from a confluent film of growth."

Explain how your statement about random distribution means prior resistance would work. If there was no prior resistance, wouldn't it make sense that newly acquired resistence would appear at random locations?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You are not understanding what preadaptive means. Think about it. When the article says "preadaptive mutation" or they talk about "preadaptive mutants", they are talking about organisms that did not have adaptations to the specific substrate until they mutated. Hence the variation is coming from the mutation itself. They are not saying that the actual specific adaptation existed previously for that specific substrate. Look at the discussion where is starts talking about applying indirect selection and tests for clonal occurrence to other adaptive systems. Why do you think they are concerned about the mutation rates. I quote from the article "With low mutation rates, sufficient numbers of cells must be used to allow a reasonable number of MUTANTS to appear." Another words these are not organisms with a previous history to what is being tested. These are individuals in the population that have mutated to be adapted to what is being tested and then they are cloning themselves. Hence the reason why you get clonal distribution.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

The key words here are "other adaptive systems". They did not research them in this paper but merely were anticipating difficulties using their method:

"Indirect selection and tests for clonal occurrence should be applicable to other adaptive systems, but some difficulties may be anticipated."

THEY believed mutation would happen! They just didn't see it, but allowed for its occurence. If you use bacteria that didn't mutate frequently, you would have to use a large number of them to ensure you included some with the mutation you're looking for.

What do you think about where you quoted without "not" in the previous post, but the article included it regarding random distribution?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"The key words here are "other adaptive systems". They did not research them in this paper but merely were anticipating difficulties using their method:

"Indirect selection and tests for clonal occurrence should be applicable to other adaptive systems, but some difficulties may be anticipated."

THEY believed mutation would happen! They just didn't see it, but allowed for its occurence. If you use bacteria that didn't mutate frequently, you would have to use a large number of them to ensure you included some with the mutation you're looking for."

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. All I am pointing out here is that the mutations are the key. They are looking for mutations, not prior adaptation by the organisms to a specific environment. Correct me if I am wrong but your original contention is that variation did not come from mutations and that the variation is already present in certain individuals in the species. Is that right? All I am saying is that the variation is coming from the mutations not from a prior indiividual.

Let me see about the other comment you said

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Oh they are talking about the mutant clones themselves in that statement. When they say resistant colonies, they are referring to the mutants. They are not saying anything about prior resistance in the organisms. Mutants implies mutation. The mutation is what is conferring the resistance not the prior history.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

I think you are trying to address something you know I believe, but I am trying to keep this to the very narrow point of the paper. Once we understand what the paper is saying, then and only then, should we explore other concepts. I feel you are very defensive and afraid of me trying to imply something. What I'm saying, is that no matter what you belive nor I believe, does not in any way change what the paper says. For this discussion, at least the last 100s of posts it seems, I am in no way stating my beliefs of whether or whether not the only variations come from mutations.

Keeping to the paper....

True, they were looking for mutations. They may suggest something with the use of the word, "preadaptation", but their concern was to answer the question as to whether an experimental enviornment affected the organsims. The paper says the variation does come from mutations. Their results of their particular experiments show those mutations, and thus variation, had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment. They did not say how long they existed prior to their experiment. That's a different topic which they did not even attempt to answer.

"Mutants implies mutation. The mutation is what is conferring the resistance not the prior history."

And how does that relate to random or fixed distribution in their results?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Let's read the whole paragraph...

The replica plating method allows a more direct demonstration of the clonal occurrence of the MUTANTS (my caps): CLONES on an initial plate would be detected by the recurrence of the RESISTANT COLONIES (my caps) at superimposable sites on serial replica-plates containing the phage. If the RESISTANT CELLS (my caps again) did not exist already IN CLONES (my caps again)on the initial plate they should occur in only a random distribution in serial replicas from a confluent film of growth.

So if resistant cells did not exist already in clones that would mean that resistant cells are nonclonal, another words they did not arise from the mutated individual, this would be a random distribution. But they found clonal distribution so they arose as clones from that mutated individual.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

I would agree. But, I suspect you think that mutated individual happened in the initial plate. Was that initial plate exposed to the phage?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr, Here is what you said...

"Their results of their particular experiments show those mutations, and thus variation, had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment. They did not say how long they existed prior to their experiment."

Here is another paragraph from the paper. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this paragraph.

From the paper...

For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively.

So were they already present Gr? I don't think so.

AGREED

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

In fact you should that whole section very carefully and notice where they say SINGLE COLONY and their treatment of clones.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"I would agree. But, I suspect you think that mutated individual happened in the initial plate. Was that initial plate exposed to the phage?"

They indicated in the result section of the paper that the plates were not exposed to the phage and that the indirect selection line itself was never exposed to the phage or antibiotic. I don't feel like I need to keep typing specific paragraphs anymore because I think you can find these things for yourself.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

The paragraph that I just cited concerning the species of E. coli used is also what the talkorigins is talking about when the say "Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations." I will agree with you that the article did not talk about the one chromosome but my assumption is that the E. coli species in question is well-known and they know the chromosomal profile. I will try to send a comment to the talkorigins to clarify where the one chromosome information came from. Other than that, I do think their statement is still in complete agreement with the paper.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

That was right after the statement about random distribution. They do use a single colony. Not sure what they are showing by that other than maybe mutations spontaneously happen in a non-exposed media?

But, note that only the replicas had the phage. Then, they say, "The preoccurrence of the resistant, cells in coherent families or clones within the confluent film on plain agar is inferred from this result." And the next sentence, "The hypothesis of preadaptation would be further strengthened if adapted mutants could be isolated in pure culture without direct exposure of the bacteria to the selective agent. Replica plating has made this possible." Are we still clear on "preadaptation"?

Note the figure 2 caption, "These are concluded to be derived from small clones of resistant mutants already present at corresponding sites on the plain agar plate".

So, maybe or maybe not they were resistant prior to the initial plate. But, based on their results and comments, they say they were resistant prior to being exposed to the selective agent.

And, yes, I'm looking at TalkOrigin's statements and it "could" fit in with it. But, when they associate the second paragraph including the words, "developed resistance", do you see why I would say it's the opposite? I don't know if there's intent to mislead, but to me, they were trying to associate that Lederbergs' experiment showed exposure to the agent resulted in developed resistance. Possibly you could say that. More clear would be to say Lederberg's experiment selected for resistance, but didn't cause the resistance.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You totally avoided the paragraph I pointed out to you dealing with the E. Coli being fully sensitive to the phage or the streptomycin. Another words, the initial species had no prior resistance to either of the substrate. Are we in agreement about that? If not then there is no longer any need to discuss this issue because it is very clear to me that they started off with a colony that did not have any resistance to the phage or antibiotic and that they breeded that E.coli which has an established mutation rate (please note this means they are undergoing mutations in a certain amount of time). That means that this colony with no prior variation yielded mutated individuals that were able to resist the phage or antibiotic. Your whole contention was that the "variation, had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment" is proved false by that paragraph alone. Deal with that inconsistency first please.

So what if it was right after the statement about random distribution? They were telling you how they set-up these experiements. Please read the results again. It took them many generations of bacteria to get mutant strains that were capable of resisting the phage or the streptomycin.

Also when you are reviewing or writing sentences from the paper you need to indicate the context they come out of. For example, you said "Then, they say, "The preoccurrence of the resistant, cells in coherent families or clones within the confluent film on plain agar is inferred from this result." What are they talking about? They are talking about the mutants on the replica plates. Another words, they have already created the mutants from the single colony "the preoccurrence" is referring to the replica plates NOT the initial plates. They are not saying that the resistant preoccurred with the original species. So you have taken a statement out of context here. There is a logical order here and you are take statements out of context, you can make it look like it is staying something different. By making the statement stand by itself as "preoccurence of resistance" you are trying to make it look like they are talking about the original species when they are clearly not. They are talking about the mutants from the original species.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Then you show another statement right after that one which was actually the start of a new section, something that you failed to indicate and now they are no longer talking about the same thing. It says "The hypothesis of preadaptation would be further strengthened if adapted mutants could be isolated in pure culture without direct exposure of the bacteria to the selective agent. Replica plating has made this possible." All this is saying is that the hypothesis of "spontaneous mutation and natural selection" (my insertion in place of preadaptation which is what we both agreed is the definition right) could be strengthened if adapted mutants (notice that this is referring to mutants they have generated from a non mutated species) could be isolated in pure culture WITHOUT (my caps) direct exposure to the agents. This is talking about evidence against directed mutation. It says nothing about resistance being there previously.

Again and again you keep talking about resistant being already present but none of those statements are refering to the initial non-mutated species that are FULLY SENSITIVE to the phage or antibiotic. They are all refering to the clones of the mutated individuals that have been generated DURING the experiments.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"But, when they associate the second paragraph including the words, "developed resistance", do you see why I would say it's the opposite?"

The second paragarph does not conflict with the first paragraph at all. Why. Because the organims are developing resistance through spontaneous mutation and natural selection. That is exactly what happened in the Lederbergs paper. Notice that the E. coli strains GAVE RISE to mutated indiviuals and they were selected for since they wer able to survive the phage and antibiotic. So in effect they did DEVELOP RESISTANCE through spontaneous mutations and natural selection. There is no opposite here at all.....

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

You said...

"More clear would be to say Lederberg's experiment selected for resistance, but didn't cause the resistance."

It is very clear as given in the Lederberg paper that resistance came about through spontaneous mutation. The original inital nonmutated species used was FULLY SENSITIVE to the phage and the antibiotic. This is a fact. There is not in dispute period. How can you say resistant was present before the experiment when they clearly indicated they used a species that was not resistant. It was only after many generations of this particular non-resistant species, that it yielded mutated individuals that were resistant to either the phage or the antibiotic. This happened during the experiments. How can you say when that resistant was present before the experiment started when they clearly indicate using a non-resistant species. The Lederbergs nor Talkorigins say they caused the resistance but the resistance does come about through spontaneous mutations from non-resistant species. This fact is not in dispute.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"You totally avoided the paragraph I pointed out to you dealing with the E. Coli being fully sensitive to the phage or the streptomycin. Another words..."

Actually, I addressed this on the 2:16 post.

(Would you mind spelling it "In other words" - I'm trying not to let it affect me, but I'm afraid it might be. I don't want to start something else here, but see http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/128/another/ )

"the initial species had no prior resistance to either of the substrate. Are we in agreement about that?"

I do find it a little unclear from the article, but according to my 2:16 post, I allowed that maybe they were saying the mutation occurred in the initial plate.

"because it is very clear to me" One would imagine you would not to insist on certain things. Please forgive me for mentioning it, but could there be a possibility of other misunderstandings as was with their initial definitions?

"Your whole contention was that the "variation, had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment" is proved false by that paragraph alone. Deal with that inconsistency first please."

Technically, yes, if there was mutation in the initial plates, as appears to be. While that is part of their experiment, my "whole contention" had to deal with their experiment "causing" the mutation. I wouldn't mean the same as spontaneously happening, before or as suggested, during the setup. You are correct, an "experiment" is from the beginning to the end.

I think you are ignoring some of my statements too. For example, please address the random versus fixed locations. You had said, "So if resistant cells did not exist already in clones that would mean that resistant cells are nonclonal, another words they did not arise from the mutated individual, this would be a random distribution. But they found clonal distribution so they arose as clones from that mutated individual."

If you still agree with your statement, did they find fixed positions or random positions of mutants on the replica plates? I think you may be making something of the word, clones. The colonies were found at the same fixed locations on the replicas. If the colonies developed resistance during exposure, each replica would have random locations of resistance. Deal with that.

Then, there's the figure 2 caption that speaks of the plain agar plate - initial plate. We may be speaking of different things. They got the colony from somewhere, incubated it, then placed them on "initial plates". From that non-exposed initial plate, they made replicas to exposed plates. Then they looked for random or fixed positions.

"The hypothesis of preadaptation would be further strengthened". I was clueing in on the word, "further".

"There is no opposite here at all...." Did you read what I said. All I asked was if you could see why I would say that.

I've spent way too much time on the computer. Later.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"You totally avoided the paragraph I pointed out to you dealing with the E. Coli being fully sensitive to the phage or the streptomycin. Another words..."

"Actually, I addressed this on the 2:16 post."

Other than stating that a statement ocurred right after this paragraph, you never specifically acknowledged that the experiment set-up was using an original species that was not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic. This is as simple as it gets. If you believe that is ambiguous then I say nothing will change your mind and there is no reason for us to discuss this any further.

I am sorry for my atrocious grammar. I have never considered my sentence writing or grammar to be great. I do thank-you for correcting me on the usage of "another words". You, of course, are correct and I will try to remember that. It won't be the first time that I use improper grammar and it certainly won't be the last time. Please let me know if anything else that I am posting incorrectly from grammatical standpoint bothers you.

"I do find it a little unclear from the article, but according to my 2:16 post, I allowed that maybe they were saying the mutation occurred in the initial plate."

I am not sure why you are saying this. It does state in the result section "In a typical experiment, a dense broth culture was grown from a single colony on plain agar." So do you understand that "a dense broth culture" means that from that single culture, many generations of bacteria have been generated. Remember that the single colony that this culture was grown from is not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic. This means that no prior resistance existed in these individuals before this experiment began. I am not sure how clearer this can get. It doesn't matter that you think that a mutation may have occurred on initial plate. What is important to understand here and the key to this entire discussion is that " The culture is fully sensitive to the phage T-1, as well as to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains gives rise to resistant mutants at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively. " I am satisfied that the resistance did not exist beforehand. It does seem like you are not agreeing with this. As I said if you don't believe this statement, then there is no reason for us to discuss this matter any further. We can stop here. There is nothing I can do or say to you that will make this any clearer. I am sorry if you feel like I am beating on a dead horse, but I will keep hammering this home for as long as you will not acknowledge it.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"If you still agree with your statement, did they find fixed positions or random positions of mutants on the replica plates? I think you may be making something of the word, clones. The colonies were found at the same fixed locations on the replicas. If the colonies developed resistance during exposure, each replica would have random locations of resistance. Deal with that."

Actually you have partially already found that result when you quoted from the article "The preoccurrence of the resistant, cells in coherent families or clones within the confluent film on plain agar is inferred from this result" The sentence immediately preceding that is as follows: "In several experiments at least half and often nearly all of the resistant mutants on the replica-plates recurred at congruent sites." IN OTHER WORDS, the mutants which if you will remember are the individuals that clearly have mutated from their original non-resistant state are recurring in congruent sites (definition of congruent - superposable so as to be coincident throughout). And then the statement you made appears right after that. So you see not a random distribution but a clonal distribution which means that it is not random and therefore the resistant colonies are arising as clones from the mutant. Is that clear? Deal with that.

"Then, there's the figure 2 caption that speaks of the plain agar plate - initial plate. We may be speaking of different things. They got the colony from somewhere, incubated it, then placed them on "initial plates". From that non-exposed initial plate, they made replicas to exposed plates. Then they looked for random or fixed positions."

So what. Who cares. What are you trying to say? Do you understand that even though it says inital or replica plate, it doesn't matter. Again all of these individuals came from - yep you guessed it a non-resistant colony that has been breeded into 100s of generations. So one would expect to find mutants that do have resistant because of oh yes spontaneous mutations. And notice that fixed positions is the opposite of random positions. Oh I see you just said that the colonies were found at fixed positions not random positions. Again deal with that.

In fact, I am willing to say at this point Gr, that none of the other points in the paper you are objecting to or have questions about matter. The statement that this bacteria was not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic and that the cultures were grown from this particular colony means that there was no previous resistance present in these species, which has been the entire basis of your arguments.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Actually 75x55 you bring up an interesting point. Reading scientific articles requires an understanding of what is actually being said and what is meant by certain terms. It is a lot like trying to learn a new language. Quite a bit of the time, these type of articles are written for certain peer groups which may render part of the article somewhat incomprehensible to the lay person. This is not because they are trying hide something but because there is an assumed starting part from which the article is being written. Oftentimes, you really have to go check all of the references and look up what is meant by certain words. For example, the term preadaptation was really confusing for me because I kept thinking they meant something that was previously adapted. But when I went to actually look up what was meant by the term historically, it became clearer that they were actually describing a state before the actual adaptation. Also this was a very early article in this field which has grown considerably and probably has gotten a much bigger vocabulary than they had in 1952.

Another thing to consider here of course is after reading this interchange between Gr and I, it is quite obvious we are both lay people and that we are coming at this from 2 very different perspectives. I am sure that if we had someone who would be considered to be an expert in this field or maybe one of the authors themselves, they would have been able to more effectively answer all of the questions we have generated here.

I don't think it would be an understatement to say that Gr and I seem to have trouble communicating what we mean to each other either.

So I would not draw to many conclusions from this interchange other than we are couple of amateurs trying to understand where it is we are coming from. I think it is valuable to us since it forces us to look harder at our own position and support it.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I keep looking at this paragraph by you...

"True, they were looking for mutations. They may suggest something with the use of the word, "preadaptation", but their concern was to answer the question as to whether an experimental enviornment affected the organsims. The paper says the variation does come from mutations. Their results of their particular experiments show those mutations, and thus variation, had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment. They did not say how long they existed prior to their experiment. That's a different topic which they did not even attempt to answer."

I do not understand why you keep saying that this variation existed prior to the beginning of their experiment. They don't have to talk about whether the variation was present or not because they indicated that they started of with E. coli that was not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic. So this variation was not present in their original individuals. They even told you what the mutation rate was expected for this species. Everytime they refer to "mutants" in this paper, they are talking about the mutants from that original non-resistant E. coli. Why would they need to attempt to answer something that there is no question about? Just deal with this topic only.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"but I will keep hammering this home for as long as you will not acknowledge it."

How many different ways do I have to acknowledge it?

"Other than stating that a statement ocurred right after this paragraph, you never specifically acknowledged that the experiment set-up was using an original species that was not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic."

2:16: "They do use a single colony. Not sure what they are showing by that other than maybe mutations spontaneously happen in a non-exposed media?"

Even when I agree with your points you seem disagreeable. Why? Are you just a disagreeable and contentious individual? Do you even WANT to come to a consesus on this paper?

"The culture is fully sensitive to the phage T-1, as well as to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains gives rise to resistant mutants at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively. " I am satisfied that the resistance did not exist beforehand."

I try not to make absolute statements unless I am fully clear on them. Otherwise, I may end up eating my words. I am not clear what they mean by "culture". Does that mean ALL individuals or as a whole. As I've already pointed out several times, you do raise the point that it started from a single colony. (Can you possibly understand I'm agreeing with you on that?) However, look at the mutation rates from your statement. That means any time during the incubation period there could be another mutant.

"So you see not a random distribution but a clonal distribution which means that it is not random and therefore the resistant colonies are arising as clones from the mutant. Is that clear?"

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say. However, at least once before, you were saying that meant they mutated on the replica plates rather than the initial plates. That would be contrary to your above statement.

"it says inital or replica plate, it doesn't matter." Actually, it does matter. That was the purpose of their experiment and method. Are you talking about something else? I think you have missed out on the points I agreed with you on. Maybe we could take a step back and you could restate the purpose and what their experiment showed.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

"I am not clear what they mean by "culture". Does that mean ALL individuals or as a whole. "

The Lederbergs would not be able to make their conclusions about their experiements unless they started off from a known base. They would not be able to call something a "mutant" if they did not know what or where that individual mutated from. When they say the name "mutant" it is inferred that this was an individual that mutated from the original stock which did not have the resistance to the phage or the antibiotic. Otherwise that cannot call it a mutant. What if they started off with individuals that were resistant. Then any individual that were resistant could not be considered to be a mutant because that is what was started with. So the mutant means that it is a mutated individual from the original non-resistant strain.

There actually is a lot of information about the particular E. Coli that they were using whose genetic make-up has been mapped out. If you google Lederberg and E. coli, you will find that the Lederbergs did a large number of studies with this particular strain and that their genetic make-up is well-known. This is not said in the article but many scientific articles are written with the idea that their readers have a basic working knowledge of the language they use and information that has already been shown in the field.

Gr says "Even when I agree with your points you seem disagreeable. Why? Are you just a disagreeable and contentious individual? Do you even WANT to come to a consesus on this paper?"

Well let's look at what you actually said...

"They do use a single colony. Not sure what they are showing by that other than maybe mutations spontaneously happen in a non-exposed media?"

and again the statement from above...

"I am not clear what they mean by "culture". Does that mean ALL individuals or as a whole. "

Now let's look at what I said....

"The culture is fully sensitive to the phage T-1, as well as to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains gives rise to resistant mutants at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively. " I am satisfied that the resistance did not exist beforehand."

So when I look at what you said, I think to myself, well yes you are saying that it was a single colony but then you are questioning the idea whether all of the individuals in the colony are non-resistant. So to me you are not in an agreement with me. You are questioning or in effect disagreeing that there was no resistance in any of the original individuals at the start of this experiment.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

So this is where we stop because to me you are not acknowledging that every individual was non-resistant before this experiment started and that any resistant individual found after the experiment was mutated from the original non-resistant individuals. If what you are saying is true Gr, then this experiment is completely useless. It solely relies on the fact of spontaneous mutations and natural selection. If an individual with the resistance was already present then you cannot show spontaneous mutations. So we have to stop here Gr. There is nothing more we can discuss until you agree that all of the individuals at the start of the experiment were non-resistant to the phage and the antibiotic and that any individuals that show resistance to the phage or the antibiotic came about by spontaneous mutation of the original non-resistant individuals.

This is where I stand.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Whoops, I am not sure how that happened. My postings got reversed. The longer one should be read first and then the 2nd shorter one after that....

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiak, I think you and I are of different personalities. I am more of the cautious type while you are kind of like: The earth is absolutely flat and it is completely clear. Oh, sorry, my mistake, but it is absolutely square and only a fool couldn't see that. No? Well, then it is absolutely.....

There are several reasons I am hesitant to say I absolutely know what Lederbergs mean when they use the term, culture. One thing is they do not define the term. This is more than half a century ago and we know that other terms they do define are different than what one may commonly think of now. Another thing is I suspect you are inferring some other point which you have failed to address on several occasions. And then there is the ambiguity of the term.

A farmer goes to the salesman and asks, is bindweed susceptible to herbicide X. The salesman ensures it is. The farmer sprays his field and one or two plants are resistant to it. Is bindweed really resistant to herbicide X and the salesman lied? Or is bindweed in general not susceptible to it? Do you understand what I'm saying?

And I do admit, you brought out a good point where they say "single colony". It does appear that ALL individuals were non-resistant and then some became resistant. What more do you want? Can you accept that? I have a problem with saying absolutely, because you use vague terms of "original".


It is 1951. The Lederbergs have just finished their experiment and the room is in disarray. They have gone home for the night. You and I slip in through a window and find all the plates and stages of the experiment just as they left them. Surprisingly, we even noticed they wrote the article in full as they did the experiment. With flashlights, we read through the article. There are two things we need for our sneaky purposes. One, is a sample of the original, non-resistant individuals. The other is the plate where there was confirmed evidence as having had the mutation as indicated by their paper.

Where would we find the "original" and where would we find the first mutation?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I love your earth is flat analogy and the idea that you are cautious. You may think that about yourself but I don't think you are not giving yourself enough credit there buddy. I can remember not too long ago that you were just absolutely sure about some calculations involving the rate at which the moon was moving away from the earth and where it would be etc etc. That sure sounds alot like the "flat earth" believers doesn't it. Or how about yep that talk origins site, on how they clearly reached the opposite conclusions. Yeah Gr you sure are a cautious one aren't you. But this is getting way off the topic isn't it. I don't think there is any need for us to psychoanalyze each other is there? There is no need for us to call each other names, allude to ulterior motives etc etc etc. Let just keep it plain simple Gr.

As far as your other little scenerios, I think you are forgetting something here. Science is all about being able to reproduce your experimental results. Even you could go in and reproduce this result to your satisfaction if you really wanted to. The Lederbergs paper has been cited numerous times by many different papers, papers that reproduces many parts of the Lederbergs experiements as well.

"And I do admit, you brought out a good point where they say "single colony". It does appear that ALL individuals were non-resistant and then some became resistant. What more do you want? Can you accept that? I have a problem with saying absolutely, because you use vague terms of "original".

.....it doesn't appear Gr, it either is or it isn't. You either believe their statement about all of the individuals being fully sensitive to the phage and antibiotic or you don't. Obviously you are questioning it otherwise you would not say "does appear" nor would you be giving all of your "see what could go wrong" scenerios. The only way these experiements work Gr is that the starting colony, the original one, the very first colony from which all other living indiduals were generated (I am trying to eliminate any ambiguity here) is not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic. You understand the whole experiment hinges on spontaneous mutations and natural selection. You cannot have any individuals that are resistant to the phage or the antibiotic at the start of the experiment, otherwise someone like you would be able to point out, "hey you had an individual that was resistant to the phage and/or bacteria and you have no idea how that resistance came about. It would destroy their whole argument against directed mutation. It would make the paper useless. So why are you even talking about this paper if you don't accept their statement of "fully sensitive" E. coli.

Explain to me how they could have published this paper without knowing for sure, I mean ABSOLUTELY sure, that there was no resistant bacteria in the single colony that was used to generate every single other individual bacteria used in all of these experiments.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

If you do accept the notion that every individual in the first single colony at the start of the experiment was not resistant to the phage nor the antibiotic and the notion that every individual bacteria that occurred or that came about during these experiments all came from that single colony that was not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic, then how do you explain the individuals that do show resistance to the antibiotic and/or the phage found later during the experiment.? Lets eliminate any external causes like contamination from other bacteria not part of the experiment etc. because these experiments were duplicated by other labs that show the same results. When you publish something you have to show proof of it and these experiments have to be repeatable by other people. If you are looking for evidence for the mutations themselves in these particular species, we probably could go and look at that type of information if you were wanting to explore that. I think that is your main contention right now, is whether or not the resistant individual is in fact a mutant from the original starting single colony or whether it is from another bacteria that was already resistant in which case it would not be a mutant anymore. If this is the case then, you are questioning the paper itself and we should focus our attention on understanding mutations, how they determine mutation rates and the actual genetic make-up of the particular E. coli used in this particular experiment. That would be fine with me. I accept the science in this paper as valid and they conducted their experiments with appropiate scientific control (that there was no contamination of the starting colonies, etc.)

I do wonder why the talkorigin site is referring to this particular paper for discussing the idea that variation comes from spontaneous mutations. Even though their analysis is consistent with this paper, I can think of much better examples of showing variation occurring through mutations. Maybe they were trying to acknowledge and honor the Lederbergs and point out their contributions to people. There is another more recent (2000) paper listed there dealing with yeast which is also an interesting read.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"You either believe their statement about all of the individuals being fully sensitive to the phage and antibiotic or you don't."

I believe the word was "culture". I guess you can't accept that I'm not going to say "absolutely".

"You understand the whole experiment hinges on spontaneous mutations and natural selection."

False. What IS their whole experiment about? Isn't it about the idea of observation affecting the results?

"Explain to me how they could have published this paper without knowing for sure, I mean ABSOLUTELY sure, that there was no resistant bacteria in the single colony that was used to generate every single other individual bacteria used in all of these experiments."

Because, that's not what their experiment was about. Only you and TalkOrgins are trying to make it seem that way. That was only one part of their materials and methods - not their hypothesis. Their experiment would still work even if there was preexisting resistance and they didn't use a single colony.

I've explained why I won't say "absolutely", although obviously, you disagree with my reason. Same reason I wouldn't at first say which side "natural selection" belonged to in the introduction. You had caused me to have some doubt that it was in the middle and only after careful analysis could it be decided.

But, why have you so many times refused to say where the "original" would be found in their lab experiment and where the first mutation would be found? Are you unsure what their purpose and results were?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I said...

"You understand the whole experiment hinges on spontaneous mutations and natural selection."

You said....

"False. What IS their whole experiment about? Isn't it about the idea of observation affecting the results?"

The Lederbergs experiment was concerned about the question of directed mutation. In other words, they were concerned about whether or not the presence of a chemical or a specific environment induces mutations to occur. The Lederbergs wanted to show that the mutations were spontaneous and were subject to natural selection. They wanted to show that these mutations were not specifically induced by the environment. If you have an individual that is already resistant in the original, starting culture, then you have no way of knowing how that individual got his resistance and such an individual would be passing along this resistance to their offspring which would not be the result of mutations. So you see, they had to start out with no individuals that were resistant. They made that very clear by their statement that ...

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

As I said, I will keep repeating this statement for as long as you keep objecting to it.

There is nothing more to discuss until you acknowledge and understand what this statement means.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I'm sorry the statement in my previous post was...

"The Lederbergs wanted to show that the mutations were spontaneous and were subject to natural selection. They wanted to show that these mutations were not specifically induced by the environment"

should have said...

The Lederbergs wanted to see if the mutations were spontaneous and were subject to natural selection. They wanted to see if mutations were specifically induced by the environment or not.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

"Their experiment would still work even if there was preexisting resistance and they didn't use a single colony."

I want you to tell me in your own words what you think the Lederbergs hypothesis was in this paper and then tell me how this experiement would have worked with preexisting resistance.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

I've said this before, but the Lederbergs' set out to answer the question if creating an selective environment causes the organisms to have mutations. This was answered by their method of replica plating and their results in having fixed locations rather than random of the resistant bacteria. I believe this is in agreement with most of your 11:12 post.

With or without the first colony being resistant, starting with their first plate having some mutants and some not mutants, their replica plates showed the initial plate already had mutants at the fixed locations. It doesn't matter. In fact, your statment showed they in effect incubated the bacteria until they had at least some resistance before they did the replica plating. So, it doesn't matter whether they used a culture that had some resistance or started with one without resistance and waited until there was some. Their initial plate contained some resistance.

However, if they started with a single colony that was resistant and no mutations happened to cause them to be non-resistant, then the whole initial plate would be resistant and therefore every replica plate would too, and nothing would be shown.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I've said this before, but the Lederbergs' set out to answer the question if creating an selective environment causes the organisms to have mutations..

Ok there is the question....

"With or without the first colony being resistant, starting with their first plate having some mutants and some not mutants"

Now explain to me what is a mutant and what is not a mutant in this scenario remembering that you just said that with or without the first colony being resistant. How would you know that something is a mutant or if something is merely offspring from another resistant individual? The term mutant can only be said only if you know where that individual came from.

"their replica plates showed the initial plate already had mutants at the fixed locations. It doesn't matter"

The replica plates and what they are calling their inital plates were not done until after they had bred hundreds of generations from the first original starting non-resistant colony. In other words, because they started off with a no resistant strain, then all of the individuals after that are a result from this starting non-resistant colonies and any individual that you find that is a resistant individual is a mutant by definition. Assuming no external contamination occurred, there is no other way to get resistance unless it came about by spontaneous mutations.

"So, it doesn't matter whether they used a culture that had some resistance or started with one without resistance and waited until there was some. Their initial plate contained some resistance."

You are wrong Gr. It does matter whether they used a culture that had resistance or no resistance. In fact matter so much that they actually said the following statement....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

Why would it be important for them to point this out Gr. Why even say it like they did. They had to say it because the only way the can call something a "mutant" is for them to know where that individual mutated from.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Your whole objection was over whether or not variation comes from mutations. You even asked, how do the Lederbergs know whether or not they already had resistance or not. Even above you said "preexisting resistance". I keep pointing out to you that the following statement was made in the Lederberg's paper....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

This means that there was no "preexisting resistance" for this experiment. No culture, no individual, no colony, etc. was resistant to the phage or streptomycin at the start of this experiment. Otherwise they would not have made the statement....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

So it is clear here that whenever the term "mutant" is said, these are individuals (that arose from that original starting very first colony, individual, culture etc etc etc that was not resistant) are resistant because of spontaneous mutations. We know that they had to have gotten their resistance from spontaneous mutations because the Lederbergs did say....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

So the resistant did come about by spontaneous mutations which means that any variation that occurred in these organisms for this experiment is a produuct of mutations. Hence, variation comes from mutations....

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Do I need to print that statement again. Maybe you didn't get it. Here, I will print it again for your enjoyment...

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

I hope that makes it clear to you. What it didn't? Oh ok here let me print it again for you....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

Is that clear now. Yep I can see that there was no preexisting resistance. Do you want to know why. Well Gr the statement that the Lederbergs gave in their article that makes this aspect clear is....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

Do you understand now?

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"You are wrong Gr. It does matter whether they used a culture that had resistance or no resistance. In fact matter so much that they actually said the following statement...."

You are making an attempt to make something out of which they are only listing and is not the purpose of the experiment. You have said the purpose of the experiment and I said I agreed with it, but you are still beating it and beating it for what point I have no idea other than you like to be disagreeable.

For example, you could also say the above about the following statement: "A square is placed, nap up, on a cylindrical wood or cork support of nine cm diameter and held firmly in place with a metal flange or hoop pushed over the fabric and around the rim of the support." And conclude, "wood" is so critical to this experiment otherwise they would not have said it. "Why would it be important for them to point this out Gr. Why even say it like they did." This experiment would not have worked if they didn't use a "metal flange".... yeah, right.

They only showed the culture gives rise to mutants to indicate there are mutants otherwise....(didn't I already say this at the end of 11:49?)

With all your blabbering, I do believe you forgot to answer one of my questions I've asked many times. I've answered your questions and think maybe you should at least explain why you refuse to answer mine.

Here it is again: "But, why have you so many times refused to say where the "original" would be found in their lab experiment and where the first mutation would be found?"

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Here it is again: "But, why have you so many times refused to say where the "original" would be found in their lab experiment and where the first mutation would be found?"

Because the answer to this question is found in the statement that I keep pointing out to you. I am not trying to be disagreeable here. You asked where the "first mutation" would be found and the statement I gave you tells you that. It tells you that they are starting with a no-resistant culture and it even tells you the rate at which a resistant mutant (meaning a mutated individual from that above no-resistant culture) will occur from that no-resistant culture. The rest of the lab experiment doesn't matter here because your question has to do with what they started off with. That statement that I keep pointing out to you is telling you that this is what they started with for the whole rest of the experiment. They can't make that any clearer. You are the one that is asking the question of pre-existing resistance. Correct me if I am wrong but you want to know, how do they know that the resistance was not already there. You even said before they started the experiment, how do they know they did not have resistance. You also keep asking about where the first mutation occured. So I see you asking these same questions over and over again and the answer to those questions is in that statement I keep pointing out to you. The rest of the lab experiment has nothing to do with the questions you are asking. You ask a question and the answer question is this:

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

continued for Gr

Do you understand, it doesn't matter what the rest of the lab experiment is saying because you are not asking a question that pertains to it. Your question has to do with how do they know it is spontaneous mutations that is creating the resistance and that the resistance did not exist before-hand. That has nothing to do with whether a mutation is specifically induced by the environment or that they are spontaneous and selected for. Your question is all about how do they know the resistance is due to mutations. This experiment is not asking that question. In fact, it isn't even in question that the resistance is coming from mutations because they started off with a no-resistant culture and assuming that they had proper scientific control (like making sure that their experiment did not get contaminated by external bacteria that were already resistant), there is only one way that the resistance can arise and that is mutations. The Lederbergs experiment has to do with whether those mutations are spontaneous or specifically induced. So it is not a question to them that the resistance is coming from mutations, their question is all about how those mutations are being manifested.

So Gr, resistance is a result of mutations which is the whole point of this discussion between you and I. Variation is coming from the mutations.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"Correct me if I am wrong but you want to know, how do they know that the resistance was not already there. "

Nope.

"This experiment is not asking that question. "

Well said.

I may have asked that question a long time ago before looking at their paper, but I do not remember asking this question after looking at their paper. What I want to know from you, where, as outlined in their experiment, did they find evidence of the first mutant.

Maybe that's why we seem to be having problems. You are answering a question I am not asking.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

"as outlined in their experiment, did they find evidence of the first mutant."

Evidence of the first mutant is not "outlined" in these experiments. As I keep pointing out to you these experiments have to do with how mutations are manifested. Resistance to the phage and/or the antibiotic came about by mutations. This statement makes that aspect very very clear....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively."

As I said before, if you want to explore what the actual mutation is for resistance in this particular species and how they determine mutation rates, then we can go to other papers for that information.

"Maybe that's why we seem to be having problems. You are answering a question I am not asking."

and we have...

"Correct me if I am wrong but you want to know, how do they know that the resistance was not already there. "

"Nope."

here is your quote from earlier post...

"Their results of their particular experiments show those mutations, and thus variation, had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment. They did not say how long they existed prior to their experiment. "

Notice how you said "had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment." What does that mean Gr? How is that different than the saying "but you want to know, how do they know that the resistance was not already there." You keep asking about the first mutant. You are still asking for evidence of whether or not resistance is a result of mutations. It does not say "first mutant" in this paper. It does say that the fully sensitive culture gives rise to resistant mutants. Do you understand that "resistant mutants" refer to individuals that are derived from the fully sensitive culture that have a mutation which confers resistance to that individual. They never talk about a "first mutant" because it is understood that the resistance is a result of mutation. They even give you mutation rates for how often you will get individuals that have a mutation that enables resistance from that fully sensitive culture.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I am quoting myself from above....

"In fact, it isn't even in question that the resistance is coming from mutations because they started off with a no-resistant culture and assuming that they had proper scientific control (like making sure that their experiment did not get contaminated by external bacteria that were already resistant), there is only one way that the resistance can arise and that is mutations."

Do you disagree with this statement? If you do what specifically do you disagree with?

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

'Notice how you said "had already existed prior to the beginning of their experiment." What does that mean Gr?'

I do recall addressing this. Maybe you should check a few posts after that reference and see where I dealt with "beginning of their experiment". Notice also the qualifier to the statement.

"It does not say "first mutant" in this paper. It does say that the fully sensitive culture gives rise to resistant mutants."

Okay, so where in their experiment did they find evidence of the place that "gives rise to resistant mutants"?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Ah,

Here we are Gr.... this is your question..

"Okay, so where in their experiment did they find evidence of the place that "gives rise to resistant mutants"?"

Now this is a question that is not specifically addressed in this particular paper. This is why I was saying that these papers build on previous information, previous studies, and require you to have a much broader information base than say a layman would have. This is why the talkorigins site puzzles me a little over why they have chosen this particular paper to answer the idea that variation comes from mutations. This paper actually answers a question that mutations are not directed but are spontaneous and selected for. It is already assumed in this paper that the variation (the resistance) came from the mutations. There is an incredible amount of information regarding bacterial variation and mutations especially with this particular strain of K-12 E. coli. In fact there is a paper I found that traces all of the mutant strains back to their original or starting culture.

I knew at some point, you would eventually start catching on to the idea that what you are asking specifically is not specifically answered by this particular paper. This paper is already saying that the mutations themselves is causing the resistance. The statement that is in this paper that I have been pointing out makes that very clear.

So we need to change our focus from this paper and look at papers that actually look at the question of whether resistance is coming from mutations. To get you started on this route I suggest you read Lederbergs Nobel lecture at this site. Very interesting and a lot of information. You might note all of the references that are being given at the end because that gives us the most likely place to start exploring your question...

http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1958/lederberg-lecture.html

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

'Here we are Gr.... this is your question..

"Okay, so where in their experiment did they find evidence of the place that "gives rise to resistant mutants"?"

Now this is a question that is not specifically addressed in this particular paper.'

Maybe you can clear up the confusion. I had thought the paper did address this by saying the mutants were on the initial plates and by replication on selective media, the fixed locations were determined and then those sites were chosen for further enrichment. Maybe I'm wrong. Could you explain what the following statement means and how it doesn't mean the mutants were on the initial plate?

"The replica plating method allows a more direct demonstration of the clonal occurrence of the mutants: clones on an initial plate would be detected by the recurrence of resistant colonies at superimposable sites on serial replica-plates containing the phage. If the resistant cells did not exist already in clones on the initial plate, they should occur in only a random distribution in serial replicas from a confluent film of growth."

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

It doesn't matter what this statement is saying. Your questions have all been about the "first mutant" and evidence of the place that "gives rise to resistant mutants"?" This question has NOTHING to do with the experiment. I repeat your questions have NOTHING to do with this experiment. You are looking for evidence of the actual mutation occuring in the fully sensitive culture. Please notice that this sentence is refering to "mutants" that were created from the no resistant culture. All this statement means is that you can show that the mutants (remember that means that they are individuals that have a mutation in their genetic make-up that allows them to be resistant to the phage or the antibiotic and they come from a fully sensitive culture) will occur in a clonal pattern. All this is saying in a nutshell is that the phage, the environment is not causing the mutation to happen. You understand that it says nothing absolutely nothing about variation coming from mutations which is your question. All it is trying to show is evidence against directed mutation. In other words, if the phage was causeing the mutation then the occurence of "mutants" would be a random distribution and not a clonal distribution. It is not a question that the resistance is coming from mutations. How those mutations are being manifested is the question being asked here. I thought you understood this. Are you not in agreement with what question this experiment is asking?

Here is your earlier post....

I've said this before, but the Lederbergs' set out to answer the question if creating an selective environment causes the organisms to have mutations. This was answered by their method of replica plating and their results in having fixed locations rather than random of the resistant bacteria. "

Do you understand what you are writing here. It is not about the mutations themselves, it is about how the mutations come about.....

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Just for clarity, this paper is being written with the understanding that any resistance you find in the bacteria came about by mutations period. This is not in question. This is because they started with a fully sensitive culture. They know for their experiment that any individuals they find that are resistant to the phage or the antibiotic came about by mutations. If they maintained proper scientific controls (no external contamination) then the only way a resistant individual can occur from a fully sensitive culture is through mutations. Do you understand this Gr?

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Kodiak, are you being funny, or what?

"It doesn't matter what this statement is saying."

"Please notice that this sentence is refering to "mutants" that were created from the no resistant culture."

"(remember that means that they are individuals that have a mutation in their genetic make-up that allows them to be resistant to the phage or the antibiotic and they come from a fully sensitive culture)"

Point A, first you have no resistance.

Point C, then you have some resistance.

Somewhere, between point A and point C, there is a point B were there would be evidence for the first resistance.

...so where in their experiment did they find evidence of the place that "gives rise to resistant mutants"?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

"Point A, first you have no resistance.

Point C, then you have some resistance."

Somewhere, between point A and point C, there is a point B were there would be evidence for the first resistance."

You are getting confused by the timeline here Gr.

First thing they did in this experiment is this....

"For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin"

They got a fully sensitive culture. No resistance. Ok

Then from that single culture they bred 100s of generations of bacteria. Ok

Once they started the process of creating 100s of generations of bacteria, there were some bacteria being born that contain mutations in their genetic code. These mutations could be beneficial, neutral, or harmful.

So now you have some living individuals that would be known as mutants because their genetic code has been altered by a mutation. Some of these individuals actually had a mutation that is beneficial in resisting the phage or antibiotic.

Now after all of this has happened, then they start putting these bacteria they have just bred from the fully sensitive strain that actually contain mutants on the "initial replica plates" So you end up with mutated individuals on the initial plate because they have already created them earlier in the experiment.

Then they start serial plates to see how those individuals are distributed on the serial plates from the initial plates.

The plates they are using contain the antibiotic or the phage. So on the inital plates they have both mutants and individuals that are not mutated. If the phage or the antibiotic was inducing mutations, then you would see a random distribution. But if you see a clonal pattern, it means that the mutants that are resistant are being selected for and that the mutation is not being caused by the environment but rather it was spontaneous.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

Where it says,

"In a typical experiment, a dense broth culture was grown from a single colony on plain agar."

Do you understand that this is refering to breeding the bacteria in the laboratory from a fully sensitive culture. The dense broth culture refers to hundreds of generations of bacteria that has been grown. So most of these individuals are going to be fully sensitive (not mutated) to the phage or antibiotic, but some of these individuals will contain mutations in their genetic code (mutants). In fact they even give you the rate at which these mutations will occur for this particular species of bacteria when you grow them. This is where the first mutations are occurring because once you start breeding organisms, you will start having spontaneous mutations. So resistance to the phage or the antibiotic can only come about through these beneficial mutations. There is no other way for them to get resistance because they started off with a fully sensitive culture. The offspring can't get their resistance from their parents because their parents don't have it. They can only get it through mutations of their genetic code. (This is what Talkorigins is talking about "variability comes from the mutations".)

Do see that this has happened before they even start putting these individuals on the replica plates. So it doesn't matter what happens after that because you are not asking about the rest of the experiment. You are asking about those first mutations.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"You are getting confused by the timeline here Gr."

Is the grass green?

No, the grass is green.

Except for that part, you sound like a totally different person.

"So you end up with mutated individuals on the initial plate because they have already created them earlier in the experiment."

"Do see that this has happened before they even start putting these individuals on the replica plates. "

So, finally you answered my question. Which is the same answer I said before. I'm really confused now. Why you said before about no way to know and it wasn't on the initial plate, I don't know. But, it appears we agree now on the mutated individuals being on the initial plate before they were put on replicas.

Sigh of relief? (that is before we start talking about anything else relating it to talkorigins or other?)

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

We are talking about 2 different things here and somewhere along the way you have changed your tune.

You were arguing that the resistance existed BEFORE the experiment was started. You were saying "pre-existence of resistance". I have shown you and pointed to the exact statements where is says there was NO resistance in the colony that was used to propagate all of the rest of the individuals including the mutants found later in the experiments. So now you are agreeing with talkorigins by your above statements. VARIATION COMES FROM THE MUTATIONS. That has been your whole contention from the beginning Gr. So it sounds like you are in agreement with talkorigins which is great. I am glad to hear you are finally recognizing the truth.

So now what do you want to talk about?

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

"Why you said before about no way to know and it wasn't on the initial plate, I don't know. But, it appears we agree now on the mutated individuals being on the initial plate before they were put on replicas."

I am not sure where you got "Why you said before about no way to know and it wasn't on the initial plate" You will have to point to my post. But you do understand that you are saying "mutated individuals". So that means you are recognizing that resistance came about by mutations. So again I am really glad you now agree with talkorigins.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

"You were arguing that the resistance existed BEFORE the experiment was started. You were saying "pre-existence of resistance"." I view experiment setup as "before" the experiment. But on April 12, I said, "You are correct, an "experiment" is from the beginning to the end." So, the incubated broth culture is where the initial mutation occurred.

"VARIATION COMES FROM THE MUTATIONS. That has been your whole contention from the beginning Gr." Actually, my "whole contention" had to deal with their experiment "causing" the mutation. I'm not sure why you keep saying variation comes from mutations. Of course mutations cause variation. However, I wouldn't go so far to say the source of all variation comes from mutations. But, that's another story so let's not bring that in.

Shall we now analyze our analysis? "I am not sure where you got "Why you said before about no way to know and it wasn't on the initial plate" You will have to point to my post."

I guess I was getting that idea from, "If you have an individual that is already resistant in the original, starting culture, then you have no way of knowing how that individual got his resistance" and I missed out on the word "how" - reading "when".

and "Another words, they have already created the mutants from the single colony "the preoccurrence" is referring to the replica plates NOT the initial plates."

in response to my, "So, maybe or maybe not they were resistant prior to the initial plate. But, based on their results and comments, they say they were resistant prior to being exposed to the selective agent."

TalkOrigins: I said, "And, yes, I'm looking at TalkOrigin's statements and it "could" fit in with it. But, when they associate the second paragraph including the words, "developed resistance", do you see why I would say it's the opposite? I don't know if there's intent to mislead, but to me, they were trying to associate that Lederbergs' experiment showed exposure to the agent resulted in developed resistance. Possibly you could say that. More clear would be to say Lederberg's experiment selected for resistance, but didn't cause the resistance."

By their reference to Lederbergs and then making the statement "developed resistance to", it seems misleading to me. I can see how it could fit because developed could mean outside of exposure. But, by association, it appears to mislead the reader. If they had said "mutated" and antibiotics and pesticides selected resistant mutations, it would make more sense. But by saying "developed resistance to" implies to me that the exposure caused the resistance. Especially when they tack on "artificial and unlike anything in nature".

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

"analyze our analysis?"

Boy you sure are pretty confusing sometimes. Let me give you an example

Here you said "But, it appears we agree now on the mutated individuals being on the initial plate before they were put on replicas."

Then you say... I guess I was getting that idea from, "If you have an individual that is already resistant in the original, starting culture, then you have no way of knowing how that individual got his resistance"

This is not refering to the same thing Gr. Are you trying to be obtuse or something. The starting culture is what the experiment started off with. It was important that the STARTING CULTURE was not resistant to the phage or the antibiotic or that there were any resistant individuals in that starting culture. It was so important that they even make a statement on it. Do I need to repeat it here. I guess not because you should know it by heart by now. The INITIAL PLATE occurs later in the experiment after the STARTING CULTURE has been bred into 100s of generations of bacteria. Of course there are going to be MUTANTS on this plate but understand that they know WHERE the mutants came from. In other words, they KNOW they got their resistance from mutations and not from the presence of a resistant individual in the original starting colony at the beginning of the experiment. Somehow you are mixing these 2 concepts in all of your confusion.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

And now for your opposite conclusion stuff...

Here is the statement from talkorigins...

"Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides."

First of all talkorigins is not developing the resistance, it is the organisms and pests that are doing this. Second of all the statement does not say that these "agents" (I am assuming you are refering to the antibiotics and pesticides) caused mutations to happen. Where does it say that? I know that is how you are reading it but it does not say that Gr and it does not imply. It simply says that the organisms have developed resistance to the agents. How does that mean that the agents is causing mutations. It doesn't say or imply anything about whether agents causes the muations to happen. Do you see the word mutation in that sentence. I don't. Why are you looking at it this way? This in response to the creationist claim that "mutations don't create any new variation." They "tack on" artificial and unlike anything in nature because it has to do with the idea that it is new variation is needed to be able to become resistant to an artificial chemical unlike anything found in nature. It is in response to the creationist claim that mutations do not cause any new variation.

I think you are trying to confuse the whole matter here Gr. I think the talkorigins is only guilty of not giving more detailed information about the Lederberg paper. The whole paper is focused on spontaneous mutations and natural selection. When talk origins says "In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations." they are refering to this statement from the Lederberg's paper..."For this test, a culture (w-1) derived from E. coli., strain K-12, and the phage T-1 were used. The culture is FULLY SENSITIVE (my caps) to the phage T-1, AS WELL AS (my caps) to streptomycin, and like most E. coli. strains GIVES RISE (my caps) to RESISTANT MUTANTS (my caps) at rates of 10-7 and 10-10 per division respectively." The genetics of this set-up and the actual chromosomal mapping had been done earlier in other papers. Talk origins just never puts those references down and I think they should.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I would not consider this to be "opposite" conclusions. You do seem to understand the idea that variation is coming from mutations though which is all talkorigins is trying to say and from your statement of "Of course mutations cause variation." That is the only thing talkorigins is trying to get you to understand and you understand it now.

So lets talk about something else....

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Just for clarification purposes, when I say....

"Somehow you are mixing these 2 concepts in all of your confusion."

I am refering to the starting culture and the intial/replica plates here.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

We seem to be having some serious communications issues. We have trouble understanding the same thing from one paper let alone making conclusions about several papers. I hope you realize that similar situations may have been happening in our distant past conversations. And, keep this in mind that the next time you come across someone who is sounding completely ridiculous. Because, that person may be in the same position as we are with this paper.

"This is not referring to the same thing " I am hope you didn't miss me admitting my misreading the statement but felt this needed further addressing. Looking back, besides reading "when" into it, I see you were talking about a different thing.

"The starting culture is what the experiment started off with."

How profound!
While I still disagree with the importance you place on resistance or non-resistance in the starting culture (whatever starting is defined as) as their method would still work either way, I think we both now realize what the other was saying and there's no further point.

"caused mutations to happen. Where does it say that?"

I hope you didn't miss out where I said it "could" be taken either way and where I gave an example of where it could be more clear. My last objection was where their sequence of association could mislead people.

"How does that mean that the agents is causing mutations. It doesn't say or imply anything about whether agents causes the muations to happen."

Why not? If they could say it more clear, why didn't they? You have to admit, it "could" be taken either way. Maybe, like me on other things, they don't want to make an absolute statement.

'This in response to the creationist claim that "mutations don't create any new variation."' I'd like to see that claim. I think there may be a difference in semantics. It's quite obvious that a mutation in a color gene would create variation. Just ask people who prize their albino pets!

'They "tack on" artificial and unlike anything in nature because it has to do with the idea that it is new variation is needed to be able to become resistant to an artificial chemical unlike anything found in nature. It is in response to the creationist claim that mutations do not cause any new variation.'

Actually, I believe they are responding to creationists claim that all variation was designed at creation. (But I'm not sure creationists would claim that specific statement)

I still believe TalkOrigins and the paper were approaching different concepts, though, after conversing with you, I see how they can be in harmony. Just like we are approaching the paper with different concepts and points.

"So lets talk about something else...."

Any thoughts about mumps?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.