God vs. Science

[Sledlude]

Ah, bacteria - a good, logical statement from you. Only a couple of things were left out. Bacteria that mutate their DNA tend to not be as effective at doing their intended task, nor do they tend to reproduce as well.

Not necessarily! It is true that a mutation leads to a loss of function of that particular gene, but what it can also do is change the primary sequence of amino acids, which can lead to the expression of a completely different protein. Sometimes these changes are not beneficial, and sometimes they are. Thats the reason we can genetically alter bacterial genomes to be more productive, that is, reproductively or otherwise. We already clone 'superbugs' to be more useful to us industrially (think yeast cells that are genetically optimized to make more productive beer fermentations, (and these are eukaryotic cells- way more complex than bacteria)). Another example of mutation leading to more production- cancer cells. A loss of function caused by mutation here leads to uncontrollable reproduction of the cell- some are even resistant to therapy. They reproduce so much that they end up killing the body.

Natural selection "should" improve the bacteria, correct? That's not the case currently with mutated bacteria. Their defective proteins tend to lose normal functionality based upon current observations. Mutated bateria do not gain any funtionality that we are aware of currently, correct?
Horizonal gene transfer is capable in bacteria, but not humans or complex life forms. While bateria can swap DNA genes, they are not creating any new genes, and thus cannot create new, more complex species (like people). You are just swapping genes around, but you are not creating new genetic information.

natural selection doesnt necessarily require an improvement per se; just a selective advantage. Just some change in the organism that lets it survive and reproduce while other individuals cannot. And yes, mutations *can* create new genetic info. Like I said before, alteration of one basepair (which can happen easily) can lead to an entirely new protein.

Mutation and natural selection lead to a loss of functionality, not the creation of it. Genetic information is not created, only modified. That is not evolution, as it is not evolving to a higher level.

Ever heard of transposons? Bridge-break-fusion cycles? These phenomena totally have the potential to create novel genotypes. Genomes can also grow in size... genetic material is 'absorbed' by bacterial genomes all the time( a process called transformation). Anything that allows an organism to survive better, (whether it be by reproducing more, secreting exotoxins, being resistant to toxins, hell, even growing sharper teeth) will lead to its natural selection.

A good example of a bacterial genome growing in size and undergoing a mutation that gives it a selective advantage is V. cholerae. It has recently been found that resistant strains of this organism were made resistant because their genomes absorbed the resistance-encoding genome of a bacteriophage. Cool Stuff!

[David88vert]

Not necessarily! It is true that a mutation leads to a loss of function of that particular gene, but what it can also do is change the primary sequence of amino acids, which can lead to the expression of a completely different protein. Sometimes these changes are not beneficial, and sometimes they are. Thats the reason we can genetically alter bacterial genomes to be more productive, that is, reproductively or otherwise. We already clone 'superbugs' to be more useful to us industrially (think yeast cells that are genetically optimized to make more productive beer fermentations, (and these are eukaryotic cells- way more complex than bacteria)). Another example of mutation leading to more production- cancer cells. A loss of function caused by mutation here leads to uncontrollable reproduction of the cell- some are even resistant to therapy. They reproduce so much that they end up killing the body.

Changing characteristics is not creating new species. And currently, we cannot even artifically create a new species with a single cell - although we are getting close. Going from microbes-to-man is a much larger task, and not even remotely possible in the near future. Cancer cells function is to kill the body - antibodies are used against it, and slow it, that does not make it function better.

natural selection doesnt necessarily require an improvement per se; just a selective advantage. Just some change in the organism that lets it survive and reproduce while other individuals cannot. And yes, mutations *can* create new genetic info. Like I said before, alteration of one basepair (which can happen easily) can lead to an entirely new protein.

Evolution does require an improvement, per the definition of the word. Natural selection is the proposed means. Alteration of characteristics do not create new species. If I remember correctly, you need at least a 5 molecule sequence to change and reproduce into other cells to have a genetic improvement (You will have to check me and keep me honest on this). That has yet to happen and be observed naturally.

Ever heard of transposons? Bridge-break-fusion cycles? These phenomena totally have the potential to create novel genotypes. Genomes can also grow in size... genetic material is 'absorbed' by bacterial genomes all the time( a process called transformation). Anything that allows an organism to survive better, (whether it be by reproducing more, secreting exotoxins, being resistant to toxins, hell, even growing sharper teeth) will lead to its natural selection.

A good example of a bacterial genome growing in size and undergoing a mutation that gives it a selective advantage is V. cholerae. It has recently been found that resistant strains of this organism were made resistant because their genomes absorbed the resistance-encoding genome of a bacteriophage. Cool Stuff!

Yes, and I have read a lot of Kimball's links (I'm guessing you were there). I haven't really read anything much on cholera, but if you will post some links to research, I will be happy to read up on it, and check some other research sites on it. I have now managed to suck you into genetics! It is cool stuff.

A+ to you for a very good post.

[Sledlude]

Yes, and I have read a lot of Kimball's links (I'm guessing you were there). I haven't really read anything much on cholera, but if you will post some links to research, I will be happy to read up on it, and check some other research sites on it. I have now managed to suck you into genetics! It is cool stuff.

A+ to you for a very good post.

Nope, this is straight off the dome from me... you didn't suck me into anything! Its what I do! I am actively involved in microbiology and molecular biology research. As we speak, I am growing competent E. Coli cells so that I can transform them with a plasmid containing a gene that I am trying to express. I know a thing or two about manipulating genomes.

I will get back to the rest of your post later, as I have a lot to say about that. A lil' hungover, not thinking straight, and too much to do at the moment

[David88vert]

I will get back to the rest of your post later, as I have a lot to say about that. A lil' hungover, not thinking straight, and too much to do at the moment

That's cool. I am actually very busy lately also, so I can't always jump on here. It's not like we are changing the world, just having good discussion.