Re: Another of Richard's Strawman "Lists"

On Feb 22, 2:31 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

< snip >


If you want to
get even more specific, lets defined "real time" as 50 years. Is that
easier for you to understand in the context of this discussion? Why
doesn't evolution happen within 50 years beyond the 1000aa threshold?
Hmmmm?

So how do I look at, for example, the evolution of antibiotic
resistance in bacteria and measure how many aa changes it involves?

Most forms of antibiotic resistance involve the loss of a pre-
established system or interaction. These forms of resistance are
therefore very easy to evolve and evolve very rapidly, all the time,
whenever any colony is presented with sublethal levels of an most
forms of antibiotics.

It's taken 50 years or so for bacteria, which reproduce every 20
minutes, to develop antibiotic resistance. How many generations of
bacteria do you suppose that represents? And how many aa changes does
it involve?

This isn't remotely close to being true. Antibiotic resistance to an
antibiotic often develops within a few generations of the use of the
antibiotic at sublethal levels. Where do you get this idea that 50
years was required? That's not remotely true. It would be great for
medicine if it were true, but it isn't. Such low-level evolution is
extremely easy to achieve and is very very rapid.

Perhaps if you can attach a number to that, we can start to calculate
how many generations it might take for evolutionary changes beyond
your arbitrary limit.

This is easy for most forms of antibiotic resistance because the vast
majority of these examples require no more than one or two residue
changes to achieve a useful level of antibiotic resistance. The reason
for this, of course, is because only one or two changes are usually
needed to produce an effective reduction in the antibiotic-target
interaction - and resistance is gained.

For a more extensive discussion of antibiotic resistance see:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/antibioticresistance.html

However, counting aa changes is not necessarily
a reliable guide to the effect on the phenotype, which is where we
detect evolutionary changes.

Counting the minimum number of aa changes needed to achieve a novel
system that is not based on a loss of something else is very useful.
It is very clear that achieving a beneficial effect on the phenotype,
selectable by nature, requires more and more changes, at minimum, to
achieve a novel functional system that does not require a loss of
something else.

So you have an arbitrary limit set on a value which does not
necessarily relate to the degree of evolutionary change.

The limit is not "arbitrary". It is a real observation. You have yet
to explain why there are no observed examples of evolution in action
producing a novel system that requires at least 1000aa within the span
of scientific observation or even a period of 50 years.

Beyond this, the 1000aa level isn't that complex for a minimum
threshold requirement. Emergent systems with far greater minimum
complexities exist in all living things. So, what level would you
suggest that evolutionary theory would predict and end to observable
evolution in action? - - and why?

Why not answer this question Richard? I repeat: What level would you
suggest that evolutionary theory would predict and end to observable
evolution in action? - and why?

Sean, your question doesn't make sense.
How does one measure the level of evolutionary change?

I've already told you hundreds of times - literally. Levels of
functional complexity are defined by minimum size and specificity
requirements. The greater the minimum size and/or specificity degree
or "level" under consideration, the greater the level of complexity.
Getting from one level to the next higher level by your stated
mechanism would qualify as an evolutionary change up the ladder.

For example, lets say that we are considering all systems that require
at least 10 fully specified amino acid residues. The question is, are
there any potentially beneficial systems from the perspective of a
given population that have this minimum structural threshold
requirement? If so, what is the overall ratio of these potential
targets vs. the potential non-targets? And, what is the average
distance and minimum likely distances between targets?

How is this undefined measurement related to aa changes?

As I've explained to you many times before, the greater the minimum
structural threshold requirements, the greater the average number of
required aa changes needed to get from one system to the next
potentially beneficial system. And, the greater the average, the
greater the minimum likely distance.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... doesn't evolution happen within 50 years beyond the 1000aa threshold? ... If the form of antibiotic resistance is based ... Not all forms of antibiotic resistance are based on a loss. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... How do I look at, for example, the evolution of antibiotic resistance ... system that is not based on a loss of something else is very useful. ... Your "calculations" on those matters have been utterly demolished by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... How do I look at, for example, the evolution of antibiotic resistance ... Not all forms of antibiotic resistance are based on a loss. ... penicillinase enzyme, in particular, is not *based* on the loss of any ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... Most forms of antibiotic resistance involve the loss of a pre- ... Such low-level evolution is ... single protein or set of proteins. ... The greater the minimum size and/or specificity degree ...
    (talk.origins)