Re: Another of Richard's Strawman "Lists"

On Feb 24, 3:09 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:33 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.





0catch.com> wrote:
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.

All forms of antibiotic resistance involves the *modification* of a
pre-established system or interaction to *change* that interaction.
Calling *modification* and *change* "loss" is dishonest.

No, you're dishonest. It's been known for years that there is a
fitness cost associated with antibiotic resistance. In case you don't
realize that a cost is a result of a loss, just keep lying. Just don't
expect anyone to buy into your bull*** except your idiot evolutionist
buddies.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS2-3Y6PDF0-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bb32bf08b1acb72130aed70215015082
"The frequency and rates of ascent and dissemination of antibiotic
resistance in bacterial populations are anticipated to be directly
related to the volume of antibiotic use and inversely related to the
cost that resistance imposes on the fitness of bacteria. The data
available from recent laboratory studies suggest that most, but not
all, resistance-determining mutations and accessory elements engender
some fitness cost, but those costs are likely to be ameliorated by
subsequent evolution."

.