Re: Another of Richard's Strawman "Lists"

On Feb 26, 6:15 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:52 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 25, 12:28 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Yes.  And, in certain environments, a fitness gain that outweighs that
cost.  IOW *sometimes* in *some* environments the cost outweighs the
gain and in other environments the reverse is true.  Which is why
calling the *change* a *change* and not declaring, arbitrarily, that
the *change* is always a net loss when that is not true a better way
of discussing reality.

Babbling nonsense. You just agreed with what Sean claimed, that
antibiotic resistance (gain in some envionment) involves the loss of
function. And it appears he is right in characterizing this as "most"
changes.

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.

Selection works on net gain or loss of fitness, not just on a one-
sided look only at the loss aspects.

Selection would work on *everything* in any enviornment. Nice try at
changing the subject, however. That is as dishonest as claiming that
Sean called "change" a "loss", while ignoring the fact that is not
what he said, as if he ignored the "gain". His point stands on it's
own, regardless of how he intends to incorporate it into a larger
position, but your's started out with bull***, and as far as I am
concerned when a little bull*** is included, it is all bull***.





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS2-3Y6PDF...
"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."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are the one that is trying to bull*** every one else.
If you have your ID around, where can you stand?
And you can't understand such a simple scenerio .... my goodness.

.