Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

... and failing.

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#481  Postby bert » Jun 30, 2016 9:34 pm

I'm a capricorn and we capricorns are very sceptical about astrological claims.

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#482  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Jul 01, 2016 4:05 am

bert wrote:I'm a capricorn and we capricorns are very sceptical about astrological claims.

Bert


I am actually an Aquarius. And like the famous water bearer of the sky my toil on this Earth is bear the heavy weight of knowing everything. It must be true cause the star guy said so.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#483  Postby kyrani99 » Jul 01, 2016 4:13 pm

Shrunk wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:when did I deny criticizing?


Right here:

kyrani99 wrote:Whether I had remembered things in a jumble or not the fact is I reacted to a paranormal experience of possible danger. I haven't criticized anyone for pointing out any inconsistencies. I haven't called anyone bad for their comments. So why the animosity?


:naughty:


You show me where have I criticized anyone for inconsistencies and called them bad!

If I was a real liar then I could run for the American presidency and you'd vote for me! :lol:
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#484  Postby kyrani99 » Jul 01, 2016 4:29 pm

:lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria. And the funny thing is that all of the so called mutagens (including natural foods, which some are claiming are worse than additives and toxins) ALL bring about the same changes. That is thousands of substances, including normal natural foods like mushrooms and red meat... all do the same trick and all in just 24 hours! . :lol: :lol: :lol: Bruce Ames and others, who are saying this, need to prove the matter and I do not see that they have done this.

There is a far simpler, far more realistic explanation. The bacteria revert back to His + when there is a threat to their survival. This is a characteristic that is seen in other species too. I saw this when I was in my late teens. My father had two olive trees in the back yard. When the olive trees bore a very low yield he would perform a superficial ring barking the next year before the trees were to bear olives. This caused the trees to bear a massive crop, three or four fold in some cases. It is a survival mechanism. The bacteria do the same thing.

If you add a substance that is harmful then they will move to make the changes they need to ensure their survival. So the test for mutagens is baloney. Now I'm going back to the mice and rats that I have been researching because I'll bet the same sort of false claims are made there too.
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#485  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Jul 01, 2016 4:46 pm

kyrani99 wrote::lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria. And the funny thing is that all of the so called mutagens (including natural foods, which some are claiming are worse than additives and toxins) ALL bring about the same changes. That is thousands of substances, including normal natural foods like mushrooms and red meat... all do the same trick and all in just 24 hours! . :lol: :lol: :lol: Bruce Ames and others, who are saying this, need to prove the matter and I do not see that they have done this.

:lol: :lol: :lol: What a laughably stupid paragraph this is! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't see how anyone can justify arguing against a theory when they haven't even begun to learn about some of the science behind it. You're not technically making an argument from incredulity, but also kind of you are, simply because you understand so little about what you're attempting to argue against that you cannot help but make all your arguments into arguments from incredulity.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#486  Postby kyrani99 » Jul 01, 2016 5:15 pm

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
kyrani99 wrote::lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria. And the funny thing is that all of the so called mutagens (including natural foods, which some are claiming are worse than additives and toxins) ALL bring about the same changes. That is thousands of substances, including normal natural foods like mushrooms and red meat... all do the same trick and all in just 24 hours! . :lol: :lol: :lol: Bruce Ames and others, who are saying this, need to prove the matter and I do not see that they have done this.

:lol: :lol: :lol: What a laughably stupid paragraph this is! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't see how anyone can justify arguing against a theory when they haven't even begun to learn about some of the science behind it. You're not technically making an argument from incredulity, but also kind of you are, simply because you understand so little about what you're attempting to argue against that you cannot help but make all your arguments into arguments from incredulity.


Easy to try an fob it off as incredulity. But you need to convince me that all of these thousands of different substances, including many natural foods, all give rise to spontaneous mutations (RANDOM), which become subject to natural selection and give rise to the SAME result AND in just 24 hours. :coffee:
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#487  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Jul 01, 2016 5:21 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
Easy to try an fob it off as incredulity. But you need to convince me that all of these thousands of different substances, including many natural foods, all give rise to spontaneous mutations (RANDOM), which become subject to natural selection and give rise to the SAME result AND in just 24 hours. :coffee:

I needn't convince you of any such thing, because nobody has made that claim.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#488  Postby Fallible » Jul 01, 2016 5:33 pm

kyrani99 wrote::lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria. And the funny thing is that all of the so called mutagens (including natural foods, which some are claiming are worse than additives and toxins) ALL bring about the same changes. That is thousands of substances, including normal natural foods like mushrooms and red meat... all do the same trick and all in just 24 hours! . :lol: :lol: :lol: Bruce Ames and others, who are saying this, need to prove the matter and I do not see that they have done this.

There is a far simpler, far more realistic explanation. The bacteria revert back to His + when there is a threat to their survival. This is a characteristic that is seen in other species too. I saw this when I was in my late teens. My father had two olive trees in the back yard. When the olive trees bore a very low yield he would perform a superficial ring barking the next year before the trees were to bear olives. This caused the trees to bear a massive crop, three or four fold in some cases. It is a survival mechanism. The bacteria do the same thing.

If you add a substance that is harmful then they will move to make the changes they need to ensure their survival. So the test for mutagens is baloney. Now I'm going back to the mice and rats that I have been researching because I'll bet the same sort of false claims are made there too.


Why the fuck are you here?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#489  Postby Rumraket » Jul 01, 2016 6:11 pm

kyrani99 wrote::lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria.

[Citation Needed]

And the funny thing is that all of the so called mutagens

[Citation Needed]

(including natural foods, which some are claiming are worse than additives and toxins)

[Citation Needed]

ALL bring about the same changes.

[Citation Needed]

That is thousands of substances, including normal natural foods like mushrooms and red meat... all do the same trick and all in just 24 hours! .

[Citation Needed]
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#490  Postby Rumraket » Jul 01, 2016 6:16 pm

A quick look into the method of the Ames test reveals it is a test specifically designed to detect certain mutations. In other words, OF COURSE if the compound is mutagenic, it will be detected as having CAUSED THE SPECIFIC MUTATIONS the assay is designed to look for.

So you read about the Ames test and failed to understand it. ROFL.

Also, the mutations are ALL beneficial, since the genes for excision repair and histidine biosynthesis are deliberately broken such that specific point mutations will re-enable the bacteria to resurrect excision repair and histidine biosynthesis.

ROFL. You literally couldn't be any more wrong. About everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test
General procedure[edit]
The Ames test uses several strains of the bacterium Salmonella typhimurium that carry mutations in genes involved in histidine synthesis. These strains are auxotrophic mutants, i.e. they require histidine for growth, but cannot produce it. The method tests the capability of the tested substance in creating mutations that result in a return to a "prototrophic" state, so that the cells can grow on a histidine-free medium.

The tester strains are specially constructed to detect either frameshift (e.g. strains TA-1537 and TA-1538) or point (e.g. strain TA-1531) mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, so that mutagens acting via different mechanisms may be identified. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains.[4] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable,[5] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive.[6] Rat liver extract is optionally added to simulate the effect of metabolism, as some compounds, like benzo[a]pyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[3]

The bacteria are spread on an agar plate with small amount of histidine. This small amount of histidine in the growth medium allows the bacteria to grow for an initial time and have the opportunity to mutate. When the histidine is depleted only bacteria that have mutated to gain the ability to produce its own histidine will survive. The plate is incubated for 48 hours. The mutagenicity of a substance is proportional to the number of colonies observed.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#491  Postby kyrani99 » Jul 03, 2016 5:02 pm

Rumraket wrote:
kyrani99 wrote::lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria.

[Citation Needed]

The Ames test http://www.biology-pages.info/A/AmesTest.html
The article says:
"The bacterium used in the test is a strain of Salmonella typhimurium have been altered so that they carry a defective (mutant) gene making it unable to synthesize the amino acid histidine (His) from the ingredients in its culture medium. However, some types of mutations (including this one) can be reversed, a back mutation, with the gene regaining its function. These revertants are able to grow on a medium lacking histidine."

That is at the end of a positive test the bacteria no longer need histidine to grow because they can make their own. So they have undergone a back mutation, which makes the gene functional again. A "gain of function" is a beneficial change in the bacteria.

However the bacteria can make the change spontaneously. In this case it is called a false positive. It differs from a positive in that the colonies of growing bacteria are sparse rather than crowded, large colonies.

A positive result in an Ames test suggests that a chemical can produce mutations.

And the funny thing is that all of the so called mutagens

[Citation Needed]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216630/
"The most widely used of the mutagenicity assays is the Salmonella plate incorporation test, commonly known as the Ames test. In this assay, a chemical is tested for its ability to induce mutations in different strains of a bacterium (Salmonella typhimurium). Most chemical carcinogens and mutagens do not interact directly with DNA. They require alteration by enzymes in order to become activated. This process of “metabolic activation” cannot usually be accomplished by enzymes present in bacteria. Therefore, in the Salmonella test, an extract of mammalian liver (usually from the rat) is added to provide the enzymes necessary for metabolic activation."

In their summary and conclusions they write:
"Considerable attention has recently been directed toward the presence of mutagenic activity in foods. Many vegetables contain mutagenic flavonoids such as quercetin, kaempferol, and their glycosides. Furthermore, some substances found in foods can enhance or inhibit the mutagenic activity of other compounds. Mutagens in charred meat and fish are produced during the pyrolysis of proteins that occurs when foods are cooked at very high temperatures. Normal cooking of meat at lower temperatures can also result in the production of mutagens. Smoking of foods as well as charcoal broiling results in the deposition of mutagenic and carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic compounds such as benzo[a]pyrene on the surface of the food."


Everything from asbestos and benzene (with a little mouse liver extract to get enzymatic metabolites) to processed foods, to natural foods have been tested.
(including natural foods, which some are claiming are worse than additives and toxins)

[Citation Needed]
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... -beverages

ALL bring about the same changes.

[Citation Needed]
see above.

If they did tests and then did genome sequencing and found all the different mutations then that is a bit different. But the Ames test, which is widely used as a preliminary test for mutagens and thus possible carcinogens (which IMO are a joke anyway), relies entirely on the bacteria reverting back to making their own histidine and that requires a change in the histidine operon. And of course a permanent change is called a mutation. So all the substances have to somehow help make that change, maybe not in the same way but at least with the same effect.

also http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... ivitamins/

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/types/ ... index.html
"Spontaneous mutations (those that occur by chance, not by chemical treatment) will appear as colonies on the control petri dishes. If the test chemical was mutagenic to any particular strain of bacterium, the number of histidine-independent colonies arising on those plates will be significantly greater than the corresponding control plates for that strain of bacteria. The positive control plates are also counted, and the number of mutant colonies appearing on them must be significantly increased over the spontaneous control number for the test to be considered valid. "

The fact that the bacteria can spontaneous revert back makes me wonder what the alteration to the genome is all about. It seems that these alterations have to do with how the histidine operon works. In the presence of histidine in the media/bacterial environment, the bacteria doesn't need to make their own histidine and hence turns off the gene sequence through one or more of its regulatory elements. That is that the alterations made are really regulatory mutations.
https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/mon ... /view/4128

That is thousands of substances, including normal natural foods like mushrooms and red meat... all do the same trick and all in just 24 hours! .

[Citation Needed]

see above.
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#492  Postby Rumraket » Jul 03, 2016 8:21 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
kyrani99 wrote::lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria.

[Citation Needed]


The Ames test http://www.biology-pages.info/A/AmesTest.html
The article says:
"The bacterium used in the test is a strain of Salmonella typhimurium have been altered so that they carry a defective (mutant) gene making it unable to synthesize the amino acid histidine (His) from the ingredients in its culture medium. However, some types of mutations (including this one) can be reversed, a back mutation, with the gene regaining its function. These revertants are able to grow on a medium lacking histidine."

This citation fails to prove evidence of the claim that none of the changes are beneficial.

kyrani99 wrote:That is at the end of a positive test the bacteria no longer need histidine to grow because they can make their own. So they have undergone a back mutation, which makes the gene functional again. A "gain of function" is a beneficial change in the bacteria.

A beneficial change is one that results in increased reproductive success, whether it is "gain of function" or not. Regardless, this one IS a gain of function. The function gained is histidine biosynthesis. The bacterium was deliberately engineered not to be able to do it, and has subsequently mutated so it can. So the function Histidine Biosynthesis was gained. No amount of desperate ad-hoc reasoning will get around this.

kyrani99 wrote:However the bacteria can make the change spontaneously.

No, bacteria can't "make" the change spontaneously through their own volition or whatever silly stuff it is you imagine.

All mutations can happen spontaneously during replications of the bacterial chromosome, but that is irrelevant. The question is if a compound is mutagenic, as in: it causes an increase in the rate of spontaneous mutations, beyond the background rate(the normal rate of mutations). The more mutagenic it is, the more it will increase the rate of spontaneous mutations above the normal background rate.

But even without mutagens, mutations will still occasionally creep in. In these bacteria, excision repair has been forced off, which increases their sensitivity to mutagens while also increasing the background level of mutations. That's why even the negative controls will invariably produce lots of mutants.

kyrani99 wrote:In this case it is called a false positive.

There is no "false positive" involved here.

In the Ames test you make several plates, some for negative control(no suspected mutagen added) and some for testing the mutagen(suspected mutagen is added). If the number of colonies on the control plates are lower than on the plates with the suspected mutagen, then the mutagen is in fact a mutagen since it caused a higher than average(more colonies on the plates with the mutagens than on the negative control plates) number of mutants.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#493  Postby Shrunk » Jul 04, 2016 7:53 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:when did I deny criticizing?


Right here:

kyrani99 wrote:Whether I had remembered things in a jumble or not the fact is I reacted to a paranormal experience of possible danger. I haven't criticized anyone for pointing out any inconsistencies. I haven't called anyone bad for their comments. So why the animosity?


:naughty:


You show me where have I criticized anyone for inconsistencies and called them bad!


It's weird that you would misrepresent your own post in this way. Or is this another example of your retroactively changing what you remember, a la your fatal/non-fatal car accident?

If I was a real liar then I could run for the American presidency and you'd vote for me! :lol:


Are you under the impression that Canadians can vote in US elections? And that Australians can run for US President? Or are you now changing that part of your biography as well? :whistle:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#494  Postby kyrani99 » Jul 05, 2016 3:36 pm

Rumraket wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
kyrani99 wrote::lol: Speaking of untruths, I have taken a closer look at the Ames test. It is groundless. All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do no cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria.

[Citation Needed]


The Ames test http://www.biology-pages.info/A/AmesTest.html
The article says:
"The bacterium used in the test is a strain of Salmonella typhimurium have been altered so that they carry a defective (mutant) gene making it unable to synthesize the amino acid histidine (His) from the ingredients in its culture medium. However, some types of mutations (including this one) can be reversed, a back mutation, with the gene regaining its function. These revertants are able to grow on a medium lacking histidine."

This citation fails to prove evidence of the claim that none of the changes are beneficial.

I did not make a claim that "none of the changes are beneficial".
I said "All the chemicals that they are naming mutagens do not cause mutations that lead to a beneficial change in the bacteria."

The wording in this passage is problematic and I would say deceptive.
If the bacteria had been altered so that they carry a defective (mutant) gene AND as cells are supposed to be dumb machines and mutations SPONTANEOUS and RANDOM, then it would be astronomical odds that this particular type of mutation is reversed, which is what is seen, by thousands of substances that they are calling mutagens. And not only with the supposed mutagens but also spontaneously as is seen in the controls.

And notice they don't talk about "gene repair", which is what you would expect if it was a random change. Instead they talk about "mutation reversal". The truth here is that the change.. i.e., mutation.. is an action that the gene undergoes when there are either low levels of histidine or no histidine present in the bacterial environment, the broth if it is in the lab. The reason is that this is part of the way the his operon works. The biosynthesis of histidine is very costly for the bacterium, at 41 ATPs. So it will make sure it does not make histidine if it has it available. The mechanism is an attenuation mechanism but in any case the "mutation" is a deliberate change and not some accident.

SO it is the BACTERIA that cause the mutation as part of the his operon function and not by the chemicals tested. So the chemicals are not the ones that bring any beneficial change, it is the bacteria that bring about the beneficial change by means of their genetics.

I would bet that the same sort of thing is true of the E. coli that mutated to utilize citrate and it is being described as evolution. :naughty:
For a patient to heal the shaman uses any device, which will alter the patient's belief about reality.
User avatar
kyrani99
Banned Troll
 
Name: Kyrani Eade
Posts: 965
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#495  Postby Sendraks » Jul 05, 2016 3:38 pm

Wow. I mean......wow.

That's some serious mental gymnastics required to come up with an explanation quite so wrong, in order to avoid acknowledging something.

If only Kyranni actually put that mental energy to work in actually learning science, rather than pseudoscience and other sorts of woo.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#496  Postby bert » Jul 05, 2016 7:09 pm

"then it would be astronomical odds that this particular type of mutation is reversed"

The number of nucleotides in the DNA of a bacterial cell is a few million. I couldn't find how many bacteria there are in a colony forming unit on a Petri dish, but a slightly turbid Test tube wit bacteria contains 10 to the power of 8 bacteria. So, the odds are by no means an astronomical.

Also, the test involves an identical Petri dish without the mutagen. So, the only difference is the mutagen. This dish shows the spontaneous mutations. It is the control experiment.

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#497  Postby Rumraket » Jul 06, 2016 12:22 pm

bert wrote:"then it would be astronomical odds that this particular type of mutation is reversed"

The number of nucleotides in the DNA of a bacterial cell is a few million. I couldn't find how many bacteria there are in a colony forming unit on a Petri dish

The number of bacteria in a CFU isn't known, which is why it's called a Colony Forming Unit, rather than just a bacterium.

However, once a colony has been established, whether by a single progenitor bacterium or a few thousand, when it becomes big enough that you can see it with the naked eye it easily contains hundreds of thousands to millions of bacteria. If one bothers to understand the Ames test it is easy to see that there are more than enough bacteria to make it likely that the mutation will appear once the population reaches a visible colony size. Particularly when excision repair has been downregulated.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#498  Postby Rumraket » Jul 06, 2016 12:55 pm

kyrani99 wrote:And notice they don't talk about "gene repair", which is what you would expect if it was a random change. Instead they talk about "mutation reversal". The truth here is that the change.. i.e., mutation.. is an action that the gene undergoes when there are either low levels of histidine or no histidine present in the bacterial environment, the broth if it is in the lab. The reason is that this is part of the way the his operon works.

What gibberish. An operon that targets specific nucleotides for deletion or insertion? Really? Prove it and get your nobel prize.

kyrani99 wrote: The biosynthesis of histidine is very costly for the bacterium, at 41 ATPs. So it will make sure it does not make histidine if it has it available. The mechanism is an attenuation mechanism but in any case the "mutation" is a deliberate change and not some accident.

You're just making shit up as you go. The attenuation mechanims you are describing is just normal bacterial gene regulation, it is not itself controlled by some kind of operon-controlled mutagenesis.

kyrani99 wrote:So it is the BACTERIA that cause the mutation as part of the his operon function

There is no such thing as a mutation caused by the action of a fucking operon. Where are you getting this crap? It reads like you're randomly picking words by a genetics textbook and inserting them into your "explanation".
His operons regulate histidine biosynthesis by binding to a promoter and preventing transcription. They don't cause mutations.

Seriously, where are you getting this nonsense?

The mutations in the test strains are frameshift mutations. They either result in a premature stop codon or an amino-acid sequence so radically altered the resulting protein has lost the original function. The only way for this to be rectified is by spontaneous mutation, which in the case of a reversal of a frameshift mutation must mean either insertion or deletion of one or more nucleotides in the host gene. Which is exactly why excision repair has been deactivated, because that is the system that normally detects and attempts to correct single-nucleotide deletions and insertions.

Sorry, everything you say is wrong.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#499  Postby Sendraks » Jul 06, 2016 1:00 pm

Rumraket wrote:Sorry, everything you say is wrong.


Why are you apologising? Its not your fault Kyranni appears to be on a mission to get everything ass-backwards in defence of nonsense.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Creationists still trying to debunk Lenski's LTEE.

#500  Postby Rumraket » Jul 06, 2016 1:25 pm

I hate to be the bearer of bad news. :lol:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest