Re: Bacteria Planned Mutations?

In article <h4ko4t$25c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Quote from "Out of Control" K Kelly.

"(Barry) Hall found that his cultures of E. coli would produce needed
mutations at a rate about 100 million times greater than would be
statistically expected if they came by chance. Furthermore, when he
dissected the genes of these mutated bacteria by sequencing them, he
found mutations in no areas other than the one where there was
selection pressure. This means that the successful bugs did not
desperately throw off all kinds of mutations to find the one that
works; they pinpointed the one alteration that fit the bill. Hall
found some directed variations so complex they required the mutation
of two genes simultaneously. He called that 'the improbable stacked on
top of the highly unlikely." These kinds of miraculous change are not
the kosher fate of serial random accumulation that natural selection
is supposed to run on. They have the smell of some design."

This suggests two things to me.

This suggests to me that your are very gullible. The claim is
a guaranteed bull*** (typical of most creationist claims).
Consider:

E.coli genome is roughly 4*10^6. You'd certainly expect 0.1-1.0
mutations per replication. But the claim of "100 million times
greater" means that mutation probability, instead of being
within 10^(-7)-10^(-6), is above unit. OK, so let say it is 1.0,
that is, almost certainty. Which is still absurd and there is
*absolutely no way* it can be supported by experimental
evidence. It amounts to the claim that every single E.coli
cell put under new selection almost instantly responds
by producing the adaptive mutation. Everyday practice of
anyone using antibiotics says it just ain't so.

DK

.

Quantcast