Bounded mutation

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Sherlock Holmes

Bounded mutation

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

I was reading this article earlier, in there we read:
To better understand the impact of this situation, think of it this way: With a genome size of 2.8 × 10^6 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 10^10 base pairs, it would take a single bacterium 30 hours to grow into a population in which every single base pair in the genome will have mutated not once, but 30 times! Thus, any individual mutation that could theoretically occur in the bacteria will have occurred somewhere in that population—in just over a day.
This seems to be an admission that even if every possible mutation (from the finite set of possibilities) occurs at some point in the colony, then we still have - bacteria, surely with these rates of reproduction and probabilities of mutation and so on, doesn't this show that the bacteria evolving never leads to anything other than a variant of the bacteria? That the set of all possible mutants is either dead or still more or less the same bacteria.

Given the rate at which bacteria reproduce and their number on earth and in societies, shouldn't we see evidence that the genome has developed more and more novelty? yet it seems all we see is just bacteria...

So is there evidence that bacteria can become something quite different given enough time and if not, why not? are the possible states that the genome can get into simply insufficient to ever lead to escalating novelty?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #31

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #29]
Right so like I said already you don't know!
And neither do you apparently, even though you suggested those two journals as a comparison to a creationist "journal." Do your homework next time.
I'm not the one pretending to know what peer review means.
DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
This is no different to arguing that The American Journal of physics is biased toward physics, a frankly cringeworthy, embarrassing position to take.
It is not at all the same. Physics has not been thoroughly debunked, whereas a young earth and the reality of Noah's flood have. Claiming physics has been debunked as you just did (see how two can play the strawman building game?) is indeed an embarrassing position to take.
Right I know your opinion on some variants of creationism, but the question was is The American Journal of physics is biased toward physics, well, is it or isn't it?
DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
Well you surely investigated the The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism in order to claim it is not really peer reviewed, yet can't do the same for these other magazines? You say also "am not going to contact them and ask" yet did not contact the The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism adding even more doubt to your claimed objectivity.
No ... you are the one who brought up PICC in the first place, and it is you who have claimed repeatedly that they are a bona-fide, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Go back and read your own posts.
Well yes I did, I presented a paper by two scientists that discuss bacteria, you then reacted by claiming (without proof) that despite the writers being certificated doctorates and despite the magazine having a formal peer review process that it was in fact not a peer reviewed paper. Yet when asked several times now you can't even tell me of two other publications are peer reviewed either!

We both know what's going here, you are afraid. If you say they are not then you'll look foolish because they are and if you say they are you'll look foolish because their process is no different to PICC.

That's what happens to you when you carelessly debate with me.
DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
Now you say that this doesn't matter? is that because you don't really want to talk about this any more?
What is "this"? You continue to make up stuff and attribute your random reinterpretations it to me.
I mean "this" you know, your inability to answer basic questions about peer review, your apparent prejudice toward creationists.
DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
You're all over the place!
Only because of your incessant word twisting, strawman building and goal post moving as you continuously dodge questions and reinterpret what people say, then present these warped revisions as a basis for some point you want to make. It has gotten old and boring, but at least you're consistent.
Don't blame me buster if you've failed to make a solid case.

So typical, atheists and evolution devotees often shout "but that's not been peer reviewed" when scientific material is presented questioning aspects of the evolution doctrine, and when a peer reviewed article is presented we hear "but that's not how peer review works"!

I understand though now, peer review to you means a review by people who consider evolution an unquestionable fact, that's really it isn't it? Unless the paper meets with the approval of evolutionists it isn't a real, scientific paper!

Unless a paper that questions evolution does not question evolution, it can't be real science!

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #32

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #31]
I understand though now, peer review to you means a review by people who consider evolution an unquestionable fact, that's really it isn't it? Unless the paper meets with the approval of evolutionists it isn't a real, scientific paper!
Right, in my 7 years as an associate editor of a science journal I always made sure that the submitted manuscripts on spectroscopic topics had the approval of the evil evolutionists whose theory has nothing to do with spectroscopy. What utter nonsense.

I don't think I've ever encountered someone so fanatically paranoid about evolution and those who recognize it as a valid theory. There is help available.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #33

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:55 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #31]
I understand though now, peer review to you means a review by people who consider evolution an unquestionable fact, that's really it isn't it? Unless the paper meets with the approval of evolutionists it isn't a real, scientific paper!
Right, in my 7 years as an associate editor of a science journal I always made sure that the submitted manuscripts on spectroscopic topics had the approval of the evil evolutionists whose theory has nothing to do with spectroscopy. What utter nonsense.

I don't think I've ever encountered someone so fanatically paranoid about evolution and those who recognize it as a valid theory. There is help available.
I asked you why you regard a journal as not being a peer reviewed scientific publication when it is written by people with a doctorate in the relevant scientific fields.

I can't get a straight answer from you, other than vague terms like "proper" and "bond fide" and so on.

To help me understand you better I asked if two other journals were peer reviewed and you did not know despite these publicly describing their peer review police as does the first journal.

The reason I can't get a straight answer is due to your prejudices against creationists or anyone how expresses doubts about the evolution hypothesis.

Naturally you haven't even read the paper either, perhaps its above your head and you're reluctant to admit that?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #34

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #33]
Naturally you haven't even read the paper either, perhaps its above your head and you're reluctant to admit that?
You constantly compalin about ad hominems as you dish out insults in virtually every post you make, to everyone. Are you actually a teenager posing as an adult? And your comment above doesn't even make sense. First you have no idea whether I read the paper or not, then you claim I did not so you could then fire an insult about my intelligence that could only be determined if I had read the paper and didn't understand it.

But for the record, I didn't read the paper and would never waste time reading anything from a creationist journal that promotes a young earth, and the reality of Noah's flood. Both are positively disproven and anything they publish supporting those subjects is demonstrably wrong and of no interest to me. The fact that you think this stuff is science speaks for itself, and demonstrates that you don't really understand what peer-reviewed science is or how the process works.

It is all a scheme by the evil evolutionists ... make sure to check under your bed and in the closets before you turn the lights out at bedtime as you never know where these people could be hiding!
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #35

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 6:31 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #33]
Naturally you haven't even read the paper either, perhaps its above your head and you're reluctant to admit that?
You constantly compalin about ad hominems as you dish out insults in virtually every post you make, to everyone. Are you actually a teenager posing as an adult? And your comment above doesn't even make sense. First you have no idea whether I read the paper or not, then you claim I did not so you could then fire an insult about my intelligence that could only be determined if I had read the paper and didn't understand it.

But for the record, I didn't read the paper and would never waste time reading anything from a creationist journal that promotes a young earth, and the reality of Noah's flood. Both are positively disproven and anything they publish supporting those subjects is demonstrably wrong and of no interest to me. The fact that you think this stuff is science speaks for itself, and demonstrates that you don't really understand what peer-reviewed science is or how the process works.

It is all a scheme by the evil evolutionists ... make sure to check under your bed and in the closets before you turn the lights out at bedtime as you never know where these people could be hiding!
There we have it, despite the authors being scientists with doctorates in relevant fields you dismiss their paper without even reading it, the reason being your prejudice against creationism.

Is that a true seeker after truth? is that scientific? No, you have not scientifically challenged a single thing they say yet insist the paper can be safely disregarded, that it is "not science"!

No objective argument from you like "They say 'Such mutations usually involve loss of certain sigma factors' but that's not strictly true" for example, nothing, just blanket dismissal.

Time for your first Bible lesson:
Proverbs 18:13 wrote:He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #36

Post by Jose Fly »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 6:31 pm Are you actually a teenager posing as an adult?
That's interesting because I actually wondered the same thing yesterday. We're talking about someone who has less than a high school level understanding of biology, and apparently thinks that reading a creationist book and watching a couple of YT videos makes him not only an expert in evolutionary biology, but one of such expertise and authority that he can unilaterally declare things to be so (e.g. "evolution has been falsified") and expect everyone else to merely nod and say "It is so".

From a psychological standpoint it's fascinating to watch.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #37

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:49 pm
DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 6:31 pm Are you actually a teenager posing as an adult?
That's interesting because I actually wondered the same thing yesterday. We're talking about someone who has less than a high school level understanding of biology, and apparently thinks that reading a creationist book and watching a couple of YT videos makes him not only an expert in evolutionary biology, but one of such expertise and authority that he can unilaterally declare things to be so (e.g. "evolution has been falsified") and expect everyone else to merely nod and say "It is so".

From a psychological standpoint it's fascinating to watch.
I'm 62.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #38

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:53 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:49 pm
DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 6:31 pm Are you actually a teenager posing as an adult?
That's interesting because I actually wondered the same thing yesterday. We're talking about someone who has less than a high school level understanding of biology, and apparently thinks that reading a creationist book and watching a couple of YT videos makes him not only an expert in evolutionary biology, but one of such expertise and authority that he can unilaterally declare things to be so (e.g. "evolution has been falsified") and expect everyone else to merely nod and say "It is so".

From a psychological standpoint it's fascinating to watch.
I'm 62.
And still spouting ignorance as knowledge.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #39

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:05 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:53 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:49 pm
DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 6:31 pm Are you actually a teenager posing as an adult?
That's interesting because I actually wondered the same thing yesterday. We're talking about someone who has less than a high school level understanding of biology, and apparently thinks that reading a creationist book and watching a couple of YT videos makes him not only an expert in evolutionary biology, but one of such expertise and authority that he can unilaterally declare things to be so (e.g. "evolution has been falsified") and expect everyone else to merely nod and say "It is so".

From a psychological standpoint it's fascinating to watch.
I'm 62.
And still spouting ignorance as knowledge.
I know, when will you ever stop.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #40

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:35 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:05 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:53 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 12:49 pm
DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 6:31 pm Are you actually a teenager posing as an adult?
That's interesting because I actually wondered the same thing yesterday. We're talking about someone who has less than a high school level understanding of biology, and apparently thinks that reading a creationist book and watching a couple of YT videos makes him not only an expert in evolutionary biology, but one of such expertise and authority that he can unilaterally declare things to be so (e.g. "evolution has been falsified") and expect everyone else to merely nod and say "It is so".

From a psychological standpoint it's fascinating to watch.
I'm 62.
And still spouting ignorance as knowledge.
I know, when will you ever stop.
When Christians quit trying to impose their goofy beliefs on everyone.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply