Directed Evolution

[2PhiloVoid]

So... here we are. One big happy CF community, all talking back and forth.

Which is nice and all, but when do we start talking about the OP topic?

 

[The Barbarian]

What do you know that this actual creationist scientist doesn't?

You have to respect Dr. Wood; he knows the evidence indicates evolution, but he points out that no amount of evidence absolutely proves evolution, not even directly observed examples.

He openly admits he prefers his understanding of scripture to the evidence. An honest creationist.

 

[Astrid]

So... here we are. One big happy CF community, all talking back and forth.

Which is nice and all, but when do we start talking about the OP topic?

So start

 

[The Barbarian]

when do we start talking about the OP topic?

I just gave you a number of important things to consider. No engagement with any of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm... houses, computers clothing, shoes, prosthetics, dogs, maize, churches, bread,...

You sure about that?

Yes. I only eat gravel and tree bark. For the internet I communicate with an associate via smoke signals.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So start

... it's already been established that I'm the one in the position of 'learner' here rather than being in the intelligensia. So, you guys start since you're all "in the know."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just gave you a number of important things to consider. No engagement with any of it.

Sure, you gave me "antibiotic protocols." And?

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, you gave me "antibiotic protocols." And?

And a reference showing that evolution is not directed, and a mention of environment changing populations was well as populations changing environments, and so on. If this is too difficult for you, there really isn't much I can do to simplify it further.

 

[The Barbarian]

How does the research on finches in the Galapagos show that evolution is not directed?

The robustness of finch beaks during periods of dry and wet conditions varies with the availability of food in a predictable way. But random changes in climate determine the direction of evolution.

The findings of Luria and Delbruck show that useful mutations do not appear in response to need. Indeed, ancient bacteria recovered from glaciers sometimes show mutations that would be useful as resistance to antibiotics, although such mutations have always been rare or nonexistent in bacteria until widespread use of antibiotics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And a reference showing that evolution is not directed, and a mention of environment changing populations was well as populations changing environments, and so on. If this is too difficult for you, there really isn't much I can do to simplify it further.

Which post were those other things in?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps you should look up "antibiotic protocols." Seems like a practical idea to me.

Alright, so you want me to look up something like the following:

Antibiotic treatment protocols revisited: the challenges of a conclusive assessment by mathematical modelling | Journal of The Royal Society Interface​

... and then add this for additional consideration with what's in the OP link for "Directed Evolution"? Am I on the right track?

 

[Astrid]

... it's already been established that I'm the one in the position of 'learner' here rather than being in the intelligensia. So, you guys start since you're all "in the know."

No here here then

 

[The Barbarian]

... it's already been established that I'm the one in the position of 'learner' here rather than being in the intelligensia.

I put up my PhD from By Byou U. so you'd know. Apparently, that's what the "intelligensia" do.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alright, so you want me to look up something like the following:

Something like

Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010 Sep; 74(3): 417–433.
Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Interestingly, the identification of a bacterial penicillinase before the use of the antibiotic can now be appreciated in the light of recent findings that a large number of antibiotic r genes are components of natural microbial populations

So what? Two salient facts:
1. Evolution is not planned, and mutations don't arise in response to need.
2. Evolution makes nothing de novo, but always modifies something already there.

There's more, but those are critical things to know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which post were those other things in?

Directed Evolution

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Something like

Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010 Sep; 74(3): 417–433.
Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Interestingly, the identification of a bacterial penicillinase before the use of the antibiotic can now be appreciated in the light of recent findings that a large number of antibiotic r genes are components of natural microbial populations

So what? Two salient facts:
1. Evolution is not planned, and mutations don't arise in response to need.
2. Evolution makes nothing de novo, but always modifies something already there.

There's more, but those are critical things to know.

Ok. That's interesting but I'm familiar with the general idea of antibiotic resistance. Also, I'm a proponent of Neo-Darwinism, so I'm not sure which way you thought my thinking went on this, but... just so you know.

Besides that, we all also already know that "Darwin’s theory doesn’t presuppose any special direction in evolution." Still, I find it odd that since there isn't any special direction in evolution involving natural selection, we see the OP article saying that scientists try to mimic natural selection so as to do experiments and lab developments that...make changes in a selected direction (i.e. A preferred direction? A more complex, advanced direction?).

Something just sounds a bit like waffling here in the semantics.

Thanks for the additional article.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I put up my PhD from By Byou U. so you'd know. Apparently, that's what the "intelligensia" do.

ok. That's sound good to me.

 

[Bradskii]

Still, I find it odd that since there isn't any special direction in evolution involving natural selection, we see the OP article saying that scientists try to mimic natural selection so as to do experiments and lab developments that...make changes in a selected direction.

I don't understand what you don't understand. If you want a cow that produces more milk or a hotter chille or a more disease resistant crop then you selectively breed.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't understand what you don't understand. If you want a cow that produces more milk or a hotter chille or a more disease resistant crop then you selectively breed.

And if a population is to survive when the environment changes, it has to evolve to fit. Random mutations provide the raw material for evolution; the useful ones are preserved by natural selection, which favors the survival of those who are more fit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't understand what you don't understand. If you want a cow that produces more milk or a hotter chille or a more disease resistant crop then you selectively breed.

Yes, but evolution is a process where species adapt naturally over time, right?

I guess my philosophically inclined mental block in this is that I keep thinking--however wrongly, I suppose--that any adaptation worthy of the term 'evolution' is that which takes place, and which proves itself naturally within nature, over a very, very long time rather than within a comparatively miniscule time in a local lab.

However, in saying this, I do realize that this gut intuition of mine is rather the vestiges of an infantile expectation by which I hold a kind of privatized definition of evolution through selection. So, I have a difficult time reconciling what I think are ambiguities in the concepts being compared in this thread--and directed evolution doesn't sound to me like it's really qualified as a form of 'evolution' since it's artificial and temporally done at the micro-scale.