KellyJay and his dinosaurs

Originally posted by KellyJay
"[b]1, Did evolution design drug-resistant metabolism in what is now drag-resistant bacteria?

2, Did evolution design DDT-resistant metabolism in what is now DDT-resistant mosquitoes? "

[/b]Here was my answer to your question on page 13 to these two,
for me it is self evident I was responding to your questions, I guess
my direct answer wasn't this at least lays to rest your attacks on me avoiding your
questions.
Kelly[/b]

Ok, you again say that evolution designs nothing. So what did ‘design’ this new metabolism? -you say it wasn’t ‘designed’ because you are basically saying that the DDT mutation was there in some of the individuals within the population all along BEFORE the DDT was applied to them? I have already ask this question using different words but you didn’t answer so I didn’t know what you were saying so I considered your responses as non-answers. Reminder: bottom post on page 13:

…
am unsure if I understand what you are saying here -are you implying that some mosquitoes were ALWAYS resistant to DDT or what?

if you ARE implying that some mosquitoes were ALWAYS resistant to DDT then explain the premise for your belief that a new mutation that happens to give DDT resistance could have NOT come AFTER the mosquitoes populations were repeatedly exposed to DDT.

And explain the premise for your belief that a new mutation that just happens to give DDT resistance MUST have existed in the mosquitoes populations JUST BEFORE the mosquitoes populations were repeatedly exposed to DDT.

But if you are NOT suggesting the above, then what are you saying here?
..…

I have tediously read through all your recent posts again and I now think you ARE saying the mutation for DDT resistance was there in some of the individuals within the population all along BEFORE the DDT was applied to them (you could have spared me just by answering the above question) -I will now assume this but you will have to correct me if I am wrong:

Implicitly according to a documentary I watched many years back, history points to NEW mutations occurring some time AFTER DDT was applied against them (first one mutation in Africa and then another DIFFERENT mutation that gave resistance in Asia shortly afterward) else it apparently took an unexpected longer time (not much longer though -mosquitoes mutate and breed extremely fast! -how much time you should expect can be mathematically calculated from their known mutation rates and speed of reproduction and population size etc) for resistance appeared begging the question if they were already resistant mosquitoes there then why didn’t they become evident sooner?

Ok, perhaps you would just dismiss the possibility that the mutation could have occurred AFTER the DDT was applied to them?
But if so then how would you know this?
And do you deny that NEW mutations are occurring all the time thus there is no special reason why the mutations for resistance couldn’t have occurred AFTER they where exposed to DDT?

The point of my line of questioning here is that if the mutations occurred AFTER they where exposed to DDT then that would be an example of evolution not just acting as a ‘filter’ but selecting a NEW mutation that wasn’t there before the change in the environment (by man spraying DDT in this example). In other words, it isn’t just a ‘filter’ because I presume what you mean by just a ‘filter’ is selection of only the old mutations that occurred BEFORE the change in the environment (by man spraying DDT in this case) made natural selection select a particular mutation.

what is the premise for your implied claim that the mutations MUST have become BEFORE DDT was applied to them?

Even if it is PROVEN that the mutation came BEFORE DDT was applied to them, there are other examples of living things undergoing changes by evolution and I would ask: why is it inconceivable that first a NEW mutation could occur in a species of living thing and THEN natural selection selects for it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Correct, natural selection does not design anything.
You can if you want to produce your evidence to prove it otherwise
I have given you my argument. Explain how natural selection actually
does design anything, it filters out bad or weak mutations, but that
isn't design that is a filter.
Kelly"

Would you agree with the statement:
The result of natural selection acting as a filter is that certain genes such as resistance to DDT become much more prevalent in a population.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you agree with the statement:
The result of natural selection acting as a filter is that certain genes such as resistance to DDT become much more prevalent in a population.

I even spelled out how and why that is true too, so yes.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Ok, you again say that evolution designs nothing. So what did ‘design’ this new metabolism? -you say it wasn’t ‘designed’ because you are basically saying that the DDT mutation was there in some of the individuals within the population all along BEFORE the DDT was applied to them? I have already ask this question using different words but you didn’t ...[text shortened]... NEW mutation could occur in a species of living thing and THEN natural selection selects for it?

YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ME ANYTHING NEW!

You are telling me something new happened, I have been
begging you to PROVE THAT! As I pointed out to you
over and over, the resistance could have already been there
and simply gotten passed down to all the offspring from
that time forward. Which in my opinion makes much more
sense than what you’re proposing, since ‘evolution’ would
have had to accidently find the proper response and work
it into the species without a plan, purpose, or design VERY
QUICKLY!
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Ok, you again say that evolution designs nothing. So what did ‘design’ this new metabolism? -you say it wasn’t ‘designed’ because you are basically saying that the DDT mutation was there in some of the individuals within the population all along BEFORE the DDT was applied to them? I have already ask this question using different words but you didn’t ...[text shortened]... NEW mutation could occur in a species of living thing and THEN natural selection selects for it?

What I'd like from you before this goes beyond where we are is for
you to acknowledge I was not skipping over your questions, you
said some nasty things.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I even spelled out how and why that is true too, so yes.
Kelly

Do you believe that all genes were created by God 'in the beginning' or do some genes at least arise 'by accident'?
Do you believe mutations ever take place?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Which in my opinion makes much more
sense than what you’re proposing, since ‘evolution’ would
have had to accidently find the proper response and work
it into the species without a plan, purpose, or design VERY
QUICKLY!
Kelly

But you are basing your belief on a total lack of information on your part.
Lets look at the known facts:
1. At least two different genes can provide protection against DDT.
2. The number of possible genes that can provide such protection is completely unknown.
3. You do not know what frequency genes change or new genes arise.
4. You do not know how many possible genes there are.
5. You do not know how many individuals were involved world wide.
6. You do not in fact know whether or not it is unlikely or highly likely that a suitable gene would arise VERY QUICKLY.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are basing your belief on a total lack of information on your part.
Lets look at the known facts:
1. At least two different genes can provide protection against DDT.
2. The number of possible genes that can provide such protection is completely unknown.
3. You do not know what frequency genes change or new genes arise.
4. You do not know how ...[text shortened]... ow whether or not it is unlikely or highly likely that a suitable gene would arise VERY QUICKLY.

Or even what the reproductive turn-over in mosquitos is. How frequently you get a new generation affects the rate of mutation somewhat.

Edit: I just checked on Wikipedia, the mosquito life span is about a month, with each female laying of the order of 300 eggs, the egg/larva/pupa stage lasts a fortnight, So a new generation appears every 2 weeks, which gives us at least 25 generations per year. DDT was invented in 1874 and it´s insecticidal properties were noticed in 1939, so you have of the order of 50 years for the mutation to occur, and that is 1,250 generations. This gives a fair bit of scope for accidental mutation to occur even if it is quite unlikely.

Originally posted by KellyJay
YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ME ANYTHING NEW!

You are telling me something new happened, I have been
begging you to PROVE THAT! As I pointed out to you
over and over, the resistance could have already been there
and simply gotten passed down to all the offspring from
that time forward. Which in my opinion makes much more
sense than what you’re proposing, sinc ...[text shortened]... response and work
it into the species without a plan, purpose, or design VERY
QUICKLY!
Kelly

….You are telling me something new happened, I have been
begging you to PROVE THAT!
..…

I already explained the evidence for the mutations coming after the application of DDT in the last post.
I just knew you wouldn’t accept such evidence because it conflicts with your particular religious dogma.

Will you answer my questions in my last post?
Reminder:

…
Ok, perhaps you would just dismiss the possibility that the mutation could have occurred AFTER the DDT was applied to them?
But if so then how would you know this?
And do you deny that NEW mutations are occurring all the time thus there is no special reason why the mutations for resistance couldn’t have occurred AFTER they where exposed to DDT?
…
…
what is the premise for your implied claim that the mutations MUST have become BEFORE DDT was applied to them?

Even if it is PROVEN that the mutation came BEFORE DDT was applied to them, there are other examples of living things undergoing changes by evolution and I would ask: why is it inconceivable that first a NEW mutation could occur in a species of living thing and THEN natural selection selects for it?
..…

What I am now wondering is:

Would you deny that NEW mutations are constantly occurring?

….Which in my opinion makes much more
sense than what you’re proposing, since ‘evolution’ would
have had to accidentally find THE proper response and work
it into the species without a plan, purpose, or design VERY
QUICKLY!
Kelly
..… (my emphasis)

What is the logical problem with there being new mutations at such a high rate and in such numbers that it would be virtually inevitable that at least one mutation will happen to appear for DDT resistance “VERY QUICKLY”?
-it is just a matter of doing the mathematics using known mutation rates and known population size etc and calculating that perhaps millions of new mutations would occur each generation making it perfectly plausible that one that gives DDT resistance would probably occur within just a few generations.

And what do you mean by “THE proper response”? -I mean, there is no mutation that is the one “proper response” so there is no “THE proper response” but rather [presumably] many with each mutation having its own advantages and disadvantages but most being imperfect. This is born out by the fact that not one but TWO SEPARATE mutation occurred for DDT resistance and it is thought that both these PARTICULAR mutations have two separate small but different biological costs associated with them which is why it is believed natural selection would normally slowly weeds them out in the absence of DDT.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Or even what the reproductive turn-over in mosquitos is. How frequently you get a new generation affects the rate of mutation somewhat.

Edit: I just checked on Wikipedia, the mosquito life span is about a month, with each female laying of the order of 300 eggs, the egg/larva/pupa stage lasts a fortnight, So a new generation appears every 2 weeks, wh ...[text shortened]... . This gives a fair bit of scope for accidental mutation to occur even if it is quite unlikely.

….How frequently you get a new generation affects the rate of mutation somewhat.
..…

-and also the population size -double the population and, with all else being equal, you double the number of offspring in the next generation so if each individual offspring has X% chance of having a new mutation then the maths says there will be about double the number of offspring with a new mutation.

-and also the exposure to a non-lethal dose of a mutagen such as DDT will also increase the mutation rate. Those that get a lethal dose will die before having a chance to create potentially mutated offspring but, especially on the borderline around the spray area, some will get a non-lethal dose by accident.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Or even what the reproductive turn-over in mosquitos is. How frequently you get a new generation affects the rate of mutation somewhat.

The really important figure is my no 5. ie total number of individuals which is total population at any given time times number of generations. The number of generations is very much the smaller term but not unimportant.

.... and that is 1,250 generations.
I imagine that the world population of mosquitoes is many orders of magnitude higher than the number of generations. Definitely in the trillions, probably much higher.

There are over 3000 species of mosquito.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Also in response to Andrew Hamilton above
The really important figure is my no 5. ie total number of individuals which is total population at any given time times number of generations. The number of generations is very much the smaller term but not unimportant.

[b].... and that is 1,250 generations.
I imagine that the world population of ...[text shortened]... . Definitely in the trillions, probably much higher.

There are over 3000 species of mosquito.[/b]

Yes, but there wasn´t an estimate of the total mosquito population on the Wiki page. Let´s get to the interesting part. Has the mutation been sequenced, what is the chemical change (in the gene) and is there an estimate - or even formal calculation - of what the rate of reaction is for the mutation? This would allow us to present a probability that what has been observed could happen through natural causes alone.

btw. - I´m abusing the term rate of reaction which applies to chemistry where you have one chemical turning into another, it´s a convenient way of asking what the rate of point mutations in a genome is. To forestall criticism (from creationists more than you) I am aware that a cell is a managed system - the nucleus of eukaryotic cells comes equipped with a tool-kit for repairing genetic damage so notions like rates of reaction are confounded somewhat.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you believe that all genes were created by God 'in the beginning' or do some genes at least arise 'by accident'?
Do you believe mutations ever take place?

Yes I believe mutations take place; in addition, I believe changes
occur in life due to them as well.

Not sure about all genes being created in the beginning, but I believe
God created all life at once and from the ones he started with all other
life came from them.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are basing your belief on a total lack of information on your part.
Lets look at the known facts:
1. At least two different genes can provide protection against DDT.
2. The number of possible genes that can provide such protection is completely unknown.
3. You do not know what frequency genes change or new genes arise.
4. You do not know how ...[text shortened]... ow whether or not it is unlikely or highly likely that a suitable gene would arise VERY QUICKLY.

No, not a total lack of information as I have pointed out my
experience with processes has more to do with my views on
evolution than my scriptural beliefs about God and creation. I
have asked to see the before and after to see the affects to
know if in fact we can credit anything at all with a change!
None so far has been given, will someone step up and say yes
here is the data I don't know. I'm assuming something has to
be out there to make so many people believe what he said
was true, but I'm not going to accept his word alone when I
gave him a hypothesis that matches reality better than the one he
presented in my opinion since he didn’t even defend his two
examples he just claimed the were self-evident; moreover, what
he suggested doesn’t even match evolution as he has been
arguing for it either, the changes came to quickly for random
mutations to over come an immediate threat to the species.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
Or even what the reproductive turn-over in mosquitos is. How frequently you get a new generation affects the rate of mutation somewhat.

Edit: I just checked on Wikipedia, the mosquito life span is about a month, with each female laying of the order of 300 eggs, the egg/larva/pupa stage lasts a fortnight, So a new generation appears every 2 weeks, wh ...[text shortened]... . This gives a fair bit of scope for accidental mutation to occur even if it is quite unlikely.

You are going to tell me that it only takes 1,250 generational chances
at getting several random mutations to over come an immediate
threat to a species, that is to over come a very specific poison? Then
once the random mutations over come this threat, it spread through
out the species to over come the poison in mass, and you think this is
more probable than some part of the species were already immune
and every generation after the attacks started, that their off spring
simply out numbered those that didn’t have it in them so they were
being killed, till most of what was left were those with an immunity?

You honestly believe that some how life will just mutate in such a
way that a specific poison can be over come? Exactly how long
before cancer is over come and things like that? Make a prediction,
when should we send the doctors homes who are working on cures
since it appears they will all end by themselves given enough time.
Kelly