Dr. Michael Egnor, Artificial Selection, and My Dog.

Where do you get this stuff, Keith? How about references?

Here's what I've found on Chain:

"Religion: Jewish"

He raised his children securely within the Jewish faith, arranging much extra-curricular tuition for them. His views were expressed most clearly in his speech "Why I am a Jew" given at the World Jewish Congress Conference of Intellectuals in 1965

Gah, what is it with pseudo-science cranks that they cannot fathom the notion of posting references?

I've been dealing with a cold fusion crank on my blog. Very frustrating.

My comment got send to Mike for moderation, probably because of too many links. Fine. Removing one.

Where do you get this stuff, Keith? How about references?

Here's what I've found on Chain:

"Religion: Jewish"

He raised his children securely within the Jewish faith, arranging much extra-curricular tuition for them. His views were expressed most clearly in his speech "Why I am a Jew" given at the World Jewish Congress Conference of Intellectuals in 1965

Gah, what is it with pseudo-science cranks that they cannot fathom the notion of posting references?

I've been dealing with a cold fusion crank on my blog. Very frustrating.

I don't understand how the IDiots can confuse "artificial selection" with "intelligent design". The only difference between artificial and natural selection is that in A.S., the selection criteria is designed -- this doesn't imply that how the species under test adapts to the selection criteria is designed. Such an obvious logical fallacy.

That is, the criteria for selection change, but the response mechanism (evolution) is exactly the same. How the species chooses (I use the word loosely!) to solve the change in environment is not up to the experimenter.

Of course, none of this will stop the DI from insisting that evolution leads to eugenics. Apparently, artificial selection is ID unless it's the Nazis doing it.

To follow up on my original comment, I guess the point I was trying to make is this. As long as the selection criteria (whether it be antibiotic resistance or "good at herding cattle") is based on phenotype, and not genotype, adaptation is clearly the same mechanism regardless of who/what is doing the selection.

Even if a decision were based on genotype, I'm not sure this doesn't stand. Clearly the IDiots don't think that their God simply modified the environment to "mold" evolution along a certain path (which would be similar to artificial selection) -- this is the view of theistic evolutionists such as Ken Miller. Unless God (or man) is directly manipulating DNA to achieve a desired result, it's not design, merely cumulative selection.

Doesn't the term "breeding" imply sexual reproduction? Granted, you can engineer/find bacteria that will swap genes in the test tube, but I'm not sure that's the same as selection for mutants of interest.

Egnor's obsession with intelligent intervention doesn't even help the IDist's traditional argument about irreducible complexity. You can intelligently manipulate the environment in the culture dish all you like, but (according to Behe) that bacterium is still never going to evolve a flagellum.

Good point made here -- euphemism problem:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/drug-resistance-explained/

----excerpt follows------

... I suspect that part of the confusion in the mind of the public lies in the use of euphemisms like develop and change through time, rather than what we really mean, which is evolve.

Bacteria dont develop resistance, as if it were a muscle nurtured by going to a microbial gym. Instead, they had it all along, or more accurately a small proportion of them did. The process of natural selection ... does the rest.

... Antibiotics are highly selective unlike soap and water, which get rid of bacteria indiscriminately, through mechanical means.
------end excerpt-------

There's something about M.D.'s that gives me an unsettling feeling. Don't get me wrong, there are good docs out there, I have one.

But I was recently traveling and met some of the SO's family and friends. One of the friends was an M.D. and a Jesus freak.

I cannot understand how a profession so steeped in science could lead to that kind of behavior.

I suspect he may have gotten his poor definition from a crabbed reading of Darwin's Origin of Species, where Darwin directly contrasts natural selection with artificial selection and selective breeding over and over again.

As Dunford says, this black-and-white definition ignores all of the subtle, nuanced experiments performed in the last 150 years that are not simply selective breeding procedures.

But I think a more important point is, Darwin contrasted natural vs. artificial selection specifically to drive the point home to his readers that the environment and unintelligent species create selective pressure in the same way that humans do. Saying you don't need Darwinian evolution to understand modern changes in bacteria utterly ignores the fact that bacteria exist in different environments, with other competing bacteria, and in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hosts. Bacteria do not evolve *solely* in response to vaccines. Unless Egnor has some other explanation about why bacteria evolve in unvaccinated hosts, for instance, he's going to need natural selection.

Just curious, but since when are humans considered either 'unnatural', 'anatural, 'supernatural', or even 'artificial'? In other words, to further Braxton Thomason's point, on what basis is human selection anything but "natural selection". We are "natural" are we not? Just because we have a given trait goal from our selection as opposed to other environmental changes that place non-preferential pressures on organisms makes no difference to the *process that produces a change*. I can't fathom how anyone can take Egnor's (Ignore's?) argument seriously. Unless Egnor seriously believes that human *intelligence* in breeding programs actually *creates* traits that do not exist. That would seem to me to contradict the whole concept of breeding *for* a given trait, but what do I know?

Humans do not hand-select the bacteria that will be allowed to reproduce in each generation.

IIRC, sometimes we do, but when we do, we call the random variation + selection process "directed evolution."

See - when humans place bacteria in an antibiotic environment, it's artificial selection. When bacteria happen to land on an antibiotic medium and start growing, then it's natural selection. Anything that happens to the first bacterial colony is *completely* different than what happens to the second one. They're so different they can't even be compared. Makes perfect sense!

Now, you ask, what if a human being happens to walk through the room and the movement of the air causes bacteria to land on antibiotic medium? Why, that's artificial selection! On the other hand, if the breeze comes in off the ocean and causes some bacteria to land in an antibiotic environment, that's natural selection -- unless, of course, that air current is caused by human-caused global warming. If that happens, then it's artificial selection. Why don't you darwinists get it?

I have come to a related set of conclusions about Egnor. First, he is abysmally ignorant about Darwinian evolution. That's a simple fact based on a boatload of evidence.

Second, he genuinely believes that his intuitions founded on that ignorance are reliable glosses of evolutionary theory. I infer that from the apparent sincerity in his writing: He really does think he knows something he clearly does not know.

Third, he believes that when he refutes his intuitions (his putative refutations being founded on still more ignorance) he has somehow generated a refutation of real Darwinian evolutionary theory. Again, apparent in his writings.

Fourth, there ain't no damned atheistic evilutionist on earth that can tell him otherwise: He is, after all, a neurosurgeon. This is inferred by the fact that AFAIK, he has never ever admitted to one misrepresentation or mistake. In that, of course, he is right at home with the Disco Dancers of Seattle.

This reminds me of a joke;
What's the difference between god and a doctor?
God doesn't think he's a doctor.

In essence, Egnor's claim that raising bacteria in a lab is necessarily artificial selection appears to rest on the claim that picking something up and putting it down in a new location is an act that absolutely requires intelligence. That assumption is extremely dubious.

I think you're wrong about why Egnor is wrong. It doesn't seem at all "dubious" that (deliberately) picking something up and (consciously) putting it down in a (specific) new location requires intelligence. Egnor's error is that he ignores the fact that everything that occurs after this "artificial" act is natural selection.
I don't expect that Egnor et al. would be content to view the "designer's" job as manipulating the environment so that RM+NS can do its merry nonteleological work.

Why do we continue to inflate this man by referring to him "Dr." Egnor?He deserves the dintinction no more than Dr. PZ Myers, or any of the rest of us with the credential. Or are we going to start referring to "Lawyer" Phillip Johnson?

Simple albeit drastic experiment to show the validity of natural selection with respect to dogs.

Remove all human beings from Earth (as in the though experiment seen in History Channel's Life After People), but set all domestic dogs free into a "dog-eat-dog" world.

Wait a few hundred years and see what evolution by natural selection has wrought. No intelligent agents will be involved, but I can guarantee that one of more types of dog body forms will predominate, depending on the given environment.

With respect to the genetic variation that either natural or artificial selection can act upon, I highly recommend the article "Molecular origins of rapid and continuous morphological evolution" by Fondon and Garner in PNAS (101: 18058-18063) in 2004.

I cannot understand how a profession so steeped in science could lead to that kind of behavior.

actually, based on several conversations I've noted here and on other blogs, the scientific method itself has apparently little impact on someone getting a medical degree in many cases.

much rote memorization of needed information limits the ability to teach good science practice and method itself.

have your doc review a journal article in biology sometime, and see how well he does.

personally, i think the apparent lack of good training in methods directly relates to the poor diagnostic skills so prevalent in a lot of GP's these days.

bottom line:

there are a lot of creationist MD's in the states.

... it also suggest that JUST exposing one to multiple classes in biological and anatomical information doesn't "lead to atheism" as has been suggested so often by the creobots themselves.

jeh, "No intelligent agents will be involved, but I can guarantee that one of more types of dog body forms will predominate, depending on the given environment."

But, look at the dogs! They are as much intelligent agents as any other that exist now. (A fundamental mistake from ID advocates, in my opinion, is that they forget just how much intelligence exists outside of humans.)

What about the fact that antibiotic resistance is an "event" which is observed in vitro as well as in vivo? Wait...nevermind. I forgot the good doctoring skills of Egnor doesn't extend beyond linear thinking.

[Dogs] are as much intelligent agents as any other that exist now.

That they are! Way too intelligent sometimes.

Mike,

"The scientist selects the strain of bacteria to start with, and the environment that the bacteria will be placed in. Nature is then allowed to run its course."

"The scientist selects the strain" is an artificial act totally removed from a random selection of bacteria among all possible populations that might be susceptable to some microevolutionary event."

Since it is well known that most so called resistance events involving bacteria and anti-biotics have more to do with pre-resistant bacteria already extant being selected for and others falling prey to the meds; a random selection of bacteria populations and strains in a repeatred trail would be much more convincing. I believe its referred to as "blind" methodology.

Likewise the lab is no natural environment and selective pressures are of course closely correlated to the environment so that once again the setup is artificial in important aspects. A lab insulates against any number of pressures and parameters that in the natural world would have significant effects on the outcome.

I recommend you don't combat Eignor or do it under an assumed name to avoid further embarrassment to yourself.

If a human choosing a mate for a dog is artificial selection, is choosing a mate for yourself natural or artificial selection?

Wow, a post from Keith that didn't use the words "pig", "evobutt", "evolander", "Darwinist", "Nazi", "brown shirt", or "sewer". Somebody must've gotten him back on his meds.

Since it is well known that most so called resistance events involving bacteria and anti-biotics have more to do with pre-resistant bacteria already extant being selected for and others falling prey to the meds; a random selection of bacteria populations and strains in a repeatred trail would be much more convincing. I believe its referred to as "blind" methodology.

The context of the discussion is *natural selection*. It doesn't matter whether some bacteria are already resistant to antibiotics because the point is that the environment culls the non-resistant bacteria to shift the gene pool towards the antibiotic-resistant strains. Maybe you misunderstood the discussion, because it seems like you are confusing natural selection with new beneficial mutations.

Likewise the lab is no natural environment and selective pressures are of course closely correlated to the environment so that once again the setup is artificial in important aspects. A lab insulates against any number of pressures and parameters that in the natural world would have significant effects on the outcome.

Pure misdirection. The fact of the matter is that it's relevant, just like if I drop a ball in a laboratory and it falls at 9.8 m/s^2, the experimental data isn't invalidated by the fact that it's done in a lab. You do know that medicines are created in a laboratory, don't you? Are you going to argue that medicines created in laboratories are inherently suspect because they were tested in laboratories?

I recommend you don't combat Eignor or do it under an assumed name to avoid further embarrassment to yourself.

Uh, because Egnor's stupidity is going to rub off on Mike? That's a good point.

"is choosing a mate for yourself natural or artificial selection?"

An interesting question. As I understand theistic evolution, ALL reproduction, sexual or not, is "artificial" in that it is carefully guided by supernatural direction, for supernatural purposes. Which means you didn't *really* select a mate for yourself; it's just that the selection made for you occurred outside your frame of reference!

MartinM writes: "Apparently, artificial selection is ID unless it's the Nazis doing it."

You know, Ben Stein and IDers certainly support the idea of microevolution - i.e. evolution within species - as uncontroversial. So the development of dog and cattle breeds from wild populations provides no problems for them to accept.

But here's the twist: The Nazis weren't trying to make a new species of human or kill off other species of the Genus Homo. Their focus was *microevolution*: Variation *within* the human species.

So the question for the "Expelled" folks like Stein is: "What unique aspects of 'Darwinism' applies to the Nazi eugenicists that are distinct from "microevolutionary" concepts like animal breeding that Stein et al support?"

There is no such thing as "artificial selection".

Ross is not a robot. He is an animal. He is not artificial.

His characteristics reflect strong natural selection of his ancestors in recent history.

His ancestors experienced this natural selection because they have a close symbiotic relationship with another species of animals, Homo sapiens. This is absolutely true, whether or not humans (or dogs) have souls, and whether or not Jesus or Mohamed or somebody else is the true prophet of God.

Whatever spiritual traits Homo sapiens may have, they used their purely natural traits, including that aspect of their brain function that may be referred to, perhaps excessively optimistically, as "intelligence", to manipulate the breeding of Ross's ancestors (and of Ross himself, no doubt).

What happened? Some phenotypic traits were selected for, so the alleles that underly those traits, as well as a whole bunch of other alleles that weren't wanted but that travel with them, were increased in frequency in the Border Collie population. Exactly the same way that Ross's brothers in the wild, the Grey Wolves, came to have their characteristics, except that humans played a much smaller role (although not necessarily no role at all) in basically the same process. The mechanisms are identical.

Why do we continue to inflate this man by referring to him "Dr." Egnor?

We call him "Doctor" for a number of excellent reasons.

First of all he earned a doctoral degree, and that's that. It can't be retracted for subsequent imperfections.

Second of all, by all accounts, he has a rare skill, pediatric neurosurgery, a skill that decreases human suffering in a dramatic way, but that requires a combination of high intelligence, manual dexterity, extreme work ethic, and ability to function well in very stressful situations.

Dr. Egnor is making a damn jackass of himself on the subject of biological evolution, and that's a subject a physician damn well ought have a decent comprehension of. I say that as a physician and I can assure you that every physician I ever knew well would agree. Obviously he's being influenced by right wing politics and religious fanaticism, admixed with his own pompous arrogance.

He is also a medical doctor, though. Creationists make false arguments and use non-sequitors. We should not do the same thing.

Keith Eaton apparently doesn't realize that you'll get the same sort of mutations in the wild...

He also doesn't realize that antibiotic resistance can also be acquired by spontaneous mutations and that many of these mutations have been repeatedly isolated from separate cultures started with sensitive strains. Some of these experiments are so simple that they are used as demonstration in undergrad labs. Further, the concept of 'blind' studies is another thing that eludes Keith's grasp.

Message to Dr. Egnor From a Fellow Physician -

I realize how hard it is to give up on a preconceived notion. Just the other night I lost some money by not folding pocket aces, when it was logically obvious that my preconceived notion that they would win the pot had been falsified. (Of course, alcohol was involved, otherwise I would have played the hand perfectly, but it's just an example...)

You have actually chosen a good evolutionary web site to tangle with. This is by far the best natured science site I know of, and it strikes me that if you were to admit your mistake, Mike Dunford would be one to accept your admission in a graceful and dignified way.

It is patently obvious that bacterial antibiotic resistance is the result of natural selection.

It is patently obvious that experiments which start by selecting resistant bacteria in a lab are grounded in the understanding that environmental bacterial antibiotic resistance, the reason the experiments are being done, is grounded in natural selection.

(I pointed out above that selection due to natural human activity is a type of natural selection anyway.)

It's also obvious that genes for bacterial antibiotic resistance originated through natural genetic variation, i.e. mutation and the various mechanisms by which, after mutation, the genes in question can be transferred around. The only other alternative is that they originated by magic.

Obviously, one should understand these things if one wishes to address the problem of bacterial antibiotic selection.

I cannot conceive how any of this could impact on any serious theological or philosophical question.

Faced with a choice between unbiased integrity and the disapproval of some religious sect or political fellow travelers, versus persisting in seemingly convenient but false arguments, I would urge you to choose unbiased integrity. (I am referring to integrity with regard to the particular matter of bacterial antibiotic resistance, of course, and not suggesting that your integrity in general has been compromised.)

We all make asses of ourselves from time to time, and I can assure you that I have made an serious ass of myself on occasion.

You have the opportunity to exit from this ass-making situation before it is too late. How I wish I had taken advantage of all such opportunities myself.

I strongly suggest that you just admit that the guy who wrote the paper was right when he pointed out that natural selection important for bacterial antibiotic resistance, and for his research upon that subject. After all, in addition to all the stuff I said above, it is the very guy who wrote the paper who said this himself.

The notion of agency isn't hard to grasp. If you select the fastest car of a group of 50, who's responsible for its speed - you or the engineer? Similarly if you pick the largest dog, who is responsible for it's size - you or nature?

Darwin grasped this. I presume good high school students grasp this. It takes skill to choose definitions which obscure such mechanisms. It takes special obtuseness to be unaware that one is employing this skill.

So the question for the "Expelled" folks like Stein is: "What unique aspects of 'Darwinism' applies to the Nazi eugenicists that are distinct from "microevolutionary" concepts like animal breeding that Stein et al support?"

Well, there is one thing which distinguishes Nazi eugenics from standard evolutionary concepts, assuming one accepts the artificial/natural dichotomy. That would be the belief that evolution alone would not improve mankind, but rather that intelligent agency was required. Damn those Darwinia...hey, wait a minute.

I didn't need to read any further than the title to know I needed to move my coffee far from my computer. Thanks for the heads up! Nice blog.

Tinyfrog,

Natural selection and artificaial selection are terms coined by evolutionists so I suppose a research of that history would be a good start for you to get a grasp of the difference.

Certainly where microevolution via RM and NS are effectively accelerated by intellligent guidence and minipulation one should differentiate. Genetically engineered food, gene replacement therapy, are not natural selection procedures.

This is not to deny that good and valuable science is performed in the lab, that would be preposterous and I wonder why a supposed knowledgeable person like yourself would suggest such nonsense.

Unsymp,

Wow so bacteria in an unconstrained experiement evolve by RM and NS identically in their random mutional pathways to achieve resistance.

My you should alert all the hospitals so that they can understand that if you isolate one staff bacterial strain you have it knocked because they all end up in identical states of resistance by molecular mechanism generated through the old "tried and true mutational path". This can be sent all over the world and then no more staff infection problems...it turns out their all the same or a very small predictable number of strains.

Tell the flu people as well so they can stop worrowing about new multiple strains of resistent types.

Is this called the totally predictable deterministic random process, the foreknown random process, or the blueprint random process?

Keith, before anyone is going to take you seriously, try proofreading your posts. You're almost illiterate.

Examples: "artificaial", "intellligent", "guidence", "minipulation", "mutional", "My" ('maybe', or, perhaps 'My, '?), "staff" (I assume you mean 'staph'?), "worrowing"... Come on.

Everyone makes occassional typos, but your writing is just painful to read. On syntactic, grammatical, semantical, and logical levels.

You have yet to give even a hint of reasoning as to why adaptive mechanisms would be different in a lab versus nature, regardless of who (or what!) is doing the selection. As I stated in my original post, the mechanism for adaptation is identical between "artificial" and "natural" selection; only the selection criteria are different.

Keith Eaton: "Wow so bacteria in an unconstrained experiement evolve by RM and NS identically in their random mutional pathways to achieve resistance."

It is often the case that the same mutations that rise in the wild also arise in the lab. That is because there are sometimes a limited number of one or two-step mutations that produce strong resistance. And one method to gauge the relative ease with which bacteria will become resistant to a new antibiotic is to expose strains in the lab. That is a pretty uncontroversial approach and one taken in the research paper that Egnor keeps trying to explain away.

Keith: "Is this called the totally predictable deterministic random process, the foreknown random process, or the blueprint random process?"

The work Keith Eaton should contemplate is "stochastic". One can't predict all the possible routes to resistance but there are definitely patterns that frequently reappear. Google "streptomycin resistance rpsL"

Keith Eaton -

My you should alert all the hospitals so that they can understand that if you isolate one staff bacterial strain you have it knocked because they all end up in identical states of resistance by molecular mechanism generated through the old "tried and true mutational path". This can be sent all over the world and then no more staff infection problems...it turns out their all the same or a very small predictable number of strains.

I'm guessing that you meant to talk about "Staph" not "staff".

"Staph" is a colloquial term for bacteria of the Staphylococcus genus of bacteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staphylococcus

"Staff" work at the hospital. Bacteria are almost never employed as "staff".

Your paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. It seems to be a bizarre claim that if we understand one example of antibiotic resistance, we are obliged to assume that all other examples are identical. I'd call that a straw man, but to do so would be an insult to all the other straw man arguments out there.

I'm glad you took the endless references to "morons" out of your own posts, but now, I am compelled to call you a moron.

This paragraph alone proves that you have no idea what you are talking about, none whatsoever, and yet keep going on. Unless you are a parody poster, in which case you are doing a good job of ridiculing creationists.

"It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt" - Abraham Lincoln.

I think our pal Keith Eaton is a parody.

His brazen stupidity on so many fronts is surely a parody
of creationists in general.

I think our pal Keith Eaton is a parody.

nope.

he's just another Larry Farfarman.

with exactly the same level of sanity (maybe even a little less).

I agree to edit my posts as a courtesy to the psychological needs of the community addressed, otherwise known as "form over substance" psychosis. Nothing in the posts with typos included was misunderstood or failed to convey the proposition, yet people choose to spend their entire post in a diatribe and uncivil set of remarks.

From time to time it is useful and affirming to reflect on the positions held by the most preeminent scientists of the last decades, particularly when their views are precisely congruent with my own, in direct opposition to those pronounced by the lesser lights posting here and elsewhere in evoland. This satisfaction is amplified considerably when the scientist is a Nobel Prize winner in the precise area under investigation, antibiotics and resistance in bacteria.

Thus the life and times of Dr. Ernst Chain, Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology and postdoc work at Cambridge during WWII and following.

Dr. Chain was co-recipient of the Nobel Prize with Dr. Howard Florey for their elucidation of the molecular structure of penicillin and isolation of the active substance through freeze-drying for mass production facility. He also discovered the existence of penicillinase as the resistance mechanism.

Dr. Chain was a practicing Christian all of his adult life, wrote and lectured extensively on the absurdity of evolution writ large, and was in constant pursuit of the truth of creation and the Creator. His opposition to evolution was founded on his scientific training, research, observation, and understanding of the natural biological world.

Dr. Chain, as a Jewish escapee from Hitler's Germany, would be in complete agreement with the tenets of Expelled, the movie, and particularly the dark shadow darwinism has and continues to cast over societies past, present, and future.

For the infrequent open minded visitor I extend the invitation to study the life of Dr. Chain extensively and gain the understanding that, historically, the most brilliant and accomplished scientific minds in the directly related fields of science are frequently the most adamant foes of the pseudo-science of evolution.

Or you can wallow in the sound-bite science of the 3rd team, back benchers who frequent these environs posing as actual scientific contributors.

I also note the continuing absense of any rational rejoiner to the challenges issued ...just the simplistic personal attacks of the unprepared intellect.

Ichthyic, after reading Keith Eaton's latest post, I have to agree with you.

A parody guy would "fess up" and have a laugh.

By the way, Keith, why do you bother with us "lesser lights"?

A personage of your obvious great intellect should be standing in the halls of Congress or at the podium in a lecture hall at one of the great universities either here or in Europe.

I'm sure the world of science would grind to a halt just to hear your latest pronouncements on uh . . . "staff infections" or some other of your dumbass observations.

Oh, Keith . . .by the way, the flu is caused by viral agents, not bacteria.

What an ass.

One other thing . . . there is a spell checker on this site,
so even my small child, who actually knows how to use a spell checker, would have a better spelling score than you.

Waldrass,

I fess up to enjoying intellectually pistol whipping wireheads on a daily basis and watching them whimper and whine.

Of course I have been asked in the past to assist in intellectual lectures but these days as a retiree in comfort I am satisfied to act as a pedagog to the illiterate asses who pass for scientific minds these days.

If you have need of private consultation on scientific matters perhaps you can email your questions privately.

I could make an exception and cease exposing your ignorance if you consent to listening closely to my valuable insights.

Oh that red stuff in your underwear is blood.

I've seen creationists argue that evolution isn't science because you can't test it by experiment. Obviously, because any experiment is "artificial", not natural! By that reasoning, science is impossible because any experiment, evolutionary or not, doesn't actually tests what happens "naturally".

Tinyfrog: "You do know that medicines are created in a laboratory, don't you? Are you going to argue that medicines created in laboratories are inherently suspect because they were tested in laboratories?"

If you're one of those proponents of "natural" and "alternative" medicines, you do!

Ernst Chain, who contributed to the elucidation of the structure of penicillin is barely tangentially related to the subject of the evolutionary mechanisms behind antibiotic resistance.

Keith Eaton writes: "I also note the continuing absense of any rational rejoiner to the challenges issued ...just the simplistic personal attacks of the unprepared intellect."

Keith should crack open a microbiology textbook. Or here is an interesting paper to start if one is interested in the primary literature. There is a whole chain of research related to the work referenced in this paper.

Stephanie J. Schrag, Veronique Perrot, Bruce R. Levin, "Adaptation to the Fitness Costs of Antibiotic Resistance in Escherichia coli" Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 264, No. 1386 (Sep. 22, 1997), pp. 1287-1291
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9332013

A later paper from Levin: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/154/3/985

Ithy,

Yeah tangentially in the sense of isolating penicillinase! LOL!!

For those interested in how real, productive, and honored scientific minds of the past approached science and religious faith see, http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/NobelPr.pdf.

Now we have the rubes and their leaders like pee wee myers alias Minnesota Bats.

Tangential with regard to discussion of correlation of experimental observation of acquired resistance with evolutionary events seen outside a lab, which is the topic of this entire thread.

But it is certainly true that the commercial development of penicillin and other antibiotics was relevant in that it altered the local environment for the bacteria that live with humans and farm animals and consequentially led to the evolution of resistant strains. Interestingly, mutations that alter the specificity of beta-lactamases also correlate between lab-derived and 'wild' strains.

Mr. Eaton. I have no scientific background--I come here for the politics and the pretty pitchers, mainly. The strength of the argument for evolution is easily seen in Dunford's shredding of Egnor's quote-mining (or should that be "artificial selection"?) papers, and the myriad of similar exercises carried out across the web, usually earnestly and in good faith. As opposed to the dishonest and unchristian lie-in-the-service-of-truth approach of the opposition.

I don't rate as highly as the 3rd-stringers, so I'll have to stick with shorter terminology: You're a troll.
I usually wouldn't bother, given your aversion to rational discussion. But I really have to ask:

What the hell was that "That red stuff in your underwear is blood" business? Does that pass for discussion wherever they're keeping you? And why do the orderlies allow you to the keyboard, apparently unsupervised?

I can only imagine your retirement was forced upon you, and that if you were ever asked to "assist in intellectual lectures," it was in the role of experimental subject. Possibly for some of the nastier psychotic preparations the CIA was so interested in at one time.

Oh, and in case you're so enamoured of the creationist school of "argument" that you can no longer tell the difference, this isn't discussion. Trolls deserve all the abuse they can get.

Dear Metro,

Your opinions carry the weight of an owl turd, your entire life is inconsequential, of no merit, and I suggest you retire to your rented trailer house and get next months food stamps secured.

For the other evos: You might give some considerstion to the words of Huxley on Evolution and Ethics at Oxford in 1894 where he went to considerable effort to differentiate between the natual cosmic processes of evolution and the artificial processes of man the scientist, experimenter, etc. in the context of horticulture and gardening.

"It will be admitted that the garden is as much a work of art,8 or artifice, as anything that can be mentioned. The energy localised in certain human bodies, directed by similarly localised intellects, has produced a collocation of other material bodies which could not be brought about in the state of nature. The same proposition is true of all the [11] works of man's hands, from a flint implement to a cathedral or a chronometer; and it is because it is true, that we call these things artificial, term them works of art, or artifice, by way of distinguishing them from the products of the cosmic process, working outside man, which we call natural, or works of nature. The distinction thus drawn between the works of nature and those of man, is universally recognised; and it is, as I conceive, both useful and justifiable."

Such a statement alone renders Egnor's insights totally correct and those rendered by the evos as wrongheaded and in strict disagreement with one of evolutions most prominent proponents and spokespersons.

A full reading gives even more evidence that Evos are not evern aware of their own masters' historical stance on the difference betwenn natural cosmic evolution and artificial,as in intelligence enabled evoution, the difference in the conditions and pressures , etc. are undeniable and fundamental. http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-EProl.html

It is not so bad to be in the company of other intellectual giants rather than wallowing with the mental midgets. Thus it is gratifying to be in league with those in the upper 0.01% of the bell curve with Huxley, Egnor, Dembski and others in logical perception if not in world view and philosophy.

My life cannot be entirely wasted if such a grandiose intellect as yours can deign to respond to my little query. My insignificant opinion is worth responding to--thanks you for giving me a renewed sense of worth!

Your insults have opened my eyes. I am deeply ashamed. I feel so very sorry to have wasted the time of such an intellectual giant as yourself. I mean, you went and learned to use spellcheck and everything ... just for little old inconsequetial me.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Alas ... I am stupider even than you thought.

Obviously, I meant "Thank you" rather than "thanks you", and "inconsequential" for "inconsequetial".

I must have evolved from a lower form of life than M. Eaton did, obviously.

Ah, how the shame and horror of my existence alongside such an eloquent and fine mind tortures me!

Keith postures belligerently, then projects his inadequacy onto others with :

Dear Metro,

Your opinions carry the weight of an owl turd, your entire life is inconsequential, of no merit, and I suggest you retire to your rented trailer house and get next months food stamps secured.

THAT from the 'towering intellect' that thought PZ's account of being expelled from the showing of 'Expelled' was faked SINCE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR DAWKINS TO GET FROM AUSTIN TO MINNEAPOLIS IN A SINGLE DAY !

For the other evos: You might give some considerstion to the words of Huxley on Evolution and Ethics at Oxford in 1894 where he went to considerable effort to differentiate between the natual cosmic processes of evolution and the artificial processes of man the scientist, experimenter, etc. in the context of horticulture and gardening.

How, EXACTLY, are researchers placing amino acids in particular locations of a protein at will, twit ?

How, EXACTLY, is your quote-vomiting actually relevant to bacteriology ? You ARE aware that gardening is not quite the same as growing bacteria on a plate, right ?

"It will be admitted that the garden is as much a work of art,8 or artifice, as anything that can be mentioned. The energy localised in certain human bodies, directed by similarly localised intellects, has produced a collocation of other material bodies which could not be brought about in the state of nature. The same proposition is true of all the [11] works of man's hands, from a flint implement to a cathedral or a chronometer; and it is because it is true, that we call these things artificial, term them works of art, or artifice, by way of distinguishing them from the products of the cosmic process, working outside man, which we call natural, or works of nature. The distinction thus drawn between the works of nature and those of man, is universally recognised; and it is, as I conceive, both useful and justifiable."

Please demonstrate that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is brought about by researchers specificially placing amino acids at certain locations - which would be the ONLY way the quote you regurgitated would be relevant.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria occurs via mutation and selection - NATURAL PROCESSES.

As bacteria are non-sentient, it makes NO DIFFERENCE to them whether they encounter antibiotics in the wild or in the lab - the end result is the same. Variants better able to resist the drugs flourish; those unable to resist die off.

All the things Huxley cited were NON-LIVING THINGS, twit.

Analogotes are highly dissimilar; thus, your bleatings be weak.

Such a statement alone renders Egnor's insights totally correct and those rendered by the evos as wrongheaded and in strict disagreement with one of evolutions most prominent proponents and spokespersons.

Good thing that no one takes your blithers seriously then !

What you quoted DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR SILLY IDEA THAT ARTIFICIAL SELECTION IS RELEVANTLY DIFFERENT THAN NATURAL SELECTION. The process is the same - differential reproductive success. The only difference is what generates the selection (if we humans do it, we call the results 'artificial selection'; if we humans don't do it, we call the results 'natural selection'.)

A full reading gives even more evidence that Evos are not evern aware of their own masters' historical stance on the difference betwenn natural cosmic evolution and artificial,as in intelligence enabled evoution, the difference in the conditions and pressures , etc. are undeniable and fundamental.

You seem greatly deluded, Keith, for only a deranged twit could claim that evos have 'masters' that must be obeyed and believed without question. I suspect it is standard projection from creationism - since creationism is obesiance to authority, you've deluded yourself into believing that evolution is the same way (much like you've deluded yourself into believing that you are a 'towering intellect', actually capable of 'pistol-whipping evos into submission with your plaintive bleating'.

Note, buffoon - NON LIVING THINGS DO NOT EVOLVE. Thus your whining be petulant and as irrelevant as you claimed Metro is.

Initiating standard Eaton Ego Inflating Delusion :

It is not so bad to be in the company of other intellectual giants rather than wallowing with the mental midgets. Thus it is gratifying to be in league with those in the upper 0.01% of the bell curve with Huxley,

Darwin's Bulldog ? Who DEFENDED evolution from the creationut droolers of his day ?

Egnor

Who so epitomizes ignorance and arrogance that he has a neologism in his 'honor' : egnorance.

Dembski

The mathematical masturbator who CLAIMED that the No Free Lunch theorems 'disproved' evolution - only to have the people who DEVISED the NFL theorems state that the NFL theorems do no such thing, and that he was full of crap ? And has been shown to be wrong on nearly everything he has produced ?

Yeah, great company you'd like to be with there Keith !

and others in logical perception if not in world view and philosophy.

Well, Egnor and Dembski share your twisted version of logical perception, not so sure about Huxley, given that his quote does NOT support your gibberings.

"As bacteria are non-sentient, it makes NO DIFFERENCE to them whether they encounter antibiotics in the wild or in the lab - the end result is the same. Variants better able to resist the drugs flourish; those unable to resist die off."

If you weren't still trying to master your multiplication tables and potty training you would be aware that leading edge researchers such as James Shapiro consider bacteria to exhibit sentient behaviors , are incredibly sophisticated sensory based, integrated information processing and manufacturing systems with quaity control mechanisms in place that exceed seven sigma performance, that perform natural genetic engineering using mobile element reprogramming of the genome and that RM and NS are considered minor players in the scheme of variation and change.

You're living in the 19th century.

That might explain a lot about creationism--is posting on a comment thread a demonstrably sentient behaviour?

And I loved reading that line about the 19th century. Coming from someone who apparently still believes, despite a total lack of any evidence at all, that a giant invisible Dad made the universe, that was truly purest comedy.

"I've seen creationists argue that evolution isn't science because you can't test it by experiment. Obviously, because any experiment is "artificial", not natural! By that reasoning, science is impossible because any experiment, evolutionary or not, doesn't actually test what happens "naturally"."
Posted by: quester | April 2, 2008 2:16 AM

Hi quester, did you know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

has exactly that in the 2006 pupil's questionnaire? See p. 71, question 3 on evolution: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/33/38709385.pdf

Question 3: EVOLUTION S472Q03

Which one of the following statements best applies to the scientific theory of
evolution?

A The theory cannot be believed because it is not possible to see species
changing.
B The theory of evolution is possible for animals but cannot be applied to humans.
C Evolution is a scientific theory that is currently based on extensive evidence.
D Evolution is a theory that has been proven to be true by scientific experiments.

EVOLUTION SCORING 3

Full credit
Code 1: C. Evolution is a scientific theory that is currently based on extensive evidence.

No credit
Code 0: Other responses.
Code 9: Missing.

Why would answer D: "Evolution is a theory that has been proven to be true by scientific experiments." be false?

Andrew asked:

"Why would answer D: 'Evolution is a theory that has been proven to be true by scientific experiments.' be false?"

Maybe because a theory can never be considered to be "proven true"? My understanding of science is that the strongest theories may be considered to be well-supported by the evidence, and make reliable predictions, but there is always leeway allowed for potential improvement.

I would have chosen "C" on that reasoning.

I see you are quite right!
Thanks!

Good article

Yea your DOG is still a DOG. So your evolution explanation fails. If this is your proof you're a fool. People like you and others who barely got through high school math & science are evolution experts? Fact is the doctor is right, you don't need evolution to do surgery. Evolution is over blown.

EVOLUTION is forced to make claims of "MICRO EVOLUTION". Basically apologetics for lack of proof, showing only small changes WITH IN a specie, which can happen, but extrapolation to the MACRO evolution, from space dust, started reproducing, out of the primordial ooze, "IT" crawled out, became ALL life, plant, bug, animal, sea life, bird and MAN, IS A HARD SELL. Everything came from nothing, out of no where, by accident for no reason? There is no abiogenesis, speciation or ANY EVIDENCE that one specie spawns a new specie. Sure adaptation with in a species fine, but to extrapolate of the observable beyound all reason is ludicrous and not science, its a hypothesis. Sadly the science cabal forces all ideas into this one paradigm as irrefutable and perfect. It does not allow cricisim. Many folks feel to consider ID is like teaching prayer in school or theocracies. That is stupid. It's some phobia and more about protecting Grant money.

The common descendants of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection, biologist of the first rank have real questions.

yea, yea you're great at quoting others (well read)
So what are your original thoughts?