tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8570077304086398677..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New Intron Research Reveals Same Old ContradictionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49957160923869788112010-01-29T05:04:29.167-08:002010-01-29T05:04:29.167-08:00These studies do assess fitness only in terms of d...<i>These studies do assess fitness only in terms of differential survival.</i><br /><br />There's been a lot of philosophical discussion about this common definition in genetics. Once we establish that traits can lead to differential reproductive success, then we can turn that around and hypothesize that differential reproductive success is due to traits—even if we do not know what those traits are. It's a very strong relationship, so the correlation does imply causation. This is something we can experimentally verify, but it should be remembered that the population genetic definition is derived from this correlation.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50936917525459053442010-01-29T04:59:15.051-08:002010-01-29T04:59:15.051-08:00Joe G: Nothing about mere capability in that.
Def...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Nothing about mere capability in that.</i><br /><br />Definition #3 refers to ability. <br /><br />We had agreed to a definition. Our readers can understand why you had avoided being explicit in your use of terminology. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>fitness is related to reproductive success.</i><br /><br />Of course fitness is related to reproductive success. We have defined it as a differential reproductive potential due to inherited traits compared to others in the population in a given environment.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22671340881344455022010-01-29T04:50:28.190-08:002010-01-29T04:50:28.190-08:00Joe G: Then how do you know an advantage existed? ...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Then how do you know an advantage existed? </i><br /><br />In the case of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, by repeated experimentation. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Or what if the variation is not heritable?</i><br /><br />This is your answer: Phenotypic and genotypic fitness are distinct. They are correlated, but not identical. A correlation is a statistical relationship and allows us to make probabilistic predictions. Because we are concerned with heritable variation (see above), this discussion concerns genotypic fitness. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>But fitness doesn't apply to the population, but to organisms.</i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Good planning so that the population survives is all the population cares about.</i><br /><br />A population is not the unit of measure for fitness per the definition you agreed to use, but the differential reproductive potential due to inherited traits compared to others in the population and in a particular environment.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47720096427212113682010-01-29T00:32:40.047-08:002010-01-29T00:32:40.047-08:00Just a passing thought -
Thought this link might...Just a passing thought - <br /><br />Thought this link might be relevant here<br /><br />http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html<br /><br />Stephen Jay Gould waxing lyrical on exactly what is meant by fitness in biology and how we define it - and especially the repreceussion for the theory of evolution and those who misunderstand it.<br /><br />It's a little old, but seems relevant here. It's short and well worth the read. <br /><br />The key passage, is think, is this:<br /><br />"But let me first admit that Bethell's criticism applies to much of the technical literature in evolutionary theory, especially to the abstract mathematical treatments that consider evolution only as an alteration in numbers, not as a change in quality. These studies do assess fitness only in terms of differential survival. What else can be done with abstract models that traced the relative successes of hypothetical genes A and B in populations that exist only on computer tape? Nature, however, is not limited by the calculations of theoretical geneticists. In nature, A's "superiority" over B will be expressed as differential survival, but it is not defined by it."Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4825210681582620882010-01-28T21:20:00.603-08:002010-01-28T21:20:00.603-08:00fitness:
(1) (biology) A biological condition in ...<a href="http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fitness" rel="nofollow"><b>fitness</b></a>:<br /><br /><b>(1) (biology) A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population. <br /><br />(2) A relative measure of reproductive success of an organism in passing its genes to the next generation. <br /><br />(3) The relative ability of an individual (or population) to survive, reproduce and propagate genes in an environment.</b> <br /><br />Nothing about mere capability in that.<br /><br />I told you using wikipedia was a bad idea.<br /><br />I cannot find any (other) reference that sez fitness is related to mere capability.<br /><br />Always and without fail- save for wikipedia- fitness is related to reproductive success.<br /><br />And more specifically the passing on of your genes- which is where sexual reproduction can mess with things a little.<br /><br />Ya see even though a person can have many offspring, and those offspring have many more, and so on, the original person may not have any genes left in the family after a few generations.<br /><br />But anyway...<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37611057772885638012010-01-28T21:06:55.768-08:002010-01-28T21:06:55.768-08:00Zachriel:
All sorts of things can affect reproduct...Zachriel:<br /><i>All sorts of things can affect reproduction.</i><br /><br />Yes, I know.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Fitness is defined by those traits that lead to a reproductive advantage.</i><br /><br />Even if that individual doesn't take advantage of that advantage?<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>An advantage is not a certainty of success, though.</i><br /><br />Then how do you know an advantage existed? <br /><br /><b>Or what if the variation is not heritable?</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Phenotypic and genotypic fitness are distinct. They are correlated, but not identical.</i><br /><br />That doesn't answer the question.<br /><br /><b>Good planning means to be ready for everything you- the population- possibly can.</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>But fitness doesn't apply to the population, but to organisms.</i><br /><br />Good planning so that the population survives is all the population cares about.<br /><br />And that good planning includes organisms.<br /><br />It is that good planning that tells the organisms what is present in the environment so they can figure out what they- the organisms- need.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>For instance, if all the organisms are exact clones, they have the same fitness.</i><br /><br />Or no fitness at all.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59667087542710155042010-01-28T19:10:08.299-08:002010-01-28T19:10:08.299-08:00Joe G: What if something other than variation resu...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>What if something other than variation results in differential reproduction?</i><br /><br />All sorts of things can affect reproduction. Fitness is defined by those traits that lead to a reproductive advantage. An advantage is not a certainty of success, though. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Or what if the variation is not heritable?</i><br /><br />Phenotypic and genotypic fitness are distinct. They are correlated, but not identical. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Good planning means to be ready for everything you- the population- possibly can.</i><br /><br />But fitness doesn't apply to the population, but to organisms. If a bacteria doesn't have antibiotic resistance, and finds itself in an antibiotic environment, then it has low fitness compared to those that do. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Also fitness is "determined" AFTER the fact, so I don't think the word fits.</i><br /><br />If it helps, we'll make them different colors. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Which shows that fitness and variation are not directly dependent.</i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>And yet you can't have fitness without it.</i><br /><br />Of course you can. For instance, if all the organisms are exact clones, they have the same fitness.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29490556627572872162010-01-28T14:31:31.842-08:002010-01-28T14:31:31.842-08:00Even if one gives birth to a mutant?
Zachriel:
Th...<b>Even if one gives birth to a mutant?</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Then it's not an exact clone.</i><br /><br />The parent or offspring?<br /><br />Which brings up something else- say the parent also mutated during reproduction.<br /><br />IOW after the split neither resembles the original.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>If the variations do not result in differential reproductive potential, then there is no change in fitness.</i><br /><br />What if something other than variation results in differential reproduction?<br /><br />Or what if the variation is not heritable?<br /><br /><b>However all that is moot because variation provides fitness- in your example- and therefor is not random with respect to it.</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>That is incorrect.</i><br /><br />Not according to you.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Some variation is beneficial.</i><br /><br />EXACTLY!!!! Winnah, winnah, chicken dinnah!<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Some is detrimental. And some makes no difference in fitness.</i><br /><br />So you don't understand what I said- IOW you don't have any clue as what I have been telling you for days.<br /><br />Good planning means to be ready for everything you- the population- possibly can.<br /><br />Soldiers have died protecting their population- you can't always save everyone from every eventuality.<br /><br />But with bacteria how many have to be saved in order for that species to survive?<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>The mere existence of variation is not sufficient to determine fitness.</i><br /><br />And yet the mere existence of no variation is.<br /><br />Also fitness is "determined" AFTER the fact, so I don't think the word fits.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Which shows that fitness and variation are not directly dependent.</i><br /><br />And yet you can't have fitness without it.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Amazing how the Lederbergs can be so wrong and you so right.</i><br /><br />Knowledge is a wonderful thing.<br /><br />Ya see they did not know about the communications networks that scientists now study.<br /><br />I have the knowledge that they didn't. <br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>We can show that there are differences in bacteria such that, depending on the environment, they may have differential reproductive potential.</i><br /><br />Yes I know- if we kill some bacteria the surviving bacteria may out reproduce them.<br /><br />Then again if there isn't any food around the survivors ain't going to be very much of anything.<br /><br />So when a concept <b>depends</b> on many <b><i>just-so</i></b> factors, it probably doesn't translate very well to the real world.<br /><br />And as a matter of fact I linked to an essay about a paper that demonstrates that very thing.<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89615670237275987432010-01-28T12:42:55.860-08:002010-01-28T12:42:55.860-08:00Joe G: Even if one gives birth to a mutant?
Then ...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Even if one gives birth to a mutant?</i><br /><br />Then it's not an exact clone. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>What if we have a population with many variations yet not one variation confers an advantage over any others?</i><br /><br />If the variations do not result in differential reproductive potential, then there is no change in fitness. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>However all that is moot because variation provides fitness- in your example- and therefor is not random with respect to it.</i><br /><br />That is incorrect. Some variation is beneficial. Some is detrimental. And some makes no difference in fitness. The mere existence of variation is not sufficient to determine fitness. Which shows that fitness and variation are not directly dependent. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Again this all relates to the Lederberg experiment.</i><br /><br />Amazing how the Lederbergs can be so wrong and you so right. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>This fitness concept is such a powerful and unambiguous thing is making me all shivery and stuff...</i><br /><br />That's why the conversation should be grounded in specifics: We can show that there are differences in bacteria such that, depending on the environment, they may have differential reproductive potential. In particular, we have bacteria with and without the heritable trait of antibiotic resistance. Are we okay so far?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68798421584120465082010-01-28T12:19:02.217-08:002010-01-28T12:19:02.217-08:00Zachriel:
If the population is comprised of exact ...Zachriel:<br /><i>If the population is comprised of exact clones, then they have equal fitness.</i><br /><br />Even if one gives birth to a mutant?<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>If a mutation causes a decrease in reproductive potential in a given environment, that individual has lower fitness in that environment.</i><br /><br />If? If not then what happens?<br /><br />What if we have a population with many variations yet not one variation confers an advantage over any others?<br /><br />Add to that a varying environment.<br /><br />Kind of shoots your control all to heck.<br /><br />But that is what nature is really like.<br /><br />However all that is moot because variation provides fitness- in your example- and therefor is not random with respect to it.<br /><br />Again this all relates to the Lederberg experiment.<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20268449682773229662010-01-28T12:01:04.453-08:002010-01-28T12:01:04.453-08:00Joe G: Yet based on your example variation is esse...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Yet based on your example variation is essential to fitness, not random with respect to it.</i><br /><br />If the population is comprised of exact clones, then they have equal fitness. If a mutation causes a decrease in reproductive potential in a given environment, that individual has lower fitness in that environment. This is true regardless of the cause or distribution of the mutations. That's because fitness, as defined, is a differential between members of a population.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64202226013612520802010-01-28T11:53:26.241-08:002010-01-28T11:53:26.241-08:00Zachriel:
Consequently, some members of a populati...Zachriel:<br /><i>Consequently, some members of a population may be more or less fit than that other members of the population.</i><br /><br />And then again maybe not. It all depends.<br /><br />This fitness concept is such a powerful and unambiguous thing is making me all shivery and stuff...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11969501890204617222010-01-28T11:49:00.734-08:002010-01-28T11:49:00.734-08:00Your very example says that variation is key to fi...<b>Your very example says that variation is key to fitness.</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Does your use of the word "key" have a clear meaning?</i><br /><br />"Serving as an essential component".<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>Based on the ordinary readings of the definitions provided, mutation can be random with respect to fitness as fitness is defined as a differential reproductive advantage due to hertiable traits.</i><br /><br />Yet based on your example variation is essential to fitness, not random with respect to it.<br /><br />What would happen to the bacteria in an anti-biotic environment if the variation for anti-biotic resistance did not exist?<br /><br />Perhaps you should choose an example that actually demonstrates what it is you are trying to say.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3786739434163219592010-01-28T10:53:44.375-08:002010-01-28T10:53:44.375-08:00Joe G: Your very example says that variation is ke...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Your very example says that variation is key to fitness.</i><br /><br />Does your use of the word "key" have a clear meaning? I note that you have refused to clarify the terms in your question. <br /><br />Based on the ordinary readings of the definitions provided, mutation can be random with respect to fitness as fitness is defined as a differential reproductive advantage due to hertiable traits. Consequently, some members of a population may be more or less fit than that other members of the population.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56747998943043346782010-01-28T09:38:18.969-08:002010-01-28T09:38:18.969-08:00As I said given what you are saying at face-value ...<b>As I said given what you are saying at face-value what I said is confirmed.<br /><br />Your example says fitness and variation are directly correlated. <br /><br />That is given YOUR definition of fitness.<br /><br />Your very example says that variation is key to fitness.<br /><br />If variation is key to fitness then how can it be random with respect to it?</b><br /><br /><br />Answer the question Zachriel.<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44211122374655437052010-01-28T09:05:49.595-08:002010-01-28T09:05:49.595-08:00Joe G: Right there is variation.
Good. There is v...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Right there is variation.</i><br /><br />Good. There is variation in traits, in particular, some bacteria have antibiotic resistance and some don't. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>Only by artificially introducing the anti-biotic.</i><br /><br />So we have a valid scientific test! <br /><br />By the way, antibiotics exist in nature, and they are not always lethal. We might also trace the resistance to a particular gene and be able to tell that way. But as long as there is a test, that's all that matters. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>IOW it is all after-the-fact, ie meaningless.</i><br /><br />Meaningless? Please. It can be a matter of life-or-death in the struggle between bacteria and their human hosts. In any case, there is a valid scientific test that can determine whether a strain of bacteria have antibiotic resistance or not. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>We can show that antibiotic resistance is a heritable trait.</i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>So there were bacteria that were originally designed with this resistance.</i><br /><br />What is so difficult about simply saying that antibiotic resistance is a heritable trait?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66458913805222337752010-01-28T08:51:57.866-08:002010-01-28T08:51:57.866-08:00Zachriel:
You claimed that fitness was a "non...Zachriel:<br /><i>You claimed that fitness was a "nonsensical concept."</i><br /><br />That is irrelevant.<br /><br />As I said if we take your definition and use it as if it were useful we still come out with the fact that variation provided the fitness and therefor is not random with respect to it.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>We can show that all bacteria are not alike.</i><br /><br />Right there is variation.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>In particular, we can show that some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics and some are not.</i><br /><br />Only by artificially introducing the anti-biotic.<br /><br />And even then it all depends on that anti-biotic.<br /><br />There are more than one.<br /><br />IOW we cannot tell which are anti-biotic resistant BEFORE the anti-biotic is applied.<br /><br />And even then all we can do is assume that all survivors are anti-biotic resistant.<br /><br />IOW it is all after-the-fact, ie meaningless.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>We can show that antibiotic resistance is a heritable trait.</i><br /><br />So there were bacteria that were originally designed with this resistance.<br /><br />They had to be because according to you it is doubtful that mutations accumulated to allow such a thing.<br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>We can then show that this trait can be correlated with differential reproduction in environments that include the presence of antibiotics.</i><br /><br />Yes I understand that if we control who lives and dies that we can also control who reproduces.<br /><br />As I said given what you are saying at face-value what I said is confirmed.<br /><br /><b>Your example says fitness and variation are directly correlated. <br /><br />That is given YOUR definition of fitness.<br /><br />Your very example says that variation is key to fitness.<br /><br />If variation is key to fitness then how can it be random with respect to it?</b><br /><br /><br />Answer the question Zachriel.<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87455997174904737382010-01-28T08:34:23.681-08:002010-01-28T08:34:23.681-08:00Joe G: That is given YOUR definition of fitness.
...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>That is given YOUR definition of fitness.</i><br /><br />You claimed that fitness was a "nonsensical concept." We need to resolve that issue first or your question is rendered nonsensical. And that means having a clear understanding of traits and heredity. These are not difficult concepts. <br /><br /><br />TRAITS and VARIATION: We can show that all bacteria are not alike. That is they exhibit "variation." In particular, we can show that some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics and some are not. We call this trait "antibiotic resistance." Are we okay so far? <br /><br />HERITABLE: We can show that antibiotic resistance is a heritable trait. That is, most offspring will express the same trait as their parent. Do you disagree? <br /><br />FITNESS: We can then show that this trait can be correlated with differential reproduction in environments that include the presence of antibiotics. We call a differential reproductive advantage "fitness." Are we okay with this?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84703396432785496722010-01-28T06:33:40.679-08:002010-01-28T06:33:40.679-08:00Your example says fitness and variation are direct...<b>Your example says fitness and variation are directly correlated. <br /><br />That is given YOUR definition of fitness.<br /><br />Your very example says that variation is key to fitness.<br /><br />If variation is key to fitness then how can it be random with respect to it?</b><br /><br /><br />Answer the question Zachriel.<br /><br /><br />We are using YOUR definition. And it does not matter that I and many people think it is nonsensical.<br /><br />Answer the question.<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37282027270695548192010-01-28T05:01:45.756-08:002010-01-28T05:01:45.756-08:00Zachriel: You had suggested that "fitness&quo...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>You had suggested that "fitness" was a nonsensical concept</i><br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>And I supported that claim.</i><br /><br />You went on to use the term as if it had a meaning. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>If variation is key to fitness then how can it be random with respect to it?</i><br /><br />You demand an answer to a question where one of the terms you insist is nonsensical. In order to answer your question, we have to agree to what those terms means. Variation refers to differences in traits *between* organisms.<br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>And as Stanford pointed out fitness is a nonsensical concept.</i><br /><br />Stanford is not a person. The <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitness/" rel="nofollow">essay</a> was by Alexander Rosenberg, and does not represent a consensus in his field of philosophy, much less biology. In order to resolve this issue, we need to examine the definition carefully to make sure we have a scientifically unambiguous measure. To do that, we have to build our definition from fundamental concepts.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79417461347442256812010-01-28T04:44:01.098-08:002010-01-28T04:44:01.098-08:00Zachriel:
You had suggested that "fitness&quo...Zachriel:<br /><i>You had suggested that "fitness" was a nonsensical concept,...</i><br /><br />And I supported that claim.<br /><br />You choose to ignore that support and prattle on anyway.<br /><br />I take it that you don't care that everyone laughs at you.<br /><br />That must be why you choose to remain anonymous.<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31979110207050308242010-01-28T04:41:25.927-08:002010-01-28T04:41:25.927-08:00Your example says fitness and variation are direct...<b>Your example says fitness and variation are directly correlated. That is given YOUR definition of fitness.<br /><br />Your very example says that variation is key to fitness.<br /><br />If variation is key to fitness then how can it be random with respect to it?</b><br /><br /><br />Answer the question Zachriel.<br /><br />-Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72648741170519237782010-01-28T04:36:53.485-08:002010-01-28T04:36:53.485-08:00Joe G: Your example says fitness and variation are...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Your example says fitness and variation are directly correlated.</i><br /><br />You had suggested that "fitness" was a nonsensical concept, while "variation" refers to variations in heritable traits, so we certainly have to define traits first. <br /><br />If we expose these two strains to antibiotics, we note that one strain dies and one strains lives. We will call the strain that lives "antibiotic resistant," a trait of that strain. Are we okay with this? <br /><br />Then we had a problem with heredity. The offspring of antibiotic resistant bacteria will normally be antibiotic resistant, and the offspring of non-antibiotic resistant bacteria will normally be non-antibiotic resistant. Are we okay with this?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16364510153089814142010-01-28T04:03:06.377-08:002010-01-28T04:03:06.377-08:00Zachriel:
We were discussing the claim that mutati...Zachriel:<br /><i>We were discussing the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness.</i><br /><br />Your example says fitness and variation are directly correlated.<br /><br />Your very example says that variation is key to fitness.<br /><br />If variation is key to fitness then how can it be random with respect to it?<br /><br />And when I ask "what differences?" it means be specific.<br /><br />When you just say "anti-biotic resistance" it is a sure thing that you don't know what you are talking about.<br /><br />But all readers already knew that.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18147991515769263252010-01-27T23:13:06.630-08:002010-01-27T23:13:06.630-08:00Just wanted to say that it is quite funny to watch...Just wanted to say that it is quite funny to watch these discussions between Zachriel (or any other educated person fot that matter) and Joe G. Keep it going!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18322308997324155983noreply@blogger.com