But it would be a reasonable hypothesis, given all the other evidence we have of evolution happening in observable populations.
I agree with you, but once pieces are missing you still cannot prove continuous even if the circle started that way. The data would still say discontinuous, since you don't have hard data in the missing zones.
Also, in contrast to that written in several undergraduate textbooks, many studies show that cells do not need an intact membrane to function [635]. The ions partition according to their preferred aqueous environment; in particular, the K+ ions partition into the cells. Ion pumps must thus be present for other (perhaps fail-safe) purposes, such as speeding up the partition process after metabolically linked changes in ionic concentration. [
I agree with you, but once pieces are missing you still cannot prove continuous even if the circle started that way. The data would still say discontinuous, since you don't have hard data in the missing zones.
I think many people, like myself, see evolution as having a sense of direction.
Answer the rest of the analysis. Some of the bacteria need to survive the first wave of antibiotics or else there is nobody left to evolve a resistance. This means there are some bacteria with at least a partial resistance out of the blocks. Random does not make sense if you already have a partial answer. This appears to be bias of tradition. forcing a one size fits all.
The question I have is, if the bacteria need random genetic changes and natural selection to evolve, how do they initially resist the antibiotic, so the evolutionary process can begin? Doesn't the ability to fight the antibiotic and live long enough to start mutation process, mean they can already deal with it?
As an analogy, I put mustard gas into a room full of people. Some people appear to resist the gas. The theory goes, these then breed so they can evolve the ability to resist the gas?
They were already able to fight the antibiotic, out of the blocks, or else they would not be able to live to breed another day. Is this due to real time adaptation followed by a sense of direction so they can do it better? Then they can share horizontally so they brothers have a sense or order and are not at the whim of chance.
Relative to the analogy, if you were resistant to the mustard gas, you don't just throw the dice in the air, and look randomly. Rather common sense says you try to figure out what is helping you, and then work on a solution from there. Once this is done you share horizontally with others.
I think many people, like myself, see evolution as having a sense of direction.
The question I have is, if the bacteria need random genetic changes and natural selection to evolve, how do they initially resist the antibiotic, so the evolutionary process can begin?
As an analogy, I put mustard gas into a room full of people. Some people appear to resist the gas. The theory goes, these then breed so they can evolve the ability to resist the gas?
Relative to the analogy, if you were resistant to the mustard gas, you don't just throw the dice in the air, and look randomly. Rather common sense says you try to figure out what is helping you, and then work on a solution from there. Once this is done you share horizontally with others.
If you mean "milestones toward a goal" such as Intelligent Design, no.evolution had milestones
This sounds almost Biblical. Just say "variation". Variations in DNA are seen within populations, and particular kinds of variations may lead to the evolution of new species. It's as simple as that.Once a milestone is reached a new layer begins and old is sealed shut.
No. "Entirely random" is purely subjective. Mutations are one of many kinds of random processes in biology. They happen to account, in part, for speciation. But the mechanism for preserving random processes is natural selection. Natural selection is also very complicated and can not be whittled down as you may think. Nor can it be ignored. Not if you are examining the causes of evolution (as you often do).If the process of evolution was entirely random, there should not be layers since random would erase and not conserve.
It seems to deny science as a whole, that is, you are diverting us away from the scientific treatment of the subject.This does not deny evolution, but supports the assumption of order in evolution.
You are just inventing ideas at random. You have completely diverged from the subject of the genome itself, which is the object of the variation. In the embryo, it is the stem cells which diversify, and you are evading that subject altogether.Order would create layers and milestones, while random would erase this.
The layers you should be looking at are the endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm (of the primitive embryo).I see layers therefore order.
So far you haven't acknowledged stem cell development, and the way cells and tissues diverge into many different kinds, from a single cell of one kind.The simplest way to explain how this is possible is with an observation.
It is not the issue of membranes that immediately surface in this question of fetal development, but rather, the actual machinery of cell diversification, which centers around the mechanisms of gene expression, synthesis of specialized proteins and enzymes, signalling and so forth.Cells with their membranes removed, will still partition sodium and potassium ions and enrich themselves in potassium ions, even though there are no sodium-potassium pumps.
The simplest way to talk about science is to talk about science. Why are you evading science?The simplest way to explain this is the cationic pumping, by enriching the cell in potassium, causes a potential in the cell, which induces an equilibrium response in the cell. All the cellular innards adjust to this equilibrium induction.
:shrug: Mumbo-jumbo. Incoherent, absurd, pointless, muddled obscurity with no substance, character or use.Over the time scales of evolution, the equilibrium induction eventually causes the innards to mirror the membrane potential and the impact of the potassium ions. Once the balance is established, if we remove the membrane, the organic equilibrium remains and potassium will builds up via the mirror. This long term induced order even applies to multicellular, since the same potassium membrane induced equilibrium schema is in effect in all cells.
If we assume this equilibrium induction, even if the DNA results in a new random protein, the equilibrium within the internal protein grid of the cell will have a global constraint. The protein needs to fit in or else it it toast for recycle. This equilibrium censoring can be modeled with configurational equilibrium. A particular protein, as an integrated molecular shape/surface has a sweet spot in the equilibrium grid. Even new membrane proteins will end in the membrane, because anywhere else is a sour spot relative to equilibrium.
There are cases where proteins will find their sweet spot, but will be transported, using ATP energy, to a non equilibrium place. This is useful for adding energy to the protein, but it needs to be anchored or else it will diffuse to lower toward lower energy. During late cell cycles when the scaffolding protein dissolve, the proteins diffuse toward lower energy in the new grid. Energy and entropy tells it where to go.
So far you haven't acknowledged stem cell development, and the way cells and tissues diverge into many different kinds, from a single cell of one kind.
“
Cells with their membranes removed, will still partition sodium and potassium ions and enrich themselves in potassium ions, even though there are no sodium-potassium pumps.
”
It is not the issue of membranes that immediately surface in this question of fetal development, but rather, the actual machinery of cell diversification, which centers around the mechanisms of gene expression, synthesis of specialized proteins and enzymes, signalling and so forth.
“
The simplest way to explain this is the cationic pumping, by enriching the cell in potassium, causes a potential in the cell, which induces an equilibrium response in the cell. All the cellular innards adjust to this equilibrium induction.
”
The simplest way to talk about science is to talk about science. Why are you evading science?
You mean Creation Science. But that's been disproven, even in court.I was not initially addressing fetal development, but showing you data that confirms my theory of induced global order based on equilibrium.
What I was hoping is you would explain how we can remove of cell membrane and the potassium will partition even without an enzyme mechanism, using existing theory based on randomness at the DNA and natural selection.
Fetal development is the consequence of stem cell differentiation. Until we get to that discussion, we are lost in a quagmire of no escape.Once you understand this equilibrium design, then it will make sense that fetal development makes use of an equilibrium schema.
No, embyogenesis starts at genetic expression, leading to differentiation. You can't seem to get started because you have contempt for science.You start at genetic expression, leading the differentiation, but I start at the membrane to do the same thing.
In this case they are stem cells, and what they are doing is what we should be talking about.A signal from another cell has to go through the membrane before the DNA can get it.
Really? OK let's get started. Go ahead, describe signalling and stem cell differentiation. Then we will finally be discussing biology instead of rambling out in the weeds.You explain starting three steps later. I start at step one when the signally first enters the cell and alters equilibria on the DNA.
...he says as he launches a vessel called Contempt.Then the current theory starts at that point, missing the first boat.
If you look at natural selection, it reduces all the possible alternatives to fewer.
Relative to new species, the DNA can increase variety and complexity. But natural selection will skinny this variety and complexity down to the most fit. The DNA might form a new species in this complexity, but then this new species needs to make the global lowering complexity cut of natural selection. This creates a paradox for some new species that are more complex, since natural selection reduces complexity . . .
Picture a scenario where the earth is huge and can support endless life. There is no need for natural selection, since there is plenty of room, plenty of food and no predators, so even the sick and mutant can get by.
Next, we will add natural selection due to environmental limits being suddenly taxed. What will happen is variety and entropy will begin to fall as food falls and predators appear to help open up new sources of food.
I love it when Creationists so publically illustrate their total lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Hint" It only applies to closed systems and says nothing about local decreases of entropy(which is what life itself basically is), but only about the total entropy of the system. The Earth is not a closed system(now where could any energy, say heat and/or light be coming from?), life living with a non closed system has plenty of energy to harvest, decreasing it's own entropy at the expense of an increase in the environment, fed by outside energy.