evolve WASRe: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

[Guest guest]

Ya since it took you a while to answer I looked in the micro

book and in the first chapter find info similar to yours below. This

1973 second edition author's, think everything came from nothing,

ie " catalyzed chemicals in a " soup " . They consider chemical

evolution merging into precellular biological evolution which would

eventually yield the minimal unit of life that we can recognize: a

genome containing, membrane-bounded cell within which a concentrated

and efficient set of catalysts brings about both replication of the

genetic material and synthesis of further catalysts. Viewed in these

terms, " life " cannot be defined in terms of a cellular pattern of

organization, or in terms of a given kind of molecule, but is

defined in terms of self-replication from simpler substrates. BUT

get this, The POSTULATED precellular living systems have not been

demonstrated. " Not all scientists believe this of course, you know

what I mean.

One more item. Here's an interesting quote posted on compost tea

group recently. It's from Frits Zernicke delivering Nobel Prize

lecture in 1953. Zernicke developed the phase contrast condenser for

the light microscope which provides a better view of unstained

microorganisms. He said, " on looking back to this event, I am

impressed by the great limitations of the human mind. How quick are

we to learn, that is, to imitate what others have done or thought

before. And how slow to understand, that is, to see the deeper

connections. Slowest of all, however, are we in inventing new

connections or even in applying old ideas in a new field. "

Pointing fingers at no one here but this still seems true

today.Dennis

>

> Dennis,

>

> > Is this info below your definition of evolve?

>

> THE definition of " evolve " is to change over time. Cultures

evolve;

> the genetics of populations evolve. Brand new ideas or

technologies

> in a culture can contribute to its evolution, but are not necessary

> for it to evolve; mutations in the genes of a population can

> contribute to its evolution, but are not necessary for it to

evolve.

>

> The ebb and flow of *proportions* of preexisting genes in a

population

> in response to environment is genetic evolution, even though it

does

> not require mutation. For example, if a given species of moth, the

> individuals of whom may appear black, white, or somewhere in

between,

> is exposed to different environments at different times or in

> different areas, where they may be more likely to be against a

light

> background at times, and a dark background at others, that

> population's color will " evolve " according to the environmental

> circumstances, because the moths who stand out more will get preyed

> upon more and therefore get eaten and die more. So if the

> environmental background is very light, the darker and black moths

> will stand out and die more, leaving more room for the very light

> moths who blend in well to reproduce, and vice versa. This is

> evolution, is not necessarily directional, and does not require

> mutations -- which do, verifiably occur, which is a separate point.

>

> Likewise, the characteristics of the individuals of a bacterial

> population are not uniform. Perhaps, for example, 1% of them,

> Variant-Beta secrete adhesion protein x, protein-digesting enzyme y

> and toxin z that allows them to cause a certain effect a in a host,

> but that the critical mass required to secrete these things and

> actually *cause* that effect is 10 population units. These 1% also

> have a gene that makes them resistant to Antibiotic 1. Most of the

> 99%, whom we will call Variant-Alpha, neither have these effects

nor

> are resistant to Antibiotic 1.

>

> Assume that there is a crowding effect, where in the presence of

> Variant-Alpha, Variant-Beta is kept in check at 1% of the

population.

>

> Say 100 population units *total* infect a host, of which only 1

> population unit (1%) is Variant-Beta. If a dose of Antibiotic 1 is

> used, it will cause the population to " evolve " because the

> *proportion* of genetic variants in the population will change.

The

> longer that Antibiotic 1 is used for, and the higher the dose, the

> more that Variant-Alpha will be combatted while Variant-Beta will

not

> be affected. By removing the crowding effect or whatever

mechanism by

> which Variant-Alpha keeps Variant-Beta from becoming more than 1%

of

> the population, thanks to the changing environment provided by

> Antiobiotic 1, Variant-Beta will become the dominant variant in the

> population.

>

> Thus, room is made for Variant-Beta to expand beyond the threhold

of

> 10 Population Units. Once that threshold is met, the specific

toxic

> effects occuring in the host are different.

>

> Thus, the specific toxic effects change -- evolve -- in response to

> environments, even by mechanisms that do not require mutations.

>

>

> >Where did you

> > get all that info? What does it mean?? I don't get it? " Microbes

> > must act at a certain critical mass to exert some effects, a

sharp

> > environmental change COULD cause a mass reproportionment of the

> > genes...... " HOW you going to change my genes by sending me to

the

> > north pole or the moon? It isn't that simple is it?

>

> You are an individual, not a population. Individuals do not

evolve;

> populations evolve.

>

> If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you pick up a basic

> college biology textbook and read the chapter on evolution. I know

> you work in a lab so maybe you have seen this information before,

but,

> while I'm sure your totally capable, you don't seem to be familiar

> with the basic evolutionary concepts. You might also want to check

> out http://www.talkorigins.org.

>

> I don't mean that to be remotely insulting, but a basic

introductory

> textbook entry on it might be able to explain the introductory

basics

> to evolution more concisely than me.

>

> Not that I mind you asking.

>

> > MAYBE all the

> > microbes need is information (from the designer?) " to exert some

> > effects " . Dennis

>

> The question isn't why they exert some effects. It's why those

> effects can evolve over time within a population. Natural

selection

> is a much simpler explanation, is observable, and is self-evident.

>

> Moreover, one would expect a Creator to be quite capable of

creating a

> universe that can flourish itself, and surely one would consider

the

> creation of something with creative capacity itself to be a more

> impressive creative feat than the creation of something that

needed to

> be babysat and tinkered with everytime a change was required. One

> would also think said Creator wouldn't be insecure about evidence

that

> his creation unravels life with its own intricate processes would

> somehow nullify his creative power when it would so obviously exalt

> it.

>

> In any case, it is a very simple and elegant explanation that

> environments filter populations for the individuals best-suited to

> that environment. It is a basic principle of basic logic that this

> *must* happen, because we know that when something dies, it ceases

to

> exist. It is that basic and fundamental.

>

> You can question exactly what the implications of natural selection

> are and exactly to what extent they are responsible for the

entirety

> of life itself if you choose, but one can't be reasonable and

> simultaneously deny the self-evident fact that natural selection

is an

> operative force in the genetic evolution of populations.

>

> Chris

> --

> Dioxins in Animal Foods:

> A Case For Vegetarianism?

> Find Out the Truth:

> http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

>