Conference on Evolution

[Namesake]

According to the present state of our knowledge information is contained in DNA and RNA, particularly in the sequence of nucleotides, a sequence that makes sense. “Making sense” implies that the protein formed according to the information in the DNA and RNA is capable of playing some function in the metabolism of the organism producing it. This information is contained in each cell, in individuals, in populations, in the habitat, wherever there are living organisms. Reshuffling of this information, deleting parts of it, combining bits of it from different organisms etc. is not evolution. It will not allow the transformation of amoeba into an elephant. Such transformation would require new information - new sequences of nucleotides that make sense, new proteins for new functions and organs not to be found in amoeba.
The only hope you have for new information is from positive mutations. Can you give any examples? I can give you hundreds for negative and neutral mutations, but not a single positive one. We are afraid of mutations, we protect ourselves from them and we know they spoil the gene pool (increase the genetic load). Use of mutagenesis in breeding proved a failure and labs are abandoning this route. And one more point - a change that protects an existing function against and a destructive agent (disease, pesticide, herbicide etc) belongs to such phenomena as healing, immunology, elimination of defective cells or organisms etc. but not to evolutionary progress. Maciej

You make some fundamental errors. Basically you seem to forget that evolution can be defined as an increase in allele frequency within a population over time.

 

[mich2]

You make some fundamental errors. Basically you seem to forget that evolution can be defined as an increase in allele frequency within a population over time.

I would like to say that the knowledge that I have of evolution comes from the sixth or seventh grade. I have read a bit about it, but am confused in how the process works. So, instead of speaking of alleles and phenotypes, I will use terms such as traits and environmental pressures ( adaptation or natural selection).
First, if I take, for example,one trait.From what I understand, the information (gene or segment of genes) of such a trait will come from both the mother and the father. However, only one of the trait will be expressed and will be called dominant (I suppose) while the trait not expressed will be called recessive, it seems. However, a trait seen on a great old uncle might also be expressed, which might not have been observed on either father of mother. Also, there will always be the possibility of a mutation occuring, changing the characteristic of the trait altogether.

With this in view, would it be possible to conclude that we may have more information ( strings of genes coded for a specific use and purpose, however, most remaining dormant) within our DNA than our ancestors? While the number of genes might remain the same, I was thinking that maybe the coded gene segments having a purposeful role, while remaining dormant, maybe greater.

Secondly, let us say that a pandemic of some kind would exist; the disease affecting the sex cells, would cause most of the children to be born in blindness. .Let us assume that several generations will be affected, and, as a whole, most of the human population will need to live in blindness, recreating a whole new different, and much more limited societal environment, as a great deal of adaptation would be needed simply to survive. Here, the environmental stress is not centered on a few but all of the population.Those who will adapt will be those who will have succeeded in finding ways to survive,through a great deal of societal dependance, showing the role of the population as a whole to be the function of survival as opposed to individuals within the population. Such a view, it would seem, is different from natural selection, wherein nature is that which chooses which within the population will survive.
Free will ( a person can simply let himself die) and the capacity to adapt through the struggle of the population towards a new environment, would, in my opinion bring forth new information within the population.

From the above,would it not be better to assume Darwin’s finches with different beaks decided to move to other islands better fit for survival instead of saying that the island’s environment killed all the finches not fit with proper beaks to feed itself?

Andre

 

[hecd2]

According to the present state of our knowledge information is contained in DNA and RNA, particularly in the sequence of nucleotides, a sequence that makes sense. “Making sense” implies that the protein formed according to the information in the DNA and RNA is capable of playing some function in the metabolism of the organism producing it. This information is contained in each cell, in individuals, in populations, in the habitat, wherever there are living organisms. Reshuffling of this information, deleting parts of it, combining bits of it from different organisms etc. is not evolution.

Whoa! - let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The first step in validating your claim that “Macroevolution requires increase of information and there is no scientific evidence for this” is to define precisely and unambiguously what you mean by information. The second step is to determine how to measure or quantify information. (There are two further steps after that, if you ever get that far.)

I am afraid you fall at the first step and fail even to attempt the second. You claim that that information is a nucleotide sequence which, when transcribed and translated, carries out a metabolic function. But this is hopelessly vague in many ways. Should we exclude proteins that have other than metabolic functions? How about proteins that affect development or body planning or anatomy or that produce extra-cellular proteins or that are involved in cell signalling or that are transcription factors? Should we exclude non protein coding sequences, such as RNA genes? What about other conserved sequences that are not transcribed such as promoter and other regulatory sequence? How about sequences that are functional in the integrity of the chromosomes such as centromeres and telomeres?

So we are not sure just what is, according to you, information in the genome. And you haven’t even begun to define how to measure and quantify it, how to determine whether any particular process increases or reduces the quantity of information. We don’t know whether you are measuring it by number of genes, or coding length, or number of alleles. We don’t know whether you are measuring it in an individual organism, or a breeding population or a species. So far your definition is hopelessly vague. Let’s hope you can sharpen it up.

It will not allow the transformation of amoeba into an elephant. Such transformation would require new information - new sequences of nucleotides that make sense, new proteins for new functions and organs not to be found in amoeba.
The only hope you have for new information is from positive mutations. Can you give any examples? I can give you hundreds for negative and neutral mutations, but not a single positive one.

So according to this, your argument isn’t so much that information must increase for evolution to occur and that there is no natural process for that (so far you haven’t made progress with that argument because you have failed to define what you mean by information), but that “positive” mutations (I assume by this that you mean mutations that increase fitness in a particular environment) *never *occur. That is, without doubt, not only a different argument, but also a completely unsustainable one. We can come to that later.

But let’s not get sidetracked. Let’s stick to your original claim about information. Tell us how you precisely and unambiguously define and quantify information in biology and we’ll take it from there.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Maciej]

You make some fundamental errors. Basically you seem to forget that evolution can be defined as an increase in allele frequency within a population over time.

If you define evolution as “increase in allele frequency within a population over time” you are changing the whole idea of Darwin. An increase of the number of copies of a book in a bookshop or even in the population at large does not increase the amount of information it carries. If printers introduce haphazard errors to new editions without changing the meaning of the book you will get variants (alleles) but that also does not increase the amount of information circulating. If the errors spoil the meaning the books will need to be thrashed as useless. If some survive the thrashing they are still defective and will constitute useless ballast (genetic load). Darwin saw race formation and extrapolated this to macroevolution, from amoeba to elephant. The mechanism of race formation is insufficient to justify this extrapolation. Maciej.

 

[StAnastasia]

If you define evolution as “increase in allele frequency within a population over time” you are changing the whole idea of Darwin… Darwin saw race formation and extrapolated this to macroevolution, from amoeba to elephant. The mechanism of race formation is insufficient to justify this extrapolation. Maciej.

Maciej, you seem obsessed with Darwin. Do you not realize that the science of evolutionary biology has been considerably refined since 1859? Would you reject gravity if Newton’s original 1687 formulation were found to be insufficient? I don’t understand why you anti-evolutionists are so fixated on Darwin and “Darwinism.”

StAnastasia

 

[Maciej]

Reverend Sister,
Look in the school textbooks. The only evidence for evolution that they provide is evidence for race formation and that involves reduction of information. Race is a fragment of a more variable population. I do not know from what country you come but I am sure the situation is the same in all schools in the western world. You will have the Galapagos finches, the moth Biston betularia that is black or white depending on the colour of the bark it stays on and similar examples. There is no new evidence. This was obvious at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences session I attended (see my report). Palaeontology only confirms that missing links are missing. Positive mutations are a postulate and not an observation. If you know of new evidence quote it.
On the other hand there is new experimental evidence on how sedimentary layers form. This can be observed behind glass in hydraulic laboratories. Layers form simultaneously. For sedimentary rocks to form there must be erosion, transport and sedimentation. It is during transport that segregation of particles into layers takes place. This is reproducible empirical evidence. Check the internet for Guy Berthault to see this information. It demolishes the whole stratigraphic column and the time scale used there.
The evidence on the dating of rocks also leads to rejection of the time scale used in palaeontology. Here it is the persistent lack or reproducibility, rather than confirmations that leads to the conclusion that we have no information on the age of rocks.
As long as meetings, including Church sponsored ones, as the PAS session I attended with no right to speak and the one in the Gregorian you attended, refuse participation of scientists who have this anti-evolution evidence, you will persist in repeating the Darwinian scientific correctness. Sincerely,
Maciej

 

[StAnastasia]

Reverend Sister,
Look in the school textbooks. The only evidence for evolution that they provide is evidence for race formation and that involves reduction of information. Race is a fragment of a more variable population. I do not know from what country you come but I am sure the situation is the same in all schools in the western world. You will have the Galapagos finches, the moth Biston betularia that is black or white depending on the colour of the bark it stays on and similar examples. There is no new evidence. This was obvious at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences session I attended (see my report). Palaeontology only confirms that missing links are missing. Positive mutations are a postulate and not an observation. If you know of new evidence quote it…Check the internet for Guy Berthault to see this information. It demolishes the whole stratigraphic column and the time scale used there… Sincerely, Maciej

Dr. Maciej, it is indeed curious how you and I could have attended the same conference, and yet come away with diametrically opposite conclusions. Your impression from the conference is that evolution is a crumbing theory, tottering on it’s last legs before the unstoppable force of Young Earth Creationism. You appeal to Guy Berthault as the geologist to listen to for confirmation of a global Noachian flood.

My impression from the conference was that no theist, Catholic or otherwise, could have come away unimpressed with the consilient confirmation of evolutionary theory across a wide array of sciences. Evolution is increasingly confirmed with every passing year, testified to by myriad conferences, books, university courses, medical advances, and pharmaceutical discoveries. I regard Guy Berthault as a crackpot who cannot get a hearing with professional scientists, because he has nothing to say that is either new or true.

My impression from speaking with the non-theistic scientists in Rome is that they came away with greater respected for the intellectual integrity of the Catholic Chruch in its engagement with science. Perhaps we attended different conferences; I was at the Gregorian March 2-7.

Prayers and best wishes as we continue our respective journeys,
StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Evolution appears to play no role in medical advances. Comparative genomics concerns currently living things. Bacteria and viruses have the built-in ability to deal with outside threats. Bacteria that survive exposure to harmful agents survived because they already could, not because they changed.

Evolution is the secular circumcision. And the secular world views it as a requirement for the religious. Pope Benedict, after referring to the secularly famous statement by John Paul II, said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” This is the correct answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cassini]

PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION – 1-2009AD.

1. The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.

 

[hecd2]

Look in the school textbooks. The only evidence for evolution that they provide is evidence for race formation and that involves reduction of information.Race is a fragment of a more variable population. I do not know from what country you come but I am sure the situation is the same in all schools in the western world. You will have the Galapagos finches, the moth Biston betularia that is black or white depending on the colour of the bark it stays on and similar examples.

I am not familiar with school text books (why would one appeal to the content of books for school children if one really had a valid scientific point?), but I am familiar with university texts on evolutionary biology. They contain substantial evidence for both the fact of evolution and for the synthetic theory. This includes direct observations of evolution in action such as speciation, evidence from molecular biology (including homologies, syntenies and fossil sequences), ecology, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, biogeography, palaeontology and the fossil record, classification and so on. I direct you to the university text books such as “Evolution” by Mark Ridley and “Evolutionary Biology” by Douglas Futuyama.

Furthermore you have merely repeated you unsubstantiated claims about biological information. I don’t know whether you have abandoned our discussion on that subject, but let me remind you that you have so far failed to define or explain how to quantify information in organisms. You have yet to respond to this:

*"You claim that information is a nucleotide sequence which, when transcribed and translated, carries out a metabolic function. But this is hopelessly vague in many ways. Should we exclude proteins that have other than metabolic functions? How about proteins that affect development or body planning or anatomy or that produce extra-cellular proteins or that are involved in cell signalling or that are transcription factors? Should we exclude non protein coding sequences, such as RNA genes? What about other conserved sequences that are not transcribed such as promoter and other regulatory sequence? How about sequences that are functional in the integrity of the chromosomes such as centromeres and telomeres?

So we are not sure just what is, according to you, information in the genome. And you haven’t even begun to define how to measure and quantify it, how to determine whether any particular process increases or reduces the quantity of information. We don’t know whether you are measuring it by number of genes, or coding length, or number of alleles. We don’t know whether you are measuring it in an individual organism, or a breeding population or a species. So far your definition is hopelessly vague."*

Palaeontology only confirms that missing links are missing.

Such as Acanthostega, Icthyostega, Tulerpeton, Pederpes finneyae, Tiktaalik roseae? Such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Durodon,? Such as Eomaia scansoria? Such as Australopithicenes, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis? Such as the wonderful sequence of transitionals in the evolution of horses?

On the other hand there is new experimental evidence on how sedimentary layers form. This can be observed behind glass in hydraulic laboratories. Layers form simultaneously. For sedimentary rocks to form there must be erosion, transport and sedimentation. It is during transport that segregation of particles into layers takes place. This is reproducible empirical evidence. Check the internet for Guy Berthault to see this information. It demolishes the whole stratigraphic column and the time scale used there.

Guy Berthault’s claims to have single handedly overturned the entire basis of geology are absurd. See my article here for a thorough demolition of his hubris:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

The evidence on the dating of rocks also leads to rejection of the time scale used in palaeontology. Here it is the persistent lack or reproducibility, rather than confirmations that leads to the conclusion that we have no information on the age of rocks.

This is simply not true. It is an empty claim. To make this claim credible, you will have to explain how different radiometric decay series give the same results, and how radiometric dating can be out by a factor of one million.

We can discuss information in biological systems, we can discuss beneficial mutations or the existence of transitionals, or the significance of the geological column or radiometric dating. I am prepared to do so in excruciating detail if you wish.

However, we should stick to one thing at a time. How about defining biological information for us in an unambiguous way, and defining how we should measure it?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[Maciej]

Dr. Maciej, it is indeed curious how you and I could have attended the same conference, and yet come away with diametrically opposite conclusions. Your impression from the conference is that evolution is a crumbing theory, tottering on it’s last legs before the unstoppable force of Young Earth Creationism. You appeal to Guy Berthault as the geologist to listen to for confirmation of a global Noachian flood.

My impression from the conference was that no theist, Catholic or otherwise, could have come away unimpressed with the consilient confirmation of evolutionary theory across a wide array of sciences. Evolution is increasingly confirmed with every passing year, testified to by myriad conferences, books, university courses, medical advances, and pharmaceutical discoveries. I regard Guy Berthault as a crackpot who cannot get a hearing with professional scientists, because he has nothing to say that is either new or true.

My impression from speaking with the non-theistic scientists in Rome is that they came away with greater respected for the intellectual integrity of the Catholic Chruch in its engagement with science. Perhaps we attended different conferences; I was at the Gregorian March 2-7.

Prayers and best wishes as we continue our respective journeys,
StAnastasia

 

[Maciej]

Yes I did attend a different conference, that of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican 31st. Oct- 4th Nov. 2008. I have said so in my first intervention.
As long as you consider critics of evolution as “crackpots” you are in the mainstream of scientific correctness. God bless. Maciej

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes I did attend a different conference, that of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican 31st. Oct- 4th Nov. 2008. I have said so in my first intervention. As long as you consider critics of evolution as “crackpots” you are in the mainstream of scientific correctness. God bless. Maciej

I don’t consider critics of any theory crackpots if they can provide reasoned argument substantiated by evidence. To date none has yet been offered against the general theory of evolution that stands up under public scrutiny. When Copernicus is proven wrong, geocentrism can be revived, but until then its proponents will be regarded as crackpots. When the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is proven wrong, you can then revive Young Earth Creationism.

StAnastasia

 

[cassini]

I don’t consider critics of any theory crackpots if they can provide reasoned argument substantiated by evidence. To date none has yet been offered against the general theory of evolution that stands up under public scrutiny. When Copernicus is proven wrong, geocentrism can be revived, but until then its proponents will be regarded as crackpots. When the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is proven wrong, you can then revive Young Earth Creationism.

StAnastasia

I recall reading that you who goes by the name St Anastasia is a theologian active in the Catholic Church. You are a ‘big shot’ who manages to get into conferences and gives lectures on faith and science and is super active in defending your ‘scientific’ beliefs against any ‘crackpot’ who adheres to traditional beliefs once held by all in the Catholic Church. To me St Anastasia you are a living example of one of those described in the Protocols,

‘For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.’

On other threads I have argued that once Churchmen adopted the Copernican heresy as offered by the Freemasons of the Royal Society of London at the end of the seventeenth century, the Church was compromised in the field of faith and ‘science’. Now St Anastasia again defends the Copernican heresy but this time uses it to promote evolutionism. Here then is evidence that one follows the other. Just as the rogue Galileo asked the Church to PROVE heliocentricism wrong rather than his trying to PROVE geocentricism wrong, here we find you up to the same old tricks. The only difference being that in 1633 the Church adhered to theology as the Queen of all sciences and gave Galileo what he deserved, today science is the queen and the theology must adhere to it no matter if it leads into heresy. All they say is that you cannot dispute science so the theology cannot be unorthodox.

On this thread we had the pleasure of hearing from a professional geneticist. See what he had to say was undermined by the ideologists. But again there is nothing new under the sun for this is all playing into the Devil’s hands. Here is another almost a century ago who set the scene for the St Anastasias of our day:

‘THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEW
'At the present day no one in civilised life could, without being suspected of lunacy, maintain the geocentric system of astronomy that Galileo opposed, or entertain any serious doubt about the heliocentric system that Galileo maintained. Taking up any school textbook of today you will find this latter system outlined briefly as follows… The theory thus briefly outlined displays of course an immense advancement on Galileo’s knowledge, but in essence it is the Copernican system for which Galileo fought and for which he was condemned. As for proof of its truth, we cannot say that it amounts to a demonstration of strict formal logic; but it is a theory which, first adopted as a hypothesis, has been found to work and to explain everything, and even to afford a reliable basis for anticipating future or unknown facts. And this verification has been carried on so long and so minutely as to destroy all psychological dispositions to doubt its truth.’ — Fr Earnest Hull, Galileo Jan 1st 1913, with imprimatur from Archbishop of Bombay.

Note Fr Hull’s PSYCHOLOGICAL propaganda. First he says the heliocentric system was accepted then without ‘serious doubt’. Then he admits that it has never been empirically proven and remains but a ‘theory’. But Galileo’s theory he says, is ‘found to work and explain everything’ and could ‘afford a reliable basis for anticipating future or unknown facts’, which the geocentric system does also. He then asserts ‘this verification has been carried on so long and so minutely as to destroy all psychological dispositions to doubt its truth.’

It is clear to see that you St Anastasia are a modern Fr Hull continuing on the work undermining the simple literal reading of Genesis. No doubt God was aware that all would not have been as intellectually gifted as others so while directing creation through evolution He had to give the crackpots and lunatics something they could understand

Yeh.

 

[StAnastasia]

I recall reading that you who goes by the name St Anastasia is a theologian active in the Catholic Church. You are a ‘big shot’ who manages to get into conferences and gives lectures on faith and science and is super active in defending your ‘scientific’ beliefs against any ‘crackpot’ who adheres to traditional beliefs once held by all in the Catholic Church…It is clear to see that you St Anastasia are a modern.

Bigshot, no – I was s simple member of the audience in Rome; there were only thirty-five speaking slots. And “postmodern” would be more accurate; modernity carries too many connotations of certitude and privilege of position. However, I am certainly a Galilean and evolutionary Roman Catholic.

StAnastasia

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Well, I have to say I am disappointed. Surviving because they already could, boy oh boy would my biology teacher laugh if I ever said that. If you have not figured it out, if the whole colony of bacteria came from just one, and if the bacteria reproduced through the process of mitosis then they are genetically the same. Oh, and i am not saying that changes in DNA sequences are always beneficial. (Sometimes they could be deadly to the organism it happens to)

Evolution is what allows species to live or die under certain conditions. If a situation arises that the is extremely detrimental to a species, and only the ones with some sort of mutation that helped them survive. THE REASON THEY SURVIVED WHEN OTHERS COULDN’T. If the mutation allowed the one that was actually mutated to survive, and if the mutation did not actually kill the organism, it affected, then the organism that survived will get the right to reproduce and spread it genes that allowed it to live. Look up antibiotic resistant bacteria; it has a better description of what happened than my, extremely over simplified explanation.

Example: Albino crocodile. You want to know why there aren’t any in the wild. If a crocodile ended up having that mutation. Then it hatches and goes out to the world. Well imagine the green crocodiles swimming, thinking “hmm, a predator, hey most of my environment is green, I’m green I can hide right here and be safe.”
Now imagine the baby Albino crocodile, “hmm a predator,” Chomp. He’s now eaten, because he stood out like a very sore thumb. But, if environment was white, then there would be more albino crocodiles and less green crocodiles.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I have to say I am disappointed. Surviving because they already could, boy oh boy would my biology teacher laugh if I ever said that. If you have not figured it out, if the whole colony of bacteria came from just one, and if the bacteria reproduced through the process of mitosis then they are genetically the same. Oh, and i am not saying that changes in DNA sequences are always beneficial. (Sometimes they could be deadly to the organism it happens to)

Evolution is what allows species to live or die under certain conditions. If a situation arises that the is extremely detrimental to a species, and only the ones with some sort of mutation that helped them survive. THE REASON THEY SURVIVED WHEN OTHERS COULDN’T. If the mutation allowed the one that was actually mutated to survive, and if the mutation did not actually kill the organism, it affected, then the organism that survived will get the right to reproduce and spread it genes that allowed it to live. Look up antibiotic resistant bacteria; it has a better description of what happened than my, extremely over simplified explanation.

Example: Albino crocodile. You want to know why there aren’t any in the wild. If a crocodile ended up having that mutation. Then it hatches and goes out to the world. Well imagine the green crocodiles swimming, thinking “hmm, a predator, hey most of my environment is green, I’m green I can hide right here and be safe.”
Now imagine the baby Albino crocodile, “hmm a predator,” Chomp. He’s now eaten, because he stood out like a very sore thumb. But, if environment was white, then there would be more albino crocodiles and less green crocodiles.

Bacteria have dormant capabilities.

They can take up DNA from their environment, they can exchange DNA between them.

 

[edwest2]

Well, I have to say I am disappointed. Surviving because they already could, boy oh boy would my biology teacher laugh if I ever said that. If you have not figured it out, if the whole colony of bacteria came from just one, and if the bacteria reproduced through the process of mitosis then they are genetically the same. Oh, and i am not saying that changes in DNA sequences are always beneficial. (Sometimes they could be deadly to the organism it happens to)

Evolution is what allows species to live or die under certain conditions. If a situation arises that the is extremely detrimental to a species, and only the ones with some sort of mutation that helped them survive. THE REASON THEY SURVIVED WHEN OTHERS COULDN’T. If the mutation allowed the one that was actually mutated to survive, and if the mutation did not actually kill the organism, it affected, then the organism that survived will get the right to reproduce and spread it genes that allowed it to live. Look up antibiotic resistant bacteria; it has a better description of what happened than my, extremely over simplified explanation.

Example: Albino crocodile. You want to know why there aren’t any in the wild. If a crocodile ended up having that mutation. Then it hatches and goes out to the world. Well imagine the green crocodiles swimming, thinking “hmm, a predator, hey most of my environment is green, I’m green I can hide right here and be safe.”
Now imagine the baby Albino crocodile, “hmm a predator,” Chomp. He’s now eaten, because he stood out like a very sore thumb. But, if environment was white, then there would be more albino crocodiles and less green crocodiles.

Nope. Scientists are finding bacteria in dirt that are already resistant to antibiotics, both natural and synthetic:

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/mu-rud011606.php

Hopefully, they’ll wake up and make the connection. Bacteria can exchange genetic material with other bacteria, including other species. This is a built-in ability.

Peace,
Ed

 

[peacefulwarrior]

I will give you that ed. Sometimes they do have dormant DNA, and sometimes they do exchange genetic information. But, guess why they are resistant to those antibotics. If you didn’t know, most antibiotics go to animals that are being farmed. This is to keep them healthy, but like any living being they go to the bathroom. The bacteria that gained the ability to be able to survive it, will come out as well. Then it can be spread into the environment. Or, antibiotics can also go through the water, or other methods and of course they will spread. Oh, and resistance to natural antibiotics. Duh, we weren’t the first ones to figure out that way to fight bacteria. The honor goes to plants for that. And, it will be the exact same cycle, most bacteria will die, and the very few extremely lucky bacteria who survived it due to their resistance will go on to reproduce.

 

[buffalo]

I will give you that ed. Sometimes they do have dormant DNA, and sometimes they do exchange genetic information. But, guess why they are resistant to those antibotics. If you didn’t know, most antibiotics go to animals that are being farmed. This is to keep them healthy, but like any living being they go to the bathroom. The bacteria that gained the ability to be able to survive it, will come out as well. Then it can be spread into the environment. Or, antibiotics can also go through the water, or other methods and of course they will spread. Oh, and resistance to natural antibiotics. Duh, we weren’t the first ones to figure out that way to fight bacteria. The honor goes to plants for that. And, it will be the exact same cycle, most bacteria will die, and the very few extremely lucky bacteria who survived it due to their resistance will go on to reproduce.

I think you should really check this out. Bacteria have dormant antibiotic memories so to speak. Depending on the environment they simply turn themselves on.