Directed Mutation and Galileo

Jorolat jorolat at
Sun Jan 2 11:24:26 EST 2000

 In article...   Dennis wrote:

>(Tom McCloud) wrote:
>>    You can certainly
>>establish the numerator of the equation, the number of favorable
>>mutations, but what is the denominator?  The number of mutations
>>detected?  If that is the number used as a denomintor to make a
>>calculation then certainly the apparent percentage of advantageous
>>mutation will be high.  And it will also be wrong.      Demonstrate to
>>me that you have a solid, scientifically valid method for determining
>>a TOTAL mutation rate.   Tom McCloud
>A good criticsm.
>If you go to the commentaries you will read that a organism(bacteria) is
>an essential need. Soon it is noted that the surviving bacteria can produce
>substance independently. Most of us would interpret this as classic natural
>selection. The inference drawn is instead that the lack of the substance
>a mutation to create the substance. The piece I read made no reference to
>genetic or molecular analysis, pre and post, that would justify the inference

  A basic technique used in the experiments that produced stationary-phase
mutations was to engineer a mutation and then supply the bacteria only with the
product they had become dysfunctional for.
   When this happened the bacteria entered a starvation or "stationary-phase"
and stopped replicating. It was while in this non-replicating state that the
engineered mutations were reversed leading to the original interpretation of
"Directed Mutation"


Model of an Internal Evolutionary Mechanism (presented as an extension to
Homoeostasis) and proposed method of testing.
Psychology. Social Psychology inc. Real-Life stories.

More information about the Plantbio mailing list