Directed Mutation and Galileo

Jorolat jorolat at aol.com
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
>denied
>an essential need. Soon it is noted that the surviving bacteria can produce
>the
>substance independently. Most of us would interpret this as classic natural
>selection. The inference drawn is instead that the lack of the substance
>induced
>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
>of
>Lamarckism.
>
>Dennis
>

  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"

Regards,

Jorolat


http://members.aol.com/jorolat
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