On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:20:47 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
>GM>I would not say that mutations have never been known to produce
>anything good for the organism which possess it. Over the past 60
>years, mankind has waged an unrelenting battle against the microbes
>of this planet. We have killed them with penicillin, streptomycin,
>vancomycin, and many other antibiotics. Because of this onslaught,
>mutations have produced immunities to each of the antibiotics which
>we have thrown at them....
SJ>The impression here given (perhaps unintentionally) is that
>favourable mutations arrive on demand when needed? My understanding
>is that it is not "mutations" but genetic variation already present
>in the populations that confers such resistance:
GM>If God created life, which I firmly believe He did
Not so long ago you were exulting about the discovery of L-handed
amino acids in the Murchison Meteorite which may not have had a
terrestrial origin. You were pleased that:
"The creationist argument, that life could not arise spontaneously
because of the chirality problem, is beginning to look like a God of
the Gaps argument."
There was no mention of God in your statement (apart from the above
reference to the "God of the Gaps"). It seems that like metaphysical
naturalists you would prefer that "life" arose "spontaneously",
rather than God acting supernaturally to bring it about?
>GM>and random mutation are so bad as Creationist/anti-evolutionists
>say, then why did God create life with a mechanism to produce
>mutations when they are under stress.
There is a bit of confusion here with the word "bad". Mutations are
more likely to be either nuetral or harmful, but I do not regard them
as "bad" in a moral sense. I have no problem if "God created life
with a mechanism to produce mutations", whether "under stress" or
otherwise.
GM>There is a new phenomenon, which has been discussed over the past
>few years.
>
>"When a population of microorganisms is unable to grow because
>nutrients are exhausted or cannot be used, it could make good sense
>for individuals i that population to experiment with their genomes
>to try to overcome the deficiency. One approach would be for a
>subpopulation to start mutating vigourously at random
>(hypermutation), in the hope that a mutation might arise that would
>enable growth to begin again. An alternative strategy would be to
>mutate only those genes that might possibly be effective if mutated
>(directed mutation), an idea that was raised by John Cairns and his
>colleagues in much-cited work published in 1988. Two new papers,
>one from Pat Foster and the other from Susan Rosenberg and her
>group, turn the spotlight firmly on the first one of these
>strategies." B.A. Bridges, 'Hypermutation under Stress," Naturee
>June 5, 1997, p. 557
This is interesting, but if proven, it is just another mechanism of
micro- evolution in single-cell organisms. As Milton points out, the
"The bacteria in the experiment are remaining the same species, E.
coli":
"Additional, and very suggestive, evidence has come from two series
of experiments conducted in the past three years in the United
States. The first was conducted by British biologist Dr John Cairns
and two colleagues at Harvard University in 1988. The second, a
repeat of the Cairns experiments with tighter controls and extended
objectives, was carried out by Dr Barry Hall of Rochester University
in 1990. The experiments were conducted on bacteria, principally the
species Escherichia coli. What they demonstrate is that when the
bacteria are deprived of certain essential nutrients such as the
amino acids tryptophan and cysteine, they are capable in this
extremely hostile environment of giving rise to descendants capable
of synthesising their own nutrients. What is taking place, believe
Cairns and Hall, is that the bacteria are mutating and that the
mutation is not random but internally directed by the needs of the
organism in the direction of being able to synthesise the necessary
nutrients. The only aspect of this experiment which it seems to me
needs to be looked at carefully is the meaning which should be
attached to the use of the word mutation in this context. The
bacteria in the experiment are remaining the same species, E. coli."
(Milton R., "The Facts of Life", 1992, p190).
Maynard Smith, concludes that "it could not lead to morphological or
behavioural adaptation":
"In any case, the process can only help a cell to meet an immediate
molecular problem: it could not lead to morphological or behavioural
adaptation." (Smith J.M., "The Theory of Evolution", 1993, p3)
GM>and "Random hypermutation in specific genes is a tactic that
>has been evolved by numerous pathogenic microorganisms in doing
>battle with their host's defences. In contrast, the latest results
>with the FC40 system seem to indicate a specific type of
>hypermutation in random genes." ibid p. 558
>
>God gave the animals the ability to produce random mutation when
>such a tactic was needed for survival. Are anti-evolutionists to
>say that God didn't create this mechanism?
These are just single-celled organisms - not "animals". But I am
pleased that you acknowledge that "God gave" them this "ability". I
don't know what other "anti- evolutionists" would "say" but I would
have no problem with "God creating "this mechanism", whether through
natural processes or supernatural intervention:
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the
miraculous action of the evident finger of God as a scientific
hypothesis. In my world view, all natural forces and events are fully
contingent on the free choice of the sovereign God. Thus, neither an
adequate nor an inadequate "neo-Darwinism (as mechanism) holds
any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like. And I feel no
metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident finger of God."
(Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?", 1994, p215)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------