More thoughts on the Cit+ E. coli evolution experiment
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: The Lost Dutchman Mine. But finding it is not a goal.
I have established a new post label for the Citrate-eating E. coli evolution experiment. Post labels are listed in the sidebar.
Whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was an initial "goal" (I use the standard definition of "goal," and there are such things as secondary goals, longshot goals, incidental goals, etc.) when the long-term E. coli evolution experiment began in 1988 has not been established, but it occurred to me that Cit+ evolution must at least have become a "goal" sometime along the way because the experimenters must have been checking for the appearance of Cit+ bacteria because the Cit+ bacteria were detected when they were only 0.5% of the population at about 31,500 generations.
Also, someone suggested that the popular name for the first mutation (~20,000 generations), the "potentiating" mutation, is wrong, because the name implies that this first mutation was a pre-requisite for the second mutation and there is no evidence (at least so far as I know) that it is a pre-requisite. Below is part of a comment that I posted on another blog in response to another comment:
.
It also occurs to me that it was wrong to call the first mutation "silent" and the second mutation "expressed," because either mutation would be silent in the absence of the other. So maybe it would be best to use the names "mutation A" and "mutation B," respectively, for the first and second mutations.
.
Prospector B: The Lost Dutchman Mine. But finding it is not a goal.
I have established a new post label for the Citrate-eating E. coli evolution experiment. Post labels are listed in the sidebar.
Whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was an initial "goal" (I use the standard definition of "goal," and there are such things as secondary goals, longshot goals, incidental goals, etc.) when the long-term E. coli evolution experiment began in 1988 has not been established, but it occurred to me that Cit+ evolution must at least have become a "goal" sometime along the way because the experimenters must have been checking for the appearance of Cit+ bacteria because the Cit+ bacteria were detected when they were only 0.5% of the population at about 31,500 generations.
Also, someone suggested that the popular name for the first mutation (~20,000 generations), the "potentiating" mutation, is wrong, because the name implies that this first mutation was a pre-requisite for the second mutation and there is no evidence (at least so far as I know) that it is a pre-requisite. Below is part of a comment that I posted on another blog in response to another comment:
.
"If the cit+ mutation had occurred first, wouldn't we be calling the later potentiating mutation the cit+ mutation instead? "
I prefer saying that a mutation "became established" as opposed to saying that a mutation "occurred" -- some mutations, particularly mutations that occurred in one of the last generations of a daily population, might have been lost when only one percent of each daily population was used to start the next day's population.
The first mutation, the so-called "potentiating" mutation, was a "silent" (unexpressed) mutation that became established at around 20,000 generations (~ 9 years); the second mutation, which was expressed as the Cit+ trait, became established at around 31,500 generations (about 5 years later). The "potentiating" mutation is apparently very unusual because the Cit+ trait appeared in only one of the 12 lines of bacteria -- the second mutation is apparently relatively common because the Cit+ trait appeared repeatedly when the experiment was re-run starting with frozen samples from generations containing the "potentiating" mutation (generations numbered 20,000 or later). Because the second mutation is fairly common, the Cit+ trait probably would have appeared in the other 11 lines of bacteria if the first mutation were common. IMO there is no evidence that the first mutation was really a "potentiating" mutation in the sense of being a pre-requisite for the second mutation, so IMO you are right in questioning use of the term "potentiating" to describe the first mutation.
It also occurs to me that it was wrong to call the first mutation "silent" and the second mutation "expressed," because either mutation would be silent in the absence of the other. So maybe it would be best to use the names "mutation A" and "mutation B," respectively, for the first and second mutations.
.
Labels: Citrate-eating E. coli
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/19/2008 09:50:00 PM
91 Comments:
Shall we reiterate the quotes from before?
Here are some reprises:
Brossa Said:
"We've been over the issue of 'goal' before, and it doesn't look like there will be any resolution of that issue, in part because you seem to be using a different definition of 'goal' than most other people."
In response to request for a percent probability that defines a goal, he responded:
"Probability does not distinguish goals from non-goals. The goal of the SETI program is to detect a radio signal from space that indicates the presence of alien intelligence. The probability of detecting such a signal is low. Yet it remains their goal, because, among other things, they say that it is their goal, and all of their actions appear directed toward detecting such a signal as opposed to surveying the cosmic microwave background radiation."
Here's an example that I gave in a previous post, a rewrite of your Lost Dutchman Mine example. I said:
"Wife: I'm going to the store!
Husband: Why are you going to the store?
Wife: We need milk and eggs.
(Wife goes to the store, comes home with milk, eggs, cheese and sugar.)
Husband: Why did you get cheese and sugar?
Wife: Well, they were there, and cheap, so I got them, you know how useful cheese and sugar are.
Husband: I know you like cheese. . .DID YOU GO TO THE STORE TO GET CHEESE??!?
Wife: Uh, no, it was just there, and cheap. . .so I got it."
Additionally, They have shown that this particular mutation is a potentiating mutation. They took samples of the bacteria from that generation, ran the experiment again, and found that the same cit+ mutation evolved. That's how a potentiating mutation is defined. I believe (though I haven't checked today) that they ran a control from other populations at that same generation in order to test this hypothesis.
Also, Larry, do you frequently just make things about biology up? Because it seems like you do. Have we established by any source other than Jim Sherwood that you actually have a working knowledge of biology? That might be helpful.
Oh, Also, have you gotten around to reading the whole paper yet? Just curious.
>>>>>> you seem to be using a different definition of 'goal' than most other people. <<<<<<
Wrong -- I use the standard definition -- something foreseen as a possible and desirable result of an effort. In fact, a specific effort is not needed -- evolution of Cit+ bacteria could have been a "goal" of the experiment even if nothing specific was done to favor it. It is just plain wrong to say that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" of the experiment when the experimenters must have been checking for the appearance of Cit+ bacteria because the Cit+ bacteria were detected when they were only 0.5% of the population. The purpose of language is to communicate, not play word games.
>>>>>> In response to request for a percent probability that defines a goal, he responded:
"Probability does not distinguish goals from non-goals." <<<<<<<
Which was my point.
>>>>>> Additionally, They have shown that this particular mutation is a potentiating mutation. They took samples of the bacteria from that generation, ran the experiment again, and found that the same cit+ mutation evolved. That's how a potentiating mutation is defined. <<<<<<<
But the term "potentiating" implies that the first mutation is a pre-requisite for the second mutation, but there is no evidence that it is. Also, the term could be used interchangeably here -- as the commenter who I was answering on the other blog astutely observed, "If the cit+ mutation had occurred first, wouldn't we be calling the later potentiating mutation the cit+ mutation instead? " In other words, had the second mutation, "mutation B," become established prior to establishment of the so-called "potentiating" mutation, "mutation A," and if by some fluke mutation A initially became established on bacteria already possessing mutation B, then we would be calling mutation B -- not mutation A -- the "potentiating" mutation. In fact, there is a good chance that mutation B became established before mutation A became established, because it appears that mutation B is far more common than mutation A. I don't know what other names could be given the mutations -- maybe they could be called "insufficient" mutations because individually they are insufficient to produce the Cit+ trait.
>>>>>> Have we established by any source other than Jim Sherwood that you actually have a working knowledge of biology? <<<<<<
You despicable dunghill, can't you engage in a discussion without insulting people?
>>>>>> have you gotten around to reading the whole paper yet? <<<<<<<
Irrelevant.
>>>>when the experimenters must have been checking for the appearance of Cit+ bacteria because the Cit+ bacteria were detected when they were only 0.5% of the population<<<<
The experimenters did not first detect the Cit+ E. coli when they were 0.5% of the population. Because you still have not read the paper, I will include references to the relevant portions of the 2008 PNAS paper by Blount. They noted the increased turbidity of the cultures at 33,127 generations (page 7900, right column, first paragraph under 'results', sixth nonbolded sentence). They then identified the cause of the increased turbidity as being a Cit+ strain of E. coli, rather than some other citrate-eating contaminant (page 7900, second column, first paragraph under 'results', sentence begins 'A number of Cit+ clones'). They then, later, went back to the frozen samples of earlier generations and were able to isolate Cit+ cells from generations 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 as well, quantitatively, using a different culture technique (page 7901, first column, second full paragraph).
>>>>Irrelevant.<<<<
Entirely relevant. Not reading, and understanding, the paper leads to false statements such as "because the Cit+ bacteria were detected when they were only 0.5% of the population". Your credibility suffers when such statements are made.
"Wrong -- I use the standard definition -- something foreseen as a possible and desirable result of an effort."
Right, so Brossa was correct, you use this other definition that doesn't match what everyone else thinks a goal is.
M-W, in fact, disagrees with you too.
goal - the end toward which effort is directed
(The experiment has, in no way, ended because Cit+ evolved, as I'm sure you know. Nor was it considered a failure before Cit+ evolved)
"You despicable dunghill, can't you engage in a discussion without insulting people?"
That, actually wasn't an insult, it was a question. Have we? You don't seem to. If you don't, that's not even really an insult, it's more a statement of fact. A relevant statement of fact, but really, just a statement of fact. (I, for example would not be offended if you told me that I had no working knowledge of piloting, though I do talk about piloting with some regularity. Additionally, if someone who claimed to have a working knowledge challenged me on an issue related to piloting I would graciously concede, in all likelihood.) Dunghill, on the other hand, IS an insult, and I would turn the question back to you. Larry, can't you engage in a discussion without insulting people?
">>>>>> have you gotten around to reading the whole paper yet? <<<<<<<
Irrelevant."
Uhh, no.
Probably they address this "potentiating" mutation bit in there. I could go read it AGAIN (See, the again means that the last time we had this argument, I read the paper, unlike someone else in this discussion.) Considering that we are, in fact arguing about what amounts to "the paper" it probably is relevant.
Speaking of relevant papers, Phae already answered the question of whether Cit+ evolution was a goal of this experiment.
"The '91 paper, which immediately summarizes the whole of the experiment's intent. On page 1316 is a very clear summary of the intent of the experiment, expressed "metaphorically" rather than technically for the convenience of idiots (hint: you). Notice that citrate is not mentioned." (FYI: Intent is listed as a synonym of "aim" which is also a synonym of "goal.")
Finally, "Checking" for Cit+ bacteria isn't really an experimental step. It was built into the design, but mostly because the media they were using were standard biological media meant to distinguish e. Coli from other bacteria. Cit+/- is a trait that distinguishes e. Coli.
P.S. Larry, I could start name-calling, but, as usual, I find it to be an ineffective argument strategy.
> You despicable dunghill, can't you engage in a discussion without insulting people? <
Dunghill Larry is a scream. Always proving his opponent's points.
Oh, Larry, willingly tying yourself to the flogging wheel again are we?
it occurs to me that the problem might be broader than we had previously thought. Larry, do you inderstand science?
Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a goal?
Do you know what experimenters (in general) actually do? What they are trying to do?
Do you know why they write scientific papers? why they write them in the format they do? what questions these papers are supposed to answer?
Because if you didn't, that would explain a lot.
See, a hypothesis of the Lenski experiment, at some point, might have been that the bacteria would develop the Cit+ trait, but despite that, because it was an experiment, they continued to follow the experimental procedure even after the hypothesis (if it was a hypothesis) appearaed to be supported. If a hypothesis appears to be supported the researchers might be excited, but they don't stop the experiment. . .even if it's their ONLY hypothesis. Also, to reiterate previous points, why does it matter if that was a "goal" or hypothesis? It evidently happened, and even if they had designed an experiment in order to test the hypothesis that e. coli might develop the Cit+ trait specifically, (which I don't believe) it still happened. What's the problem, exactly that you have with this study.
Evolutionists don't argue that evolution is happening on a grand scale around us all the time, and it seems reasonable that producing evolution in a lab would require a specialized experiment. (Which, again, considering the scope of this study and the sheer number of papers NOT about evolution of the Cit+ trait, I don't believe that Cit+ evolution was the starting point.)
One of the problems you Darwinists have is your one-upmanship. A lot of people don't like it and it is hurting you badly in the court of public opinion.
How many weaknesses or potential weaknesses of Darwinism have gone unchallenged because scientists who saw them were afraid to point them out, for fear of ridicule, or worse?
Have you ever heard the story about the emperor's new clothes? If someone had just had the courage to say, "am I not seeing things, or do those clothes not exist?", the whole fraud would have been exposed.
When I correct people, I don't insult their intelligence unless the error was really, really stupid, usually deliberately frivolous.
brossa said,
>>>>>>when the experimenters must have been checking for the appearance of Cit+ bacteria because the Cit+ bacteria were detected when they were only 0.5% of the population
The experimenters did not first detect the Cit+ E. coli when they were 0.5% of the population. <<<<<<<
Thank you -- I stand corrected. But look at the all the wonderful things I was able to post in this blog with the time I saved by not trying to find the answer to that question myself. And had I not made my statement above, I would never have known the correct answer.
Zachary Blount, one of the people in the best position to answer questions about the experiment, just indignantly clammed up when I started asking him about inconsistencies in his statements about whether Cit+ evolution was a "goal" of the experiment.
I got the impression that a lot of people believe that Cit+ evolution was a "goal" of the experiment. Probably a lot of people even falsely believe that Cit+ evolution was the sole goal of the experiment, because that was the only result of the experiment that has been widely discussed.
>>>>> Not reading, and understanding, the paper leads to false statements such as "because the Cit+ bacteria were detected when they were only 0.5% of the population". Your credibility suffers when such statements are made. <<<<<<
And your credibility suffers when you make uncalled-for insults and ad hominem attacks. It shows one-upmanship.
Erin said,
>>>>>> goal - the end toward which effort is directed
(The experiment has, in no way, ended because Cit+ evolved, as I'm sure you know. Nor was it considered a failure before Cit+ evolved) <<<<<<<
That's absurd. And even if my interpretation of "goal" were non-standard, that would still be no excuse for not making a clarification when I ask for one. As I said, the purpose of language is communication, not playing word games.
>>>>>> That, actually wasn't an insult, it was a question. <<<<<<
Are you not a lousy despicable dunghill? That's a question, not an insult.
>>>>>> Probably they address this "potentiating" mutation bit in there. <<<<<<
"Probably"?
>>>>> I could go read it AGAIN (See, the again means that the last time we had this argument, I read the paper, unlike someone else in this discussion.) Considering that we are, in fact arguing about what amounts to "the paper" it probably is relevant. <<<<<<
Why should I waste time reading the paper when there is no guarantee that it would answer my question? Indeed, one inconclusive answer to one of my questions here -- i.e., whether the Cit+ evolution was a goal of the experiment -- did not come from the 2008 paper but came from a 1991 paper!
>>>>>>"The '91 paper, which immediately summarizes the whole of the experiment's intent. On page 1316 is a very clear summary of the intent of the experiment, expressed "metaphorically" rather than technically for the convenience of idiots (hint: you). <<<<<<
See? Even you make insults that are not in the form of questions.
Anyway, that still doesn't answer the question about whether the Cit+ evolution was a goal of the experiment. Blount said that he believed that Richard Lenski, who started the experiment in 1988, foresaw Cit+ evolution as a possible result, which would automatically make it a "goal" since it was of course a desirable result. Strengthening this idea that it was a "goal" is the fact that it had been observed once before. Did the original research proposal -- if there was one -- say anything about Cit+ evolution? Maybe not mentioning it in the '91 paper was an oversight.
>>>>> (FYI: Intent is listed as a synonym of "aim" which is also a synonym of "goal.") <<<<<
But there are nuances of meaning -- "intent" implies complete control over the outcome. In sports, a team "tries" to score a goal -- a team does not "intend" to score a goal. Anyway, as I said, where there are misunderstandings, clarifications are in order -- the purpose of language is to communicate, not play silly word games.
>>>>>"Checking" for Cit+ bacteria isn't really an experimental step. It was built into the design, <<<<<<
" 'Checking' for Cit+ bacteria . . .was built into the design," and you are saying that Cit+ evolution was not a goal?
>>>>>> I could start name-calling, but, as usual, I find it to be an ineffective argument strategy. <<<<<<
You and your fellow trolls are always using name-calling as part of your "strategy."
>>>>> Larry, do you inderstand science? <<<<<
See, there you go again.
>>>>> See, a hypothesis of the Lenski experiment, at some point, might have been that the bacteria would develop the Cit+ trait, <<<<<<
No, I don't see. It was not just a "hypothesis" -- It was certain that the bacteria could develop the Cit+ trait, because the Cit+ trait had been observed once before in E. coli bacteria.
>>>>>> Also, to reiterate previous points, why does it matter if that was a "goal" or hypothesis? It evidently happened, and even if they had designed an experiment in order to test the hypothesis that e. coli might develop the Cit+ trait specifically, (which I don't believe) it still happened. <<<<<<<
Knowing whether it was a "goal" is basic to understanding the experiment. I asked Blount if a purpose of the glucose cycling (alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution and he did not answer. BTW, I found one purpose of glucose cycling on my own: to limit the maximum number of bacteria.
If you don't like my queries about the experiment, maybe you like Andy Schlafly's (of Conservapedia) queries better -- he just asked for all the raw data from the experiment.
Anyway, you did not answer my defense of my objection to calling the first mutation a "potentiating" mutation, and that objection was your reason for insulting me in your first comment here. That makes you look extremely foolish.
>>>>But look at the all the wonderful things I was able to post in this blog with the time I saved by not trying to find the answer to that question myself<<<<
I see. Well, that sums things up nicely.
>>>>And had I not made my statement above, I would never have known the correct answer.<<<<
Reading the paper would have told you that. But since you seem to feel that reading the paper is not a prerequisite to criticizing it, then yes, you are correct - you never would have known the correct answer.
>>>>And your credibility suffers when you make uncalled-for insults and ad hominem attacks. It shows one-upmanship.<<<<
No, an ad hominem would take the form of "Larry Fafarman is a holocaust denier, and therefore you shouldn't believe anything he says about evolution". Pointing out your erroneous statements on this topic, and noting that they decrease your credibility on this topic, is entirely appropriate.
>>>>>>But look at the all the wonderful things I was able to post in this blog with the time I saved by not trying to find the answer to that question myself
I see. Well, that sums things up nicely. <<<<<<
Yes, it sure does.
>>>>And had I not made my statement above, I would never have known the correct answer.
Reading the paper would have told you that. <<<<<<
I had no way of knowing that the paper had the correct information about that, idiot. And nothing can excuse Zachary Blount's refusal to answer my specific, reasonable questions.
>>>>>> No, an ad hominem would take the form of "Larry Fafarman is a holocaust denier, and therefore you shouldn't believe anything he says about evolution". <<<<<<
Well, a lot of jerks say that, too. But there is nothing in the definition of "ad hominem" that says that the attack must be based on a different subject.
>>>>> Pointing out your erroneous statements on this topic, and noting that they decrease your credibility on this topic, is entirely appropriate. <<<<<<
My credibility is not decreased when my mistake is an honest one and I admit the error.
Anyway, no one has yet answered my defense (August 20, 2008 3:21:00 AM) of my objection to the use of the term "potentiating" to describe one of the mutations.
Oh my, what an interesting discussion to stumble upon.
Here we have a no-name on his internet soapbox shouting out absolute nonsense and several bored fools with nothing better to do than to argue with someone who is willfully avoiding rational thought. I, too, enjoy trying to show reason to the unreasonable, so in the end it comes out mutually beneficial to all. Except perhaps for the human race.
As a linguist, let us start with the linguistic considerations: "goal". Goal means, as stated by Erin and Brossa both, the end towards which an action is performed. In Erin's story, buying cheese was not the goal of the shopping trip. You could say that buying the cheese was the goal of her picking up the cheese in the store, but it was not the goal of the trip itself. Similarly, you could say that determining the nature of the Cit+ mutation was a goal once they found it, but it was not the goal of the experiment. As such, it does become confusing when you ask whether the Cit+ findings were a goal of the study. They were not, but they happened. Once they happened, they in fact did some research and experimentation with the goal of understanding what happened, but the project itself was not designed with this in mind.
As for the intent of language, communication is undeniably its goal. As such, it is expected that you follow a series of conversational maxims in order to maximize understanding. Your definition of the word goal is one that has been misunderstood by two of the readers of your blog, and three including myself. If we were to take the definition you provide of "goal", then in fact you are correct. However, this definition is not commonly accepted, and in argument in particular it is essential to have agreement on the definitions of words. To the average reader, your use of the word goal is misleading as it relies on a definition that is not readily available (or discernable) to the average native American English speaker.
While a dictionary is merely a descriptive tool, when having an argument over semantics a resolution must be reached. As I believe both sides can agree that the dictionary is an honest source for the popularly understood definitions of words, the debate on "goal" ought to be resolved in favor of goal meaning an "end towards which effort is directed".
As for potentiating, both mutations are potentiating. Whichever one occurs last is the most likely to be described as potentiating because it is the one that makes the bacteria more powerful, or potent. Potentiate is derived from potent, not potential, as you seem to be implying. (Potential is derived from potent as well, but their derivations have significantly altered meanings). I am not certain if the biochemical use of the word varies from my description, but I did check with a medical dictionary.
And I find it absurd that you are calling it insulting that people are asking you to prove your merit in something that you are making claims about. I don't suppose that tactic has ever worked in a job interview? And then not reading the paper you are demanding more evidence from? I would suggest you are setting yourself up to look like a fool.
Also, an ad hominem attack is an attack on the person substituting for an attack on the argument. The attacks on your character here are in fact solely attacks on your character. They are not substituting for attacks on the argument. As a substantiated attack on your character is not one that results in an instant falsification of a claim, the burden remains on you to defend the attacks made on your argument. These attacks on your person are in fact based on the flaws in your argument. You would invalidate their attacks if you provided a defensible claim. The claim that because you have not read the findings you do not have standing to argue them is a fairly cogent one.
And your credibility is in fact decreased even if you retract your statements that were proven fallacious. Credibility is based on whether the reader of your argument is likely to believe it. Once you have stood and made a claim that turns out to be false, your credibility is in fact likely to take a hit. It is up to any potential reader to determine just how much credibility this will cost you. As the proponent of an unpopular (and empirically false - one moment on that) claim, you are likely to lose a fair amount of credibility to the average reader as a result of it.
Anyway, you demand proof and it is provided, but the proof provided is not good enough proof. However there is infinitely more "proof" regarding this than there is to the typical alternative. I am curious of what proof could be given to you that would let you accept empirically adequate truths as such. There is obviously no way to "prove" macroevolution in such a way as to provide absolute certainty any more than there is to prove the Revolutionary War, but if you want to claim that this is not enough proof for you, I suggest you look into physics. There are loads of things that we study as truth in classrooms that go directly against all sorts of writings and that we've never even detected.
Your objection is breathtakingly inane, and only serves to make abundantly clear how little you actually understand of the research. Even a cursory reading of the paper shows your argument to be without any merit. You would know this if you had bothered to do the due diligence demanded by civility and politeness before writing. By not reading the paper and continuing to make silly, ill-considered arguments borne of ignorance about its contents, you are only making a fool of yourself, and you are the only one who doesn't seem to realize this.
And why would Zachary have continued to answer your questions? He answered your first one in good faith, and you then strained to find "contradictions" no one else sees, and attacked him. Thereafter you were rude and insulting to him and everyone else on that board. This is clear to anyone who read it. Why would he answer any more questions of your when you showed that 1. you wouldn't accept his answers, 2. wouldn't read any of the papers he referenced so that you wouldn't have to take his word for it, and 3. you were incredibly impolite and insulting? If you really want to be taken seriously, you need to change your approach, find out about what you are pontificating about before hand, listen to others' points, and try to be a little more civil and less insulting. As it stands, you are a sad joke, which is sad in itself. You are clearly intelligent, and could make a constructive contribution to various discussions, but you don't seem to be willing to take the steps that allow this. Do you enjoy being a laughing stock who is regarded as sad old man of weak and inflexible mind and a penchant for really odd, repetitive insults?
Oh my, what an interesting discussion to stumble upon.
Little do you know. :-} (BTW, Toreba, just out of curiosity, how did you happen to arrive here?)
And your credibility is in fact decreased even if you retract your statements that were proven fallacious.
Sorry, Larry, but that is how things work. Retraction isn't quite as damaging as failure to retract when called for, but you don't get to do it more than a few times before your "credibility" is shot.
> When I correct people <
You rarely correct people. You just make an unsupported opposing statement.
> I don't insult their intelligence <
You don't, dunghill?
> But look at the all the wonderful things I was able to post in this blog with the time I saved by not trying to find the answer to that question myself. <
What wonderful things?
> And had I not made my statement above, I would never have known the correct answer. <
A great way to learn. Make false statements in hope you will be corrected.
The trolls are out in force today. I will just say a few words.
I have seen the word "end" in only one definition of "goal." The idea that the word "goal" means that an effort necessarily ends when the goal is reached is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.
Using the trolls' definition of "goal," the term "not a goal" is meaningless -- it can mean either that a result was foreseen or that it was not foreseen.
Languages have adjectives for a purpose -- for example, Cit+ evolution could be called a secondary goal, a longshot goal, an incidental goal, etc..
As I said, if someone else makes an honest mistake and admits the error, that person's credibility is not diminished in my eyes. In fact, I might be grateful that there was an opportunity to correct the error, if it is an error that others are likely to make.
>>>>>> Here we have a no-name on his internet soapbox <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill -- I have a big name on the Internet on websites where the evolution controversy is discussed.
>>>>>> As for potentiating, both mutations are potentiating. <<<<<<
It is possible that only the first mutation is potentiating if the first mutation is a pre-requisite for the second mutation, but so far I am not aware of any claim that the first Cit+ mutation is a pre-requisite. And a lot of people think that only the first Cit+ mutation is "potentiating" -- it is generally the only mutation that is identified by that name. So if both mutations are "potentiating," what names can be used to distinguish them?
Also, IMO there should be terms for two different kinds of potentiating mutations -- pre-requisite potentiating mutations and non-prerequisite potentiating mutations.
>>>>>> Whichever one occurs last is the most likely to be described as potentiating because it is the one that makes the bacteria more powerful, or potent. <<<<<<<
Wrong -- the one that occurs first is the one that is usually called "potentiating." "Potentiating" comes from "potential," not "potent." RationalWiki gives the following definition of "potentiating mutation" --
A Potentiating mutation is one that, while not effecting (sic) the organism in itself, can later be utilized by a further mutation to produce a beneficial effect. An example of this can be found in duplicate genes; initially this mutation may have no effect upon the organism, but if the duplicate gene is passed along and undergoes change itself, it may induce a feature or ability that was previously not present.
BTW, I disagree with the above idea that the expressed mutation is a beneficial mutation -- IMO the definition of potentiating mutation should include expressed mutations that are harmful or neutral.
Anyway, the commenter on the other blog raised what I thought was an interesting question about the term "potentiating mutation," so I thought I would pass it along.
As I said, you Darwinists are playing a game of one-upmanship, and a lot of people don't like it. Take heed.
"Wrong, dunghill -- I have a big name on the Internet on websites where the evolution controversy is discussed."
Larry, being infamous isn't the same as being famous. At least not by the standard definitions I use.
From what I can tell you spam every single blog you can find with the same unsubstantiated, shot-to-hell tripe you post here, except when posting your tripe on other blogs you link to your own.
"As I said, you Darwinists are playing a game of one-upmanship, and a lot of people don't like it. Take heed."
And those same "a lot of people" are the same people who are lost to reason anyway. They've made up their mind and focus on how mean and nasty "Darwinists" are because they have nothing left to say. The sympathy card is all they have left since the evidence card, data card, good science card, logic card and sound arguments card never seemed to have made it into their decks.
>It is possible that only the first >mutation is potentiating if the >first mutation is a pre-requisite >for the second mutation, but so far >I am not aware of any claim that the >first Cit+ mutation is a >pre-requisite.
>
Yet again making it clear you haven't read the paper and therefore don't know what you are talking about. Blount et al's historical contingency hypothesis held that Cit+ required multiple mutations to manifest. This hypothesis predicted that if one or more of the necessary mutations had arisen in the population that eventually evolved Cit+, then the rate of mutation to Cit+ would rise to the frequency of the final mutation or mutations. They found this. At some point in the history of the population that became Cit+, a mutation arose that, whatever other effect it might have had, it caused an increase in the rate of mutation to Cit+. This mutation they called the potentiating mutation. Whatever its relationship to the later mutations needed for Cit+, the potentiating mutation was still required for Cit+ to evolve.
This is spelled out very clearly in the paper, along with the experiments that demonstrate that the historical contingency hypothesis was correct. You would know this if you had been honorable enough to have read the paper before arrogantly strutting your profound ignorance in your silly, ill-informed criticisms. Jeez, its been two and half months since the paper came out and two and half months of your insane rantings about it, and you still haven't read it? What are you so scared of? You so deserve your reputation as an unpleasant, idiotic, sad, lonely old man notable only for your capacity to misunderstand even the simplest of concepts.
>>>>Anyway, the commenter on the other blog raised what I thought was an interesting question about the term "potentiating mutation," so I thought I would pass it along.<<<<
It will be years before the details of the cit+ mutations are worked out. At the moment it appears that there are at least two, and probably three, mutations needed to go from the ancestral E. coli to the cit+ type. That Blount et. al. referred to the first of these mutations as the 'potentiating' mutation is arbitrary - it could have been the 'priming' mutation, or the 'contingent' mutation, or the 'first' mutation, or whatever. Please, please, for the love of God, don't get caught up in the semantics of 'potentiating'.
Call them mutations A, B, C, etc., if you prefer, but frankly the privilege lies with Blount and Lenski to come up with the names, since they're the ones doing the research. See also: sonic hedgehog, kryptonite, hearsay, amontillado, scott of the antarctic, ether a go-go, and glass-bottom-boat mutations.
> As I said, if someone else makes an honest mistake and admits the error, that person's credibility is not diminished in my eyes. <
But you make so many mistakes that you are unwilling to admit.
>>>>>> Here we have a no-name on his internet soapbox <<<<<<
> I have a big name on the Internet on websites where the evolution controversy is discussed. <
But your names on other blogs are rarely complementary. He means a name that draws something other than derision.
"One of the problems you Darwinists have is your one-upmanship. A lot of people don't like it and it is hurting you badly in the court of public opinion."
Whose public opinion, yours?
"When I correct people, I don't insult their intelligence"
You just insult their intelligence on principle? Or perhaps as a matter of policy?
"I got the impression that a lot of people believe that Cit+ evolution was a "goal" of the experiment. Probably a lot of people even falsely believe that Cit+ evolution was the sole goal of the experiment, because that was the only result of the experiment that has been widely discussed."
A lot of people may think that, but that just means they haven't read the papers about th experiment. As for it being the ONLY result of the experiment. . .it just wasn't. There's not a lot else to say. There have been many academic papers published about the results. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/cgi-bin/lenski/prefman.pl?group=aad
"Are you not a lousy despicable dunghill?"
No.
"That's a question, not an insult."
See, when people ask questions that are formed as insults that aren't true, you just answer them. (Although that particular question had no relevance to the conversation, unlike mine, about your basic understanding of biology and the scientific method. You STILL have not answered that one.)
"Why should I waste time reading the paper when there is no guarantee that it would answer my question? Indeed, one inconclusive answer to one of my questions here -- i.e., whether the Cit+ evolution was a goal of the experiment -- did not come from the 2008 paper but came from a 1991 paper!"
Well, 'cause it's science, and that's the first step to answering one's questions. Besides, the Cit+ evolution paper is only 8 pages long, as I recall. This shouldn't be overly taxing for someone who reads pages upon pages of comments in a day. Plus it would indicate that you actually cared to find the truth instead of making unjustifiable claims about the nature of the researcher's character, rather than their experiment.
"See? Even you make insults that are not in the form of questions."
That actually was a quote from someone else. I don't mind to insult you, I try not to, because it tends not to support my argument, but it's not against my principles.
"foresaw Cit+ evolution as a possible result, which would automatically make it a "goal" since it was of course a desirable result"
Larry, A goal is not a "desireable result." That is a definition that you made up. (see below)
"'Checking' for Cit+ bacteria . . .was built into the design," and you are saying that Cit+ evolution was not a goal?"
Yes, and if you knew anything about biology, or e. Coli, you would know that. Checking for Cit+ bacteria is built into media that one uses to grow and test for e. Coli.
"No, I don't see. It was not just a "hypothesis" -- It was certain that the bacteria could develop the Cit+ trait, because the Cit+ trait had been observed once before in E. coli bacteria."
Right, further demonstrating your lack of understanding of biology and the scientific method.
"Knowing whether it was a "goal" is basic to understanding the experiment."
No it isn't. Another confirmation of your lack of understanding of biology and the scientific method.
"If you don't like my queries about the experiment, maybe you like Andy Schlafly's (of Conservapedia) queries better -- he just asked for all the raw data from the experiment."
I read that whole fiasco too; he's an idiot as well. One who lacks an understanding of biology and the scientific method.
"That makes you look extremely foolish."
I look foolish? Mr. "I don't seem to understand biology or the scientific method"? OK, I'll take it.
"I had no way of knowing that the paper had the correct information about that, idiot. "
This is because you didn't READ the paper you're criticizing.
"The trolls are out in force today. I will just say a few words."
Larry's first (coded) admission that he might be running out of arguments, check.
"secondary goal, a longshot goal, an incidental goal"
As previously discussed within this thread, you're free to make up your own definitions, but that doesn't make them true. After all, the purpose of language is to communicate.
"I have seen the word "end" in only one definition of "goal." The idea that the word "goal" means that an effort necessarily ends when the goal is reached is the stupidest idea I have ever heard."
Here are all of the definitions of goal (related to intent, not score) that I could find on the internet.
"the state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to achieve it" (princeton)
"The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed" (freedictionary.com)
"the end toward which effort is directed" (m-w.com)
"a goal is an observable and measurable end result having one or more objectives to be achieved within a more or less fixed timeframe." (businessdictionary.com)
"The final purpose or aim; the end to which a design tends, or which a person aims to reach or attain" (selfknowledge.com)
"A goal or objective consists of a projected state of affairs which a person or a system plans or intends to achieve or bring about — a personal or organizational desired end-point in some sort of assumed development." (wikipedia.com)
All but one of these definitions seems to indicate that a goal is an end point. In the court of public opinion about the meaning of "goal" you lose.
Brossa said (Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:56:00 PM) --
>>>>>> Please, please, for the love of God, don't get caught up in the semantics of 'potentiating'. <<<<<<
As I said, the commenter in the other blog raised an interesting angle: the term "potentiating" implies or suggests that "mutation A" is a pre-requisite for "mutation B." Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. By "pre-requisite," I of course mean that mutation B can occur only on a bacterium already possessing mutation A. The paper raises this issue of whether mutation A is a pre-requisite for mutation B:
We are especially eager to find the potentiating mutation or mutations. We want to know whether the potentiating mutation interacts epistatically with a later mutation to allow expression of the Cit+ function or, alternatively, whether it was physically required for the later mutation to occur. (page 6) (emphasis added)
The paper also says,
The potentiated cells are not generally hypermutable. Rather, their potentiation appears to be specific to the Cit+ function, which suggests two possible mechanisms. One mechanism is epistasis, whereby the functional expression of the mutation that finally yielded the Cit+ phenotype requires interaction with one or more mutations that evolved earlier. A second possibility is that the physical production of the mutation that produced the Cit+ phenotype requires some previous mutation that allows the final sequence to be generated. For example, the insertion of a mobile genetic element creates new sequences at its junctures, and one of these new sequences might then undergo a mutation that generates a final sequence that could not have occurred without the insertion. (page 6)
Larry said:
As I said, the commenter in the other blog raised an interesting angle: the term "potentiating" implies or suggests that "mutation A" is a pre-requisite for "mutation B." Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. By "pre-requisite," I of course mean that mutation B can occur only on a bacterium already possessing mutation A.
And the commenter obviously didn't read the paper (though you seem to have at least started to - good for you! Maybe there is hope for you yet). The authors define what they mean about "potentiating" mutation in the paper, and it doesn't suggest or imply that the potentiating mutation is necessary for the occurrence of the later mutations needed (though they acknowledge that it is possible that it is necessary for their occurrence - they say they won't know until they complete their study of the genetics and identify the mutations). Potentiation in the sense they mean applies to the generation of the phenotypic switch from Cit- to Cit+. The potentiating mutation is one of multiple mutations necessary to produce the switch. Whatever the relationship between the potentiating mutation and the other needed mutations, they are all necessary to produce the switch. Notice that this definition is agnostic regarding whether the later necessary mutations depend upon the potentiating mutation for their occurrence. It only refers to potentiating the evolution of the Cit+ trait.
It is also worth pointing out that you say that "potentiating mutation" is the popular name for the mutation that occurred prior to 20,000 generations and increased the likelihood of the evolution of Cit+. It isn't the "popular" name, but the name given by Blount et al in the paper itself. In this sense, it may be taken that it is the "popular" name only because that is its name.
It continues to be obvious that you are commenting on a paper your haven't fully read and don't understand, as well as commenting on the comments of others who clearly haven't fully read and don't understand the paper. Do you really think this is an intellectually honest way of going about things?
BTW, I should add that the commenter in the other blog did not directly raise the question of whether or not mutation A is a pre-requisite for mutation B -- he merely assumed that mutation A is not a pre-requisite. He said, "If the cit+ mutation had occurred first, wouldn't we be calling the later potentiating mutation the cit+ mutation instead?" But that question raised the issue that the term "potentiating mutation" is ambiguous.
"Here are all of the definitions of goal ... that I could find"
Wow! Impressive, Erin.
Larry said:
He said, "If the cit+ mutation had occurred first, wouldn't we be calling the later potentiating mutation the cit+ mutation instead?" But that question raised the issue that the term "potentiating mutation" is ambiguous.
And, again, it is clear that he didn't read the paper. The paper says that the research the authors did indicated that the switch to Cit+ required three mutations. Let's call them A, B, and C. As Cit+ requires all three, no matter their relationship to each other, Cit+ only occurs if A, B, and C have occurred. If A only, or B only, or C only, or A+B only, or A+C only, or B+C only, no Cit+. As potentiation as the authors define it applies to the evolution of the Cit+ trait, the matter the commenter goes to is irrelevant. Whatever the potentiating mutation was, it increased the frequency of mutation to Cit+. That increase was the potentiating effect, as they describe in the paper. If, lets say, the mutations are independent in occurrence, that is to say that each can occur without the others, then the order of their occurrence doesn't matter, and whichever occurs first produces the potentiating effect, because the rate of mutation to Cit+ rises to the product of the frequency of the two remaining mutations. Even if there is causal dependence between the mutations, the first mutation still increases the rate of mutation to Cit+ and thus produces the potentiation effect, just as the final needed mutation ultimately produces the switch. If the mutations were independent, then, yes, it seems that, should mutation B have occurred first, it would be labeled the potentiating mutation, but so what? There is no ambiguity here with regard to potentiation as an effect. There is ambiguity as regards the mechanism by which the mutations ultimately produce the the switch to Cit+, but this is necessary until the genetics are worked out. How is that not clear? It is right there in the paper. You can't attribute misunderstandings of the paper on the part of those who didn't read it to the authors or the paper itself.
Anonymous said (Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:50:00 AM) --
>>>>>>Larry said:
He said, "If the cit+ mutation had occurred first, wouldn't we be calling the later potentiating mutation the cit+ mutation instead?" But that question raised the issue that the term "potentiating mutation" is ambiguous.
And, again, it is clear that he didn't read the paper. <<<<<<
Probably most people who have commented on the Cit+ experiment did not read the paper -- that doesn't mean that they can't make worthwhile contributions to the discussion.
>>>>>> The paper says that the research the authors did indicated that the switch to Cit+ required three mutations. <<<<<<
You are going into too much unnecessary detail here and are presenting misinformation. The paper does not say that three mutations are required -- the paper only says that at least two are required. The paper says, "we showed that one or more earlier mutations potentiated the evolution of this function . . ." (pagd 6)
>>>> As potentiation as the authors define it <<<<<
It doesn't matter how the authors define it -- the term is ambiguous because -- as I said -- it implies or suggests that the "potentiating" mutation is a pre-requisite for another mutation. An unambiguous or less ambiguous term should be used. Here are suggestions: co-mutation, insufficient mutation, mutation A (or B, C, etc.).
Erin (Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:45:00 AM) is still playing word games with the word "goal." Regardless of which definition is used, Blount's statement that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" needs clarification. And BTW, my printed Webster's New World Dictionary says: "goal: (2) an object or end that one strives to attain; aim." Nothing there about "intending" a result (as a said, "intend" implies complete control over the outcome). Nothing there requiring that the effort be ended when the goal is reached. Indeed, in sports like basketball and hockey, the teams achieve a goal multiple times during a game.
Anyway, it is around time for me to leave this discussion, but I know that when I leave I will be bombarded with accusations that I decided to leave because I have no answers.
Larry said:
Probably most people who have commented on the Cit+ experiment did not read the paper -- that doesn't mean that they can't make worthwhile contributions to the discussion.
It depends. Are they making claims or statements about the research that are unsupported by the paper? That they would know are silly or flat out wrong had they read the paper? If one wants to discuss a paper or a movie or a book intelligently, they have to have either read or watched it. The commenter was wrong, and reading the paper shows that. You would know this had you read the paper. Sure, if one wants to comment about something they haven't read or seen, they can, but they should do so with the humility borne of recognizing that they don't speak from an informed position, be quite prepared to be humble and admit to their ignorance when they turn out to be incorrect. At least that is what civil individuals do.
Larry also said:
The paper does not say that three mutations are required -- the paper only says that at least two are required. The paper says, "we showed that one or more earlier mutations potentiated the evolution of this function . . ." (pagd 6)
Did you bother to read the results section? Read the second paragraph on page 7902, which discusses the results of the third contingency experiment. Their results indicated that a further two mutations were required subsequent to the potentiating mutation to produce the phenotypic switch to Cit+. You might also want to reread my comment and then reread the passage you quote. The passage from the discussion that you cite clearly refers to the potentiating mutation itself, and not the total number of mutations causing the switch. The authors can't discount the possibility that potentiation was caused by more than one mutation prior to generation 20,000, which is why they phrased it that way in the discussion. This means that their results indicate that there was at least one mutation that caused potentiation, and then two subsequent mutations in a potentiated genotype to cause the switch to Cit+. 1 + 2 = 3. If potentiation required more than one mutation, then it would be the 2 subsequent mutations + however many potentiation required. There is a difference between the number of mutations that produced the potentiation effect they detected and the total number of mutations including that or those producing potentiation required for the Cit- to Cit+ switch. This is very obvious from reading the whole paper. Have you read the whole paper and made an attempt to really understand it?
As for going into too much detail, when I present an argument, I prefer to present an actual, supported argument, as opposed to simple unsupported assertions.
Larry said:
It doesn't matter how the authors define it -- the term is ambiguous because -- as I said -- it implies or suggests that the "potentiating" mutation is a pre-requisite for another mutation. An unambiguous or less ambiguous term should be used. Here are suggestions: co-mutation, insufficient mutation, mutation A (or B, C, etc.).
The term isn't ambiguous if you have read the paper for one thing. You and the commenter clearly had not. For another, potentiation does not imply that. It is perfectly clear from the paper what the authors were talking about. Don't blame them if you didn't do due diligence. Perhaps you should also do a little reading up on genetics and genetic terminology before making pronouncements that only serve to announce your ignorance and arrogance.
"Erin (Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:45:00 AM) is still playing word games with the word "goal." Regardless of which definition is used, Blount's statement that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" needs clarification. And BTW, my printed Webster's New World Dictionary says: "goal: (2) an object or end that one strives to attain; aim." Nothing there about "intending" a result (as a said, "intend" implies complete control over the outcome). Nothing there requiring that the effort be ended when the goal is reached. Indeed, in sports like basketball and hockey, the teams achieve a goal multiple times during a game."
Larry, equivocating does not prove your point either. Goal (in a game) is different from Goal (not in a game).
One could say that the "goal" of a game (not IN a game) is to win. When that has been accomplished, the game is over. That is the "end" of the game, as it were.
Also, your whole point about goal has been that it is what one intends. Are you arguing against yourself on purpose now? Let's revert to your example of the prospectors. What, exactly does prospector A's question to Prospector B prove? It appears to be intent.
Also, Larry, there is only one definition of goal in the sense that you appear to be using it. (Not including the one you've made up.) I assume that you're not using the term goal to mean "the terminal point of a race," "an area to be reached safely in children's games," "an area or object toward which players in various games attempt to advance a ball or puck and usually through or into which it must go to score points," "the act or action of causing a ball or puck to go through or into such a goal," "the score resulting from such an act." Let's leave those out of our discussion. If I'm wrong, correct me, by all means.
Even your definition of goal implies that achieving such a goal is the end of the effort toward that goal.
P.S. You ignored almost all of my previous post, what's up with that? (I know, I know, "your non-respones does not indicate. . .blah blah blah") Rather convenient timing, don't you think?
Anonymous:
>>>>>>> If one wants to discuss a paper or a movie or a book intelligently, they have to have either read or watched it. The commenter was wrong, and reading the paper shows that. <<<<<<<
It's not a matter of the commenter being right or wrong -- the commenter raised an important point that needed to be discussed.
Comments about a paper, book, movie, etc. can be based on what other people have said about it.
>>>>>> The paper does not say that three mutations are required -- the paper only says that at least two are required. The paper says, "we showed that one or more earlier mutations potentiated the evolution of this function . . ." (pagd 6)
Did you bother to read the results section? <<<<<<
So much the worse -- that shows that the paper is inconsistent.
Anyway, I don't have the time to verify everything you say about the paper, and I don't know if any reader here is verifying it. For all I know you could be cluttering up this blog with garbage when you go into so much unnecessary detail about the paper, particularly when your claims about the paper are not backed up with quotations.
>>>>>> The term isn't ambiguous if you have read the paper for one thing. You and the commenter clearly had not. For another, potentiation does not imply that. It is perfectly clear from the paper what the authors were talking about. <<<<<<
The paper is not the whole world. Most of the world is outside the paper.
Most of the visitors' comments here are not serious objections to my statements but are just for the purpose of one-upmanship.
The only reason why you trolls are trying so hard to discredit me is that you consider my arguments against Darwinism to be too persuasive.
"The only reason why you trolls are trying so hard to discredit me is that you consider my arguments against Darwinism to be too persuasive."
Oh man have I misread you, Larry. Until now I thought you were actually a person making the arguments you do in complete, total no shit honesty because you ACTUALLY did believe them. Now I understand you are nothing more than a brilliant satirist.
In all seriousness, Larry, YOU don't have arguments against "Darwinism." Since I've started reading your "blog" you have done nothing but parrot over used and abused talking points. When challenged to back up your regurgitated BS, you turn to semantics and calling people "dunghill" and conveniently ignoring posts/parts of posts that show you to be the fool you are.
You hardly need discrediting, Larry, you've done a terrific job of that all by yourself. Remember, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>> The paper does not say that three mutations are required -- the paper only says that at least two are required. The paper says, "we showed that one or more earlier mutations potentiated the evolution of this function . . ." (pagd 6)
Did you bother to read the results section? <<<<<<
So much the worse -- that shows that the paper is inconsistent.
Anyway, I don't have the time to verify everything you say about the paper, and I don't know if any reader here is verifying it. For all I know you could be cluttering up this blog with garbage when you go into so much unnecessary detail about the paper, particularly when your claims about the paper are not backed up with quotations.
_____________________________
The paper is not inconsistent. I explained that you had not read the whole paper, and clearly misunderstood the passage you were citing. Did you bother reading my post? The results section goes into the number of mutation needed to evolve Cit+ once the potentiating mutation had occurred. The passage you cited is talking about the mutation or mutations responsible for the potentiating mutation itself. Do you know understand the difference? I don't care if you verify or not, though I hope you do. You have been writing about the paper for a long time now, and you might want to get around to reading and understanding it at some point. Those who are interested can check the paper you still have not read to see how wrong you are about it, and thus see, yet again, how intellectually lazy and dishonest you are.
Okay, I have to ask: Larry are you serious about what you write here? Do you make absurdly stupid statements, poorly reasoned arguments, and insanely ignorant assertions just to get a rise out of people? Or does all that simply reflect how you actually are? If the former, why? That is a really sick way to live. If the latter, you really need to seek help. You can get better if you want to. You can have a good life with friends and people to talk to. You don't have to be so sad, confused, and alone. You can have a good relationship with your family again. All you need to do is admit that you have some issues to work out. There is no shame in that. You would enjoy your remaining years so much better that way. You were once a good man, I'm sure. You can be one again.
jim,
>>>>>> In all seriousness, Larry, YOU don't have arguments against "Darwinism." Since I've started reading your "blog" you have done nothing but parrot over used and abused talking points. <<<<<<
In all seriousness, I don't "parrot" much in my arguments against Darwinism -- most of my arguments concerning co-evolution (under the post label "non-ID criticisms of evolution" in the sidebar) are my own independently-developed arguments. If they happen to coincide with anyone else's arguments, well, that is just -- as they say -- a "coincidence." And a lot of those arguments have gone unchallenged, particularly my arguments about buzz pollination and complex parasitic relationships.
If you trolls just considered me to be another crank, you might not completely ignore me but you would not spend as much time commenting here as you do. I mean, you folks just re-argue the same senseless points over and over again. For example, there was nothing wrong with my asking Zachary Blount for a clarification of his statements concerning whether Cit+ evolution was a "goal" of the experiments, but you trolls just wouldn't let go of that issue.
Larry said:
"For example, there was nothing wrong with my asking Zachary Blount for a clarification of his statements concerning whether Cit+ evolution was a "goal" of the experiments, but you trolls just wouldn't let go of that issue."
Your demands came after Zachary wrote the following in the discussion on "The Loom":
_______________________________
Larry,
I think you need to re-read my post. I also think you need to take my suggestion to read some of the references I cited. Specifically, I think you would benefit by reading the long review of the Long Term Evolution Experiment that is reference #147 in Dr. Lenski’s publication list. You will see in it, as well as in the first paper on the experiment published in 1991 (#35), the original intent of the experiment was not evolve a citrate-utilizing variant of E. coli, but to, among other things, study the repeatability of evolution and adaptive dynamics. If you peruse the publication list on Dr. Lenski’s website, you will see that the lab has produced a large volume of research related to the original goals of the experiment and issues tangential to them.
The evolution of a citrate-utilizing variant E. coli was seen from the beginning as a possible occurrence, and one that would be pretty neat should it occur (and indeed as it has proven to be now that it has happened), but not a goal. The evolution of Cit+ in one of the twelve populations has opened new areas of inquiry in the experiment, but the experiment was never designed to bank on the evolution of that one novel trait. Much work continues to be done on the evolution of the other eleven populations in which Cit+ has not evolved. Again, I think you would benefit greatly by going to the primary, peer-reviewed literature.
Zachary
_______________________________
What I and everyone else sees is this:
Larry: Was evolving Cit+ a goal of the long term experiment?
Zachary: No.
Larry: Was it a goal? I think it was goal. It was a goal. I have decided on it. Zachary won't answer me so I will whine for months about not getting the answer I wanted.
You then went off insulting people when they tried to correct you, and you also made it clear that you never actually read Zachary's post to learn anything from it. You also made it abundantly clear that you were purposefully misconstruing the work, evolutionary theory, and even the English language so as to avoid having to accept that the work reported had demonstrated evolution by natural selection (you even went so far as to declare that there had not been natural selection involved in the evolution of Cit+). Larry, do you ever try to view how you act rationally? Do you have any idea how you look to everyone else on the planet?
By the way, you co-evolution arguments make no sense and conflict with the work of Bonnie Bassler and Nancy Moran, both of whom study co-evolution. You would know this if you actually tried to learn something rather than deciding you are right without any due diligence.
"In all seriousness, I don't "parrot" much in my arguments against Darwinism -- most of my arguments concerning co-evolution (under the post label "non-ID criticisms of evolution" in the sidebar) are my own independently-developed arguments."
Larry, the majority of your posts are not about you co-evolution arguments, they are about the same kinda shit the DI replaces real debate with: Darwin day crap, "darwin didn't really think of natural selection first blah blah blah" kind of crap, evo vs. ID in education (ok, that's not crap) and on and on. Most of your posts are criticisms of the politics of the evo/ID debate (evolution side mostly), many of which use talking points that attempt to discredit a specific section of evolution that is pertinent to that subject.
It'd be great if you posted more on co-evolution stuff, then the actual science would be talked about. Instead, we're talking about word games and defining "goal." Which leads to the next point...
"If you trolls just considered me to be another crank, you might not completely ignore me but you would not spend as much time commenting here as you do. I mean, you folks just re-argue the same senseless points over and over again. For example, there was nothing wrong with my asking Zachary Blount for a clarification of his statements concerning whether Cit+ evolution was a "goal" of the experiments, but you trolls just wouldn't let go of that issue."
Are you serious? You brought up the goals issue yourself in the post.
Jim,
>>>>>> Larry, the majority of your posts are not about you co-evolution arguments, they are about the same kinda shit the DI replaces real debate with: Darwin day crap, "darwin didn't really think of natural selection first blah blah blah" kind of crap, evo vs. ID in education (ok, that's not crap) and on and on <<<<<<
Well, I have only so much to say about co-evolution, so that's why I don't talk about it all the time. And as for that other "kinda shit", the various Darwinist blogs -- e.g., Panda's Thumb and the Darwinist blogs on ScienceBlogs -- spend a lot of time talking about that stuff, too.
>>>>>> Are you serious? You brought up the goals issue yourself in the post. <<<<<<
I brought it up only because I thought I had a new argument -- I assumed that Cit+ evolution must have been a big goal because I thought the experimenters were testing for it as they went along and assumed that was how they discovered its first appearance at 0.5% of the population at 31,500 generations -- then it was pointed out that I was mistaken, they were not testing for it as they went along, and I withdrew my argument. But then the trolls started rehashing their old arguments.
Larry said:
Well, I have only so much to say about co-evolution, so that's why I don't talk about it all the time.
________________________________
You wouldn't have that problem if you did some research into what work has been done on the evolution of co-evolution. You might even discover that your arguments are not borne out by the science. For instance, the following is the introduction to the research done by Nancy Moran's lab (http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/moran/):
My long-term interests are in the evolution of biological complexity, such as that apparent in complex life histories, in intimate interactions among species, and in species-diversity of clades and communities.
My focus is on symbiosis, particularly that between multicellular hosts and microbes. Symbioses are central in the evolution of complexity; have evolved many times and are critical to the lifestyles of many animals and plants and also to whole ecosystems, in which symbiotic organisms are key players. The primary reason that symbiosis research is suddenly active, after decades at the margins of mainstream biology, is that DNA technology and genomics give us enormous new ability to discover symbiont diversity, and more significantly, to reveal how microbial metabolic capabilities contribute to the functioning of hosts and biological communities.
My ongoing projects, mostly collaborations with students and postdoctoral associates, include
* Phylogenetic and genomic studies of previously unstudied insect symbioses
* Experiments on gene expression of symbionts within hosts
* Computational reconstruction of the content and arrangement of genes in bacterial ancestors
* Experimental investigations of facultative symbioses that are heritable but more labile within host lineages.
_______________________________
That is a single lab working in areas related to co-evolution and symbiosis. Let's look at Moran's publication list to see how much work she has done over her career and in this field in particular:
Degnan, P.H., Moran, N.A. 2008. Evolutionary genetics of a defensive facultative symbiont of insects: exchange of toxin-encoding bacteriophage. Molecular Ecology 17(3): 916-29
Oliver, K.M., Camposm J., Moran, N.A., Hunter, M.S. 2008. Population dynamics of defensive symbionts in aphids. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275(1632): 293-9
Plague, G.R., Dunbar, H.E., Tran, P.L., Moran, N.A. 2008. Extensive proliferation of transposable elements in heritable bacterial symbionts. Journal of Bacteriology 190(2): 777-9
McCutcheon, J.P. and Moran, N.A. 2007. Parallel genomic evolution and metabolic interdependence in an ancient symbiosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104: 19392-7
Cox-Foster, D.L., Conlan, S., Holmes, E.C., Palacios, G., Evans, J.D., Moran, N.A., Quan, P.L., Briese, T., Hornig, M., Geiser, D.M., Martinson, V., vanEngelsdorp, D., Kalkstein, A.L., Drysdale, A., Hui, J., Zhai, J., Cui, L., Hutchison, S.K., Simons, J.F., Egholm, M., Pettis, J.S., Lipkin, W.I.. 2007. A metagenomic survey of microbes in honey bee colony collapse disorder. Science 318(5848): 283-7
Moran, N. A. 2007. Symbiosis as an adaptive process and source of phenotypic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104 Suppl 1: 8627-33
Dunbar, H.E., Wilson, A.C., Ferguson, N.R., Moran, N.A. 2007. Aphid thermal tolerance is governed by a point mutation in bacterial symbionts. PLoS Biology 5(5): e96
Moran, N. A. 2006. Symbiosis. Current Biology 16(20): R866-71
Takiya, D. M., P. Tran, C. H. Dietrich, and N. A. Moran. 2006. Co-cladogenesis spanning three phyla: leafhoppers (Insecta: Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and their dual bacterial symbionts. Molecular Ecology 15(13): 4175-91
Nakabachi, A., A. Yamashita, H. Toh, H. Ishikawa, H. E. Dunbar, N. A. Moran, and M. Hattori. 2006. The 160-kilobase genome of the bacterial endosymbiont Carsonella. Science 314(5797): 267
Moran, N. A. and H. E. Dunbar. 2006. Sexual acquisition of beneficial symbionts in aphids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A 103(34): 12803-6
Dale, C. and N. A. Moran 2006. Molecular interactions between bacterial symbionts and their hosts. Cell. 126(3): 453-65
Mateos, M., S. J. Castrezana, B. J. Nankivell, A. Estes, T. A. Markow, and N. A. Moran. 2006. Heritable endosymbionts of Drosophila. Genetics 174: 363–76
Wu, D., S. C. Daugherty, S. E. Van Aken, G. H. Pai, K. L. Watkins, H. Khouri, L. J. Tallon, J. M. Zaborsky, H. E. Dunbar, P. L. Tran, N. A. Moran, and J. A. Eisen. 2006. Metabolic complementarity and genomics of the dual symbiosis of sharpshooters. PloS Biology 4(6): e188
Oliver, K. M., N. A. Moran, and M. Hunter. 2006. Costs and benefits of a superinfection of facultative symbionts in aphids. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273(1591): 1273-80
Moran, N. A. and P. H. Degnan. 2006. Functional genomics of Buchnera and the ecology of aphid hosts. Molecular Ecology 15(5): 1251-61
Russell, J. A. and N. A. Moran. 2006. Costs and benefits of symbiont infection in aphids: variation among symbionts and across temperatures. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273(1586): 603-10
Wilson, A. C. C., H. E. Dunbar, G. K. Davis, W. B. Hunter, D. L. Stern, and N. A. Moran. 2006. A dual-genome microarray for the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum and its obligate bacterial symbiont, Buchnera aphidicola. BMC Genomics 7: 50.
Moran, N. A., P. Tran, and N. M. Gerardo. 2005. Symbiosis and insect diversification: an ancient symbiont of sap-feeding insects from the bacterial phylum Bacteroidetes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71(12): 8802-10
Russell, J. A. and N. A. Moran. 2005. Horizontal transfer of bacterial symbionts: heritability and fitness effects in a novel aphid host. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71(12): 7987-94
Moran, N. A., P. H. Degnan, S. R. Santos, H. E. Dunbar, and H. Ochman. 2005. The players in a mutualistic symbiosis: Insects, bacteria, viruses and virulence genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102(47): 16919-26
Oliver, K. M., N. A. Moran, and M. S. Hunter. 2005. Variation in resistance to parasitism in aphids is due to symbionts and not host genotype. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102(36): 12795-800
Moran, N. A., H. E. Dunbar, and J. L. Wilcox. 2005. Regulation of transcription in a reduced bacterial genome: nutrient-provisioning genes of the obligate symbiont, Buchnera aphidicola. Journal of Bacteriology 187(12): 4229-37
Moran, N. A., J. A. Russell, R. Koga, and T. Fukatsu. 2005. Evolutionary relationships of three new species of Enterobacteriaceae living as symbionts of aphids and other insects. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71(6): 3302-10
Lerat E., Daubin V., Ochman H., and Moran N. A. 2005. Evolutionary origins of genomic repertoires in bacteria. PLoS Biology 3(5): e130
Dale, C. D., H. Dunbar, N. A. Moran, and H. Ochman. 2004. Extracting single genomes from heterogenous DNA samples: A test case with Carsonella ruddii the bacterial symbiont of psyllids (Insecta). Journal of Insect Science 5: 3
Daubin, V. and Moran N. A. 2004. Comment on The Evolution of Genome Complexity. Science 306: 978
Lerat, E. and Moran, N. A. 2004. The evolutionary history of quorum-sensing systems in bacteria. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21: 903-913
Moran, N. A. and G. R. Plague. 2004. Genomic changes following host restriction in bacteria. Current Opinions in Genetics and Development 14: 627-633
Dale, C., B. Wang, N. Moran and H. Ochman. 2003. Loss of DNA recombinational repair enzymes in the initial stages of genome degeneration in mutualistic bacterial endosymbionts. Molecular Biology and Evolution 20: 1188-1194
Daubin, V., N. A. Moran and H. Ochman. 2003. Phylogenetics and the cohesion of bacterial genomes. Science 5634: 829-832 /p>
Lerat, E., V. Daubin and N. A. Moran. 2003. From gene trees to organismal phylogeny in prokaryotes: the case of the γ-Proteobacteria. PLoS Biology 1: 101-108
Moran, N. A. 2003. Tracing the evolution of gene loss in obligate symbionts. Current Opinions in Microbiology 6: 512-518
Moran, N. A., C. Dale, H. Dunbar, W. Smith, and H. Ochman. 2003. Intracellular symbionts of sharpshooters (Insecta: Hemiptera: Cicadellinae) form a distinct clade with a small genome. Environmental Microbiology 5: 116-126
Moran, N. A., G. Plague, J. Sandström, and J. Wilcox. 2003. A genomic perspective on nutrient-provisioning by bacterial symbionts of insects. . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (Colloquium Issue) 100: 14543-14548
Moran, N. A. and J. Wilcox. 2003. Genomic evolution in Buchnera the obligate symbiont of aphids. Nova Acta Leopoldina 333:335-338
Normark, B. B., O Judson, and N. A. Moran. 2003. Genomic signatures of ancient asexual lineages. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 79: 69-84
Oliver, K., J. Russell, N. Moran, and M. Hunter. 2003. Facultative bacterial symbionts in aphids confer resistance to parasitic wasps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:1803-1807
Plague, G.R., C. Dale, and N. A. Moran. 2003. Low and homogeneous copy number of plasmid-borne symbiont genes affecting host nutrition in Buchnera aphidicola of the aphid Uroleucon ambrosiae. Molecular Ecology 12: 1095-1100
Russell, J.A., A. L. LaTorre, B. Sabater-Munoz, A. Moya, N. A. Moran. 2003. Side-stepping secondary symbionts: widespread horizontal transfer across and beyond the Aphidoidea. Molecular Ecology 12: 1061-1075
Wilcox, J. L., H. E. Dunbar, R. D. Wolfinger, and N. A. Moran. 2003. Consequences of reductive evolution for gene expression in an obligate endosymbiont. Molecular Microbiology 48: 1491-1500
Abbot, P. and N. A. Moran. 2002. Extremely low levels of genetic polymorphism in endosymbionts of aphids (Pemphigus). Molecular Ecology 11: 2649-2660
Dale C., G. Plague, B. Wang, H. Ochman, and N. A. Moran. 2002. Type III secretion and the conversion from parasitism to mutualism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 12397-12402
Mira, A. and N. Moran. 2002. Estimating population size and transmission bottlenecks in maternally transmitted endosymbiotic bacteria. Microbial Ecology 44: 137-143
Moran, N. A. 2002. The ubiquitous and varied role of infection in the lives of animals and plants. The American Naturalist 160:S1-S8
Moran, N. A. 2002. Microbial minimalism: Genome reduction in bacterial pathogens Cell 108: 583-586
Tamas, I, L. Klasson, B. Canbäck, K. Näslund, A.-S. Eriksson, J. J. Wernegreen, J. P. Sandström, N. A. Moran, and S. G. E. Andersson. 2002. Fifty million years of genomic stasis in endosymbiotic bacteria. Science 296:2376-2379
Abbot, P., J. H. Withgott, and N. A. Moran. 2001. Genetic conflict and conditional altruism in social aphid colonies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:12068-12071
Clark, M.A, L. Baumann, M.L. Thao, N.A. Moran, and P. Baumann. 2001. Degenerative minimalism in the genome of a psyllid endosymbiont. Journal of Bacteriology 183: 1853-1861
Funk, D. J., J. J. Wernegreen, and N. A. Moran. 2001. Intraspecific variation in symbiont genomes: bottlenecks and the aphid- Buchnera association. Genetics 157: 477-489
Mira, A., H. Ochman, and N. A. Moran. 2001. Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes. Trends in Genetics 17: 589-596
Moran, N. A. 2001. Bacterial menageries inside insects. (Commentary). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98: 1338-1340
Moran, N. A. 2001. The coevolution of bacterial endosymbionts and phloem-feeding insects. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 88: 35-44
Moran, N. A. and A. Mira. 2001. The process of genome shrinkage in the obligate symbiont, Buchnera aphidicola. Genome Biology 2: research0054.1-0054.12
Ochman, H. and N. A. Moran. 2001. Genes lost and genes found: the evolution of bacterial pathogenesis and symbiosis. Science 292: 1096-1098
Sandström, J. P. and N. A. Moran. 2001. Amino acid budgets in three aphid species using the same host plant. Physiological Entomology 26: 202-211
Sandström, J. P., J. A. Russell, J. P. White, and N. A. Moran. 2001. Independent origins and horizontal transfer of bacterial symbionts of aphids. Molecular Ecology 10: 217-228
Thao, M. L, M. A. Clark, D. H. Burckhart, N. A. Moran, and P. Baumann. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of vertically transmitted psyllid endsymbionts (Candidatus Carsonella ruddi) based on atpAGD and rpoC : Comparisons with 16S-23S rDNA-derived phylogeny. Current Microbiology 42: 419-421
von Dohlen, C. D. and N. A. Moran. 2001. Mitochondrial ribosomal sequences and fossils support a rapid radiation of aphids in the Cretaceous and multiple origins of a complex life cycle. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 71: 689-717
Wernegreen, J. J. and N. A. Moran. 2001. Vertical transmission of biosynthetic plasmids in aphid endosymbionts (Buchnera). Journal of Bacteriology 183: 785-790
Wernegreen, J. J., A. Richardson, and N. A. Moran. 2001. Parallel acceleration of evolutionary rates in genes underlying host nutrition in aphid symbionts. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 19: 479-485
Baumann, P., L. Baumann and N. A. Moran. 2000. Genus Buchnera Munson, Baumann, and Kinsey 1991. (entry in Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology)
Bernays, E. A., D. J. Funk, and N. A. Moran. 2000. Intraspecific differences in olfactory sensilla in relation to diet breadth in Uroleucon ambrosiae (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of Morphology 245: 99-109
Clark, M. A., N. A. Moran, P. Baumann and J. J. Wernegreen. 2000. Cospeciation between bacterial endosymbionts (Buchnera) and a recent radiation of aphids (Uroleucon) and pitfalls of testing for phylogenetic congruence. Evolution 54: 517-525
Funk, D. J., L. Helbling, J. J. Wernegreen, and N. A. Moran. 2000. Intraspecific phylogenetic congruence among multiple symbiont genomes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 267: 2517-2521
Moran, N. A. and P. Baumann. 2000. Bacterial endosymbionts in animals. Current Opinions in Microbiology 3: 270-275
Moran, N. A., and J. J. Wernegreen. 2000. Lifestyle evolution in symbiotic bacteria: insights from genomics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 321-326
Normark, B. B. and N. A. Moran. 2000. Testing for the accumulation of deleterious mutations in asexual eukaryotes. Journal of Natural History 34:1719-1729
Rispe, C. and N. A. Moran. 2000. Accumulation of deleterious mutations in endosymbionts: Muller's ratchet with two levels of selection. The American Naturalist 156: 425-441
Sandström, J., A. Telang and N. A. Moran. 2000. Nutritional enhancement of host plants by aphids--a comparison of three aphid species on grasses. Journal of Insect Physiology 46: 33-40
Thao, M. L., M. Clark, L. Baumann, E. B. Brennan, N. A. Moran. and P. Baumann. 2000. Secondary symbionts of psyllids have been acquired multiple times. Current Microbiology 41: 300-304
Thao, M. L., N. A. Moran. P. Abbot, E. B. Brennan, D. H. Burckhardt and P. Baumann. 2000. Cospeciation of psyllids and their prokaryotic endosymbionts. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66: 2898-2905
Wernegreen, J. J. and N. A. Moran. 2000. Decay of mutualistic potential in aphid endosymbionts through silencing of biosynthetic loci: Buchnera of Diuraphis. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B 267: 1423-1431
Wernegreen, J. J., H. Ochman, I. Jones and N. A. Moran. 2000. The decoupling of genome size and sequence divergence in a symbiotic bacterium. Journal of Bacteriology 182: 3867-3869
Baumann, L., P. Baumann, N. A. Moran, J. Sandström and M. L. Thao. 1999. Genetic characterization of plasmids contining genes encoding enzymes of leucine biosynthesis in endosymbionts (Buchnera) of aphids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 48:77-85
Baumann, P., N. A. Moran and L. Baumann. 1999. Bacteriocyte-associated endosymbionts of insects. In The Prokaryotes, Third Edition, a Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria: Ecophysiology, isolation, identification, applications, (Dworkin, M., ed.) Springer-Verlag
Clark M. A., P. Baumann and N.A. Moran. 1999. Buchnera plasmid-associated trpEG probably originated from a chromosomal location between hsIU and fpr. Current Microbiology 38: 309-311
Clark, M. A., N. A. Moran and P. Baumann. 1999. Sequence evolution in bacterial endosymbionts having extreme base composition. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16: 1586-1598
Holt, R.D., M. A. McPeek and N. A. Moran. 1999. 1998 Sewall Wright Award: William Donald Hamilton. American Naturalist 153: U1-U2
Moran, N. A., M. A. Kaplan, M. Gelsey, T. Murphy and E. Scholes. 1999. Phylogenetics and evolution of the aphid genus Uroleucon based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Systematic Entomology 24: 85-93
Ochman, H., S. Elwyn and N. Moran. 1999. Calibrating bacterial evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96:12638-12643
Sandström, J. and N. Moran. 1999. How nutritionally imbalanced is phloem sap for aphids? Entomologia experimentalis et applicata 91: 203-210
Telang, A., J. Sandström, E. Dyreson and N. A. Moran. 1999. Feeding damage by Diuraphis noxia results in a nutritionally enhanced phloem diet. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata 91: 403-412
Wernegreen J.J. and N. A. Moran. 1999. Evidence for genetic drift in endosymbionts: analyses of protein coding genes. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16: 83-97
Baumann, L., P. Baumann and N. A. Moran. 1998. The endosymbiont (Buchnera) of the aphid Diuraphis noxia contains all the genes of the tryptophan biosynthetic pathway. Current Microbiology 37:58-59
Brynnel, E. A., C. G. Kurland, S. G. E. Andersson and N. A. Moran. 1998. Evolutionary rates for tuf genes in endosymbionts of aphids. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15: 574-582
Lambert, J. L. and N. A. Moran. 1998. Deleterious mutations destabilize ribosomal RNA of endosymbionts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95: 4458-4462
Moran, N. A. and A. Telang. 1998. Bacteriocyte-associated endosymbionts in insects. Bioscience 48: 295-304
Thao, M. L., L. Baumann, P. Baumann and N. A. Moran. 1998. Endosymbionts (Buchnera) from the aphids Schizaphis graminum and Diuraphis noxia have different copy numbers of the plasmid containing the leucine biosynthetic genes. Current Microbiology 36: 238-240
Baumann, L., M. A. Clark, D. Rouhbakhsh, P. Baumann, N. A. Moran and D. J. Voegtlin. 1997. Endosymbionts (Buchnera) of Uroleucon sonchi contain plasmids with trpEG and remnants of trpE pseudogenes. Current Microbiology 35: 18- 21
Baumann, P. and N. A. Moran. 1997. Non-cultivable microorganisms from symbiotic associations of insects and other hosts. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 72: 39-48
Baumann, P., N. Moran and L. Baumann. 1997. The evolution and genetics of aphid endosymbionts. Bioscience 47: 12-20
Rouhbaksh, D., M. A. Clark, L. Baumann, N. Moran and P. Baumann. 1997. Evolution of the tryptophan biosynthetic pathway in Buchnera (aphid endosymbionts): studies of plasmid-associated trpEG within the genus Uroleucon. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 8: 167-176
Withgott, J. H., D. K. Abbot and N. A. Moran. 1997. Maternal death relaxes developmental inhibition in nymphal aphid defenders. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 264: 1197-1202
Aoki, S., U. Kurosu, and N. A. Moran. 1996. Secondary monoecy of the gall aphid Thecabius populimonilis. Japanese Journal of Entomology 64: 367-378
Lai, C.-Y., P. Baumann and N. Moran. 1996. The endosymbiont (Buchnera) of the aphid Diuraphis noxia contains plasmids consisting of trpEG and tandem repeats of trpEG pseudogenes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 62: 332-339
Moran, N. A. 1996. Accelerated evolution and Muller's ratchet in endosymbiotic bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93: 2873-2878
Rouhbaksh, D., C.-Y. Lai, C. D. von Dohlen, L. Baumann, P. Baumann, N. A. Moran, and D. J. Voegtlin. 1996. The tryptophan biosynthetic pathway of aphid endosymbionts (Buchnera): genetics and evolution of plasmid-associated trpEG within the Aphididae. Journal of Molecular Evolution 42: 414-421
Seger J. and N. A. Moran. 1996. Behavioural ecology - Snapping social swimmers. Nature 381: 473-474
Baumann, P., L. Baumann , C.-Y. Lai, D. Rouhbakhsh, N. A. Moran and M. A. Clark. 1995. Genetics, physiology, and evolutionary relationships of the genus Buchnera: intracellular symbionts of aphids. Annual Review of Microbiology 41: 55-94
Baumann, P., C.-Y. Lai, L. Baumann, D. Rouhbakhsh, N. A. Moran, and M. A. Clark. 1995. Mutualistic associations of aphids and prokaryotes: biology of the genus Buchnera. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61: 1-7
Lai, C.-Y., P. Baumann, and N.A. Moran. 1995. Genetics of the tryptophan biosynthetic pathway of the prokaryotic endosymbiont (Buchnera) of the aphid Schlechtendalia chinensis. Insect Molecular Biology 4: 47-59
Moran, N. A., C. D. von Dohlen and P. Baumann. 1995. Faster evolutionary rates in endosymbiotic bacteria than in cospeciating insect hosts. Journal of Molecular Evolution 41: 727-731
von Dohlen, C. D. and N. A. Moran. 1995. Molecular phylogeny of the Homoptera: a paraphyletic taxon. Journal of Molecular Evolution 41: 211-223
Aoki, S. and N. A. Moran. 1994. Pemphigus obesinymphae, a new American aphid species with defenders and swollen nymphs (Homoptera: Aphidoidea: Pemphigidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 102: 251-260
Moran, N. A. 1994. Adaptation and constraint in the complex life cycles of animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25: 573-600
Moran, N. and P. Baumann. 1994. Phylogenetics of cytoplasmically inherited microorganisms of arthropods. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 15-20
Moran, N. A., P. Baumann and C. von Dohlen. 1994. Use of DNA sequences to reconstruct the history of the association between members of the Sternorrhyncha and their bacterial endosymbionts. European Journal of Entomology 91: 79-83
Rouhbaksh, D., N. A. Moran, L. Baumann, D. J. Voegtlin and P. Baumann. 1994. Detection of Buchnera the primary prokaryotic endosymbiont of aphids, using the polymerase chain reaction. Insect Molecular Biology 3: 213-217
Baumann, P., M. A. Munson, C.-Y. Lai, M. A. Clark, L. Baumann, N. A. Moran and B. C. Campbell. 1993. Origin and properties of bacterial endosymbionts of aphids, whiteflies, and mealybugs. American Society of Microbiology News 59: 21-24
Moran, N. A. 1993. Defenders in the North American aphid, Pemphigus obesinymphae. Insectes Sociaux 40: 391-402
Moran, N. A., M. A. Munson, P. Baumann and H. Ishikawa. 1993. A molecular clock in endosymbiotic bacteria is calibrated using the insect hosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 253: 167-171
Moran, N., J. Seminoff and L. Johnstone. 1993. Genotypic variation in propensity for host alternation within a population of the aphid Pemphigus betae. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 6: 691-705
Moran, N., J. Seminoff and L. Johnstone. 1993. Induction of winged sexuparae in root- inhabiting colonies of the aphid Pemphigus betae. Physiological Entomology 18: 296-302
Clark, M. A., L. Baumann, M. A. Munson, P. Baumann, B. C. Campbell, J. E. Duffus, L. S. Osborne and N. A. Moran. 1992. The eubacterial endosymbionts of whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodoidea) constitute a lineages distinct from the endosymbionts of aphids and mealybugs. Current Microbiology 25: 119-123
Moran, N. A. 1992. Evolution of sex ratio variation in aphids. chapter in Evolution and Diversity of Sex Ratios in Insects and Mites (D. Wrensch and M. Ebbert, eds.), pp. 346-368. Chapman and Hall, NY
Moran, N. A. 1992. The evolutionary maintenance of alternative phenotypes. The American Naturalist 139: 971-989
Moran, N. A. 1992. The evolution of life cycles in aphids. Annual Review of Entomology 37: 321-348
Munson, M., P. Baumann and N. Moran. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of mealybug endosymbionts (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) based on 16S rDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1: 26-30
Moran, N. A. 1991. Phenotype fixation and genotypic diversity in the life cycle of the aphid, Pemphigus betae. Evolution 45: 957-970
Munson, M. A., P. Baumann, M. A. Clark, L. Baumann, N. A. Moran, D. J. Voegtlin, and B. C. Campbell. 1991. Evidence for the establishment of aphid-eubacterium endosymbiosis in an ancestor of four aphid families. Journal of Bacteriology 173: 6321-6324
Moran, N. A. 1990.Genetic variation in life cycle and host plant relations in Pemphigus betae. 7th International Symposium on Insect/Host Plant Relations. Symp. Biol. Hung. 39: 245-248
Moran, N. A. 1990. Aphid life cycles: two evolutionary steps. The American Naturalist 136: 135-138
Moran, N. A. and T. G.Whitham. 1990. Differential colonization of resistant and susceptible hostplants: Pemphigus and Populus. Ecology 71:1059-1067
Moran, N. A. and T. G.Whitham. 1990. Interspecific competition between root-feeding and leaf-galling aphids mediated by host plant resistance. Ecology 71: 1050-1058
Moran, N. A. 1989. A 48-million-year-old aphid-host plant association and complex life cycle: biogeographic evidence. Science 245: 173-175
Moran, N.A. 1988. The evolution of host alternation in aphids: evidence that specialization is a dead end. The American Naturalist 132: 681-706
Moran, N. A. and T. G. Whitham. 1988. Evolutionary reduction of complex life cycles: loss of host alternation in Pemphigus (Homoptera: Aphididae). Evolution 42: 717-728
Moran, N. A. and T. G. Whitham. 1988. Population fluctuations in complex life cycles: an example from Pemphigus aphids. Ecology 69: 1214-1218
Moran, N. A. 1987. Evolutionary determinants of host plant specificity in Uroleucon . Pages 29-38 in Population Structure, Genetics, and Taxonomy of Aphids and Thysanoptera, edited by J. Holman, J. Pelikan, A. F. G. Dixon, and L. Weisman. SPB Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands
Moran, N. A. 1986. Morphological adaptation to host plants in Uroleucon (Homoptera: Aphididae). Evolution 40: 1044-1058
Moran, N. 1986. Benefits of host plant specificity in Uroleucon . (Homoptera: Aphididae). Ecology 67, 108-115
Stenseth, N. C., L. R. Kirkendall, and N. A. Moran. 1985. On the evolution of pseudogamy. Evolution 39: 294-307
Moran, N. 1984. The genus Uroleucon in Michigan: key, host records, descriptions of three new species. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 57: 596-616
Moran, N. 1984. Reproductive performance of a specialist herbivore, Uroleucon nigrotibium , on its host and on a non-host. Oikos 42: 171-175
Moran, N. 1983. Seasonal shifts in host usage in Uroleucon gravicorne (Homoptera: Aphididae) and implications for the evolution of host alternation in aphids. Ecological Entomology 8: 371-382
Moran, N. A. 1981. Intraspecific variation in herbivore performance and host quality: a field study of Uroleucon caligatum (Homptera: Aphididae)and its Solidago (Asteraceae) hosts. Ecological Entomology 6: 301-306
Hamilton, W. D., P. A. Henderson, and N. A. Moran. 1980. Fluctuations of environment and coevolved antagonist polymorphism as factors in the maintenance of sex. Pages 363-382 in Natural Selection and Social Behavior: recent research and new theory , edited by R. D. Alexander and D. W. Tinkle. Chiron Press, NY
Moran, N. and W. D. Hamilton. 1980. Low nutritive quality as defense against herbivores. Journal of Theoretical Biology 86: 247-254
Burley, N. and N. Moran. 1979. Significance of age and reproductive experience in the mate preferences of feral pigeons, Columba livia. Animal Behavior 27: 686-698
_______________________
Have you actually read any of that? Or any work in the area of co-evolution, where you say your arguments are iron clad against evolution working? Or have you simply decided you are right and not bothered?
You know what is interesting? Look at that list up there. You know what? Dr. Moran alone has produced many, many, many times more published research that the entire ID movement. Isn't that interesting?
>>>>>> For instance, the following is the introduction to the research done by Nancy Moran's lab (http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/moran/): <<<<<<
Dunghill, this is just bibliography bluffing crap. You are cluttering up my blog with bibliography bluffing crap. Why couldn't you have just left a link?
Larry said:
Dunghill, this is just bibliography bluffing crap.
____________________
Translation: I don't read stuff I criticize. I am the great Larry Fafarman! I am proud of my abject ignorance of things on which I arrogantly pontificate! Kneel before my stupidity! I can use symbiosis as an argument against evolution without knowing squat about it or the research being done on it!
Seriously, though, don't you see how your lack of substantive reading or understanding of the topics on which you write renders you a laughing stock? Jeez, you even continue to criticize the Blount et al paper without bothering to actually read it fully. How sad. How very, very sad.
Larry also said:
Why couldn't you have just left a link?
______________________
Because you have shown how lazy you are, and likely wouldn't have bothered to follow it. Besides, that nice, long list shows just how poorly-researched your arguments are. Besides, those who visit here to marvel at your ignorance and unpleasantness might enjoy finding out about Dr. Moran and her excellent work.
WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU LOUSY TROLLS TRYING TO PROVE BY CLUTTERING UP THIS BLOG WITH YOUR "GOAL" AND BIBLIOGRAPHY BLUFFING CRAP?
Zachary Blount's post on the Loom is confusing -- he says in one place that "the original intent of the experiment was not evolve a citrate-utilizing variant of E. coli" and in another place says, "The evolution of a citrate-utilizing variant E. coli was seen from the beginning as a possible occurrence" --
I think you need to re-read my post. I also think you need to take my suggestion to read some of the references I cited. Specifically, I think you would benefit by reading the long review of the Long Term Evolution Experiment that is reference #147 in Dr. Lenski’s publication list. You will see in it, as well as in the first paper on the experiment published in 1991 (#35), the original intent of the experiment was not evolve a citrate-utilizing variant of E. coli, but to, among other things, study the repeatability of evolution and adaptive dynamics. If you peruse the publication list on Dr. Lenski’s website, you will see that the lab has produced a large volume of research related to the original goals of the experiment and issues tangential to them.
The evolution of a citrate-utilizing variant E. coli was seen from the beginning as a possible occurrence, and one that would be pretty neat should it occur (and indeed as it has proven to be now that it has happened), but not a goal.
Blount added to the confusiion by saying,
When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly).
Blount's response is not confusing at all. I think there is something wrong with your head. No one else seemed confused with his response. No rational person would see a contradiction in what he said. Larry, all this confusion and contradiction is in your head. You have made it abundantly clear that you don't understand the meaning of the word "goal", so perhaps this isn't surprising. Perhaps if you had been clear when asking Blount your question that you are using a definition of goal that is decidedly non-standard, there wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps if you have not chosen to be rude and insulting to Blount, he would have clarified. Given the tone you took (which could be described as "arrogantly prosecutorial", I can certainly understand why he chose to not bother with you. As it was, he was polite enough to give you references to check what he told you (and I've read them, and they clearly show that he was correct in what he told you), which seemed a good compromise given that you had shown that you would not take him at his word. Given that you then proceeded to insult him and attack work you had never even read, you showed yourself to be completely insincere in your questions and interests. Can't you see that you are the one causing the problem here?
Jeez, the very fact that you are still ranting about this shows that you need some serious clinical help. Of course, it doesn't quite show this quite as well as you on-going, obsessive and delusional attacks on Judge Jones almost three years after the Dover decision. Jeez Larry, get a life or at least a clue!
*burp*
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT BLOUNT'S STATEMENTS ARE CONFUSING, AMBIGUOUS, INCONSISTENT, WISHY-WASHY, AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY!
QUESTION -- WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE SEPARATES GOALS FROM NON-GOALS? 50%? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
AGAIN I ASK -- WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE?
YOU LOUSY TROLLS ARE JUST RUNNING THIS "GOAL" THING INTO THE GROUND IN A DESPERATE EFFORT TO DISCREDIT ME. AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER ME TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST THREATS TO DARWINISM THAT YOU EVER SAW! NO OTHER EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE!
YOU ARE ALSO TRYING TO WASTE MY TIME RESPONDING TO YOU SO THAT I WILL HAVE LESS TIME TO WRITE NEW POSTS, WHICH YOU DREAD.
YOU ARE ONLY MAKING YOURSELVES LOOK FOOLISH.
Larry yelled:
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT BLOUNT'S STATEMENTS ARE CONFUSING, AMBIGUOUS, INCONSISTENT, WISHY-WASHY, AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY!
Only to you apparently - no rational person would think that given what he wrote. It looks like Blount was trying to give an honest answer to someone who wasn't looking for one. Too bad for him, but shame on you.
QUESTION -- WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE SEPARATES GOALS FROM NON-GOALS? 50%? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
You still don't understand the word "goal", do you? You might want to re-read the definitions that Erin was kind enough to give you above. You might also want to read more - it is a good way to learn the meanings of basic English words, even though reading text for comprehension seems a weak point of yours.
YOU ARE ALSO TRYING TO WASTE MY TIME RESPONDING TO YOU SO THAT I WILL HAVE LESS TIME TO WRITE NEW POSTS, WHICH YOU DREAD.
Wow. The only thing your posts show is that you need serious psychiatric care, a lot of education, and more lessons on what constitutes politeness and civil discourse.
Let's see: Larry displays delusions of grandeur (in Larry's case even delusions of adequacy), bizarre obsessions, stereotyped patterns of expression, bursts of rage, disordered thinking, narcissism, and paranoia...hmm, looks like schizophrenia to me. Anyone else care to make a diagnosis?
EACH NEW COMMENT YOU TROLLS POST HERE ONLY FURTHER PROVES MY POINTS.
> looks like schizophrenia to me. Anyone else care to make a diagnosis? <
You don't get any points for that one. It is too obvious.
Larry's all caps show that he has given up repeating his failed arguments. He is about to blow!
Larry screamed:
EACH NEW COMMENT YOU TROLLS POST HERE ONLY FURTHER PROVES MY POINTS.
We could say the same of your comments and posts.
Really Larry, you need help. Seek it out. You could lead a much better life during your remaining years, and actually make a contribution to society.
Yell louder Larry! If you are loud enough, maybe Judge Jones will learn you even exist!
OK, I CONCEDE. YOU FOLKS ARE RIGHT AND I AM WRONG. A "GOAL" MUST BE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN.
Hey, you lousy trolls. My printed Webster's New World Dictionary defines "goal" as "an object or end that one strives to attain." Is that dictionary not a valid reference? Nothing there about any certainty or likelihood of achieving the goal. Nothing about a goal being a sole or even just a primary aim or purpose. Nothing about the effort ending when the goal is reached. Nothing about a "goal" being "planned" or "intended." Nothing about a fixed time frame for achieving the goal.
Merely conducting the E. coli experiment was an act of "striving." Now, is it possible, just possible, that someone using this definition of "goal" could be misled or confused by Zachary Blount's statement that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" of the experiment?
And if "goal" means that the experiment ends when the goal is reached (according to many of the defintions of goal in supertroll Erin's comment of Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:45:00 AM), then wouldn't the experiment have no goals at all?
As I said, you trolls see me as a really serious threat to Darwinism -- otherwise you would not be spending so much time here in a desperate effort to discredit me.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
"YOU LOUSY TROLLS ARE JUST RUNNING THIS "GOAL" THING INTO THE GROUND IN A DESPERATE EFFORT TO DISCREDIT ME. AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER ME TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST THREATS TO DARWINISM THAT YOU EVER SAW! NO OTHER EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE!"
It takes but an instant to prove you are wrong - there ARE other possible explanations. These include a genuine desire to explain to you what is really going on in order to correct your misapprehensions. Another possible explanation is that posters are concerned that other readers may take what you say at face value and want to correct the misrepresentations you make, for the benefit of those other readers. So, that's two other possible explanations, and I'm sure there's more.
Just to make sure you understand -you do know what "possible" means, don't you, Larry?
"And if "goal" means that the experiment ends when the goal is reached (according to many of the defintions of goal in supertroll Erin's comment of Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:45:00 AM), then wouldn't the experiment have no goals at all?"
Uhh, yeah, basically.
Experiments, by their very nature, don't really have "goals" as you are talking about them. That's the huge thing that you seem to be missing.
Scientist A: What are you doing?
Scientist B: Trying to figure out what happens in this particular set of conditions.
Scientist A: What do you think will happen?
Scientist B: Well, I have this hypothesis that Cit+ bacteria might evolve.
Scientist A: is that your GOAL?
Scientist B: Well, not really, i mean, my goal might be to LEARN if Cit+ bacteria can evolve, kind of, but if it doesn't, that doesn't mean that my experiment has failed.
(keep in mind that this hypothetical is EXCESSIVELY hypothetical for several reasons. A) most of this communication takes place in journals, B) the vast majority of scientists already understand how the scientific method works)
P.S. a goal is defined as the "end" of an effort in all the definitions because. . .umm. . .that's what it means. Despite your failed attempts to redefine it. Oh, also, there's a parallel with the paper. Lenski, et. al. specifically defined what they meant by "potentiating" (and they chose a word fairly close to their definition for ease of understanding) in their paper, but it was NOT the standard definition of the word. This is a pretty standard practice in the world of scientific papers.
Larry said with irritation:
Hey, you lousy trolls. My printed Webster's New World Dictionary defines "goal" as "an object or end that one strives to attain." Is that dictionary not a valid reference? Nothing there about any certainty or likelihood of achieving the goal. Nothing about a goal being a sole or even just a primary aim or purpose. Nothing about the effort ending when the goal is reached. Nothing about a "goal" being "planned" or "intended." Nothing about a fixed time frame for achieving the goal.
Merely conducting the E. coli experiment was an act of "striving." Now, is it possible, just possible, that someone using this definition of "goal" could be misled or confused by Zachary Blount's statement that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" of the experiment?
__________________________
No, a rational person would not have been confused by Blount's answer given that definition. Not only did he explicitly say evolving a Cit+ E. coli was not a goal of the long term experiment, his further clarifications didn't contradict that. What is more, he pointed people, including you, to a couple of papers, one from 1991, and the other from 2004 in which the goals of the long term experiment were explained so that others could verify what he was saying. Both papers are consistent in outlining the goals of the experiment (which is open-ended, by the way - this is clear from reading those goals), and neither say anything about Cit+. A rational person would not have been confused, and would have understood what Blount wrote, accepted his answer, and moved on. He would not have screamed and whined about it for two and half months.
Now let's say someone was confused because he or she misread Blount's response. Would that person have immediately taken an arrogantly prosecutorial tone and started attacking Blount? Would he or she immediately started calling people names, mangling the English language, throwing temper tantrums, and then arrogantly pontificating from a position of ignorance for months on end? If told of those other two papers, would he have refused to read them, declaring them to be "bibliography bluffing" instead of actually checking them? Would he have declared that others should have to read the people for him? No. A rational person who was a bit confused might have asked for a clarification politely without the insults or rants or inuendo or rudeness. That person might have even checked out those papers and seen the answers right there in them, very close to the beginning.
However, you are neither rational, nor polite, nor sane. So you have insulted, and attacked, and shown your ignorance, and mangled the English language, and been laughed at by so many as you have raved for two and half months now. Can't you see the difference?
Larry, seek help. You can have a life again. You can make the voices in your head go away. Your mind can be cleared. You can have thoughts that make sense again. You just need to seek help.
Poor Larry, can't admit he was wrong. Poor Larry, can't admit he was unnecessarily a jerk.
You know, Larry, rational people learn from their mistakes and move on. People with lives are able to do that. Seek help and you might one day have a life again, too.
He is braying in all caps now. It must be an advanced stage.
We are always kicking his ass. That's why he doesn't like us.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have turned on comment moderation for the second time in the history of this blog. The reason is that some troll is persisting in posting a comment that contains gossip about my private affairs.
You lousy trolls just don't give up in your desperate efforts to sabotage this blog.
>>>>>> . . . he pointed people, including you, to a couple of papers, one from 1991, and the other from 2004 in which the goals of the long term experiment were explained so that others could verify what he was saying. Both papers are consistent in outlining the goals of the experiment (which is open-ended, by the way - this is clear from reading those goals), and neither say anything about Cit+. <<<<<<<
The absence of mention of Cit+ in those papers is inconsistent with Blount's following two statements:
When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly).
The evolution of a citrate-utilizing variant E. coli was seen from the beginning as a possible occurrence, and one that would be pretty neat should it occur
Also, Blount refused to answer my question about whether favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose of the glucose cycling (alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation).
Also, I went over this stuff already in a previous post.
>>>>>> Would that person have immediately taken an arrogantly prosecutorial tone and started attacking Blount? <<<<<<
No, dunghill, I did not immediately take "an arrogantly prosecutorial tone" and "[start] attacking Blount" (that came later and was justified).
>>>>> "YOU LOUSY TROLLS ARE JUST RUNNING THIS "GOAL" THING INTO THE GROUND IN A DESPERATE EFFORT TO DISCREDIT ME. AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER ME TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST THREATS TO DARWINISM THAT YOU EVER SAW! NO OTHER EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE!"
It takes but an instant to prove you are wrong - there ARE other possible explanations. These include a genuine desire to explain to you what is really going on in order to correct your misapprehensions. <<<<<<<
How white of you to try to "help" me.
>>>>>> Another possible explanation is that posters are concerned that other readers may take what you say at face value and want to correct the misrepresentations you make, for the benefit of those other readers. <<<<<<
The reason for that is that you consider me to be a huge threat to Darwinism.
Larry said:
The absence of mention of Cit+ in those papers is inconsistent with Blount's following two statements:
When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly).
The evolution of a citrate-utilizing variant E. coli was seen from the beginning as a possible occurrence, and one that would be pretty neat should it occur
Also, Blount refused to answer my question about whether favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose of the glucose cycling (alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation).
_______________________________
You are really the only one who could see inconsistency in that answer. No rational person would. Further, had you actually gone to the papers Blount directed you to, you would have seen further evidence of that. They make it quite explicit that the idea behind the experiment was to set up a simple environment, and watch E. coli evolve in it over a long period of time. The goals listed are all about examining that evolution, whatever course it might take (their set-up precluded directing the evolution, so they couldn't know at the outset what courses that evolution would take, but could only guess where it might go - they then studied the evolution that took place - you would know this if you did some work to learn a bit before attacking). Again, no inconsistency. You would have seen that had you been honorable enough to do due diligence. That is what a serious person would have done. You instead made a unpleasant fool of yourself.
As for the arrogantly prosecutorial tone, I think you need to re-read your first responses to Blount. That tone is fairly obvious.
The "glucose-cycling" question was then not asked until you got insulting and even more rude with Blount. Had you been more polite and rational, you likely would have gotten answers. It is interesting to note that Blount went on to answer the questions of others who weren't throwing hissy fits and acting like spoiled children. That question could also be answered by going to the papers Blount listed. You would know this if you had bothered to look at them.
Larry further said:
The reason for that is that you consider me to be a huge threat to Darwinism.
____________________________
Another delusion of grandeur. "Huge threats" to well supported theories actually familiarize themselves with the research supporting them, and don't simply rely on un-supported assertions, rants, and insults.
Larry said:
Also, I went over this stuff already in a previous post.
----------------------------
Where anyone can see that I am right. They can also go and read the actual exchanges at the Loom:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new-step-in-evolution/#comments
Really, Larry, your record stands for itself and is quite damning.
Cit+ evolution could still have been an original goal even if it is not specifically mentioned in the 1991 and 2004 papers. Cit+ evolution is not even specifically mentioned now on the main page of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment! The main page says,
Summary data from the long-term evolution experiment includes relative fitness, cell size, colony morphology (photographic), and molecular genetics.
Nothing can change the fact that Blount's statements are confusing, ambiguous, inconsistent, and self-contradictory. My printed Webster's New World Dictionary gives "goal" a broad meaning and the word should have a broad meaning -- then there can be different kinds of goals, e.g., primary goals, secondary goals, major goals, minor goals, incidental goals, longshot goals, final goals, quixotic goals, etc.. The standard meaning of "scientific theory" is also broad, but to promote evolution theory, Darwinists are trying to redefine the term to include the characteristics "well-supported" and "widely accepted." But what about scientific theories that are not well-supported or widely accepted -- what are those going to be called? And you hypocritical Darwinists accuse me of using a non-standard definition of "goal" (I am not) while you see nothing wrong with using this non-standard definition of "scientific theory."
>>>>> The "glucose-cycling" question was then not asked until you got insulting and even more rude with Blount. <<<<<<<
That's not true -- it was only at the very end that I called him an "evasive jerk." And if Blount can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. The Cit+ paper got a lot of publicity and was controversial (though it should not have been), so he should expect to get a little hostility once in a while. And before he started stonewalling me, I was quite polite. I treated the experimenters a lot better than Conservapedia's Andy Schlafly treated them -- he demanded the raw data from the experiment.
You have really been wasting my time here and delayed my posting of new articles -- which of course is one of your main reasons for wasting my time.
"I treated the experimenters a lot better than Conservapedia's Andy Schlafly treated them"
Why should an obnoxious, disingenuous twit be your standard of behavior?
Larry said:
Cit+ evolution could still have been an original goal even if it is not specifically mentioned in the 1991 and 2004 papers.
____________________________
Except Blount clearly told you it wasn't a goal, and the papers back him up. You seem to have decided to broaden your definition of goal purely to struggle to find a contradiction where no rational person would. No matter how much you struggle to re-work the English language to suit your weird compulsions, that fact won't change.
Larry also said:
And you hypocritical Darwinists accuse me of using a non-standard definition of "goal" (I am not) while you see nothing wrong with using this non-standard definition of "scientific theory.
_________________________
You still don't understand the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific sense, do you? Sigh. How much of the English language do you not understand? You seem to have this defect that makes you unable to understand simple concepts, discern meaning from sentences, and able to see contradictions where no rational person does. You keep showing this. Why?
Further:
That's not true -- it was only at the very end that I called him an "evasive jerk." And if Blount can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. The Cit+ paper got a lot of publicity and was controversial (though it should not have been), so he should expect to get a little hostility once in a while. And before he started stonewalling me, I was quite polite. I treated the experimenters a lot better than Conservapedia's Andy Schlafly treated them -- he demanded the raw data from the experiment.
____________________________
No, you were pretty impolite from the very beginning. You declared contradictions where there were none, attacked his credibility, and took an arroganly hectoring tone in your questions. You clearly don't understand politeness, either. As for stonewalling you, it looks more like he decided to ignore a troll, which you clearly were (and are). As far as I can tell, Blount answered questions quite politely and well, even going into a lot of detail to help people, even when there is no reason why he even had to answer questions to begin with. It looks like he chose to stay in the kitchen and ignore the large rat (you) who kept squealing for attention.
So you now justify your infantile, hostile, and uncivil behavior toward Blount on the basis that you were better than Schlafly? Wow, you set so low a standard for yourself! I'm sure Blount has largely forgotten both of you and simply continued his work.
Larry also said:
You have really been wasting my time here and delayed my posting of new articles -- which of course is one of your main reasons for wasting my time.
____________________________
You mean you regard backing up and defending your foolish attacks and stances as a waste of time? As for delaying your posting of new articles, as each new article serves to better illustrate your inane ignorance and arrogant delusions of grandeur, why would I want to do that? If I cared about you, sure, but I don't, so I don't mind you making a bigger fool of yourself.
I now accept your surrender.
Besides, Larry, if you have actually bothered to look at those 1991 and 2004 papers, you would have seen that the experiment was set up, as I have said before, to provide replicate E. coli populations with a simple environment, and then watch how they evolved. The experiment was not set up in any way to evolve bacteria with a particular trait. This is achingly obvious from those papers and everything else put out by the Lenski lab. Had they wanted to evolve a Cit+ E. coli, they could have done that much more easily than run a long term evolution experiment. For instance, they could have simply plated enormous numbers of cells on a medium containing only citrate until they found one. This is how microbiologists generally look for particular mutants they wish to find (not to mention that this seems to be how two of their experiments to test the contingency hypothesis were performed - this is also how they determined that the mutation rate to Cit+ even for potentiated genotypes was extraordinarily low - on the order of one in a trillion cells). You would know this had you actually research the area before spending almost three months pontificating about it, and that is really, really sad and does not speak well for you or your intents.
> Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator. <
Arbitrary censorship as usual.
> Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator. <
Arbitrary censorship as usual.
________________________________
You know, though, we shouldn't be surprised. The thing about Larry is that arbitrary is his middle name. This is why he hates judges, scientists, and most of the posters on this site: he hates and cannot understand systematic, rational thought. Arbitrary nonsense, though? That he loves because it is familiar. Its why he loves ID so much, even though he doesn't understand it: it is arbitrary in its structure and thinking, too.
All that, and Larry doesn't understand the meaning of the word "censorship" - one of many, many, many, many, many words in English he doesn't grasp.
>>>>>> "I treated the experimenters a lot better than Conservapedia's Andy Schlafly treated them"
Why should an obnoxious, disingenuous twit be your standard of behavior? <<<<<<
The point is, why should you jump on me when I have given no good reason to be jumped on, when there are people out there who have given good reason to be jumped on.
>>>>>Besides, Larry, if you have actually bothered to look at those 1991 and 2004 papers, you would have seen that the experiment was set up, as I have said before, to provide replicate E. coli populations with a simple environment, and then watch how they evolved. <<<<<
There is nothing wrong with asking questions outside the papers. And as I said, Blount's statements were ambiguous and inconsistent and he just stopped answering questions altogether.
>>>>>> For instance, they could have simply plated enormous numbers of cells on a medium containing only citrate until they found one. <<<<<<
No, it couldn't be done that way because initially the bacteria could not eat the citrate and therefore couldn't reproduce if only citrate were available. And the conditions of the experiment (e.g., the glucose cycling) can only favor Cit+ evolution -- the conditions could not cause the Cit+ mutations -- to cause mutations you (1) need ionizing radiation or chemical irritants or stuff like that, but those things only cause random mutations and not a specific desired mutation, or (2) mutations can be caused using gene therapy techniques.
You lousy trolls think that delaying my new posts by tying me down answering your frivolous comments is a big joke. It takes a lot of work to create many of these new posts -- all the research and the formatting, etc.. And my Internet navigation is slow because I just have a dial-up connection -- it sometimes takes several minutes to load a pdf file and sometimes pdf files don't load at all.
Larry said:
There is nothing wrong with asking questions outside the papers. And as I said, Blount's statements were ambiguous and inconsistent and he just stopped answering questions altogether.
_____________________________
No, there isn't anything wrong with asking questions outside of the papers, but you keep making assertions that are flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence of the papers. Further, you can say Blount's statements were inconsistent all you want, but that won't change the fact that they are perfectly consistent, and any rational person would say this. The only way for them to be seen as inconsistent is to willfully twist the English language so that words like "goal" are re-defined to mean "non-goal". The papers listed, the entire cannon of research from the Lenski lab, Blount's answers, and the structure of the experiment make it clear that evolving a Cit+ variant was not in any way a goal of the experiment. You were wrong. Admit it and move on like an adult.
Larry also said:
No, it couldn't be done that way because initially the bacteria could not eat the citrate and therefore couldn't reproduce if only citrate were available. And the conditions of the experiment (e.g., the glucose cycling) can only favor Cit+ evolution -- the conditions could not cause the Cit+ mutations --
________________________________
I didn't say anything about causing the mutations. You don't understand squat about microbiology, do you? 1. Mutants arise at random in a culture of bacteria. If you are looking for a particular mutant with a selectable phenotype, in this case Cit+, you plate large numbers of cells on a medium that selects for that phenotype. In this case, when large numbers of cells are plated on a citrate-only medium, only mutant cells that had arisen in the cultures plated will be able to grow and form colonies. By looking for those colonies on the citrate-only plates, you can find Cit+ mutants. This is really, really basic stuff, and not at all difficult to understand. 2. Blount et al used this technique to isolate new Cit+ mutants in the second and third contingency experiments described in their paper. Again, we see the problems you run into by not reading what you are criticizing. Again, this technique is designed to cause mutants, but to find those that naturally arise.
You then said:
to cause mutations you (1) need ionizing radiation or chemical irritants or stuff like that, but those things only cause random mutations and not a specific desired mutation, or (2) mutations can be caused using gene therapy techniques.
_____________________
Mutations arise as a matter of course in a bacterial culture. There are DNA replication errors, oxidative damage to bases, and many more. You don't need to do anything to the cultures for mutations to occur. Ionizing radiation and chemical mutagens can be used to increase mutation rates above the baseline so as to increase the likelihood of the occurrence of a particular mutation one is interested in. The key phrase there is "increase mutation rates". In un-mutagenized cultures, there is still a base-line rate of occurrence of various mutations. As for gene-therapy techniques, gene-therapy is not used in microbiology, as the organisms used are single-celled. There have been molecular techniques in use for decades that allow one to insert genes of interest into bacteria to study them. This brings up another issue: had Blount et al. simply wanted an E. coli that was Cit+, they could have constructed a Cit+ transformant by placing a citrate transporter into E. coli that was expressed from a plasmid. They didn't do this.
So we can add microbiology, mutation, selection, and genetic engineering to the long list of topics and areas on which you are wholly ignorant, but still pontificate arrogantly upon. Again: how sad.
You ended with:
You lousy trolls think that delaying my new posts by tying me down answering your frivolous comments is a big joke. It takes a lot of work to create many of these new posts -- all the research and the formatting, etc..
__________________________
1. Don't make me laugh. Your new posts just make you look like a bigger idiot, and I don't care if you want to parade your foolishness and ignorance.
2. You actually do research? You attack papers you don't read, pontificate on concepts you don't understand, and you refuse to accept that you are ignorant of many of the issues on which you write, even when it is bluntly pointed out to you. Laughably sad. You know, if you actually read and thought about issues before you went on the attack, you would do yourself much better. Perhaps you might even be able to have meaningful dialog on those issues and make a real contribution. You really should, though that would not fit your pattern of "post first, think later, understand never".
As for dial-up...HAHAHAHAHA! Who has dial-up in this day and age!
> You lousy trolls think that delaying my new posts by tying me down answering your frivolous comments is a big joke. <
What frivolous comments? You mean yours?
> It takes a lot of work to create many of these new posts <
It looks like you just scan for words and then babble incoherently about the content of articles you havent read or court decisions you don't understand.
> And my Internet navigation is slow because I just have a dial-up connection <
Your entire life is centered on the Internet and your keepers will only allow you to have a dial-up connection? Shame on them. Let's take up a collection for Larry and then he can entertain us all the more.
I see you are still playing one-upmanship.
>>>>>> You don't understand squat about microbiology, do you? 1. Mutants arise at random in a culture of bacteria. <<<<<<
I never said otherwise, dunghill.
>>>>> If you are looking for a particular mutant with a selectable phenotype, in this case Cit+, you plate large numbers of cells on a medium that selects for that phenotype. <<<<<
But the experimenters here could select Cit+ bacteria without any extra effort just by using glucose-cycling in a citrate-rich medium. They were using glucose-cycling anyway to control population growth and the citrate was used as a chelating agent. Cit+ evolution could have been a "goal" of the experiment even if nothing special was done to favor it. Another reason why Cit+ evolution could have been considered a "goal": Cit+ evolution was known to be possible but very unusual (it occurred only once before), and a long-term evolution experiment with 12 lines of bacteria gave a lot of opportunity for Cit+ evolution.
Again I ask -- what percentage of probability of occurrence separates goals from non-goals?
>>>>>> As for dial-up...HAHAHAHAHA! Who has dial-up in this day and age! <<<<<
You jackass -- cable broadband is not available in some areas. Dial-up usually works fine -- the biggest problem is with videos and pdf files. It is slower on html files but this is usually not a problem because relatively little time is spent bringing up html files.
The reason for your persistence is, as I have said, that you consider me to be a very serious threat to Darwinism. No other explanation is possible.
Larry wrote, "You jackass -- cable broadband is not available in some areas."
Ever hear of DSL? You obviously have a phone line.
Also, you live in Los Angeles. Are there parts of LA that don't have access to cable?
Larry said:
...to cause mutations you (1) need ionizing radiation or chemical irritants or stuff like that, but those things only cause random mutations and not a specific desired mutation, or (2) mutations can be caused using gene therapy techniques.
I said:
>>>>>> You don't understand squat about microbiology, do you? 1. Mutants arise at random in a culture of bacteria. <<<<<<
Then Larry said:
I never said otherwise, dunghill.
_____________
So, Larry says that you have cause mutations with mutagens, I point out that isn't true, and then Larry claims he never said what he said.
Larry contradicts himself.
No wonder he couldn't tell that Blount in no way contradicted himself.
You still don't understand what a goal is? The experimenters say evolution of a Cit+ variant wasn't a goal, the experiment wasn't set up to evolve any particular trait, 20 years of documentary evidence indicates it wasn't a goal, and there were easier ways of getting a Cit+ mutant. Larry is in denial as well as ignorance. Poor old Larry.
Why don't you just admit you made a mistake and be a grown up for once?
Larry also said:
You jackass -- cable broadband is not available in some areas.
_______________
You live in LA. LA has complete broadband access available. You lose again.
Larry also said:
The reason for your persistence is, as I have said, that you consider me to be a very serious threat to Darwinism. No other explanation is possible.
___________________________
A poor, addled old man with dial up and no understanding of basic science is a threat to evolutionary theory with its 150 years of research support? Hardly. There's that delusion of grandeur problem again. I am here to try to teach you something, but you seem incapable of rational thought much less learning. You should work on that.
>>>>> So, Larry says that you have cause mutations with mutagens, I point out that isn't true, and then Larry claims he never said what he said. <<<<<<
What? "You have cause mutations with mutagens"? I can't even understand what in the hell you are talking about.
Anyway, what I was saying is that you need mutagens or gene therapy techniques to artificially induce mutations. There is nothing wrong with appearing to be inconsistent the first time if one clarifies one's statements. The problem with Blount is that he didn't clarify his statements -- he just clammed up.
>>>>> The experimenters say evolution of a Cit+ variant wasn't a goal, <<<<<<
According to Blount, Cit+ evolution was foreseen as a possible and desirable result. You still have not answered my question -- what percentage of probability of occurrence separates goals from non-goals? I am waiting for an answer.
>>>>>> there were easier ways of getting a Cit+ mutant. <<<<<<
There is no easier way of getting a Cit+ mutant than doing nothing special or extra to get a Cit+ mutant.
>>>>>> Why don't you just admit you made a mistake and be a grown up for once? <<<<<<
When hell freezes over, dunghill. You are looking more and more ridiculous.
>>>>> You live in LA. LA has complete broadband access available. You lose again.<<<<<<
When I inquired fairly recently, I was told that cable broadband service was not available in my area. Any more talk about my use of dial-up service will be treated as gossip -- even though I brought it up -- and you know what I do with comments that contain gossip. As your hero Fatheaded Ed Brayton says, "my blog, my rules."
>>>>> A poor, addled old man with dial up and no understanding of basic science is a threat to evolutionary theory with its 150 years of research support? Hardly. <<<<<<
Then why are you spending so much time here in a desperate effort to discredit me?
You said in your comment that to get mutants, you needed to use mutagens. You can read your comment again:
Larry said:
...to cause mutations you (1) need ionizing radiation or chemical irritants or stuff like that, but those things only cause random mutations and not a specific desired mutation, or (2) mutations can be caused using gene therapy techniques.
You didn't say artificially or anything else to qualify that statement, and the context of the sentence made your meaning clear. You finally noticed you were wrong about something, but then tried to avoid admitting it. You are making progress!
You also said:
>>>>>> there were easier ways of getting a Cit+ mutant. <<<<<<
There is no easier way of getting a Cit+ mutant than doing nothing special or extra to get a Cit+ mutant.
________________________
Almost twenty years to achieve something that could potentially have been accomplished in a couple of months? Wow. You are a sick person if you think that. You are still avoiding the realization that Blount's statements were not contradictory or even unclear. He said outright that evolving a Cit+ E. coli was not a goal of the experiment. How much more clear did you need than that? Twenty years of papers out of the Lenski lab (interesting that you seem to think you know more than the researchers themselves when you are too lazy to even read one of those papers) make it very obvious that evolving a Cit+ E. coli was not a goal. The very structure of the experiment makes it clear that it wasn't a goal. In fact, if you actually read those papers from 1991 and 2004, you will see that the goals they explicitly list for the experiment would preclude any goal of of evolving any particular trait. All evidence points to Blount having been right: it wasn't a goal. You seem to be the only one who thinks it was a goal, against all evidence and persuasion. One could even say it your faith that it was a goal, even if it wasn't. Bizarre, that. Even stranger is that you are still whining about this months later, and still haven't read the paper you are attacking! How pathetic!
As for Blount, he gave you a clarification to your question. He told you evolving Cit+ wasn't a goal. You then got arrogant, pompous, and prosecutorial for no real reason. You made it clear you wouldn't take his at his word or even read his responses, so he directed you to those papers so you could check him yourself, you refused to do so, and then threw a very ugly multi-day temper tantrum than utterly discredited you. You were a jerk. Accept it and move one like an adult, for once in your life.
You later said:
>>>>> A poor, addled old man with dial up and no understanding of basic science is a threat to evolutionary theory with its 150 years of research support? Hardly. <<<<<<
Then why are you spending so much time here in a desperate effort to discredit me?
____________________
First, Larry my boy, you discredit yourself. You don't understand English, science, or even rational arguments, and this is clear from every post you put up. Second, I spend a few minutes a day replying to you. I spend the rest of my time in more productive pursuits. You are my entertainment. Third, you don't understand basic science, and are afraid to read even a single scientific paper. You are just a typical internet crank pontificating from your little soapbox, and getting laughed at by the few people who happen by. No one you pontificate about know or care you exist. Judge Jones doesn't know you exist. Zachary Blount likely completely forgot about you after you made a fool of yourself at the Loom (he is likely working on another paper you won't read, won't understand, and likely will still attack with arrogant tone). No one cares what your disordered thoughts are.
Really, Larry, are you so sick you actually think so highly of yourself?
And, Larry, if your ideas were any real threat to evolutionary biology as a field, don't you think that you would be the subject of a lot of writing in the top journals? When Behe comes out with a book, the publish reviews and discussions of how wrong his ideas are and how shoddily researched those books are. When someone has some ideas of merit that go against received views, they get aired, experiments are run, results are published, work is done, more results are published, and there is much argument and debate in those journals. And yet your name is absent from the few dozen major journals in evolutionary biology. I peruse them quite regularly, and I can attest to that. You are a nothing, a nobody, a lonely old man attacking ideas he doesn't understand, and won't take any steps to learn about. You are a threat to no one but yourself.
There are just two possibilities:
(1) I am a big threat to Darwinism and the trolls' efforts to discredit me are therefore justified.
(2) I am too unimportant to be a threat to Darwinism and the trolls are therefore wasting their time trying to discredit me.
Take your pick, trolls.
There are just two possibilities:
(1) Larry is a supporter of Darwinism and is using this method to discredit the creationists.
(2) Larry's actually believes what he claims but his brayings are too ridiculous to be a threat to Darwinism. (The commenters are here for entertainment alone which he never fails to provide.)
Take your pick, Larry.
I happily pick B.
You won't recall, but my first post here was this:
>>>>I posted comments at Conservapedia in response to yours, and I'll continue to do so here, because I'll take at face value your comment there that "Right now I am just trying to understand the experiment."<<<<
It should have been clear to me then, as it is now, that your statement was, and is, a lie. Therefore, you were, and continue to be, a liar. I completely agree that interacting with you on this blog is an utter waste of my time. I am sure that everyone else who posts here feels the same way.
You don't want to understand the Blount experiment. Your actions make this clear. If you wanted to understand it, the first fucking step would have been to fucking read the fucking paper. It's sad that eight pages is beyond your capacity. Instead, you want to criticize the experiment. You want to complain about how the experimenters treated you. You want to make false statements about the experiment without having it damage your 'credibility'. You want to have your own personal definitions of words so that you can accuse others of inconsistency. You have many goals, but understanding the Blount experiment is not one of them. Not even a longshot goal.
There was a mentally retarded girl in my elementary school who delighted in making fart noises. It got a rise out of the other kids in the class; kids who otherwise wouldn't give her the time of day. We soon learned, though, that if anyone reacted to her, she would just keep making poop sounds over and over and over and over. So we all just stopped reacting to her acting out, and life got a lot more bearable. But every year there would be new kids in the class who would hoot and holler when she made her noises, and it would take weeks to get things back under control again.
In the Internet, Larry has discovered the perfect classroom setting: he can make his poopy sounds at will, and he is guaranteed that there will always be new kids around to point and laugh at the retard. If the other kids wise up, he can always visit a new blog and make poopy noises there.
Larry, your 'arguments' represent as much of a threat to evolutionary theory as that girl's fart sounds made to the United States Department of Education. Go ahead and enjoy the attention until your current audience wises up, though.
I was in a graduate level evolutionary biology course a few years ago, and I know we talked about Larry all the time. We focused on his ideas for several weeks, and often my professor started crying because he couldn't refute any of them. "Our whole science will be ruined if he gets them out to world! We have to stop him!", he would cry out sometimes. They are just so air tight we had not defense against them.
Just kidding. I had never heard of this Larry guy until a couple of weeks ago, when a friend of mine told me about this blog as a bottomless pit of insanity and stupidity. He told me about Larry, and I have to say I didn't believe him. No one could possibly be that stupid, or that insane and not be in an institution. But he was right! Larry is as stupid and insane as my friend told me!
You know, I bet Larry thinks he is talked about in all the journals and college courses, but that it is all in code so that no one will tip him off. He seems nuts enough to believe that. I mean, really, a handful of people who run across him spend some time trying to help him see reason, and suddenly he justifies to himself that he is a threat to well-established science with mountains of evidence, millions of published papers, and many thousands of working scientists? When he can't even read a single paper or make a single coherent argument backed up by evidence? Paging Nurse Ratchet!
(This is a tardy response to Anonymous's post Thu, Aug 21, 4:03 PM; sorry for the delay. Referring to Nancy Moran's work on symbiosis ...)
It suddenly struck me that symbiosis is much like sex in the scheme of things. It's a key "evolutionary enabling technology" with startling parallels.
I hope y'all appreciate the insight as much as I do.
It suddenly struck me that symbiosis is much like sex in the scheme of things. It's a key "evolutionary enabling technology" with startling parallels.
___________________________
That is very true. It results in new interactions with new selection pressures, and many new avenues of biological discovery. The literature in the area of co-evolution and symbiosis is very exciting for precisely that reason.
brossa barfed,
>>>> I posted comments at Conservapedia in response to yours, <<<<<<
You lousy dunghill, you were largely responsible for my wearing out my welcome at Conservapedia by posting frivolous responses to my comments, forcing me to respond to you. Conservapedia has this crazy 90-10 rule against making a lot of discussion page entries without contributing to the articles.
>>>>> You have many goals, but understanding the Blount experiment is not one of them. Not even a longshot goal. <<<<<<
So now even you admit that there is such a thing as a "longshot goal."
I did read a lot of the paper, but whether or not I read the paper has nothing to do with Blount's inexcusable failure to give straight answers -- and sometimes his failure to give any answers at all -- to my basic, simple questions about the experiment.
Hundreds, maybe thousands of people have commented about the paper, and I presume most of them have not read it.
Larry wrote:
I did read a lot of the paper, but whether or not I read the paper has nothing to do with Blount's inexcusable failure to give straight answers -- and sometimes his failure to give any answers at all -- to my basic, simple questions about the experiment.
_______________________
So you admit you still haven't read the paper. How sad.
And Blount answered your questions. You simply didn't accept his answers, and went to heights of insane re-definition of the word "goal" to do so. Larry, drop it, you were wrong. Everyone sees that. Accept you were wrong and move on. You asked if evolving a Cit+ was a goal. Blount explicitly told you no. When you wouldn't accept this, he directed you to papers that describe the experiment in detail, and include a listing of the goals of the experiment so you wouldn't have to take his word for it. Those goals don't include evolving a Cit+ E. coli. What is more the goals and experimental design precluded such a goal. You would know this if you did a little reading before spending months making a fool of yourself.
And you really got kicked off Conservapedia? Wow. Your kind of idiocy and hatefulness is really par for the course over there. Is there any part of the internet besides this blog that you don't get thrown out of for obnoxious stupidity?
>>>>>> And Blount answered your questions. <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. My question about whether favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose of the glucose cycling was never answered at all.
>>>>> Larry, drop it, you were wrong. Everyone sees that. Accept you were wrong and move on. <<<<<<
I'll drop you first, dunghill.
>>>>>> And you really got kicked off Conservapedia? <<<<<<
It's easy to get kicked off of Conservapedia, dunghill -- just violate the 90-10 rule.
Larry said:
Wrong, dunghill. My question about whether favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose of the glucose cycling was never answered at all.
____________________
You started prattling on about "glucose cycling" after you were rude and offensive to Blount, so why would he have answered you? Further, he explicitly told you that evolving a Cit+ E. coli was not a goal of the experiment, so your question was nonsense to begin with. If Cit+ was not a goal, then the experiment was not designed to achieve that goal, and, as the goals of the long term evolution experiment that are made clear in those papers Blount directed you to make clear, evolution of any particular trait could not have been a goal.
Larry also said:
I'll drop you first, dunghill.
______________________
What does that even mean? That is like something a six year old would say on the playground. Is your mental age really that low?
What is really clear is this: Michael Behe in his Amazon post about the Cit+ paper misrepresented the long term evolution experiment of Lenski's as being directed to the evolution of Cit+ (he also, incidentally, seems to have made several mistakes about the paper itself. Such half truths, misrepresentations, and distortions are typical of Behe, by the way). This is why Larry was asking about Cit+ being a goal of the experiment. As Larry is a Behe worshiper (this was very clear from his posts at the Loom, where he was showing great anger at the idea that the Cit+ research was a blow against Behe's "ideas"), he could not accept Blount's clear answer that evolving Cit+ was not a goal at all (again, he is backed up by the historical record of the papers out of the Lenski lab on the long term experiment, and the fact that the goals of the experiment precluded the evolution of any particular trait), so he decided to change the definition of "goal" to find non-existent contradictions in Blount's answer in order to make it consistent with Behe's post. Larry, your IDiot guru was wrong, and likely intentionally so. Accept it and move on (I say as though Larry won't continue to make a fool of himself over this matter for years to come - look at Judge Jones - Larry has real problems with bizarre obsessions).
>>>>> You started prattling on about "glucose cycling" after you were rude and offensive to Blount, so why would he have answered you? <<<<<<
That's a lie, dunghill, but even if were true, Blount should get out of the kitchen if he can't stand the heat.
>>>>> Further, he explicitly told you that evolving a Cit+ E. coli was not a goal of the experiment, so your question was nonsense to begin with. <<<<<<
No it wasn't, dunghill, because he was ambiguous about whether or not it was a goal. He said in different places,
When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding -- I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly).
the intent of the experiment was never to evolve a Cit+ E. coli variant
The evolution of a citrate-utilizing variant E. coli was seen from the beginning as a possible occurrence, and one that would be pretty neat should it occur (and indeed as it has proven to be now that it has happened), but not a goal.
I have been over this a zillion times already, dunghill.
>>>>>>>Michael Behe in his Amazon post about the Cit+ paper misrepresented the long term evolution experiment of Lenski's as being directed to the evolution of Cit+. . . . This is why Larry was asking about Cit+ being a goal of the experiment. <<<<<<
No, it wasn't just Behe -- a lot of others thought or implied that it was a goal of the experiment. And actually, I did not even initially raise the issue -- Blount raised it and I saw inconsistencies in his statements, so I started asking him about it.
Blount said:
When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding -- I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly).
the intent of the experiment was never to evolve a Cit+ E. coli variant
The evolution of a citrate-utilizing variant E. coli was seen from the beginning as a possible occurrence, and one that would be pretty neat should it occur (and indeed as it has proven to be now that it has happened), but not a goal.
____________________________
There is no inconsistency in that statement, and he says flat out that evolving Cit+ was not a goal. I repeat, not a goal. No rational person would have the problem with that statement that you are having with it. If it were a goal, don't you think he would have said so? You just don't want to accept that it wasn't a goal because Behe told you to believe it was a goal, and you can't accept that he lied to you. Blount didn't lie, and wasn't inconsistent, as you would see for yourself if you actually read the papers he directed you to. You have no credibility Larry. You are lazy, mean-spirited, foolish, ignorant, and arrogant. You are incapable of understanding basic English, have a very poor reading comprehension. Face it Larry, you were wrong, and have been a baby about it. You are 62 years old, Larry. Grow up already.
Really, Larry, if evolving Cit+ were a goal, why would Blount explicitly say it wasn't? Most people, after all, aren't liars like you. Why would the goals stated for the experiment going back to 1991 not only not include evolving Cit+, but precluded that being a goal? There is no evidence that it was a goal. None. You have no leg to stand on. None. Only you would be so stupid and deluded not to see that.
Larry also said:
No, it wasn't just Behe -- a lot of others thought or implied that it was a goal of the experiment.
______________________
But your attacks on Blount and the paper make it clear that you got the idea from Behe. You even excerpted from Behe's post very early on (and showed in commenting on it that you hadn't read the paper, and didn't understand it at all when you wrote that you though the Cit+-causing mutation was common, when their work showed that even in potentiated clones, it was still only about 1 in a trillion). You were emotionally invested in Cit+ being a goal, and simply could not accept that it wasn't. You being the sad, foolish old man you are, you still can't.
Larry, you were wrong. Why persist in parading your error before the world? Do you like being laughed at?
Larry also said:
>>>>> You started prattling on about "glucose cycling" after you were rude and offensive to Blount, so why would he have answered you? <<<<<<
That's a lie, dunghill, but even if were true, Blount should get out of the kitchen if he can't stand the heat.
_______________________
There you are with the kitchen again. Blount didn't have to offer to answer any questions on the Loom. He also stayed on there even after you decided to not believe his answer, and instead be rude. He continued answering questions of those who were there to learn something. He seems to have simply ignored you after you showed yourself to be in bad faith. Maybe if you would try to improve your social interactions, you would not be ignored by people. Blount did quite well, I think. I know I wouldn't have had the patience he showed to you in no responding to your attacks on his character and work.
"I have been over this a zillion times already, dunghill."
Right, and that's why we keep arguing with you about the definition of goal.
Blount answered your question using the standard definition of goal", but he didn't divine your redefinition of "goal," and therefore you feel he didn't answer your question.
If you hadn't been a complete jerk to him, he might have answered your question if you'd defined goal to mean a different thing. But, you were a jerk.
"No, it wasn't just Behe -- a lot of others thought or implied that it was a goal of the experiment."
They probably weren't scientists, and, like you, didn't understand science. To reiterate a previous point, no experiment has a "goal" in the way you imply this one does. The goal of an experiment is to prove or disprove a hypothesis, or to observe a process.
Post a Comment
<< Home