Science

[inked]

Earniel, that article was quite interesting. The bacteria clearly mutated over time and acquired a new ability to utilize a substrate previously unavailable to it as an energy source. But it also did not become other than E. coli. So from my recollection of microbiology in general this is mutation in an organism and not evolution of or into another.

In general one could hypothesize that such a series of mutations under the guidance of natural forces favoring particular mutations with a survival advantage in those conditions could lead to an organism different from the earlier organism - a new species. This is not demonstrated here. What is demonstrated is the ability of mutations to occur and under certain conditions to favor continued existence of the strain within the established species.

Clearly mutations that are not lethal to the organism may confer a survival advantage to be expressed later when conditions are right. My personal favorite was the testing of bacteria cultured from permafrost frozen English sailors in Alaska for antibiotic sensitivities and/or resistance. Amazingly, the bacteria were from 300 years or so prior to antibiotics and yet they had the capability of being resistant! Until the pressure of medical antibiotic usage was applied, this capability was unused. But these bacteria were still clearly in their major groupings of Staph, Strep, etc.

Similarly, the recovery of the flu virus of 1918's pandemic has allowed study of its mutations since that time and helped in the understanding of which factors render virulence stronger. But these are still identifiable flu viruses.

So, mutation occurs. Like the bumper sticker says!

IR and Earniel, yes, some transitional fossils have been found and one expects more to be found. My question was how many of these would be considered necessary for validation of the theory. Observation and all that sort of thing about the repetitive nature of the process.

IR, I am a fossil, it's true. Baconian methodology and evidence requirements and observational evaluations....... ... and too evolutionary for some creationist types and too delusional for some less-than-stringent-scientism-ists . I often feel that I am indeed meeting my purpose in life!:cool .

Gaffer, it's plain and simple eugenics. You could do the same thing by killing all the identified carriers of the genetic defect (which is, of course, what "disposing of affected embryos" means) at any age before reproduction. So, why not screen the general population in the first and second grades and "dispose of" all the identified carriers. The solace of having prevented their passing on the defective gene should more than compensate for the difficulties encountered in their disposal.

We have indeed seen this before:

http://www.nodussolutions.com/Medica...et/History.htm
"In 1920, two distinguished German scholars, the law professor Karl Binding and the medical doctor Alfred Hoche, wrote the crucial work “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life” (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens).'

Margaret Sanger's work in America to keep the inferior races down (and she meant negroes, Irish, and oriental immigrants) and the eugenics movement in America are well documented but little understood or researched.

With prenatal diagnosis the opportunity is to kill off the affected individuals before they are born. More expensive but less messy. The bodies are only a few cells or so as opposed to all those nasty corpses. And the ovens would probably contribute to global warming too, now that I think of it.