WiYC:
"A gain in genetic information does NOT equate to a gain in complexity."

The bacteria showed both a genetic change and an increase in complexity of function.

WiYC:
"Are you now claiming that the ability to metabolize different substances is a step towards more complex and higher forms of life?

If so, please explain in detail .. and give us an example of bacteria evolving into something other than more bacteria."

Of course the ability to metabolize a new substance is an increase in complexity. I provided an example of an increase in information and an increase in complexity.

WiYC said:
"2. Because of this, you focus ONLY on an example of bacteria that now metabolizes by-products of nylon. You are unable to prove that it never had that ability previously or that ability increased the complexity of the bacteria. (An INCREASE in information does NOT produce more complex abilities - Just additional ones on the same level.)"

You ask for one example I provide it now you complain. Tsk tsk. Actually producing the ability to digest these nylon products is an increase in complexity (a new function) and an increase in information (new genetic instructions). Neither the ability to do this or the genes that produce it existed before. Your request has been fulfilled. Please admit that evolution can increase both complexity and information.

WiYC continued:
"And ... when it changes into anything other than another type of bacteria, let us know."

Studying microbes has the advantage of compressing the time needed to note evolutionary change. The scientists established that this function could be noted in the wild and reproduced in the lab. We have met your request and now you want to move the goalposts.

Very well. Take a look at the whale transitional series. It starts with a terrestrial animal and progresses through graduated changes to fully aquatic whales. Surely you see dramatic change there and evolution has produced it.

Julie,
Since you obviously refuse to read this paper, I'll spell it out for you. This saxitoxin binding site has NOTHING to do with saxitoxin metabolism. This is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air.

I have argued all along that this mutation results in a tremendous improvement in this organism's chances for survival. You have denied this fact all along, with this dreamed up argument that these clams can no longer metabolize saxitoxin. Again, this is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air. It has no basis in reality.

Please stay on topic here. This particular topic has nothing to do with an increase in complexity, it has everything to do with single point mutations resulting in drastic increases in an organism's chances for survival.

Since you obviously understand this so well, please give us the specific details of why the clams are MORE genetically complex ... and you must reference your 'findings.'

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Julie,
Since you obviously refuse to read this paper, I'll spell it out for you. This saxitoxin binding site has NOTHING to do with saxitoxin metabolism. This is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air.

I have argued all along that this mutation results in a tremendous improvement in this organism's chances for survival. You have denied this fact all along, with this dreamed up argument that these clams can no longer metabolize saxitoxin. Again, this is an argument that you dreamed up out of thin air. It has no basis in reality.

Please stay on topic here. This particular topic has nothing to do with an increase in complexity, it has everything to do with single point mutations resulting in drastic increases in an organism's chances for survival.

Ah, the shifting goalpost argument. Interesting that you can't just own up to the fact that you fabricated your reasoning. Can't we just be adults here? Why is it so hard for you to admit when you're wrong? We both know what's going on here, why don't we just put it on the table?

You claimed that this mutation is deleterious because clams can't metabolize saxitoxin. Either show me where this argument derives from, or admit that you made it up. Or admit that you didn't understand or didn't read the parent article. I really don't care one way or the other, but if we can't agree on the simple fact that this mutation is tremendously advantageous for this subpopulation of clams (the paper that supports this view has been referenced several time here), then there's no point in moving forward to more complex ideas, because, if you can't accept this fact, then you don't know the meaning of proof. So, again, support your statement that this mutation prevents clams from metabolizing saxitoxin.

1. Do you believe that making you prove evolution can occur is a "shifting goalpost argument"?

2. Are you aware that even "tremendously advantageous" mutations can be a result of deleterious mutations? Why don't you read up on it:
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

3. Please respond to our request from a earlier posting:
"Since you obviously understand this so well, please give us the specific details of why the clams are MORE genetically complex ... and you must reference your findings."

You can pontificate and give your opinion all you want but, unless you provide contradictory information (other than your own thoughts), stop with the accusations a make an intelligent case for your theory.

If you wish to start a new topic that debates complexity, please feel free to do so. However the topic we are debating here is very simple: you made a statement and I'm asking you to back it up. Again, if you want me to back up some of my statements I'll gladly do it, just go ahead and start another thread. Why do you refuse to stay on topic?

I know how much you love the word pontificate, but really, the focus of this thread is very clear. The title is "clam mutation". How about you just speak to the issue at hand?