Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby Chris Sergeant » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:28 pm

At least in the case of Caulobacter crescentus.
Found that 12 percent of the bacteria's genetic material is essential for survival under laboratory conditions. The essential elements included not only protein-coding genes, but also regulatory DNA and, intriguingly, other small DNA segments of unknown function. The other 88 percent of the genome could be disrupted without harming the bacteria's ability to grow and reproduce.
Researchers mutated many Caulobacter cells so that each cell incorporated one piece of artificial DNA at a random location in its chromosome. The artificial DNA, which was labeled so the scientists could find it later, disrupted the function of the region of bacterial DNA where it landed. Over two days, the researchers grew these mutants until they had about 1 million bacterial cells, and then sequenced their DNA.
Created a detailed map of the entire bacterial genome to show exactly where the artificial DNA segments had been inserted in the chromosome of the surviving cells.
This mutation map contained many gaps -- the regions of the DNA where no living bacteria had survived with an artificial DNA insertion. These regions, the researchers reasoned, must be essential for bacterial life since disrupting them prevented bacterial survival.
Chris Sergeant
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:40 pm

So much for all mutations being harmful - it looks as though, in this case, only 12% of them were. I bet the researchers are concentrating like mad on those unknown bits.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby marcsurtees » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:10 am

Brian Jordan wrote:So much for all mutations being harmful - it looks as though, in this case, only 12% of them were.


But note that they survived "under laboratory conditions" hardly a robust test of fitness.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby cathy » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:28 am

hardly a robust test of fitness.
Any 'robust' evidence for the Earth being 6000 years old yet Marc? Or some 'robust' evidence to prove all things created in one week? Or some to prove abiogenesis impossible, or any sign of evidence for this flood.

Whilst we're at it any 'robust' explanations for the problems inherent in the perfect creation and Genesis yet? The overcrowding if fall hadn't happened issue? The why a flood issue? The why punish people for eating an apple that would tell them that eating the apple was wrong but who until then had no concept of wrongness issue? The lack of mention of the catastrophes you claim occurred post flood in the bible issue? And so on.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby Dagsannr » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:48 am

marcsurtees wrote:But note that they survived "under laboratory conditions" hardly a robust test of fitness.


Good grief, do you know anything about science?

It wasn't a robust test of fitness, it was a plausibility exercise, done in a lab, to show how their hypothesis had some practical standing. A robust fitness test comes after. Your lack of understanding of the scientific method is showing (again).

Now, if only creationists would do much the same. Instead they put all their time and effort into glossy websites, pop-'science' books, speaking commitments and 'debates'. Not one practical experiment done, despite the Disco'tute banging on about it in their Wedge Strategy all those years ago.

Silence for weeks, then up you pop with a single one-line argument that doesn't even hold up to tiny scrutiny.

You're losing your edge Marc (not that you had much of one to begin with).
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby marcsurtees » Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:28 pm

Natman wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:But note that they survived "under laboratory conditions" hardly a robust test of fitness.


Good grief, do you know anything about science?


Do you?

What exactly about my statement shows a lack of understanding of science?
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby Yorkie » Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:50 am

marcsurtees wrote:
Natman wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:But note that they survived "under laboratory conditions" hardly a robust test of fitness.


Good grief, do you know anything about science?

Do you?
What exactly about my statement shows a lack of understanding of science?

Well considering (as previously mentioned) they were only testing whether the bacteria could survive under laboratory conditions; you're statement that it was not a robust test of fitness, while correct, was altogether meaningless since it was not intended to be a robust test of fitness.
Put it like this:
I have a remote control car that I have built.
I want to find out if it can drive along flat/level surfaces.
I test the car and it works just fine on level surfaces.
You come along and say: "This test does not show it can travel up a steep hill."
Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't testing to see whether it could.
Last edited by Yorkie on Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
http://alphahelices.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Yorkie
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:35 am

Yorkie wrote:Well considering (as previously mentioned) they were only testing whether the bacteria could survive under laboratory conditions; you're statement that it was not a robust test of fitness, while correct, was altogether meaningless since it was not intended to be a robust test of fitness.
Put it like this:
I have a remote control car that I have built.
I want to find out if it can drive along flat/level surfaces.
I test the car and it can works just fine on level surfaces.
You come along and say: "This test does not show it can travel up a steep hill."
Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't testing to see whether it could.


Put exactly right.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby marcsurtees » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:00 am

Natman wrote:
Silence for weeks, then up you pop with a single one-line argument that doesn't even hold up to tiny scrutiny.

You're losing your edge Marc (not that you had much of one to begin with).


Hardly, I was simply pointing out something that you and Yorkie both agree. We need to be careful about the limitations of any experiment. :)

And sorry about the absence (its nice to be missed :wink: ) but I am very busy at the moment with other things.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Living needs only 12% of a bacterium genome

Postby cathy » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:35 pm

We need to be careful about the limitations of any experiment.

Unless of course they are done by creationists. Then the fact there are more limitations than actual experiment is ignored completely.

Still waiting for some robust positive evidence for a literal genesis 6000 years ago Marc. Or indeed any evidence at all.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron