As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature that is useful enough is astronomical. (See my first link). Its like fllipping 1000 consecutive heads followed by 1000 consecutive tails. Unlikely does not mean possible. It depends on the odds. If it is greater than 10^50, it is considered impossible.
The concept of reversing the change is just as improbable because the mechanism is random. There is no such thing as rolling "downhill". The process is the same in both directions. This idea of reversibility in itself is already a violation of one of the tenets of Darwinian Theory. Darwinian Theory says the change must be persistent. If the reverse is easier than the forward change, it violates the "persistence" requirement. Regarding E. Coli resistance. You are correct in that the resistance is conferred by an expression of a gene. In this case, just a single gene which creates a single protein on the cell wall of the bacteria that prevents the antibiotic from attaching itself to the bacteria which prevents the denaturing/splitting of the bacteria cell wall. But this is precisely my argument for the difference between micro from macro-evolution. The mechanism for expressing a trait is already encoded in the DNA in micro-evolution - it is adaptation. There is no mutation that needs to confer a survival advantage. Everything the bacteria needs to mount a defense is already encoded. That is why you will never find E. Coli that is resistant to Chlorine for example. Chlorine will always kill E. Coli, because E.Coli does not have a gene that it can express to confer Chlorine resistance. The extent of what E. Coli can be resistant to is determined by its genetic tool box. It can never be resistant to something that is not in its tool box. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to occur. If it is unlikely, then it is possible! But my point is not that a random mutation might actually reverse, my point is that there is no preferred directionality to the process. Evolutionists try to come up with random processes that can produce more complex proteins and structures from simpler ones (climbing mount improbable), without it seems, ever considering that the reverse path is just as possible in every case and typically many many orders of magnitude more probable (rolling down mount improbable). The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus not based on a random mutation process. This conclusion can not be denied. Sorry but I can see no reason why this effect cannot occur by a random mutation processes? Some mutation can allow resistance and a different mutation prevent it again. I don't know whether penicillin resistance requires something to work, or requires something to be prevented from working. But there are often many ways to "switch on" some gene to get it working (eg by clobbering whatever is preventing it), and an infinity of ways of breaking something to stop it working.
