“That’s interesting stuff you’ve found. I’ll have to look at it in more detail, especially about the Cephalosporins.

“It will be a challenge to test those against MRSA because they are notorious for looking like they’re the bacteria in vitro but then not working in vivo.
My patient with the presumed MRSA is improving on Vanco and Levaquin.”

Please let me know if you find anything interesting, I would really like to know if this line of research is panning out.

As well, I am glad your patient is responding well to treatment.

- It doesn’t qualify as true speciation as everyone understands it — it’s simply variation. (The genetic variability in hundreds of cichlid “species” is less than that of the (single) human species.)
- The variability appears to be due to activation of genetic “programs” that are already present in the genomes of the cichlids. (Apparently, the cichlids have a branching genome, with heritable switches that can be set to steer development along certain genetic pathways, depending upon the environment.)

I agree that cichlids epitomize the concept of front loading. The question (beyond the scope of ID theory, per se) is how the front loaded information got into them. Were the first front-loaded cichlid gametes fabricated by an intelligent agent and set loose into the lakes of Gondwanaland? Or did the information in their genomes evolve over time?

There is, as you know, no evidence that Darwinian evolution is feasible. (There has never been a demonstration that nonteleological evolution results in any kind of functioning, so it’s silly for anyone to propose that as an explanation of how the cichlids came to “feed on other fish or on eggs and larvae, to nip off fins, scrape algae, tear off scales, crush mollusks or any of myriad other functions.”) But teleological evolution — in a system designed for evolution, and with a driving purpose built in — has been shown viable by (intelligently designed) evolutionary computation.

If the information did evolve (teleologically), then the next question is: How did numerous such “programs” wind up in a single genome? Logically, it would seem that there are only the following possibilities:

- The programs evolved independently, in different lineages, and were brought together through recombination(?), without obliterating the (temporarily) unused programs — somehow.

- The pathways evolved serially in one lineage, without obliterating the previously evolved programs — somehow.

- A combination of these two occurred.

Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....072648.htm

of special note:

In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments. The scientists showed that although an unexpectedly large group of these visual pigments are available to all the species, each expresses the pigments selectively, and in an individual way, resulting in differences in how the visual world is sensed.

The researchers identified a total of seven “cone” (color-sensing) visual pigments underlying color vision in these cichlids. They have measured the sensitivities of the cones to different wavelengths of light and isolated the seven genes that give rise to the pigment proteins. The seven cone types have maximum sensitivities ranging from the red end of the spectrum right through to the ultraviolet–light outside the range of human sensitivity. The researchers showed that in order to tune its color vision, each cichlid species primarily expresses three of the seven cone pigment genes encoded by their genomes.

It is not clear why such closely related cichlid species have evolved such different visual sensitivities,

I don’t know what they think but this example is screaming front loading to me.

Princeton scientists break cholera’s lines of communication

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....111407.php

Breakthrough research suggests a way to fight bacteria without Antibiotics

http://isuman.blogspot.com/200.....ay-to.html

I wonder if this technique could be used as a “stand alone” method for fighting all types of bacterial infections or if it could at least be used in conjunction with current treatments to make them more effective in fighting infection?

“The clavulinic acid binds irreversibly to the beta-lactamase enzymes that inactivate other penicillin-derived antibiotics and this allows the amoxycillin to do its job.”

I have to say I am really impressed with this. This is really taking the fight to the bug!

Do you know of any sites that give a little background on how the antibiotic was developed and who was responsible for developing such a wonderful and specific response to bacterial resistance?

Re sickle cell anaemia, you wrote

It seems to me rather more indicative of evolution, just like the adaptations in bacteria that are the focus of Gil’s post: an adaptation beneficial in limited situations that comes at an expense of function in a wider environment.

I would say indicative of devolution, or loss of information, rather than adaptation. People with sickle cell anaemia have abnormal haemoglobin (HbS) that sticks together under conditions of low oxygen concentration or dehydration. This deforms the red cell and makes its surface rigid. Apart from making the cell useless for oxygen transport it also makes it hard for cells to pass through fine capillaries so they get blocked and the tissue downstream dies.

The disease is a problem for malaria parasites because they can’t colonise sickled red cells. It is a worse problem for homozygous carriers of the mutation who are sick, off an on, for all of their short lives. See the Wikipedia article.

Others, re design of antibiotics,

I’m rather impressed with the design of the drug known as “Augmentin”. It’s a combination of clavulanic acid and amoxycillin. The clavulinic acid binds irreversibly to the beta-lactamase enzymes that inactivate other penicillin-derived antibiotics and this allows the amoxycillin to do its job.

Also I don’t think we should be surprised that something as fundamental to bacterial survival as their cell walls would be protected by (I believe, designed) mechanisms of some sort. How we use antibiotics comes down to stewardship with the problem being that we, being greedy, are quite bad at that.

As for Behe, I think that maybe what forced him to say that ID is like astrology was that he probably tried to present ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species rather than as just a criticism of evolution theory (this time it is OK for me to say “I think,” Lenny, because I don’t know). I don’t know — I have not read a transcript of his testimony.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc.....he-nc.html

I still don’t get why evolutionists and/or committed naturalists insist on using such dishonest tactics to persuade others to believe their message? Why? Why is their first instinct to resort to dishonesty? Wy can’t they just be honest? You see, the honest thing to do would be allow students to be exposed to opposing sides of the issue. Instead, they resort to dishonestly taking people out of context. This is supposed to be scientific? Does science endorse this kind of dishonesty? It sure seems like many naturalists do.

Nochange and Gil: Participants of this blog are quite right to ask critics to support their statements in the face of criticism so I think Gil should defend himself against the Panda’s Thumb critics. Let’s keep it about the science acknowledging that sometimes we can get it wrong if need be.

I think that Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists should have an equil opportunity to defend themselves in tax funded public schools. ID proponents and creationists are quite right to ask evolutionists and comitted naturalists to support their statements in public schools by exposing students to opposing sides of the issue instead of using lies and unscientifically brainwashing them with one side and censoring all others using stolen tax dollars. ID proponents and creationists are quite right when they demand that students should be allowed to see the pros and cons of opposing sides and choose for themselves what to believe.

As for Behe, I think that maybe what forced him to say that ID is like astrology was that he probably tried to present ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species rather than as just a criticism of evolution theory (this time it is OK for me to say “I think,” Lenny, because I don’t know). I don’t know — I have not read a transcript of his testimony.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc.....he-nc.html

When the people at the pandas thumb stop resorting to using strawman and dishonestly taking people out of context then we’ll talk.