The "evolution-have-you-seen-it-where-is-it-can't-be-proven" debate is over. Guess who won. Debate? Geoff
This certainly disproves the notion that a new trait cannot come out of nowhere - score one for mainstream evolutionary thought v. quacks! However, what did this change involve to do that? Also, it is notable that this is not dramatic change and it did take 3 billion years to go from single celled organisms to multicell organisms.
I remember a few years back about the discovery of bacteria that had evolved after living 50 years in the waste water of a nylon factor, to metabolize nylon! A novel ability with no need every exist before (as nylon as man made an ever existed before). The anti-evolution people still denied it, because the genes for metabolizing nylon were on a plasmid the calm divine plasmid infection or something. There is no winning with those people they will deny it to the point of claiming god is making it look like evolution is happening to test the faithful, no evidence what so ever can get around that argument.
How significant would the evolutionary change have to be in order to be meaningful? Would the organism in question have to just "jump" there, or would there be incremental changes along the way?
Yes. See John 99's comments. They are still bactertia. They didn't evolve into anything other than bacteria.
So are you trying to teach me about the pervasiveness of life? I already know that. There are multitudes of changes bacteria can go through, weather by natural means or artificially induced.
Evolution is driven by such small changes. And, when another such occurs, they will be further still from their ancestral line. The accumulation of such changes in metazoans leads us to speciation.
Some of those changes are evolutionary - potentially permanent, functionally significant, inherited changes, available for and established by selection on the overall population. Simply labeling such changed organisms as "still bacteria" says absolutely nothing. You might as well dismiss the evolution of penguins from albatrosses as "still birds", or the evolution of birds from dinosaurs as "still vertebrates".
Hmm, a pity that no one wants to discuss the paper itself. In any case, one hardly studies evolution to debunk it, but rather to improve the theory of evolution. Also it is not the goal of the study to debunk creationistic beliefs, it does so in the passing, so to say.
It did not come out of nowhere. It came from the existing E.coli, and the fact that they fed it (with glucose?). Yes, they adapt. What does it prove? I don't like to eat cabbage, but if that is the only food I can eat, I think my stomach will get used to eat it anyway. I have a question though. Our food resources are from living things (vegetable from plantation or meat from animal). What about the first living thing? What do they eat? Ok, don't bother, I was just kidding. I know most plantation eat carbondioxide and water to produce carbohydrate for us. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. You can already digest cabbage, so that's no good. A better example would be wood chips. Or perhaps, earlier in our evolution, lactose. I still think the move to this forum is weird. Sam, in fact, was the first to mention 'miracles'.
True, generally. But at the same time, the "haven't seen evolution in our lifetime" argument is of old date and does in fact deserve specific falsification. I hesitate to say "debunking", necessarily. Unless I already did. In which case I do not hesitate to say debunking. Thankyou, my fellow Americans.
Licking carpet? let's not go there. Anyway what about the question above. I can't find the original reference but have any of you come across one? Answer noobs!