Evolution illustrated first-hand (Science)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by GeoffP, Jun 19, 2008.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The "evolution-have-you-seen-it-where-is-it-can't-be-proven" debate is over.

    Guess who won.

    Debate?

    Geoff
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    That's a nicely done experiment.
    Kudos.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    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.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    How would you define "more complex"? You mean "than bacteria"?
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    They are still BACTERIA. Doesn't that mean anything?
     
  10. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    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?
     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Well i did say that "they" are still bacteria.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2008
  12. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Natural selection is not evolution.
     
  13. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Yes. See John 99's comments. They are still bactertia. They didn't evolve into anything other than bacteria.
     
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    I thought natural selection was the driving force behind evolution?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No.
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2008
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    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.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    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".
     
  19. CharonZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    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.
     
  20. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    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!

     
  21. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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'.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    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.
     
  23. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    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!
     

Share This Page