Watch Evolution in Action

originally posted by: Astyanax

Yes, the surviving population has evolved resistance to 'black plague'.

Resilience to the black plague was already present in the population. This is obvious, otherwise there would have been no survivors during the exposure. This was not something that evolved.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour, post the citation to show that this is the "core tenet of evolution" please.

Descent with modification is the generally accepted definition of evolution. Yet, because of the immense ambiguity and semantic subjectivity of the topic, this is highly debatable.

Regardless, if the research in the OP did indeed "observe evolution" then there should be a tangible new protein that resulted from this supposed mutation. The researchers should be releasing the information regarding this new antibiotic protein, but it comes as no surprise to me that there is no evidence of such a new protein resulting from the alleged evolutionary step in the video, and therefore I cannot believe the jump-to-conclusions article presented in the OP - this is not evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

Huh? Was the study observing bacteria developing antibiotics, or developing immunity to them?

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: cooperton

Huh? Was the study observing bacteria developing antibiotics, or developing immunity to them?

Genetic mutation alters genes. Genes code for proteins. If there was a genetic mutation that rendered the bacteria resistant to the antibiotic, it would have to be a new protein that is now created through the new mutated gene. If the researchers were adhering to due diligence, they would not make such claims until such a protein was found proving that this was evolution through genetic mutation.

The blogs are partly to blame for sensationalizing observations and jumping to conclusions.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh so the Darwinian model is the "generally accepted definition of evolution" is it. Yet you then state that this is debatable.

Which is it? Is it the "generally accepted" definition or is it "highly debatable"?

I again return to the fact, Darwin did not know the mechanism by which heritable traits were passed on.

So returning to the OP. Do you understand how much work goes into "isolating a new protein" along with "proving what gene it comes from"? Just curious? Do you understand the time scale involved? A mutation will be in the genetics, if its a SNP, it will be a single amino acid change, as seen in a great many hemoglobin mutations. If its more, then it might be more easily isolated.

So show how this is NOT evolution. No enumerate why, don't just state why. Show us why we should agree with you.

a reply to: cooperton

I agree gene comparisons should be made. The more detail gathered the better. And I wouldn't assume the only mechanism at work is natural selection (the fewer assumptions we start with the better).

a reply to: cooperton

I don't think you actually understand how publications of scientific findings work

However as you are an expert. Go read the papers
M. Baym, T.D. Lieberman, E.D. Kelsic, R. Chait, R. Gross, I. Yelin, R. Kishony, Spatiotemporal microbial
evolution on antibiotic landscapes, Science, 353, 6304 (2016)
M. Baym*, L.K. Stone*, R. Kishony, Multidrug evolutionary strategies to reverse antibiotic resistance,
Science, 351, 6268 (2016)
A. Palmer*, E. Toprak*, M. Baym, S. Kim, A. Veres, S. Bershtein, R. Kishony, Delayed commitment to
evolutionary fate in antibiotic resistance fitness landscapes, Nature Communications, 6, 7385 (2015)

Then return to us I'm reading them now myself.

a reply to: VP740

So what assumptions have been made? Please list them.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yeah but the problem is the mutation never, ever, ever mutates into something better,

If you believe that evolution has a purpose to 'advance' from simple to complex, you might possibly agree with that statement. The problem is that in an evolutionary context the only definition of the word 'better' is 'is the organism in a 'better' situation to survive its environment than its parents'. A mutation either makes things worse, better, or has no effect what-so-ever. Whether the mutation makes an organism more complex or simpler has nothing what-so-ever to do with anything what-so-ever.

it ALWAYS de-evolves,

There is no such thing as 'de-evolve'. There is only change; like time, the arrow of evolution moves in one direction - each generation is different from its parent generation. Whether the difference is one of simplicity or complexity or just refinement is irrelevant. Change is change. It doesn't 'un-Change'.

Now you know what? It is conceivable that a population might evolve due to some environmental reason that turns out to be temporary. If the mutation that helped them survive in the new environment is actually detrimental to them in the old environment, the population may indeed 'lose' that new mutation.

How would that work? Glad you asked.

Suppose a Beaver dams a river and a lake forms behind it creating a swamp. Suppose there is a beetle there that doesn't like getting its feet wet. Suppose that SOME of the beetles have a mutation that lets them tolerate water better than others. Soon you'll have two populations; one in the swamp and one remaining on dry land. After a few years those in the swamp have come to rely on their waterlogged environment, eating water bugs or swamp plants or doing whatever beetles do; relying on leaves that float on water to protect their eggs sacks and so on. The guys on land are still doing what beetles on dry land do. The 'new' guys have evolved, but there aren't really two species yet, they just have some different behaviors and tolerances. They might still breed together at the edges of the swamp if they run into each other.

Then a few years later a big rainstorm causes a flood that destroys the beaver dam and there isn't anymore swamp. The 'new' beetles are now 'disadvantaged' by their previous 'advantage'. Where do they hide their eggs and how do they do all their water sports? They don't. The landlubbers return to dominance everywhere.

The population has NOT de-evolved; it has just evolved again. Just like a calendar, Tuesday follows Monday. Just because today is Tuesday doesn't mean its the same as last Tuesday, and next Tuesday isn't the same as today. Evolution is change over time, and the population of beetles has changed over time. One population became two populations, then the two populations 'merged' into one (I think in that, as I described it, the second population may more correctly be said to have gone extinct, but that is still part of evolution - and is a new change, not an un-change).

no new information is EVER added into a virus mutation

That is patently false. Organisms are not information systems and cannot be expected to behave like information systems even if they have some attributes that vaguely correspond to procedures and methodology that information systems use. These correspondences only seem to exist because WE identify them as familiar models ('mind-maps') in order that we can use a short hand description of them. This an approximation to the definition of jargon, and you really need to understand the underlying meaning of jargon and the limitations of the model for which it is shorthand before trying to stretch the modeled analogy beyond its limits.

Furthermore they are not closed systems and cannot be expected to adhere to some supposed conservation law that only applies to closed systems. And you really, really should understand, no I mean REALLY understand what information is in information systems before you try interpreting some half baked analogies as gospel truth.

Organisms are biological systems; they behave like biological organisms.

Sorry to make it look like false science but it is false science

There is nothing false about it. Exactly what are you describing as false? In what way is the experiment false. Was the design not transparent? Was the result not evident?

Also makes Darwinism look redundant, evolution by mutation, not natural selection as supposed
discovermagazine.com...

One more time: individuals mutate, populations evolve. Mutations affect individuals, natural selection determines whether the mutation is passed into the population. If the mutation helps (or doesn't hinder) the individual to pass its DNA to the next generation then the mutation gets to survive and remains in the population. If the mutation gives its bearers a 'significant' advantage then it spreads throughout the population via the succeeding generations. When that happens the population is said to have evolved. It is not 'either/or' it is both in combination.

Mutations are 'filtered' by natural selection and the end result is evolution.

Your failure/refusal to understand that last sentence, no matter how many times it has been explained to you is becoming extraordinarily tiresome.

Its not evidence of evolution, its just phony science

In what way was the experiment 'phony'?

Why not show empirical evidence rather than phony evidence

That is exactly what the experiment is: empirical evidence. Please stop pretending that 'empirical evidence' means 'stuff that agrees with me'.

Why do people hate science,

Your remarks here clearly make you the one closest to the problem. I suspect you can't answer for everyone, but you are certainly the best placed to answer for yourself. Please enlighten us.

why do those who support evolution manipulate and abuse science in this way.

Why do you have to continue to talk as if you live in Bizzarro World? Turning accusations around, like you have lamely attempted here, only works when the original accusation is false or brought up by hypocrites. Neither is the case here, so it just comes off as lame, trite, irredeemably ignorant, and focuses the readers attention on your own fundamentally false premises and hypocritical complaints.

a reply to: rnaa

Evolution has no purpose, that is anthropomorphism at its finest Gravity, and Magnetism have no purpose either. That is the problem when people who don't like evolution as a theory get involved, they try to put a purpose on it

a reply to: Noinden

I don't really know what assumptions they're working under, l was just saying the fewer assumptions the better. Do you think making unnecessary assumptions is a good thing? Anyway, I noticed this in the article linked by the OP:

Baym and his colleagues can collect microbes from different places on the plate and sequence their DNA.

It appears they also think studying the changes in the DNA is a good idea.

Oh, and where's that article explaining why decent with modification was abandoned with modern developments in the theory of evolution? I'm eager to read it!

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you are saying, or he is, or we are all saying that it seems that it is mutation driven,

If anything, Evolution is 'environment driven'.

Mutations provide a varied gene pool.
Natural Selection filters out the genes that create a disadvantage.

If the environment provides an opening for a given set of genes, individuals that contain that given set of genes will take advantage of that environmental opening (the 'niche') and become identified as a 'population'.

yet mutations dont add information, they just lose information'

That is patently FALSE. You keep saying that yet you clearly don't have the beginning of a clue about what you are talking about.

A mutation is a change in the DNA of an organism that crosses a generation. There are lots of ways such DNA can change, it can be simplified, it can be made more complex, it can be rearranged. Sequences can be added, sequences can be 'disabled', sequences can be 'activated', sequences can be 'lost' or 'hidden'. These processes are all biochemical reactions - Chemistry and Physics. They are not binary and they are not computers and they are not programs and they are not information systems.

Remember this if you remember nothing else: "Chemistry and Physics" NOT "Data and Information".

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman


Organisms are not information systems and cannot be expected to behave like information systems even if they have some attributes that vaguely correspond to procedures and methodology that information systems use.

Denial and convenient twists of reality (making use of 'in the eye of the beholder' kind of thinking) are one of the many (but main) reasons I do not believe in evolutionary philosophies and that I think that those who do (regardless of their admittal or non-admittal regarding the word "believe") have been affected by propaganda and deliberate deception. You sound so desperate and unreasonable when arguing for something like what you said above. Unreliable in regards to accurately representing or describing reality.

The digital code of DNA. - PubMed - NCBI:

The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science.

Opening sentence of the abstract. Nuff said...(I know, not for you, you'd like to debate this endlessly, perhaps even expand on arguing about the word "information", which isn't a very complicated word except to cunning philosophers and those affected by them).

In 1957, Crick proposed that it is the linear sequence of the chemical rungs that forms coded instructions. In the 1960’s, that code began to be understood.

Information, whether in the form of pictures, sounds, or words, can be stored and processed in many ways. Computers, for example, do this all digitally. Living cells store and process information chemically, DNA being the key compound. DNA is passed on when cells divide and organisms reproduce—abilities that are considered defining characteristics of life.

A lot of people get confused about the word "digital" as well (including the ones who wrote the article I linked to as well as apparently those who reviewed and approved of its publication).

a reply to: Akragon

You didn't watch the video... or you simply didn't understand it...

I suspect he/she watched it. He/she just pretends not to understand it in order to continue to troll. Like a three year old child who asks 'why' to every statement you make.

a reply to: rnaa

i have my doubts... thats why i explained it for him

then he started calling bacteria... virus

Notice though the conversation halted as soon as i brought up homeschooling

a reply to: rnaa

Yup and you all keep entertaining him...

a reply to: cooperton

Resilience to the black plague was already present in the population.

No. Resistance was present in a number of individuals within the population. After the event, it was present in the whole, or nearly the whole population. That is what evolution means. To repeat myself: populations evolve, not individuals.

Of course, as Noinden points out, this is slightly oversimplified because the bacillus evolved to become less virulent. Parasites do that; they evolve over time to be less deadly to their hosts, because less deadly or damaging parasites have better selective fitness over time.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Woodcarver

However life is created by chemistry.

Still machines though. Electrochemical machines.

Only as an ANALOGY.

Analogies have limits. They can be broken beyond all usefulness when stretched beyond those limits.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: rnaa

Yup and you all keep entertaining him...

touché

a reply to: Xenogears

Information is not created nor destroyed.

Conservation laws, when they exist, apply to closed systems. Biological organisms are NOT closed systems. If there is such a thing as 'Conservation of Information' (there is), it cannot be applied to biological organisms.

'Conservation of Information' in actual Information Systems Theory applies to actual CLOSED systems of software and hardware systems. We can understand such CLOSED systems and model them and depend on the results. We have no such confidence in OPEN systems such as biological systems. The entire subject, applied to biological systems is based on a fallacious stretching of an analogy beyond the bounds of credibility.

Even simple numbers such as pi are said to already contain all possible information.

Really? Do you have the beginning of a clue what 'information' is in information systems? There is a very rigorous definition, you know. And Pi isn't it.

Just because Pi is an infinite sequence of non-random and non-repeating digits doesn't mean that it contains any information what-so-ever, let alone 'all possible information'. While the argument can be made that because it is infinite then at some point in the sequence it must contain the encoded works of Shakespeare; that argument does not imply that it contains information.

Also Pi is not simple.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Noinden

So, scientists don't believe in descent with modification anymore? Wow! How did I miss that? Can you link me an article explaining why it was abandoned?

No, that is not the case. "Decent with Modification" is one way of describing evolution; there are others. It is not a 'core tenet' - it is a description.

It is your misunderstanding of the use of the word 'adaptation' that is in error. INDIVIDUALS can certainly adapt during their life and you are correct that that is not evolution (unless that adaption somehow includes genetic mutation that can be passed on to their descendants). OTOH, POPULATIONS are said to adapt to changing environments when they evolve.

'Adaption' is a word that can be used at different levels of a conversation and mean slightly different things depending on context. Just like 'evolution'.