It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Watch Evolution in Action

page: 14
32
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Xenogears, I genuinely want to thank you for actually coming up with a response - as you see your cohorts have resorted to building and burning strawmen, arguing semantics, and the like.


originally posted by: Xenogears

A simple protein with some degree of function can along with others through optimization develop dependence.


A possible explanation, although it is unlikely. When the protein cannot fold properly without the ancillary chaperone proteins, this means it is effectively useless with the supporting genes. Chaperones themselves are also very complex, most having more than 1 protein involved. An incomplete chaperone protein would mean inconsistent and improper folding of the protein.



The predecesor structure were different than the currently existing structures and able to function independently which have adapted to depend on each other so as to be more optimal, and can no longer function independently.


Another good thought, but our theoretical predecessor ancestors - the single-celled organisms - all have these elaborate ancillary mechanisms; even the prokaryotes! Chaperones in prokaryotes

These proteins, if not folded correctly, would have a completely different function. Protein folding is not the only post-translational (after the protein production step) necessity of these genes and proteins. There are many on/off switches which react through negative/positive feedback mechanisms depending on the concentration of the given protein - this ensures a perfect equilibrial production of the particular protein; not too little, not too much. Chaperones and feedback loops are two of the many, MANY mechanisms involved in aiding the expression of a particular gene. These mechanisms are present in the most rudimentary organisms such as prokaryotes
edit on 19-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

According to you then what is happening in the video in the op? Since you seem to be suggesting that it's not evolution or not entirely evolution.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

According to you then what is happening in the video in the op? Since you seem to be suggesting that it's not evolution or not entirely evolution.


It is the researchers obligation to prove it is evolution. Answer this: what was the new mutant gene that rendered these bacteria anti-biotic resistant?
edit on 19-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Fromabove
And it's green:



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

According to you then what is happening in the video in the op? Since you seem to be suggesting that it's not evolution or not entirely evolution.


It is the researchers obligation to prove it is evolution. Answer this: what was the new mutant gene that rendered these bacteria anti-biotic resistant?


If it's not Evolution then what is it?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




This is relevant - Do you understand the predicament I am trying to articulte? Or do you continue to send me go-fishing to avoid answering the dilemma presented?


What dilemma? You never respond to posts that contain information and citations which challenge your position. That seems to be a huge dilemma for you. You continue blabber esoterica with no evidence. Go fishing? You haven't seen the football since the kickoff, forget fishing! You're being very dishonest as well. You simply avoid that which you deem to be inappropriate to your position and march on as though the world of real science was irrelevant.

If the real work of science were left to your type of analytical thinking, here is where we would be:



The difference, of course, is that one of the ape-men figured out that greater things can get done when you use the tools around you. You need to do the same.


edit on 19-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

If it was not a mutation, in your (sarc/)esteemed (sarc) opinion then what garnered the antibiotic resistance?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

The difference, of course, is that one of the ape-men figured out that greater things can get done when you use the tools around you.



"of course"? So you think it was one man that learned to use tools and passed this on to his children? You are defining Lamarckism which theorized that learned traits were passed on to offspring. This is not the compatible with Darwin's or the contemporary theory of evolution.


originally posted by: TzarChasm

If it's not Evolution then what is it?


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

If it was not a mutation, in your (sarc/)esteemed (sarc) opinion then what garnered the antibiotic resistance?


We can get to that in a minute but let's stay on track.

Science is based on empirical evidence, and to demonstrate that this was indeed evolution there would need to be a new gene that caused this antibiotic resistance that was not present in the older generations: what was the new mutant gene that rendered these bacteria anti-biotic resistant?

edit on 19-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Not a new gene. An altered gene. A mutated gene.
I believe you are asking about gyrA and parC, primarily.

aac.asm.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.sciencedirect.com...
edit on 9/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
The video below shows organisms responding to environmental forces by producing new mutations which then compete amongst one another to colonize the environment. Natural selection occurs and some mutants don’t make it; others succeed.

This isn’t a computer graphic or animation: it’s a real-life experiment, taking place in real time.

If you watch carefully, you can see a frog turn into a duck at 0:45. Maybe.

Watch it here




Nah! It's not evolution in action - more like overwhelming the system until the system breaks down.

Kinda like a swarm of locust in the sub-Saharan Africa overwhelming a field of fire.

Of course if you believe it's evolution in action - you're entitled to your own reality.

Edit:

To quote:




They ought to have been the fittest microbes on the plate, able to colonise new areas more effectively than their slower-growing peers. But more often than not, they became trapped. Weaker strains at the front of the expanding wave of microbes were already gobbling up all the nutrients, leaving their faster-growing peers with nowhere to grow. “You don’t have to be better than everyone else around you; you just have to be the first in a new area,” says Baym.



BTW - Asty, I thought you wanted to shut this forum down? What up?


edit on 19-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: add quotation from the article



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2




Kinda like a swarm of locust in the sub-Saharan Africa overwhelming a field of fire.

No. Not really like that at all.
The analogy is not appropriate. The antibiotic does not burn out. The "fire" gets hotter and hotter, stronger and stronger.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton
Not a new gene. An altered gene. I believe you are asking about gyrA and parC.

aac.asm.org...


These links are not from the video in the OP, but I am glad you found something regarding ciprofloxacin. From your source:

"It was hypothesized that isolates with decreased susceptibility (to ciprofloxacin) harbored a single mutation in gyrA, whereas resistant isolates would contain two or more mutations in gyrA and/or gyrB and/or parC and/or parE."

They did not do the same method as shown in the OP, they got their samples from a bacteria reference laboratory. They are correlating particular allele combinations to antibiotic-resistance and assuming it was through evolution - they also only tested a couple genes and assumed that the resilient strains must be mutants.

The researchers who released the video in the OP should do a similar analysis because they can accurately identify which would be the wild-type and the mutant in this case. Sequence the father bacteria, expose to antibiotics as done in the OP video, and then sequence the antibiotic resistant strains, this would remove all variability, but there is no research article for the OP experiment...



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Sort of weaselly there. Nice try.


The role of gyrA and parC in antibiotic resistance is well established. It goes back decades.
scholar.google.com...


there is no research article for the OP experiment...

The video is a demonstration, not an experiment.

edit on 9/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Some questions for you to answer:

(1) What qualifications in science do you hold again? Specifically do you have any experience in genomics (or at least one of the Bioiformatics sub disiplines), Biochemistry, genetics, or Microbilogy?

(2) Do you know how many species bacteria have been completely sequenced?

(3) I return to what you propose the mechanism of antibiotic resistance is?

and

(4) Are you suggesting Lamarckian inheritance as the mode of inheritence between generations, and if so, what proof do you have?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2




Kinda like a swarm of locust in the sub-Saharan Africa overwhelming a field of fire.

No. Not really like that at all.
The analogy is not appropriate. The antibiotic does not burn out. The "fire" gets hotter and hotter, stronger and stronger.


Sure it is.

In a kinda way.

Like they said, "Weaker strains at the front of the expanding wave of microbes were already gobbling up all the nutrients,..."

Once all of the nutrients are "gobbled" up - the growth stops. In addition, the new strain that adapted to the antibiotic didn't evolved into something else. They are still E. Coli.



They ought to have been the fittest microbes on the plate, able to colonise new areas more effectively than their slower-growing peers. But more often than not, they became trapped. Weaker strains at the front of the expanding wave of microbes were already gobbling up all the nutrients, leaving their faster-growing peers with nowhere to grow. “You don’t have to be better than everyone else around you; you just have to be the first in a new area,” says Baym.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

The role of gyrA and parC in antibiotic resistance is well established. It goes back decades.
scholar.google.com...


That was not in question.

I never said these alleles do not determine antibiotic resistance, I was saying there is no way to prove these particular alleles evolved. Take the black plague for example - those that survived already had a predisposed resilience to the black plague despite never being exposed to it before. It would be an assumption to say that such resilience evolved - especially in the sense of the word that insists that such mechanisms gave rise to the diversity of life we see today.
edit on 20-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2




In addition, the new strain that adapted to the antibiotic didn't evolved into something else

Gosh. What an original (and ignorant) approach. The population of bacteria changed from one with little resistance to one with complete resistance. Evolution is change. Accumulated change.

From the OP:

If you watch carefully, you can see a frog turn into a duck at 0:45. Maybe.

Weren't you paying attention?

edit on 9/20/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Some questions for you to answer:

(1) What qualifications in science do you hold again? Specifically do you have any experience in genomics (or at least one of the Bioiformatics sub disiplines), Biochemistry, genetics, or Microbilogy?


Am I being tried by the priesthood?



(2) Do you know how many species bacteria have been completely sequenced?


Yes



(3) I return to what you propose the mechanism of antibiotic resistance is?


Epigenetic mechanisms, allele drift (as demonstrated by the experiment Phage posted), etc. All mechanisms which were encoded for adaptation purposes.



(4) Are you suggesting Lamarckian inheritance as the mode of inheritence between generations, and if so, what proof do you have?


Nope. While Phantom43 was trying to berate me, she tried to use an example of evolution to insult my intelligence but it was ironically an example of Lamarckism that she presented.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You are hopeless. I already new that but you again showed it.

You asked (quite smugly) what gene mutation accounted for the development of resistance. I gave it to you. You say, "Yeah, but that's not a mutation."

Cool position, now you can say "there is no such thing as mutation because if it's there its not a mutation because god put it there on purpose." Your little circle is so complete.
edit on 9/20/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2




In addition, the new strain that adapted to the antibiotic didn't evolved into something else

Gosh. What an original (and ignorant) approach. The population of bacteria changed from one with little resistance to one with complete resistance. Evolution is change. Accumulated change.

From the OP:

If you watch carefully, you can see a frog turn into a duck at 0:45. Maybe.

Weren't you paying attention?


Hahaha...yeah I saw it turned into a frog then into a prince.

To me it's all about adaptation.

It's part of nature. It's the ways things were designed. In the case of the E.Coli - they adapted to their environment so that they can consume the nutrients around them then flourish until the wall it hit again.

Ignorant much.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join