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: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What new information has been added to show evolution in the bacteria

According to the article:

The MEGA-plate shows just how easily and readily bacteria can flout our medicines. On its first try, the common gut microbe E. coli evolved to be 1,000 times more resistant to seven very different antibiotics. It became 10,000 times more resistant to trimethoprim, and 100,000 times more resistant to ciprofloxacin. Some strains could even yank the ciprofloxacin out of solution, wearing crystals of the supposedly lethal chemical like little hats.

Other scientists have shown this before, albeit not quite in such a beautiful and intuitive way. But the MEGA-plate isn’t just a fancy visual aide. It’s also a valuable research tool. Baym and his colleagues can collect microbes from different places on the plate and sequence their DNA. They can then reconstruct the gradual accumulation of mutations that allowed some bacteria to make it all the way from the safe periphery to the deadly centre. They can work out which mutations matter.



Can you show the bacteria that propagated in the antibacterial solution didn't lose information to propagate

A question for those running the experiments. Perhaps they have a paper you can read on it. I'm not sure.

There may be other experiments and studies done that have more fulfilling answers. As far as this OP... It was pretty much a nice visual, and a brief article. But not an in depth look at their studies and findings. Those things may be in the video, I was not able to use audio when watching it, nor watch it to the very end.

Edit: Looks like another user found an article with some more info: www.abovetopsecret.com... (Links to post before this one)

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




posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I think you missed my point
I asked for what new information was added

We are looking at pre existing pathways being utilised, have a read of the report

I am not denying adaptation, that life can and will survive, that's self evident

It reads the target genes were attacked by the antibiotics but pre existing pathways were found by the bacteria to supplement it. No new information seems to have been added
Are you reading the same article as me

and to top it all off, it's just a suggestion, they admit there is no evidence

We know even without this pseudo science, we know by repeatable, observable and testable, we know in the real world by experience in thousands of hospitals that bacteria always finds a way to counter antibiotics. That's not new, that's not exciting, that's real world established fact

What we havnt seen is new information arising from the bacteria, that giant Petri dish doesn't show any arising either



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Can you prove new information is being gained when the virus mutates, has this experiment done this, has science shown this TD has run away, anyone show me the science, it seems lacking


As always, at your service!

"The sequential occurrence of viral mutations in a liver transplant recipient re-infected with hepatitis B: hepatitis B immune globulin escape, famciclovir non-response, followed by lamivudine resistance resulting in graft loss
Author links open the overlay panel. Numbers correspond to the affiliation list which can be exposed by using the show more link."

Robert A. de Man ∗, a, MAN@INW2.AZR.NL, Angeline I. Bartholomeusz b, Hubert G.M. Niesters c, Pieter E. Zondervan d, Stephen A. Locarnini b

Abstract
Background/Aims: The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical, histological and virological events in an orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) recipient with recurrent hepatitis B infection who was initially managed with hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIg) and when viral recurrence occurred, with nucleoside analogue salvage therapy. The aims were to document the mutations occurring in the hepatitis B virus (HBV) polymerase gene as a consequence of HBIg escape, famciclovir non-response and subsequent lamivudine resistance.

Conclusions: We have documented HBV recurrence in a liver transplant recipient with the emergence of a multidrug resistant HBV which caused graft loss. The primary resistance to famciclovir in spite of therapeutic penciclovir levels may be as a result of a combination of the mutations found in the polymerase region. After 300 days of lamivudine treatment, a drug-resistant population emerged which was associated with a greater than three log increase in HBV DNA and contributed to loss of graft function. This is the first report of such an adverse clinical outcome due to the emergence of a mutant virus as a consequence of immunoprophylactic and antiviral therapy in a liver transplant recipient.

www.sciencedirect.com...


_____________________________

Just in case you don't understand this paper, the HBV DNA was sequenced and analyzed at several stages of his disease.
At the onset, the viral polymerase gene did not have mutations associated with drug resistance. After treatment with three anti-viral drugs, the drug resistant mutations appeared and the patient died.

Summary:

1. Original virus exhibited no drug resistant mutation
2. Virus mutated TO ADD INFORMATION TO THE VIRAL POLYMERASE GENE
3. The mutated virus WITH THE ADDED INFORMATION was now drug resistant and the patient died.

The end.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Since e-coli take about 20 minutes to reproduce that would only be about 792 generations.


The long-term evolution experiments using E. coli, begun by Richard Lenski in 1988, have allowed direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory.[39] In this experiment, one population of E. coli unexpectedly evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate, which is extremely rare in E. coli. As the inability to grow aerobically is normally used as a diagnostic criterion with which to differentiate E. coli from other, closely related bacteria, such as Salmonella, this innovation may mark a speciation event observed in the laboratory.
Escherichia coli: Genome plasticity and evolution

The link to the Lenski experiments aren't working. But:

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[2] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 65,000 in June 2016.

This should be an interesting read.
edit on 9-9-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




What we havnt seen is new information arising from the bacteria, that giant Petri dish doesn't show any arising either


There was no pre-existing pathway which allowed the bacteria to migrate. That ability was achieved BY ADDING INFORMATION to the genome.

The bacteria now had NEW INFORMATION IN ITS GENOME which allowed it to migrate. If it didn't exist before, which it didn't, then THIS IS NEW INFORMATION for the bacteria to utilize.

You'll have to show by example and experiment that NEW INFORMATION is never added to a gene. It's a ridiculous notion based on old ideas as to how genes work.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Darwin?! Blasphemer!!!!!!

You should be praying to Stephen Hawking. He's waaaaaaasy better :p



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

It doesn't say that at all, your summary is Wrong

Read it again, drug resistant mutations may have appeared but it does not say new information appeared, information "increased" are the words used in the document, it doesn't say appeared from nowhere. Existing information, the virus made more hbv dna, that's what the document states in clear and precise English
The bacteria increased its effort to overcome the antibacteria, it's normal, I have admitted its normal, it's what is expected to happen
If you get a cold your body produces more white blood cells to fight the virus

Face palm
Just read it carefully, it's not difficult.


I just can't believe Its written clearly right there in front of you and you misrepresent the information
It's like you think I don't speak English, it's like you can't read English, you just cut and paste what you think confirms your story.
It doesn't
It supports my view, how can you misrepresent the word "increased" with "added new data", it's ethically corrupt



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why invade a thread you're obviously not interested in, only to push your anti-science regime?

Because you can. Same as what I was replying to.

There's never any point debating with you. You ask for evidence, then ignore it. You get shown more evidence, then ignore it.

Adaptation is change. That is a part of evolution. The bacteria adapted. That means they evolved. It really is that simple.

But I don't know why I'm explaining this to you because you'll just say change/adaptation isn't evolution lol.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I am very interested in this topic and very interested in science, I have an agenda that's true
My agenda, asking for data, evidence, so

show me the science, I am clearly not going to take your word.
The article has no science in it at all, just scientists names and how the experiment was undertaken.
No data at all.

Talk all you like, I am just asking for data, real data
edit on 9-9-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

And???? What's your point? It's new information for the bacteria. Explain how it is not? If it's not new information, what is it?




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



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You have the science in those links. Why don't you read them - thoroughly.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It's in the link in the OP and another member posted another paper.

But you would have known that if you paid attention.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

It took pre existing information, the Hbv DNA and increased it, just like the article states, did you not read the article

Surely you read it, didn't you?

The bacteria according to your own evidence just increased the Hbv DNA, it's your article, it's states that.
Is the article wrong, did I take an error.

Go read it for yourself, it's simple enough Phants, it really is

Now if I have understood it wrong then explain how and why.
The article does not talk about added information, just increased amounts of hbv dna
Simple



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

And I prefer if you address the paper I posted which has more details about the actual experiment. Why isn't the new mutant virus new information?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

It took pre existing information, the Hbv DNA and increased it, just like the article states, did you not read the article

Surely you read it, didn't you?

The bacteria according to your own evidence just increased the Hbv DNA, it's your article, it's states that.
Is the article wrong, did I take an error.

Go read it for yourself, it's simple enough Phants, it really is

Now if I have understood it wrong then explain how and why.
The article does not talk about added information, just increased amounts of hbv dna
Simple


Yes - it increased information by mutation. Do you get it now? INCREASED INFORMATION.


The "added information" aspect you mentioned is a no-brainer - no one should have to point this out.




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



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

So I guess no science coming from you
Just talk about religion, blasphemy and praying to whoever

It's sad Terry
I kinda expected you could offer some real information about this, some real insights, you would be a rock the wave broke on.care to have another go at finding the evidence

I paid attention, read and quoted the papers, still asking for evidence



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

It took pre existing information, the Hbv DNA and increased it, just like the article states, did you not read the article

Surely you read it, didn't you?

The bacteria according to your own evidence just increased the Hbv DNA, it's your article, it's states that.
Is the article wrong, did I take an error.

Go read it for yourself, it's simple enough Phants, it really is

Now if I have understood it wrong then explain how and why.
The article does not talk about added information, just increased amounts of hbv dna
Simple


Yes - it increased information by mutation. Do you get it now? INCREASED INFORMATION.


The "added information" aspect you mentioned is a no-brainer - no one should have to point this out.





No brainier then, so what new information was added, should we guess, assume, that's science isn't it
Increased existing information, reinforced with the same information, got a stronger army

It is a no brainer, that's true
Just throw words out there and let confirmation bias do the rest



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

It took pre existing information, the Hbv DNA and increased it, just like the article states, did you not read the article

Surely you read it, didn't you?

The bacteria according to your own evidence just increased the Hbv DNA, it's your article, it's states that.
Is the article wrong, did I take an error.

Go read it for yourself, it's simple enough Phants, it really is

Now if I have understood it wrong then explain how and why.
The article does not talk about added information, just increased amounts of hbv dna
Simple


Yes - it increased information by mutation. Do you get it now? INCREASED INFORMATION.


The "added information" aspect you mentioned is a no-brainer - no one should have to point this out.





No brainier then, so what new information was added, should we guess, assume, that's science isn't it
Increased existing information, reinforced with the same information, got a stronger army

It is a no brainer, that's true
Just throw words out there and let confirmation bias do the rest


New information - right at your fingertips! Ain't it amazin'????







posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No you didn't. You're just here to ignore science and evolution. Because with it, your young earth religion is false.

Adaptation is change. Change is a part of evolution. You've been told this multiple times, yet ignore it.




top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join