Where do people on ATS stand on this?

Well, a search for the words 'experimental evolution' brings up 217 articles on pubmed. Appears to be a little bit of experimental reseach going on out there...

Genetics. 2007 Aug 24; [Epub ahead of print] Links
The Roles of Mutation Accumulation and Selection in Loss of Sporulation in Experimental Populations of BACILLUS SUBTILIS.Maughan H, Masel J, Birky Jr CW, Nicholson WL.
University of British Columbia.

Phenotypic loss is an important evolutionary force in nature but the mechanism(s) responsible for loss remain unclear. We used both simulation and multiple regression approaches to analyze data on the loss of sporulation, a complex bacterial developmental process, during experimental evolution of Bacillus subtilis. Neutral processes of mutational degradation alone were sufficient to explain loss of sporulation ability in four out of five populations, while evidence that selection facilitated mutational loss was found for only one population. These results are discussed in the context of the evolution of sporulation in particular and phenotypic loss in general.

BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Jul 28;7(1):126 [Epub ahead of print] Links
Experimental evolution of aging in a bacterium.Ackermann M, Schauerte A, Stearns SC, Jenal U.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Aging refers to a decline in reproduction and survival with increasing age. According to evolutionary theory, aging evolves because selection late in life is weak and mutations exist whose deleterious effects manifest only late in life. Whether the assumptions behind this theory are fulfilled in all organisms, and whether all organisms age, has not been clear. We tested the generality of this theory by experimental evolution with Caulobacter crescentus, a bacterium whose asymmetric division allows mother and daughter to be distinguished. RESULTS: We evolved three populations for 2000 generations in the laboratory under conditions where selection was strong early in life, but very weak later in life. All populations evolved faster growth rates, mostly by decreasing the age at first division. Evolutionary changes in aging were inconsistent. The predominant response was the unexpected evolution of slower aging, revealing the limits of theoretical predictions if mutations have unanticipated phenotypic effects. However, we also observed the spread of a mutation causing earlier aging of mothers whose negative effect was reset in the daughters. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that late-acting deleterious mutations do occur in bacteria and that they can invade populations when selection late in life is weak. They suggest that very few organisms - perhaps none- can avoid the accumulation of such mutations over evolutionary time, and thus that aging is probably a fundamental property of all cellular organisms.

Physiol Biochem Zool. 2007 Jul-Aug;80(4):399-405. Epub 2007 May 7. Links
Experimental evolution of olfactory memory in Drosophila melanogaster.Mery F, Pont J, Preat T, Kawecki TJ.
Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musee 10, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland.

In order to address the nature of genetic variation in learning performance, we investigated the response to classical olfactory conditioning in "high-learning" Drosophila melanogaster lines previously subject to selection for the ability to learn an association between the flavor of an oviposition medium and bitter taste. In a T-maze choice test, the seven high-learning lines were better at avoiding an odor previously associated with aversive mechanical shock than were five unselected "low-learning" lines originating from the same natural population. Thus, the evolved improvement in learning ability of high-learning lines generalized to another aversion learning task involving a different aversive stimulus (shock instead of bitter taste) and a different behavioral context than that used to impose selection. In this olfactory shock task, the high-learning lines showed improvements in the learning rate as well as in two forms of consolidated memory: anesthesia-resistant memory and long-term memory. Thus, genetic variation underlying the experimental evolution of learning performance in the high-learning lines affected several phases of memory formation in the course of olfactory aversive learning. However, the two forms of consolidated memory were negatively correlated among replicate high-learning lines, which is consistent with a recent hypothesis that these two forms of consolidated memory are antagonistic.

Just a sample...

I'm sure if different search terms were used we'd end up in the thousands very quickly.

reply to post by melatonin


oh my science!

nice job there, quite interesting reads. got anymore you could provide us with to enlighten people?

Come on. You guys can't be that desperate. Please explain to me how the fact that an organism adapts to its environment proves that one organism changes to another. It's like saying that because Abe has a gun and Roger died, Abe is the murderer. You can't arrest Abe, you need more than the fact that he has a gun, just like natural selection does not prove evolution, you need more than the fact that organisms adapt.

Natural selection is the vehicle of evolution.

I suggest that if one wants to argue against evolution, they first educate themselves on what it really is.

Start here.

When you've digested and understood that, then move on to this.

If you still don't understand evolution enough to carry on an informed debate about it, then I suggest dropping the subject completely, because you never will understand it, and probably willfully so.

the reason we humans can't grasp evolution without education is because it operates on the geologic time scale, that we do not experience directly -- it's too slow.

Originally posted by Lannock
just like natural selection does not prove evolution, you need more than the fact that organisms adapt.

Yep, we need new stuff to evolve. New stuff is produced through novel changes, and we have evidence of novel mutations. Thus, new stuff happens, it's not just a case of variation of pre-existing traits. Adaptation is evolution. Natural selection is evolution. Mutation and heredity are a part of evolution.

Look, if you want to see a rat become a bat in the lab, we might have some difficulty showing that. In which case, whatever. We might also have difficulty showing you the formation of giant gas planets in the lab, but I'm quite sure it happened without magic, through physical processes.

If you want to see that evolution is a science, and uses experimentation and observation, then that is easy. I just did it. And that was your issue.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
nice job there, quite interesting reads. got anymore you could provide us with to enlighten people?

Toooooo much. There's whole journals on evolution that have been around for decades. They were just a few papers in the last few months using one restrictive search term , heh.

Almost 150 years worth of scientific research to pick from.

reply to post by melatonin


of course there's too much. there's enough to fill the ATS server... yet you don't even need to scratch the surface to see that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

of course there's too much. there's enough to fill the ATS server... yet you don't even need to scratch the surface to see that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

exactly. its a valid THEORY, not a fact.

There is one theory that UNITES Evolution Theory and Creationism: Ancient Astronaut Theory.

Sound crazy? Its not. Its one of the only theories to provide the MISSING LINKS both found in Creationism and in Evolution Theory.

Thats why I am so fed up with hearing the discussion Creationism vs. Evolution. Neither is 100% correct. Yes, evolution happened. And it was given a boost by alien intervention. Yes creation did happen...by alien beings who then left the rest to evolution. Its so easy to see, why doesnt anybody GET this?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, evolution happened. And it was given a boost by alien intervention. Yes creation did happen...by alien beings who then left the rest to evolution. Its so easy to see, why doesnt anybody GET this?

I get it.

Where did the aliens come from? Did they just appear from nowhere? Or perhaps they evolved...

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Natural selection is the vehicle of evolution.

I suggest that if one wants to argue against evolution, they first educate themselves on what it really is.

Start here.

When you've digested and understood that, then move on to this.

If you still don't understand evolution enough to carry on an informed debate about it, then I suggest dropping the subject completely, because you never will understand it, and probably willfully so.

the reason we humans can't grasp evolution without education is because it operates on the geologic time scale, that we do not experience directly -- it's too slow.

You guys are too much. You cannot prove it so you throw books at me to make me go away. Evolution is a simple theory that you are trying to complicate to throw this "debate" off-track as you have no legs to stand on. This "debate" is pointless anyway as neither creation or evolution can be proven.

This is what I believe. And since this is what I believe I'm not going to bother with providing evidence or proof for my beliefs, though in some instances evidence and proof may be found.

What I believe:

1. There is a Creator. Could be God, could be something else. Call it "The Big Bang" if you like. Whatever it is, it is capable of creating intelligence and the conditions for intelligence to thrive. Therefore, it seems likely that this original source of everything is at least also intelligent. However, the term "intelligence" might connote some sort of limitation, which may be true, but as far as humans are concerned this intelligence that I speak of is relatively infinite. Perhaps this Creator is beyond intelligence, consciousness, and infinity. I can't say. All I really know and believe is that, by our own measure of perception, we are invisible and inconsequential to this Creator. This is not to say that we are without importance in the grand scheme of things. It just means we have much more responsibility than many of the religions would have us believe.

2. In may areas evolution seems to hold true. In many areas it seems more like "maybe so" or "no way". On the time scale of humans the universe is old and vast beyond imagination. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. Just take a peek through a telescope or a microscope. Any questions about the age of things will be overwhelmed with awe inspiring answers, and yet more awe inspiring questions will be formed. Rocks reveal the history of the universe, therefore rocks are alive to me. Just as any book lives when I read it.

3. What is our purpose? I have no idea. What I do know is that we are the only ones who will be held accountable for the success or failure of that purpose. Forget blaming God. And to blame the devil is ludicrous. Blame ourselves. And if credit is necessary, credit ourselves. If the creator is paying attention, which I doubt, and if we are going to have any chance at all of making a favorable impression, we have to take full responsibility and credit for what we do. And doing that is not much compared to what the Creator has done, only it is the best that we can do.

Just my beliefs. Currently. Things could change tomorrow, next week, ten years or five minutes from now. I'm involved in the process of living. Things change.

reply to post by melatonin


yes, I know the counter-point of "well, then where did the aliens come from? evolution, right?". but the story doesnt stop here. all beings were created outside of linear time. evolution is only valid within the limited framework of linear time.

reply to post by Areal51


Great post

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
the reason we humans can't grasp evolution without education is because it operates on the geologic time scale, that we do not experience directly -- it's too slow.

My opinion is that humans are too slow and too forgetful. We've all heard the saying that we are all made of stardust. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? We'll I'm sure that old Sol could tell us a few things if we would have the capacity to understand what it would tell us. We barely understand trees and rocks, let alone our not too old bones. I believe somewhere in our genes there are answers. But until we can locate the essence of life, that which gives rise to consciousness and intelligence, well, my friend, we are adrift directionless without as much as a paddle. At least we try. Evolution reveals many things but so far it has not revealed the essence of who we are, let along the essence of other things.

reply to post by Lannock


Creationism is the simple theory.how simple.well,God did it all!!
There you go,quick and easy to remember.
Could you explain the ins and outs of evolution as fast as that??

And i don't think MajorMalfunction is "throwing books" at you,you have been given links to one of the subjects of this thread,nothing more.I'm no expert myself.I debate,but i learn at the same time.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by jakyll]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
yes, I know the counter-point of "well, then where did the aliens come from? evolution, right?". but the story doesnt stop here. all beings were created outside of linear time. evolution is only valid within the limited framework of linear time.

OK, I got it earlier. Now I don't buy it.

I could see at some point in the future humans with the ability to create new forms of DNA-based life. I could even see the very slim possibility that advanced life exists that has the ability to traverse the universe and can also create DNA-based life. Maybe one day we will, who knows...

What I don't buy is that 'all beings were created outside of linear time'. You may as well say that all beings were created by the great Cthulhu in his mum's basement.

reply to post by melatonin


alright, sounded strange. what I mean is that there is such a thing as a soul that incarnates into a body. The body is a product of evolution, the soul is not. In this sense creationists are right and evolutionists are right. Of course my mixture of ancient-astronaut theory and soul-incarnation-theory sounds crazy, unverifiable....but at least it is coming from someone who has been looking into very many things for a very long time and grown out of religion and evolution-theory.

reply to post by Lannock


Until you can figure out the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis, I suggest you stay away from scientific debate. And what's this about "throwing books at you? The books are the proof. Just because you don't understand them (or want to spend time reading) doesn't mean it's not proof.

Originally posted by Areal51
This is what I believe. And since this is what I believe I'm not going to bother with providing evidence or proof for my beliefs, though in some instances evidence and proof may be found.

What I believe:

1. There is a Creator. Could be God, could be something else. Call it "The Big Bang" if you like. Whatever it is, it is capable of creating intelligence and the conditions for intelligence to thrive. Therefore, it seems likely that this original source of everything is at least also intelligent. However, the term "intelligence" might connote some sort of limitation, which may be true, but as far as humans are concerned this intelligence that I speak of is relatively infinite. Perhaps this Creator is beyond intelligence, consciousness, and infinity. I can't say. All I really know and believe is that, by our own measure of perception, we are invisible and inconsequential to this Creator. This is not to say that we are without importance in the grand scheme of things. It just means we have much more responsibility than many of the religions would have us believe.

Just my beliefs. Currently. Things could change tomorrow, next week, ten years or five minutes from now. I'm involved in the process of living. Things change.

Areal51, I couldn't have put my own beliefs in better words, thanks