evolution in a test tube...proof is here!

www.physorg.com...

i can't wait to here the creationists on this one...

Conducted by Sarah Voytek, Ph.D., a recent graduate of the Scripps Research Kellogg School of Science and Technology, the work is intended to advance understanding of Darwinian evolution. Using molecules rather than living species offers a robust way to do this because it allows the forces of evolution to work over the course of mere days, with a trillion molecules in a test tube replicating every few minutes.

"We can study things very quickly," says Scripps Research Professor Gerald Joyce, M.D., Ph.D., who was Voytek's advisor and her coauthor on the paper. Joyce is the dean of the faculty at Scripps Research, where he is also a professor in the Department of Molecular Biology, the Department of Chemistry, and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology.

On the voyage of the HMS Beagle, Darwin collected and studied different species of finches on several of the Galapagos Islands. The finches differed in their beak structure — some had thick, strong beaks and others had thin, delicate ones. Darwin observed that the different finches were each adapted for the specific types of seeds that served as their primary food source. The big-beaked birds were indigenous to the places where the big seeds grew; in areas where there were also small seeds, there were also small-beaked birds. Darwin reasoned that the finches had a common ancestor but had separated into different species — a classic concept in Darwinian evolution known as "niche partitioning," which holds that when two species are competing for resources within a common environment, they become differentiated so that each species adapts to use different preferred resources.

For several years, Joyce has been experimenting with a particular type of enzymatic RNA molecule that can continuously evolve in the test tube. The basis of this evolution comes from the fact that each time one of the molecules replicates, there is a chance it will mutate — typically about once per round of replication — so the population can acquire new traits over time.

Two years ago, Voytek managed to develop a second, unrelated enzymatic RNA molecule that also can continuously evolve. This allowed her to set the two RNAs in evolutionary motion within the same pot, forcing them to compete for common resources, just like two species of finches on an island in the Galapagos.

In the new study, the key resource or "food" was a supply of molecules necessary for each RNA's replication. The RNAs will only replicate if they have catalyzed attachment of themselves to these food molecules. So long as the RNAs have ample food, they will replicate, and as they replicate, they will mutate. Over time, as these mutations accumulate, new forms emerge — some fitter than others.

When Voytek and Joyce pitted the two RNA molecules in a head-to-head competition for a single food source, they found that the molecules that were better adapted to use a particular food won out. The less fit RNA disappeared over time. Then they placed the two RNA molecules together in a pot with five different food sources, none of which they had encountered previously. At the beginning of the experiment each RNA could utilize all five types of food — but none of these were utilized particularly well. After hundreds of generations of evolution, however, the two molecules each became independently adapted to use a different one of the five food sources. Their preferences were mutually exclusive — each highly preferred its own food source and shunned the other molecule's food source.

In the process, the molecules evolved different evolutionary approaches to achieving their ends. One became super efficient at gobbling up its food, doing so at a rate that was about a hundred times faster than the other. The other was slower at acquiring food, but produced about three times more progeny per generation. These are both examples of classic evolutionary strategies for survival, says Joyce.

Wow, definitely an interesting find and an interesting read.

I wonder where they will go with this? Perhaps this is the beginning of a new age of nanotechnology. Using natural resources to create things that compete with one another to eventually achieve the most efficient end for each through the path of least resistance. There is probably a lot we can learn from these, and I'm excited to see where they go with this.

I think I missed the part where he said he created the molecules from nothing and then they evolved.

Originally posted by jd140
I think I missed the part where he said he created the molecules from nothing and then they evolved.

You missed the reality that the Big Bang is not abiogensis, and neither is discussed in evolutionary theory. But you knew that.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by jd140
I think I missed the part where he said he created the molecules from nothing and then they evolved.

You missed the reality that the Big Bang is not abiogensis, and neither is discussed in evolutionary theory. But you knew that.

I do know that I long stopped caring about your post.

You started good but quickly gone down the self rightoues, holier than thou path.

Feel free to reply to this or any of my post, but be aware that this will be the last time you will get a reply for me.

Good trolling.

Originally posted by jd140I do know that I long stopped caring about your post.

You started good but quickly gone down the self rightoues, holier than thou path.

Feel free to reply to this or any of my post, but be aware that this will be the last time you will get a reply for me.

Good trolling.

Your posts are good for illustrating the limitations of the theistic mind, the very epitome of the "holier than thou" mindset.

The Big Bang theory doesn't discuss what came before the big bang. Unlike theists, scientists don't make up stuff about supernatural beings to fill in the gaps.

Gawdzilla's corollary to Shaker's Law: Nobody who says they're going to ignore you actually does.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by jd140
I think I missed the part where he said he created the molecules from nothing and then they evolved.

You missed the reality that the Big Bang is not abiogensis, and neither is discussed in evolutionary theory. But you knew that.

I bet he didn't. Creationists seem to have an amazing ability to forget all inconvenient truths.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Actually I really don't care if the evolutionist are right or if the creationist are rigth. Either way doesn't change anything in my life.

I just think that it is very egotistical for anyone to say that they know for sure that they are the ones that know the truth.

If the evolutionist are right, then lets go have a party.

If the creationist are right, then lets go party.

Originally posted by rhinocerosI bet he didn't. Creationists seem to have an amazing ability to forget all inconvenient truths.

I think Ken Ham has proven that they forget ALL truths. His Creation Museum is just too cute for words. (Kids playing with baby T-rex? Why name your child "Dino Chow" and get it over with?)

Thats for sharing

Perhaps you can help me understand this a bit better . It's my understanding that changes happen quite often , as we see in the many different types of dogs , birds , or whatever . Is this instance that you have given in this post not a case for microevolution ? Such as the changes we see in the dog variation or bird variation and not a actual change in species ?

Once again thanks for posting

Edit to add that I really don't know to much about this topic but I am interested to learn more . So its very possible that I am way off with my question

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Max_TO]

Originally posted by Max_TO
Thats for sharing

Perhaps you can help me understand this a bit better . It's my understanding that changes happen quite often , as we see in the many different types of dogs , birds , or whatever . Is this instance that you have given in this post not a case for microevolution ? Such as the changes we see in the dog variation or bird variation and not a actual change in species ?

Once again thanks for posting

Edit to add that I really don't know to much about this topic but I am interested to learn more . So its very possible that I am way off with my question

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Max_TO]

Ask yourself

1. What is microevolution?
2. What is macroevolution?
3. How exactly is a lot of microevolution not macroevolution?
4. What could possibly prevent a lot of microevolution from being macroevolution?
5. Is this division actually 100% artificial?

reply to post by rhinoceros


Thanks for the reply and the material you have posted in your reply . I will do some research based on the questions you have posed and try to expand my knowledge on this topic .

Alright, I'm religious, but not a literal creationist, but just for some fun to play "devil's" advocate here lol.

So, the proof that creation is false is that scientists, in a lab, combined molecules "intelligently" in just the right way so that they evolve very quickly? I quote they made "evolution to work over the course of mere days"?

Sounds pretty much like the story of creation to me? An intelligent designer setup everything just right for it to happen over the course of a few days right lol?

Sounds exactly like the opposite of what they tells us about abiogenesis and evolution that had to just happen without any help and that it takes millions of years lol.

It's a bummer, but this is why having an scientist or "intelligent designer" setup the experiment or even the lab iis not going to prove to them that life just happens. It would have to just happen again. So, you'd have to catch it in the wild where they didn't intervene in anyway whatsoever like in space or something. Things like this they will just use to say, "SEE! Told you it takes a scientist or intelligent designer to get it going! It COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN!" lol.

reply to post by tinfoilman


"So, the proof that creation is false is that scientists, in a lab, combined molecules "intelligently" in just the right way so that they evolve very quickly? I quote they made "evolution to work over the course of mere days"?"

No god needed to make it happen. That's the fun part here.

Could this have happened without the scientists?

I mean this evolution in a glass tube! Is that natural?

Is this how nature really works.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

"So, the proof that creation is false is that scientists, in a lab, combined molecules "intelligently" in just the right way so that they evolve very quickly? I quote they made "evolution to work over the course of mere days"?"

No god needed to make it happen. That's the fun part here.

Well yeah that's the classic, I don't understand how it works so God must have done it thinking, but if I remember correctly intelligent design doesn't really take into account who the designer is even though you know they're hinting at it being God.

However, a few molecules in a test tube is a long way from creating an entire universe which is what they believe the creator did. And when I say they I mean my family of course lol.

Anyway, just because God did something doesn't mean man isn't capable of doing the same thing once he figures out how God did it or another way of doing it.

For example they say Jesus brought back the dead, but then again doctors bring people back from the dead everyday. So, just because it doesn't require a God to happen, doesn't mean that it's not similar to how God may have done it at one point and time.

Assuming God is real of course.

Originally posted by spy66
Could this have happened without the scientists?

I mean this evolution in a glass tube! Is that natural?

Is this how nature really works.

First efforts. Science learns and grows. 100 years ago the hottest thing in aeronautics was the Wright Brothers.

reply to post by Freakaloin


In the original post you have included an article that claims evolution is taking place in a test tube, but the article fails to provide any evidence.

If I understand correctly, there are micro-organisms that have adapted the ability to better metabolize a food, at high efficiency, which they could already metabolize at a less efficient rate. While this is indeed a beneficial mutation it is not Darwinian evolution.

The article is a perfect example of natural selection, by that I mean that in the beginning of the experiment the organisms are able to metabolize a foreign food, but with very little efficiency. As the organism reproduces, beneficial mutations occur, and the genes that allowed them to eat the food at all are now more prominent. Eventually the organism is able to metabolize a new food better than before. Natural selection at work.

If you are going to claim Darwinian evolution then you need to prove that the organisms became an entirely new creation of nature, one vastly different than it's original ancestor generation. When you find that article let me know.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

reply to post by one_enlightened_mind


"If you are going to claim Darwinian evolution then you need to prove that the organisms became an entirely new creation of nature, one vastly different than it's original ancestor generation.'

If you're going to ask questions about Darwinian evolution then you need to ask ones about Darwinian evolution. "Descent with modification." Look it up. The heart of evolution is small changes that give one critter an edge over the others. Or make it lag behind the others. One is successful, the other is selected out. You don't see "vastly different" from one generation to another. However, we ARE vastly different from Eomaia.

Sheesh.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

If you're going to ask questions about Darwinian evolution then you need to ask ones about Darwinian evolution. "Descent with modification."

I am very familiar with Darwin's theory, and know it to be incorrect.

Darwinian evolution requires more than genetics can offer to function. Physical traits are determined by Phenotypes, which are determined by genotypes. In other words, in order for an organism to grow feathers it's genetic code must tell it to. If the genotypes are not present in an organism the phenotypes will not be, and so the organism cannot possibly have any trait it's not genetically coded for. A species can adapt, yes. Lizards can change and mutate into a new species of lizard. That's entirely within the realm of possibility because a group of lizards can mate with another group and inherit new traits. Due to Natural selection, and maybe even genetic drift, those lizards can certainly radiate into a separate and new species. That's perfectly scientific.

When Darwin says that Ape-like creatures can become human, he is wrong. Ape-like creatures are coded to be Ape-like creatures and nothing more. You cannot have any instance where a group of Ape-like creatures somehow mutate into anything other than it is (i.e. more humal-like).

Darwinian evolution is dead wrong.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]