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.

 

50,000 generations of bacteria prove that evolution never stops

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





it got faster and faster at reproducing



Why is that?

For obvious reasons - competition or to be exact lack of competition.



Indeed, after 10,000 generations, Lenski thought the bacteria would reach an upper limit beyond which improvement was impossible. But now, at the 50,000 generation mark, it's still getting better. Random mutations have allowed the microbes to get increasingly "fitter," giving them an advantage when competing with those that reproduce more slowly. So it's not entirely true that the bacteria is in isolation; it's competing with itself.


First you think diminished pace means the opposite of what they are saying now you make a comment on lack of competition. It seems you didn’t bother to read the link otherwise you wouldn’t have said there wasn’t any competition.



Note - "...and evolution," according to whom?




Look I get it you don’t understand what evolution is therefore you don’t think it exists. I am not looking to educate you on evolution that’s what your high school teachers should have done. This article is about something pretty remarkable in evolution the question about if the bacteria is evolving or not isn’t even a question ( because it is settled science) except maybe to you and those who do not grasp what evolution is.


If you are looking to start a debate on the validity of evolution you should troll some other thread.There are platitudes of them even on ATS that go to great lengths to explain evolution.




posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Grimpachi
reply to post by edmc^2
 





it got faster and faster at reproducing



Why is that?

For obvious reasons - competition or to be exact lack of competition.






Indeed, after 10,000 generations, Lenski thought the bacteria would reach an upper limit beyond which improvement was impossible. But now, at the 50,000 generation mark, it's still getting better. Random mutations have allowed the microbes to get increasingly "fitter," giving them an advantage when competing with those that reproduce more slowly. So it's not entirely true that the bacteria is in isolation; it's competing with itself.


Well obviously Dr. Lenski's assumptions were incorrect for the simple fact that the bacterium continue to reproduced. But I would add that reproduction will continue on indefinitely UNTIL that which keeping it alive will cease to exist - itself. Now if the good doctor is wrong on this, what else are in error?

Random mutation maybe? Adaptation?




First you think diminished pace means the opposite of what they are saying now you make a comment on lack of competition. It seems you didn’t bother to read the link otherwise you wouldn’t have said there wasn’t any competition.



Competing with yourself is not competition especially if pre-programed and certainly not evolution. Unless of course you believe that the bacterium have the ability to think and create thoughts.



Note - "...and evolution," according to whom?






Look I get it you don’t understand what evolution is therefore you don’t think it exists. I am not looking to educate you on evolution that’s what your high school teachers should have done. This article is about something pretty remarkable in evolution the question about if the bacteria is evolving or not isn’t even a question ( because it is settled science) except maybe to you and those who do not grasp what evolution is.


If you are looking to start a debate on the validity of evolution you should troll some other thread.There are platitudes of them even on ATS that go to great lengths to explain evolution.


Oh believe me I'm not looking for platitudes or any 'edumacation' from you. In fact if only allowed I would disable the star options on my post. But the thing that I don't get about proponents of evolution is this almost sort of sacred allegiance to anything evolution even though the facts don't support it.

I mean is competition, evolution?

edit on 25-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So competition is evolution?


No... i replied to the quote you used. The reason they stop growing or on the decline is due to food and space.

If they had a bigger space, they would be growing. Them stop growing had nothing to do with evolution, they just didn't have resources to continue... sort of like when there is no water on earth or when its too occupied(which is a long time away).

Evolution cant happen if species die out.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why don't you write to Lenski and point out what you regard as his mistakes? We'd all love to be amused by the response. Are you Andy Schlafly by any chance and if so wasn't one humiliation enough for you?



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why don't you write to Lenski and point out what you regard as his mistakes? We'd all love to be amused by the response. Are you Andy Schlafly by any chance and if so wasn't one humiliation enough for you?


I'd like to but no need to since it was already found that the expectation was off by a very wide margin. Unless of course you're disagreeing with what I said per the quote below?



The researchers had originally thought the bacteria would reach a limit where it couldn’t improve any further it was thought that would happen around the 10,000 generation. But now they are at the 50,000 generation


Not sure who is this Andy S you're talking about and why was he humiliated?

edit:

In any case there's no amount twisting and turning of words that can make this experiment - study - proof of evolution.

It's a simple case of the same bacteria reproducing generations of the same bacteria - albeit at a faster rate since there's were no longer competition amongst the "12 populations" of bacteria.

That's all there is to it.

Sorry to burst the bubble.


edit on 28-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: edit



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Erm, you don't seem to have read the beginning of this thread. At all. Fascinating. So - here you go.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

edmc^2

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why don't you write to Lenski and point out what you regard as his mistakes? We'd all love to be amused by the response. Are you Andy Schlafly by any chance and if so wasn't one humiliation enough for you?


I'd like to but no need to since it was already found that the expectation was off by a very wide margin. Unless of course you're disagreeing with what I said per the quote below?



The researchers had originally thought the bacteria would reach a limit where it couldn’t improve any further it was thought that would happen around the 10,000 generation. But now they are at the 50,000 generation


Not sure who is this Andy S you're talking about and why was he humiliated?

edit:

In any case there's no amount twisting and turning of words that can make this experiment - study - proof of evolution.

It's a simple case of the same bacteria reproducing generations of the same bacteria - albeit at a faster rate since there's were no longer competition amongst the "12 populations" of bacteria.

That's all there is to it.

Sorry to burst the bubble.


edit on 28-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: edit


So when one of the sample groups evolved the ability to "eat" citrate, an organic molecule which was part of the solution the E. coli lived in, but which E. coli cannot normally uptake, that's not evolution? We're not just talking about rates of reproduction here. This will show you the data


myxo.css.msu.edu...

Give it a read through, it won't bite.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 





So when one of the sample groups evolved the ability to "eat" citrate, an organic molecule which was part of the solution the E. coli lived in, but which E. coli cannot normally uptake, that's not evolution? We're not just talking about rates of reproduction here. This will show you the data



I'm not impress a bit if this is evolution, "the ability to "eat" citrate".

In fact scientist are finding more and more surprising things what this humble bacteria can do. Thus, it's a good candidate for many experiments. Including this one:




Genetically Modified E. Coli Bacteria Can Now Synthesize Diesel Fuel


The group, led by John Love, accomplished the feat by mixing and matching genes from several different bacteria species and inserting them into the E. coli used in the experiment. These genes each code for particular enzymes, so when the genes are inserted into the E. coli, the bacteria gains the ability to synthesize these enzymes. As a result, it also gains the ability to perform the same metabolic reactions that those enzymes perform in each of the donor bacteria species. Read more: blogs.smithsonianmag.com... Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


Fact is, whether you admit or not - the study conducted by Dr. Lenski and company, et al, are done in a highly precise and controlled environment - where samples are carefully selected for processing.

As noted:


Sensitivity to T5 thus indicates that the strain in question is E. coli, while the combination of sensitivity to T5 and resistance to T6 strongly suggests that we have the correct strain of E. coli. This is especially compelling when taken together with presence of the appropriate Ara marker states in the experimental lines, because virtually all wild E. coli are Ara+ and most are resistant to T5. If there is any doubt, one can also check for T4-sensitivity (another phage to which E. coli B is sensitive) and various molecular genetic markers. We have never seen an external E. coli contaminant on our plates, although we do occasionally see other bacterial contaminants.
...

How to Do the Test

Take an LB (or TA) plate and mark a green line down the center back. Also label 6-8 strains that you will test by streaking across (perpendicular to) this line. Using sterile technique, withdraw about ~0.02 ml (~20 ul) from the phage stock, and drip onto the agar above one end of the green line. Immediately tilt the plate so that the phage stock runs the length of the line. The liquid should dry very quickly. Then, using sterile toothpicks, pick up a bit of a bacterial colony and streak it across the phage line, moving in one direction only. After all the colonies have been streaked, invert and incubate the plates at 37C overnight.


myxo.css.msu.edu...


But remove the brilliant minds and the knowledge and the controlled environment per evolution criteria, will the bacteria behave in the same manner? Or even survive such experiment?

I doubt it.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Can I ask if you are denigrating what is a very elegant and meticulously researched piece of science?



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Can I ask if you are denigrating what is a very elegant and meticulously researched piece of science?


Not denigrating it but questioning its validity.

That is - if this is evolution - how did the "alleles" evolved?

Evolved into what?



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   

edmc^2


Not denigrating it but questioning its validity.

That is - if this is evolution - how did the "alleles" evolved?

Evolved into what?





Into different sub-strains. They're mutating. And one strain significantly mutated into a different form. It's excellent science - meticulously recorded and above all repeatable. It's being held up as a superb piece of work. It is evolution in progress.
And it made Andy Schlafly's head explode.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg

edmc^2


Not denigrating it but questioning its validity.

That is - if this is evolution - how did the "alleles" evolved?

Evolved into what?





Into different sub-strains. They're mutating. And one strain significantly mutated into a different form. It's excellent science - meticulously recorded and above all repeatable. It's being held up as a superb piece of work. It is evolution in progress.
And it made Andy Schlafly's head explode.



"mutated into different forms"

What "forms"?



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

edmc^2

AngryCymraeg

edmc^2


Not denigrating it but questioning its validity.

That is - if this is evolution - how did the "alleles" evolved?

Evolved into what?





Into different sub-strains. They're mutating. And one strain significantly mutated into a different form. It's excellent science - meticulously recorded and above all repeatable. It's being held up as a superb piece of work. It is evolution in progress.
And it made Andy Schlafly's head explode.



"mutated into different forms"

What "forms"?




A different type would be a better description. Sorry, I wrote the above in a hurry, as we were frantically tidying the house ahead of Thanksgiving (I'm British, my wife's American and we live in London, so we can only do Thanksgiving with my family on the weekend).



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
the bacteria BEGAN AS BACTERIA AND STILL REMAINS BACTERIA, THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION IT IS ADAPTATION.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


Evolution is not about giant leaps and bounds, it is the sum of all the small steps that lead to such. Retooling the definition because you either dislike or simply don't understand the process doesn't change the rigid scientific standards that lead us to the accepted definition used by evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, geneticists et al.
edit on 30-11-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


LOL Rigid scientific standards mean that you observe it happening.
explain the pre Cambrian explosion of varied and multiple forms of life, with no prior fossil record.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


so it is not bacteria anymore?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

spirited75
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


so it is not bacteria anymore?


No, it became a T-Rex. (rolls eyes) It's in the process of becoming a slightly different type of bacteria.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
I have a big soft spot in my heart for Richard Lenski after his part in the Lenski Affair, which humiliated Andy Schlafly, the idiot behind Conservapedia.


thanks for the reference, it was illuminating to see that even in academia, scientific study can include as much ignorance, misinterpretations, and slander as does political discourse.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   

jimmyx

AngryCymraeg
I have a big soft spot in my heart for Richard Lenski after his part in the Lenski Affair, which humiliated Andy Schlafly, the idiot behind Conservapedia.


thanks for the reference, it was illuminating to see that even in academia, scientific study can include as much ignorance, misinterpretations, and slander as does political discourse.


Yes, Schlafly met his match and was well and truly humiliated. Mind you, this is the man who's so stupid that he conflates social relativism with the theory of Relativity. Conservapedia has been declining into insignificance for years now.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join