50,000 generations of bacteria prove that evolution never stops

spirited75
LOL Rigid scientific standards mean that you observe it happening.

No it doesn't. It means that you
Can develop a testable hypothesis with results which can be Independantly verified or duplicated. True story.

explain the pre Cambrian explosion of varied and multiple forms of life, with no prior fossil record.

Sure after you explain how there are no fossils prior to the event in question. Ill give you a hint... Your supposition is false.

reply to post by peter vlar


an atheist's primary problem is they refuse to admit there is an intelligence greater than themselves, plus the APA is doing away with the diagnostic category of NPD narcissistic personality disorder because it is so prevalent in American society.

reply to post by spirited75


And then we start having ignorance on this thread. What does having faith in "God" or being Atheist have to do with evolution being verifiable? Please stick to the topic.

This makes me reflect on another study I read about some time ago but can't recall the link or the identification of the study. What I remember is the study backed up other studies and all of these suggested evolution was as much the result of expansion into new frontiers as it was competition between members and other species. The idea is the survival of our species might be as reliant on our continued exploration and settlement of new places as it's on the natural pressures which exist in our environment. What this means is we shouldn't focus entirely on competition to breed innovation. If we do then we're missing the other major part of what makes us survive. Somehow, we need new places to explore and settle.

I googled and produces these (the last link I think IS what I remember):
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org - Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land...
www.bbc.co.uk - Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims...

Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.

He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived.

But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution.
...........

I also found this which somewhat rebukes the previous linked article's interpretation:
scienceblogs.com - Natural Selection vs. Opportunity in Macroevolutionary Patterning of the Fossil Record...

......
The idea of empty niches being filled by the available taxa is not new, nor is the idea that an evolutionary “event” …. like some non-flying taxon developing the power of flight …. results in species radiation. What is new in this paper is that a survey has been done using relatively good available data that demonstrates this concept.

There has not been an overthrow of Darwin, though I’m sure various creationists will now incorrectly and inappropriately use this press report to suggest that there has been. There has not been the introduction of a new idea regarding macroevolution, though the work here is important and interesting. As is often the case with evolutionary biology, the specific role of natural selection (and in this entire discussion, read “natural selection” when you see “competition”) vs. opportunity (read “drift”), and different people with different views will differentially see the role of one or the other as more important as they look at the same data. The realty of the situation is probably simpler: Competitive advantages have a chance of winning out, in the same way that buying a lottery ticket with better odds makes you more likely to win. But you’ll probably still lose. But to even buy the lottery ticket, there has to be one of those little gas stations on the corner that sells them.

guess what


























it is still bacteria and as such proves adaptation











not evolution.












atheists cannot admit or accept an intelligence greater than themselves.
the top atheist in the world just defected to Christianity.
Why??
Because science has discovered and found the intelligence in every molecule cannot be accidental.
He smelled the coffee when will you??

Grimpachi

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 and it just keeps on evolving. In fact it is doing it faster now and that should continue.

Good God man.


Somebody stop them. They could let it mutate into some sort of thing that will wipe mankind of the face of the Earth.

They're a threat to humanity!

Let me know when it sprouts wings or becomes a cuddly tribble

Does the OP have any links to data concerning the genetics of the E Coli as to whether the bacteria already had the potential to metabolize the substrate prior to the experiment?

The mutation to "evolve" into such a metabolism must have been quite similar to the pre-existing system for this to have occurred.

Also a longer lifespan is NOT evidence of evolution, rather the "evidence" was the ability to metabolize a substance which had not been widely recorded.

This is still rather week evidence of evolution and rather a baby step towards refining a model for which evolution can be predicted.

-FBB

reply to post by Grimpachi


If I was in a boring glass flask in isolation, I would evolve to try to get out too.

There's gotta be a Nancy Pelosi joke somewhere in here?

reply to post by Grimpachi


since they are still bacteria
it does not prove evolution.

reply to post by spirited75


So what would prove evolution to you? If bacteria turned into a crocodile? Whether anyone wants to admit it or not evolution is as much about the baby steps as it is the giant leaps. Bacterium adapting to sustain itself on an entirely new source of nutrition is evidence of evolution. It may not be speciation but it IS evolution.

reply to post by peter vlar


it is not evolution it is adaptation

reply to post by spirited75


Really so that's your scientific opinion?

Tell me what exactly are they adapting to? The environment stayed the same as well as the food source and quantity of it.

50,000 generations plus and they are still adapting to the same conditions.

Sorry you don't understand but they are evolving.

reply to post by Grimpachi


what are the bacteria EVOLVING into?????
Bacteria.

That is not evolution.

Evolution as explained by DAARWIN constitutes one form of
life changing into a different form of life.

NO they are still bacteria

reply to post by spirited75

Are these bacteria changing into germs???

Priceless.

reply to post by Phage


ad hominem now?

reply to post by spirited75

More priceless.

Please point out the personal attack in my one word statement.
While some may consider ignorance to be an insult, it is not. It should actually be considered an opportunity. When a lack of understanding is pointed out, rather than being offended one could take another approach.

What is a "germ?"
What is the meaning of "ad hominem?"

reply to post by Phage


Fallacy: Ad Hominem - The Nizkor Project



www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html‎


An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person ...

reply to post by spirited75

Your source:

First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made

www.nizkor.org...

Did I attack your character, circumstances, or actions?
No. Just your ignorance of biology. Something which would seem to be quite pertinent to the discussion.

spirited75
reply to post by peter vlar

 

it is not evolution it is adaptation

Hmm.

Adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation.

Hope that helps.