Scientists claim to have discovered greatest ever absence of evolution

How did you jump to the conclusion of natural selection? lol. Natural selection means 2 things breed together and they become more complex.

Dosn't this defeat Natural selection? Like the complete opposite of said expectations?

of course *evolution* is based on enviroment. Does it take a genius to figure out that the atmosphere and availability of nutrients as well as temperture will alter the organisms that live there. If the enviroment changes then all the organisms change and it has to do with microbiral and viral reproduction. As those will be the first to Evolve, Which then infect hosts when an enviroment changes. A given pandemic will quickly shift the populations of complex organisms that rely on micro-organisms in order to survive. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't beable to reverse the DNA damage done to birds to revert them back into Dinosaurs.
Hard at work building a dinosaur from a chicken
Atmosphere and chemical compsition as well as temperture are all used to cultivate bacteria, therefore when an enviroment changes. SO does everything with it. It has nothing to do with natural selection. Enviroments always force change because all complex organisms, Us chain down to the smallest things that are the most susceptible to changes.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

What? You said that there is only one forum to debate Evolution in, the Origins and Creations forum? Well this is the science forum and we are clearly debating Evolution here (rather scientifically instead of the usual strawman deflections so it's a REAL debate too YAY!) and you just agreed that we are on topic by putting the thread in the Science forum.

a reply to: AnuTyr

Natural selection means 2 things breed together and they become more complex.

That's not even remotely what natural selection means. Where did you pick up that definition? Natural selection is the process by which the frequency of heritable traits changes within a given population based on how they influence the reproductive success of the individuals within that population.

a reply to: Trihalo42

It isn't proof of the absence of evolution overall, but it is proof that something can remain unevolved in isolation.

And that raises a very interesting question indeed — if, that is, the original research may be considered valid. Apparently the conclusions were based on a morphological comparisons of fossils, not on genetic analysis of any kind.

Assuming morphological identity implies a close genetic similarity (at least), we have to ask why genetic drift hasn't occurred in these populations of bacteria over time. Bacteria swap genes all the time. How come mutations haven't prospered, leading to genomic change and thus to phenotypic variation?

One possible answer is that there are strong selection pressures in the natural environment that are driving regression toward the genetic mean. This could be tested by inducing mutations in a lab population of the same species under the same conditions and watching what happened to the genotype over time.

a reply to: iterationzero
LOL did you seriously just say the exact same thing but reword it to other words that have the same definition hahahahahhahahahahahaahah

Dude ^ Has nothing to do with why those organisms have not changed.

Natural selection would mean those organisms would develop into more complex stages of life. But they don't Therefore natural selection is a sham.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Natural selection would mean those organisms would develop into more complex stages of life.

No it doesn't.

Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

Learn first, then criticise.

a reply to: iterationzero

Why would you expect everything he proposed to still be relevant given that genetic wasn't even understood at the time he wrote "On the Origin of Species"?

I don't think that it's relevant actually. But many still do.

a reply to: Trihalo42

I have to agree with others that it isn't proof of the absence of evolution overall, but it is proof that something can remain unevolved in isolation.

No one is saying evolution is absent overall. Just in the one instance. Read carefully.

Makes you wonder what other unchanged life could be lurking at the bottom of the ocean for millions to billions of years.

a reply to: iDope

I'll take it a step further and say that bacteria is intelligent life. Actually, all life is intelligent.

If there is water then chances for life of some kind is probable I would say.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

YUP
Mainly, I meant that most debates about evolution seem to take place in the O&C forum. So yes, I put this topic here because this is where debates about evolution should be happening. Or it'd be nice if ATS had an evolution forum...

a reply to: Astyanax

And that raises a very interesting question indeed — if, that is, the original research may be considered valid. Apparently the conclusions were based on a morphological comparisons of fossils, not on genetic analysis of any kind.

YES! Good point.

Assuming morphological identity implies a close genetic similarity (at least), we have to ask why genetic drift hasn't occurred in these populations of bacteria over time. Bacteria swap genes all the time. How come mutations haven't prospered, leading to genomic change and thus to phenotypic variation?

Another good point. But similar phenotype doesn't always imply similar genotype either. Although it seems these guys may have made that assumption by comparing only the physical traits.

One possible answer is that there are strong selection pressures in the natural environment that are driving regression toward the genetic mean. This could be tested by inducing mutations in a lab population of the same species under the same conditions and watching what happened to the genotype over time.

Or perhaps there may be other species of bacteria residing in the same mud whose evolutionary track can be compared in a similar fashion. However it seems they would need to be able to look at the DNA from 2.3 byo to make any sort of conclusive determination.

a reply to: AnuTyr

LOL did you seriously just say the exact same thing but reword it to other words that have the same definition hahahahahhahahahahahaahah

Not at all. Not sure where you got that idea.

Dude ^ Has nothing to do with why those organisms have not changed.

If the environment isn't changing, then there's very little selective pressure which would result in a change in allele frequency. You may get gene drift, or another evolutionary mechanism, taking place, but I'm very skeptical about whether that would lead to the kind of morphological changes in bacteria that would be detectable in the kind of study the OP discusses.

Natural selection would mean those organisms would develop into more complex stages of life. But they don't Therefore natural selection is a sham.

Natural selection has nothing to do with complexity. Natural selection has to do with which organisms will be reproductively favored. Can you explain why you think that a species upon which natural selection has acted will necessarily be more complex? And, further, what you mean by "more complex"?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Damn right! Make waves and challenge the status quo!