Watch Evolution in Action

a reply to: Agnost

Thanks for the compliment. I've had two this week which compensates for the hassles of tonsillitis.

Thanks for the advice on the tablets. Neither the doctor or the chemist set times or conditions; it's 'three a day.' Today I'm going for 7am/2pm/10pm. That way, they should have a presence overnight.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Hecate666

We can call that adaptation, that's nice, that's accurate, that's science
That's not evolution

Thanks anyway

Adaptation is part of evolution, darling. A random sudden mutation that suits the environment and is carried on for generations leads to evolution. This is how the eye was formed, by gradual adaptation, it EVOLVED over generations.
Don't even try and discuss evolution with me unless you know 100% what you are talking about.

a reply to: Hecate666

Really
Adaptation is evolution

So is a white person more evolved than a black, a black more than an Asian an Asian more evolved than an Pygmy

Or are they all just humans with adaptations, quite capable of read aping over generations to a new environment

Sorry, it's not the same, go ask Darwin, oops, he was a favored races guy wasn't he
Skin colour doesn't make a person any more or less evolved, sorry

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Just know that this has turned from a good thread about evolution and bacteria adapting, to a thread about you being hilarious.

As you said, "turned a good thread..." into what it is now. I can enjoy the cringe as much as the next guy. And this guy gets all the gold medals.



But I really don't understand why he is allowed to go on and on.

Anyway TD, I'm frustrated. I'm gonna go pray and ask Darwin for some comfort.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why is everything about religion with you

Because 99% percent of the time, it's the religious that deny science in the way that you (and others) do. You see, Raggedyman, your apparent willful ignorance on this subject, is a symptom of your specific flavor of Christianity.

That is something I have,

A) Observed on this board
B) Observed being tested on this board
C) Repeatedly observed on this board

I'll let you form your own hypothesis. I have mine.

a reply to: Astyanax

Are any of them a new species? Could, for instance, the resistant bacteria still breed with the progenitor bacteria without the resistance? So I'd guess this doesn't actually show the speciation part of evolution (not that it couldn't happen, just that it, once more, is missing from the "see this is evolution happening" proofs).

Couldn't the antibiotic resistance have already been intrinsic to the unmutated original population, either in unexpressed genes, turned on in response to environmental triggers (epigenetics), or in initially rare but entirely normal (un-mutated) genetic variations that became the faster breeders in a stressing environment.

I mean, some humans are immune to the HIV virus because their T-cells are damaged/different from the majority. I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that these people "evolved" a cure for AIDS as it was an already existing intrisic property of a varied population, that some carry the 'fix/flaw'.

But nonetheless, antibiotic resistance increasing in a population does show biological adaptation.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did you not note I quoted you TD, cant hide your post or delete what I quoted ABOVE

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's that got to do with the OP?

Strawman much?

Uhm
Because its not evolution in action, no new information is added.
Information is being removed in the mutation


Thats why

Its fake evolution

No strawman at all, its not evolution, it is de- evolving, losing information from its dna

Did you read the link

Sorry to rebut you but not all mutation removes information.

About 80% of mutations are simple deletions of a base pair (either due to the action of a toxin or more likely, the action of ionizing radiation) however our incredible replication machinery can ADD a new base pair (or even a block of them) into a replicating strand.

In fact, scientists, using processes that already exist in nature, have successfully spliced long chains of existing genetic code into the genome of organisms. This is what is called horizontal genetic transfer and while rare, does exist in both nature and the laboratory.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Astyanax

Could, for instance, the resistant bacteria still breed with the progenitor bacteria without the resistance?

???

They reproduce by binary fission.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Astyanax
Wow! Eleven days from 0 to 1000x

I sure hope those E Coli don't get loose! Yikes!

Yes, but doesn't evolution take vast numbers of generations. Since e-coli take about 20 minutes to reproduce that would only be about 792 generations.

My guess is that if you looked at the expected rates of spontaneous mutation for this organism and genome size, that you would find that 792 generations is a little too quick for evolution by mutation to have occurred.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Astyanax

Could, for instance, the resistant bacteria still breed with the progenitor bacteria without the resistance?

???

They reproduce by binary fission.

D'oh, you are absolutely right! I must be getting tired (or drunk, or perhaps druired, or tirunk. Yup, both).

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why is everything about religion with you

Because 99% percent of the time, it's the religious that deny science in the way that you (and others) do. You see, Raggedyman, your apparent willful ignorance on this subject, is a symptom of your specific flavor of Christianity.

That is something I have,

A) Observed on this board
B) Observed being tested on this board
C) Repeatedly observed on this board

I'll let you form your own hypothesis. I have mine.

Yeah cool and all
But I asked a question pertaining to the science behind a video and got nothing scientific at all
Now I never brought religion into this, how about answering with science not anti religion rhetoric, it's like you need religion to hide you lack evidence
Now that can't be true, surely

So again, evidence for evolution, did the "new" bacteria gain any new information, it's just that simple
It's yes or no with evidence
It's not difficult

Now you just want to make it about religion, I am talking science

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did you not note I quoted you TD, cant hide your post or delete what I quoted ABOVE

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's that got to do with the OP?

Strawman much?

Uhm
Because its not evolution in action, no new information is added.
Information is being removed in the mutation


Thats why

Its fake evolution

No strawman at all, its not evolution, it is de- evolving, losing information from its dna

Did you read the link

Sorry to rebut you but not all mutation removes information.

About 80% of mutations are simple deletions of a base pair (either due to the action of a toxin or more likely, the action of ionizing radiation) however our incredible replication machinery can ADD a new base pair (or even a block of them) into a replicating strand.

In fact, scientists, using processes that already exist in nature, have successfully spliced long chains of existing genetic code into the genome of organisms. This is what is called horizontal genetic transfer and while rare, does exist in both nature and the laboratory.

Ok not all mutations remove information, some become more dominant
Some replace lost information, I can accept that

What I am interested in is additional, unknown beneficial mutations evolving

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Just know that this has turned from a good thread about evolution and bacteria adapting, to a thread about you being hilarious.

As you said, "turned a good thread..." into what it is now. I can enjoy the cringe as much as the next guy. And this guy gets all the gold medals.

But I really don't understand why he is allowed to go on and on.

Anyway TD, I'm frustrated. I'm gonna go pray and ask Darwin for some comfort.

Just had to show the evidence and it would have ended, or, said there was non available

Simple...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did you not note I quoted you TD, cant hide your post or delete what I quoted ABOVE

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's that got to do with the OP?

Strawman much?

Uhm
Because its not evolution in action, no new information is added.
Information is being removed in the mutation


Thats why

Its fake evolution

No strawman at all, its not evolution, it is de- evolving, losing information from its dna

Did you read the link

Sorry to rebut you but not all mutation removes information.

About 80% of mutations are simple deletions of a base pair (either due to the action of a toxin or more likely, the action of ionizing radiation) however our incredible replication machinery can ADD a new base pair (or even a block of them) into a replicating strand.

In fact, scientists, using processes that already exist in nature, have successfully spliced long chains of existing genetic code into the genome of organisms. This is what is called horizontal genetic transfer and while rare, does exist in both nature and the laboratory.

Ok not all mutations remove information, some become more dominant
Some replace lost information, I can accept that

What I am interested in is additional, unknown beneficial mutations evolving

There is a difference between the "gee whiz" science of the media which elevates the pictorial (like the stick & ball DNA models showing the work of Watson & Crick vs the dearth of information on work of Gamow in decoding DNA and deducing codon length from the number of amino acids in transcription).

The OP was a bit "gee whiz" (and fair enough it is very visual).

One could argue if the videos show evolution, or not, though it definitely shows adaptation, which is a part of it.

I can think of a few things the video's could also be portraying, besides evolution. The 11 days bit seems too fast to fit the mechanisms so I'm suspicious about that. Perhaps some bioinformatics whiz could fill us in on what the Haldane (or what ever is the latest one) equation's results are in this situation and clarify the situation.

But I'd best go to bed now, I'm stuffed & happy & warm & it is cold & dark outside.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
But I asked a question pertaining to the science behind a video and got nothing scientific at all

Lies.

Now I never brought religion into this, how about answering with science not anti religion rhetoric, it's like you need religion to hide you lack evidence

I didn't have any anti-religious rhetoric in that post.

Now that can't be true, surely

You are correct.

So again, evidence for evolution, did the "new" bacteria gain any new information, it's just that simple
It's yes or no with evidence
It's not difficult

Ever hear that expression, "beating a dead horse"?

Now you just want to make it about religion

Nope. Merely observing and answering your question. Which in my mind was essentially, why does religion so often get brought up in debates about evolution. The reason, as stated, is because it's typically the religious that fail to grasp even the most basic aspects of evolution even in the face of having it explained to them.

I am talking science

Possibly the one thing that would make me reconsider a God existing.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah well, adaptation is not really the evolution that they all claim
I just wanted more than a tv show, it lacked evidence
Anyone with a simple understanding of how antibiotics works would have seen through this smoke and mirrors pseudo science

Then it turns into a religion thing because the great minds here don't have the evidence or capacity to answer the questions asked

Same old same old blaming my questions on me or my beliefs, rather than pointing to science or lack thereof
Meh, it can be fun

a reply to: Raggedyman

I truly believe you are a troll, or willfully ignorant.

However...

If you genuinely are trying to understand, but have difficulty despite the efforts of many posters here, please accept my apologies for the harsh, and sarcastic tone of many of my posts to you. Maybe it is just a case of stuff not being explained or shown in a way that you easily understand. I find that hard to believe (at least as far as some of the basics go. i.e. "new information", "survival of the fittest") but don't think it is implausible.

Already added to the off topic parts of the thread, so I'm done here.

We can pick this up elsewhere, or something.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Raggedyman

I truly believe you are a troll, or willfully ignorant.

However...

If you genuinely are trying to understand, but have difficulty despite the efforts of many posters here, please accept my apologies for the harsh, and sarcastic tone of many of my posts to you. Maybe it is just a case of stuff not being explained or shown in a way that you easily understand. I find that hard to believe (at least as far as some of the basics go. i.e. "new information", "survival of the fittest") but don't think it is implausible.

Already added to the off topic parts of the thread, so I'm done here.

We can pick this up elsewhere, or something.

Well here is the chance to answer the question
What new information has been added to show evolution in the bacteria

It's not a trick question, no religion involved
Evolution must add information, what information has been added to make the bacteria more resilient to the antibacterial solution
Can you show the bacteria that propagated in the antibacterial solution didn't lose information to propagate

I can't ask a simpler question, a more scientific question

a reply to: Raggedyman

Exactly. What you just posted does not prove you right. Though it does agree with what I have said.

a reply to: Hecate666

The video shows evolutionary branching. That's why they used the graphics at the end of the video. It was to show students and the conference audience what was going on.

Baym and his team went on to compare genes in the original population of e.coli and the final population. They had a few surprises waiting for them. Read this link

Using the easy-to-see evolutionary trajectory of the bacteria as a guide, the researchers isolated and sequenced the charge-leading mutants. They found adaptive mutations in the gene for the proofreading enzyme DNA polymerase III, the target genes of the antibiotics, and in unexpected genes such as those coding for a phosphate transporter and a kinase that don’t have a known function in establishing resistance, hinting at alternative pathways that could arise.

The scientists were also intrigued to find that many bacteria behind those at the frontier—those that became resistant to antibiotics, but grew more slowly as a result—acquired mutations that further boosted both growth and antibiotic resistance later on. In fact, in a head-to-head race with the bacteria that originally outstripped them, these slow-to-grow bacteria were much more successful by the end of the experiment. Previously, it was commonly thought that regaining growth might require giving up newly acquired resistance, but these mutants suggested that wasn’t the case. “The way to overcome an evolutionary tradeoff is not always to revert back to what you were,” Baym said. “You can get growth back in more ways than just losing resistance.”

Shelley D Copley took part in the research. She's running with the ball to show what can be done with the new insights.

Adaptation of E. coli to use a novel pathway for vitamin B6 synthesis

We are currently investigating the mechanisms by which the six mutations enhance growth rate. This effort requires consideration of the effects of mutations on specific proteins, as well as effects that are propagated through the complex metabolic and regulatory networks. One mutation increases the concentration of an enzyme required in the novel and relatively inefficient pathway for PLP synthesis, presumably resulting in increased production of PLP.

Can they improve on this study? What variations would you like to see next time around?