Watch Evolution in Action

a reply to: Barcs

The point I was making related to my comment at the time in the thread about the Drake equation. Someone was swapping from the topic of "evolution" (in a biological context as defined by Michael Behe there, including the topic of the origin of life and as it stands in opposition to the explanation: creation) to the expression "development over time" again; which in turn relates to the point of my own thread about it; which title was a play on this title to remind people that that is a deceptive usage of the concept of evolution (thinking of it as merely referring to any sort of change or development over time regardless of what caused the change, or the primary cause of the change). So I bumped both threads and kept most of my commentary about it in my own thread*.

The only use for this thread is its title anyway. Showing that people are willing to interpret any sort of change over time, or development over time, as evolution. Which is dishonest and misleading in the context of this forum to use such a general broad definition for "evolution". It's not the whole story. The evolutionary storyline does not claim just any change or development over time. If that's how someone is going to use the concept of evolution in this forum, even creation and engineering can be interpreted as "evolution (in action)",i.e. development over time (in action). As explained in more detail in the thread concerning the Drake equation, the causal factors are being left out of the discussion, as well as a certain amount of vagueness is going on as to what kind of development or change over time is needed for the overarching evoltionary storyline to make any sense.

*: that is, I quoted the relevant commentary from the other thread concerning the Drake equation in my own thread.

a reply to: whereislogic

Which is dishonest and misleading in the context of this forum to use such a general broad definition for "evolution".

In the context of this forum: evolution is the process whereby organisms change over time.

What do you think it means?

a reply to: Phage

See Michael Behe's definition in my own thread or the thread about the Drake equation (it's easier to find in my thread).

Someone in the thread about the Drake equation responded to my comment that said:

You can continue to leave out the causal factors of 'chance (or a mindless process)' vs 'creation (or purposeful design)', from your arguments; but that doesn't change the underlying reasoning of such arguments.

The bolded part already explained to be referring to the concept of evolution and the evolutionary storyline and proposed causal explanation regarding the origin of life.

That person changed it to "creation vs the development over time of bio chemistry." In an effort to change the subject and get some red herrings into play:

a reply to: whereislogic

See Michael Behe's definition in my own thread or the thread about the Drake equation (it's easier to find in my thread).

I know you can express yourself concisely. Please do so here.
What is your definition of evolution? In the context of this forum.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The example you have provided here is not the example observed in the opening post of this topic.

It is essentially the same method and procedure: Artificially induce an anti-biotic resistant strain (as shown in the OP). The article I presented takes the experiment a step further and prove that this effect is quickly reversible, that is because it is an epigenetic alteration, and not a mutation. Many other labs have confirmed this. Therefore it is not evolution that is being exhibited.

That is most definitely not what the article says or what the video shows. Clearly we are talking about two different experiments here. The video posted at the top of the first page is the topic, maybe you should read the article again. Not once is any reversal of mutations mentioned, it sounds like the adaptation was both heritable and permanent. Changes in allele over time, passed down through generations. In the case of bacteria, it's a little easier to show a small scale demonstration of thousands of years of evolutionary biology. In larger more complex creatures, it takes a lot longer, so it's harder to these kinds of time lapse videos. But it still counts.

a reply to: whereislogic

What Michael Behe says is completely irrelevant.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That is most definitely not what the article says

That's exactly what the article says:

"It has been well-established that various species of bacteria, including E. coli, S. enterica and P. aeruginosa, exhibit resistance when they are exposed to successive steps of increasing concentration of antibiotics . This procedure, repeated several times, very quickly yields populations with high levels of resistance. Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations"

it's not what the video shows

If the antibiotic were removed from the bacteria, it would only take a few generations until their epigenetic markers returned to normal, thus making them vulnerable to antibiotics again. This is what the science tells us.

source

It is not evolution, it is an adaptation mechanism that works by altering the expression of an already-existent genetic code (epigenetics).

a reply to: cooperton

That is what your article shows, and your article as you have already said is talking about artificial modification of the bacteria in question. The bacteria in the study from the OP is adapting on its own, mutating and evolving. Please focus on the content provided by Astyanax, make a new thread if you need to compare the articles for research purposes.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton
your article as you have already said is talking about artificial modification of the bacteria in question. The bacteria in the study from the OP is adapting on its own, mutating and evolving.

No it is adapting to a gradation of antibiotic on an auger plate. That is textbook artificial selection. It is not evolving, because if you were to take that same population that withstood the highest level of antibiotic, and let it be for multiple generations, it would resume back to being non-antibiotic resistant. That is what the research says. This video is out-dated and misleading because it assumes it is evolution, but due process of scientific investigation shows this effect is quickly reversible, and therefore not evolution.

This reversibility is found in all antibiotic resistant strains, they always revert back to non-resistance once the antibiotic stress is removed:

Source 1

This source cites 8 other experiments (Link 1, and 3-9 in the reference section) that found the same result. It is settled observable fact.

a reply to: cooperton

I will only say it one more time: the quote you shared is from a publication that is not what Asyanax posted. Two different studies. The efflux pump study is a separate project examining other factors that affect a biological process not to be described as evolution because the mutations are not heritable.

a reply to: TzarChasm


Both are studying the same phenomenon of antibiotic resistance. It is universally found that antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible in a population, indicating it is not an evolutionary change. But you will battle semantics rather than actual data.