Evolution in action

[Mallon]

An exciting new study emerged recently in which E. coli bacteria were bred in a controlled environment for 20 years, eventually producing a new strain (species?) capable of eating a completely new compound (citrate).

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

This rise and fall and rise suggests that the evolution of citrate-eating was not a one-mutation affair. The first mutation (or mutations) allowed the bacteria to eat citrate, but they were outcompeted by some glucose-eating mutants that still had the upper hand. Only after they mutated further did their citrate-eating become a recipe for success.

...

Nevertheless, Lenski and his colleagues have witnessed a significant change. And their new paper makes clear that just because the odds of such a significant change are incredibly rare doesn't mean that it can't happen. Natural selection, in fact, ensures that sometimes it does. And, finally, it demonstrates that after twenty years, Lenski's invisible dynasty still has some surprises in store.

There are all kinds of implications this study has for those standard neocreationist counters to evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

But it doesn't add new information...

Note to Self
info on new lemonade recipe

2μg glucose
1μg citric acid
20fl water

It's the un-coli

 

[Molal]

But it's still a bacteria. It's the same kind.

 

[shernren]

Yeah, mallon, it doesn't count!

E. coli 1 looks around nervously.
E. coli 2: Is the coast clear?
E. coli 1: Yup, I don't see any creationists around.
E. coli 2: Good. Do you have the new information?
E. coli 1: Here it is.
E. coli 2 snatches the plasmid away and hides it before any creationists show up ...

 

[Molal]

Yeah, mallon, it doesn't count!

E. coli 1 looks around nervously.
E. coli 2: Is the coast clear?
E. coli 1: Yup, I don't see any creationists around.
E. coli 2: Good. Do you have the new information?
E. coli 1: Here it is.
E. coli 2 snatches the plasmid away and hides it before any creationists show up ...

That's awesome!

 

[juvenissun]

An exciting new study emerged recently in which E. coli bacteria were bred in a controlled environment for 20 years, eventually producing a new strain (species?) capable of eating a completely new compound (citrate).

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

First, it is very rare, even under controlled experiment.

Second, what are the conditions under control? Would these conditions be possibly met (all at once) in natural environment?

 

[Mallon]

First, it is very rare, even under controlled experiment.

Yeah. So?
As the article says, "...just because the odds of such a significant change are incredibly rare doesn't mean that it can't happen. Natural selection, in fact, ensures that sometimes it does."

Second, what are the conditions under control? Would these conditions be possibly met (all at once) in natural environment?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is? Of course these conditions would not be met simultaneously in a natural environment -- that's the whole point of having a controlled experiment.

Some people will say anything to avoid facing the facts.

 

[lemmings]

This experiment has actually proven Intelligent Design and Creationism.

ID says that an intelligent entity (scientist) created a new form of life (citrate eating e. coli) with a logical process (the controlled experiment). Intelligent Design is Creationism so proving Intelligent Design also proves that Creationism is true.

 

[USincognito]

But it took 20 years just to evolve the ability to eat something new. How does that explain the instantaneous appearance of 27 body plans during the Cambrian explosion!!!???

 

[Iefan]

1. We don't have all the evidence we will ever have.
2. The Cambrian Explosion is a theory unto itself.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah. So?
As the article says, "...just because the odds of such a significant change are incredibly rare doesn't mean that it can't happen. Natural selection, in fact, ensures that sometimes it does."


Do you know what a controlled experiment is? Of course these conditions would not be met simultaneously in a natural environment -- that's the whole point of having a controlled experiment.

Some people will say anything to avoid facing the facts.

In a controlled experiment, one could have a dog interbreed with a cat with >90% of chance. How would this result be significant to the theory of evolution, except saying that it won't happen in the natural environment?

 

[Molal]

In a controlled experiment, one could have a dog interbreed with a cat with >90% of chance. How would this result be significant to the theory of evolution, except saying that it won't happen in the natural environment?

Could've, would've should've

 

[Mallon]

In a controlled experiment, one could have a dog interbreed with a cat with >90% of chance. How would this result be significant to the theory of evolution, except saying that it won't happen in the natural environment?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[juvenissun]

Could've, would've should've

The first is a concept in evolution. The rest are not.

 

[Mallon]

The first is a concept in evolution. The rest are not.

The first what is a concept of evolution? The rest what are not?

 

[Molal]

The first is a concept in evolution. The rest are not.

Like Mallon, I'm puzzled. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to portray.

How about clarifying your assertion....

 

[random_guy]

In a controlled experiment, one could have a dog interbreed with a cat with >90% of chance. How would this result be significant to the theory of evolution, except saying that it won't happen in the natural environment?

I, for one, would love to see this experiment happen, seeing how dogs and cats have a common ancestor millions of years back. It would really be a great test for evolution if they could interbreed.

Of course, the important point is you're showing how little you understand science by saying a controlled experiment is a bad thing. Without controlled experiments, we wouldn't understand any physics or chemistry. Are you actually suggesting that the controlled experiments of the particle collision are bad things?

 

[lemmings]

Are you actually suggesting that the controlled experiments of the particle collision are bad things?

Yes! We need to introduce as many variables as we possibly when doing experiments.

 

[juvenissun]

Like Mallon, I'm puzzled. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to portray.

How about clarifying your assertion....

You gave me a puzzle. I simply continued it.
Nobody knows who is talking on what. That is OK.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course, the important point is you're showing how little you understand science by saying a controlled experiment is a bad thing.

Who said that? I did not.