Evolution in action

[Mallon]

You put A LOT of words into my mouth. I refuse to reply.

What words did I put in your mouth, juvie?

 

[juvenissun]

What words did I put in your mouth, juvie?

The first sentence:

The only assertion that you make is that beneficial mutations are rare.

. I did not say that. I just quote the words in the abst.

And ...

Sigh!

 

[Mallon]

The first sentence: . I did not say that. I just quote the words in the abst.

So when you said "It is very rare..." as you did in post #6, what did you mean by "it"? And how does your reply in that post address my question to you about why you think controlled experiments are useless for learning about the world around us? You've made all these bold claims in reaction to the news I first posted, juvie, but when pressed to provide support for them, you appear incapable of stringing together coherent thoughts (which is why I asked earlier whether English is your mother tongue).

 

[juvenissun]

So when you said "It is very rare..." as you did in post #6, what did you mean by "it"? And how does your reply in that post address my question to you about why you think controlled experiments are useless for learning about the world around us? You've made all these bold claims in reaction to the news I first posted, juvie, but when pressed to provide support for them, you appear incapable of stringing together coherent thoughts (which is why I asked earlier whether English is your mother tongue).

What "bold claims" did I make? In post #6, the second question is all my points were. Your answer to that was: it (the experimental result) does not have to happen in real life. Well, that should be the end of the argument.

 

[Mallon]

What "bold claims" did I make?

You implied controlled experiments are of no use in helping us to understand the world in which we live, since we can use them to "make anything happen" (post #27).

Your answer to that was: it (the experimental result) does not have to happen in real life.

I never said the experimental result need not be representative of real life. I said the controlled experimental conditions need not be met simultaneously in nature (now who's putting words into peoples' mouths? ). That's how controlled experiments work. And they are entirely useful in helping us to understand both evolution and the world around us.

Moving on... do the neocreationists here see the evolution of citrate-eating as a beneficial mutation? What if glucose were no longer available?

 

[juvenissun]

You implied controlled experiments are of no use in helping us to understand the world in which we live, since we can use them to "make anything happen" (post #27).

I did not say that. Instead, I meant "evolution" which is implied in the OP.

I never said the experimental result need not be representative of real life. I said the controlled experimental conditions need not be met simultaneously in nature (now who's putting words into peoples' mouths? ).

I did not try to say anything for you. I reasoned by following your logic: If the controlled conditions could not be met in nature, of course the result of the experiment will not happen in nature.

Now you say: "need not" ... "simultaneously"... How could you say that? That is NOT the content of the experiment.

 

[Mallon]

I did not say that. Instead, I meant "evolution" which is implied in the OP.

Please elaborate. Why are controlled experiments then useful for understanding everything but evolution? Why do you think is evolution the exception? Please explain yourself.

If the controlled conditions could not be met in nature, of course the result of the experiment will not happen in nature.

This is a rediculous statement, and I've spent a good part of this thread trying to make you realize that. If controlled conditions were consistently realized in natural environments, there would be no need for laboratories!
The reason we do controlled experiments -- something you've been reluctant to point out yourself -- is to eliminate alternate explanations of experimental results. In the case of the experiment in question, the conditions were controlled so that the contingent evolution of the E. coli strains could be traced with respect to phylogeny (rather than changing environmental conditions). As the reseachers put it in your PNAS paper:

These populations were initially
identical except for a neutral marker that distinguished six lines
from six others. They have since been propagated by daily 1:100
serial transfer in DM25, a minimal medium containing 25
mg/liter glucose as the limiting resource (2, 22). Environmental
conditions have been controlled, constant, and identical for all
12 lines. To date, each population has evolved for​

​

44,000
generations, and samples have been frozen every 500 generations,
providing a rich ‘‘fossil record’’ (23). Moreover, these
samples remain viable, allowing us to perform simultaneous
measurements and other experiments with bacteria from different
generations. The founding strain is strictly asexual, and thus
populations have evolved by natural selection and genetic drift
acting on variation generated solely by spontaneous mutations
that occurred during the experiment. Thus, the LTEE allows us
to examine the effects of contingency that are inherent to the
core evolutionary processes of mutation, selection, and drift.​

This controlled experiment is entirely useful in helping us to understand how evolution works. And if you think otherwise, the onus is on you to explain why the opposite it true. Just saying you're right doesn't make you right.​

Now you say: "need not" ... "simultaneously"... How could you say that?

I used those same words back when I first replied to you (post #7).

That is NOT the content of the experiment.

Your posts thus far make me think you haven't even read the paper detailing the experiment. So please don't criticize the content of the experiment until you've read the paper. If you would like to read about and understand that which you seem so adamantly against, let me know and I'll get you a pdf.

 

[juvenissun]

Please elaborate. Why are controlled experiments then useful for understanding everything but evolution? Why do you think is evolution the exception? Please explain yourself.

I found (again and again) that it is hard to communicate with you. May be I am speaking foreign language.

Why would you read this short sentence (and simply substitution) in a 180 degree opposite way?

This is it. I quit.

Originally Posted by Mallon
You implied controlled experiments are of no use in helping us to understand the world in which we live, since we can use them to "make anything happen" (post #27).

I did not say that. Instead, I meant "evolution" which is implied in the OP.

 

[Mallon]

May be I am speaking foreign language.

That's what I've been trying to ask you. Maybe your inability to better communicate your thoughts is due to the fact that English is not your first language. There's no shame in admitting it, juvie.

 

[Mick116]

If controlled conditions were consistently realized in natural environments, there would be no need for laboratories!

Perhaps natural environments are controlled... with God in control, and we the result of the divine "experiement"?