Scientists claim to have discovered greatest ever absence of evolution

This is an interesting discovery. A team of scientists lead by UCLA professor J. William Schopf say that have found a type of deep-sea sulfur-cycling microbial biota that seems not to have evolved for more than 2 billion years. Creationists, don't get too excited though, they say this supports Darwin's theory.

But how?

Well they say the environment which these sulfur eating bacteria live in hasn't changed much, if at all, during that entire time. Therefore natural selection did not have to operate. I guess these little guys were free from any mutations as well...



Professor Schoph developed the technique to test these bacteria which he was able to compare from completely different eras. All samples show essentially the same bacteria, unchanged for billions of years.

"Surface environments change all the time and when they change, the biology changes," he said. "But the muds underneath the ocean don't receive any signals from the above environment."

The microbes described in the study live 4 to 12 inches beneath the deep sea sediments, in one of the most stable environments on Earth. Their world is cold and dark -- an endless night that feels none of the effects of either ice ages or warming spells.

"There is no turning of sediments, things don't get stirred up, there is no oxygen at all -- they get no time signal, there is no change," said Schopf.

The microbes reproduce asexually, which keeps genetic changes to a minimum, and their simple ecosystem requires only nitrate and sulfur for energy.

"They are well adapted for their environment, and there isn't any competition," Schopf said.

So with no pressure to change, Schopf proposes that these organisms didn't.

I'd be curious if other bacteria reside in these same muds just 6 inches beneath the surface, and if so, have they gone unchanged in all that time as well...

newsroom.ucla.edu...
www.pnas.org...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

If the environment doesn't change, there is no pressure to sort genetic mutations through natural selection. What is the big surprise here? Considering your baffling display of willful ignorance regarding evolution in the Origins & Creationism I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is a thinly veiled attempt to try and cast doubt on modern evolutionary synthesis in a manner that only serves to reveal your own persistent misunderstanding of the topic.

They were just sleeping for almost two billion years and recently awoke. I bet they were hungry.

a reply to: GetHyped

Could say the same about crocodiles. They have not changed for millions of years.

a reply to: GetHyped

It's too bad that the only place to debate evolution on ATS is in that stupid Origins & Creationism forum. Evolution is neither of those things...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

More proof of Punctuated Equilibrium

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Clearly this claim is incorrect since you posted this thread in the Science and Technology forum.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Huh?

Is this not science? Where else should this have been posted?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes perhaps then this study should show support for PE instead of the more gradualistic idea that Darwin proposed...

a reply to: ispyed

Or any number of creatures that have had no selective pressure to evolve.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Punctuated equilibrium is not at all at odds with evolution. And for the thousandth time, please stop strawmanning by referring to evolution as what Darwin originally proposed. It's been expanded and refined with more and more evidence a hell of a lot over the last 150 years.

Hologram, Simulation, so we definitely have Designers/Creators/Programmers, and we are playing the DVD in our soul orb, to render this shared dimensional universe, akin to all of us buying, or being forced to insert world of warcraft or some game that is a lesson format, into our dvd player, and join the shared realms. That is what I see.

If creatures have a soul they may be there when we're not looking or if someone else, ie cosmic maintenance worker, is not looking, but otherwise pretty sure its an unrendered room until you enter a certain area. I think certain DNA is stored for other places or uses, so not sure it all has to evolve.

a reply to: GetHyped

Punctuated equilibrium is not at all at odds with evolution. And for the thousandth time, please stop strawmanning by referring to evolution as what Darwin originally proposed. It's been expanded and refined with more and more evidence a hell of a lot over the last 150 years.

No sh*t chief. Who said PE was at odds w/ evolution? I certainly didn't. I only made a point that the articles should be referencing it instead of Darwin.

The articles, and even the study itself, if you bothered to read them, made the reference to "Darwinian evolution".

So how about this- why don't you quit your whining, and putting words in my mouth. If the references to Darwin piss you off so much go post your complaints in the comment sections of the articles. See if anyone cares what you have to say there...

From the linked article:

“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

Schopf said the findings therefore provide further scientific proof for Darwin’s work. “It fits perfectly with his ideas,” he said.

Sums it up. Nothing to really see here.

Based on another link I have, it implies even when the environment changes, evolution might be semi "hardcoded". It may be more about survival of the frequent than survival of the fittest:
phys.org - Study demonstrates evolutionary 'fitness' not the most important determinant of success...

I don't know what else to say. I think this is cool, though. I added to my favorites. Evolutiong is an itneresting topic to me, but only as fun as any other quest to understand the meaning of things.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Yes perhaps then this study should show support for PE instead of the more gradualistic idea that Darwin proposed...

The theory of evolution has changed quite a bit -- one could say it's "evolved", nyuk nyuk, I'm here all week, try the veal -- since Darwin's time. 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"?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

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.

There are far better examples to use than debating the nature of single celled organisms. Charles Darwin stated that if any organ could be shown to not be the result of many small progressive changes.... etc etc. This doesn't relate so much to single celled organisms as it does to much of his original inspiration coming from animal breeding.

Consider this. A complex multicellular sexually reproducing organism (birds, mammals, etc) that has a trait that is not shared by the general population, that then breeds back with the general population, will create hybrids, and will see the odd trait "bred out of the line". We see this with White Tigers, which are not actually albinos, but have a trait not shared by the general population, and must be in-bred to continue the trait. This has led to research that has examined the rate of simultaneous mutations in bacterial polyps, which itself is folly because it doesn't relate to hereditary traits in sexually reproducing organisms.

TL;DR Evolution studies should stop looking at single celled organisms and focus on hereditary traits.

EDIT: "trait" not "train"

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Would this not be good evidence to support the theory that any planet with water must have some sort of life? These bacteria live beneath the mud, don't require optimal temperatures or light, and any planet with ice on the surface likeley has some sort of fluid beneath, unless it is so distant from it's parent sun. But still most planets have a hot molten core so there would likeley be a intermediary zone of fluid beneath the surface and between the core.

Bacteria is life, so when I hear people claim that there is no life on other planets I scoff at that remark. Even when I mention the bacteria as life, they still disagree. There is no winning as I cannot prove the theory myself, though nearly everywhere on Earth there is life of some sort, even in the most extreme places.

They say Crocodiles haven't evolved either. It's no surprise. If there is no need to adapt to survive, things won't change. That is what evolution is, Duh!!!

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Would this not be good evidence to support the theory that any planet with water must have some sort of life? These bacteria live beneath the mud, don't require optimal temperatures or light, and any planet with ice on the surface likely has some sort of fluid beneath, unless it is so distant from it's parent sun.

It's impossible to understand that until we understand abiogenesis which we don't. Just because organisms exist in a certain environment, doesn't mean abiogenesis can occur in that environment. It's entirely possible and perhaps likely that abiogenesis occurred in a particular set of circumstances (which we so far have not duplicated), and then once life started there, it dispersed and migrated to and adapted to other environments, some of which might not be conducive to abiogenesis.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for that input and you do make a great point. The point I try to make to others as that until just recently we had no idea if there were planets around other stars (but guessed there were), but now we know there are at least several around nearly every star, the chances for life are limitless. Personally I doubt there are many with abundant life like here on Earth, which may be why "visitors" are so interested. Possibly Interested in what we do to maintain this abundance or desrtoy it.

To imagine widespread nuclear destruction, where nearly all mammals and most reptiles and insects are destroyed over many years, it would be existential to watch how species would re-evolve after a nuclear winter. For this reason, my belief, there will be some intervention before this happens. Possibly timetravlers or inter dimensional, idk. But it does seem to me that this planet would be so important to any advanced civilization that they would not want it destroyed unless they wanted to reinhabit it or just harvest the minerals.

And, no, this planet cant be destroyed in terms of not existing anymore. The surface yes. To imagine the force it would take to "blow the world up" like a death ray, is inplausible. as every mountain and object miles deep would have to be expelled out of our atmosphere.