Watch Evolution in Action

a reply to: edmc^2

In the case of the E.Coli - they adapted to their environment so that they can consume the nutrients around them then flourish until the wall it hit again.

They did not adapt.
A few of them carried a mutation which made them immune to the antibiotic. They survived to reproduce. The others did not, they died. There was no adapting.

If you move to a very high place, you will have trouble there because of the low oxygen levels. Gradually your body will adapt, it will start to produce more red blood cells. That is not a mutation. That is adaptation.

The bacteria, the ones that are not immune, do not adapt. They don't get used to the poison, they die. The ones that survive do so because they are mutants, different from the great majority of the population. And that genetic difference is passed on to their descendants. Their descendants also do not die. Quite soon, guess which ones remain?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

In the case of the E.Coli - they adapted to their environment so that they can consume the nutrients around them then flourish until the wall it hit again.

They did not adapt.
A few of them carried a mutation which made them immune to the antibiotic. They survived to reproduce. The others did not, they died.

"They survived to reproduce" - reproduce what?

A new strain of E.Coli bacteria! Point is, the genetic wall can't be breach. The bacteria will remain a bacteria after thousands of adaptation or as you say "mutation".

Bombard this new strain with a new mix of antibiotic, the story remains the same. They will adapt, then overwhelm the system, until the threat is gone. It's what nature does best, adapt even after a thousand dies in order to overwhelm the system!

This is an old story repeated thousands of time:

Here's another version of the OP's article.

In a creative stroke inspired by Hollywood wizardry, scientists from Harvard Medical School and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology have designed a simple way to observe how bacteria move as they become impervious to drugs.

The experiments, described in the Sept. 9 issue of Science, are thought to provide the first large-scale glimpse of the maneuvers of bacteria as they encounter increasingly higher doses of antibiotics and adapt to survive -- and thrive -- in them. To do so, the team constructed a 2-by-4-foot petri dish and filled it with 14 liters of agar, a seaweed-derived jellylike substance commonly used in labs to nourish organisms as they grow. To observe how the bacterium Escherichia coli adapts to increasingly higher doses of antibiotics, researchers divided the dish into sections and saturated them with various doses of medication. The outermost rims of the dish were free of any drug. The next section contained a small amount of antibiotic -- just above the minimum needed to kill the bacteria -- and each subsequent section represented a 10-fold increase in dose, with the center of the dish containing 1,000 times as much antibiotic as the area with the lowest dose.
...
Bacteria on the move

Beyond providing a telegenic way to show evolution, the device yielded some key insights about the behavior of bacteria exposed to increasing doses of a drug. Some of them are:

Bacteria spread until they reached a concentration (antibiotic dose) in which they could no longer grow.
At each concentration level, a small group of bacteria adapted and survived. Resistance occurred through the successive accumulation of genetic changes. As drug-resistant mutants arose, their descendants migrated to areas of higher antibiotic concentration. Multiple lineages of mutants competed for the same space. The winning strains progressed to the area with the higher drug dose, until they reached a drug concentration at which they could not survive.

"We know quite a bit about the internal defense mechanisms bacteria use to evade antibiotics but we don't really know much about their physical movements across space as they adapt to survive in different environments," said study first author Michael Baym, a research fellow in systems biology at HMS.

www.sciencedaily.com...

a reply to: edmc^2

"They survived to reproduce" - reproduce what?

Based on your understanding of biology (it's a pretty basic term), there is no point in continuing this discussion.

It's funny watching the "goddidit" crowd crying over what evolution is and/or isn't.

Most of the time they actually prove a case AGAINST themselves. "Evolution is about stuff changing. That something changed, but it's not evolution!"

You just can't make this comedy up lol.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

"They survived to reproduce" - reproduce what?

Based on your understanding of biology (it's a pretty basic term), there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Same thought here - it's "pretty basic" cuz the info presented in the OP is pretty basic.

If I have the means, I'd go in there and do a study at the molecular level in order to fully understand how these buggers are adapting or "mutating". Find out which allele was changing and how it's changing to fit / adapt to its new enviro.

ciao

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Some questions for you to answer:

(1) What qualifications in science do you hold again? Specifically do you have any experience in genomics (or at least one of the Bioiformatics sub disiplines), Biochemistry, genetics, or Microbilogy?

Am I being tried by the priesthood?

Swap "(the) Scriptures" for "science" (or "evolution" or "evolutionary theory") in the video below and you've got that attitude spot on (starting at 0:51):

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

"They survived to reproduce" - reproduce what?

Based on your understanding of biology (it's a pretty basic term), there is no point in continuing this discussion.

And how quickly you don't want to talk about your statement "They did not adapt." anymore.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

You are hopeless. I already new that but you again showed it.

You asked (quite smugly) what gene mutation accounted for the development of resistance. I gave it to you. You say, "Yeah, but that's not a mutation."

Cool position, now you can say "there is no such thing as mutation because if it's there its not a mutation because god put it there on purpose." Your little circle is so complete.

Phage you are a logical man and I am surprised you keep stacking up strawmen to burn them down. I never said there's no such thing as mutations, I am saying that mutations could not have lead to the diversity of life from a single celled organism to the variety of life we see today (evolution). To think adaptation mechanisms created the diversity of species is an assumption. I am sure you are well aware that assumptions are frowned upon in science?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

You are hopeless. I already new that but you again showed it.

You asked (quite smugly) what gene mutation accounted for the development of resistance. I gave it to you. You say, "Yeah, but that's not a mutation."

Cool position, now you can say "there is no such thing as mutation because if it's there its not a mutation because god put it there on purpose." Your little circle is so complete.

Phage you are a logical man and I am surprised you keep stacking up strawmen to burn them down. I never said there's no such thing as mutations, I am saying that mutations could not have lead to the diversity of life from a single celled organism to the variety of life we see today (evolution). To think adaptation mechanisms created the diversity of species is an assumption. I am sure you are well aware that assumptions are frowned upon in science?

Again if the video in the op is not demonstrating Evolution then what is it demonstrating according to you? Please give us your assumption free break down.

originally posted by: cooperton
Xenogears, I genuinely want to thank you for actually coming up with a response - as you see your cohorts have resorted to building and burning strawmen, arguing semantics, and the like.

originally posted by: Xenogears

A simple protein with some degree of function can along with others through optimization develop dependence.

A possible explanation, although it is unlikely. When the protein cannot fold properly without the ancillary chaperone proteins, this means it is effectively useless with the supporting genes. Chaperones themselves are also very complex, most having more than 1 protein involved. An incomplete chaperone protein would mean inconsistent and improper folding of the protein.

The predecesor structure were different than the currently existing structures and able to function independently which have adapted to depend on each other so as to be more optimal, and can no longer function independently.

Another good thought, but our theoretical predecessor ancestors - the single-celled organisms - all have these elaborate ancillary mechanisms; even the prokaryotes! Chaperones in prokaryotes

These proteins, if not folded correctly, would have a completely different function. Protein folding is not the only post-translational (after the protein production step) necessity of these genes and proteins. There are many on/off switches which react through negative/positive feedback mechanisms depending on the concentration of the given protein - this ensures a perfect equilibrial production of the particular protein; not too little, not too much. Chaperones and feedback loops are two of the many, MANY mechanisms involved in aiding the expression of a particular gene. These mechanisms are present in the most rudimentary organisms such as prokaryotes

RNA by itself is able to have catalytic functions and protein like functions, it is at the core of the ribozome. Some suspect prior to the development of dna and protein it was an rna only world. I'm fond of the rna world hypothesis, although an even simpler predecessor could have been the case.

In any case as I stated the connectivity of relations in terms of levels genetic resemblance between the web of species forms one of the strongest evidence for common ancestry. There is no reason for that to be there, it is as much evidence as fossils are evidence for ancient life forms. Again outside of a devil put them there there is no valid argument against this evidence.

A new strain of E.Coli bacteria! Point is, the genetic wall can't be breach. The bacteria will remain a bacteria after thousands of adaptation or as you say "mutation".

cells fuse with one another in the human body. There's been evidence of cells merging in nature. In the labs chimeric cells fusions of multiple species can at times be viable. The idea of Eukaryotes is that it was the result of one cell assimilating another type of cell, iirc.

originally posted by: Xenogears

A new strain of E.Coli bacteria! Point is, the genetic wall can't be breach. The bacteria will remain a bacteria after thousands of adaptation or as you say "mutation".

cells fuse with one another in the human body. There's been evidence of cells merging in nature. In the labs chimeric cells fusions of multiple species can at times be viable. The idea of Eukaryotes is that it was the result of one cell assimilating another type of cell, iirc.

Still, the wall can't be breach! It's a genetic boundary that can't be overcome. One Celled organism will remain a one-celled organism even after assimilation. They or it retains its identity no matter how many adaptation, assimilation or "mutation" it went through. And often times the result is chimeric in nature and less (sub-par) than what it used to be.

Point is - whatever changes made, the change remain in that boundary and eventually die off at an early age. Otherwise, the world will be full of Chimera.

a reply to: edmc^2

What is this wall and how do we study it?

originally posted by: Xenogears

A new strain of E.Coli bacteria! Point is, the genetic wall can't be breach. The bacteria will remain a bacteria after thousands of adaptation or as you say "mutation".

The idea of Eukaryotes is that it was the result of one cell assimilating another type of cell, iirc.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

* No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Source: The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking
Please no red herrings about whether or not I'm allowed to post something out of a brochure about "The Origin of Life" when it directly relates to something you said. I bolded my main and only point. Nuff said for me. I've even heard someone once use the phrase "put up or shut up" on ATS, but that sounds a bit rude to me. But everyone is welcome to share logical experimental evidence for this myth (directly related to the myth, not something else that looks a bit like it that then can be twisted to claim or implied as evidence; such as the things you mentioned before the sentence I quoted from you).

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah but the problem is the mutation never, ever, ever mutates into something better, it ALWAYS de-evolves, no new information is EVER added into a virus mutation

Not true. Take a look at this:



Here we have bacteria developing greater resistance to antibiotics. That's a beneficial mutation.

Also makes Darwinism look redundant, evolution by mutation, not natural selection as supposed

Mutation and natural selection are both mechanics of evolution.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Xenogears

A new strain of E.Coli bacteria! Point is, the genetic wall can't be breach. The bacteria will remain a bacteria after thousands of adaptation or as you say "mutation".

The idea of Eukaryotes is that it was the result of one cell assimilating another type of cell, iirc.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

* No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Source: The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking
Please no red herrings about whether or not I'm allowed to post something out of a brochure about "The Origin of Life" when it directly relates to something you said. I bolded my main and only point. Nuff said for me. I've even heard someone once use the phrase "put up or shut up" on ATS, but that sounds a bit rude to me. But everyone is welcome to share logical experimental evidence for this myth (directly related to the myth, not something else that looks a bit like it that then can be twisted to claim or implied as evidence; such as the things you mentioned before the sentence I quoted from you).

Why are you pulling information on modern evolutionary synthesis from a Jehovah's Witness website? Is that really the best source you have? Regrettably I was not able to download the PDF as I am on a mobile device but perhaps you would be kind enough to post the relevant selection along with reference.

a reply to: cooperton

You really are trying very hard to appear knowledgeable in this area. You throw in a few buzz words, but have no actual understanding of what you are cutting and pasting. This is amply evidenced by you relying on creationist sites to find things that appear to contradict evolution. You can only cut and past videos, you can't speak to the topic. You never read the papers people fire back at you.

Oh and no one needs to insult something, you have yet to demonstrate, mimicking a sound does not make you speak the language Now I've got an HPLC which needs some attention...

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: edmc^2

What is this wall and how do we study it?

It's the barrier that separates species from other species - encoded in the genome.

It's huge endeavor since there are trillions of cell. Think of the Genome Project.

a reply to: whereislogic

No neighbor he was being asked why we should take him seriously. He's shown rather large gaps in understanding, and relies on cut and paste, rather than speaking to something. When asked a direct question, he ignores and avoids. Pages later it is either "oh are you still on about that" or "he answered it".

Again there appears to be a cabal of creationists on ATS who wish to appear as if they know their arse from their elbows when it comes to science. Yet they spend all day sitting on their elbows

a reply to: edmc^2

But we have examples of species which seem to be related. We can test DNA from different species for this just as we can do paternity tests on people. Some species thought to share common ancestry based on DNA tests include humans and chimps, dogs and wolves, donkeys and horses etc...

Who determined that this wall can't be breached and how did they come to that conclusion? To find a law of nature and state it has no known exceptions is quite remarkable. Saying there are not only no known exceptions, but not even any possible exceptions is beyond incredible. Surly such a claim must have some very compelling facts to back it up; pleas present them.