Watch Evolution in Action

When about 50% of Europe's population was killed by the black plague, did the surviving population "evolve"? No. They simply had a pre-existing resilience to this disease and these survivors passed on this genetic combination to their offspring. This is not evolution this is adaptation and it happens all the time.

The difference between adaptation and evolution is that adaptation implies a pre-existing resilience to a particular stress, whereas evolution implies that a DNA mutation altered protein expression in a favorable way that renders the mutant more fit than the previous generation.

The odds that a DNA mutation could create a new protein that coincidentally makes the mutant resistant to the particular antibiotic is unfathomable - if this did happen then the researchers should be releasing the information regarding this new antibiotic protein, but it comes as no surprise to me that there is no evidence of such a new protein resulting from the alleged evolutionary step in the video, and therefore I cannot believe the jump-to-conclusions article presented in the OP.

a reply to: cooperton

Ehh... Natural selection isn't supposed to cause adaptive mutations. Supposedly, random mutations happen on their own all the time. Natural selection just gets rid of most of the organisms with the 'wrong' mutations.

Let's say you're a farmer wanting to produce big sweet juicy fruit. You simply plant the seeds from the fruits you like best. Then if you see things you don't want growing in your garden (weeds, things with bad fruit etc...) you pull them up. Your produce will keep getting better and better. Or if you're a dog breeder looking to create the world's smallest or biggest dog for a show, you breed your smallest and biggest members of your breeds together (now we have great danes and toy chihuahuas descended from wolves). That's artificial selection, and we know it works.

Natural selection should produces things like camels accidentally when drought creates deserts; not because the camels ancestors were deliberately adapting in response to drought and famine, but because that's what was left around deserts after the others died off.

Would there be camels without deserts? Probably not. Their ancestors would have mixed in with their non desert relatives, and the distinctive camel traits wouldn't have developed.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thanks for your reply. Honest.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: cooperton

Ehh... Natural selection isn't supposed to cause adaptive mutations. Supposedly, random mutations happen on their own all the time. Natural selection just gets rid of most of the organisms with the 'wrong' mutations.

only mutations in the developing zygote from the sperm or egg would be relevant though - somatic cell mutations get fixed or destroyed and usually don't effect the whole organism (unless it becomes carcinogenic).

Let's say you're a farmer wanting to produce big sweet juicy fruit. You simply plant the seeds from the fruits you like best. Then if you see things you don't want growing in your garden (weeds, things with bad fruit etc...) you pull them up. Your produce will keep getting better and better. Or if you're a dog breeder looking to create the world's smallest or biggest dog for a show, you breed your smallest and biggest members of your breeds together (now we have great danes and toy chihuahuas descended from wolves). That's artificial selection, and we know it works.

Allelic drift through selective breeding isn't proof that evolution gave rise to the diversity of life, it only demonstrates the adaptability of populations and organisms to various environmental cues. All the necessary adaptation mechanisms were pre-set in organisms, and these adaptation mechanisms often get confused as "proof of evolution".

Would there be camels without deserts?

Just food for thought - would there be rationality and mathematics without humans?

a reply to: cooperton

All the necessary adaptation mechanisms were pre-set in organisms, and these adaptation mechanisms often get confused as "proof of evolution". 

What adaptation mechanisms? Mutation?

originally posted by: VP740

What adaptation mechanisms? Mutation?

Epigenetics is the main known mechanism for an organism's adaptability. The genome is malleable and changes its expression to account for environmental cues and stresses. Methylation, acetylation, etc, of the genome (epigenetics) allows protein production to be altered, or completely turned off/on. These mechanisms are commonly mistaken for proof of evolution, but these adaptation mechanisms have always been present in organisms.

For example, the South African Bantu tribe was found to be able to produce Vitamin-C within their bodies - apparently this is a gene that can be activated with the proper environmental cues.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you mean the genes of descendants are identical to sections contained in the DNA of their ancestors; and despite different traits being manifested, no cumulative mutations ever occur?

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: cooperton
do you mean to say that despite different traits being manifested, no cumulative mutations ever occur?

Hypothetically, if a new useful protein is produced from a genetic mutation, what happens to the old protein and function that the old gene coded for?

a reply to: cooperton

Various things could happen. If the organism can get by without the old protein, or can adjust to using the new one in its place; then it can just vanish (if it hadn't vanished to some degree before the mutation). If the DNA contains redundant code, the old and new protein may coexist. If it can't get by without the old protein, then the organism will die and the new protein will not be passed down despite its usefulness.

Oh, yea; the organism could receive an important advantage with the new protein, but it dies anyway because it was stepped on by something bigger.

a reply to: cooperton

Stop saying that adaptation is separate from evolution, it's not. Adaption is part of evolution. How can you say epigenetic changes get confused with evolution, when those types of changes in controlling genes that turn off or on during times of tough environmental pressure emerged via evolution (not to mention the genes themselves) in the first place? You can't logically argue against evolution by taking away it's mechanisms and calling them something else.

That's not evolution, that's micro evolution.

That's not evolution, that's epigenetics.

That's not evolution, that's natural selection

That's not evolution, that's adaption.

Same crap, different sewer.

a reply to: Akragon

I've said it before and I will say it again, I've a spiritually driven reason for this. The phrase Y gwir yn erbyn y byd in Cymrich (Welsh) or An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoi in Irish is why Its why I bother, leave me to my fun neighbour

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

I've said it before and I will say it again, I've a spiritually driven reason for this. The phrase Y gwir yn erbyn y byd in Cymrich (Welsh) or An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoi in Irish is why

Its why I bother, leave me to my fun neighbour

huh?

a reply to: Gyo01

Google is your friend Both mean the samething in Cymric and Irish. "The Truth against the world". It hearkens back to the time when the members of the intellectual caste of the pre-Christian Celts, could demand (and tell) the truth, even if it was not popular.

a reply to: cooperton

When about 50% of Europe's population was killed by the black plague, did the surviving population "evolve"? No. They simply had a pre-existing resilience to this disease and these survivors passed on this genetic combination to their offspring.

Yes, the surviving population has evolved resistance to 'black plague'.

Genes mutate. Individuals adapt. Populations evolve.

a reply to: Astyanax

Also its assumed that that strain of black plague also may have mutated to a less lethal version. That happens when it passes through enough hosts. The flu of 1919 is another example of something bloody nasty, which became less nasty, but could mutate into something horrible again (mind you its a RNA virus, and they do that)

necessary adaptation mechanisms were pre-set in organisms, and these adaptation mechanisms often get confused as "proof of evolution".

There's an infinity of ways to implement the same functions in different animals no need to even share the same genetic code. So why is it that we observe the expected differing degrees of genetic similarity when we compare a human to a bonobo, to a mice, to a banana, to a worm?

These organisms could be as far apart from each other genetically as one could imagine, without their function and form being affected. Such evidence is like, video, eyewitness , fingerprint and dna at a murder scene. Sure the video, the witnesses, the fingerprints, the dna could all spontaneously suggest something that is not the case, ala last thursdayism. But reasonable minds realize the direction all the evidence points in.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: VP740

What adaptation mechanisms? Mutation?

Epigenetics is the main known mechanism for an organism's adaptability. The genome is malleable and changes its expression to account for environmental cues and stresses. Methylation, acetylation, etc, of the genome (epigenetics) allows protein production to be altered, or completely turned off/on. These mechanisms are commonly mistaken for proof of evolution, but these adaptation mechanisms have always been present in organisms.

For example, the South African Bantu tribe was found to be able to produce Vitamin-C within their bodies - apparently this is a gene that can be activated with the proper environmental cues.

That must be nonepigenetic change, from what I heard the last step protein was rendered nonfunctional by a mutation, only another mutation could restore function. At least that's the reasonable explanation
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Stop saying that adaptation is separate from evolution, it's not. Adaption is part of evolution.

I can't argue with someone who doesn't know the core tenet of evolution - which is descent with modification. Adaptation occurs within an organisms lifespan and therefore is not a part of evolution. Allelic drift is also not descent with modification because there is no modification, it is simply changing the frequency of genetic combination in a population that is most favorable in the environment.

How can you say epigenetic changes get confused with evolution, when those types of changes in controlling genes that turn off or on during times of tough environmental pressure emerged via evolution

That is an assumption. Research epigenetics you will potentially realize why it is impossible to evolve in a piecewise manner as proposed by theoretical evolutionary mechanisms.

So why is it that we observe the expected differing degrees of genetic similarity when we compare a human to a bonobo, to a mice, to a banana, to a worm?

Of course you would observe similar genetic code in phenotypically similar organisms. The code is intuitively programmed and it would make sense that similar organisms have similar genetics.

a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour, post the citation to show that this is the "core tenet of evolution" please. I would love to know where you are citing this from After all as someone who occasionally delves into bioinformatics, I love to see people quoting these things with out citations. Or perchance you feel we stayed with Darwin, who had no idea what the mechanism of inheritance was?

a reply to: TerryDon79

To think that a bacteria can mutate so quickly and overcome the amount of antibiotic is just a scary thought.

I understand and agree with what you are saying here, but exactly what do you mean by 'so quickly'?

Evolution is timed in 'generations', not minutes or days or years or decades.

That video could be documenting thousands or even hundreds of thousands of generations. I don't call that 'quick' from that point of view.

OTOH, it does show that drug resistance in bacteria can and does happen very quickly in human time frames of thought.

a reply to: Noinden

So, scientists don't believe in descent with modification anymore? Wow! How did I miss that? Can you link me an article explaining why it was abandoned?