Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (opm), 778 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 12 13
Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years #210483
06/10/08 22:18
06/10/08 22:18
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline OP
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: fastlane69] #210489
06/10/08 23:38
06/10/08 23:38
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.


Who ever claimed it does lead to 'the best possible outcome'? Evolution tends to be adapting to past generation's selection and so on, but it's not some sort of 'conscious process' so much in that always the best options are chosen at all. Also, all this really proves is that it's all about possibilities and that mutations in certain sequences happen to open different evolutionary doors.

I am assuming however that the conditions for all generations and the 12 root-colonies were just about the same, so it does make sense that mutations that are less predictable in nature started to define the outcome at some point making sure there would be a greater variation when compared to the other 'branches' of the 12 root-colonies they started out with.

In other words chance inevitably had more influence on the entire outcome, than say normal selection through more selective conditions. I'm still convinced that having more or less the same conditions will result in more or less the same evolution, however the conditions need to be pretty selective for it to have a greater impact than mere 'mutational chance (&change)'.


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: PHeMoX] #231702
10/16/08 12:47
10/16/08 12:47
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
D
delerna Offline
Junior Member
delerna  Offline
Junior Member
D

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
Evolution:-The process that enables one species to develop from a completely different species. Like dinosaurs into birds

Adaptation:- The process that enables a species to develop new traits. Like white moths into black moths.

What species does the article begin with.....e-coli
What species does the article conclude with..e-coli

This article does not disproove evolution
but neither does it proove it

To claim that this is proof of anything more than
adaptation within a single species
is twisting the evidence to fit your belief

The fact that it took 31,500 generations to get even
that far, in a relatively simple organaism,
just increases the doubts that I have for
evolution being reality

Last edited by delerna; 10/16/08 12:57.
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: delerna] #231713
10/16/08 14:17
10/16/08 14:17
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Originally Posted By: delerna
What species does the article begin with.....e-coli
What species does the article conclude with..e-coli
[...]
To claim that this is proof of anything more than
adaptation within a single species[...]

Quote:
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species.

You are mixing up words with phenomenas, aren't you?

(This doesn't mean that I think that this is a prove of evolution. I'm not sure whether a theory needs a prove, its task is to give a simplified model of reality, not a copy of reality, which helps to organize and sort scientific observations, and helps actions of the society and gives predictable results within certain constrains. And therefor evolution does a great job.)

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: delerna] #231778
10/16/08 21:44
10/16/08 21:44
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,247
Deutsch Niedersachsen
Puppeteer Offline
Expert
Puppeteer  Offline
Expert

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,247
Deutsch Niedersachsen
Originally Posted By: delerna

The fact that it took 31,500 generations to get even
that far, in a relatively simple organaism,
just increases the doubts that I have for
evolution being reality

What do you think?
That everything can change completely in a few days?
Evolution is as far as i know/think nothing really "planned" it occurs when copying genetic material. since cells do not use a 100% save system there are always some rare mistakes which lead in an even more unlikely case to a better version of the cell or maybe at first to an even worse version which maybe gets better with a few other mutations.
Well this is what we simulate in GA's but in reality it is a lot slower because in addition we have external factors because one good cell may die in coincidence and the other way round. So it will take really long for one change in one cell to "spread" in the population.

So it is all very likely that most of the good evolutionary developments died but it is a little more likely that the bad developments die.
so over a huge time period and many "tries" you will get a better population.
it is just like the stuff we made in maths some years ago. if you roll a dice around 10 times it seems as if it is not like all sides of it have the same chance to be the upper side but after a huge number of tries you will see that the chances get more and more stable and that's just how it is with evolution. you may get fast to your wanted result or maybe not. but all in all it is a straight continuing process.


Formally known as Omega
Avatar randomness by Quadraxas & Blade
http://omegapuppeteer.mybrute.com
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: Puppeteer] #231813
10/17/08 03:08
10/17/08 03:08
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Really not much math needed. When you have 31000 generations of bacteria adapting to a new diet, you are not seeing much change. Certainly no where needed, if you consider the gestation periods of larger animals, like the dinosaurs, and the massive changes which allegedly occurred...I actually just think it is humorous.

Let me rephrase things. If you have gestation periods similar to dinosaurs, take an elephants' for example, 22 months. Then you have 31000 generations(of course with no lab controlled environment)31000*22=682000; 682000/12 months=56,833 years to make a change in diet?To change the assimilation of 1 protein(if thats indeed what is being alleged) Oh thats right, what am I thinking?, there is_no_rate_of_evolution anywhere...why? Because there is no evolution. If you had evolution, you would have a rate of change because evolution = change. You also might need to know what proteins would have needed to be changed,which this article gives no indication.

Also the 20 year period (which you titled the thread)seems suspect,healthy e-coli can divide every 30 minutes. Something tells me that there are a lot of conditions and generations which were omitted.Just basic calculating 30 * 31000=930000; 930000/60 min = 15500; 15500/24hrs=645 645/365 days=1.7 years. Thinking about the reproduction rates of ecoli brings the conclusions of these massive massive numbers of them if conditions were optimal. Of course most of them die quickly or the whole earth would be quickly blanketed by them with 24 hours.

Nothing about this rate and these numbers seem plausible to me, so my guess is there is some sort of screw up with these experiments. they probably have some strange hybrid in their population, there are a lot of strange and undiscovered bacteria, and there is a lot about ecoli dna codes we dont know, they might have had the ability to digest this stuff inherent in thier existing genome.

A strange hybrid is the most likely possibility. Bacteria are everywhere. The likelyhood of some other species creeping into the line in a 20 year period is extremely high. Scientists cannot even identify some bacteria because others come in and take over before they can make a distinction. That happens all the time when dealing with extremophiles.

Some of these morons are getting funded so they have to show SOME results to keep their money coming in, so they have to show some results even faulty results to keep their meal ticket.

Also this citrate metabolism is not a beneficial mutation, so its not evolution at all, its de-volution.

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: NITRO777] #231821
10/17/08 06:28
10/17/08 06:28
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Quote:
Also this citrate metabolism is not a beneficial mutation, so its not evolution at all, its de-volution.


What drives you here? wink Did they gain this ability by loosing some gens?

Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: Puppeteer] #231826
10/17/08 07:09
10/17/08 07:09
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
D
delerna Offline
Junior Member
delerna  Offline
Junior Member
D

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
Quote:

What do you think?
That everything can change completely in a few days?

No, I never hinted at anything of the sort. You are putting words into my post that simply are not there.
What I did say is that I doubt that evolution (one species evolving into another entirely different species)
is possible in an infinite number of generations.

In the context of the article
I suspect that every new generation of e-coli will will always be recognizable as e-coli.
I suspect that it will never become something that is not e-coli

My point with the number of generations is that thats a lot of generations to get that far and its still easily recognised as e-coli. So to get to a new bacteria is some number that i would not be able to write down (presuming it would ever happen). If thats what it takes for a relatively simple organism then how many more would it take for a dinosaur to become a bird.
Actually, all I am really saying is that to state that the article shows proof of evolution
is to stretch the evidence to fit your belief.
It happens this way with all "supposed" evidence for evolution that I have seen.

For example Pine cones have spirals that radiate in the same direction as snail shells.
Is this evidence that snails may have evolved from pine cones? It is if you follow the logic
of many evolutionary "proofs"!

I really don't know whether evolution is truth or not but I am not convinced by
"proofs" such as these. I am conviced that species adapt to their environment.


Quote:


You are mixing up words with phenomenas, aren't you?



Am I? In what way?
Is that not the definition of evolution and adaptation
in the context of living organisms?

A moth adapts to its evironment and gradually changes from white to black
but it is still the same species of moth. That is what I classify as adaptation.
Over time dinosaurs scales become feathers and its arms become wings and
its bones become less dense and eventually it is no longer a dinosaur but a bird.
That is what I classify as evolution.
Am I on the wrong track here?
I always thought that that is what the THEORY of evolution was all about.

I differ here in believing that adaptation and evolution are not the same thing.

Quote:


I'm not sure whether a theory needs a prove, its task is to give a simplified model of reality, not a copy of reality, which helps to organize and sort scientific observations, and helps actions of the society and gives predictable results within certain constrains. And therefor evolution does a great job.)


Sure, it certainly does that but If I said to you that creation is a THEORY would you apply that same rule?
I think the theory of creation also has many, valid "Scientifically" observable evidences in its favor, that it helps the actions of society and gives predictable results within certain constraints.

Here is just one "Scientifically" observable evidence
If archaeologists can pick up a stone and say, see the way its been chipped and worked to form this nice edge, designed as a cutting tool by ancient man. If they can conclude that the rocks shape shows evidence of design and therefore there must be a maker.
How can they then turn around and mock creationists for expressing that very same principle. That principle is either valid, or, it is not valid.
I see exquisite design in everything, all around me. I am forced to conclude that there IS a maker for what I believe to be a far stronger reason than the archeologist had.
If evidence of design prooves the rocks shape had a maker then the infinitely superior evidence of design in the universe and everything it it also prooves a maker.


How can anyone say that the THEORY of evolution dosn't need absolute proof to be believable and
then mock and insult the intelligence of a creationist for not needing absolute proof for believing in the principle of design necessitates a designer and a maker? Why dosn't the principle of "Seeing is believing" apply to evolution also?

Sorry not actually directing the "mock and insult" bit at you, it's more a general statement of observation.
Not that it worries me either, I see things the way I do and for the reasons that I have and if anyone thinks I am stupid for it then good.
I just see that many evolutionists will believe anything that a scientist tells them and not apply the same critical thinking that they encourage creationists to do.


Last edited by delerna; 10/17/08 09:50.
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: NITRO777] #231856
10/17/08 11:32
10/17/08 11:32
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Originally Posted By: TriNitroToluene
Oh thats right, what am I thinking?, there is_no_rate_of_evolution anywhere...why? Because there is no evolution. If you had evolution, you would have a rate of change because evolution = change. You also might need to know what proteins would have needed to be changed,which this article gives no indication.


That's just plain old circular reasoning. I agree with you on the protein thing, but obviously this whole thing came about a bit unexpected.

Quote:
Nothing about this rate and these numbers seem plausible to me, so my guess is there is some sort of screw up with these experiments. they probably have some strange hybrid in their population, there are a lot of strange and undiscovered bacteria,


The rate at which evolution takes place isn't constant. It makes perfect sense that a large being like a dinosaur takes a couple of million years to change 'into' a new species, just like it makes sense that a couple of 'cells' in a lab only take a few years adapting to their environment. Apparently there must have been conditions that forced a change.

Quote:
there is a lot about ecoli dna codes we dont know, they might have had the ability to digest this stuff inherent in thier existing genome.


As far as I know they did extensive research on this. I doubt they knew exactly what had to change to cause a certain feature to become 'active' though, so it wouldn't really matter that much.

Quote:
A strange hybrid is the most likely possibility. Bacteria are everywhere. The likelyhood of some other species creeping into the line in a 20 year period is extremely high. Scientists cannot even identify some bacteria because others come in and take over before they can make a distinction. That happens all the time when dealing with extremophiles.


Which actually says more about evolution happening around us than you'd think. A lot of researchers think the extremophiles are the key to figuring out what happened in some of the earliest moments of the evolution of life.

Quote:
Some of these morons are getting funded so they have to show SOME results to keep their money coming in, so they have to show some results even faulty results to keep their meal ticket.


Good point, but in this case I don't think results were distorted.

Quote:
Also this citrate metabolism is not a beneficial mutation, so its not evolution at all, its de-volution.


A change is a change... the overall outcome is evolution. It doesn't have to be beneficial for it to be part of evolution,

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Bacteria evolve in lab over 20 years [Re: PHeMoX] #231970
10/18/08 14:07
10/18/08 14:07
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Well please forgive me because the last post here came from a very jumbled mind late at night, school has been making me insane lately so I apologize if some things were not making sense, I realize that there was not much organization in there.

Quote:
That's just plain old circular reasoning. I agree with you on the protein thing, but obviously this whole thing came about a bit unexpected
Right, I think I just phrased it wrong, my mind was just jumping around. There would be no change rate if we had no idea which proteins had changed, I can understand how you might call that circular reasoning.

The scientists in this article are trying very hard to find out what happened in the 20000th generation. Right now it is still experimental. Saying this is 'evolution before our very eyes' is a bait and switch tactic from the media.

Quote:
The rate at which evolution takes place isn't constant. It makes perfect sense that a large being like a dinosaur takes a couple of million years to change 'into' a new species, just like it makes sense that a couple of 'cells' in a lab only take a few years adapting to their environment. Apparently there must have been conditions that forced a change.

I know that the rate isnt constant between species, but to date, and I have looked extensively and queried extensively, I have never found any kind of reliable rate of macroevolution. Not just an overall rate of all species, but not a rate for any species.

Why is that significant? Because evolution(at least Darwinist evolution) supposedly occurs as a result of the change of resources which occur as a result of the environment changes. So the cause is constant, but the alleged effect is random. Which doesn't make any sense to me.

Quote:
A change is a change... the overall outcome is evolution. It doesn't have to be beneficial for it to be part of evolution,
No? So maybe you will place a pregnant woman 5 hrs a day under a radiation machine and see what kind of evolution happens when she has the child? eek

Evolution has to cause a change in a species which will cause it to become more suited for its environment. It has to cause a better chance of survival of the soecies and it's offspring. I dont think that this adaptation in ecoli could be catagorized as a beneficial mutation, but maybe Im misunderstanding something.

Quote:
What drives you here? Did they gain this ability by loosing some gens?
No, I just doubt that the gained ability to metabolize citrate is going to help the species survive. And I dont know how they gained the ability. But there really is too much left out of the article to form a healthy hypothesis.

Also according to the article, they_dont_know what happened. The citrate-processing ability may be due to the activation of a latent function. Thats why I posed so many alternatives. You should always look at alternative solutions and possibilities when you dont know something specifically.

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 12 13

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1