Forums | MacLife

'[Tycho? wrote:

All done in a lab, all recorded, all reproducible.

I would be hesitant to say it was exactly reproducible, but the general idea probably is reproducible.

mo' ron wrote:

'[Tycho? wrote:

]All done in a lab, all recorded, all reproducible.

I would be hesitant to say it was exactly reproducible, but the general idea probably is reproducible.

They can replay it though. If they go back a few generations before the trait came out, they observe the same trait evolving. If they go back too far though, then the trait no longer evolves. Which shows that some random event(s) allowed for this to happen. Of course the random events cannot be reproduced (at least until they figure out what the actual mutations were).

But its reproducible in that it allows the researchers to point to different colonies of bacteria and say "these ones will evolve the ability to digest citrate, and these one's wont". They can then perform the experiment to see if they're right.

Once they figure out the mutations and where they occurred, they'd be able to examine the question statistically. They could find the first mutation in the sequence that leads to this new trait. Then they take bacteria from one of a few generations before that mutation occurred (they know it to be around generation 20 000). Then grow those bacteria, and see which percentage mutates in a similar way. Its going to be virtually impossible to reproduce it exactly, since the whole thing depends on countless random events, but they could go back and understand exactly each individual event, which is pretty darn good.

Its only micro-evolution !  Talk to me when they can evolve a fish out of a dog.  Until then, Ben Stein is right !

Metacell wrote:

Whatever happened to that movie? It just seemed to drop off the edge of the earth, you know where that monstrous waterfall pours the oceans into the ether?

The MSM and the liberal god-hating conspiracy kept people from hearing about the movie !  They're afraid of the truth !

Don't worry about Jake. They took his temperature, he's normal.

I agree - they need something to chase the catfish.

While this discovery is fascinating, it is nothing that YEC do not already concede takes place.
I believe these kind of mutations have already been documented.

Have they analyzed the mutation that occurred and how it differs from the original?

Metacell wrote:

Whatever happened to that movie? It just seemed to drop off the edge of the earth, you know where that monstrous waterfall pours the oceans into the ether?

It did rather poorly opening week. The producers were actually suggesting on their website that churches rent theaters themselves to show it in. They're also still being sued by Yoko Ono and others for using media without securing the rights, so they can't even sell DVDs yet.

The thing that this experiment should put to rest is the idea of irreducible complexity which is one of the creationist arguments. As I understand it: the metabolizing of citrate required 3 separate genetic changes, each of which did little good for E. coli and even any pair of which would not improve the ability of E. coli to metabolize citrate. Supporters of irreducible complexity have often said that they find the idea that two non-beneficial changes which could lead to a beneficial aspect to be unlikely, but here we have three such changes happening over only 20 years ("only" because this may be a long time for a human but a short time in the overall history of the earth).

The experiment is also supportive of the idea of punctuated equilibrium. The precursor versions of E. coli which had only 1 or 2 of the 3 genetic changes would be quickly overwhelmed by their citrate-eating relatives, thus hiding those transitional phases in a short time.

Creationist arguments aren't based on an honest understanding of the science involved, anyway.

And res obliges....

An "evolutionist"?

Are you referring to this biologist?

wiki wrote:

George Ledyard Stebbins, Jr. (January 6, 1906 – January 19, 2000)

You see, you are obliging by paraphrasing a quote by a dead scientist that is probably out of context and likely has nothing to do with the substance of the study under discussion.

resedit wrote:

....stated that evolution has not occurred unless conditions reverting to the former stated forced to population to adapt to the old conditions in a new way rather than revert to the old way.

If that hasn't happened, then according to at least one well known evolutionist, evolution did not take place.

Unless you can quote otherwise I think it's pretty clear that he's speaking about any specific population. Not "if this population reverts than there's no such thing as evolution" as you seem to want to imply.

Like user said....