Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - Page 2

Lachean · 06-11-08, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

lol, I'm just reusing the senseless propaganda from the last "Generation X" ID meeting. Seriously, if this is going to be the newest perversion of science brought forth by the "Next Generation" crowd, quite frankly, I'm going to be scared.

the "Evolutionist" vs "Creationist" was bad enough, now we are going to have to deal with this. Not to mention the Exogenesis crowd as well.

You do realize there is no such thing as an evolutionist or a darwinist right? Just as there are no such things as newtonianists, einsteinists or gravityists. There are simply people who accept science, and creationists.

Creation being a failed hypothesis.

Resplendent Independent · 06-11-08, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

You do realize there is no such thing as an evolutionist or a darwinist right? Just as there are no such things as newtonianists, einsteinists or gravityists. There are simply people who accept science, and creationists.

Creation being a failed hypothesis.

Bwahahahahahaha. Nice.

BillyBob · 06-11-08, 12:32 PM

Big deal, it's still a bacteria. Now, if it had turned into a dog, that would be impressive. Too bad there is no evidence of goo to you evolution. Silly Darwinists and their false religion.

BillyBob · 06-11-08, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

You do realize there is no such thing as an evolutionist or a darwinist right? Just as there are no such things as newtonianists, einsteinists or gravityists. There are simply people who accept science, and creationists.

Creation being a failed hypothesis.

That's because gravity is proven and demonstratable. Plus, GOD didn't say that gravity doesn't exist.

Resplendent Independent · 06-11-08, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBob

Big deal, it's still a bacteria. Now, if it had turned into a dog, that would be impressive. Too bad there is no evidence of goo to you evolution. Silly Darwinists and their false religion.

Ya we need to stop our "false religion" of asking questions, collecting data, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions.

By the way billy bob, gravity is no more provable than evolution. You could make the same circular argument that gravity doesn't exist and that God just chooses to push objects to the earth. In fact, many fundies actually make this argument.

Lachean · 06-11-08, 12:54 PM

Don't bother w/ Billybob, he's either a joke persona to make religionists look worse than they actually are, or seriously not worth your effort.

rivrrat · 06-11-08, 12:55 PM

The ALMIGHTY GOD told me that Billy Bob doesn't exist.

justone · 06-11-08, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

...

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Another good news for science!

As always evolutionists make things up.

It had been clear for long time that E-coli used citrate:

“’Under anoxic conditions in the presence of an oxidizable cosubstrate such as qlucoseor glycerol E. coli converts citrate to acetate and succinate.”

http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/180/16/4160.pdf

Another good news for science, and the bad news for pseudo-science.

This is the beginning and the end of the news. As usual evolutionists only demonstrate their ignorance and deception.

There is a lot to say about the deception of “’microevolution’’ and how “’microevolution’’ proves “’macroevolution’’ (because ‘’macroevolution’’ obviously has failed long time ago).

The statement that a certain enhanced mechanism can ever distinguish any bacteria from other species is strictly designed to impose lie and deception. There is no other purpose of such a statement.

This is making an illusion that somebody in the right mind can agree with evolutionists that bacteria with different mechanism are different species, different bacterias (even if MS word does not allow such a spelling); and that bacteria is not different specie alltogether, that IT is not a separate phenomena, but IT is like in the evolutionary chain with the man, like we are one specie and bacteria is another specie and fish are 3rd species and salmon in the 4th specie and ionfish is the fifth seprate spicie--- of what???

Many more things can be said but about the article but I don’t have time. The link provided by me shows that the very base of the “experiment”’ is a deception. E-coli DO has an ability to use citrate, as the old paper proofs.

I will give you 2 more chances to link me to one justone peer reviewed publication ''observing'' microevolution.

Nobody relly reviews evolutionists anymore, so you are lucky. Shoot.

Resplendent Independent · 06-11-08, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justone

Another good news for science!

As always evolutionists make things up.

It had been clear for long time that E-coli used citrate:

“’Under anoxic conditions in the presence of an oxidizable cosubstrate such as qlucoseor glycerol E. coli converts citrate to acetate and succinate.”

http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/180/16/4160.pdf

Another good news for science, and the bad news for pseudo-science.

This is the beginning and the end of the news. As usual evolutionists only demonstrate their ignorance and deception.

There is a lot to say about the deception of “’microevolution’’ and how “’microevolution’’ proves “’macroevolution’’ (because ‘’macroevolution’’ obviously has failed long time ago).

The statement that a certain enhanced mechanism can ever distinguish any bacteria from other species is strictly designed to impose lie and deception. There is no other purpose of such a statement.

This is making an illusion that somebody in the right mind can agree with evolutionists that bacteria with different mechanism are different species, different bacterias (even if MS word does not allow such a spelling); and that bacteria is not different specie alltogether, that IT is not a separate phenomena, but IT is like in the evolutionary chain with the man, like we are one specie and bacteria is another specie and fish are 3rd species and salmon in the 4th specie and ionfish is the fifth seprate spicie--- of what???

Many more things can be said but about the article but I don’t have time. The link provided by me shows that the very base of the “experiment”’ is a deception. E-coli DO has an ability to use citrate, as the old paper proofs.

I will give you 2 more chances to link me to one justone peer reviewed publication ''observing'' microevolution.

Nobody relly reviews evolutionists anymore, so you are lucky. Shoot.

Geeze, I don't usually harp on spelling (as everyone makes typos), but come on man. Anyway, now let me quickly dispell your ramblings.

You are pointing out the fact that some E-coli can convert citrate IF there is an oxidizable cosubstrate present. You have actually pointed out something that SUPPORTS the initial article. They found a strain that evolved to utilize citrate WITHOUT the aid of an oxidizable cosubstrate. You might want to do your research before you mess with the big boys.

This is discussed on page 7900 of the article "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" by
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski

justone · 06-11-08, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resplendent Independent

Geeze, I don't usually harp on spelling (as everyone makes typos), but come on man.

Due to certain personal incapables your request about spelling cannot be satisfied. Nobody is forced to reply to justone. As the matter of fact all evolutionists and atheists have put me on ignore list, - at least they say so, - when you run out of arguments you will finish with the same argument..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resplendent Independent

You are pointing out the fact that some E-coli can convert citrate IF there is an oxidizable cosubstrate present. You have actually pointed out something that SUPPORTS the initial article. They found a strain that evolved to utilize citrate WITHOUT the aid of an oxidizable cosubstrate. You might want to do your research before you mess with the big boys.

This is discussed on page 7900 of the article "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" by
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski

Hey big boy, where did you find a slightest hint about any conditions or exclusions in the OP?

Can you quote it to me from the OP?

Is my objection to the words of the OP quoted by me and to the meaning of the words is correct? Did I miss anything in the OP?

Yes or no?
Am I correct pointing that the OP is totally misrepresenting E coli?

Can you answer yes or no, - or you would prefer to keep on spinning?

If you prefer to keep on spinning and endlessly adding and correcting your statements, I may abstain from discussion of the page 7900 with no links provided by you, when I have provided my link.

So, let me get it straight – it has been known that some E-coli bacteria under some conditions in the presence of some coenzymes can process citrate and it still remain to be E-coli bacteria.

Am I correct – yes or no?

So, can you come again please, - tell me slowly so I wouldn’t miss a word again - in the experiment on page 7900 E-coli bacteria has evolved into ______________? Would you fill the blank, please?

I am not a biologist, so I am just very curious, big boy. I hope you are a biologist, since you are a big boy, - all evolutionists here are biologists and big boys.