LGF

more options

  

Advertisement
Holiday Gift Finder - Save up to 46% on the perfect gift!

Science: A New Step In Evolution

Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:43:21 pm PDT

Carl Zimmer has a fascinating post at The Loom (part of the ScienceBlogs network), with more details on that 20-year experiment in evolution conducted by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University: A New Step In Evolution.

Based on what scientists already knew about evolution, Lenski expected that the bacteria would experience natural selection in their new environment. In each generation, some of the microbes would mutate. Most of the mutations would be harmful, killing the bacteria or making them grow more slowly. Others would be beneficial allowing them to breed faster in their new environment. They would gradually dominate the population, only to be replaced when a new mutation arose to produce an even fitter sort of microbe.

Lenski used a simple but elegant method to find out if this would happen. He froze some of the original bacteria in each line, and then froze bacteria every 500 generations. Whenever he was so inclined, he could go back into this fossil record and thaw out some bacteria, bringing them back to life. By putting the newest bacteria in his lines in a flask along with their ancestors, for example, he could compare how well the bacteria had adapted to the environment he had created.

Over the generations, in fits and starts, the bacteria did indeed evolve into faster breeders. The bacteria in the flasks today breed 75% faster on average than their original ancestor. Lenski and his colleagues have pinpointed some of the genes that have evolved along the way; in some cases, for example, the same gene has changed in almost every line, but it has mutated in a different spot in each case. Lenski and his colleagues have also shown how natural selection has demanded trade-offs from the bacteria; while they grow faster on a meager diet of glucose, they’ve gotten worse at feeding on some other kinds of sugars.

Last year Lenski was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. This week he is publishing an inaugural paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with his student Zachary Blount and postdoc Christina Borland. Lenski told me about the discovery behind the paper when I first met him a few years ago. He was clearly excited, but he wasn’t ready to go public. There were still a lot of tests to run to understand exactly what had happened to the bacteria.

Now they’re sure. Out of the blue, their bacteria had abandoned Lenski’s their glucose-only diet and had evolved a new way to eat.

After 33,127 generations Lenski and his students noticed something strange in one of the colonies. The flask started to turn cloudy. This happens sometimes when contaminating bacteria slip into a flask and start feeding on a compound in the broth known as citrate. Citrate is made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen; it’s essentially the same as the citric acid that makes lemons tart. Our own cells produce citrate in the long chain of chemical reactions that lets us draw energy from food. Many species of bacteria can eat citrate, but in an oxygen-rich environment like Lenski’s lab, E. coli can’t. The problem is that the bacteria can’t pull the molecule in through their membranes. In fact, their failure has long been one of the defining hallmarks of E. coli as a species.

If citrate-eating bacteria invade the flasks, however, they can feast on the abundant citrate, and their exploding population turns the flask cloudy. This has only happened rarely in Lenski’s experiment, and when it does, he and his colleagues throw out the flask and start the line again from its most recently frozen ancestors.

But in one remarkable case, however, they discovered that a flask had turned cloudy without any contamination. It was E. coli chowing down on the citrate. The researchers found that when they put the bacteria in pure citrate, the microbes could thrive on it as their sole source of carbon.

In nature, there have been a few reports of E. coli that can feed on citrate. But these oddballs all acquired a ring of DNA called a plasmid from some other species of bacteria. Lenski selected a strain of E. coli for his experiments that doesn’t have any plasmids, there were no other bacteria in the experiment, and the evolved bacteria remain plasmid-free. So the only explanation was that this one line of E. coli had evolved the ability to eat citrate on its own.

Read the whole thing...

Advertisement

244 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 kevinmumaw  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:46:09pm

Not touching this with a 10 foot pole

2 Sparkizzy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:46:20pm

Let the games begin!

3 Yankee Zionist  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:46:25pm

Brilliant researcher here.

4 jcm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:46:59pm

Yes, Sir!
*hooks thumbs in belt*
I breed bacteria, damn good at it to!

5 CapeCoddah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:47:25pm

Awesome, but, Algore will probably get the Nobel prize for it.

6 HardRain  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:48:58pm

Truly amazing that within a few billion years the amazing little molecule of DNA would come to understand itself...

7 BGOH  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:49:29pm

Charles, now you're just trying to thin the herd.

;o)

8 Nevergiveup  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:49:39pm

I wonder what kinda bacterial mutations will occur from a nuclear explosion over Natanz?

9 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:49:45pm

Alright kids, my name is Mr. Smith and I am here to teach you about Intelligent Design. You see, there is much that science cannot explain, and we all know about the theory of entropy. Therefore, there is clearly something else at work in the Universe other than random chance. Now, if you'll meet me in the parking lot, I'll let you in on a little secret (psssssttt. It's Jesus.)

10 CapeCoddah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:50:06pm

re: #7 BGOH

Thats just really cool stuff.

11 Ojoe  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:50:55pm

Chowing down
Chowing down
By the light of the silvery moo-ooo--oon

Happy is the day

When the citrate comes our way

AS we go chowing chowing down.


(burp)

ding me up

12 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:51:05pm

I know it's hard for some to believe, but I really am interested in this subject, and this experiment really is ground-breaking.

13 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:51:19pm
Over the generations, in fits and starts, the bacteria did indeed evolve into faster breeders.

[OR peering nervously at the refrigerator]

14 BGOH  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:52:07pm

re: #12 Charles

I know, and it is quite interesting. I'm just givin' you a bit of a hard time.

15 ThomasTheConfessor  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:52:20pm

If you lay down with monkeys you rise up with E. coli

16 ccoffer  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:52:26pm

I just took a dump in a petri dish. I fully expect my dung to evolve into a higher form of life. Sooner or later my scat will be history.

Hail Science!

17 Omega  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:52:42pm

Nonsense. The citrate-eating E.Coli were clearly suffering from Intelligent Design.

No evolution to see here.... move along

;-)

18 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:52:54pm

re: #4 jcm

Yes, Sir!
*hooks thumbs in belt*
I breed bacteria, damn good at it to!

You should get business cards made: "Ask me about my bacteria".

19 Neo Con since 9-11  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:53:22pm

Play nice people.

20 Earthwirm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:53:30pm

We are all creatures in some dudes spore game.

21 DistantThunder  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:54:09pm

I read the whole article. It reminds me of the "ghost" in DNA or the software that turns certain genes on or off.

It's amazing that they can be so certain of their controls that a mutation has to be self-induced. Maybe it's due an unknown variable they haven't known to control.

22 infidel Alan  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:54:22pm

In case y'all didn't see it on the earlier thread, here is Jesus riding a dinosaur. Go Creationists!

23 jcm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:54:29pm

re: #18 Occasional Reader

You should get business cards made: "Ask me about my bacteria".

I'll start a chain, E-coli Я Us.

24 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:55:22pm

Anybody ever order those Sea Monkeys out of a comic book? Well, I ordered some over 30 years ago. Currently, the little buggers are doing my taxes.

25 Earthwirm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:55:30pm

Looks like the NY Slimes is at it again, they got some traitor in the pentagon to violate his/her clearance and speak on recent Israeli maneuvers.

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran

[Link: www.iht.com...]

26 DistantThunder  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:56:26pm

re: #25 Earthwirm

Looks like the NY Slimes is at it again, they got some traitor in the pentagon to violate his/her clearance and speak on recent Israeli maneuvers.

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran

[Link: www.iht.com...]

This could be a plant. Israel would want Iran to know. Syria 2.0

27 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:56:42pm

Didn't take 'em long to pop out tonight.

28 Sharmuta  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:56:43pm

Life finds a way.

29 Sparkizzy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:56:47pm

re: #25 Earthwirm

Looks like the NY Slimes is at it again, they got some traitor in the pentagon to violate his/her clearance and speak on recent Israeli maneuvers.

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran

[Link: www.iht.com...]

What I want to know is, so freaking what?

30 Nevergiveup  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:56:51pm

re: #24 Gordon Marock

Anybody ever order those Sea Monkeys out of a comic book? Well, I ordered some over 30 years ago. Currently, the little buggers are doing my taxes.

Yeah, they did my taxes last year.
signing off from Leavenworth Correctional

31 Ojoe  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:57:12pm

re: #21 DistantThunder

Where mutations come from is an interesting question & I see how you could also be looking at a latent talent stored in the DNA already, that was, in fact, "turned on".

How could you tell the difference?

32 Earthwirm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:57:16pm

Over at yahoo they have opened up the ymail domain. Go get a shiny new email account, before yours is taken!

33 DistantThunder  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:57:34pm

Anyone notice the girl on the left with the science tattoo? made ya click.

34 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:57:34pm

re: #26 DistantThunder

This could be a plant. Israel would want Iran to know. Syria 2.0

No secret, Israel has promised action before the Allahtomic Bomb.

35 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:57:56pm

re: #20 Earthwirm

We are all creatures in some dudes spore game.

I'd say something about that, but people would classify me as a loon immediately. I'll keep my mouth shut for now.

36 theparson  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:04pm

re: #27 Charles

Didn't take 'em long to pop out tonight.

Que?

37 itellu3times  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:11pm

Sounds like really good science, but it won't settle the ID question, or even any major questions about conventional Dawkins/Gould evolution. The author shows in part why:

because the traditional concept of species doesn't fit bacteria very comfortably. (For the details, check out my new article on Scientific American, "What is a Species?") In nature, E. coli swaps lots of genes with other species. In just the past 15 years or so, for example, one disease-causing strain of E. coli acquired hundreds of genes not found in closely related E. coli strains. (See my recent article in Slate.) Another hallmark of E. coli is its ability to break down lactose, the sugar in milk. But several strains have lost the ability to break it down. (In fact, these strains were originally given a different name--Shigella--until scientists realized that they were just weird strains of E. coli.)

We don't understand the rules of gene building or swapping. There's a term, orthogenesis, usually associated with, er, shady theories, but with a meaning along the lines of the idea that life (ontogeny and/or phylogeny) develops along more or less pre-programmed lines. We see some of that in this experiment, but we see it also in weird homeobox experiments with fruit flies, that there are modules or subroutines in the DNA that can move and be duplicated and separately mutate, or be stolen from passing bacteria or viruses. A lot more of that kind of stuff goes on, we now know, than seemed likely fifty years ago.

So, yes, an excellent experiment by any standards, but just another tiny step in the long march of science.

38 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:12pm

re: #24 Gordon Marock

Anybody ever order those Sea Monkeys out of a comic book? Well, I ordered some over 30 years ago. Currently, the little buggers are doing my taxes.

Treat them well. (Look up a sci fi story called "Sandkings" to see why.)

39 jcm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:16pm

re: #24 Gordon Marock

Anybody ever order those Sea Monkeys out of a comic book? Well, I ordered some over 30 years ago. Currently, the little buggers are doing my taxes.

ROFL, and I bought some software!

40 Syrah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:19pm

re: #24 Gordon Marock

Anybody ever order those Sea Monkeys out of a comic book? Well, I ordered some over 30 years ago. Currently, the little buggers are doing my taxes.

If you ever have a chance, put them under a microscope. Fascinatingly to look at.

41 brickthruplateglasswindow  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:32pm
So the only explanation was that this one line of E. coli had evolved the ability to eat citrate on its own.

So, E.coli glucose evolved to E.coli citrate.?

I'm mostly Brickus.meat and potatoes, but depending on certain environmental factors (namely what's on Mrs. Bricks' menu) I can devolve into Brickus.salad and eat that on my own.

Does freezing bacteria alter its feeding/replicating ability after thawing out? I tried reading the whole thing, but only the margins loaded, not the text itself.

42 Ojoe  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:37pm

re: #36 theparson

Latent posters, I think.

43 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:49pm

re: #15 ThomasTheConfessor

re: #16 ccoffer

I encourage you to start your own blogs. It takes five minutes to open an account at Blogspot. Then you can post anything you like, and no one can persecute you.

Because you're not welcome to post here.

44 Earthwirm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:58:54pm

I would hope that the attack on Iran would be as much of a surprise as possible.

45 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:59:49pm

More cool science:

Mars Phoenix Tweets: "We Have ICE!"


There is water ice on Mars within reach of the Mars Phoenix Lander, NASA scientists announced Thursday.

Photographic evidence settles the debate over the nature of the white material seen in photographs sent back by the craft. As seen in lower left of this image, chunks of the ice sublimed (changed directly from solid to gas) over the course of four days, after the lander's digging exposed them.

"It must be ice," said the Phoenix Lander's lead investigator, Peter Smith. "These little clumps completely disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence that it's ice."

The confirmation that water ice exists in the area directly surrounding the lander is big and good news for the Martian mission. NASA's stated goal for the Mars Phoenix was to find exactly this -- water ice -- and then analyze it. With the latest news, the first step is accomplished. All that's left now is to get the water into the Phoenix's instruments, a task which has occasionally proven more difficult than anticipated.

Still, this is the best opportunity that humanity has ever had to analyze extraterrestrial water in any form. That had the Phoenix Lander's persona fired up.

"Are you ready to celebrate? Well, get ready: We have ICE! Yes, ICE, *WATER ICE* on Mars! w00t! Best day ever!" the Mars Phoenix Lander tweeted at about 5:15 pm.

46 HardRain  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 7:59:54pm

Pssh. Everyone knows sea monkeys are a Zionist invention meant to spy on every household in the world! That's why we in the free nation of Iran have crushed this malicious plot! (Along with the treacherous Zionist squirrel spies!)

47 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:00:14pm

re: #34 Gordon Marock

No secret, Israel has promised action before the Allahtomic Bomb.

As I mentioned on the previous thread; I really hope Bush doesn't chicken out and make the Israelis do it. This is actually something we can do better at this point than they can. Stealth technology would make all the difference.

48 DistantThunder  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:00:25pm

re: #31 Ojoe

Where mutations come from is an interesting question & I see how you could also be looking at a latent talent stored in the DNA already, that was, in fact, "turned on".

How could you tell the difference?

It's what they study in identical twins when one gets alzheimers or cancer, or parkinsons and the other doesn't. Savant talent is also innate, and I would guess having something to do with the "software." I can't remember the name.

49 Yelnats  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:00:50pm

re: #37 itellu3times

Sounds like really good science, but it won't settle the ID question, or even any major questions about conventional Dawkins/Gould evolution.


Of course it won't settle the ID question. Nothing will. That's why ID isn't science.

50 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:01:09pm

re: #46 HardRain

Pssh. Everyone knows sea monkeys are a Zionist invention meant to spy on every household in the world! That's why we in the free nation of Iran have crushed this malicious plot! (Along with the treacherous Zionist squirrel spies!)

Ah yes, the descendents of Sea Monkeys and Pigs!

51 jcm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:01:28pm

re: #40 Syrah

If you ever have a chance, put them under a microscope. Fascinatingly to look at.

Mine never looked like this....

52 Ojoe  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:01:51pm

re: #48 DistantThunder

"Fascinating."

—Spock

53 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:01:55pm

re: #22 infidel Alan

In case y'all didn't see it on the earlier thread, here is Jesus riding a dinosaur. Go Creationists!

Heh, that actually cracks me up. Another one from the same artist.

54 Nevergiveup  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:02:05pm

re: #47 Occasional Reader

As I mentioned on the previous thread; I really hope Bush doesn't chicken out and make the Israelis do it. This is actually something we can do better at this point than they can. Stealth technology would make all the difference.

And an Air Force 10x bigger. However I am sure the Israelis would love to take part.

55 itellu3times  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:02:52pm

re: #38 Occasional Reader

Treat them well. (Look up a sci fi story called "Sandkings" to see why.)

Microcosmic God.

56 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:03:01pm

re: #49 Yelnats

Of course it won't settle the ID question. Nothing will. That's why ID isn't science.

That is where you are wrong. If the fabric of space time rips open and God sticks his head out and says "Hey, idiots, I designed this frickin' Universe." That would settle it. Short of that one exception, you are correct.

57 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:03:15pm

re: #31 Ojoe

Sequencing the genome, that's how.

58 MandyManners  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:03:18pm

re: #16 ccoffer

Was that really necessary?

59 Racer X  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:03:30pm

re: #45 NJDhockeyfan

Hey, that photo is throbbing.

60 KingKenrod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:03:58pm

It is interesting that E. Coli in the lab has developed the ability to get energy from citric acid, yet E. Coli in the wild does not (unless stolen from another species).

It seems to be an obvious survival advantage, and surely this mutation has happened countless times before.

I wonder if the ability to process citric acid is a survival advantage in the lab, but some kind of liability in nature?

61 Ojoe  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:04:01pm

re: #57 Dan G.

What a job.

62 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:04:26pm

re: #38 Occasional Reader

Treat them well. (Look up a sci fi story called "Sandkings" to see why.)

Great story. Did you read "Fever Dream"?

63 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:04:34pm

re: #12 Charles

I know it's hard for some to believe, but I really am interested in this subject, and this experiment really is ground-breaking.


If that's the case Charles..Please checK out galaxytoday.com
Awesome site..Most stories are more about the latest scientific discovery here on earth...
Site is great with fresh coffee in the morning

64 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:04:35pm

re: #45 NJDhockeyfan

More cool science:

Mars Phoenix Tweets: "We Have ICE!"

Very cool. Start the reactor! Save Mars!

65 Sharmuta  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:05:36pm

re: #16 ccoffer

Well- wasn't that just the height of maturity?

66 Quilly Mammoth  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:05:39pm

Cool! Maybe this begins the advent of Evolution Theory as being a provable _and_ falsifiable theory.

Isn't G-d great that he set things up so that His creations can adapt to new environments and challenges?

67 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:06:02pm

re: #64 Occasional Reader

Very cool. Start the reactor! Save Mars!

As Arnold Schwarzenegger famously said to himself "Hey Hauser, get your ass to Mars."

68 Indefatigable  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:06:12pm

re: #43 Charles

Have they been banned or something? Kinda harsh, don't you think?

69 joecitizen  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:06:15pm

re: #65 Sharmuta

Well- wasn't that just the height of maturity?

for those of that ilk,perhaps.

70 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:06:51pm

Well, I think this is absolutely fascinating! Thanks for the post and the link to the article.

71 itellu3times  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:06:55pm

re: #49 Yelnats

Of course it won't settle the ID question. Nothing will. That's why ID isn't science.

Oh, I think it might be settled pretty solidly, in a few hundred years, when *we* can do some intelligent design ourselves, takes all the mystery out of it, and all of the religion, too.

72 Syrah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:06:57pm

re: #51 jcm

Mine never looked like this....

No, nothing like that.

I put them under the microscope in an ecology class some 15 years ago. Pretty weird. Amazing the variety that life comes in.

73 DistantThunder  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:07:07pm

OK, I found the website.

NOVA: Ghost in Your Genes

The software is called Epigenetics: a second genome.

There is an interactive called Gene Switches. Click to view.

"Ghost in Your Genes" focuses on epigenetic "switches" that turn genes "on" or "off." But not all switches are epigenetic; some are genetic. That is, other genes within the chromosome turn genes on or off. In an animal's embryonic stage, these gene switches play a predominant role in laying out the animal's basic body plan and perform other early functions; the epigenome begins to take over during the later stages of embryogenesis. In this slide show, you'll see a striking example—in that lab standard Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly—of just how powerful these embryonic gene switches can be.—Nipam Patel

74 Indefatigable  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:07:34pm

That being said, Charles, I confess I don't see their posts often so I may not know the history. Just wondering...

75 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:07:52pm

Man I hate germs.

Is this the same guys I hear about on NPR (yes, I listen) that had genetically engineered E coli to smell like lemon? normally the bacteria smells like poop (gee, wonder why)

They had inserted genes so that when the bacteria was mature the smell changed from one nice fragrance to another.

i recon this is the end of the world, because if some college wonks can do that how long before some sons of muhammet engineer a bug to eat our flesh out from the toes up....

76 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:08:00pm

They could do sequencing, but it doesn't appear that they did (yet) in the first paper. But they did recreate the mutation by reanimating archived E. Coli and found that only the later generations were capable of evolving the capability to metabolize citrate. That is, the mutation to metabolize citrate occurred more than once, starting from archived material.

77 Earthwirm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:08:29pm

I manage and maintain a large scientific super computer cluster. I wish I was doing more on the science end, than on the keeping the cluster running and purring end, but I am definitely eager to go back to school one of these days and become some kind of scientific computing menace!

Linux is proof of intelligent design, IMO. ;).

... Now ... What happens when mankind starts designing life? Say something suited for the martian climate, maybe a few lifeforms that start a terraforming process?

We are already engineering bacteria to output oil.

What if, after we have created life for the martian climate an asteroid wipes out human life on Earth and 3billion years from now that martian life ponders the question of evolution vs intelligent design? And sends probes to a dead neighbor, Earth. Does it matter?

Nope. Cause without us and our history they wouldn't exist.

78 BGOH  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:08:35pm

re: #54 Nevergiveup

And an Air Force 10x bigger. However I am sure the Israelis would love to take part.

Why do I get the feeling that if we and/or Israel does attack Natanz and other facilities in Iran that they will suddenly have been the largest "baby formula factories" ever recorded? God knows that's what the AP will say...

79 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:08:50pm

re: #71 itellu3times

Oh, I think it might be settled pretty solidly, in a few hundred years, when *we* can do some intelligent design ourselves, takes all the mystery out of it, and all of the religion, too.

Personally, I doubt I will ever lose my quirky sense of faith no matter what science accomplishes. I just don't want my, or anyone else's, quirky sense of faith taught in science class.

80 jcm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:09:29pm

re: #31 Ojoe

Where mutations come from is an interesting question & I see how you could also be looking at a latent talent stored in the DNA already, that was, in fact, "turned on".

How could you tell the difference?

You can sequence the DNA, and get the base pair sequence and compare.
Many bacteria DNA sequence are known, so a change can be detected. Additionally the mechanism for insertions, a bacteria obtaining and inserting are also well known. This knowledge is used for instance in using yeast to produce insulin. Insulin used to be harvest from pigs in small quantities. The gene to produce insulin was isolated and removed, and that sequence was inserted into the yeast. Now the yeast cranks out insulin.

Sequencing is automated now, what used to literal take months of lab work can be done in hours.

81 FrogMarch  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:09:40pm

It's all about mutation, baby.
Mutations.

82 HelloDare  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:09:52pm

re: #1 kevinmumaw

Not touching this with a 10 foot pole

Andrzej Bartkowski is a 10-foot Pole and he's not touching it either.

83 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:09:53pm

re: #62 Charles

Great story. Did you read "Fever Dream"?

Nope. Same author? (Not that I remember the name)

84 DistantThunder  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:10:28pm

re: #75 sojerofgod

Man I hate germs.

Is this the same guys I hear about on NPR (yes, I listen) that had genetically engineered E coli to smell like lemon? normally the bacteria smells like poop (gee, wonder why)

They had inserted genes so that when the bacteria was mature the smell changed from one nice fragrance to another.

i recon this is the end of the world, because if some college wonks can do that how long before some sons of muhammet engineer a bug to eat our flesh out from the toes up....

Too late - the flu is already weaponized, made 98% lethal, and anthrax, and many others.

85 Ojoe  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:10:30pm

re: #64 Occasional Reader

Going to mars in a big way

86 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:11:09pm

re: #80 jcm

They haven't published sequencing data yet... I just checked. But the experiments were reproducible and therefore very sound.

87 MandyManners  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:11:12pm

re: #75 sojerofgod

Man I hate germs.

Is this the same guys I hear about on NPR (yes, I listen) that had genetically engineered E coli to smell like lemon? normally the bacteria smells like poop (gee, wonder why)

They had inserted genes so that when the bacteria was mature the smell changed from one nice fragrance to another.

i recon this is the end of the world, because if some college wonks can do that how long before some sons of muhammet engineer a bug to eat our flesh out from the toes up....

I thought it was altered to smell like wintergreen and they got the material to change it from a flower.

88 gibsonz  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:11:57pm

Another fascinating field of science...

[Link: www.absolutezerocampaign.org...]

89 Earthwirm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:11:58pm

If Obama had his way, NASA would be gutted and merged into NOAA, all for a few scraps to throw at some pre-K program.

Obama is NASA's worst enemy.

90 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:11:59pm

re: #64 Occasional Reader

Very cool. Start the reactor! Save Mars!

Not the right clip, but sort of close.

/plus, it has more funny in it

91 Timbre  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:12:21pm

"At Bactrian Bacteria, we're humping for you. Visit our newest store in downtown Khandahar."

92 Sharmuta  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:12:24pm

re: #66 Quilly Mammoth

And won't it be wonderful that we continue to teach real science in the classrooms so future generations will be able to continue furthering human knowledge?

93 BGOH  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:12:25pm

Can someone please explain to me why someone would engineer a deadly bacteria to smell like candy? Anyone?

94 DistantThunder  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:12:51pm

re: #83 Occasional Reader

Nope. Same author? (Not that I remember the name)

re: #77 Earthwirm

I manage and maintain a large scientific super computer cluster. I wish I was doing more on the science end, than on the keeping the cluster running and purring end, but I am definitely eager to go back to school one of these days and become some kind of scientific computing menace!

Linux is proof of intelligent design, IMO. ;).

... Now ... What happens when mankind starts designing life? Say something suited for the martian climate, maybe a few lifeforms that start a terraforming process?

We are already engineering bacteria to output oil.

What if, after we have created life for the martian climate an asteroid wipes out human life on Earth and 3billion years from now that martian life ponders the question of evolution vs intelligent design? And sends probes to a dead neighbor, Earth. Does it matter?

Nope. Cause without us and our history they wouldn't exist.

Time to start that science fiction book, mister.

95 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:12:58pm

I reiterate from the last discussion on this topic, science is the study of what is reality. faith is a belief in the unprovable. Mixing oil and water would produce more of a homogenous compound that mixing the above.
I think, come to think of it that the mixture is called a slurry?

So conflating the two would be an intellegent slurry?

Or perhaps a slurry design?

God, who I believe is out there laughing, would probably approve.

96 Sharmuta  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:13:01pm

I hate the new firefox. It's proof of devolution.

/Just thought I'd share

97 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:13:04pm

His Q&A is very cool too: E. coli Evolution Follow-up

98 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:13:13pm

re: #83 Occasional Reader

Nope. Same author? (Not that I remember the name)

Yep, George R. R. Martin...

99 MandyManners  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:13:29pm

re: #93 BGOH

Can someone please explain to me why someone would engineer a deadly bacteria to smell like candy? Anyone?

IIRC, because they could.

100 MandyManners  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:13:57pm

Ooh. Mars.

101 gotha  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:14:13pm

Hello Ladies and Gents, gotha has entered the lion's den.

Has anyone seen these young-earth creationist fools over at FoxNews? They are actually reporting that this evolutionary grass was....designed: [Link: www.foxnews.com...]

Just because we've never observed grass to do this in the lab, does not effect our theory. And even if the odds of this happening through natural selection are 10 to the 60th power, there is no reason to doubt the creative ability of the "things change" theory. This is preposterous. Off with their heads or at least their suit ties!

And Charles, I've had a chance today to carbon date some rocks in the back yard and I now believe the earth to be only One Billion or so years old.

102 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:14:21pm

re: #87 MandyManners

That's it! I couldn't remember the flavor, so i guessed,

sue me.

103 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:14:27pm

good night lizards..
The hoopster

104 Ojoe  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:14:28pm

re: #93 BGOH

You might say that it was a nerd project done because it was cool to do it.

105 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:14:36pm

re: #68 Indefatigable

Have they been banned or something? Kinda harsh, don't you think?

Hey, what can I say? I'm the kind of fascist corrupt cop who wants other people to be responsible for their own comments.

106 BGOH  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:14:55pm

re: #99 MandyManners

IIRC, because they could.

Somehow, Mandy, that just doesn't seem like a good enough reason. I could go out tomorrow and sit on a flagpole, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea...

107 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:15:08pm

re: #93 BGOH

Can someone please explain to me why someone would engineer a deadly bacteria to smell like candy? Anyone?

You've gotta go some time. Why not smell minty fresh when you do?

108 theparson  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:15:15pm

re: #27 Charles

Didn't take 'em long to pop out tonight.

ccoffer - member for 3 years with 75 posts.
TTC - member for 2 years 251 posts.
Got it!

109 itellu3times  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:15:15pm

re: #79 Gordon Marock

Personally, I doubt I will ever lose my quirky sense of faith no matter what science accomplishes. I just don't want my, or anyone else's, quirky sense of faith taught in science class.

"Intelligent design" of the electron, maybe.

But the newest Scientific American even has a bit of progress on the naturalized Theory of Everything, too:
Using Causality to Solve the Puzzle of Quantum Spacetime

Oh, and here's a bonus for Charles:
Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell

Study of the simplest and first cells are an interesting approach to understanding the complex stuff all around us today.

110 Cicero05  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:15:16pm

This thread is like the Troll Motel. Trolls check in, but they don't check out.

111 jcm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:16:15pm

re: #86 Dan G.

They haven't published sequencing data yet... I just checked. But the experiments were reproducible and therefore very sound.

I did the old style manual gel sequencing in my genetics course. Got to talk with and play with Dr. Leroy Hood's early sequence stuff at the UW.

112 itellu3times  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:16:32pm

re: #110 Cicero05

This thread is like the Troll Motel. Trolls check in, but they don't check out.

"Think of it as evolution in action"

113 BGOH  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:16:35pm

re: #107 Occasional Reader

You've gotta go some time. Why not smell minty fresh when you do?

HAHA

Good point, I guess.

114 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:17:05pm

re: #112 itellu3times

"Think of it as evolution in action"

"Oath of Fealty"! I read that sci fi story, too!

115 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:17:44pm

re: #93 BGOH

E. Coli is very safe when engineered to be... It is used every single day in nearly every single genetics lab on the planet to produce recombinant protein for study.

116 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:17:52pm

re: #93 BGOH

This is a real problem in science today: lack of respect. the guy in the NPr interview was so casual about redesigning a bacteria, he sounded like a surfer dude hangin' gnarly 10 on his board. Anyone who read Steven King's 'The Stand' which starts out a science fiction remembers the superbug that got away. Too bad the story devolved into a wierd God vs Debbil deathmatch complete with fornicating demons. I finished the book but just barely.

117 Hard Right  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:18:38pm

re: #4 jcm

Yes, Sir!
*hooks thumbs in belt*
I breed bacteria, damn good at it to!

Leave my underwear out of this. >:(

118 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:18:49pm

re: #97 Killgore Trout

His Q&A is very cool too: E. coli Evolution Follow-up


The Q&A is cool. But here's one "question" that's just - well, does it look similar to anything you've seen recently here? These guys are all over the place:

--Ken Finley writes

This is total horse crap. There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that evolution exists. You're just arbitrarily making up excuses.

If the bacteria changed, it was clearly because God willed it. He does that sometimes, you know.

Just because God helped the bacteria survived, you can't just simply say it's because we come from monkeys. That's stupid and arrogant.

You'll go to hell for your blasphemy

119 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:19:00pm

re: #112 itellu3times

Think of these threads as a "selective media" (scroll down).

120 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:19:25pm

re: #107 Occasional Reader


Heh ya would you rather die smelling like poop?

121 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:19:46pm
122 joecitizen  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:20:05pm

re: #116 sojerofgod

This is a real problem in science today: lack of respect. the guy in the NPr interview was so casual about redesigning a bacteria, he sounded like a surfer dude hangin' gnarly 10 on his board. Anyone who read Steven King's 'The Stand' which starts out a science fiction remembers the superbug that got away. Too bad the story devolved into a wierd God vs Debbil deathmatch complete with fornicating demons. I finished the book but just barely.


the ONLY stephen king worth re-reading,IMHO

123 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:20:20pm

re: #116 sojerofgod

Yes, and there were equally as many boogie man stories for each and every new technology... including electricity and automobiles.

124 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:21:32pm

re: #77 Earthwirm

If you're of a mind to like death metal: Death - Vacant Planets.

125 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:22:35pm

re: #122 joecitizen

It's the only King book i've ever read. i don't remember if I was trapped on a desert island or what when I did.

Haven't had time to read much for the last few years.

126 Killian Bundy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:22:40pm

Make me a badger from scratch, then I'll be thouroughly impressed.

Did I mention my new scanner is so cool? No need to even touch it, totally computer controllable.

/next step, extensive reprogramming, [expletive deleted]canning the preprogrammed radio systems from the other 49 (57?) states and adding the local, juicy radio systems that will enable me to monitor the Republican National Convention from home, with recording capability

127 CapeCoddah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:23:34pm

re: #101 gotha

Hey Gotha, are you gonna answer Charles' question tonight?

128 gotha  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:24:24pm

I thought I already did.

129 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:24:38pm

Ok other thread's dead.

I ask again (politely) what does DL stand for?

130 joecitizen  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:25:02pm

re: #126 Killian Bundy

Make me a badger from scratch, then I'll be thouroughly impressed.

Did I mention my new scanner is so cool? No need to even touch it, totally computer controllable.

/next step, extensive reprogramming, [expletive deleted]canning the preprogrammed radio systems from the other 49 (57?) states and adding the local, juicy radio systems that will enable me to monitor the Republican National Convention from home, with recording capability


we don't need no stinking badgers..

131 CapeCoddah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:25:11pm

re: #100 MandyManners

Hey Mandy, your gonna just love Gotha

132 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:26:15pm

re: #118 reine.de.tout

HA!

133 CapeCoddah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:27:01pm

re: #128 gotha

Already being purposely obtuse, I see...

134 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:27:11pm

re: #130 joecitizen
I liked the digital conveyor from Galaxy quest

135 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:29:34pm

re: #129 sojerofgod

Depends on the context but it might be Discarded Lies; a blog for bitter banned lizards from many years ago.

136 bebe's boobs destroy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:29:41pm

re: #43 Charles

Wow, Stinky is getting a lot of action with the troll bat. I hope he's icing his shoulder. We don't want him to tear a rotator cuff!

137 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:30:07pm

re: #129 sojerofgod

Ok other thread's dead.

I ask again (politely) what does DL stand for?

Are you talking about the Throbert reference to DL?

138 gotha  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:30:11pm

re: #133 CapeCoddah

Yes, that was rather tempestuous of me. Did you find it distasteful?

139 infidel Alan  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:30:48pm

re: #129 sojerofgod

DL = down low or "on the down low" -- euphemism in black and Latino circles for concealed bisexual behavior. Somebody "on the down low" is having surreptitious sex with other males.

140 CapeCoddah  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:31:01pm

re: #138 gotha

Actually, I just think you are an ass.

141 LemonJoose  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:31:02pm

Very exciting and interesting results. It may indeed turn out to prove that evolution does occur and is thus a fact, and not a theory. However, experimentally proving that evolution does occur, unfortunately does not prove the strong version of the theory of evolution, which is that the diversity of species we see on Earth today were produced solely through a long process of random mutation and natural selection.

I think most proponents of ID would not dispute that evolution through random mutation and natural selection can and does occur. What they dispute is the idea that evolution through mutation and natural selection is the sole process by which the diversity of species was produced.

I am not a religious person, and in fact I am a scientist. However, I disagree with the idea that the strong theory of evolution is a proven fact, and thus there is no room for further discussion. To support that idea would be to denigrate science itself, since it would be a declaration that a theory becomes a scientific fact simply because the vast majority of scientists accept it to be true (like global warming). Science is a method, and theories do not become true by a voting process. One of the first things you learn when you are taught the scientific method is that the scientific method never actually allows you to prove anything; what is does instead is to allow one to disprove competing alternate hypotheses. The strength and merit of a theory improves over time if the logical competing theories can be disproven through replicated experimental results. However, that does not mean that a new competing theory cannot come along to challenge the currently accepted one. So called "scientists" who seek to ban the mere discussion of alternative hypotheses are in fact spitting on the foundation of true science in order to promote an unquestionable, sacred, pseudo-religious "strong evolution" orthodoxy of their own.

The theory of evolution is a good one with lots of evidence to support it, and therefore it should not fear a challenge from ID, but welcome it.

142 gotha  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:33:09pm

re: #140 CapeCoddah

I'm sorry you feel that way.

143 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:33:15pm

re: #135 Killgore Trout

That must be it. The context (which made more sense on the other thread) was about the acrimony twixt LGF and DL and some former posters. Personally I don't understand folks who won't obey the rules and get mad when they are called on them...
I was just wondering what that was as I had never hear the term DL before. You really really got to have a chip on your shoulder to go start and maintain a website as some sort of pissing contest.
Wow. do they have day jobs?

144 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:33:55pm

re: #139 infidel Alan

I didn't need to know that.

Definitely NOT the context i was thinking of.

145 centralvalleyguy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:34:39pm

Man, bacteria that eat citrate.
That DEFINITELY proves God doesn't exist!

Wow, now I need a new religion.....

146 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:34:48pm

re: #137 reine.de.tout


Thats the one

147 Salem  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:35:12pm

re: #126 Killian Bundy

Make me a badger from scratch, then I'll be thouroughly impressed.

Did I mention my new scanner is so cool? No need to even touch it, totally computer controllable.

/next step, extensive reprogramming, [expletive deleted]canning the preprogrammed radio systems from the other 49 (57?) states and adding the local, juicy radio systems that will enable me to monitor the Republican National Convention from home, with recording capability

Well, at least science could provide the scanner for you. What would you do with a badger, anyway?

148 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:35:34pm

re: #129 sojerofgod

Ok other thread's dead.

I ask again (politely) what does DL stand for?

I think Throbert just answered you on the "At the Official Obama Site" thread. #838

149 gotha  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:36:41pm

re: #141 LemonJoose

LemonJoose, based on your experience in the field, why do you believe the Darwinists get so angry when their theory is questioned?

150 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:37:04pm

re: #148 reine.de.tout

got a link there? not sure what thread that is

151 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:37:20pm

re: #111 jcm

Cool. I've only done the easy, "drop it off at the sequencing core" type. ;)

152 George guy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:37:59pm

re: #56 Gordon Marock

That is where you are wrong. If the fabric of space time rips open and God sticks his head out and says "Hey, idiots, I designed this frickin' Universe." That would settle it. Short of that one exception, you are correct.

Not necessarily. Supposing that were to happen, it would be reasonable to expect someone to document it. It happened, say, 3000 years ago, there would only have been written documentation that not everyone would necessarily find credible. Even today, though we have video, it is certainly conceivable that such a thing could be faked.
***

re: #60 KingKenrod

It is interesting that E. Coli in the lab has developed the ability to get energy from citric acid, yet E. Coli in the wild does not (unless stolen from another species).

It seems to be an obvious survival advantage, and surely this mutation has happened countless times before.

I wonder if the ability to process citric acid is a survival advantage in the lab, but some kind of liability in nature?

Well, after clearing up my slight misunderstanding of E.coli's metabolic processes—and if you think about it, this is in fact an absurd occurrence since I, being a young-earth creationist, cannot possibly be scientifically literate even in the least respect— my first thought was this: since the previous problem was that citrate could not pass through the membrane, the adaptation may involve a change to the membrane that permits more than just citrate to pass through. In the controlled environment of the laboratory, there is no "more than just citrate". In nature that kind of change might also enable the bacteria to eat other things, which might be toxic.

153 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:38:29pm

re: #150 sojerofgod

Here 'tis"

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

154 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:41:13pm

re: #139 infidel Alan

DL = down low or "on the down low" -- euphemism in black and Latino circles for concealed bisexual behavior. Somebody "on the down low" is having surreptitious sex with other males.

Um... not exactly. "Keeping it on the down low" means keeping your mouth shut about something, or keeping a secret. It does not strictly mean concealing bisexual behavior, but the phrase could apply to such.

155 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:41:39pm

re: #153 reine.de.tout


Well that explains it.

Ok, purile curiousity satisfied, lets move on here. nothing to see.

156 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:42:11pm

re: #141 LemonJoose

How many more false dichotomies are you going to introduce? There is no macro vs. micro evolution. There is not "strong" vs. "whatever" evolution. There is evolution, period. The sequence of the DNA causes the sequence in proteins and when/where/what context the proteins get made. The sequence in proteins causes protein struncture/function. Proteins (among other things) drive body patterning. Changes in DNA can change metabolic things (like this paper demonstrates) or it can change body patterning things (such as antennapedia, bithorax, among many many others, look it up).

157 Killian Bundy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:43:32pm

re: #147 Salem

Well, at least science could provide the scanner for you. What would you do with a badger, anyway?

Wouldn't you like to know?

/moot point anyway, you can't make a badger from scratch (cloning doesn't count)

158 Yelnats  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:43:42pm

re: #141 LemonJoose

Theories are supported by facts. But they never become facts. Even the theory of gravity isn't a fact.

We observe gravity all the time, but that doesn't mean the theory of gravity is 100% accurate. We directly observe evolution also, but it can never be proven that evolution was responsible for all life.

Read the wikipedia article on "theory" for more info.

159 jcm  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:44:48pm

re: #151 Dan G.

Cool. I've only done the easy, "drop it off at the sequencing core" type. ;)

Someplace there's a paper with my name buried in it. Our lab section for a upper level genetics class didn't a bunch of work for one of the research scientists. He put our names in the paper as collaborators. Tons of petri dishes, scanning the dishes for the indicators, then regrow those colonies, sequencing and collating data.

160 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:46:17pm

re: #159 jcm

Did it scare you away from grad school? Or did you have other plans to begin with?

161 Yelnats  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:46:22pm

re: #141 LemonJoose

This post says it more eloquently than I can:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

162 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:47:38pm

re: #158 Yelnats

Read the wikipedia article on "theory" for more info.

Good luck with that.

163 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:48:11pm
164 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:50:37pm

re: #163 buzzsawmonkey


good one!

"The pun is the noblest form of wit" ~ Issac Asimov

165 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:52:45pm

For some reason, creationists really just HAVE to get in that last parting shot.

I'm deleting all emails from banned posters, by the way. Start your own blog, and trash me there -- then I can ignore it there.

166 neocon hippie  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:57:39pm

OT:

I've been having problems with the site all day. XP w/FF 2, also tried IE 7 and Safari. Very slow loading, sometimes doesn't load the graphics at all, right now the newest thread won't load at all. I have Comcast, and I am not having a problem on any other website.

167 LemonJoose  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:59:52pm

#156 Dan G.

Everything you say is true, but you are missing the point. The question is what causes the changes in DNA. Yes, random mutation does occur. But does that preclude some other process from also causing DNA changes?

I think you have to concede that it does not.

Genetic engineering by intelligent human beings can cause big, intentional, intelligently-designed changes in DNA, and produce corresponding desired changes in the structure or metabolism of the organism.

168 neocon hippie  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 8:59:52pm

OT:

I've been having problems with the site all day. XP w/FF 2, also tried IE 7 and Safari. Very slow loading, sometimes doesn't load the graphics at all, right now the newest thread won't load at all. I have Comcast, and I am not having a problem on any other website.

169 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:00:36pm

re: #166 neocon hippie

OT:

I've been having problems with the site all day. XP w/FF 2, also tried IE 7 and Safari. Very slow loading, sometimes doesn't load the graphics at all, right now the newest thread won't load at all. I have Comcast, and I am not having a problem on any other website.

There's nothing bad happening on our servers; everything is running fine. Comcast is one of the ISPs that has been reported to be messing around with limiting bandwidth; I suggest you call them...

170 jc59  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:04:53pm

Charles,

I have been accused of misrepresenting common descent and you appeared to second the notion.

If you think I misrepresented common descent, please explain how my explanation is different from that below:

[Link: www.pbs.org...]


"3. Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

171 neocon hippie  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:05:04pm

re: #169 Charles

There's nothing bad happening on our servers; everything is running fine. Comcast is one of the ISPs that has been reported to be messing around with limiting bandwidth; I suggest you call them...

I have Comcast Blast and what's weird is that I was able to download and seed a bit torrent no problem at high speeds. There's one other site I've had intermittent problems with. LGF is loading people's avatars but the colored backgrounds are all missing.

172 FinnAgain  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:06:25pm

Kudos to you Charles for posting this. To be fair, even if it isn't your deliberate intent, backing science against creationism/ID will have the effect of pissing off religious fundamentalists. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, though, as keeping our citizens educated and competitive in the global marketplace is a matter of natural security, and sacrificing science education on the altar of faith would harm us as a country. We need to regain our competitive edge, and not just by importing foreign grad students. Smart-bombs-dumb-students is a formula for national failure.

With that being said, there really shouldn't be any real controversy. The realm of science is what can be tested, observed and falsified. The realm of faith is what, by definition, cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. (duh)
As such, there is no conflict between science and faith. If you want to believe that a God, or Gods, or a Goddess for that matter set things in motion or tweaks the physical laws of the universe while nobody is looking? More power to you. When you want to teach such things as science is where the line gets crossed.

Along the same lines ID is the classic "God of the gaps" style argument. Even if we are to posit that there are certain facts of evolutionary biology that we do not, or even cannot understand, that does not mean that an untestable and unfalsifiable pseudo-hypothesis can replace a theory. Just because we don't know how something happened, doesn't mean we can invent a cause for it and classify it as settled. Even saying that there was a "designer" tells us absolutely nothing. Was this designer a God? The God? An alien? A race of aliens? Positing a Designer just leads to an infinite regress in any case as we have to then figure out who designed the Designer. Appealing to "first causes" is just trying to game the system with a get out of jail free card.

That evolution occurs is a fact as solid as that germs cause disease and an object that falls will move towards the ground. The specific mechanisms for evolution (or gravity for that matter), are unknown and being investigated all the time. Confusing the knowledge that evolution occurs (fact) with the various models of evolutionary mechanics (theories), and then poking holes in any various theories, does nothing to change the fact that evolution occurs. Not any more than showing that a quantum model of gravity is flawed means that we can all start floating if we'd fancy that.

So again, Kudos to your Charles. I was pre-med for a while back in the ancient days of my college education, and I was endlessly fascinated by the warp and woof of life. I still am, but as my profession diverged from my early collegiate interests, it's hard for me to keep up to date on the subject. Thanks for fighting the good fight and for helping me stay updated with developments in the field.

P.S. Sorry everybody for the long and probably rambling post. I just got through with a rather nasty scrap on some message board where I was told that "Jews control United States foreign policy" wasn't a racist claim and claiming that the United Stats has always been in Israel's power, even when they signed off on an military weapons embargo in 1949 and didn't really begin seriously supporting Israel until it became a battleground in the Cold War, didn't betray an ignorance of history. Of course (do I even need to say it?) the board leans so far to the left that they make Ghandi look like Pol Pot. I'm no real fan of those who try to get religion taught in the science classroom either, and if you'll pardon my vulgarity, I'm really fucking glad to spend a bit of time in a place where the kind of folks on both the left and the right who I really can't stand much, are called out and smacked around a bit with logic and facts.

Sometimes, some specimens of humanity are just a bit too rank for me, and tonight I needed to vent a bit and get some mental-floss to clear out any lingering particles of dumb.

Thanks Charles.

173 neocon hippie  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:07:31pm

Now I'm getting normal results in IE

174 Yelnats  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:11:43pm

re: #162 Charles

Good luck with that.

Yeah, I guess I should realize that some people here don't want to understand. I was raised with Creationism. Heck, Ken Ham came over to my house for lunch once. I was fascinated by Creationism, and read a few books on it. My only exposure to evolution was through creationist books. (reminds me of when I asked a Truther at work if he had read any rebuttals to the Loose Change video, and he replied with "The second edition covers all of that"). I read the books because I really wanted to know the "science" behind it.

Ironically, the same curiosity that led to my reading of Creationist books eventually led me to read about evolution and realize how bizarre the Young-Earth arguments were.

I guess I'm hoping there is someone else like me reading these threads.

175 joecitizen  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:13:08pm

re: #172 FinnAgainexcellent post..you oughtta try it more often!

176 LemonJoose  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:17:36pm

#141 Yelnats:

It's a good thing for Darwin that the scientific majority of his era didn't attempt (or at least didn't succeed in any attempts) to stop discussion of his alternative explanation for the observed facts.

177 Archimedes  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:18:46pm

re: #101 gotha

Just because we've never observed grass to do this in the lab, does not effect our theory. And even if the odds of this happening through natural selection are 10 to the 60th power, there is no reason to doubt the creative ability of the "things change" theory. This is preposterous. Off with their heads or at least their suit ties!



There are man made things and there are natural things. I mean, you can tell the difference between a skyscraper and a mountain. So, how do we tell the difference between such things? It can be done.


And Charles, I've had a chance today to carbon date some rocks in the back yard and I now believe the earth to be only One Billion or so years old.

Carbon 14 has too short a half-life to measure the age of rocks. For that you'll want uranium-lead dating. The earth is believed to be around 4.5 billion years old.

A note about science, you don't just take one fact in isolation, you collect many facts and put them together logically. The evidence will naturally pull you in a direction, because nobody knows where it leads at the start. It's like puzzle building, but without the picture on the outside of the box to help you.

I'm just being straight with you. No need for games here.

178 sojerofgod  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:18:54pm

re: #176 LemonJoose

I think they tried really hard to shut him up if I remember the story properly. The papers has that whole 'yer gram was an ape' thing going, and that didn't help.

179 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:19:36pm

"reality is a problem and needs to be corrected'
/Creationist

180 jc59  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:19:53pm

Let's compare my description of "common descent" with the one in the PBS link:


JC59:"all present and past life forms on earth have a single common origin (e.g. "the tree of life")"


PBS: "Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related."

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

How is my description dishonest?

181 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:20:12pm
182 Killian Bundy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:20:22pm

DNA, across all earthly life, boils down to four nucleotides, adenosine (A), cytidine (C), guanosine (G), thymidine (T), and they only combine two ways, G with C, and A with T. After that, it's all a matter of sequencing.

Very simple and elegant.

/how complicated can building a badger be?

183 Indepublicrat  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:21:50pm

Hat tip, me!

This really is a fascinating story.

184 Summer  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:22:32pm

re: #141 LemonJoose

Very exciting and interesting results. It may indeed turn out to prove that evolution does occur and is thus a fact, and not a theory.

I stopped reading there because it told me you, like so many others, still don't know the difference between the every day use of "theory" and the meaning of "theory" in science.

That means that the rest of your statement is based on a false premise and is utterly worthless.

185 Albertanator  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:34:26pm

Long sighhhhhhhhhhhhh.....Charles, you do know there is a world of difference between Micro and Macro Evolution right?

Micro is empircally proved....Macro is not and never will be....

If you want to think that you come from a pool of sludge billions of years ago without ANY Divine Guidance and that you are simply a accident, that is your right to believe in such a fantasy...

I do not have that kind of faith to believe is Adult fairy tales....

I'll stay with the FACT that a Holy God Created us...in whatever means he chose to do such!

186 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:35:09pm

re: #185 Albertanator

Long sighhhhhhhhhhhhh.....Charles, you do know there is a world of difference between Micro and Macro Evolution right?

Micro is empircally proved....Macro is not and never will be....

If you want to think that you come from a pool of sludge billions of years ago without ANY Divine Guidance and that you are simply a accident, that is your right to believe in such a fantasy...

I do not have that kind of faith to believe is Adult fairy tales....

I'll stay with the FACT that a Holy God Created us...in whatever means he chose to do such!

Had a little trouble with this article, did you?

187 jaunte  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:36:40pm

re: #185 Albertanator

Sometimes words alter the way we feel about things. Sludge seems so dirty.
Maybe it would help to think of it as a pool of stardust.

188 Ceemack  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:37:18pm

re: #158 Yelnats

Theories are supported by facts. But they never become facts. Even the theory of gravity isn't a fact.

We observe gravity all the time, but that doesn't mean the theory of gravity is 100% accurate. We directly observe evolution also, but it can never be proven that evolution was responsible for all life.

Read the wikipedia article on "theory" for more info.

I'd skip Wikipedia and read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". It talks quite a bit about the theory of gravity, which is perfectly accurate in terrestrial circumstances but doesn't work when mass and/or velocity are extremely high.

189 Ceemack  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:41:00pm

Charles, I have to say...this truly is a fascinating piece of research, and truly ground-breaking. I doubt I would have heard about it if you hadn't posted a couple of articles about it. Thanks, and don't let the trolls get you down. You must really be over the target!

190 Summer  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:45:36pm

re: #185 Albertanator

I'll stay with the FACT that a Holy God Created us...in whatever means he chose to do such!

How is that a "FACT"?

Did you figure that out in a lab or something?

You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it a "FACT".

191 joecitizen  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:47:44pm

re: #190 Summer

How is that a "FACT"?

Did you figure that out in a lab or something?

You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it a "FACT".


really,it's like arguing with a pet rock fercrissakes...

192 LemonJoose  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:50:37pm

#158 and #184:

Yes, I worded that a bit poorly. In truth, even in this experiment it is doubtful that they could prove that the mutation was random and not a result of some unknown intelligent hand. The only observed fact is that the DNA sequence changed, and the strain with the change out-reproduced the strain without the change.

To me that supports the idea of evolution through random mutation and natural selection.

But just as I used the term "fact" incorrectly, so did the Louisiana Coalition for Science who referred to the "scientific fact of evolution" in their letter to Bobby Jindal, as reported in Charles' earlier post.

193 Indefatigable  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 9:51:26pm

re: #105 Charles

It's your blog and you're free to do as you wish. Like I said, just a question. I would just hate to lose any fellow lizards over this subject.

194 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:01:00pm

re: #165 Charles

You already have a policy for "First!" posts, why not one for "Last!" ;)

195 JHW  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:01:59pm

For any interested in the availability of very technical peer reviewed scientific papers on biology and evolution Springer Link , of the Netherlands
has thousands available in PDF format.

196 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:04:25pm

re: #192 LemonJoose

But just as I used the term "fact" incorrectly, so did the Louisiana Coalition for Science who referred to the "scientific fact of evolution" in their letter to Bobby Jindal

No, actually, they didn't.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

197 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:05:05pm

re: #167 LemonJoose

Reading is fundamental.

Quite a few mechanisms for mutation are quite well known and are not "random" in the colloquial sense, but consequences of some of the DNA polymerases that aren't quite so accurate (among others). They're also not random in that certain mutations are more frequent than others... If you were truly interested in this, there is plenty of information out there; FREE information no less.

198 Ackomanyuki  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:11:25pm

Great! A form of E. Coli that may be more resistant to one of its naturally existing bactricides. And to prove what? If this shit gets out of the lab and into the food chain, no more cleaning butcher's block effectively with lemons in the Brave New World of science serving science.

199 Kulhwch  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:11:47pm

re: #7 BGOH

Charles, now you're just trying to thin the herd.

;o)

If you'd read any of the herd's responses last night, you'd notice they were already pre-thinned ...

}:)     [But, yes, this should be a rockin' good time ... ]

200 xleatherneck  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:12:00pm

#193 Indefatigable
It's your blog and you're free to do as you wish. Like I said, just a question. I would just hate to lose any fellow lizards over this subject.


You don't quite understand. This is a purge by proxy, and those that leave, won't be missed, for obvious reasons.

201 ASU86PE  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:12:14pm

FTA: After 33,127 generations... The researchers found that when they put the bacteria in pure citrate, the microbes could thrive on it as their sole source of carbon.

So, this is a sign of change.

1. Constant refining and feeding assumes that this food supply/freezing would have been as constant as their 20 year supply? And if that happened
2. Why were the other "cloudy" flasks considered failures/contaminated while this one was not? Were there changes from one type of bacterium to another and they missed it? And
3. Why does the "few reports of E. coli that can feed on citrate" considered out of bounds for this to be considered different? And
4. If complete human change took "33,127 generations" for each modicum of change the time - at 20 years per generation, 66,254 years per modicum of change - nears infinity. How many people is that? Where are they? Also,
5. Why is it still an e-coli bacterium?
Wasn't the point that the bacterium would be a different 'species' of critter?

If he goes for twenty more years....

202 Charles  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:25:00pm

42.

203 joecitizen  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:33:48pm

re: #202 Charles

42.

as in 42 bannings because of this subject?

204 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:36:59pm

re: #203 joecitizen

No. It is THE answer.

205 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:37:08pm

re: #203 joecitizen

As in "The Answer"...

206 joecitizen  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:38:52pm

re: #204 Dan G.

No. It is THE answer.


ty ty , my ignorance truly is bliss sometimes...

207 Dan G.  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:43:35pm

Slow night.

I've got $10.00 that says the coordinated posting from ID proponents will commence much later than usual, when everyone has gone to sleep (unless of course they're history/banned and have run out of sockpuppets).

208 Kepler Sings  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:51:16pm

Very interesting, now try the experiment starting with primordial oceans filled only with inorganic compounds, and no men in white coats supervising. This is more of the junk science periodically thrown out to the unthinking acolytes of evolution.

Much like what we saw in the 50's when the secularists proclaimed to the heavens they had created "life" in a testube based on ideas from the atheistic Russian scientist Oparin. And fools never cease to be fooled.

Miller and his student Urey set up a series of experiments at the university of Chicago in 1953. The experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the materials that Oparin thought could form life (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water) then kept it boiling while passing high voltage electrical sparks through it.

It was asserted that this was a fair representation of the atmosphere in the early oceans of earth, although whether this was true is open to serious doubt. It seems more likely that the mix of chemicals and the method were chosen as being the most likely to yield the hoped for result. When their first results yielded poisonous sludge but no amino acids, they arranged a cold condenser trap to catch any interesting chemicals that were produced, otherwise any 'origin of life' chemicals formed would be destroyed by heat and/or the same crude electrical energy that had formed them from simpler chemicals.

A huge problem for the concept of origin-of-life molecules being formed by random energy is that any molecules formed this way would be broken down just as quickly as they were made, since this kind of chemical reaction goes both ways. In living cells, catalysts and protein templates make sure the reaction only goes the right way, and amino acids are made efficiently to order under precise DNA /RNA instructions and linked to other amino acids to make proteins as soon as they are made. This could not have happened in the supposed pre-biotic earth as neither the assembly mechanisms not the information blueprint coulsd have been available.

Hence the introduction of the 'cold trap' to push the results towards what was wanted to support evolution. Any such naturally occurring cold trap arrangement would be extremely implausible on an oceanic scale. Any oxygen in the early earth atmosphere would have destroyed the free amino acids quickly by oxidization, so there cannot have been any oxygen (Miller and Urey knew this and worked on a no-oxygen (reducing) atmosphere assumption).

And now we have bacteria cultures nursed and fed by men in white coats (taking the place of the designer of course, wink, wink) and after ONLY 37,500 generations we got them eating lemon juice. Why it must be only a snap to get the first live birth of a mammal from this point!

209 Kepler Sings  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 10:55:17pm

re: #182 Killian Bundy

So easy go make some life without using anything already given to you.

210 Killian Bundy  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 11:04:17pm

re: #209 Kepler Sings

So easy go make some life without using anything already given to you.

It's all there, A G C T. Four genetic building blaocks that only can be combined two ways to provide life.

/this doesn't mean we're going to be swapping spit in the shower

211 finnagain  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 11:18:13pm

re: #208 Kepler Sings

The theories of abiogenesis are totally distinct from evolutionary biology/mechanics. Conflating the two does nobody any service.

One deals with how life started.
The other deals with how, once life was started however it happened to start, it changes/changed/will change.

Opponents of evolution like to drag in various ideas about the origins or life, or the big bang, or what have you.
They're all irrelevant.
Whether life was created by God, or Algore or Ronald McDonald is immaterial to theories which only aim at predicting and explaining the mechanics of allelic frequency shifts, cladogenesis, anagenesis, speciation, etc...

To offer a rough and ready analogy: balancing a checkbook is the process of figuring out what numbers go where, when, and how they interact to yield a final sum. Whether the money in your checking account comes from your weekly pay check or from the mafia is immaterial when balancing your checkbook.

212 lonetown  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 12:23:03am

If this is true then windmills should be no problem at all for the birds!

213 yma o hyd  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 1:27:41am

re: #211 finnagain

The theories of abiogenesis are totally distinct from evolutionary biology/mechanics. Conflating the two does nobody any service.

One deals with how life started.
The other deals with how, once life was started however it happened to start, it changes/changed/will change.

Opponents of evolution like to drag in various ideas about the origins or life, or the big bang, or what have you.
They're all irrelevant.
Whether life was created by God, or Algore or Ronald McDonald is immaterial to theories which only aim at predicting and explaining the mechanics of allelic frequency shifts, cladogenesis, anagenesis, speciation, etc...

To offer a rough and ready analogy: balancing a checkbook is the process of figuring out what numbers go where, when, and how they interact to yield a final sum. Whether the money in your checking account comes from your weekly pay check or from the mafia is immaterial when balancing your checkbook.

Precisely!
Thanks for this post.

Just generally, this long-running experiment is simply brilliant work, and should be celebrated as an astounding example of how scientific research proceeds.

I really don't get it why people on the one hand are proud of the Hubble telescope, the Mars Probe, Moon landings, theoretical physics - but get into a bother about biology.
Why is that?

214 Summer  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 1:58:29am

re: #213 yma o hyd

Precisely!
Thanks for this post.

Just generally, this long-running experiment is simply brilliant work, and should be celebrated as an astounding example of how scientific research proceeds.

I really don't get it why people on the one hand are proud of the Hubble telescope, the Mars Probe, Moon landings, theoretical physics - but get into a bother about biology.
Why is that?

Because saying that God didn't create the world in seven days, saying that he didn't create each species the way it was from the start, and saying that Man and Woman were not created in the garden of eden means that a large part of the fundamental start of what they believe in is "proven" to be mistaken. And if that is the case, then they fear that what science says, or will say, is that none of it is true.

Creation stories in every culture are, in most cases, what define a lot about that culture. It's the beginning of everything they believe in. If science says something else, they feel as if the entire base of their religion is being attacked. It's one thing to say that life may exist elsewhere - they can debate less important passages for or against "redemption" of other life forms on other planets. It's another thing entirely to say: "You know what, guys? Turns out the entire beginning of your book is kinda off...here's the real story."

BTW, again, I'm an Atheist. And I think they're buffoons for not just accepting reality and science over something which was written by people who had absolutely no idea how almost anything worked. But they really believe this, and I can understand and sympathize with it in a sense. Everything they believe is threatened by Evolution - as far as they understand it. It isn't really. I do accept that somebody can believe in God and even take some inspiration from the Bible etc...but they don't see it that way. We're talking about "fundamentalists" who believe in everything written in there.

And the sad part is, I guess they're kind of right in some way. Science pretty much has mostly come along and shown a lot of what is written in the bible to be absolute fantasy written by infants who had less understanding of what was around them than a 10 year old does today. That wasn't their fault..nobody knew. And how could they? After a few thousand years of work, we figured out how some stuff really works. The world isn't flat. Gravity holds us down. The Sun doesn't go around the earth. Women don't "bewitch" men with magic. The world took a lot longer than seven days to form, as did the entire universe. Things weren't created in a static fashion and change is the norm. Time is a relative thing and is far greater than anything which could have been comprehended at the time the stories in the bible were written or even just passed down in an oral culture.

So of course, first they attacked astronomy because it showed some inconsistencies with reality and the bible. They pretty much lost that one after Galileo and a few others. That was a major blow. Then they attacked Evolution. The thing about it is, you can't "see" the Evolutionary process by looking through a telescope - it's not that easy. You have to learn a heck of a lot more to understand it fully. So it's easier to attack, and keep on attacking. They can't attack what people can see, but they can attack what people don't fully comprehend without lots of study.

So that's your answer right there. And from their point of view, they have to keep doing it or they'll lose everything they believe in, regardless of if it still lets them believe in a more generalized god or not.

215 Alberta Oil Peon  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 2:50:22am

re: #175 joecitizen

excellent post..you oughtta try it more often!

I'll second that!

216 Right of Left  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:43:34am

Here is some background/insight into the question of why there was citrate in the growth medium for the bacteria to use. The medium Rich Lenski uses for his long term experimental evolution experiment is a solution composed of inorganic salts that provide all of the required minerals for growth, and glucose. In bacterial genetics, this is usually called "Glucose minimal medium", (I think Lenski calls his formulation "DM25"). About 35 years ago when E. coli geneticists first started using this type of medium, they found that the calcium and iron salts would take forever to go into solution, and would tend to make the medium cloudy. They found if they added citrate to the medium, it would chelate the divalent cations such as calcium, and the medium would clear up. They took advantage of the fact that E. coli couldn't transport the citrate into the cell, and use it as a carbon source, so it didn't interfere with their controlled experiments looking at E. coli metabolism.

This is why there has always been this alternate carbon source in his experiment, just waiting for E. coli to find a way to use.

217 hellosnackbar  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:14:03am

What clever little bug(s)(gers) E coli are ;Richard Dawkins1Creationists0

218 littleO  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 5:47:57am

and walla, we can grow a pair

219 jaybee007  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:00:00am

Chaz,
this is still a very tough thing to interpret...bacteria don't NEED plasmids for genetic addition, although EColi is pretty good at them. The first experiments proving DNA to be the source of genetic information were linear fragments. So contamination with DNA alone can cause this, rather than bacterial contamination. I suspect that the likelyhood is that this is from contamination rather than novel protein synthesis, just because it is easier and metabolically advantageous.

I was involved with some experiments quite a while ago with this kind of thing and it seems to me that you would need to have them metabolizing something that nothing currently can metabolize (a novel compound), but the problem is that some bacteria somewhere can eat almost anything... Sticky wicket.

BTW I do believe in evolution, and am a raging Christian. I don't know what the fuss is about. Would recommend the Language of God as a pretty decent intro for people honestly trying to understand the ability to have your intellectual cake and eat it...

220 Right of Left  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:12:48am

re: #219 jaybee007

Actually, E. coli (unlike many other bacteria) is not "competent" at taking up DNA straight from the environment, so in this case DNA contamination wouldn't be a confounding issue.

The most likely scenario is that an existing transport system for some other nutrient was slightly modified via a mutation to allow the transport of citrate into the cell. No one is suggesting that E. coli generated a whole new enzymatic pathway from whole cloth.

E. coli runs citrate straight through the TCA cycle, just like almost every other living thing. The only thing that prevented it from using it previously was it had no way to transport it into the cell.

221 tgibson1962  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 6:54:21am

re: #214 Summer

I've read the posts on the evolution related threads (yes, all of them) for the past couple of days. I am, according to your description, one of those infantile, incapable of thinking above the level of a 10-year-old theists. In the midst of trying not to drool on myself this morning, I did find this particular part of your last post interesting:

"So that's your answer right there. And from their point of view, they have to keep doing it or they'll lose everything they believe in..."

Of course, isn't that true for atheists as well? Facts are, well, just facts. For IDers or atheists to interpret those facts through the grid of their own presuppositions isn't exactly an earth-shaking revelation. However, it's apparently only intellectually bankrupt for a theist.

To say it plainly, atheists have a vested interest in believing there is no God. Every fact they come in contact with is filtered through that grid and will, voila, come out as proof of that presupposition. Thus, you too "have to keep doing it" or "you'll lose everything you (don't) believe in".

222 ASU86PE  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 7:06:43am

re: #214 Summer

And why do the biblical doubters use their non-knowledge of the Bible to tangentially argue that all we "fundamentalists" are doing is preserving the Judeo-Christian thought?

Argue. as I have. from a common fact driven base and leave the argument of "faith" to another thread.

We are just as critical, if not more so. We attend church and support church work because unlike other beliefs, we still find the tried and true tenents of this proven thought for the betterment of humanity.

The discussion centers on the change exhibited by a bacterium not Genesis through Revelations. BTW, I arguing from I Cor. 15:39; just one verse. And it is still a bacterium!


re: #202 Charles

Slick retort. Thanks

BTW, how can I make those links fit in a sentence? Also, I think this is a great quick forum for discussion . Thanks for opening up. I recognize the effort you take.

223 jaybee007  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 7:13:19am

So what is the difference between an enzyme and hormone you ask?

You can't hear an enzyme...

...crickets.....

Let me state I am not a microbiologist, just a physician who used to be an industrial microbiologist in a former life a long time ago back before green footballs meant those made from soy products in sustainable communes.

EColi can and does take up linear DNA through random insertion. We artificially make them more porous in the lab (i.e. make them competent), but anything we do in the lab probably happens in nature albeit at a lower rate. The encoded protein can be for a porin or enzyme, whatever, makes no difference to me. Plasmids and phages certainly make it more efficient, but never say never in biology.

What I am saying is that even if this is a new protein, not just a modification, it doesn't prove much. There are almost no closed systems in biology and the more generations you have the higher chance of contamination (since you must reculture each time). I will claim Occam on this one and suggest that an improbable uptake event from contamination is more likely than a denovo new protein synthesis, but I would be fascinated if there is proof of a new protein.

We did an experiment with a bacteria that can eat industrial waste chemicals (a thermophilus from japan I think), growing it in culture with other bacteria that couldn't (mixed bag from a previous experiment). We penalized the waste-eater with a lower temperature that made its enzymes less effective and lo and behold it adapted the enzymes for use at a lower temp. But the non-eaters managed to pick up the enzyme also, and eventually became predominant. This was probably 11 years ago, and for practical rather than research purposes. It might have been plasmids, but makes no difference to the thesis.

Bacteria are VERY adaptive. The only thing that makes this even more likely in higher cells is the ability to hold onto more genes (as non-expressed or pseudogenes) while this is proportionally expensive in a small genome like a bacteria. This is why I don't buy the irreducible complexity argument, especially in higher cells. Bacteria do this too with inducible lac genes as in EColi, just more painful for them to hold onto a gene that gives them a disadvantage.

224 Summer  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 8:10:45am

re: #221 tgibson1962

I've read the posts on the evolution related threads (yes, all of them) for the past couple of days. I am, according to your description, one of those infantile, incapable of thinking above the level of a 10-year-old theists. In the midst of trying not to drool on myself this morning, I did find this particular part of your last post interesting:

"So that's your answer right there. And from their point of view, they have to keep doing it or they'll lose everything they believe in..."

Of course, isn't that true for atheists as well? Facts are, well, just facts. For IDers or atheists to interpret those facts through the grid of their own presuppositions isn't exactly an earth-shaking revelation. However, it's apparently only intellectually bankrupt for a theist.

To say it plainly, atheists have a vested interest in believing there is no God. Every fact they come in contact with is filtered through that grid and will, voila, come out as proof of that presupposition. Thus, you too "have to keep doing it" or "you'll lose everything you (don't) believe in".

You're wrong on so many levels, I barely know where to begin.

1) Facts are just facts? That's the major issue: Creationists are not accepting the facts. They are accepting made up crap from the Discovery Instutute which seeks to refute those facts. It would be great if they could use real science to show us something new, but they can't. They've been caught lying about the entire premise of their argument in a court of law. They are discounting the facts and are accepting lies.

2) If somebody actually proves to me that God exists, I'll happily change my opinion. No biblical references, please. Islamists try to prove to me that Allah exists too. Which brings me to...

3) You're an Atheist too. You don't believe in Allah. You don't believe in Thor. You don't believe in Vishnu. So what damn right do you have suddenly telling me that my not believing in Yawheh makes me any different from you in relation to other "gods"? Who the hell are you to say that suddenly you know something that nobody else has shown with science? What makes you so important?

I didn't say that you shouldn't believe God exists. You can. I have no problem with that on a personal level. Lots of scientists believe in God and also accept Evolution as a fact, just as they accept many other scientific theories which are demonstrated time and time again to be true. But people who think that the earth is 6,000 years old are idiots.

225 Sceptic Tank  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 8:33:07am

In case you have'nt noticed we are in a true Luddite Age. From the Right and the Left: technology and science, that which, has pulled us out of the mud is under attack.

226 Proud to be an infidel  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 9:09:28am

re: #190 Summer

How is that a "FACT"?

Did you figure that out in a lab or something?

You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it a "FACT".

Ditto to YOU too.

227 Proud to be an infidel  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 9:23:32am

re: #224 Summer


1) Facts are just facts? That's the major issue: Creationists are not accepting the facts. They are accepting made up crap from the Discovery Instutute which seeks to refute those facts. It would be great if they could use real science to show us something new, but they can't. They've been caught lying about the entire premise of their argument in a court of law. They are discounting the facts and are accepting lies.

SO WHEN HAS EVOLUTION EVER BEEN PROVEN A FACT?

2) If somebody actually proves to me that God exists, I'll happily change my opinion.

WHAT KIND AND HOW MUCH PROOF DO YOU NEED TO CONVINCE YOU THAT GOD EXISTS? IT SHOULD BE EVIDENT ALL AROUND YOU. BUT YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE YOUR OPINION AND YOU KNOW IT.

228 tgibson1962  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 9:58:05am

re: #224 Summer

Thanks for proving my point. From my statement that theists' and atheists' presuppositions determine how they interpret facts you immediately knew that I was a card-carrying 6,000-year-old-earther. Brilliant!

My point was a bit broader than a single bit of data on a bacteria and dealt with how people deal with information. The citrate eating bacteria is going to be viewed as "proof of evolution" or "evidence of intelligent design" depending on the presuppositions of the individual coming in contact with the information.

Also, I wouldn't dream of trying to "prove God" to you, even if I thought it were possible. I don't know why you don't believe and won't make inferences. For myself, I can assure you my theism isn't because I think I'm "better" or "smarter" than anyone else; at the same time, its probably not because I'm dumber or worse either.

For the record, there is also a difference between a theist who is a monotheist and a polytheist. Because one believes in one God does not necessitate the belief in any god and the failure to believe in other gods doesn't make one an atheist.

229 claire  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 10:05:07am

re: #228 tgibson1962

For the record, there is also a difference between a theist who is a monotheist and a polytheist.

Why is one better than the other? I've always wondered. Monotheism is just the fashion these days in this part of the world.

Because one believes in one God does not necessitate the belief in any god

Why not? You just happen to believe in the one your parents did purely by an accident of birth location. Didn't it ever occur to you that if you were born in India, you'd be a polytheist Hindu?

and the failure to believe in other gods doesn't make one an atheist.

It does actually. Mind blowing, isn't it?

230 Summer  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 10:40:05am

re: #227 Proud to be an infidel

WHAT KIND AND HOW MUCH PROOF DO YOU NEED TO CONVINCE YOU THAT GOD EXISTS? IT SHOULD BE EVIDENT ALL AROUND YOU. BUT YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE YOUR OPINION AND YOU KNOW IT.

Okay, I'll bite: What evidence? Please cite some. I'm waiting.

231 proud to be an infidel  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 11:45:11am

re: #230 Summer

Okay, I'll bite: What evidence? Please cite some. I'm waiting.

I'd only be wasting my time.

232 Summer  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 12:08:50pm

re: #231 proud to be an infidel

I'd only be wasting my time.

No, really. You said it's evident all around me. So please point something out. If it is that simple to see, please show me in a simple way.

My guess is: you can't do it.

233 Abu Lahab  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 12:48:08pm

re: #12 Charles

I know it's hard for some to believe, but I really am interested in this subject, and this experiment really is ground-breaking.

It's an awesome topic and since you posted it; I have e-mailed it to many people because it is a valuable scientific article; and I don't understand why attach "labels" to this article, as some lizards are doing.
I like this quotation by Carl Sagan: "It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science".

234 mobaby  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 1:25:25pm

Plasmids allow the bacteria to incorporate new genetic information from an outside source. Here they are saying no plasmids were incorporated. I suppose he has sequenced all the DNA in multiple bacterial samples to confirm that no plasmids with the Citrate consuming ability have contaminated the culture? If the absence of plasmids has been confirmed, in order for new genetic information to evolve that would entail the creation of a new sequence of DNA previously not present - OR are we talking just a change in already existing DNA - just a change in something that already exists - a misplaced A G C or T where a nucleotide already existed. Change over time - something everyone accepts.

Now, for the scientific method to be used, this experiment must be repeated multiple times in this lab and others to validate these results. I'm not saying they can't confirm it, but that is what needs to happen.

235 stuiec  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 1:35:18pm

re: #12 Charles

I know it's hard for some to believe, but I really am interested in this subject, and this experiment really is ground-breaking.

It is a fascinating experiment. It shows how serendipitous mutations can lead to a compound trait (where the early mutation that allowed for some citrate absorption was amplified by a later mutation that turned the bacteria into efficient citrate-eaters).

Of course, unless Dr. Lenski ran a control where he duplicated the experimental conditions in a room fitted with a God-excluder, he hasn't necessarily shown that those evolutionary changes occured without Divine intervention...

[don't hurt me]

236 AlFromChicago  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 1:45:20pm

Great science.

Some thoughts:

- It doesn't explain where life came from.
- As far as I'm concerned, ID is the only explanation for the creation of life.
- This shows how evolution works
- Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was later just shortened to The Origin of Species. I think it's because of the Eugenics movement. It's fascinating to read about the "Progressives" and their quest to cleanse the race. Of course, today's Liberals ignore the connections and the press censors it for them. Hitler's version of Fascism is involved too.

Anyways, "evolution" explains changes like the ones described but it doesn't explain where we came from. I happen to believe in both ID and evolution.

237 Right of Left  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 2:07:24pm

re: #234 mobaby

Now, for the scientific method to be used, this experiment must be repeated multiple times in this lab and others to validate these results. I'm not saying they can't confirm it, but that is what needs to happen.

An excellent point. And in fact he did repeat the experiment (over 3,000 times), and he did manage to re-evolve the citrate utilizing strain over 30 times. (here is a link to PNAS paper from Lenski's web page)
[Link: myxo.css.msu.edu...]

238 Charles  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 2:12:53pm

re: #235 stuiec

It is a fascinating experiment. It shows how serendipitous mutations can lead to a compound trait (where the early mutation that allowed for some citrate absorption was amplified by a later mutation that turned the bacteria into efficient citrate-eaters).

Of course, unless Dr. Lenski ran a control where he duplicated the experimental conditions in a room fitted with a God-excluder, he hasn't necessarily shown that those evolutionary changes occured without Divine intervention...

[don't hurt me]

Well, of course he hasn't, but that's not his intention. There's no way to test for the presence of divine intervention. Although it may be possible, it's not part of what this experiment is about. Lenski is discovering new details about the way evolution works by observing, testing, and documenting what happens in a well-controlled long-term experiment.

Sure, the hand of God could be part of it. But that can't be observed or tested, in any way that meets the criteria of scientific research.

That's a premise that can only be believed, not demonstrated, in the absence of physical evidence. This is why it's called "faith."

239 cannon2  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:40:30pm

so..what are they naming this new bug?
o..wait...it's still e.coli...just a new strain. enviromental adaptation is noe evolution. horses raised in virginia will starve to death in kansas....but their offspring, born in kansas do fine. to qualify as evolution, the e.coli should, in theory, change into a "higher life form", not into a different, especially adapted strain.

240 tgibson1962  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:48:16pm

re: #238 Charles

"That's a premise that can only be believed, not demonstrated, in the absence of physical evidence. This is why it's called "faith.""

Absolutely! On that note, is "faith" required for belief in chance?

241 tgibson1962  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:11:01pm

re: #229 claire

"Monotheism is just the fashion these days in this part of the world...You just happen to believe in the one your parents did purely by an accident of birth location. "

Given the fact that blind luck and meaningless chance form the basis of atheistic cosmology, your comments aren't surprising. I don't know how you were born, but I didn't appear unbidden under a cabbage leaf. Two people, male and female, made a conscious decision that they wanted a child, followed the prescribed procedure for obtaining one, and I resulted; even if one doesn't make a conscious decision, if you follow the prescribed procedure the outcome is still possible. Follow that pattern back a few generations and you'd find a Scots-Irish who decided to leave Ireland to come to America, a generation or two before that a Scot who decided to leave Scotland, and so forth and so on. Not chance, deliberate choice. Thus, my birth location wasn't an accident, but the outcome of a number of deliberate choices none of which were made by me. Further, have you ever heard of a "convert" who deliberately chose a faith, or lack thereof, in contradiction to their parents?

BTW, monotheism is the norm, either in the classical sense or as a result of self-worship. Even among polytheists there is a hierarchy of fealty with the most worshiped corresponding to the worshipers self-interest.

As to location determining religion, you assume there are ONLY Hindus in India. No, there are also Buddhists, Christians and Muslims. While I might statistically be more likely to be Hindu and number of factors, environmental and otherwise might lead to a different outcome. And yes, I have considered that possibility.

"Why not?"

Let me make sure I understand your question. Since I believe in bananas (theism) AND because I believe yellow bananas are good to eat (monotheism), THEN I must also believe that green bananas (polytheism) and black bananas (pantheism) are good to eat. Sorry, doesn't fly logically.

"It does actually. Mind blowing, isn't it?"

No, it just makes me a monotheist and no it isn't.

242 missouri boy  Fri, Jun 20, 2008 4:54:01pm

Color me dumb, but After 33,127 generations starting with E.coli, you now have E.coli that eats differently?
Well , that seals it........evolution at work.
I will be convinced when that E.coli changes into a totally different bug.......which, after all, is the premise of evolution, isn't it?

243 proud to be an infidel  Sat, Jun 21, 2008 1:29:27am

re: #232 Summer

No, really. You said it's evident all around me. So please point something out. If it is that simple to see, please show me in a simple way.

My guess is: you can't do it.

Your guess is wrong BUT it doesn't matter because like I say, I'd only be wasting my time and I'm not about to do that. I'm sure you've scoffed at the most obvious in the past so why should I waste the space? Besides, I have better and more interesting points to make on this forum.

244 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 22, 2008 10:44:14am

Actually, the artifactual retroviral sequences found in the genes of most species demonstrate their evolutionary interrelatedness.

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Here's a particualrly trenchant excerpt, but read the whole thing:

“If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in “The Descent of Man” (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the “theory” of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.

Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

Molecular biology has made precise knowledge about the nature of that inheritance possible. With extensive databases of genetic sequences, reconstructing ancestral genomes has become common, and retroviruses have been found in the genome of every vertebrate species that has been studied. Anthropologists and biologists have used them to investigate not only the lineage of primates but the relationships among animals—dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes, for example—and also to test whether similar organisms may in fact be unrelated.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Dark Night - Two Week Free Trial
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Sunbathing in the van allen belt.


Free Shipping on Most Orders