Evolution observed in bacteria?

[cslewislover]

He may partly mean adaptations that are reflections of recessive genes coming to the forefront. Like what's seen in domesticated plants and animals. Dog kinds can be highly different from one another, but all the differences come about from genes that are already there. I don't know, but I do know that the vast majority of mutations are either detrimental (sp?) or neutral. In Behe's newer book, The Edge Of Evolution, he gives examples of mutations of bacteria that benefit the bacteria in crisis (like in fighting a new treatment we humans come up with), but then amazingly, the bacteria revert back to their former selves when the crisis is over. He also discusses what mutations look like in the DNA where we know one species separated from another. The DNA sequences are a mess, though they work. He says that DNA normally is incredibly elegant; mutated DNA is not.

[Robert Byers]

And once again I ask you, what mechanism BRINGS about these new adaptations if not mutations? In one hand you quickly dismiss natural selection and mutations and yet blithely state on the other hand that "adaptations", some vague term on your part, that would be responsible for changes on a level even faster than evolutionists claim!

Mutations are too vague and chancy for creationism to believe in them.

Is God not in control over creation?! CAn He not mainpulate genes, DAN sequences? COuld He not craft the genome of a population do that it survives?

Yes God could bring body adaptation anyway at all but there is a timeline and not enough time for natural selection working on mutations.
I don't know the mechanism but none of this was ever observed. It is wrong ideas in evolution that bodies have had long periods to change.
To know the mechanism would make one famous. I only know that its there and not the evolution stuff.
I'm saying the biblical genesis model excludes evolution and there is no other method but a fast innate one to allow creatures quick change as the fossil record indicates they have changed. indeed we changed likewise in our bodies on many points following Babel. Skin colour etc.

[Himantolophus]

He may partly mean adaptations that are reflections of recessive genes coming to the forefront. Like what's seen in domesticated plants and animals. Dog kinds can be highly different from one another, but all the differences come about from genes that are already there.

But those are just races of the same species, the same thing with Robert's races. That does not explain speciation of a NEW species. You need a genetic change to make one species into another. The degree of genetic change determines whether the individual is a rcae, form, subspecies, or full species.

I don't know the mechanism but none of this was ever observed. It is wrong ideas in evolution that bodies have had long periods to change.
To know the mechanism would make one famous. I only know that its there and not the evolution stuff.

If you believe that all of the animals on Earth radiated from a pair an ancestors after the Flood 4000 years ago then you have to be able to OBSERVE a mechanism. This mechanism doesn't just stop just because we are smart enough to study it (or is this a way God hides the "truth" lol). Micro-evolution is constantly ongoing so.... if this mechanism was able to create millions of species from one ancestor in 4000 years, then you should be able to directly observe the process in nature today and clearly describe it. Or at least cite experiments done that show this happening at the rate that agrees with the YEC Biblical timeline.

I'm saying the biblical genesis model excludes evolution and there is no other method but a fast innate one to allow creatures quick change as the fossil record indicates they have changed. indeed we changed likewise in our bodies on many points following Babel. Skin colour etc.

Humans are one species, that doesn't count as speciation. Color variations are wired into our DNA already. Most creatures have this genetic variability that allows them to cope with varying environmental conditions. This is NOT to say that any creature has in it's DNA the ability to adapt to ANY environment on the planet. Some, such as H. sapiens are very versatile species and can modify their environment as such to survive.
If this process is "fast and innate" then surely you could produce a new species of insect in the lab simply by putting it in a new habitat? I'd love to be able to do this, I could make my own "new species" instead of finding them in the wild!

The speciation indicated by the fossil record was very slow... FYI

[August]

Hi Himantolophus,

A question about your original post...was the ability to metabolize citrates by the e-coli the addition of the a feature, or was it the loss of the ability to keep it out?

There are in vivo examples of bacteria that metabolize citrates. In fact, this may all be a bit misleading. E-coli can digest citrates, what it lacked was a mechanism by which the citrates can be absorbed through the cell membrane, and it is the development of that rather innocuous ability that is being hailed as a major breakthrough. But unless they can show that this evolutionary progress, and not regression (in vivo the ability to absorb citrates may be blocked because it may allow other dangerous elements to enter too), then this is not progress, it is merely the recurrence of a long-lost mutation. I know they considered that and said it was not so, because if it was recessive then it would have disappeared by now, and it was the development of a new trait. But that explanation is rather vague, and in my opinion is just begging the question in their favor.

[zoegirl]

Corre3ct me if I am wrong, Himantolophus, but the terms recessive and dominant don't really apply in bacteria because they are haploid organisms. Whatever genes the bacteria have will be expressed, whereas in diploid prganisms with two copies of a gene, one may be expressed while they other is not.

ALso, the fact that a trait is recessive doesn't mean that it will disappear from a popualtion. As long as carriers exist in a population, that recessive allele will remain in the population.

[cslewislover]

He may partly mean adaptations that are reflections of recessive genes coming to the forefront. Like what's seen in domesticated plants and animals. Dog kinds can be highly different from one another, but all the differences come about from genes that are already there.

But those are just races of the same species, the same thing with Robert's races. That does not explain speciation of a NEW species. You need a genetic change to make one species into another. The degree of genetic change determines whether the individual is a rcae, form, subspecies, or full species.

I understand, Himantolophus, and thanks for your previous discussion about spiders, speciation, and taxonomy. The difficulty in discussing this topic is the fact that what defines a species is ambiguous, right (and I'm not referring to the dogs)? A lot of times, or most of the time (and all of the time when it comes to fossils), we wouldn't be able to tell if an instance of macroevolution took place if we couldn't really define what the species was in the first place. Does this make sense - am I correct? I appreciate the more detailed scientific responses, like August's and yours, because I'm not highly educated in biology.

I didn't mean to exlude you, Zoe (@ your last post) - I was still writing mine while you posted.

[zoegirl]

You are absolutely correct. The problem with fossils that that they have historically only used morpholigical differences to establish speciation.


Although recently they have been using fragments of DNA found in the fossils to examine genetic differences. In some cases this has confimed their ideas and in others, like the traditional view of the horses, they have found that they need to prune the number of speciation events they tradtitionally thought occured.

[Himantolophus]

There are in vivo examples of bacteria that metabolize citrates. In fact, this may all be a bit misleading. E-coli can digest citrates, what it lacked was a mechanism by which the citrates can be absorbed through the cell membrane, and it is the development of that rather innocuous ability that is being hailed as a major breakthrough. But unless they can show that this evolutionary progress, and not regression (in vivo the ability to absorb citrates may be blocked because it may allow other dangerous elements to enter too), then this is not progress, it is merely the recurrence of a long-lost mutation. I know they considered that and said it was not so, because if it was recessive then it would have disappeared by now, and it was the development of a new trait. But that explanation is rather vague, and in my opinion is just begging the question in their favor.

well, since we don't know (and possibly will never know) what their past abilities were, we cannot be completely sure that these bacteria couldn't metabolize citrates in the distant past. Whether they lost this ability and regained it in the lab is certainly possible but this begs the question. Why did they lose the ability? It seems like this ability, once evolved, could benefit the bacteria. So, this would mean the ability should not have disappeared... or at least remained in a subpopulation. I wonder what the costs, if any, are involved with retaining the ability that would cause selection to act against it?

This, plus the fact that this hasn't been observed before and the genetic changes were noted, lends support to the possible macroevolution of a new trait.

Corre3ct me if I am wrong, Himantolophus, but the terms recessive and dominant don't really apply in bacteria because they are haploid organisms. Whatever genes the bacteria have will be expressed, whereas in diploid prganisms with two copies of a gene, one may be expressed while they other is not.

ALso, the fact that a trait is recessive doesn't mean that it will disappear from a popualtion. As long as carriers exist in a population, that recessive allele will remain in the population

that is correct. It would appear that 100% selection against one genotype (dom or rec) would act in one generation in haploid bacteria but they are so quick to reproduce and thus evolve, that mutations probably pop in and out rapidly in the population.

I understand, Himantolophus, and thanks for your previous discussion about spiders, speciation, and taxonomy. The difficulty in discussing this topic is the fact that what defines a species is ambiguous, right (and I'm not referring to the dogs)? A lot of times, or most of the time (and all of the time when it comes to fossils), we wouldn't be able to tell if an instance of macroevolution took place if we couldn't really define what the species was in the first place. Does this make sense - am I correct? I appreciate the more detailed scientific responses, like August's and yours, because I'm not highly educated in biology.

Well, firstly... the word "macro and microevolution" also has a fuzzy borderline. YEC's would call speciation (species-level) microevolution while evolutionists would call everything just "evolution". You'd first have to answer the question: "Is the formation of a new species macro or microevolutionary?"

The species definition consists of a lot of things: Are the species separated in range? Are they consistently different in morphology? Are they genetically similar? Are they able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Are they separated seasonally? Are their genitalia compatible?
Most species are able to pick out as distinct (lions and tigers) but there are a lot of species that are split and lumped repetively (the Conus daucus complex in the Caribbean). Yet, even physically distinct species can interbreed and often live in similar habitats. There are other species that only maintain their genetic divergence by being separated by a physical barrier (Panama and the Atlantic/Pacific fishes). Others have a brood in the spring while another has a brood in the summer/fall (certain butterflies).

So YES, there is no clear defintion of a species. We can define a species "as creatures more similar to each other then they are to another genus" We can easily place species into genera, which are usually well-defined by both morphology and genetics. The splitting of morphotypes into species is best done using morphology, genetics, and breeding studies ALL TOGETHER. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of life on the planet, this is not able to be done

Macroevolution is best seen when you look at genera or even families of organisms. Their relative positions are more easy to map on a evolutionary tree.

[cslewislover]

How many genera are there? So you believe that since the flood, there has been evolution (changes in species/genera, which I take as macroevolution) of the animals that had survived? Or, just small changes that don't reflect macroevolution?

[Himantolophus]

I am a theistic evolutionist so I accept the "secular" timeline of billions of years and slower-paced evolution which is supported by the fossil record and modern day observations.

I do not accept the YEC timeline as there is no evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old nor is there any evidence of a Flood (at least a global one). The notion that all species "hyperevolved" from the few thousand Ark species into the millions of species we see today is baseless in reality because no one has "evolved" anything but bacteria, EVEN in laboratory settings. This demonstrates the timescale (in terms of human lifespans) is far too short to observe evolution. Plus, all of the genetic and geological evidence backs evolution.

[Robert Byers]

Himan etc
Its a cop out to say humans are different from animals in our bodies being able to change. Colour change within a few generations after the flood is proof of the innate ability of bodies to adapt to some stress by some trigger.

The mechanism for change being unknown does not need to be easily duplicated today. Following the flood God told the animals to multiply and fill the earth. So he gave them this ability. This ability would work best in a empty but food rich world right after the flood. Upon the great specuation coming to a end because the world was filled then the mechanism ended in whatever way it was triggered.
The fossil record shows clearly life was more diverse in the past then the present. The fossil record shows no lag where diversity was only in process. It was instant in its results. Within a hundred years of the flood everything was probably done.

[zoegirl]

Himantoluphus was not indicating that we are different than animals, but rather clarifying that color shifts are not an example of speciation, at least in the examples given.

The great puzzle in this is that you believe God directed this incrediblly fast change after the flood, indicating SOME sort of genetic changes, ie a sort of hyper-evolution that created the different species. (evolution, after al, results in populations FITTING their environments) And so how are you any different than a thesitic evolutionist in that regard, or even a progressive creationist?!? (excepting the time scale, of course). You are saying that God gave them the ability to drastically change to fit the new environments.

So why would these two camps worry you? Why is the idea that GOd could have used/directed evolution ANY different than your own?!?!?

[cslewislover]

No one can explain the Cambrian Explosion, however. That's what I've read from people in different camps. It's a problem for evolution from all I've read. And so much of what I've read claims that the lack of transitional fossils is very problematic as well. I had just read something yesterday about the fossil which some are claiming is a transition between a land animal and whales. It seems very much like wish fulfillment to me. I mean to look into the paleontological aspect more.

[Himantolophus]

Himan etc
Its a cop out to say humans are different from animals in our bodies being able to change. Colour change within a few generations after the flood is proof of the innate ability of bodies to adapt to some stress by some trigger.

so, considering the YEC timeline, and your supposed "rapid" evolution post-Flood, then we should be able to put Irish in Africa and they'll become black? or Africans in Ireland and they'll suddenly become fair-skinned? Why haven't we seen these changes in the last 2000 years of human settlement? Why are the ancestors of the first polynesian settlers of the Pacific still Polynesian no matter where they live? Notice we see changes only after reproduction between races (as in sexual reproduction/genetic recombination). It's genetic change, THEN adaptation.

The mechanism for change being unknown does not need to be easily duplicated today.

Why not? Do you just say this because there is no mechanism that could do this and you want to avoid explaining it?

Following the flood God told the animals to multiply and fill the earth. So he gave them this ability. This ability would work best in a empty but food rich world right after the flood. Upon the great specuation coming to a end because the world was filled then the mechanism ended in whatever way it was triggered.

HUUUUUUGGGGEEEEEEE logical fallacy here. You immediately assume that there was a global flood and go fitting the evolution to that timescale. Before you make up stories of how life "must have" and "God told life to..." to make this into that, you have to prove to the audience that there really was a global flood. Cuz there was not.

The fossil record shows clearly life was more diverse in the past then the present. The fossil record shows no lag where diversity was only in process. It was instant in its results. Within a hundred years of the flood everything was probably done.

the fossil record does show diversity but the diversity today is the same as it was at any era in the past. Unless you are a YEC, then you have to explain how millions of years of life can all live together at the same time on the planet, and alongside humans at the same time. It must also NOT overwhelm the Earth's biosphere, which is taxed already with the current biomass on the planet. Good luck with that.

The great puzzle in this is that you believe God directed this incrediblly fast change after the flood, indicating SOME sort of genetic changes, ie a sort of hyper-evolution that created the different species. (evolution, after al, results in populations FITTING their environments) And so how are you any different than a thesitic evolutionist in that regard, or even a progressive creationist?!? (excepting the time scale, of course). You are saying that God gave them the ability to drastically change to fit the new environments.

there are so many miraculous events required to go from immediately post-Flood barren-ness to the rich diversity we have today that YEC's have to invoke the "God-did-it" for just about everything. Unfortunately, that is untestable and cannot be answered.
I prefer to think that God created evolution in the Beginning as his "engine of creation". It doesn't take away from God and supports what we see today. Fossils are just placed in such order of increasing complexity and all organisms are so related internally and often externally, that it screams "common descent with modification".

No one can explain the Cambrian Explosion, however. That's what I've read from people in different camps. It's a problem for evolution from all I've read. And so much of what I've read claims that the lack of transitional fossils is very problematic as well. I had just read something yesterday about the fossil which some are claiming is a transition between a land animal and whales. It seems very much like wish fulfillment to me. I mean to look into the paleontological aspect more.
[

no one? There are plenty of explanations out there. I'll go into more detail if you want, but YEC's like to say that all modern phyla just "popped out" instantaneously. BUT, is any of this modern?

It looks like a hodge-podge of different body plans in experimental stages. Worms with armor and urchin spines, segmented slugs and squid-like inverts with fins and things coming out of their mouths. Not to mention that this was ALL in the sea and ALL invertebrate. Where are the land plants and animals in the Cambrian? Where are modern fish, urchins, mollusks, corals, sharks, dolphins? If creationists are right, it should be all there in the beginning. Nothing in that image of Cambrian life is "modern" by any means, except maybe the sponges (but they are the most primitive multi-cell creature). Ancestral yes, but that is what evolution tells us.

There are also transitional species in between every single major "kind" of organism. Just Google the term and you'll find some (and also creationist sites I'm sure). The ancestors of whales were clearly terrestrial and we have "whales" that had small limbs. Whale skeletons also have hips, why does a sea creature need to be designed with these?

These are not good arguments against evolution, and def not evidence in favor of creation.

[Himantolophus]

I jacked this from another forum because this book seems an excellent resource for those who want to look into the fossil record and see how it demonstrates evolution. It supposedly covers transitional forms very well. I'm looking into buying it eventually.

I just wanted to give my review of Donald Prothero's Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters. I'm not sure how many of you have heard of this book as it's reletivaly new (2007), but I highly recommend it.

Since I've always been interested in the more "physical" sciences like well, physics and astronomy, I realized during my deconversion that I need to educate myself on the basics of evolution. In addition to other sources, this book helps to accomplish that extremely well. It's constructed to counter the creationist claim that "There are no transitional fossils", and after reading this book I'm suprised anyone can even utter those words without their God striking them with lightning, since NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Right off the bat, Prothero educates us on just what science is, and what it isn't, and why creationism (or ID for that matter) has no place in science. After briefly talking about the plausibility of abiogenesis, Prothereo lays out the transitions from simple single celled life to multicelled, and then from soft bodied organisms to ones with hard parts. Completely destroying the "Cambrian Explosion" myth, turning it instead into a "slow-fuse". The reason it appears to explode (superficially anyway) is because soft parts don't fossilize well, and that was when hard parts were becoming more common! Then he goes into the transitions from invertebrates to chordates to full-on backbones. From Fish to amphibian (shockingly perfect transitions!). Amphibian to amniotes and reptiles and dinosaurs. Dinosaurs to birds (again... shocking!). Then from amniote to synapsid to mammals. His chapter on the 'Mamalian Explosion' is a particularly satisfying read, touching on the human's favorite mammals: cats and dogs. I was suprised to learn that bears are caniforms and are closely related to... dogs. He then spends some time on some specific cases of the evolution of some of our comtemporary mamalian cousins; like the horse, the rhinocerous, and the girraffids. The latter is particularly interesting because one battle cry of the creationists has been: "Why havn't there been any giraffes found with necks 1/2 as long as they are today?!?!" Well as of just recently... THEY HAVE! He then describes the transition of ancient hippo-like carnivorous mammals to modern whales and dolphins (ask a creationist, "Why did God create whales with non-functional legs?"). And of course, he provides the expected devestating case for human evolution.

Prothero even touches on the weak foundation that creationism rests on in the first place. He debunks the biblical descriptions of creation, and so-called flood-geology, and even touches on the documentary hypothesis.

Prothero is a geologist and a paleontologist. He actually has his hands in the dirt, rocks, and fossils. He is actually researching and making discoveries. Unlike the creationist critics who have no qualifications of their own and must resort to quote-mining and deceit to make their case.

In short, Prothero proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a veritable flip-book of documented transitional forms all the way from single celled organisms to homo sapiens.

How any one could deny this evidence is astounding. How I denied this amazing evidence for so many years is astounding.

~~~~~

Prothereo pretty much refutes every claim that creationists have ever made and explains things in easy to understand terms. And even provides his arguements with a light dose of humour. With my own understanding of evolution being pretty weak, this book has been a gawd-send, and has given me a great desire to deepen that understanding.