Login

Join for Free!
118293 members


Evolution Tests With Bacteria

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby alextemplet » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:09 am

The current classification system was developed by Carolus Linnaeus. He was Swedish but I don't think he was a priest; he lived around 1735 or so. You're right about how he used visible features, though. I already knew that about eukaryotes but I've never seen a complete list of qualifiers for each level of classification. I suppose there isn't one, nor should there be given the immense diversity of life and the obvious difficulty of classifying it, which takes us back to our original question of how do you tell the difference between families, orders, etc. in bacteria?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Khaiy » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:51 am

He was a priest, he wanted to create a lexicon of all of God's works, so that they could be properly glorified or something along those lines.

I've done phylogeny charts which sort organisms into categories according to the number of certain traits that they have in common. I've never seen one either, and there may not be a specific chart of it, but as every organism is classified they must follow certain classification paths (scientists don't just skip every step before genus and species, but the actual classification would be a bit wordy and none too practical, as every genus automatically fits into the classifications above it). It is possible, of course, that these classifications are all sorted strictly along lines of relative differences.
User avatar
Khaiy
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:37 am

Postby 2810712 » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:02 am

help me regarding definitions of all terms other that species...

And why choose specific chara. as presence of notochord/ vertebrae etc...?above two r well known, important and notably distant from the ancectral form characters...so we chose these. BUt for those genus/order things? I think we must have phylogeny guessed and then use it... and we can classify using - 1 the point at which the divergence occurs is the point of begining of new category irrespective of genetic distance between them.
2. we can specify genetic distance unit and change the category after each unit...so even if there is no diverging but adaptive changes have changed the whole species we have a different category for it.
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm


Postby Khaiy » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:48 am

1. I believe that you're right about the phylogeny being irrespective of genetic differences (Linnaeus based the taxonomy we use today on physical ovservances alone. I wouldn't be surprised if they were all relative, based on divergences as shown on phylogeny charts).

2. Like I said in an earlier post, I think I remember hearing something about a project involving that. I haven't heard anything about it for a while, but it is a huge project, so it could take a very long time.
User avatar
Khaiy
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:37 am

Postby alextemplet » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:25 pm

Using genetics as a basis for classification would, I think, be a great idea. The only problem is that we only barely understand the genomes for a handful of species, and we know very little about the rest. I think there's something like several million classified species, and millions more that we don't know about yet, so we've got a lot of work to do.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby alextemplet » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:50 pm

Here's a link about Linnaeus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linneaus
Turns out that Linnaeus was also the first to use the Mars/Venus symbols for male and female. He also got in trouble with the church for classifying humans as primates. He's something of a national hero in Sweden. I didn't know any of that before reading that article. It's really interesting if you want to check it out.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Linn » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:35 pm

[quote="alextemplet"]Linn, not all mutations are harmful, and the ones you're talking about are pretty major; evolution relies more on smaller changes. Anyway, there are numerous studies that have shown beneficial mutation/evolution happening at a surprising rate several thousand times faster than the fastest transitions shown in fossils. So we know for a fact that it can happen. One very common example is the ability of bacteria and viruses to evolve drug resistance, but studies have been done on larger organisms such as fish and insects as well. If you like I can look up some sources tonight and hopefully tomorrow I can give you a website or a reference so you don't have to just take my word for it.

Thanx Alex,
thats thoughtful of you :)
However, :idea:
I think I have discovered what the
communication problem has been all along :idea:
I never disputed that changes can occur within a species.
That is obvious.
What I am always stating is that I do not believe
in self evolution of one species changing in to an other.
Like a cat slowily becoming a dog.
I know some will say there is proof , but I have already
examined the "proof" and I dont think it will explain that
to me
in a satisfactory way.

I even believe that scientists could create a chimera.
But it would be a freak, sickly, short-lived,
non-viable monster.
But for "nature to produce one on its owm? Come on?
If we cant get bacteria to it?
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:07 pm

Species barriers aren't really that great at all, usually amounting to just a 1 or 2% difference in the genome. That's not a very big change at all, and if we know that beneficial mutations, rare though they may be, can occur often enough to cause adaptation several thousand times faster than what we see in fossils, then it doesn't seem that improbable for anything to happen by evolution. Small changes, after all, can add up to big changes over time. That's about as good as I can explain it, and it convinces me, but I suppose there is still room left for interpretation.

Here's some sources:
This is the study on fish that I mentioned:
book Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer, c2001 by Harper Collins Publishers, pages 86-87

And here's a source about virus/bacteria evolution:
book Finding Darwin's God by Dr. Kenneth Miller, c1999 by Harper Collins Publishers, pages 48-52

Both of these sources describe extremely fast rates of adaptation, much faster than what we see in fossils, and are also both good general sources about the topic of evolution as a whole. I've tried searching wikipedia for an online link but I can't find anything specifically on bacteria/virus evolution that's longer than a simple paragraph. It still might be worth a look if you're interested, though, and maybe you can find that "missing link" about bacteria that I've been looking for! :lol:

As for getting bacteria to break the species barrier, we may have already done that, if we can just figure out exactly what defines a species.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Linn » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:16 pm

Probably the most recent and best missing
"link' that has been presented
is the discovery of the Dorudon,
with its human-like "hands"
But i dont believe that we evolved from
apes either and their hands are humanish too.
I am not going to get too much in to this conversation
because I am too convinced, at this point that a creationary
force (that I believe is almighty God),
created all the basic forms "kinds" of life,
and that from there each kind "evolved",
adapted, what have you, to the variety we see today.
:) Note thats just Lynne's opinion eh M? :)
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:50 pm

I don't get it, isn't Dorudon a primitive whale? And as for the hands, don't all vertebrates have the exact same bone structure in their limbs? As for apes and humans, we're more similar than domestic dogs and wolves, and we know that transition can occur, so why not the other? I still believe in God, mind you, I just see evolution as the particular tool that He used.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby 2810712 » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:51 am

as alextemplet said the % diff in genimes is lesser bet. a species ... so what about using cDNAs as a further clarifier...?

I believe in God too.


BUt for explaining something in a scientific way [ so that everybody believes it] needs proofs...we have some known options about what caused the origin and evolution of life...there can be other unknown options...
And thus falseness of one of the options doesn't prove the truth fo the others...
We can check any scientific theorem when we can apply it we we don't get the result as predicted by our believed theorem. so if we have a theorem that God created basic life or it was organic evolution... and apply this in all the possible situations [ of course known] and if our theorem doesn't work then it is one of those unknowns option that can be the theorem.
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby David George » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:11 am

Linn have you ever wondered why some babies born to humans have tails.This process is called atavism.Some babies are born with tails as they represent their ancestral charecters.This even seen in plants if you want to know more ask my friend Alex
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests