Evolution Tests With Bacteria

[Linn]

Because Bacteria evolve far faster than humans, bacteria would be ideal for testing evolution. If you isolate one bacteria population from another after a while they should evolve into different species, right?

Actually, I have heard this test has already been carried out but is this true?

If so, how far has the isolated bacteria evolved? Have they evolved into different species and maybe even into different families of bacteria? Who knows, maybe even a different order or class?

If this hasn't been tested, why hasn't it? This is the best way to prove evolution because bacteria evolve far faster than we do.

I arrive a bit late, but the experiment you are interested in were made by Richard Lenski. As far as I know in 10000 bacterial generations (for 12 isolated populations) he ended up in some populations with genetic difference only slightly smaller than you find in different (but related) species). Knowing that definition of species in bacteria is not exactly straightforward.

OK
The above mentioned WAS a test as brought, out and they are related species.
nothing developed that resembled anything else significant to prove evolution in the sense of changing to unrelated species.

You are suggesting the possibility of human evolution from dogs????
If i was to ever believe evolution, ( which I will not) but if I did I would be more likely to believe we evolved from an ape.

There has been no more "proof" of evolution than any other theory.

I think that since it takes humans to have to interfere to try and create other species or manipulate genes in experiments only strengthens that
intelligent impute is needed.

That someone is born with a tail means to me, only that they have a birth DEFECT!
I had a sister born with 6 fingers and toes. She died. What does that mean? Birth Defect!!!!

BTW Can the tail wag?

Lynne

[2810712]

TO believe evolution u needn't say that humans evolved from dogs...
And atavism is a birth defect, one that tells us about higher probability of linkage between apes and us or any other pairs in other cases...









hrushikesh

[alextemplet]

quote = Linn

The above mentioned WAS a test as brought, out and they are related species.
nothing developed that resembled anything else significant to prove evolution in the sense of changing to unrelated species.

I'm glad you understand that we can break the species barrier, and I understand your point about bigger changes. My only explanation, for now, is this: If these changes can be produced in such a short time, why can't bigger changes be produced in much longer times? This sounds like pretty concrete reasoning to me so if you disagree please explain why.

You are suggesting the possibility of human evolution from dogs????
If i was to ever believe evolution, ( which I will not) but if I did I would be more likely to believe we evolved from an ape.

I'm confused, how did this become an issue? Of course humans came from apes!

There has been no more "proof" of evolution than any other theory.

So what do you propose as an alternative scientific theory to evolution?

I think that since it takes humans to have to interfere to try and create other species or manipulate genes in experiments only strengthens that
intelligent impute is needed.

I both agree and disagree with you here. In some experiments this is certainly true, but not in others. For example, the experiment with guppies that I mentioned previously was conducted in the wild by moving the fish from one pond to another and seeing how they adapt to their new homes. The only interference humans did was to move the fish; nature did the rest. This experiment produced a rate of adapation much faster than what we see in fossils, so I don't think intelligent input is necessary if nature alone can work that well.

That someone is born with a tail means to me, only that they have a birth DEFECT!
I had a sister born with 6 fingers and toes. She died. What does that mean? Birth Defect!!!!

I agree with the fingers and toes, but not so much with the tail. All human embryos develop tails and gills; the evolutionary explanation for this is that we evolved from animals that had tails and gills. Being born with a tail just means that the tail failed to disappear during development. I suppose it could be a birth defect but the actual reason for it is a bit more than that.

[Khaiy]

Are you suggesting that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? Because that's been pretty thouroughly debunked, I think.

[AstusAleator]

ok Linn, you classify dogs and cats as different "types" right?
But if you look at their skeletal structures, they're VERY similar. Particularly, they share an undeniable common characteristic, the carnasial pair (P3/M1 I believe). And that's just something you can see with your eyes. I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between a cat and a dog embryo, even with a high-powered microscope. So are they different types or are they derivatives of an ancestral type?

I understand that you're asking for a demonstration of change, but the fact is that, especially in larger organisms, that type of change occurs over very long periods of time.

In that study of the bacteria, they were able to see some small change over a fairly short period of time. Now, if they were to continue those lines of cells, over millions of generations, for hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years, then the gradual changes would eventually add up to make a new "type".

This large time frame is why we MUST rely on the fossil record to give us the evidence and clues that we need to piece together a viable picture.


You should look up Tenrecs. They're insectivores found only in Madagascar. They take many different shapes and fill many different niches yet biologically they're all in the same family. So, look them up and then tell me, are they all the same type? If so, why aren't cats and dogs the same type? And for that matter, why aren't humans and chimpanzees the same type?
If not, then you will see a fairly clear situation where a type has speciated into new types.

[alextemplet]

I personally think the idea of "type" (or "kind," as it is sometimes worded) has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese, because a type can be anything you want it to be. For example, I've heard creationists tell me that all bacteria (an entire kingdom) is the same type, but cats and dogs (mere families) are two different ones. I would be a little more tolerant of this technique if creationists would actually assign a taxonomic level to the word "type," for example, "Show me where a new family is created," or, "Show me evolution producing a new order." The problem with this, though, is that once each level of classification is demonstrated, they can still keep asking for the next higher level, right on up to domain. "Okay, so you have a new class. Show me a new phylum!" To me, it looks exactly the same as the famous "micro/macro" argument; that is, calling whatever is proven to be evolution micro, and insisting that macro has never been demonstrated. A big dog and a small dog are both still dogs, right? Well big change and small change is still change, and that's what evolution is all about!

[Linn]

Astusaleator wrote:
"You should look up Tenrecs. They're insectivores found only in Madagascar. They take many different shapes and fill many different niches yet biologically they're all in the same family. So, look them up and then tell me, are they all the same type? If so, why aren't cats and dogs the same type? And for that matter, why aren't humans and chimpanzees the same type?
If not, then you will see a fairly clear situation where a type has speciated into new types."


yes this is possible because
they are the same "kind"

Just to clarify with all of you
I believe in speciation
I believe it can take place over
SHORT time periods,
as well as long time.

I believe humans could evolve so as to look
different than we do now in the future.
But will always be human.
Look up genetics about cats VS dogs
Look up genetics of say zebras, horse, donkey
or lion, tiger, puma, house cat etc
compare

which could possibly evolve naturally?
-Lynne

PS: realize that scientific view of creation
is that God created "kinds"
and from these kinds we have all the
variety developed that we see today.

[alextemplet]

Linn:

PS: realize that scientific view of creation
is that god created "kinds"
and from these kinds we have all the
variety developed that we see today.

Yes, I understand that, but you still haven't explained how you define a "kind." Also, if you believe that evolution can produce small changes over short time periods, why can't it produce larger changes over longer periods?

[David George]

Silverbackman there have been tests done in E-coli bacteria to prove evolution I will tell you about the one done by Dr. Richard Lenski .
The Relative Fitness with different strains like A-1,A+1.
Relative fitness is a dimensionless quantity, which is calculated as the ratio of the growth rate of the derived type to its ancestral competitor during direct competition.

Here Gen. stands for generation

Gen. A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6

0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
500 1.2243 1.1160 1.0860 1.1921 1.0869 1.0662
1000 1.2209 1.2938 1.2546 1.2601 1.1619 1.1937
1500 1.3299 1.2285 1.3346 1.2249 1.1532 1.2490
2000 1.2316 1.2514 1.2308 1.2320 1.2611 1.2483
2500 1.2763 1.2887 1.2209 1.2780 1.2214 1.2248
3000 1.2483 1.4941 1.2771 1.3477 1.2438 1.3256
3500 1.3962 1.5036 1.4221 1.3680 1.3338 1.2928
4000 1.4306 1.3796 1.3183 1.4037 1.2935 1.3395
4500 1.4056 1.6358 1.4215 1.5035 1.3553 1.4425
5000 1.4562 1.2890 1.4042 1.3469 1.3939 1.4794
5500 1.4066 1.4200 1.4190 1.4906 1.3360 1.4805
6000 1.3815 1.4939 1.5200 1.5412 1.3600 1.4075
6500 1.3676 1.4896 1.4045 1.3685 1.2924 1.3412
7000 1.3675 1.4748 1.4047 1.3407 1.3519 1.3607
7500 1.3509 1.4011 1.3713 1.3625 1.3532 1.3305
8000 1.4575 1.5104 1.4736 1.4161 1.3916 1.4450
8500 1.5014 1.6340 1.4371 1.4877 1.4059 1.3670
9000 1.3386 1.3722 1.4009 1.4417 1.3472 1.4057
9500 1.2864 1.3079 1.4254 1.5264 1.3259 1.4375
10000 1.4434 1.4702 1.3812 1.5314 1.5009 1.5652

The cell size data was also collected without any external factors affecting

Gen. A+1 A+2 A+3 A+4 A+5 A+6

0 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725
500 0.480 0.470 0.470 0.485 0.525 0.460
1000 0.495 0.555 0.575 0.495 0.585 0.585
2000 0.580 0.675 0.645 0.675 0.675 0.640
5000 0.595 0.890 0.850 0.650 0.725 0.735
8000 0.695 0.895 0.975 0.750 0.835 1.080
9000 0.735 0.920 0.985 0.790 0.890 1.020
9500 0.720 0.940 0.965 0.835 0.895 0.965
10000 0.705 1.100 0.895 0.845 0.810 1.015

I think this is enough.

[Linn]

Alex,
I mean family.
like canidae for example etc..

Coyote
Fox
Jackal
Wolf
Dingo
Cape hunting Dog
Domestic Dog
Fennec
...And those kinds

[alextemplet]

Okay, by that reasoning, humans and apes are of the same kind, being classified together in the family Hominidae. Although I do have to give you beaucoup credit for actually defining the term. Everyone else I've met who used that term just left it undefined so they could refute anything by just calling it the same "kind." Absurd. So I'm glad you actually define it, but why don't you just call it "family" if that's what you mean?

Also, you have yet to answer why, if you accept that evolution can produce small changes over short periods, why can't it produce bigger changes over longer periods?

[Linn]

Yes,
I have to research it but I think with apes it is different. Something in the back of my brain I cant remember at present. I dont believe still that we evolved from apes though because there are still apes.
but even though they are in the same family though not everything can reproduce naturally within. Some more closly related like wolves, dogs and coyotes it is easier, but even with them interbreeding does not often occur.

What kind of changes do you mean?