Evolution Tests With Bacteria

[alextemplet]

quote=Linn

I dont believe still that we evolved from apes though because there are still apes.

Are you implying that if we did evolve from apes that apes would no longer exist? That idea's pretty easy to refute; mainly, apes were apes where the environment suited that, and became humans where the environment favored change. That said many people believe humans actually are apes, which would make this whole issue irrelevant. But I apologize if I've misinterpreted you.

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.

Yes, that's true, and obviously reproduction normally occurs only within the same species, sometimes only within the same subspecies. I'm confused as to what you're trying to say here.

What kind of changes do you mean?

Just about anything. If small changes can occur in a short time, why can't much larger changes occur in a much longer time? Or put another way, given enough time, what isn't possible?

PS - If you want background info, I pulled that apes/humans in the same family thing out of SJ Gould's The Book of Life.

[Linn]

I guess what I have been trying to say all
along is how very improbable it is for
evolution to just happen on its own,
when we have so many examples in
nature showing how hard it is even within
species to naturally "mingle".
sorry one of my bad ponts is that
I have trouble articulating things
I am not big talker.
Why I absolutly HATE giving presentations.
Thats why I have said quite a few times about
genes resisting to change (into something other
than own species.)

Evolution within the species YES,

As far as drastic changes I still dont know what you mean?
do you mean like an other limb or tail or...??

How about mutations that we see in dogs? as an example.

[alextemplet]

quote=Linn

how very improbable it is for
evolution to just happen on its own,
when we have so many examples in
nature showing how hard it is even within
species to naturally "mingle".

I'm not quite sure what you mean here; the examples mentioned previously about observed evolution in bacteria and fish should put this matter to rest. As said before, the experiments produced rates of adaption much faster than what we see in fossils, so I don't think any of the transitions shown in fossils are therefore outside the realm of possibility.

Thats why I have said quite a few times about
genes resisting to change (into something other
than own species.)

Genes are resistant to change, yes, as mutations only occur about once out of every billion times that DNA copies itself, although other factors can actually produce much higher mutation rates. Nevertheless, mutation does in fact occur, so obviously genes do every now and then change. Also, sometimes all it takes for evolution to occur might just be for non-mutated genes to be recombined in a new way; for example, a gene for good eyesight and one for good hearing being combined in one individual where previously they might have been seperate.

Evolution within the species YES,

So exactly how far do you take evolution? Do you accept it within a family, as said previously, or only within a species?

As far as drastic changes I still dont know what you mean?
do you mean like an other limb or tail or...??

Here's a few examples of "big" change:
1) dinosaurs to birds
2) apes to humans
3) land mammals to whales
4) fish to land vertebrates
5) reptiles to mammals
All of these changes are documented in fossils and supported by substantial bodies of evidence. This is what I'm talking about; a creature evolving into something totally new, another "kind" as you might call it. If you accept that evolution can produce small changes over short time periods, why can't it produce these bigger changes over longer periods?

[David George]

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...

Atavism is not a birth defect it is a process in which the ancestral traits are seen in the modern ones.I will give you another example a apple plant that had give only apples for many years but one day the owner observed pear fruits in it.This incident happened in England.Atavism is not a defect the presence of tail is due to the growth of tail bone which human ancestors had.

[AstusAleator]

David, please provide documentation.
I know that pear grafts can be grafted onto apple trees, so I would like to be sure that this wasn't a hoax.

Linn please keep in mind that life has been on Earth for ~3 billion years, though the large diversification of megafauna has been in the last 500my. So what is a 10 year study of bacteria going to show? 1/350000000 of what has happened so far. It's no surprise that laboratory tests haven't shown a "change in type".

I would like to get back to my point on "types." First of all, the current "types" of animals we have are based on scientific hypotheses of their evolutionary lineages. There are still extant "links" between many different types. They're not true evolutionary links, but demonstrate medial phenotypes. Take manatees or hippos as examples of transitions between land mammals and aquatic mammals. both have specific adaptations that allow them to survive in water, though hippos are still largely adapted to land. (note they aren't taxonomically close, i'm just concentrating on phylogeny for the moment). They demonstrate phenotypic plasticity in the overall "type" that is a mammal. Furthermore, look at seals and walruses.
Look at mudskippers, snake-heads and other amphibious fish. They have many transitional structures.

So while we can still classify those animals as one type or another, they have features of another type. As you get into smaller and smaller organisms, these boundaries between "types" get much hazier, like oomycota.

Now lets take what you consider to be "type" and expand it to genetics. According to genetics, humans are undeniably the same "type" as chimpanzees, and bears are the same "type" as raccoons.

What's this?



If nothing else, i hope the carry-home message is that appearances and physiologies are very plastic when considered over evolutionary time. In fact, in more modern organisms, I would venture so far as to say that our biology not only allows, but encourages drastic phenotypic adaptation.

I feel like I've been very unclear, and I apologize for that. I just think that you're trying to view things on a rather simplified scale, where each "type" is clearly demarcated and there is no evidence of transition between types. I know we use the fossil-record to death in supporting our arguments, but i think the reason we constantly have to refer to it is because people are constantly ignoring it. Look at the fossils of transitions between whales and land-mammals. Look at archaeopteryx. I don't think you can fail to see how the evidence fits into the pattern, I think you're just choosing not to.
I'll give you this, comprehending the likelihood of abiogenesis and early life is very hard, and I'm sure the hypothesis will undergo many changes over the next decades. After a certain point though (when the fossil record really gets going) we can see how these processes occured.

[Linn]

[quote="
Linn please keep in mind that life has been on Earth for ~3 billion years, though the large diversification of megafauna has been in the last 500my. So what is a 10 year study of bacteria going to show? 1/350000000 of what has happened so far. It's no surprise that laboratory tests haven't shown a "change in type".


According to some interpretations
(of which I do not dispute here),
Homo sapiens first appear in the fossil record
some fifty thousand years ago.
there we see no evidence of biological
changes from species from then until now."

Look at mudskippers, snake-heads and other amphibious fish. They have many transitional structures."
transition to what?



I
I feel like I've been very unclear, and I apologize for that. I just think that you're trying to view things on a rather simplified scale, where each "type" is clearly demarcated and there is no evidence of transition between types. I know we use the fossil-record to death in supporting our arguments, but i think the reason we constantly have to refer to it is because people are constantly ignoring it. Look at the fossils of transitions between whales and land-mammals. Look at archaeopteryx. I don't think you can fail to see how the evidence fits into the pattern, I think you're just choosing not to.'

I never view things simply

Not every one who believes in creation
are un-educated religious zealots
By the biological definition evolution is "the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridization, in breeding and mutation"
Is that correct?

So by that definition we should be
able to test the probability of organisms
evolving and examine the results of the
tests and then conclude which organisms
can evolve and which cant. Where sterility
is the de-limiting factor as to what constitutes a kind.

Also the fossil record
should reveal a clear continuous
display of proof.

What's this?
I will have to look it up
cant you just tell me?

[damien james]

I guess what I have been trying to say all
along is how very improbable it is for
evolution to just happen on its own,
when we have so many examples in
nature showing how hard it is even within
species to naturally "mingle".
sorry one of my bad ponts is that
I have trouble articulating things
I am not big talker.
Why I absolutly HATE giving presentations.
Thats why I have said quite a few times about
genes resisting to change (into something other
than own species.)

Evolution within the species YES,

Species do not have to interbreed for evolution to take place. If organism develops characteristic favored by natural selection, it is not automatically new species.

According to some interpretations
(of which I do not dispute here),
Homo sapiens first appear in the fossil record
some fifty thousand years ago.
there we see no evidence of biological
changes from species from then until now."

Actually, it closer to 200,000 years. And to go further back, after genome sequencing, Homo sapien lineage diverged from tree dwellers 5 million years ago.

transition to what?

Transition from aquatic to land.

By the biological definition evolution is "the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridization, in breeding and mutation"
Is that correct?

A better more concise definition is change in allele frequency over time. That's all it really is. Very simple, yes?

Also the fossil record
should reveal a clear continuous
display of proof.

This is big misconception and used by those who like to fool others with false information. Reasons why wrong is it is very uncommon for organism to be fossilized in first place. Also, speciation is in small populations, and happens rapidly (geologically speaking). So probabilty that this speciation will be captured in fossil is small. But even though this is happened, there are still many many transitional fossils, which I think is amazing. Would you like proof of transitional fossils or documentation? I can provide that.

Do you have any more points that have been unanswered yet? I think so far case for creationist is very weak.

[Linn]

Why thank you for your answers

Sure provide me with that documentation

And I was agreeing with an other post that
the fossil record is important as one of the ways in which
you would be able to document what you claim,
so I think it is very important.

can take place. through
And I think evolution
is weak.
I kniow I will get jumped
on all over about that hah

damien wrote:
Species do not have to interbreed for evolution to take place. If organism develops characteristic favored by natural selection, it is not automatically new species.

What do you mean?

[Linn]

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...

Atavism is not a birth defect it is a process in which the ancestral traits are seen in the modern ones.I will give you another example a apple plant that had give only apples for many years but one day the owner observed peer fruits in it.This incident happened in England.Atavism is not a defect the presence of tail is due to the growth of tail bone which human ancestors had.

The incident where pears appeared on
the tree was found out to be a hoax.

[alextemplet]

"Change in allele frequency over time" is a very good definition for evolution. Sometimes the change is quite rapid; other times it is quite slow. I have already provided examples by which evolution can occur at a rate much faster than what we see in any fossils, so it shouldn't be doubtful for evolution to be able to produce such transitions. And as for the fossil record, there really are numerous transitional forms. Here's a few:

Australopithecus - apes to humans
Ambulocetus - land mammals to whales
Archaeopteryx - dinosaurs to birds
Ichthyostega - fish to amphibians

If you want to see evolution happening, we can. The studies I mentioned previously are such examples, and there are numerous others. We haven't actually seen much speciation yet because we've only been watching for it for the past 150 or 200 years, although there have been a few observed examples of speciation. I read an article about this a few years ago and I'll try to find it again if you're interested.

And I know not all creationists are uneducated. I don't mean to insult your intelligence so I apologize if that's how I come off. However, please understand that most of us take evolution as solidly-grounded fact, so if you think otherwise please don't get offended if we ask why. Who knows, if you're right, you can enlighten all of us; if not, you might learn some interesting things yourself.

[Linn]

No it isnt you being insulting
We have agreed to disagree remember?

Someone else made a comment
maybe I took that way.
But I dont get insulted,
I actualy expect to be treated that
way after all My views are by far the minority.

If I had not researched this topic
and have done so off and on for over 20 years
I would not even post on this thread.

I will get back to you about the fossil examples
you gave as I do have an answer for that one.

I hope you keep an open mind Alex.
I dont know what field of study you are going
to major in but I hope it includes genetics.
thats where the answer is to be found,
do you think so?.
I wish I were younger so I could pursue this
education. But I hope you do and stand out.
I watched a good program today
on the science channel about Albert Einstein.
-What a great man he was!
Einstein died defending his theories.
He believed in creation.
He could not accept the quantum theory.
I think maybe its somewhere in between
that and his belief in predictability.

Lynne

[alextemplet]

Linn:

Einstein died defending his theories.
He believed in creation.
He could not accept the quantum theory.
I think maybe its somewhere in between
that and his belief in predictability.

What??? You're saying that he died defending theories he didn't accept? Can you please explain?