The Longest-Running Evolution Experiment

Hopefully that bacteria that was developing a antibiotic resistant strain isn’t from a lab in Wuhan, China.

the other experiment, is pretty cool. Maybe excellerated from the norm, but non the less cool.
and I say Maybe, because since there is E. coli out there in nature, isn’t that E. coli also grows at the same rate,, but at an uncontrolled selection and without the competition.

Here is another one that has come to light.

https://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

Bring back the outhouse...

Doh!What do you ,mean "Back.."?

You never been to the backwoods of Kentucky,Arkansas,Tennessee,or the other 47 states?

It’s still evolution… but not in a good way… like you said, we will become too dependent on vaccines that will basically further weaken our immune system to fight off the most basic form of pathogens.

Shall we say "wuhoo" or "wuhan"?

I see that the inmates are still running the asylum.

Too bad. This was a good forum at one time. No more.

That’s true,… and I have to agree, yet one shouldn’t have to pat yourself on the back because it didn’t happen over night.

are you insinuating that the forum has evolved?

My first post has mysteriously "disappeared." It just proves my point, the inmates are STILL running this asylum.

They can call it evolution all they want to, but all I saw evidence of was adaptation! EVERY one of those bacteria is STILL genetically the EXACT same species they were at the start of the experiment!

I have often wondered why "IF" evolution exists have those who have been studying microbes since the invention of the microscope have they NEVER seen an Amoeba grow so much as a light-sensitive subcellular organ, for instance? Given the natural rate of proliferation, the number of generations has surely outpaced the number of generations that (they say) it took for one species to "evolve" into another. Yet, not one recognizable move in that direction has ever been recorded. And, 'this' ain't 'that' by a long shot!

I don’t know why your marked OT,... but to a certain degree yes, it is a form of controlled evolution...

if this was released from the lab and into the environment, it may not survive... or,... it will thrive.

I don't think that is true. E Coli bacteria don't all have the exact same genetics any more than humans do. Not only is there variation among the bacteria at a given time, but also variation over time.

?????????????????????

What exactly were you trying to say, because I don't think you accomplished anything close to what was in your mind when you typed that. You also severely misinterpreted my statement. I never said that they all had the exact same genes. In fact, their genes indeed have adapted to incorporate the observed changes. However, they can observe those bacteria change through adaptation until our sun goes Nova, but when it does those bacteria will still be the same strain of bacteria.

At best this experiment demonstrated the equivalent of populations who lived in different parts of the world having been sequestered by mountains and/or distance, and weather conditions over long periods of time developing different skin colors, and facial characteristics, and body types because of the relatively close intersocietal breeding! BUT, they are all still genetically human beings! If they weren't we could not even breed with the other groups that people stupidly use the word "RACE" to describe! As I said, I never even implied that those bacteria had the exact same genes. As for people, if we did we would all look alike and be identical twins.

On that note, there is only ONE race - the Human Race! All the rest on that topic (from a strictly genetic point of view) is a matter of hue! The way people use the term race nowadays is utter nonsense!

I agree with you. A lot of bad things have started out with "Let's see if ...". "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" applies to pathogens.

Life strives to survive, not because any one organism has any control over it, but due to the mathematics of competition.

When I see advertisements of "Kills 99.9% of germs", I think about the 0.1% that can't be killed, that will replace the 99.9% that were their competitors in about 2 days (20 minute per generation). It's why hospitals have pathogens that are resistant to any known antibiotic.

Haha yeah so now we have the death ray....I have one in nearly every room now...

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-potential-of-far-ultraviolet-light-for-the-next-pandemic/

You don't think pathogenic bacteria can evolve a UV resistant strain?

There are extremophiles out there that can withstand incredible conditions.

It will take a while for that to happen....they'll have to develop sunblock...haha

This reminds me I believe was an computer program that runs and mimics evolution,..l I can not recall the particulars,, I think it was first tried in Japan.

I did a quick search, and found this. Looks to be just as old.

what would be interesting, is to green and take the data from the lab experiment, and integrate it into the computer program. I’m sure it will evolve faster, and see if the program results can come up with predictions with the actual lab experiment.

That is not an experiment in "evolution". Why not? Because biological evolution like they are talking about about does not exist. Why not? Because order and and functionality never ever arises from randomness and chaos by itself. That is a cold dead fact that many folks have a hard time accepting. Proponents of evolution talk about the right ingredients like water and amino acids coming together at the right temperature causing the "spark of life" to ignite and further advance to a higher order of life. Such BS ignores the fact that the cell is the simplest form of life and is extremely complicated. One can spend an entire lifetime and not keep up with everything scientists are learning about the cell. Yet, to have that come into existence randomly is akin to the joke about about an explosion in a lumber yard causing a house to be built or an explosion in a type factors to cause a dictionary to be printed.

All the 30 year experiment is doing is finding out how many mutations they can make. They are not doing something as radical as changing a dog into a donkey. It seems that every species can only go so far as to size, color, shape, hair, structure, etc. But, like a dog, they are still basically the same species.

"Because order and and functionality never ever arises from randomness and chaos by itself."

So, how do you explain the existence of the delta variant of Covid-19 which is now responsible for 99% of cases in the UK

Order and functionality arises from randomness, chaos and survival of the fittest.

Take a look at the bones in your arms and legs: basically one bone; two bones; lots of small bones, and, five sets of longer bones. Exactly the same as every mammal, bird and reptile on earth, and, exactly the same as the their common ancestor the first mud skipper which crawled onto the land. The fossil record of the evolution from that first mud skipper to the rest of us is absolutely undeniable.

Where did we come from then?

"Where did we come from then?"

Well, if we could not just put ourselves together by random chance from loose ingredients, then the only other way is by creation, isn't it? That is not a religious argument, by the way. Religion involves praise, worship, prayer, doctrine, advocacy, teaching, and following a lifestyle. I don't put forward any of those activities. My argument is a theological one in that it recognizes that there are powers in this universe that are beyond what science can deal with. A single creator for us and other animals explains why some similarities exist between humans and apes even though we are a different species. You could also ask "Where did the universe come from?". Ratch

Life harnesses energy, and energy is the great disruptor of entropy... negentropy is the enemy of chaos and randomness, it builds order out of chaos and direction out of randomness....

"energy is the great disruptor of entropy.."

I believe that the energy from a stick of dynamite or a bomb adds to the local entropy.

Directed energy is a great tool....It's how we used to build tunnels and remove tree stumps....

'Directed energy is a great tool....It's how we used to build tunnels and remove tree stumps....'

'Directed' means intelligent guidance and creative planning, not happenstance explosions and blow offs. Supposedly, the former is absent in evolution.

Life is all about adapting and compromise...so when you come to a large rock you either go around it or you blow it up...the driving force here is not the method used, it's the energy that enables the motivation that finds the method by trial and error...not everybody can get past the rock, and those that do, go on to the next obstacle...

'Life is all about adapting and compromise..'

Yes, and to advance, many correct choices have to be made by an intelligence, not a random chances or whims.

Luck and happenstance play a big role in evolution...being in the right place at the right time is underrated...

'Luck and happenstance play a big role in evolution.'

How much luck and happenstance has to happen for elements to organize themselves into the simplest form of life, specifically a cell? The same amount as an explosion in a lumber yard causing a house to be built.

I'd say about a billion years worth....

An example...

this would be happenstance, Bad luck for some, good luck for others....

That was a great statement.

A little out of the box thinking,... with that thought,... in the ‘big picture’ of things, we could be looked upon as a virus, or even an infection.

??? Reputable or otherwise, from whence do evolutionists think that any "order" let alone the brain cells of insects with highly organized preprogrammed unlearned instincts originates? There aren't many choices from which to choose?

alien DNA

"The fossil record has been grossly misinterpreted"

Is there any evidence for that statement?

Do you believe it was done mistakenly or deliberately?

"Is there any evidence for that statement?"

Yes, the fossil record does not show a progressive continuous sequence of sequence of simple to complex.

See https://socratic.org/questions/what-are-some-problems-encountered-when-using-the-fossil-record-to-support-the-c

I believe folks see what they want to see in the fossils they find.

That link only describes gaps in the fossil record which are inevitable.

No one (including all definitions of Darwinism I've found**) mentioned increasing complexity: this segue started when I pointed out that many species are descended from mud skippers which were every bit as complex as we are, and, the fossil record from them to all their descendants may not be complete but is nevertheless undeniable.

** Of course there does have to have been evolution which generated more complexity to get from more basic organisms to the first eukaryotic cell, and, from the first eukaryotic cell to our ancestors.

Incidentally there has been life on earth from about 30,000 years after its creation, and the vast majority of that life has been simple the real break through was the eukaryotic cell.

'That link only describes gaps in the fossil record which are inevitable."

What are you trying to say in the above post?

I said:-

"The fossil record of the evolution from that first mud skipper to the rest of us is absolutely undeniable."

You said

"The fossil record has been grossly misinterpreted"

I said

"Is there any evidence for that statement?"

You said

"Yes, the fossil record does not show a progressive continuous sequence of sequence of simple to complex." And provided a link.

So I said (paraphrasing)

The link is irrelevant on both the points it and you make.

First: of course the fossil record cannot include detailed evidence of evolution in soft bodied organisms.

Second: the definition of evolution does not mention progression from simple to complex.

Maybe it should, but, the example I gave (mud skippers to their descendants) does not involve any general progression from simple to complex. The fossil record is undeniable, and, you have not given any evidence for your statement that "The fossil record has been grossly misinterpreted"

' The fossil record is undeniable, and, you have not given any evidence for your statement that "The fossil record has been grossly misinterpreted"'

There are cases in the record where the progression from simple to complex is missing or upside down. https://socratic.org/questions/does-the-fossil-record-support-evolution

"However there are many places in the world where fossils deemed to be older are on top of fossils deeded to be younger according to the theory of descent with modification. This common disconformities are evidence against the theory of descent with modification."

''The fossil record does not show the uniform series of fossils predicted by the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. There are some notable transition fossils that have been found but not the series of fossils showing slow gradual changes. The Punctuated Theory of Evolution is a modification of the Neo Darwinian Theory proposed to explain the lack of observed transition fossils.'

You don't even need a fossil record to show gradual change:-

How do you think chihuahuas descended from wolves?

How did Dutch horticulturalists make carrots orange in honour of their royal family?

What about the peppered moth which gradually got darker during the industrial revolution in the UK?

Admittedly in those first two cases nature was nudged along a bit by humans. Although you could blame us for the third case, from the month's point of view: it was just a response to an environmental change.

"You don't even need a fossil record to show gradual change:-"

Minor changes like color, size, hair, demeanor, temperament, etc. are mutations. You cannot change a dog into a donkey no matter how many times you breed it. And expecting a total sea creature to turn into a total land creature is ridiculous. There is a built in limit as to how much a species can change.

Where are you drawing this line between mutations which are possible and those which are not?

"Where are you drawing this line between mutations which are possible and those which are not?"

A dog and a wolf are a species of the same kind, which I would call an advanced mutation. A dog and a donkey are not.

Those seem to be examples that are either side of the line, but, are along way from it: where would you draw the line?

'Those seem to be examples that are either side of the line, but, are along way from it: where would you draw the line?'

Does a donkey have paws? Does a dog have hoofs?

So: the line is somehow related to what kind of feet a creature has?

'So: the line is somehow related to what kind of feet a creature has?'

The feet are only one of many facets of a creature's anatomy.

Sorry, it just seems to me that feet are a particularly bad example. An elementary examination of all types will show that each could easily evolve to another sort by the process of mutation and adaptation which you deem to be OK. Look at the variation in the number of "nails" on elephant's feet to see an example of these changes in progress.

Also dogs and horses are a bad example because they happen to be on adjacent "twigs" of the same "shoot" from a small "branch" of the evolutionary tree:-

I'm asking you to define some kind of rule which identifies the difference between changes which can occur due to mutation and adaptation and those which cannot.

doesn't work like that... gotta follow lineage over millennia and at some point in time a dog on one lineage is still a dog and another it is a donkey.

i worked with one of these guys. my co-worker who is a material scientist, believed that the earth was only 2000 yrs old, carbon dating was wrong and dinosaur bones were not from millions of years ago.... cuz the bible said so.

I think most Young Earth Creationists settle for between 4 and 10 thousand years. Two thousand years wouldn't give any time for the history before Jesus recorded in the old testament.

Well, as for your first question I already explained it, and you even called the new variant COVID 19. It is an adaptation and the virus is still just the same strain with new attributes. Adaptation is not evolution.

On your second point, neither one of us can prove our beliefs, so I can say that your "undeniable fact" is my "circumstantial evidence" until proven otherwise. Which, as I said, this experiment doesn't do. It's a free country you can believe what you want to, the "evidence" provided to me so far has a very loooooong way to go to PROVE anything to my intellectual satisfaction.

More persuasive for me are the unanswerable questions rather than coincidences in the bone count among mammals. I claim Copywrite rights to what I am going to say next because I wrote a song several years ago that makes my point:

Who taught the bees how to be, how to be?

Who taught the bees how to make wax & honey?

Who taught the bees how to dance for their buddies,

to point them to the flowers in the fields?

Who taught their buddies to know what that dance means?

Who taught the bees how to be?

Who taught the trees how to leaf, how to leaf?

Who taught the trees how to use solar energy?

Who taught the trees how to put wings on their seeds,

and set them adrift on the breeze?

Who taught the trees anything about anything?

Who taught the trees how to leaf?

To deny that creation was CREATED is to ignore more evidence of overt intelligent design than you could ever shake a great big stick at!

Here is a video of a vining plant that literally surrounds its seeds with a glider to send them off on the wind!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmB46BS2FCk

HOW IN THE WORLD COULD ANYTHING WITH A COMPLICATED STRUCTURE OR AN INSECT HAVE AN UNIMAGINABLY COMPLICATED SET OF PREPROGRAMMED INSTINCTS BE THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENTAL EXPLOSION IN A UNIVERSE RULED BY ENTROPY?

"Adaptation is not evolution."

Where abouts are you drawing the line?

What is the "rule" that defines the difference between the two?

..."The previously unknown human ancestors have been called Nesher Ramla Homo type by the scientists, who uncovered the remains near the city of Ramla, south of Tel Aviv.

Fragments of a skull discovered at the site could be up to 140,000 years old.

The Nesher Ramla Homo group, the team believes, were thriving in the Middle East 400,000 years ago and probably related to the “pre-Neanderthal” inhabitants of Europe.

Neanderthals, or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, likely became extinct over generations through breeding with their successors, early modern humans, but also faced harsh climatic conditions."...

You are an ape man....

https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/not-just-dragon-man-israeli-scientists-identify-another-human-species-1.1249175

'You are an ape man....'

Another article based on previous shaky hypotheticals and surmises. Notice the weasel words like 'believe', 'most likely', 'probably' , 'could be', etc. I also like the way they throw around times like 40,000 years. Were those gurus around during that period to witness those events occurring at that timer? As I pointed out before, if we are apes, then why can't we make our own vitamin C and digest cellulose like gorillas can?

We are probably not done evolving, we may look completely different in another million years or two...

https://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/homo.htm

'we may look completely different in another million years or two...'

Breeders can't make a fast reproductive species like fruit flies and bacteria into different species no matter how many times they bread them. What do you mean by looking different? Like a a Poodle and a Great Dane? The connectivity in that chart is imaginary. Humans don't have a common ancestry with apes. Only a common creator.

The problem is that you refuse to believe the most plausible explanation for our existence, but have no credible competing hypothesis...present a case for your belief other than, 'I just don't believe it', and you might have a leg to stand on....

'The problem is that you refuse to believe the most plausible explanation for our existence'

I refuse to believe that order and high complexity can come from disorder and complete chaos by itself without the guidance and assistance of a purposeful intelligence? Wouldn't you call that a plausible explanation?

No, that is merely an opinion....besides nobody is arguing that point, it's the method involved you are questioning....

'No, that is merely an opinion...'

A viable opinion has to have a solid basis. The fact that order does NOT come from disorder by itself is about a solid as it gets. The whole basis of evolution is that complexity can come about from simplicity, even the creation of life from separate elemental ingredients and salubrious conditions. That theory is just crazy.

You have left energy out of the equation.....why, it plays a major part....

""You have left energy out of the equation.....why, it plays a major part....

Energy is defined as the ability to do work. But, unless work is directed by a guiding intelligence, it consists of nothing but a lo of meaningless motion or heat generation and dissipation.

' The Miller-Urey spark flask experiment could hold the key to the origin of life on Earth.'

I am not impressed. Scientists have been loading up test tubes for years with all kinds of goodies that constitute life and subjecting them to an environmental regimen best suited to get life started. All to no avail. Showing that amino acids could possibly occur in nature does not prove that a something as complex as a protein molecule is made in nature without an existing lifeform .

''Proteins are formed in a condensation reaction when amino acid molecules join together and a water molecule is removed.

So what? Does a protein synthesize in in nature? Have they duplicated it in a lab? A protein is still not life. The second link is a fairy tale describing a 10 step slow motion explosion causing a complex functioning cell to form. Simple to complex without any guidance or planning.

The natural way of things is to devolve. Things deteriorate and wear out. We get old.

No, but it is building blocks for life.

"I refuse to believe that order and high complexity can come from disorder and complete chaos by itself"

Define "high complexity" for the purposes of that statement. Which side of the dividing line between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells would that definition be?

Needless to say, whichever way you answer I'm going to continue doing binary splits, 'til we arrive at the mystical point where you believe that up to that point disorder chaos and survival of the fittest would suffice, but, beyond it, it would not.

'Define "high complexity" for the purposes of that statement.'

Cell organizing themselves into organs to do a special tasks like a heart or liver do. Organs working together to run an organism like a animal. Hard to believe those two activities would start happening by themselves. Not only that, all the organs would have to be completed and integrated simultaneously. What would the heart do if the stomach and the pancreas were not ready yet?

All 'survival of the fittest' means is that Quack Grass will take over your lawn during drought or poor soil conditions. That does not mean that Kentucky Blue Grass will disappear completely from the ecosystem. During the beginning of the dirty industrial revolution in England, dark colored moths were more prevalent that light colored ones because they were harder for the birds to spot. Light colored months were still present in lessor numbers until clean air standards went into effect.

"Not only that, all the organs would have to be completed and integrated simultaneously. What would the heart do if the stomach and the pancreas were not ready yet?"

That's exactly wrong, but, ironically what a creator would need to achieve.

You need to look at the evolution of the first multi eukaryotic cell organisms, and briefly onward. The first stage is to evolve cells which gain some advantage by adopting symbiotic behaviour. From there the evolution of larger creatures is inevitable.

Isn't it possible that a creator decided to save himself a lot of trouble by inventing evolution.

"Isn't it possible that a creator decided to save himself a lot of trouble by inventing evolution."

With creative powers, who needs evolution?

Creation must be in context.....You can't have a statue on the top of a mountain without a mountain of support beneath it....Humans have a support system of other organisms that make human existence possible, if anything it is bacteria who created homo sapiens....

"if anything it is bacteria who created homo sapiens...."

Do you really believe that?

"The oxygen we breathe and which enabled mammals to evolve, is the waste product of cyanobacteria....."

I read they are throwing out those fantastic billions of years again when they were not around to witness it happening. I could just as well say that the O2 came from the simultaneous creation of the plants and animals.

You mean like in the Big Bang? If we were created separately, then why is our DNA so similar?

"You mean like in the Big Bang? If we were created separately, then why is our DNA so similar?"

As I said before, same creator, same design similarities up to a a point.

If we were created by magic, why do we even need DNA? Why don't our offspring just pop into existence like we did?

"If we were created by magic,.."

I don't believe in magic. Magicians are not really magicians, they are illusionists. DNA is the way our physical existence is controlled.

"I read they are throwing out those fantastic billions of years again when they were not around to witness it happening."

That's not being very pedantic at all:-

Who do you mean by "they"?

What do you mean by "throwing out": discarding or just the opposite?

No one is alive today who was around when the Rosetta stone was created or the bible, the quran or the talmud were written, but that doesn't stop us from learning from them.

'That's not being very pedantic at all:-'

What do you mean by that statement?

"Who do you mean by "they"?"

The authors of the article referenced by the link.

"What do you mean by "throwing out": discarding or just the opposite?"

Stating huge amounts of years an event happened while having little or no idea when it happened or if it did happen that particular way.

'No one is alive today who was around when the Rosetta stone was created or the bible, the quran or the talmud were written, but that doesn't stop us from learning from them.'

No, but people were alive when those documents were written. After all, they wrote them. No one was alive during those old geologic events.

"No, but people were alive when those documents were written. After all, they wrote them. No one was alive during those old geologic events."

Again, not very pedantic. It does not matter who was alive when the evidence was created, as long as it's there now to be examined and interpreted.

" It does not matter who was alive when the evidence was created..."

Yes it does, especially if a person created the evidence. The older the evidence is, the more isolated it is, the less linkage it has to other evidence, the poorer it is. Not all evidence is of the same quality. I consider that multi-mega year geologic evidence some of the poorest of all.

"I consider that multi-mega year geologic evidence some of the poorest of all."

Why do you say that? Many of the conclusions are cross confirmed in multiple cases.

I am still intrigued to understand your answer to this question:-

"I'm asking you to define some kind of rule which identifies the difference between changes which can occur due to mutation and adaptation and those which cannot."

"I'm asking you to define some kind of rule which identifies the difference between changes which can occur due to mutation and adaptation and those which cannot."

1)Examples of mutation and adaptation would be sunburn resistant darker skinned people in hot tropical climates, larger lungs and higher red cell counts for Indians living in high Andes regions, and pygmy and larger size of animals and humans. These and other characteristics can be bred into humans and animals over their generations.

2) Abilities which can never be bred into existence include, among other things, the ability to digest cellulose, development of a super brain, and the ability to speak. IfIf they could be, we would have seen progress toward such an endeavor by now.

Bizarrely mammals which apparently digest cellulose don't: they employ bacteria to ferment the cellulose in theirs guts. All of the differences between gorilla digestive systems and human digestive systems are easily explained by gradual changes: in particular the section of the gut where the fermentation occurs is very much larger.

Many similar species have different sizes of brain: dogs have evolved vastly different brain sizes in an incredibly short period of time. Many creatures have sections of their brains vastly superior to the equivalent part of our brains. What line would define the point which a mediocre brain could not pass to become a super brain.

Many monkeys/apes have been taught very sophisticated sign language, and of course many birds can actually speak. Combining those two abilities would give a creature the ability to communicate as we do. And of course many water living creatures have very sophisticated communication skills.

This may go off-topic but you hit on some a very interesting points, IMO of a post from a layman…

About breaking down the cellulose walls. When normally or without paying Process takes more energy to break down than what is there. Like cattle for instance, where they have (4) stomachs.

When you mentioned the gorilla compared to humans, when humans (or I should say humanoid) started to eat meat as well as cooking, they evolved with a larger brain because of the proteins derived from eating meat and cooking that assist in the digestion created but a smaller gut, as well as a smaller and weaker jaw, and a smaller teeth, (which is still evolving because of today’s processed foods) which may or may not be a good thing.

As far as what separates a mediocre brain as a super brain … there is what’s called atavism where there’s a throw-back or reverse evolution. Which is interesting in its self, that even though a species still evolve, it still has the genetic markers of its past.

example, they say birds evolved from dinosaurs, UW-Madison actually reactivated some of those genes that were dormant where their test subjects (in this case, chickens) grew teeth. Where they actually call that a mutation, but was a form of atavism.