Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ready, set, mutate... and may the best microbe win
Rice University ^ | 18 May 2006 | Staff (press release)

Posted on 05/18/2006 11:16:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

Forcing Darwin's hand: capturing natural selection in a flask

Even with modern genomic tools, it's a daunting task to find a smoking gun for Darwinian evolution. The problem lies in being able to say not just when and how a specific gene mutated but also how that one genetic change translated into real-world dominance of one population over another.

Rice University biologists, using an ingenious experiment that forced bacteria to compete in a head-to-head contest for evolutionary dominance, today offer the first glimpse of how individual genetic-level adaptations play out as Darwinian natural selection in large populations. The results appear in the May 19 issue of Molecular Cell.

"One of our most surprising findings is that an estimated 20 million point mutations gave rise to just six populations that were capable of vying for dominance," said lead researcher Yousif Shamoo, associate professor of biochemistry and cell biology. "This suggests that very few molecular pathways are available for a specific molecular response, and it points to the intriguing possibility of developing a system to predict the specific mutations that pathogens will use in order to become resistant to antibiotics."

Rice's study involved the heat-loving bacteria G. stearothermophilus, which thrives at up to 73 degrees Celsius (163 F). Shamoo and graduate students Rafael Couñago and undergraduate Stephen Chen used a mutant strain of the microbe that was unable to make a key protein that the bacteria needed to regulate its metabolism at high temperatures. They grew the bacteria for one month in fermentor, raising the temperature a half degree Celsius each day.

Over a span of 1,500 generations, the percentage of mutant strains inside the fermentor ebbed and flowed as the single-celled microbes competed for dominance. Eventually, one strain squeezed out almost all the competition by virtue of its ability to most efficiently metabolize food at high temperature.

The metabolic protein required to thrive at high-temperature could only be made in one genetic region of the bacteria's DNA, meaning the researchers had only to characterize that small region of the genome for each new strain in order to measure evolutionary progress.

The researchers sampled the fermentor for new strains every other day. Though millions of mutations in the target gene are believed to have occurred, only about 700 of those were capable of creating a new variant of the target gene. In all, the researchers identified 343 unique strains, each of which contained one of just six variants of the critical gene.

The first of the six, dubbed Q199R, arose almost immediately, and was the dominant strain through the 500 th generation. Around 62 degrees Celsius, the Q199R was unable to further cope with the rising temperature, and a new round of mutations occurred. Five new varieties - themselves mutant forms of Q199R - vied for final domination of the fermentor. Three of the five were driven to extinction within a couple of days, and the final two fought it out over the remaining three weeks of the test.

The research included a raft of additional experiments as well. The team characterized each of the mutant proteins to document precisely how it aided in metabolic regulation. The fermentor experiment was repeated and the same mutations - and no others - were observed to develop again. Three of the six genes - the "winner," it's closest competitor and Q199R - were spliced back into the original form of the bacteria and studied, to rule out the possibility that mutations in other genes were responsible for the competitive advantage.

Shamoo said it's significant that the mutations didn't arise where expected within the gene. Four of the six occurred in regions of the gene that are identical in both heat-resistant and non-heat-resistant forms of G. stearothermophilus . Shamoo said this strongly shows the dynamic nature of evolution at the molecular and atomic level.

Shamoo said the most promising finding is the fact that the follow-up test produced precisely the same mutant genes.

"The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Welch Foundation and the Keck Center for Computational and Structural Biology.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last
Everybody be nice.
1 posted on 05/18/2006 11:16:02 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 370 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 05/18/2006 11:17:29 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Look at that. Evolution in a flask!

And they recorded the chain of mutations.

Great experiment.


3 posted on 05/18/2006 11:23:12 AM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

Interesting.

4 posted on 05/18/2006 11:23:21 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Lots of stuff to chew on.

For those critters that reproduce sexually, the ratio of unsuccessful to successful sperm cells is hundreds of millions to one. Lots of room for unhelpful mutations to get weeded out.


5 posted on 05/18/2006 11:25:15 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.



PatrickHenry won't ping threads I ping my list to. I wonder if this means I can dog him and each thread he posts, preclude his ping with mine? Just an idle, amusing thought...

Highlights:
Even with modern genomic tools, it's a daunting task to find a smoking gun for Darwinian evolution. The problem lies in being able to say not just when and how a specific gene mutated but also how that one genetic change translated into real-world dominance of one population over another.

...

"One of our most surprising findings is that an estimated 20 million point mutations gave rise to just six populations that were capable of vying for dominance ... This suggests that very few molecular pathways are available for a specific molecular response, and it points to the intriguing possibility of developing a system to predict the specific mutations that pathogens will use in order to become resistant to antibiotics."
The way I read that, it takes an incredibly specialized, highly-tailored "evolution" to take the "right" path. Interesting.

See also:

Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial

Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

Word to Creationists: Be nice, respectful, no personal attacks, and put your hard hats and kevlar on.
6 posted on 05/18/2006 11:25:58 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("You're not going crazy! You're going sane in a crazy world!" - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

By the way, these guys are forcing this; setting up the experiment with purpose, intent, will, intelligence, etc. in manmade containers with manmade, controlled environments, and human-designed instruments. This is an experiment, which means human interaction and influence. A study would just be a hands-off observance. Will they then turn around and tell us "ha, TOLD YOU it doesn't take intelligence"? What does this say about their opinion of themselves?


7 posted on 05/18/2006 11:30:14 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("You're not going crazy! You're going sane in a crazy world!" - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

In before Hitler!

Seriously, interesting article, thanks for the ping. Of course, the deniers will still discount it as "micro-evolution", or something.

Unfortunate name for the scientist, too! I anticipate lots of killer whale jokes.


8 posted on 05/18/2006 11:30:26 AM PDT by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The way I read that, it takes an incredibly specialized, highly-tailored "evolution" to take the "right" path. Interesting.

You read that wrong. There was no tailoring done. There were simply millions of random mutations, only a few of which were beneficial.

No intelligence had to alter those genes. No tailoring was done. They mutated on their own and the environment (temperature) weeded out the unfit.

9 posted on 05/18/2006 11:33:49 AM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

You mean like the "hands-off" experiment we are doing daily, building all those anti-biotic resistant microbes in nature (our bodies)?

Of course they are setting up the experiment on purpose - that's how science works. They come up with a prediction, based on the prevailing science, set up an experiment which they predict will give a particular outcome, then watch it run.


10 posted on 05/18/2006 11:35:20 AM PDT by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2nsdammit
Unfortunate name for the scientist, too! I anticipate lots of killer whale jokes.

Yousif Shamoo: Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Cell Biology.

11 posted on 05/18/2006 11:37:34 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
They grew the bacteria for one month in fermentor, raising the temperature a half degree Celsius each day.

I wonder if they ever cackled evilly as I did when lysing my transfected bacteria before bleaching them and dumping them down the sink.

12 posted on 05/18/2006 11:45:18 AM PDT by ahayes (Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
Look at that. Evolution in a flask! And they recorded the chain of mutations. Great experiment.

But it's still a microbe! Get back to me when you can recreate the entire planetary biosphere in your satanic lab. And don't forget to get your own dirt!
</creationism mode>

13 posted on 05/18/2006 11:47:44 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2nsdammit
Of course they are setting up the experiment on purpose - that's how science works. They come up with a prediction, based on the prevailing science, set up an experiment which they predict will give a particular outcome, then watch it run. They purposely mutate a microbe to exist in designer environment. Call me when they observe, or even intelligently cause, speciation into a higher lifeform.
14 posted on 05/18/2006 11:47:49 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus (Hey George! Read OUR lips: Build the wall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

By the way, these guys are forcing this; setting up the experiment with purpose, intent, will, intelligence, etc. in manmade containers with manmade, controlled environments, and human-designed instruments. This is an experiment, which means human interaction and influence. A study would just be a hands-off observance. Will they then turn around and tell us "ha, TOLD YOU it doesn't take intelligence"? What does this say about their opinion of themselves?

What intelligent act actually caused the thousands of mutations to occur? And what intelligent act caused some of these mutations to be selected as more beneficial than the others regarding the changing environment?

15 posted on 05/18/2006 11:49:02 AM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

LOL!!!!

I love it! You got this in 5 seconds before the (non-sarcastic) example!!


16 posted on 05/18/2006 11:49:46 AM PDT by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2nsdammit

Which is satire, and which is sincere? That's your homework assignment.


17 posted on 05/18/2006 11:51:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus
They purposely mutate a microbe to exist in designer environment. Call me when they observe, or even intelligently cause, speciation into a higher lifeform.

Where did you get the idea that they ever caused any mutation at all, purposely or not? And what exactly is a higher life form? One that can survive in an environment that a preceding life form could not, perhaps?

18 posted on 05/18/2006 11:52:18 AM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; furball4paws
This sounds like a really cool experiment. Is this sort of thing up that's right up "furball4paws" alley?

If so, perhaps he can point out the significance of the findings.

19 posted on 05/18/2006 11:52:48 AM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus
They didn't "purposely mutate" - they purposely selected for a mutation, which occurred on its own.
20 posted on 05/18/2006 11:53:15 AM PDT by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

..... I'm stumped.


21 posted on 05/18/2006 11:54:38 AM PDT by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
"The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

Kinda takes the random out of random, no? One would expect the same adaptation response to the same point mutation. But what directs the same point mutations to occur in regions that were identical in both heat resistant and non heat resistant critters?

The article is unclear about how many mutations took place versus the number of possible mutations that could have taken place. Perhaps that info would help me understand the significance a bit better.

22 posted on 05/18/2006 12:00:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2nsdammit
Of course they are setting up the experiment on purpose - that's how science works.

If you don't reproduce it in a lab, some people will complain it can't occur in nature because it's never been seen by intervening intelligent observers.

Reproduce it in a lab, some people will complain it can't occur in nature because seeing it required intelligent observers to intervene.

You can't win with some people.

23 posted on 05/18/2006 12:06:18 PM PDT by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Creationist internal thought processes about this thread:
Lemme see here ... I know there's no evidence for one species -- even a microbe -- evolving into another, and it certainly can't be done in a lab -- everybody knows that! -- so this can't be an example of anything like speciation. Besides, mutations are always harmful. This kind of thing just doesn't happen. It can't happen. Not ever. I read it in a Jack Chick comic.

So what is this article all about? It's a lie, that's what it is! Scientists always lie, according to Chick. This is just another Piltdown Man! Now that I think about it, it's a flat-out attack on my religion! Ooooooooooo, I'm gonna hit the abuse button! Yeah.


24 posted on 05/18/2006 12:09:17 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
"The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

Interesting.

Almost like it was planned...

25 posted on 05/18/2006 12:09:34 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I will go down with this ship, and I won't put my hands up in surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Kinda takes the random out of random, no?

Only anti-evolutionists have ever claimed that selection is random.

One would expect the same adaptation response to the same point mutation. But what directs the same point mutations to occur in regions that were identical in both heat resistant and non heat resistant critters?

The article is unclear about how many mutations took place versus the number of possible mutations that could have taken place. Perhaps that info would help me understand the significance a bit better.

Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all. The mutations occurred randomly, but only those that granted a benefit regarding the changing environment were selected. Therefore only a few of the thousands of mutations that were observed made the cut. And it was those same few in each execution of the experiment.

26 posted on 05/18/2006 12:11:45 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
Only anti-evolutionists have ever claimed that selection is random.

Which confirms the fact that I am not a dreaded "anti-evolutionist", though to be clear I am a creationist, since I never suggested selection was random. I though it was clear I was speaking about the point mutations but sometimes clear just isn't enough.

Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all.

You can prove this statement? I am stuned.

The mutations occurred randomly, but only those that granted a benefit regarding the changing environment were selected. Therefore only a few of the thousands of mutations that were observed made the cut. And it was those same few in each execution of the experiment.

How many point mutations could have occurred? How many did occur? Did the same number happen in the same locii in both iterations? If you can't answer those two questions then you are pretending to know more than you do. Why?

27 posted on 05/18/2006 12:18:15 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

At least you should read the initial post:

"One of our most surprising findings is that an estimated 20 million point mutations gave rise to just six populations that were capable of vying for dominance,"


28 posted on 05/18/2006 12:22:09 PM PDT by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Kinda takes the random out of random, no? One would expect the same adaptation response to the same point mutation. But what directs the same point mutations to occur in regions that were identical in both heat resistant and non heat resistant critters?

What makes you think this isn't just a case of only a few kinds of mutations being useful? There are countless examples of variation not producing the outcome necessary for the survival of a species. It's called extinction.

29 posted on 05/18/2006 12:27:37 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2nsdammit
Perhaps you should have read the article?

"Though millions of mutations in the target gene are believed to have occurred, only about 700 of those were capable of creating a new variant of the target gene. In all, the researchers identified 343 unique strains, each of which contained one of just six variants of the critical gene."

Millions or 20 million. Estimate or guesstimate?

The conclusion reached by the researchers seems to be that " "The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

Why?

30 posted on 05/18/2006 12:28:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I think undoubtedly you are correct. Most point mutations are either neutral or harmful, the former being the dominant. But my question is not why only one path lead to the Superbowl but how the beneficial mutations duplicate in each iteration of the experiment. There is undoubtedly an answer but it has nothing to do with my being a creationist or a dreaded "anit-evolutionist".

It just hasn't been answered here yet.

31 posted on 05/18/2006 12:32:48 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: All
For those who may be struggling to challenge this article, we offer the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
32 posted on 05/18/2006 12:35:03 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

microevolution * 3,500,000,000 = macroevolution


33 posted on 05/18/2006 12:38:25 PM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Answer my question. What reason do you have for thinking this isn't just a case of water running downhill and finding the path of least resistance.

The experiment was designed to provide one very narrow and specific environmental challenge. It was also designed to create a winner in a competition.

When you provide a narrow criterion for success, you get the same results from any stochastic process.

I'm not asserting this has to be the case here. I'm just saying there isn't any reason to believe it isn't.


34 posted on 05/18/2006 12:39:41 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Answer my question.

I answered your question.

Now a few for you.

How many base pairs in the target gene?

What is the mutation rate per generation?

How many bases were impervious to mutation?

Question authority js. :-}

35 posted on 05/18/2006 12:42:52 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

My refrigerator and under my sons bed has been doing this for years. Big deal.


36 posted on 05/18/2006 12:43:57 PM PDT by Conservative4Ever (Buy Danish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Another waste of money on this "study." Hm...any time you put two living things together that are disparate in strength and/or size, the stronger one will win, will it not? Okay - unless the weaker one has weapons. But barring external things like that, natural selection will favor the stronger. Do not really need a study to reach that conclusion!


37 posted on 05/18/2006 12:45:41 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Question authority? That sounds odd coming from someone who appears to be religious. Do you apply this motto to all your intellectual efforts, or is it just a plattitude you whip out when it's convenient?

I don't have any answers for your technical questions. What thought is behind your asking them?


38 posted on 05/18/2006 12:48:44 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Which confirms the fact that I am not a dreaded "anti-evolutionist", though to be clear I am a creationist, since I never suggested selection was random. I though it was clear I was speaking about the point mutations but sometimes clear just isn't enough.

Since your post #22 specifically referenced a quote that said 'The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions', and since those pathways are a result of selection, perhaps you were not quite as clear as you may have thought. Nevertheless I accept that it was an honest misunderstanding.

If I am understanding correctly now, this means you believe that somehow the statement you quoted said that the mutations themselves were not random. I would ask that you explain that conclusion.

>Nothing 'directed' the mutations to happen at all.

You can prove this statement? I am stuned.

I assume you are implying that God directed the mutations, and are daring me to disprove supernatural intervention in the experiment. My only answer is to clarify that my claim that nothing directed the mutations was only meant to cover the parameters of the experiment, and doesn't address possibilities not in evidence.

How many point mutations could have occurred?

That number is not only indeterminable, but also irrelevant. If you think differently feel free to explain how the number of mutations that didn't occur affect the results of ones that did.

How many did occur?

According to the article, millions.

Did the same number happen in the same locii in both iterations?

I would highly doubt it, since the actual occurrence of the mutations was random both in location and in timing.

If you can't answer those two questions then you are pretending to know more than you do. Why?

So conversely, since I have answered your two - well, three but who's counting ;-) - questions, does that mean you are saying I am not pretending to know more than I do?

39 posted on 05/18/2006 12:52:49 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
There are at least three posters on evolution threads who spend an inordinate amount of time suggesting that mutations are somehow directed. Some seem to suggest that the direction comes from an intelligent agent within the cell itself.

I would love to see an ID advocate produce an actual hypothesis based on this conjecture, or at least tell us what thought is lurking behind their posts.

It really sounds like a revival of Lamarkianism.
40 posted on 05/18/2006 1:02:30 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Ah, the familiar creationist catch-22.

Creationist: Evolution isn't science. It can't be duplicated in a lab.

Scientist: Yes it can! Here's an example of how evolution can be duplicated in an exactly reproducible way.

Creationist: But you did it in a lab. You designed the experiment, so it isn't evolution!

Repeat until the scientist becomes nauseous.

More importantly, this experiment refutes the creationist canard that evolution is a random process.

41 posted on 05/18/2006 1:03:24 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (...founder of African amputees for Pat Robertson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

That's geek-speak for "evolution is testable."

42 posted on 05/18/2006 1:03:26 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
We are once again on this thread seeing the amazing new science of "You can't make me see"-ism. There are none so dumb as those who will not think.
43 posted on 05/18/2006 1:11:45 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
That's geek-speak for "evolution is testable."

So you say, monkey-boy! Meanwhile, creationist research is moving along very nicely: NoahsArkSearch.

44 posted on 05/18/2006 1:11:50 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

But they're still microbes.


45 posted on 05/18/2006 1:13:50 PM PDT by Seamoth (Hemocyanin, chlorophyll, and hemoglobin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seamoth

It is those macrobes you need to look out for. Big enough to trip over.


46 posted on 05/18/2006 1:15:00 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Millions or 20 million. Estimate or guesstimate?

Estimate based upon known rates.

The conclusion reached by the researchers seems to be that " "The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

Why?

Proteins will not have an infinite number of useful sequences at any particular set of conditions. Many of the point mutations that occurred will not have caused any change in the protein sequence due to codon redundancy. Other point mutations will cause sequence change that is neutral and likely to be lost through genetic drift. Others will cause sequence change that is detrimental. They found the few beneficial point mutations that make the protein more effective under the specific conditions tested.

It is like when you get in your car to drive to work there are hundreds of routes you could take, but probably only a couple that get you there in good time.

47 posted on 05/18/2006 1:15:10 PM PDT by ahayes (Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: js1138
There are at least three posters on evolution threads who spend an inordinate amount of time suggesting that mutations are somehow directed.

Before Newton, angels were pushing the planets around. Now they lurk in cells and rearrange DNA.

48 posted on 05/18/2006 1:16:00 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Yes, the God of the Gaps effect has also shrunk the angels. :-(


49 posted on 05/18/2006 1:17:55 PM PDT by ahayes (Yes, I have a devious plot. No, you may not know what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Which confirms the fact that I am not a dreaded "anti-evolutionist", though to be clear I am a creationist, since I never suggested selection was random.

So, in other words, this experiment managed to 'capture' the Intelligent Designer in a bottle and made it do it's design work over and over again? Do you realize that in your post, you are implying that science tested God's creative ability in a test tube and controlled it? The other option is that is was the product of natural causes.

50 posted on 05/18/2006 1:18:17 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson