Posted on 01/20/2009 9:22:06 AM PST by Boxen
New evidence from a study of yeast cells has resulted in the most detailed picture of an organism’s evolutionary process to date, says a Texas A&M University chemical engineering professor whose findings provide the first direct evidence of aspects, which up until now have remained mostly theory.
Working with populations of yeast cells, which were color-coded by fluorescent markers, Katy Kao, assistant professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, and Stanford University colleague Gavin Sherlock were able to evolve the cells while maintaining a visual analysis of the entire process.
(Excerpt) Read more at dmc-news.tamu.edu ...
bfltr
LOL! What did the yeast evolve into?
2 posts. Not bad.
A yeast better adapted to the conditions imposed on it.
LOL! What did the yeast evolve into?
Sandwich rolls!
Predictable, I was counting the number of posts until someone tried to innoculate himself against the obvious.
Gig 'Em Aggies :-)
TAMU Class of '88; Law Hall (may it R.I.P.) Ramp 9 Mule; f.u.p.!
Not your title, but it’s a pretty crappy title.
“...shows the evolutionary process to be much more dynamic than initially thought...”
Shouldn’t the title be, “Evolutionary Process More Dynamic Than Believed”?
Sandwich rolls!
Finally! Something good has come of evolution!
“In other words, as Mother Nature sorts things out, some adaptations go by the wayside, with the latest generation of an organism sometimes showing no traces of them.”
One can only wonder what sorts of adaptations modern humans have missed out on as we fanned out from Africa and settled the planet.
Observing the color-coded yeast populations as they evolved to respond to their environment, Kao saw some colors expand while others contracted – a sign that adaptations were occurring. But rather than one segment of the population continuing to shrink until it was completely replaced, some segments were able to compete long enough to acquire further adaptations. When this happened, Kao explained, these populations of cells – once apparently less-fit – began to swell while once-dominant populations started to shrink. This constant reduction and burgeoning of populations signaled the development of multiple beneficial adaptations and a subsequent competition by the cells that acquired them, Kao said.
Addressing Behe's Edge of Evolution.
Incorrigible ~ Finally! Something good has come of evolution!
I'm holding out for it to evolve into beer...
“Katy Kao, assistant professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, and Stanford University colleague Gavin Sherlock were able to evolve the cells”
Intelligent design on a very small scale (smaller intelligence as well)
Beat ya!
It'd have to be. I don't beleive it at all.
Sounds to me like they selected genetic potential that was already there in the yeast. They strained for breed of yeast that meets the conditions imposed on it. No evolution at all.
Well before that, mammals lost the ability to see UV, like birds, insects, and reptiles can. Indeed, most mammals (except primates) are color blind to one degree or another.
Hundreds of millions of years of lurking in the dark to avoid getting eaten by dinosaurs made (black and white) night vision far more important than color discrimination.
Now, a proposal ~ the super computers buried in the DNA strands in the nuclei of each yeast cell were busy computing relative advantages and coming up with "necessary changes" which were then processed out as appropriate basepairs.
This idea is consistent with the finding last month that the granularity of the quanta of time was discovered demonstrating that our particular universe is, essentially, holographic in nature.
Something that's "holographic" can have supercomputers wherever needed Fur Shur.
It appears that this research is hinting at the possibility that mutation is not random but is somehow sensitive to the environment arising on an as needed basis. The the transitions are not merely ‘linear.’
Please you evodules, understand that if this is your new paradigm, welcome aboard. Many creationists do not accept the neo-darwinian thesis because purely random mutation doesn’t cut it as a source of new information.
You could say that, but you wou be incorrect.
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.