Bacteria Reveal Secret Of Adaptation At Evolution Canyon

Science Daily ^ | July 27, 2008

[Soliton]

Bacteria living on opposite sides of a canyon have evolved to cope with different temperatures by altering the make-up of their 'skin', or cell membranes. Scientists have found that bacteria change these complex and important structures to adapt to different temperatures by looking at the appearance of the bacteria as well as their genes. The researchers hope their study, published in the August issue of Microbiology, will start a new trend in research.

[Soliton]

Oops, they've done it again!

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Coyoteman]

You mean... There’s something to that evolution stuff after all?

[Mojave]

Phenotypic.

[RetiredArmyMajor]

Coyoteman wrote:

You mean... There’s something to that evolution stuff after all?

. . . . .

Absolutely. A bacterium morphed into a bacterium.

Again!

It just gets more exciting with every report.

[Coyoteman]

Absolutely. A bacterium morphed into a bacterium.

Again!

It just gets more exciting with every report.

Your comment would be more meaningful if "bacterium" was all one species, or even one genus. But that's not the case. Check out the following table:

The Phyla of Bacteria (as taken from Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology 1st Ed.)

Name of Phylum	Number of Species	Number of Genera
Aquificae	27	12
Xenobacteria	29	11
Chrysogenetes	1	1
Thermomicrobia	13	6
Cyanobacteria	78	62
Chlorobia	17	6
Proteobacteria	1644	366
Firmicutes	2474	255
Planctomycetes etc.	13	5
Spirochaetes	92	13
Fibrobacter	5	3
Bacteroids	130	20
Flavobacteria	72	15
Sphingobacteria	76	22
Fusobacteria	29	6
Verrucomicrobia	5	2

As you can see there is a great deal of latitude for change within "bacterium" -- such that analyses like the one reported here can easily demonstrate speciation (macroevolution) while still dealing with "bacteria."

[Soliton]

You mean... There’s something to that evolution stuff after all?Close your eyes and wistle amazing grace lest your soul be taken by the big ugly! In the event Michelle Obama doesn't want your soul, please disregard this message.

[count-your-change]

Here’s something to ponder: e.Coli, a bacteria with several varieties, divides about every 15 minutes. Now imagine how many generations that would be over the past hundred years.
Of course it’s been around much longer but this is a nice round figure. Back of an envelope calculation, A hundred years of e. Coli generations is like about a hundred million years of human generations.
And yet after all these millions of generations Mr. e. Coli is just a bacterium. I don’t think he’s ever going to be anything else.

[Tax-chick]

And please remember to wash your hands and cook your meat thoroughly.

[grey_whiskers]

Bookmark for later.

Cheers!

[Coyoteman]

And yet after all these millions of generations Mr. e. Coli is just a bacterium. I don’t think he’s ever going to be anything else.

You made the same mistake made above. There are different kinds of bacteria! Change from one type of bacteria to another demonstrates speciation (macroevolution).

Didn't you see the recent news articles? Michigan State biologist Richard Lenski and colleagues grew thousands of generations of E. coli that normally live off of glucose. After more than 30,000 generations some developed the capacity to metabolize citrate.

Now you may not think much of this, but it demonstrates speciation (macroevolution) in the laboratory--something creationists typically claim is impossible. That's a pretty good start, eh?

[RetiredArmyMajor]

Coyoteman wrote:

Your comment would be more meaningful if "bacterium" was all one species, or even one genus. But that's not the case. Check out the following table:

As you can see there is a great deal of latitude for change within "bacterium" -- such that analyses like the one reported here can easily demonstrate speciation (macroevolution) while still dealing with "bacteria."

. . . . .

So they're still bacteria?

Darn.

I was hoping for a dog this time. Sorry, I meant "dog." By putting the term in quotations marks I can pretend it's still a dog, but not still a dog. In fact, it can mean whatever I want it to mean.

It's a good thing that science is so perfected and precise that the mere insertion of punctuation can change the interpretation -- and possibly the real-life application -- of experimental results.

Of course, at one time black Africans were not humans, but were "humans." Same with Australian aboriginal peoples, Jews, unborn children, etc.

How handy is THAT?

Pardon me now while I go have my "breakfast" and then go to "work."

Have a great "day!"

[HamiltonJay]

I’ll never understand the folks who think evolution disproves God.. on either side of the isle.

Change by its very occurrance is one of the more visible signs of God in the universe.

Lets face it, nothing changes without first being acted on by an outside force... to trace all change and movement back to the begining and you are left with the first move... to the faithful this is God... to those who refuse to believe the answer is “I don’t know”.

[caveat emptor]

RetiredArmyMajor said: A bacterium morphed into a bacterium.

It sounds like you may have read the article.

From the article: Scientists studied 131 strains of Bacillus simplex and found that bacteria on different slopes have evolved differently, forming different 'ecotypes' of the same species .

[Soliton]

From the article: Scientists studied 131 strains of Bacillus simplex and found that bacteria on different slopes have evolved differently, forming different 'ecotypes' of the same species .

I really can't believe that you would be so obtuse as to not see how this article is probative for the the theory of evolution. It shows genetic change in response to environmental factors as predeicted by the ToE.

[Rudder]

To convince some, these bacteria would have had to become white buffalo in a laboratory.

[Soliton]

To convince some, these bacteria would have had to become white buffalo in a laboratory.

Science is HARD. Forgive them for they do not know science

[tongass kid]

So this was done in the laboratory by some intelligent design, not random selection. Fifty years of fruit fly genetic lab experiments on countless number of fruit fly have not created a new species using intelligent design combined with random selection. If it is done in a lab it is intelligent design and not natural selection.

[Coyoteman]

So this was done in the laboratory by some intelligent design, not random selection. Fifty years of fruit fly genetic lab experiments on countless number of fruit fly have not created a new species using intelligent design combined with random selection. If it is done in a lab it is intelligent design and not natural selection.

1) Are you trying to equate the deliberate design of a scientific laboratory experiment with the supernatural act of a creator of some kind? Seems like they are completely different, and make a useless analogy.

2) I don't know about fruit flies, but speciation has been observed in the laboratory. Using natural selection.

[tongass kid]

Yep, I understand you now. The natural selection in the lab was not of intelligent design because the people in the lab that designed the experiments and controlled the environment where not intelligent.