ready to fight 'em off.
|
Yeah, but what about LAB DEMONSTRATIONS????
you mean like how certain bacteria can develop a resistance to antibiotics ? which is basically called adaptation ?
You really must find a new hobby. Evo is a sick, twisted myth, and to brag that you are a true brainwahed Kool-Aid drinker only diminishes you further,...if that's possible.
Oh, sweet. A scientist has demonstrated adaptation occurs. Who woulda guessed? And?
>>the algae "evolved" from a type that grows quickly to a type that resists being eaten.<<
I noticed the word "evolved" is in quotes. Why is that? The begged question is, did the type that resists being eaten already exist, albeit in small numbers, before the aledged "evolution" took place? If it did, then this is not evolution of an algae, it is evolution of the characteristcs of a population of algae.
If you have a part of the country that has a population made up equally of black bears and Polar bears, and one day the temperature drops substantially, and it stays that way for ten years, you will notice that there will be a lot more polar bears, and many less black bears. But nothing evolved, even if the black bears died out completely. Natural selection would simply have chosen the strongest of two EXISTING types, elimintating one. The diversity of the poplulation was reduced, not expanded.
How, exactly does algae resist being eaten, I wonder...
What is happening here is most likely a step toward extinction for one variety, while another is opportunistically advancing it's numbers. No speciation, nor even adaptive adjustment; just a change in population demographics.
Bump for later
I see "General Chat" is on duty again.
Since you dove right in and took the bait, and proceeded to proclaim this as evolution in the laboratory, and accepted her experiment without qualification, I propose that they continue with this experiment to validate their absurd claims. I know it can hurt for darwinists to actually follow a premise to conclusion, but keep reading and I promise it won't hurt TOO much.
My conjecture is that the resistant algae existed in the population, and only came to the fore when it became obvious that the resistant ones were the only ones still undergoing mitosis (the rest were eaten, of course).
WHERE THIS CAN BE DISPROVED is if she were to then take the fully-resistant algae (and this time, ONLY the resistant algae, not a mixed sample with both resistant and fast-growing algae) and introduce it into an environment that DID NOT FAVOR resistance, but rather favored FAST GROWTH. In fact, make it so that their little cellular lives DEPENDED on fast growth, just like in the first experiment, if you want to be dramatic.
If she guarantees that the population starts with ONLY those algae that are resistant, then she should be able to reverse the conditions in the first test, and "evolve" them back to the way they supposedly were when they were supposed to favor fast growth and not resistance.
It won't work, of course. You know it, I know it, and she knows it -- but hey, don't let a nice story and a thesis premise get in the way of logic.
Either they can cause laboratory evolution, or they can't. If they can (and they have now stated that they CAN), they can reverse the changes.
Should make for a nice Doctoral thesis this time.
Of course, there won't BE a doctoral thesis, because the experiment will prove that she had a contaminated population to begin with when she is unable to reverse the changes from a non-contaminated population of resistant-only algae to a population of fast-growing algae.
I was watching a show about the possibility of bacteria existing on rocks from Mars and how the religious community would try and hide the facts. Since God created the universe, I didn't understand why.
At best, this might be termed "natural selection", which is only a fraction of evolution.
McClintock recognized that genetic change is a cellular process, subject to regulation, and is not dependent on stochastic accidents. The idea of internally-generated, biologically regulated mutation has profound impacts for thinking about the process of evolution. Darwin himself acknowledged this point in later editions of Origin of Species, where he wrote about natural "sports" or "...variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection." (6th edition, Chapter XV, p. 395).
To see the real-world evolutionary importance of built-in biological mechanisms of genetic change, we have only to consider the post-WWII emergence of multiple antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This phenomenon represents the largest and best-documented evolutionary experiment in the molecular biology era. Interestingly, when antibiotic use began, we had a robust theory of how resistance would evolve by modification of existing cell components so that they were no longer antibiotic-sensitive. This theory was confirmed by laboratory experiments. Nonetheless, when the basis of naturally evolving multiple antibiotic resistance was determined, the experimentally-confirmed theory was wrong. Resistance resulted from the presence of new biochemical activities in the bacteria, encoded by new transmissible genetic systems that could accumulate additional DNA encoding these resistance activities (35).
Man plays God over a petri dish. A higher intelligence might be "playing God" with the "petri dish" that encompasses our world. A higher intelligence than that might be "playing God" at the galaxie level. There could be Gods reigning over dimensions or other universes we can't see. If I get struck by lightening today, you'll know I was on a hot trail of thought.
To observe ecological and evolutionary changes together, the researchers monitored the ecological fluctuations in a model predator-prey laboratory system: a microscopic organism called a rotifer that eats a single-celled algae.
Meyer developed a method to track genetic changes, and the researchers found that as the prey population fluctuated, the algae "evolved" from a type that grows quickly to a type that resists being eaten. The frequency of the algal-genotype changes in response to rotifer population flux clearly demonstrated the synchronicity of ecological and evolutionary time.
A MODEL???
Why the quotes???
Huh?
ready to fight 'em off.
