Bacteria makes evolutionary leap

[Devill]

How is this a factual post? Dont you want to try and stay on topic for longer then......oooo wait you are never on topic!!!

You only say one thing over and over and over and over....

Teleological... are you not a believer in God? I mean you constantly speak of evolution... didn't you know that it is a sin to think... let alone about evolution. You don't even have to agree with it.... just getting into a discussion about it is a sin. STOP SINNING! I'm gunna tell your pastor/priest/imam/scheik/rabi!

Name one logical or Reasonable conclusion Teleological has ever come to.... name one valid fact that he has ever contributed to a discussion. Teleological has made is mind up on what he believes and has not spent a single 45min in a single University lecture on Biology of any type. This is a fact. You can get lured into his mumbo jumbo rifraf but I promise you none of us heathens are dumb enough.

Believing in God is stupid. But If you want my opinion on that you should go to the PD section.

Again what valid facts have you presented?

I have seen Teo quote VALID Biological evedence to support his claims....

Lol, you are an irritating little git

Ok so i take it you have your Masters in Biochemical evolution?

I can see you have no valid points/arguments to make thus you just hammer on about how religious people are dumb and ignorant and zealots for only one cause.....

Like i said in another thread you are a lot more close minded and irritating then any religious person on this forum... also you make no valid points or counter arguments you just keep saying: " look at those that believe in a god, they are morons!!!"

If you cant be an active part of a debate and contribute to it then please sod off

 

[alloytoo]

I have seen Teo quote VALID Biological evedence to support his claims....

You've been able to determine what his claims are?

 

[Devill]

You've been able to determine what his claims are?

lol, wont say i always understand his claims 100% but he has given links and seems to know more then most of you guys when it comes to biology anyway

post 37

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=116369&page=3 He atleast looks like he knows what he is talking about again unlike most of the people.

 

[w1z4rd]

Personally.. I find Teleological`s perspective interesting. He is actually learning about evolutionary biology, and from what I have noticed, when you get him to understand a point.. he generally accepts it.

Sure sometimes he fuddles it a lot, but he aint no Dodo.

 

[Devill]

Personally.. I find Teleological`s perspective interesting. He is actually learning about evolutionary biology, and from what I have noticed, when you get him to understand a point.. he generally accepts it.

Sure sometimes he fuddles it a lot, but he aint no Dodo.

lol, nice now we can get back on topic

/kicks monkey in the nads for old times sake

Do you think that larger / multi cell organisms would be able to make this "leap"? I just think its one thing for bacteria to "evolve" and a totally other matter for a "Complex / multi-celled" (ie dogs , fish, all those) to make the same leap....

But yes there is still a hell of a lot of research to be done.......

 

[HavocXphere]

But if my skin becomes more tan i am not evolving im simply addapting, dont you think?

Your example is flawed: Your genes don't change with a tan....in the citrate example the genes do change.

Do you think that larger / multi cell organisms would be able to make this "leap"?

Yes I think so. Very unlikely though since more coincidences need to slot into place at the same time. (Assuming this bacteria thing is a coincidence based).

 

[Devill]

Your example is flawed: Your genes don't change with a tan....in the citrate example the genes do change.

Yes I think so. Very unlikely though since more coincidences need to slot into place at the same time. (Assuming this bacteria thing is a coincidence based).

ok cool i see your point

Just why have we not seen these changes / "evolution-leaps" in nature?

 

[HavocXphere]

Just why have we not seen these changes / "evolution-leaps" in nature?

Dunno...but some possible reasons:
1) Timeframe...bacteria multiple like rabits (i.e. think 40000 generations of humans)
2) Its less likely in more complex entities
3) It has and we missed it
4) Perhaps the emergence of a new virus counts...like the first time black plague hit.

 

[Devill]

Dunno...but some possible reasons:
1) Timeframe...bacteria multiple like rabits (i.e. think 40000 generations of humans)
2) Its less likely in more complex entities
3) It has and we missed it
4) Perhaps the emergence of a new virus counts...like the first time black plague hit.

Good points all,(happy we can debate and not fight )

But i mean if it was so highly unlikely how did we get so many different life forms?

Also if we all come from the same "great gran daddy/mommy" then we can even take into account the Flora on earth.

Estimated 2-30 million species of insects....

Scientists who study animal life are called zoologosts. They have recorded 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals. And, although there are a million named species of insects, scientists estimate that there could be another million waiting to be discovered and named!

Just looks like the Unlikely event must have happend a bit to often

 

[arf9999]

Just looks like the Unlikely event must have happend a bit to often

Given a long enough time frame, even an event with a small probability becomes inevitable.

 

[Devill]

Given a long enough time frame, even an event with a small probability becomes inevitable.

Yes but what i am saying is look at all the different species on earth....if we all started from one type of bacteria/single cell organism this even would not be as exclusive/rare as this piece would like to make it

 

[arf9999]

Yes but what i am saying is look at all the different species on earth....if we all started from one type of bacteria/single cell organism this even would not be as exclusive/rare as this piece would like to make it

I don't understand your point. 40000 generations for bacteria is not a long time. What is rare is that the mutation is observed under laboratory conditions.

JFYI: if we were talking about humans and we were looking at some kind of cellular mutation that proves beneficial (like to ability to metabolise a different source of energy - say sulphates instead of carbohydrates) [NB: I'm not a chemist or a biologist, so please don't attack my science - this is an analogy], 40000 generations is around 2000 years (if we assume one human generation to be 20 years), which is long time for you and me but next to no time at all in the history of life on earth.

 

[Devill]

I don't understand your point. 40000 generations for bacteria is not a long time. What is rare is that the mutation is observed under laboratory conditions.

JFYI: if we were talking about humans and we were looking at some kind of cellular mutation that proves beneficial (like to ability to metabolise a different source of energy - say sulphates instead of carbohydrates) [NB: I'm not a chemist or a biologist, so please don't attack my science - this is an analogy], 40000 generations is around 2000 years (if we assume one human generation to be 20 years), which is long time for you and me but next to no time at all in the history of life on earth.

yes but what i am saying is nice so it happens once in 2000 years....first of all one "evolved" creature is not going to cut it seeing as it needs another to mate with for the sucessful continueing of his/her dna....

Secondly....there are a lot more species on earth then 1 I o w this should have happend at a lot higher rate Think of all the fish species,plant species, reptiles,birds, insects, ect ect..

For each Species this "leap" would have had to happen.... see where im going with this?

And dont worry i dont "attack" anything except my beer/whiskey

 

[Claymore]

Ok i am asking a question: Isnt this just addapting? and not evolving?

I think, being specific, adaptation refers to individuals adapting to an environment, while evolution refers to changes in species or the gene pool.

 

[arf9999]

yes but what i am saying is nice so it happens once in 2000 years....first of all one "evolved" creature is not going to cut it seeing as it needs another to mate with for the sucessful continueing of his/her dna....

Secondly....there are a lot more species on earth then 1 I o w this should have happend at a lot higher rate Think of all the fish species,plant species, reptiles,birds, insects, ect ect..

For each Species this "leap" would have had to happen.... see where im going with this?

And dont worry i dont "attack" anything except my beer/whiskey

I don't think you realize how long life has been on earth

 

[Devill]

I think, being specific, adaptation refers to individuals adapting to an environment, while evolution refers to changes in species or the gene pool.

Ok but Black peoples genes are diffrent from White people's

So are Black people or white people the evolved species?

I think evolution should be : " When a species DNA changes"

Iow if black people had 51 chromosomes are some such then they would be the evolved spiecies from the white people.....

 

[nauseous_monkey]

Ok but Black peoples genes are diffrent from White people's

So are Black people or white people the evolved species?

I think evolution should be : " When a species DNA changes"

Iow if black people had 51 chromosomes are some such then they would be the evolved spiecies from the white people.....

Okay don't be a racist now

 

[Claymore]

Ok but Black peoples genes are diffrent from White people's

So are Black people or white people the evolved species?

I think evolution should be : " When a species DNA changes"

Iow if black people had 51 chromosomes are some such then they would be the evolved spiecies from the white people.....

The whole thing about speciation can be quite complex, and not a little fuzzy. Genes do differ within species, and species are often defined by geographics or breeding separation, rather than by physical features.

 

[Teleological]

Anybody looked at the data so far to make out how big the "leap/jump" is?

If not, here goes:
E. coli are facultative anaerobic organisms, meaning that in the presence of oxygen, pyruvate (from glycolysis) will enter the Krebs (citric acid) cycle to produce energy and in the absence of oxygen, pyruvate will ferment to form lactate and/or ethanol (depending on the organism). Thus, E. coli can metabolize intracellular citrate just fine. All the machinery necessary to metabolize citrate is present in E. coli and the biochemical processes/reactions are highly coordinated and complex. Therefore, the evolutionary "leap/jump" cited is not an example of a suddenly acquired ability to metabolize citrate as E. coli posses the necessary intracellular machinery to metabolize citrate. What did evolve then?

First look at the experimental conditions.
The E. coli (subtype B) bacteria where grown in DM25, a minimal salts medium that has 139microM glucose and 1,700microM citrate for about 20 years. Meaning a lot of extracellular citrate and little extracellular glucose. This specific strain does not have a citrate symporter to import the extracellular citrate. Other strains of E. coli posses such membrane proteins (e.g. citT), however some of them are situated on plasmids and the researchers made sure that horizontal transfer of plasmids was not possible in this experiment. Basically, the bacteria were swimming in an ocean of food but could only use a fraction of it because they could not get their "hands" on the goods. At around the 31000-31500th generation the first citrate "importers" arose. It will be fascinating to see the actual mutations that gave rise to this function and it is probably more than one (article speculates on possibly three genetic events over many generations). E. coli has many other symporter membrane proteins for dicarboxylic acids and other molecules with similar properties to citrate (e.g. Tartrate or alpha-ketoglutarate). Citrate is a tricarboxylic acid and it is possible that a few key mutations from an existing symporter protein allowed citrate to be imported by an existing protein. If so, it would be interesting how the mutations affected the properties of the original symporter system. The researchers however have not tracked down the exact mutations.

30 000 generations is the equivalent of +-600 000 years of evolution in a species with an average generation of 20 years (like primates). Is this an example of a "leap/jump"? If you are lactose intolerant, it might very well take 600 000 years before a mutation makes your descendants lactose tolerant (lactase gene beneficial mutation if all your descendants are also lactose intolerant). So in the end it is more like an evolutionary stutter (without us knowing the full extent of the other mutations during the 30 000 generations), much like nylonase "evolution", which was a a pre-existing esterase with B-lactam folds that had minimal nylon hydrolysis activity from the start.

The full effect of genetic entropy needs to be studied and how deleterious (minimal), neutral and beneficial mutations affect populations and their genomes.

More links:
Historical contingency in the evolution of E. coli
A New Step In Evolution

Edit:

...Sure sometimes he fuddles it a lot...

I'd appreciate it if you could point out where I fuddled it a lot and give guidance or correct me ?

 

[HavocXphere]

Ok but Black peoples genes are diffrent from White people's

So are Black people or white people the evolved species?

I think evolution should be : " When a species DNA changes"

Iow if black people had 51 chromosomes are some such then they would be the evolved spiecies from the white people.....

Neither is more evolved than the other. Different environment = different outcome.