Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   old proof of evolution
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (271187)
12-20-2005 7:07 PM


Thread Thesis:
Evolution is more than a theory, it is a fact.
This information is found in the book “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins, from the penultimate chapter “Canterbury,” about six pages from the end of that chapter. In this section Dawkins references research and experiments by Sol Spiegelman. A google search will turn up essays on him and further leads about his work. As awesome as this work is, I am simply amazed that he and his work are not reference more often.
Here is my summary of this section.
There is a bacterium of the gut called Escherichia coli, usually abbreviated as e-coli. This bacterium has a parasite called Qb. (The B should be the greek letter beta so please assume that). Qb is an RNA virus that preys on e-coli.
Before continuing, I must slaughter an old short poem to the briefest possible size:
Big fleas have littler fleas to bite-em
And so on infinitum
I never would have imagined that a bacterium would subject to parasites.
Back to the story:
Qb infects e-coli and forces e-coli to produce four proteins,
A glue protein so it can stick to e-coli
A coat protein to protect it
A replicase (replication) factor that causes e-coli to make more copies of Qb
A bomb to explode e-coli and release all the new copies of Qb. (Bomb is Dawkins’ term)
Spiegelman was able to isolate the replicase and the Qb RNA. He then put this stuff into a test tube containing water and the raw materials needed to make its constituent components and let the experiment run. In this protected environment, the RNA populated its environment making copies of itself. It created offspring.
The copies were all quite similar. This is heredity. It is heredity in a non living entity. Viruses do not exhibit metabolism and are not considered to be alive. Now we have a non-living replicating molecule. (although I may be using molecule rather loosely)
This may have repercussions in the topic on abiogenesis.
Next he took a drop of this new soup of Qb RNA and replicase and seeded a new tube of raw materials. After letting that fester a while, he took a drop of the new soup and infected a new tube of food (raw building blocks needed to make the RNA and replicase).
At the start, the “RNA had been a necklace of about 3600 ”beads’ long.” After 74 generations it had been paired down to 550. In this protected environment with no need to build the glue or the bomb, the required abilities of this RNA were not nearly as stringent as the original Qb. As a result, the complexity that Qb needed to survive was not required, the RNA could replicate without out it, gradual loss did not affect its survivability, it became simpler. It evolved. Note: evolution does not require increasing complexity, just change in inheritable characteristics over time.
It continued to retain the fundamental characteristic of being able to replicate. It can no longer infect e-coli, but in this controlled environment, that is not necessary for it to propagate and be successful.
Now here is an extremely important bit of information. This experiment has been repeated. It can be repeated at will. If you take the time to lean enough about biology and chemistry to do this, you too can create your own strain and you too will create a simplified Qb RNA.
This experiment is important for many reasons. Among them, to a layman such as myself: It is predictable. It is testable. It is verifiable. It demonstrates the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is more than just a theory, it is indeed a proven fact.
Dawkins presents much more evidence and many more conclusions that I could possibly show here without copying his work. If you have any interest in evolution, read some of his books. From the font of this book the list is: the Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, and this book, The Ancestor’s Tale.
The Blind Watchmaker is a gentle start for laymen such as myself. Many years have passed since I read it but as I recall, it is good medicine for the irreducible complexity disease that seems to afflict so many.
Debate point: Do you doubt that the concept of evolution is true? If so, let’s hear it. Why are you skeptical?
I do have a guiding request. As I follow through threads in this forum, I see that many arguments are based on differences of opinion as to the meanings of the words and concepts being debated. I am happy to entertain a discussion about the validity of evolution, but I request that you provide your definition of evolution. I want to be certain that we are in agreement as to the topic of our discussion, or at the least, aware of the differences.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by bkelly, posted 12-20-2005 8:46 PM bkelly has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 5 (271209)
12-20-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
12-20-2005 7:07 PM


Need some guidelines
adminnemooseus writes:
Coffee House violation. Can't make exceptions.
Resubmit it as a Proposed New Topic, if you want it discussed. But I think it needs a fair amount of work to be promotable.
I have just spent about two hours searchin for guildlines as to what types of posts belong where. In particular, for coffee house. I followed all the links in your post and did not recognize any guidelines.
You stated that it needs a fair amount of work, but I don't know what you are expecting.
Is there a form in which we can post information that we think others will be interrested in reading. For example, the topic of this PNT thread of mine.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 12-20-2005 7:07 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-21-2005 2:51 AM bkelly has not replied
 Message 4 by AdminWounded, posted 12-21-2005 4:41 AM bkelly has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 5 (271247)
12-21-2005 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by bkelly
12-20-2005 8:46 PM


Re: Need some guidelines - Feeble A-moose reply
My impression is that your message 1 just doesn't have any coherence to it.
I don't really have a good answer for you (I myself don't know if I can write a good message 1 for a new topic).
My stab at helping is:
Look at your content. What is the general theme of the message? That should be the topic title (which can be changed via editing message 1). The current title, "old proof of evolution", is generic to the point of being pretty worthless.
Then the message should be broken down into paragraphs, with each paragraph having its own sub-theme.
Sylas has the reputation of being one of the masters of writing a good message. Perhaps looking as some of his may be useful. See http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information.
I encourage you to use a new message in this topic, to be your revised effort. If and when approved, that individual message (even if not message 1) can become the message 1 of the released version.
OK - Pretty crappy job at trying to help. Once again I must plead being a pinhead moose.
Suggestions from other admins?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bkelly, posted 12-20-2005 8:46 PM bkelly has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (271256)
12-21-2005 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by bkelly
12-20-2005 8:46 PM


Suggestions
As I see it there are essentially two parts to this post. One is the recounting of the Spiegelman expeiments and the other comes across as an infomercial for Richard Dawkins' books.
All the stuff reccommending Richard Dawkins is extraneous, as indeed is any reference to his work other than as an attribution as your initial source of the experiment.
You should ideally be able to provide citation to the original published work by Spiegelman, at the present all we have is your third hand account of it.
I don't know exactly what paper Dawkins' cited but one possibility is...
An extracellular Darwinian experiment with a self-duplicating nucleic acid molecule.
D R Mills, R L Peterson, and S Spiegelman
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 November; 72(11): 4252-4256.
which seems to discuss a very similar experiment, if not the actual ones Dawkins was referencing.
My own preference would be for you to shorten the post considerably to a concise recounting of the experiment, ideally from your own reading of the original work, and then to expand on your own views on the importance of this research.
This is interesting work and it deserves discussion, at the moment I find your OP too unfocused and Dawkins centric.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bkelly, posted 12-20-2005 8:46 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bkelly, posted 12-21-2005 5:33 PM AdminWounded has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 5 (271524)
12-21-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminWounded
12-21-2005 4:41 AM


Re: Suggestions
As much as I like Dawkins and that I found this information in his book, and as much as he deserves a bit of publicity, you are right in that it really is not needed. I will look around for a bit of material closer to the source. Thanks for the link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminWounded, posted 12-21-2005 4:41 AM AdminWounded has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024