New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"

I have been thinking that the name Darwinian evolution is kind of outdated, and doesn't really do your theory justice. I think it is not really specific and accurate enough to encompass all of the aspects of the theory.So I propose a new name, "The Bacteria Diet Theory".Basically what is says is that the only evidence anyone can ever come up with since the beginning of time, for the supposed random mutations and natural selection of evolution, that they think shows how all of life on the planet, every system, every thought, ever animal trait and behavior, and every complex, interrelated detail of existence, is the changing diets of some bacteria.That's it. Its not fancy, but its accurate and to the point.If there are other evidences, we can consider amending the name in the future, but I think it is where we are at now, so let's go with it.New names, with supporting evidence for the name of course, are welcome for review.

Thread copied here from the New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet" thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi BD, Have you heard of a thing called a "fossil" Bolders? I believe there are some very nice ones in China.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Well, it won't be surprising if there is not much for people to say here. There are not going to be many possibilities for adding to the "bevy" of data to support the ToE that goes beyond bacteria's appetite.Isn't it truly amazing that the whole world has been sold this bill of goods, all based on only this. You can fool most of the people, some of the time...

How do you explain this evidence: (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modernThis is from the page 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which has a lot more evidence. You might want to take a look at some of it.But if you just blow it all off, as most hard core creationists do, you're not worth even bothering with, and I'll probably not even bother with you except for my own amusement.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I can't even see why this was promoted since it is simply based on one gigantic canard (and I'm not talking about a big duck).There is plentiful evidence from many fields of biology supportive of random mutation and natural selection including Comparative genetics from both within and between species, transgenerational studies in multiple organisms, developmental research and a host of others.When creationists/IDist start bitching about how we haven't observed all of the mutations occurring directly then we turn to bacteriological studies where we can unequivocally show the ancestral and derived genotypes and measure the changes in fitness they have produced. This doesn't mean that none of the other evidence exists simply that you choose not to accept it.Since this all hinges on the arbitrary and subjective opinions of people generally unfamiliar with evolutionary theory I think perhaps we should call it the 'Creationist theory of evolution' so as to distinguish it from the actual scientific theory of evolution.The 'Creationist theory of evolution' could be all about how every mutation no matter what its effect constitutes a loss of information. It could describe the non-existent decades long experiment to generate novel beneficial mutations in fruit flies which creationists love to tell us has failed. In short it could be crammed full of all the strawman misrepresentations that creationists/IDists love to spend their time tearing into instead of actually bothering to gain even a passing familiarity with actual evolutionary science.TTFN,WK

As you have made some 450 posts on this forum, I suppose you must know that this isn't true.So what puzzles me is why you posted it.

I propose a new name for creationists: fucking morons.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

If even you have to admit that you find your fantasy world implausible, what hope can you have of deceiving other people?

Hi, Dash.I think we mention antibiotic resistance experiments more than dietary experiments, and that you are just fixating on nylon-eating bacteria.And, I'd like it on the record that I consider the argument form, "you can't demonstrate it, except when it's easy to demonstrate," to be extraordinarily weak.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

A fool and his words are soon parted.So you accept that the evidence you've been presented about bacterial mutations re: diet constitutes evidence for evolution?Excellent. Now let's close this thread and teach you more.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This is probably one of the weaker proposals I've ever promoted, but I felt it would provide a thread to discuss Bolder-dash's beliefs about the lack of evidence for evolution that had been intruding into other threads. I can now direct such discussion to this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

At first I thought you said you weren't talking about a big dick, and I was going to disagree. But then I reread.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I would like to add this paper to the mix:

quote:

---

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Aug 31;96(18):10254-60.

​

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences.
Johnson WE, Coffin JM.

​

Department of Molecular Microbiology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.

​

Abstract
The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as phylogenetic markers. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide phylogenetic information in two ways: (i) by comparison of integration site polymorphism and (ii) by orthologous comparison of evolving, proviral, nucleotide sequence. In this study, trees are constructed with the noncoding long terminal repeats (LTRs) of several ERV loci. Because the two LTRs of an ERV are identical at the time of integration but evolve independently, each ERV locus can provide two estimates of species phylogeny based on molecular evolution of the same ancestral sequence. Moreover, tree topology is highly sensitive to conversion events, allowing for easy detection of sequences involved in recombination as well as correction for such events. Although other animal species are rich in ERV sequences, the specific use of HERVs in this study allows comparison of trees to a well established phylogenetic standard, that of the Old World primates. HERVs, and by extension the ERVs of other species, constitute a unique and plentiful resource for studying the evolutionary history of the Retroviridae and their animal hosts.

​

Full paper here

---

In this paper they demonstrate that ERV's establish shared ancestry between humans and other apes by testing this hypothesis:"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). "So they look at the ERV placement in genomes and look at the species distribution of these ERV's. They find that they are found in the species and genomic positions that the theory of evolution predicts they should be in. So this paper first demonstrates shared ancestry.It then goes on to demonstrate the accumulation of random mutations in these ERV's by two different methods. First, it shows the divergence of the overall ERV sequence:"as with other sequence-based phylogenetic analyses, mutations in a provirus that have accumulated since the divergence of the species provide an estimate of the genetic distance between the species."As expected, the divergence of provirus sequence matches the pattern of species distribution as the theory predicts.They then look at LTR divergence. Each provirus contains two repeat regions at either end of the genome. When the virus inserts it copies one of these repeat regions which results in two tandem repeat regions that are identical. The theory predicts that these two repeat regions will diverge over time within the same ERV, with the divergence dependent on the time spent in the genome. As stated in the paper:"Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. ​(Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication."So this paper has some very nice pieces of evidence pointing to both common ancestry and the process of accumulating mutations over time. Oh, and no bacteria involved.

The capacity of bacteria, yeasts, and fungi to evolve the ability to exploit new energy sources is just one of the many propensities of life the theory of evolution explains. No, that's just all you're able to understand.