Summations Only

Tangle my friend Actually very strong artificial selective pressure was applied.

quote:

---

Drosophila melanogaster is a model organism for the study of genetics and some laboratory populations have been bred for different life-history traits over the course of 30 years. Professor Michael Rose, of UC Irvine, began breeding flies with accelerated development in 1991 (600 generations ago). Doctoral student Molly Burke compared the experimental flies with a control group on a genome-wide basis.
http://www.arn.org/.../experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies

---

To the Catholic ScientistI suppose why you are using E. coli adaptation in this thread is because you believe it is a case for evolution.The adaptation of E. coli has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with adaptation. E. coli could already transport citrate into the cell and partially use it in wild, but under low oxygen conditions. There is but a few allowed mutations to take place to refine the process to allow full utilization of citrate as a food source. The mechanism was present in E. coli and only needed to adapt in controlled ways to accommodate full utilization.A new species of E. coli did not arise, in fact the variant remains heterozygous to the original variant.The Creationist view is then as follows:

quote:

---

Given the selective pressure exerted by the media of a limited carbon source (glucose) but abundant alternative carbon source (citrate), the cells with slightly beneficial mutations would be selected for and increase in the population. Alternatively, if the mutational effects were neutral the cells with these mutations might remain in the population just by chance, since they would not be selected for or against. Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering currently existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment. Further understanding of Lenski’s research is valuable for development of a creation model for adaptation of bacterial populations in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. A Poke in the Eye? | Answers in Genesis

---

Now are you up to separating designed adaptation from the dogma of evolution? Alternatively, are you claiming evolution is adaptation that leads to speciation? If so, you need a real example of a speciation event, and please do not invoke the magic of time.

My friend NoNukes. Very good to converse with you again. I always seem to learn something.My point of viewTo be precise, an adaptive mechanism for metabolizing a new food source is adaptation.The bacterium always retains its unique form (morphological form) in this case an E. coli. The example of a land dwelling mammal returning to the sea, supposedly inducing legs to become flippers; is pure speculation and not scientific. The observed stasis in identified species is a historical fact.

quote:

---

The most salient feature of life has been the stability of its bacterial mode from the beginning of the fossil record until today and, with little doubt, into all future time so long as the earth endures.
Stephen Jay Gould

---

http://www.brembs.net/gould.htmlFrom retrovirus to whale genomes, there is a limit to the change in a given species.To put a point on my uneducated argument: Gene plasticity in bacteria is real, but there is a barrier to macro changes in the Morphology of a species.Furthermore, mutations can and often reverse themselves; An A to G mutation for instance can revert back to a G to A mutation. By this type of event, expression of innate information in the genome can be concealed and (at a later time) restored by subsequent mutations.I am clearly saying that adaptive mutations can and do reverse themselves but some types of deleterious mutations are fatal to an organism (HOX sequence damage) and are not capable of changing an organism to another species. By the way a HOX mutation is exactly what is needed to revert a leg to a fin.This observation has been obvious to the Creationist but ignored by the evolutionist.There is no mechanism know in evolution that actually creates new gene sequences.No new gene sequences NO MACRO EVOLUTION.

You might claim that the Creationist invokes the magic of a creator. I maintain that the evolutionist’s plight is much worst. Observable chemistry and physics does not cooperate with the theory of evolution. He must maintain that an entity such as time (without any intent to create) must take the place of an all-knowing all-powerful creator.The evolutionist’s job is simple; he must locate a new chemistry and a new physics to support the unsupportable premise of spontaneous gene sequence genesis.Invoking more time does not satisfy the untenable nature of the suggestion.

My friend the Catholic Scientist. Your question should first ask how much money was spent supporting this research. Years of doing research means money for the lab, personnel, equipmentYou folk are going to continue spending money in fruitless dead ends where every discovery forces a scramble to Grok the evidence to a dead theory.Evolution is wrong because it is bad science and tenable only as a weak philosophy. Let us try spending money on research that recognizes the genome is designed and not thrown together by chance. The answer to how mutations lead to novel features (adaptations) firmly fits in the Creation mindset. I assume you are saying this thread is not concerned with the un-provability of evolution. Given an assumed generation of 20 years for humans, that is 630,000 years to be exact. A change in food source for E. coli would probably parallel humanity switching from total plant eaters to eating meat and plants in 630,000 years. Let us see, if there was as little change to humans as in the E. coli; how on earth would there be enough changes in a hominid 5.5 million years ago (~8.7x longer) to produce a human from a supposed chimp human divergence?This experiment only illustrates a morphological stasis in both E. coli and humans. isn’t really new information and was new information Could not characterize your confusion better.Two ways we know something, either by speculation or revelation. Given the availability of the two choices, I chose the revelation.

Taq, Even accepting there are many species of bacteria with the same morphology (dubious claim). You can claim speciation only when biologists use 24 separate definitions of a species not necessarily dependent on aligning morphology. The only question is if the phenotypes are front loaded. Give me an example Single point mutations are not new gene sequences. I did not make this up, it is a recognized observation.

Malcolm You may be right when talking about heterozygosity in diploids but heterozygosity per capita is also expressible in general populations of bacteria. This is not strange to biology, as I understand it (I am not a biologist though). Here is an example study of such a usage.

quote:

---

We established experimental cultures of long-term stationary phase (LTSP) Escherichia coli to test whether per capita heterozygosity varies with resource concentration, and, if so, whether population sizes associated with different resource concentrations contributed to these patterns. Diversification Rates Increase With Population Size and Resource Concentration in an Unstructured Habitat - PMC

---

In addition, you might note that the plasmid or plasmids within the E. coli retains its diversification per capita in a general population of E. coli. If you know if that was directly addressed by the Lenski experiment please elaborate (I would like additional information on this). I believe you are building a straw man out of this E. coli as a species is identifiable. Although, no longer very reliably by its citrate uptake. About the hox gene not being involved in limb development, I believe you need to be specific about which hox you are talking about. Generally global statements like yours are inevitably wrong.

quote:

---

In order to directly test the function of Hox genes in vertebrate limb development, we have employed a replication-competent retroviral vector to express the genes ectopically in developing chick limb buds. It has been hypothesized that the sum of all Hox genes expressed in a developing region forms a "Hox code" which determines the fate of structures arising from that region. When the Hox code of the of the anlage of the chicken hind limb digit I is altered to match that of digit II, the resulting foot has two similar toes both resembling digit II in morphology. This suggests that the misexpressed gene, Hox-4.6, plays a role in controlling digit morphological identity. Other phenotypes observed in the proximal parts of the hind limb and in similar experiments in the wing also lend support to this interpretation. The retroviral vector system used in these experiments provides a powerful approach for testing the function of genes in limb development. The role of Hox genes in limb development - PubMed

---

If you read some of the citations, some gene block rearrangements provided the functionality (no new gene material spontaneously appeared). I would be curious to know if you accept that this new functionality was something other than an improvement upon existing genes (beneficial adaptation of an existing mechanism).If so, please provide some reasoning

Malcolm my friendP.S. your statement Reminds me of Ernst Haeckel and his falsified embryos. I hope you are not going to claim, ontogeny follows phylogeny. Please.

My friend Percy Actually I did not make the comparison, Catholic Scientist did. I merely expanded on that participant’s over generalized statement. I could dump on you my calculation for chimp human divergence and show that there are not enough mutations to cause a divergent hominid to produce a human. It is defiantly off point my friend.As I stated before E. coli could already utilize citrate to a degree. It was no major advance in the specie. I could see your point if revelation is used in the strictest sense.By definition
a. The act of revealing or disclosing.
b. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.

Percy my friend, Every experiment to induce this type of macro change fails. There is no universally accepted transitional forms in the fossil record, over one hundred and fifty years of study and discovery of fossils have only turned up a handful of these much disputed examples. Studies in fruit flies have turned up the same stasis in the genome as E. coli illustrates. Scientific evidence does not support a limb to fin transition but speculation does. You can speculate all you want but it is not scientific.Those are the facts.I Answered Malcolm and await this participants return.

Percy LOL.

Malcolm, A transition from a hand to a fin (macroevolution) by what we understand and observe is scientifically impossible.Not even the studied cases of Fruit flies have ever shown to exhibit any form of macroevolution. In fact, no matter what selective pressure is applied to fruit flies they stubbornly stay fruit flies and only adapt. This statement also applies to E. coli and the evidence only confirms adaptation and not species modification.

quote:

---

In 1977, the late evolutionary biologist Pierre-P. Grass commented, The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.3 In 2010, this summary is even more scientifically accurate. Fruit flies have not evolved because they cannot evolve.

​

Grass, P. P. 1977. Evolution of Living Organisms. New York: Academic Press Inc., 130. Quoted in Sherwin, F. 2006. Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution. Acts & Facts.

---

Here is a very old quote that is still true to this day.

quote:

---

After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster,there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
2021, 10 .

---

Why these adaptations cannot be evolution:

quote:

---

"Recent research on evolutionary genetics has focused on classic selective sweeps, which are evolutionary processes involving the fixation of newly arising beneficial mutations. In a recombining region, a selected sweep is expected to reduce heterozygosity at SNPs flanking the selected site. [. . .] Notably, we observe no location in the genome where heterozygosity is reduced to anywhere near zero, and this lack of evidence for a classic sweep is a feature of the data regardless of window size." http://www.arn.org/.../experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies

---

About the transition of humans to eating meat, that happened when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. Decidedly a significant event.

Percy You are still my friend but I will abstain from making any more overt friendly granting because I see you feel slighted. Is anyone here actually concerned about the actual definition of novelty? If so let us cut and paste that definition all agree on it and let the thread die.I do not believe that transport threw the cell wall of citrate by E. coli was any major innovation. It was a complex and coordinated adaptation. The evolutionist is apt to blow up any such adaptive finding way out of proportion and must grok the evidence to their paradigm.I commonly speak to scientists and researchers face to face. If they focus on very narrow evidences, it is easy to obscure the overall picture. Remember the old saying that the forest is obscured by all the trees. I am not a scientist but only a lowly novice employing the common sense that God gave. When I see that outrageous conclusions are put forth as science, it incenses me.If the participants here wish to narrow the field to the Yes it is no it isn’t argument; I believe it is a vote for ignorance. I am perfectly willing to stick to the science and am very comfortable in that position. So lets continue in reasoning whichever why it leads and if a the direction is not acceptable, let it be quenched by ignoring it. Opposition to my opinions thrills me and I appreciate it.I am not here to win an argument because it is an empty victory when nothing is learned. I hope that some of these participants can share this view as common ground.

Tangle, OK I herby drop the inference to macroevolution in this thread, you are right.

Percy, From the Merriam-Webster: (Novel)

quote:

---

1) new and not resembling something formerly known or used
2) original or striking especially in conception or style
Novel Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

---

I would say that this adaptation was not novel because of definition one. The adaptation resembled something formally known or used.