(September 13, 2016 at 6:51 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Creationists are beginning to realize they're irrelevant. About fifty years late, but finally.

It's really sad to me that so many will probably go to their grave believing we were created by magic, fully formed. It will take a really strong desire to analyse everything again from first principles to ever get out of this mental trap, once someone has spent most of their life backing creationism. I know how hard the mind can fight to retain its current beliefs, and I've come to realise this is unrealistic to expect, on the whole. The mind doesn't even consider that there's anything to consider.

Even more sad are the few who realise they've been duped, but dare not speak up for fear of ostracization. I suppose in this particular case, it's not essential to understand how we came about. But once evolution is understood it offers such massive insights into the human condition; as well as a better appreciation of other animals.

Most of my relatives are what I call "hyper", religious down to the bone. They calmly use science when it suits them, they love their UHD tvs, but they refuse to even listen to anything that challenges their beliefs. They don't see the hypocrisy in this life model.

(September 13, 2016 at 10:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

---

(September 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps it would be more apparent in real time, but I didn't see them stop much at all.

Watch the video again from 0:49 until 0:53. Remember, this is a timelapse across 11 days, so 4 seconds in the video is several hours in real life. The bacteria were reproducing quickly before and after that point in the video. There's a clear moment (when they reach the antibiotic) when they just don't reproduce in that direction, until a mutation occurs (at 0:53).

Quote:What I seen could possibly be explained as a bottleneck, where most of the bacteria where not able to survive in the antibiotic, but some where.  Once they got through, then they where able to spread in the new medium and start reproduction again.

I think you're missing the point. The bacteria are all the same species at the beginning (the same strain) and none of the original strain were able to survive in the antibiotic. Bacteria reproduce by splitting themselves in half, making an almost identical copy of themselves, so unless these resistant bacteria were introduced externally somehow (which is certainly a possibility that I suspect they looked into / controlled for), they must have come from the original strain after several generations.

If the original strain was not resistant to the antibiotic, and some of the strain's descendants are, that means they evolved the ability to resist the antibiotic at some stage, through a mutation.

---

You might also notice that in addition to the isolated left vs right side, that in each progression, there are multiple lines, that extend on each side, within roughly the same time period. The more I look at it, the more and more that unguided random mutations, seem unlikely as a cause. But again further testing would be required. It is by far a very cool video and experiment. The other thing to keep in mind also, is that in the real world, natural selection is not so neat and tidy and population genetics is normally a little more complicated.

(September 14, 2016 at 8:11 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You might also notice that in addition to the isolated left vs right side, that in each progression, there are multiple lines, that extend on each side, within roughly the same time period. The more I look at it, the more and more that unguided random mutations, seem unlikely as a cause.

Not sure if we're watching the same video. Yes, there are multiple lines that extend each side, but I don't think you can argue they were "roughly the same time period" when the bacteria on the right side clearly reach each barrier (other than the first) ahead of the left side.

Pause the video at 1:03, 1:15, 1:23, and 1:34 to see what I mean.

Also, I kinda think the initial setup of the experiment with the increasing dosage sizes demonstrates that adaptation was happening. If the original strain of bacteria was already resistant to a 1000x concentration of the antibiotic, why did it keep pausing in growth when it encountered the lower strengths?

(September 14, 2016 at 6:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 14, 2016 at 8:11 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You might also notice that in addition to the isolated left vs right side, that in each progression, there are multiple lines, that extend on each side, within roughly the same time period.   The more I look at it, the more and more that unguided random mutations, seem unlikely as a cause.

Not sure if we're watching the same video. Yes, there are multiple lines that extend each side, but I don't think you can argue they were "roughly the same time period" when the bacteria on the right side clearly reach each barrier (other than the first) ahead of the left side.

Pause the video at 1:03, 1:15, 1:23, and 1:34 to see what I mean.

Also, I kinda think the initial setup of the experiment with the increasing dosage sizes demonstrates that adaptation was happening. If the original strain of bacteria was already resistant to a 1000x concentration of the antibiotic, why did it keep pausing in growth when it encountered the lower strengths?

I did pause it, in fact; I watched the whole thing paused, using the mouse to scroll through. I think that you are having difficulty distinguishing the tree's from the forest. At best, you have a 1 second pause, in which the previous pane, is becoming more dense. And in watching it this way, the left side actually moves into the 1% solution first, although; it doesn't preform quite as well at times. And in the end, sections of the left are reaching the center at pretty much the same time as the right side. I don't see where you are seeing these huge delays (stops). I'm not sure what you would expect to see, in such a exaggerated selection event. I would expect to see pretty much what was shown. Also, just because they can survive in the antibiotic solution, does not mean that they would prefer to.

You may also note, that this is not the first time, this experiment has been done. The same thing was accomplished by adding antibiotic to a flask in steps by a colleague of Baym, however this makes for a much better video. Also, I'm not saying that this is not evolution. It very well could be change over time, combined with selection. And as I had said, I think from what I had seen in this video, that it would be a fairly repeatable experiment. This would be the evolution that very few would have any contention with.

I think that you are in a pickle Either it is repeatable, and therefore doesn't really demonstrate anything that is a surprise. Or it is not repeatable, in which according to many here, one need not believe or even count as evidence of anything!

There's some other kind of evolution...that's -not- "change over time, combined with selection"?

Ever take a look at the peppered moth evolution by industrial melanism?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

The moths not only appeared to evolve dark pigmentation when soot levels rose to darken trees (birds ate the lighter colored ones) then they changed back when new pollution standards were put into effect as the birds ate the dark ones.

It does need more research.

(September 14, 2016 at 11:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There's some other kind of evolution...that's -not- "change over time, combined with selection"?

I think he's referring to microevolution vs. macroevolution.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:02 am)Arkilogue Wrote: Ever take a look at the peppered moth evolution by industrial melanism?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

The moths not only appeared to evolve dark pigmentation when soot levels rose to darken trees (birds ate the lighter colored ones) then they changed back when new pollution standards were put into effect as the birds ate the dark ones.

It does need more research.

I don't quite get what you are trying to say, this post is incoherent even for you. But I think you are pointing to an article which demonstrates strong evidence for evolution and which comes to a conclusion that evolution is proven and uncontroversial (the issue is whether peppered moths evolved, twice, because of the advantages camoflague bestowed, or whether there were other selection criteria in play).

(September 14, 2016 at 11:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There's some other kind of evolution...that's -not- "change over time, combined with selection"?

"Punctuated equilibrium"? I think that is just a change that is more obvious than most. Instead of a mutation that allows 0.1% more efficient use of the available food supply we get bright pink instead of white in zebras. That's not really a massive change, it might have been a single mutation or two mutations. And yes, it could have been a major change, but it doesn't have to be.