NationStates Jolt Archive

An elegant experiment that shows evolution in action. Not surprisingly followed by criticism by creationists. Science should be open to criticism - but is there a limit on how stupid the criticism can be before it stops responding? I tend to think in this case rather than just the put down he should have sent the raw data as well?

Creationist critics get their comeuppance
A couple of weeks ago we reported on the work of Richard Lenski, who has spent much of the last 20 years maintaining cultures of E. coli to see how they evolve. His paper describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.

It's one of the most dramatic examples of evolution in action ever seen, and because Lenski freezes samples of the population every 500 generations, it is possible to go back and track how the ability developed. Lenski and his team are now doing so, and hope to have a detailed history of the ability developing, mutation by mutation.

All in all we thought it was a pretty excellent piece of research, and plenty of other sites agreed: Pharyngula, for instance, devoted a lengthy post to it. However, such an unambiguous example of evolution in action was always going to bring the kooks out of the woodwork.

First up was Michael Behe, the intelligent design proponent and biochemist, who argued in his Amazon blog that Lenski's work was in fact excellent evidence for intelligent design. His argument is a variant on the usual "it's just so improbable" line: the ability to metabolise citrate required several different mutations (true), which each have a low chance of happening in a given time (true), and it may even have been necessary for them to happen in a particular order (true), therefore Darwinian evolution can't explain it. Er, no, it just means it would take evolution a little while to manage it. 20 years, as it turned out.

However, a far more amusing response came from Andrew Schlafly, the boss of Conservapedia. This, you may recall, is an alternative version of Wikipedia that aims to "correct the biases" of the original site - it has, for example, a young-Earth creationist viewpoint on evolution.

Schlafly wrote a brusque open letter to Lenski, expressing "skepticism" about his claims and demanding to see the data. Lenski replied, saying that the data were publicly available in the paper, and correcting a major misunderstanding in Schlafly's letter (he misread our article as saying there were three new proteins in the mutant culture, which we didn't say and was not the case). Schlafly wrote back, in shirty tones, demanding the data in their raw form for "independent review" - meaning that Conservapedia should be allowed to reanalyse it, without it being mucked about by corrupt evolutionist scientists. And at this point Lenski must have had enough.

His response was long and detailed. He patiently explained the science (again), pointed out (again) that all the data were available, and explained that in theory he could send them samples of the bacteria so they could test them for themselves (but that in practice this was illegal as they lacked the proper facilities). But, for me, the highlight was this marvellous putdown:

It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then - as some of your acolytes have suggested - you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren't very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it's not that we claim to have glimpsed "a unicorn in the garden" - we have a whole population of them living in my lab! And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion.


from http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/

But if it took the E. coli bacteria 20 years to evolve this little trait, how could all life evolve into its many current forms in a mere 6000 years?

Game, set and match. Creationism wins.

(I'm being sarcastic, by the way)

You seriously don't expect these people to renounce their whole cosmology over such a small thing as reality do you?

But if it took the E. coli bacteria 20 years to evolve this little trait, how could all life evolve into its many current forms in a mere 6000 years?

Game, set and match. Creationism wins.

(I'm being sarcastic, by the way)

I've never heard an evolutionist explain this one, they tend to bang on about carbon testing but then what has carbon to do with life?

Think we could get him on NSG? *ponders*

I've never heard an evolutionist explain this one, they tend to bang on about carbon testing but then what has carbon to do with life?

Indeed! And when I ask them if they don't find it odd that the Earth is the only place in the universe to have water on it, they tell me that it's not true! How are we supposed to have a meaningful, G_d-approved discussion when they contradict what I say?

Same thing happens when I tell them of the fact that the Earth just happens to revolve around the Sun in a perfect sphere. <- Yes, I saw someone actually say that.

:confused:

Carbon is a fundamental building block of every cell that exists - and every cell that ever existed leaves carbon behind. Coal deposits are a result of this. That's why evolutionists bang on about carbon.

Also, the Earth revolves around the Sun in an ellipse, not a circle and most definitely not a sphere.

:confused:

Carbon is a fundamental building block of every cell that exists - and every cell that ever existed leaves carbon behind. Coal deposits are a result of this. That's why evolutionists bang on about carbon.

Also, the Earth revolves around the Sun in an ellipse, not a circle and most definitely not a sphere.

Sorry, I was just joking, you can see that if you check for white text in my posts.

:confused:

Carbon is a fundamental building block of every cell that exists - and every cell that ever existed leaves carbon behind. Coal deposits are a result of this. That's why evolutionists bang on about carbon.

I meant apart from that.

Sorry, I was just joking, you can see that if you check for white text in my posts.

:p Sorry my name isn't a single capital letter.

But if it took the E. coli bacteria 20 years to evolve this little trait, how could all life evolve into its many current forms in a mere 6000 years?

Game, set and match. Creationism wins.

Wow. That really sums up how foolish you are. Read Darwins theory of evolution. Really DO IT

But if it took the E. coli bacteria 20 years to evolve this little trait, how could all life evolve into its many current forms in a mere 6000 years?

Game, set and match. Creationism wins.

(I'm being sarcastic, by the way)

:p Silly creationists. No doubt they'll be bringing into question the researcher's religious beliefs and moral aptitude just to attack him.

Great idea freezing them in stages, the Creationists can't even argue that the evidence is fabricated, he has it alive in the lab for them to see!

:p Sorry my name isn't a single capital letter.

I don't really understand what you mean by this.

Wow. That really sums up how foolish you are. Read Darwins theory of evolution. Really DO IT

Again, my apologies, I was just kidding.

Wow. That really sums up how foolish you are. Read Darwins theory of evolution. Really DO ITThat really sums up how foolish you are. Use the quote button next time and save yourself the embarrassment:
But if it took the E. coli bacteria 20 years to evolve this little trait, how could all life evolve into its many current forms in a mere 6000 years?

Game, set and match. Creationism wins.

(I'm being sarcastic, by the way)(color of text changed for your convenience)

out of all the bacteria to mutate into super beings why did they have to do something like E. coli :eek:

also if they had kept freezing them evolution would say that they would grow hair like a mammoth!

Apparently he used the non-pathogen types. If you read the full exchange of letters, he makes a point of it. Also, you have several billion E.Coli cells in your intestines CtP. We all do. But you knew that, didn't you?

Apparently he used the non-pathogen types. If you read the full exchange of letters, he makes a point of it. Also, you have several billion E.Coli cells in your intestines CtP. We all do. But you knew that, didn't you?

you should see doctor about that broken funny bone

you should see doctor about that broken funny boneFunny bones are neither funny nor bones.

Again, my apologies, I was just kidding.

hehe, i wondered if others would not get the sarcasm :p

But if it took the E. coli bacteria 20 years to evolve this little trait, how could all life evolve into its many current forms in a mere 6000 years?

Game, set and match. Creationism wins.

(I'm being sarcastic, by the way)

I was going to point out that "6000 years" isn't even the time humanity has existed, but seeing the white text, I guess you know it :rolleyes:

But damn, what a deja vu, I feel like I've answered this kind of post on some other forum with the same "6000 years vs billions of years" joke :eek:

I don't really understand what you mean by this.

= I am not an MI5 intelligence officer to check for invisible ink ;)

Well, I assumed anyone who didn't get the joke would quote me, then see the invisible text. When I saw that wasn't the case, I apologized. I wasn't being sarcastic about my being sorry.

Well, I assumed anyone who didn't get the joke would quote me, then see the invisible text. When I saw that wasn't the case, I apologized. I wasn't being sarcastic about my being sorry.

Umm errrr are you being sarcastic now? :p

*quietly waits for the first poster to pop up and claim that this is just "micro-evolution", and that "evolutionists" still have to prove "macro-evolution", followed by a demand to show him how a frog can evolve into a giraffe... *

Umm errrr are you being sarcastic now? :p

I'll let you decide. ;)

But I think this is getting a bit off-topic.

*quietly waits for the first poster to pop up and claim that this is just "micro-evolution", and that "evolutionists" still have to prove "macro-evolution", followed by a demand to show him how a frog can evolve into a giraffe... *Mary Shelly's Frankenstein or H. G. Wells The Island of Dr. Moreau. :)

*quietly waits for the first poster to pop up and claim that this is just "micro-evolution", and that "evolutionists" still have to prove "macro-evolution", followed by a demand to show him how a frog can evolve into a giraffe... *

...followed by a completely inappropriate mention of the big bang...

Well, I assumed anyone who didn't get the joke would quote me, then see the invisible text. When I saw that wasn't the case, I apologized. I wasn't being sarcastic about my being sorry.

Well I got the sarcasm here: But if it took the E. coli bacteria 20 years to evolve this little trait, how could all life evolve into its many current forms in a mere 6000 years?

Game, set and match. Creationism wins.

But I didn't check you were the same poster as the second time around.

My apologies.

Well, I've seen a video of a person actually claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun in a perfect sphere, so I'm not surprised you might have thought it was serious. So no harm done on my part at the least.

Now, a question about the E. coli developing the ability to metabolize citrate, could that have any practical uses in and of itself?

...followed by a completely inappropriate mention of the big bang...

... and irreducible complexity of the human eye....

I've never heard an evolutionist explain this one, they tend to bang on about carbon testing but then what has carbon to do with life?

What does carbon have to do with life?
Um, maybe a review of high school science is in order, Barringtonia?


And yah, creationists are worse than stupid -- they've got their eyes squinched shut, their fingers in their ears, and are loudly singing LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to reality.

you should see doctor about that broken funny bone

I have one?

Well, I've seen a video of a person actually claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun in a perfect sphere, so I'm not surprised you might have thought it was serious. So no harm done on my part at the least.

Now, a question about the E. coli developing the ability to metabolize citrate, could that have any practical uses in and of itself?

Probably not directly, but it does show that certain cultures (of bacteria) can be put under evolutionary pressures to develop other more useful traits - or we can induce them genetically without waiting 500 generations.

Probably not directly, but it does show that certain cultures (of bacteria) can be put under evolutionary pressures to develop other more useful traits - or we can induce them genetically without waiting 500 generations.

Oh well, guess that's something... Maybe they could get some germs to turn into the ultimate HIV-eating machine, though it's more likely that the HIV will just perfect some way to defend itself from them, since IIRC the problem with it is its high mutation-rate.

HIV is a virus - these are bacteria. Viruses can kill bacteria, but not the other way around.

Really? So how does the body fight off viruses?

Now, a question about the E. coli developing the ability to metabolize citrate, could that have any practical uses in and of itself?

Give us a million pounds or the satsuma gets it?

Creationists don't say that things don't adapt......they just say it's a lateral adaptation, never from one thing to another, just from a thing with one characteristic to the same thing with another characteristic.

Really? So how does the body fight off viruses?Cooking.

Really? So how does the body fight off viruses?

Viruses are strands of DNA that enter in the cells, integrate themselves in the nucleus and change the metabolism of the cell to produce copies of the original strand, until the cell's metabolism gives in, it's cellular wall breaks and the new strands are released to attack neighbouring cells. The body fights them through white blood cells (which lack a nucleus and cannot be infected), which detect if a cell's metabolism has been altered, and if that is the case, engulf (swallow) said cell, possibly dissolving the whole cell to basic proteins, and the migrate to the colon, where they will be dispensed.

HIV on the other hand has the property that it tends to attack particularly the areas that produce white blood cells and this results in AIDS (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome). AIDS itself does not kill, it simple destroys the body's defences, so that something as trivial as the common cold can come around and finish the job.

Or at least this is what I remember from biology in 9th grade.

Really? So how does the body fight off viruses?

The body kills the cells infected with viruses, or uses antibodies to keep the viruses from infecting native cells. Also, Jesus.

Viruses are strands of DNA that enter in the cells, integrate themselves in the nucleus and change the metabolism of the cell to produce copies of the original strand, until the cell's metabolism gives in, it's cellular wall breaks and the new strands are released to attack neighbouring cells. The body fights them through white blood cells (which lack a nucleus and cannot be infected), which detect if a cell's metabolism has been altered, and if that is the case, engulf (swallow) said cell, possibly dissolving the whole cell to basic proteins, and the migrate to the colon, where they will be dispensed.

HIV on the other hand has the property that it tends to attack particularly the areas that produce white blood cells and this results in AIDS (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome). AIDS itself does not kill, it simple destroys the body's defences, so that something as trivial as the common cold can come around and finish the job.

Or at least this is what I remember from biology in 9th grade.

Hmm, didn't know that white blood cells can "eat" viruses because they don't have a nucleus (or maybe I forgot, it's been a long time since I took biology classes). Thanks for the lesson.

Viruses are strands of DNA that enter in the cells, integrate themselves in the nucleus and change the metabolism of the cell to produce copies of the original strand, until the cell's metabolism gives in, it's cellular wall breaks and the new strands are released to attack neighbouring cells. The body fights them through white blood cells (which lack a nucleus and cannot be infected), which detect if a cell's metabolism has been altered, and if that is the case, engulf (swallow) said cell, possibly dissolving the whole cell to basic proteins, and the migrate to the colon, where they will be dispensed.

HIV on the other hand has the property that it tends to attack particularly the areas that produce white blood cells and this results in AIDS (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome). AIDS itself does not kill, it simple destroys the body's defences, so that something as trivial as the common cold can come around and finish the job.

Or at least this is what I remember from biology in 9th grade.

Very well put.

Thats why some biologist dont consider the viruses life forms.

I dont think things like this experiment are new. It has been done before. Yet to people with faith evidence is completely irrelevant.

Creationists don't say that things don't adapt......they just say it's a lateral adaptation, never from one thing to another, just from a thing with one characteristic to the same thing with another characteristic.


Which really for all practical purposes means that you accept that 1+1 = 2 but are unwilling to believe that 2+2 = 4

Really? So how does the body fight off viruses?

Chuck Norris.


had to be done. [/old]

Creationists don't say that things don't adapt......they just say it's a lateral adaptation, never from one thing to another, just from a thing with one characteristic to the same thing with another characteristic.

But wouldn't a thing with a set of characteristics (fins, gills and scales, for example) that changes its characteristics (to, say, lungs, fur and teeth) turn into a remarkably different thing?

But wouldn't a thing with a set of characteristics (fins, gills and scales, for example) that changes its characteristics (to, say, lungs, fur and teeth) turn into a remarkably different thing?

yes, but as long as we don't think about it, we can pretend otherwise.

Ad nihilo's summary is very accurate

As for evolution, far too many people fail to understand it. I blame Pokemon. ;(

*quietly waits for the first poster to pop up and claim that this is just "micro-evolution", and that "evolutionists" still have to prove "macro-evolution", followed by a demand to show him how a frog can evolve into a giraffe... *

Aww, be nice. Give 'em a few days to work it out on their own so they have a little victory before it gets shot to pieces.

What does carbon have to do with life?
Um, maybe a review of high school science is in order, Barringtonia?


And yah, creationists are worse than stupid -- they've got their eyes squinched shut, their fingers in their ears, and are loudly singing LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to reality.
Wrong. Creationists who deny Macroevoloution are the ones with their fingers in their ears and all that.

There is no such thing as microevolution or macroevolution. There is only evolution. Full stop. Its mechanisms are known.
Using micro- and macroevolution is giving creationists a first stronghold, from where they will start to argue further along their meanings of words.

Viruses are strands of DNA that enter in the cells, integrate themselves in the nucleus and change the metabolism of the cell to produce copies of the original strand, until the cell's metabolism gives in, it's cellular wall breaks and the new strands are released to attack neighbouring cells. The body fights them through white blood cells (which lack a nucleus and cannot be infected), which detect if a cell's metabolism has been altered, and if that is the case, engulf (swallow) said cell, possibly dissolving the whole cell to basic proteins, and the migrate to the colon, where they will be dispensed.

White blood cells have nuclei.

White blood cells have nuclei.

Correct. It is red blood cells which lack nuclei.

Correct. It is red blood cells which lack nuclei.

In most mammals, that is.

Wrong. Creationists who deny Macroevoloution are the ones with their fingers in their ears and all that.

inherent in the idea of creationism is a denial of macroevolution.

And for the love of all that's holy, can we get a moratorium on this "macroevolution" bullshit?

White blood cells have nuclei.

That was off the top of my head, so you are probably right. It's been a while for me as well since I've came anywhere near a biology lesson.

But wouldn't a thing with a set of characteristics (fins, gills and scales, for example) that changes its characteristics (to, say, lungs, fur and teeth) turn into a remarkably different thing?

Yeah, none of the creationists I know believe that specifically has happened. They agree that striped moths can "adapt" and become spotted moths... but that moths can't become......well, not moths.

I haven't been in contact with any of them lately so I can't answer anything I haven't discussed with them.

Yeah, none of the creationists I know believe that specifically has happened. They agree that striped moths can "adapt" and become spotted moths... but that moths can't become......well, not moths.

I haven't been in contact with any of them lately so I can't answer anything I haven't discussed with them.

But the problem is, those adaptions are going to add up over time, no? And as each adaption alters a characteristic, or trait, and eventually, the new population would, inevitably, look quite different.

Honestly, I don't see why this is such a hard concept for creationuts to understand. It's not that complicated...

Think we could get him on NSG? *ponders*

The boss of Conservapedia? I'd humiliate him completely.

Creationists are proof of Evolution. See, first there were creationists, now there are evolutionists. Creationists evolved.

The boss of Conservapedia? I'd humiliate him completely.

but only in the sense of making him look like the fool he is to other people. schlaflys do not have the intellectual capacity to actually feel humiliated by their utter ineptitude. thus they are somewhat impervious to humiliation. i remember when andy and roger first stumbled into talk.origins, what, 10ish years ago or so. hilarity ensued, but it was like talking to a mildly retarded barn.

but only in the sense of making him look like the fool he is to other people. schlaflys do not have the intellectual capacity to actually feel humiliated by their utter ineptitude. thus they are somewhat impervious to humiliation. i remember when andy and roger first stumbled into talk.origins, what, 10ish years ago or so. hilarity ensued, but it was like talking to a mildly retarded barn.

Why "mildly"?

Why "mildly"?

because it was still barn-shaped?

I've never heard an evolutionist explain this one, they tend to bang on about carbon testing but then what has carbon to do with life?I heard it's that gas those evolution/Goreists keep mumbling aloud 'bout. They're all in cahoots.

I heard it's that gas those evolution/Goreists keep mumbling aloud 'bout. They're all in cahoots.

I've always said, if people are worried about so much carbon, well then let them make diamonds.

Yours,

Marie Barringtoinnette

I've always said, if people are worried about so much carbon, well then let them make diamonds.

Yours,

Marie Barringtoinnette

I don't know why, but I have a craving for cake all of a sudden...

I've always said, if people are worried about so much carbon, well then let them make diamonds.

Yours,

Marie Barringtoinnette:fluffle:
http://www.tvscoop.tv/futurama_bender.jpg
BTW (coincidentally) ...
In 1760, in the book Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, there appears an account of a princess who advised her starving subjects: "S'il n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche" It is hardly likely that a decade later Marie Barringtoinnette should say the same thing. The sentence was probably attributed to her because it agreed with the view of her that was generally held at the time.

Yeah, none of the creationists I know believe that specifically has happened. They agree that striped moths can "adapt" and become spotted moths... but that moths can't become......well, not moths.

I haven't been in contact with any of them lately so I can't answer anything I haven't discussed with them.

I've always wondered what kind of explanation they would have for the very, very close relationship of clearly different species? Like horses and donkeys, to begin with, and us and apes, and moths and the common fruitfly?

I mean, the superficial similarities are easily explained - if they live in the same niche in the same sort of habitat, their characteristics are likely to be similar cause they work best for this particular niche in this particular environment. But the genetic relation?

Creationists are proof of Evolution. See, first there were creationists, now there are evolutionists. Creationists evolved.

You... you actually made me spit tea on my monitor. At work.
First time THAT ever happened to me, I've got to say...

:D

You... you actually made me spit tea on my monitor. At work.
First time THAT ever happened to me, I've got to say...

:D

That's why I don't read forums at work.

That and the fact that I don't have a job.

I've always wondered what kind of explanation they would have for the very, very close relationship of clearly different species? Like horses and donkeys, to begin with, and us and apes, and moths and the common fruitfly?

I mean, the superficial similarities are easily explained - if they live in the same niche in the same sort of habitat, their characteristics are likely to be similar cause they work best for this particular niche in this particular environment. But the genetic relation?

That's a really good question. Next time I happen upon a creationist I'll ask them!

I've always wondered what kind of explanation they would have for the very, very close relationship of clearly different species? Like horses and donkeys, to begin with, and us and apes, and moths and the common fruitfly?

I mean, the superficial similarities are easily explained - if they live in the same niche in the same sort of habitat, their characteristics are likely to be similar cause they work best for this particular niche in this particular environment. But the genetic relation?

God isn't terribly creative.

Hmm, didn't know that white blood cells can "eat" viruses because they don't have a nucleus (or maybe I forgot, it's been a long time since I took biology classes). Thanks for the lesson.

It is a process called phagocytosis, although I am not sure that all white blood cells lack nuclei.

God isn't terribly creative.*but* ... is terribly destructive.

I've always wondered what kind of explanation they would have for the very, very close relationship of clearly different species? Like horses and donkeys, to begin with, and us and apes, and moths and the common fruitfly?

I mean, the superficial similarities are easily explained - if they live in the same niche in the same sort of habitat, their characteristics are likely to be similar cause they work best for this particular niche in this particular environment. But the genetic relation?

who's they????

who's they????

The creationists Smunkee was talking about.