Longest Running Experiment of Evolution Hits a Dead End

[fncceo]

And why do you calculate 13 years for a generation?

Birth to the ability to procreate.

 

[zaangalewa]

And why do you calculate 13 years for a generation?

Birth to the ability to procreate.

What? You think mankind is 85 million years old and 13 years old children get babies in average? …

 

[abu afak]

68,000 generations and the experiment ends in not showing any signs of evolution.

"Science brings one nearer to God."
-Louis Pasteur

Longest Evolution Experiment Dead-End - Richard William Nelson

So you're anti-Evolution too you ******* MORON!


Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
By Christie Wilcox on December 18, 2011
Scientific American
(This is a repost from April 24th, 2010. Watching Speciation Occur is the second in my Evolution series which started with The Curious Case of Dogs)
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species.

But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven't interbred for thousands of years. Indeed, that is exactly what we find.

The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge...
[.....]​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When a virus mutates it only changes shape to keep the immune system from killing it.

False. There is no intent involved.

 

[Votto]

Unfortunately, that article a fatal misunderstanding of how evolution functions.

Genetic mutation doesn't happen to adapt fitness to the environment. Genetic mutations are unrelated to the suitability of the organism to survive. Genes have no way of perceiving the requirements of survival in the environment. Genetic mutations are spontaneous and random and are mostly inconsequential to the organism, frequently harmful, and only occasionally useful in adaptability to the environment. When a mutation is useful, that increases the likelihood of it being passed on to future generations.

The experiment proves that organisms mutate and that those mutations are passed on. It would be highly unlikely for a major adaptive change to occur -- particularly in the closed and controlled environment of the experiment -- in as few as 70,000 generations. Human evolution happened over 85 million years or 6.5 million generations.

You mean the experiment doesn't understand evolution. The article simply reported on the longest running experiment on evolution ending in failure.

And no, mutations are not beneficial to any organism.

And as I posted in another thread, DNA research shows humans, apes, aardvarks, etc all appeared at the same time, less than 200K years ago according to their timescale.

I would love to see the mutation that caused organisms to fly in the air.

I mean, how long did they mutation take to begin changing the organism? My guess is at the best case scenario, 10 seconds before hitting the ground dead.

 

[Wuwei]

I would love to see the mutation that caused organisms to fly in the air.

I mean, how long did they mutation take to begin changing the organism? My guess is at the best case scenario, 10 seconds before hitting the ground dead.

A mutation for wings didn't suddenly sprout. Think of flying squirrels with large skin flaps that allowed them to glide to trees further than a simple jump. Larger skin flaps would allow longer jumps. I would imagine that many other early organisms that were tree born would find these evolutionary advantages. The flaps may gradually move to the arms to the extent that sustained flight would be possible. Think of bats which are mammals.

 

[Votto]

I would love to see the mutation that caused organisms to fly in the air.

I mean, how long did they mutation take to begin changing the organism? My guess is at the best case scenario, 10 seconds before hitting the ground dead.

A mutation for wings didn't suddenly sprout. Think of flying squirrels with large skin flaps that allowed them to glide to trees further than a simple jump. Larger skin flaps would allow longer jumps. I would imagine that many other early organisms that were tree born would find these evolutionary advantages. The flaps may gradually move to the arms to the extent that sustained flight would be possible. Think of bats which are mammals.

You mean like this?



How long do you figure my cat will sprout wings and fly away?

 

[fncceo]

How long do you figure my cat will sprout wings and fly away?

Approximately 200 million years. The approximate time we know passes between flying insects and flying vertebrates.

So be patient.

 

[Votto]

How long do you figure my cat will sprout wings and fly away?

Approximately 200 million years. The approximate time we know passes between flying insects and flying vertebrates.

So be patient.

Well that is all well and good, but I have yet to meet a 200 million year old cat.

 

[Wuwei]

How long do you figure my cat will sprout wings and fly away?

That is one (rather juvenile) way of dodging the real issue of evolution.

 

[Votto]

How long do you figure my cat will sprout wings and fly away?

That is one (rather juvenile) way of dodging the real issue of evolution.

So in 200 million years cats will be flying.

Right........................OK........................just don't buy it is all.

And no, I'm not sticking around that long to find out. It's bad enough lasting till you are 90.

So if you were a cat, would you evolve to fly or live longer?

 

[fncceo]

How long do you figure my cat will sprout wings and fly away?

Approximately 200 million years. The approximate time we know passes between flying insects and flying vertebrates.

So be patient.

Well that is all well and good, but I have yet to meet a 200 million year old cat.

Here’s one about 80 million years old.

 

[fncceo]

Right........................OK........................just don't buy it is all.

Here’s the great part. You don’t have to buy it. It free will, baby.

 

[Votto]

Right........................OK........................just don't buy it is all.

Here’s the great part. You don’t have to buy it. It free will, baby.

Ok, Ok, I found a picture as well and now I'm starting to believe.

 

[fncceo]

What a boring world it would be if everyone believed the same thing.

Thank biology we’ve evolved to be different.

 

[Votto]

What a boring world it would be if everyone believed the same thing.

Thank biology we’ve evolved to be different.

I find there is often an element of truth in most things. I just don't buy the notion that scientists understand it all.

 

[Lewdog]

There are numerous instances that show evolution throughout time. For example, webbed toes is actually a dominant gene, but happens very rarely.

 

[Votto]

There are numerous instances that show evolution throughout time. For example, webbed toes is actually a dominant gene, but happens very rarely.

I have the most trouble with the changing of species.

I don't buy it.

 

[Lewdog]

There are numerous instances that show evolution throughout time. For example, webbed toes is actually a dominant gene, but happens very rarely.

I have the most trouble with the changing of species.

I don't buy it.

But chimeras are real.

 

[fncceo]

What a boring world it would be if everyone believed the same thing.

Thank biology we’ve evolved to be different.

I find there is often an element of truth in most things. I just don't buy the notion that scientists understand it all.

Scientists, real scientists, will be the first to say they don’t know it all. They will say that they will accept the best explanation that fits the evidence known at the time. As the evidence changes, the explanation must change to match the evidence. The idea that science is ever ‘settled’ is not science.

People who say, ‘science explains everything’ are just as foolish as those who say, ‘science explains nothing’.

Science is a tool for discarding those ideas that don’t match the proveable facts.