Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- sursum on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
27 Comments
For outlander who requested that I continue posting scientific evidence for the irrefutable fact of evolution (because he’s unaware that I’ve ever posted any). So I’ll restart with the ecoli experiment which proves speciation beyond a reasonable doubt (but I don’t consider creationists reasonable).
“The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit(+)) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit(+) mutants among 8.4 x 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit(+), indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit(+) but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.”
An explanation of the study (I’ve presented the abstract) at:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/historical-cont.html
The website for the study:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Roger Ebert’s review of “Milk.”
http://tinyurl.com/5bp4jr
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope you have a wonderful day!
Just forget all you learned in your college probability and statics math class.
Just keep believing that evolution happened by chance.
Right Angle,
That’s a common snark–all of this happened by chance?! Why, that’s like an explosion in a scrap metal lot resulting in a perfectly formed 747, amirite guys?
Unfortunately for you, evolution doesn’t work that way and the scrap metal lot is a bad analogy.
The mutations themselves that lead to phenotypic changes are somewhat random at the molecular level, but these changes are accumulated. So higher life forms didn’t occur by “random chance”, they occurred because of millions and millions of years of selection.
MH,
It doesn’t appear that “Milk” will be in theaters here in Wichita, unless I missed one of the listings. What a surprise. But I look at it this way. When it comes out on DVD, Amazon will have it. :)
Wahine_Tara
What about just the cell level, tell me that probability of existance. Show work
“Just forget all you learned in your college probability and statics math class.
Just keep believing that evolution happened by chance.”
What is that, the fact that evolution happens 100% of the time when cells divide? Evolution is quite predictable, so where do you get this notion that it happens by chance?
Maggotpunk
What about just the cell level, tell me that probability of existance. Show work
Punk don’t waste your time with evolution deniers.
Hell, they’re harder to talk to than reformed whores who got religion.
Pro-life TV ads have dropped the abortion rate by 20% in Arizona and 10% in Georgia, and are now headed for airing on MTV and BET.
Meanwhile, the Justice Foundation and Fresh Air Media are airing a new TV documentary “Beyond the Dark Valley” exploring the devastating consequences of abortion that affect millions of men and women.
- – -
Meanwhile, Britain’s Family Planning Association will attempt to force girls as young as 14 to watch a film “Why Abortion” encouraging them to contract the killing of their children, falsely claiming that only a few are traumatized for years or for the rest of their life by the butchery.
BUTTER………..?
“What about just the cell level, tell me that probability of existance. Show work”
Hmm. Cells exist. Therefore the probability of existence at the cell level is 1.
DO I GET A COOKIE
Wahine_Tara
Posted November 27, 2008 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
“What about just the cell level, tell me that probability of existance. Show work”
Hmm. Cells exist. Therefore the probability of existence at the cell level is 1.
DO I GET A COOKIE
====================================
How did the cell com into existance? Just by chane?
chane = chance
What is the probability of the cell comming into existance just by chance?
Again, please show your work, not just an answer.
I’d like to see the stats on that Parkay. Ones not done by anti-choice groups.
You know, ones that account for new laws, etc.
Rightangle whines:
“What about just the cell level, tell me that probability of existance. Show work”
Have you heard of cell division? I know this is grammar school biology but I guess you’ve never passed the sixth grade.
Maggotpunk
Posted November 27, 2008 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
Rightangle whines:
“What about just the cell level, tell me that probability of existance. Show work”
============================
Sorry but 6th grade didnot inlude how the first cell can into existane and all you can do is insult people.
I stand corrected, you also an copy and paste. WOW!
Still waiting, what is the probability of the first cell coming into existence. As you should know a single cell is NOT a simple item. You are up on DNA science are you not?
After millions of years of evolving, you should be able to do more than copy and paste.
Rightangle, the probability of the first cell coming into existence is 100%, primarily because cells exist. Simple enough for you?
To be clear so you will know, I am not disputing evolution with you only if the world came into existence by chance.
Maggotpunk
Posted November 27, 2008 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
Rightangle, the probability of the first cell coming into existence is 100%, primarily because cells exist. Simple enough for you?
=========================================
The question was by “chance”. You get a “F” for your stupid answer.
Admit it Maggotpunk, all you can do is copy and paste and insult people.
Maggotpunk must be hiding under his bed so I will leave
GOOD NIGHT; GOOD LUCK; GOD BLESS —-
WHATEVER YOU CONCEIVE GOD TO BE!!
BLESSINGS ALL!!
BLESSINGS ON THANKSGIVING!!
SO MOTE IT BE!!