@ Tom Marking:

I was using the earlier rate (and a generation time of 20 years which I left out as it was possible to deduce): 500*20/0.01= 10^6.

@ Robert:

Because if creation is true, evolution isn’t, and that’s the biggest threat there is to athiestic evolutionism.

False choice. Evolution being wrong wouldn’t make creationism right, as is your basis for the above reasoning. There were other alternatives, for example Lamarckism.

But even if creationism “is true”, you haven’t explained what it is (because you rely on false choice), so both could then be a fact.

That speeded-up video is amazing.

Program to compute statistics for DNA point mutations
Total number of point mutations to run = 10000
Initial number of amino acids = 100
Initial number of nucleotides = 303
Mutations with no change in amino acid sequence: 24.5%
Mutations with one change in amino acid sequence: 70.4%
Mutations with truncated amino acid sequence: 4.1%
Mutations with extended amino acid sequence: 0.9%
Average number of amino acids truncated = 49.6
Average number of amino acids extended = 23.0

Consecutive mutations in the same gene
Total number of consecutive mutation runs = 1000
Avg # of consec. mutations for length to change = 19.4

So just looking at point mutations in a DNA strand of length 303 (codes for a protein of length 100 amino acids) we see that about one fourth of them don’t cause any phenotype changes at all. About 4 percent of them cause the protein to be truncated (on average it is cut in half) which is a catastrophic change. About 1 percent of them result in the protein being lengthened (this is the answer to the creationist question of where does new information come from).

Considering consecutive mutations in the same gene, by the time you get 19 of them you can expect the protein to be either truncated or extended. So in terms of the E. coli experiment what these results mean is we expect about 1.3 non-selectable mutations for every 1 that is selectable. Thus, if the citrate digestibility trait took 3 selectable mutations to occur then the total number of mutations should be about 4.

I meant I didn’t mean to assert that it was in PZ’s article, which is why I put that suggestion on a separate line, instead of in the same paragraph.

The original criticism was about taking how long it took for 1 change to develop in this sample and project that it would therefore take 20 gazillion years for all the variety and complexity of human form to evolve. Whereas, PZ is analogizing taking samples of the population at various intermediary points and preserving them for future comparisons of all the myriads of changes occurring. Not quite the same thing

I’ve read PZ’s entire article and nowhere in there does he say something to the effect that you can’t compare 44,000 generations of E. coli to 44,000 generation of Homo sapiens in terms of mutation rate, amount of evolution, etc., etc. That assertion is simply NOT in PZ’s article which is what someone claimed.

Well, admittedly his actions do undercut the principle of my post.

Tom Marking said:
> So PZ actually does compare 500 generations of hominid time (~10,000 years) to 500 generations of E. coli time (~80 days). He says “that’s what this experiment is like”. So nice of folks to quote PZ’s opinion on the matter without actually reading his entire article. BTW, that is the only comparison to human beings that PZ makes in the entire article.

The original criticism was about taking how long it took for 1 change to develop in this sample and project that it would therefore take 20 gazillion years for all the variety and complexity of human form to evolve. Whereas, PZ is analogizing taking samples of the population at various intermediary points and preserving them for future comparisons of all the myriads of changes occurring. Not quite the same thing.

You can’t just apply the amount of generations it took for this particular trait to pop up in this type of organism to a completely different organism, and multiply by years. I suggest you read PZ’s story on this, it’s linked early in the thread.

PZ’s article is at
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/historical_contingency_in_the.php#more

In addition, a sample of each population was taken and frozen every 500 generations, so they can go back in time at will and examine their genome or even restart the line. Imagine what we could learn if some ambiguously benevolent space aliens had visited the earth every 5-10,000 years, snatched up a couple of random hominin/primate tribes, and had them tucked away in cryogenic storage — that’s what this experiment is like.

So PZ actually does compare 500 generations of hominid time (~10,000 years) to 500 generations of E. coli time (~80 days). He says “that’s what this experiment is like”. So nice of folks to quote PZ’s opinion on the matter without actually reading his entire article. BTW, that is the only comparison to human beings that PZ makes in the entire article.

The current rate of ~ 3 selected variants/generation means that an earlier rate of ~ 0.01 selected variants/generation fits well with the observed genetic distance of ~ 1000 variants between ourselves and chimps and a timespan of ~ 5*10^6 years since speciation; ~ 500 variants to a common ancestor would make 10^6 years, which fits comfortably within the actual time span.

Torbjorn, you’re numbers are not making any sense. If we use your number of ~5 million years for the human/chimpanzee split and ~25 years per generation then that’s ~200,000 generations. If there are indeed ~1,000 selected variants between humans and chimpanzees then the rate is ~0.005 selected variants per generation, not the value of ~3 which you cite. That’s a factor of 600 between the two values.

Concerning Richard:

you said:
“> “Richard” is either a troll, or simply a liar. I’m going to go with the choice of “liar” since it seems to be a very popular hobby for the folks who fear science and the understanding of the universe.

Not a particularly useful post. All you are doing is creating an environment of hostility. Seems counterproductive to the idea of learning.”

I agree with you in principal… however I think the criticism was based on Richard’s initial tone. And since he later exposed himself as a liar (by admitting he did not have a PH.D. after claiming without hesitation that he did), I guess the poster was right after all… in fact, it was RICHARD who called out another poster asking for his Ph.D. credentials. And after doing so, lied about his own, claimed it was in a frame in his office, and then later admitted he made the whole thing up. So I guess I have a hard time defending pretty much anything Richard says at this point, or giving frief to any commentor who wishes to take Richard to task. I’m afraid he’s lost any credibility with that stunt, and therefor lost my interest in even engaging in the discussion…

And no, it’s not because he doesn’t have a Ph.D… (I don’t either), it’s because he was intentionally smugly dishonest about it, and prefaced an attack on another poster with that dishonesty. Not interested in engaging in an important discussion with someone of that mettle, thanks.

If God suddenly appears,

Then religion becomes scientific–naturalistically interrogable–and religion is subsumed by science. Fideism and sola fide would die, and, additionally, God’s wisdom as revealed in word would be proven to be inconstant:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe… For the foolishness of God is wiser than (the wisdom of) men. (1 Cor. 1:21, 25)

Emphasis mine.

In short, science wins.

>>>”Thanks slang. I am signing off on this subject. I think I have been beaten up enough on this one!! All the best you Noble Knights of the Darwinian Order.”

No, Richard! Don’t go! I want you to stay here and defend yourself! I want to prove myself as a Noble Knight! Oh, and I also wanna be a full fledged evolutionist believer! I wanna know what the “doctrines” of evolution are! Cuz uh, my fellow knights never told me…

Robert

>>>”Because if creation is true, evolution isn’t, and that’s the biggest threat there is to athiestic evolutionism.”

What’s atheistic evolutionism? Is it what Richard was talking about? Aw, nobody told me I had to be an atheist! Now no-one will like me!

So much confusion, so little time.

I think the biggest flaw in your thinking is equating believing in God with Creationism.

A second flaw is equating evolution with atheism, though admittedly there are plenty of people on both sides who do that.

A third flaw is equating acceptance of a scientific understanding of processes inherent in nature with a system of worship.

A fourth flaw appears to be understanding just what role the scientists in this article played in the evolutionary process demonstrated. It’s not like they dialed in a genetic change to see what would happen. In this case, they ran bacteria through a long term project of controlled environment and analysed the outcome. Still, I will allow you some leeway and agree this does show that scientists can monitor evolution and not create matter from emptiness.

Of course, if I really want to be facetious, I could point out that there is no proof God can, either.

I suspect there are other flaws embedded here, but am too tired to try to dig further.

How did that happen? As the abstract states, they were testing two alternatives. In one, the new ability is purely the product of an extremely rare mutation, some unlikely combination of events that gave a fortunate individual in this population the ability to take up and use citrate. If this were the case, and we rewound the tape of E. coli history back to before the mutation arose, and allowed it to play forward again, we’d expect no enhanced likelihood of a repeat performance — it’s just like the other 11 populations. The other alternative is that the population had some prior enabling characteristic, some quirk in its genome that didn’t really affect survival in one way or another, but that, in combination with some other ordinary mutation of ordinary probability, could predispose the population to acquire the useful citrate characteristic. In this case, rewinding the tape of life back to before the appearance of the ability, and re-running it forward, would show an increased frequency of reappearance of the ability. Furthermore, by running the tape back further still, they can identify when the enabling change in the population first arose.

Seems to me that the “earlier predisposition” would just be an earlier mutation, so what in effect is the difference? I finally figured out the difference was comparing whether there was 1 single very rare mutation involved (option A) or a string of mutations (option B). That makes more sense.

Simon said:
> I want to hear the refute to the “no new information” issue. Can someone post a link?

The claim about “no new information” is that mutation involves making coding for proteins faulty, and thereby turning off some function, rather than allowing new functions to exist. Some examples of mutation do follow this pattern, turning off a function or trait. However, sometimes the mutation can code for a different protein, and lead to a new ability, such as the mentioned ability to digest citrate. Another example is bacteria that can digest nylon. Since nylon is entirely man-made, it did not exist before the 20th century, yet already there are bacteria that digest it. New capability.

Mike R. said:
> Well, I’m a Christian and I find this article interesting. I believe it. And I still believe in God. It’s certainly not going to make me change my mind about God.

Why should it? How is this article or the linked ones aimed at disproving God?

The debate over this topic is not about belief in god, however many people try to confuse the issue. The debate is over the question of how life develops over time. Common descent and accummulation of changes is the standard scientific understanding – Evolution. Creationists of all stripes want to refute that, but the only alternative offered is instantaneous appearance of different lifeforms. ID is a muddled position that on the face of it accepts some Evolution but then in the same breath rejects evolution and says there was magic involved.

Richard said:
> “Why would this particular evidence in a lab under controlled conditions make them want to drop their blinders any more than the already existing nearly endless stream of evidence they are so well practiced at ignoring?”

> For the very simple reason that it IS a laboratory controlled experiment not an observation from nature. The would argue what the difference is there between a controlled experiment and Intelligent creation. A lab experiment, no matter how “hands free” is still controlled by an intelligence.

I’m sorry, this is a muddled hash. The question was worded as “how would this change their minds” and your answer was worded “because it shouldn’t change their minds”. Uh, what? And the argument itself is rubbish. The whole point of a laboratory experiment is to eliminate the exteranous side issues to focus on the one principle under investigation. But the scientist doesn’t guide that part of the experiment, or it invalidates the whole thing. The whole point is to “see what happens on its own”. The controls applied are just used to ensure the right cause is being attributed.

MPG said:
> Wheres yours [science Ph.D.]?

Richard said:
> In a frame in my office.

Well let him out! He can’t breathe in there.

Kate said:
> It’s also telling that they have no basic understanding of relativity which, as far as I know, is a pretty basic scientific theory and not difficult for the average person to understand.

That’s an amusing position, that Relativity is basic science and easy to understand. Relativity may be science that has gripped popular attention and thus become somewhat commonly followed, but it is not basic science and is fairly complicated to understand. Most Physics classes save Relativity to late in the game, and start out with some good old Newtonian motion.

> “Richard” is either a troll, or simply a liar. I’m going to go with the choice of “liar” since it seems to be a very popular hobby for the folks who fear science and the understanding of the universe.

Not a particularly useful post. All you are doing is creating an environment of hostility. Seems counterproductive to the idea of learning.

Richard said:
> Now, as for trolls. You little trolls obviously did not read correctly or could not read (due to your blinkered view) correctly what I originally wrote.

Ignoring your response to the hostility aimed your way, I would argue that the problem was that you communicated your intent poorly. You made a vague reference to Relativity and a muddled reference to Quantum physics. If you were going for a nuanced understanding of the applications, you should have presented them in a more nuanced manner.

> 1. An observer may have an influence on a system through the simple process of observing (New Scientist some time this year). Just by conducting the experiment, the researchers influence the outcome of the experiment (pretty heady stuff).

Quantum mechanics. Not sure how that is supposed to apply at a macroscopic level. Sorry, you are misapplying QM if you think it applies at the scale of cell growth.

>2. Time may actually not exist in the fundamental sense. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
Therefore, whether the earth is 6000 years old or 12 billion means nothing because time is as malleable as clay and only has structure in the human mind.

Read the article, it does not support your assertion. While physicists are still trying understand the nature of time, how it arises, and how it fits into the fabric of existence, time is the measure of the arrow of entropy. Not just humans, but all life and indeed all chemistry “experience” time by virtue of changing states. Our measures of time are tied to the changing of states, though not necessarily created by it. But within the realm of time, there is certainly a solid foundation for distinguishing between 6000 years and 12 billion years.

> Molecular clocks run out of time: The theory that we can date the birth of new species by charting the steady accumulation of mutations over evolutionary time is in serious trouble

Does absolutely nothing to relate to the issue of whether life on Earth is 6000 or 4 billion years old. All that long article refutes is the notion that measuring rates of mutation in a species can be used as a reliable means to date diversity. Indeed, rates may not be consistent even for one parameter.

> So. What I was trying to stimulate in debate certainly drew out the true believers of evolutionism (as opposed to evolutionary theory). Evolutionism, just like Creationism is a belief structure. Evolutionism is no more science than is religion. In fact evolutionism is a religion with its obvious zealots and thought police.

If you were trying to spark genuine intellectual debate, you did a singularly and spectacularly poor job of it. Rather, it appears you created just the kind of disturbance to allow you to deride “evolutionism”.

> I accept evolutionary theory as a valid theory. I accept god as a valid spritual entity. However, I am open-minded on the actuality or otherwise of evolution as well as god. So, quell your religious ferver oh evolutionists. And creationists.

Then what was the point of defending a 6000 year young Earth?

Skeptic of Skeptics said:
> Where did the rock we “evolved” from originate? Before the “big bang” that is?

1. Evolution is not the Big Bang.
2. How life originally formed is not Evolution.
3. Biologists are actively studying the origins question.
4. Cosmologists are contemplating the Big Bang issues.

5. The source of original life begins in the hearts of stars and in supernovas creating all the various elements that make up matter. This matter was distributed across space, and coalesced under the presence of gravity to form our Sun and planets. Simple organic molecules formed through any number of processes, including processes that create nebulae in space. It is possible the arrived on Earth via comets. Another proposition is that they formed on Earth through some combination of heat and pressure and perhaps seeding by clay particles helping create structures on which to form. Simple molecules combined to form more complex molecules over time, until some complex molecules became able to replicate themselves. That is the birth of life on Earth. From there, small changes accummulated over time and different locations had different conditions that guided changes in different directions.

> “Why aren’t skeptics skeptical of skeptics?”

We’re to busy being skeptical of skeptics skeptical of skeptics.

Drama said:
> Since time started in the big bang, there is no logical definition of “before the “big bang””
This is equivalent to asking “what animals live north of the north pole?” There is no logical answer because it is not a logical question.

I personally find that an unsatisfying and incomprehensible answer. The very question has a temporal assumption, but the answer is that the temporal assumption is invalid. Human minds just don’t seem prepared to understand that. YMMV.

buck09 said:
> Do you think the members of the twelve colonies believe in the gods or will they learn to assent to the will of the one true creator god after the nanobots they created rebel, nearly wiping them out?

Excellent!

Richard Wolford said:
> Chris Fawkes: you, sir, are a fool. First, you cite no evidence that “many real scientist [sic] believe in creation”; this is bologna, “real” scientists know that the evidence not only suggests theories such as evolution and big bang, but that the evidence directly disputes ALL creation myths.

I would argue this. There are real scientists who are creationists. That they are ill-informed and arguably self-blinded does not invalidate them being scientists. Also their expertise may be in a different area (say, a pschologist, an archeologist).

I would also caution that there is a difference between believing creation and believing in God. Confusion on that matter is rampant, and it appears that Chris Fawkes is suffering from it. Don’t get drawn in yourself.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM sid:
> According to some biologists this could be speciation, since before gene sequencing bacterias were ordered from their characteristics, which includes such ecological traits as if they will survive in an environment with citrate as feed media (new bacteria) or not (old bacteria). This holds up even with sequencing, since using evolutionary environmental information combined with the evolutionary genetic information still makes for the best resolution of populations (and their history).

The very notion of species is complicated, and unicellular organisms have some different characteristics than large scale organisms. Creationists do rely on these distinctions to justify their “microevolution” vs. “macroevolution” claims. I feel their claims are unjustified, but I also am leery of overly relying on macroorganism scale measures to evaluate microfauna.

Because if creation is true

lol.. thanks for the laugh. good night!

Simple. Because if creation is true, evolution isn’t, and that’s the biggest threat there is to athiestic evolutionism. If God suddenly appears, everything they believe, live for, and have created goes *poof*! Evolutionists have simply traded one religion for another. As someone pointed out, this experiment simply shows that scientists (intelligent ones, presumably) can cause evolution. Cool. Now let them create their own dirt!

Robert

Given that it took 33000 generations to develop this new evolutionary trait, this would translate to over 825000 years if the generation time was 25 years as it is for humans.

You have already got an answer, but since there is new information that can actually tell us what happens, I will pitch in (or on, as it were):

1. Humans have been observed to evolve new traits:

- Lactose tolerance in europeans 8000 years ago, and independently in Kenya/Tanzania 2800 years ago due to cattle use.

- Sickle-cell disease due to selective pressures from malaria.

and others.

2. Human evolution is now known to have accelerated 100 times from earlier rates due to population increase. (Selection becomes more effective in larger populations.)

The current rate of ~ 3 selected variants/generation means that an earlier rate of ~ 0.01 selected variants/generation fits well with the observed genetic distance of ~ 1000 variants between ourselves and chimps and a timespan of ~ 5*10^6 years since speciation; ~ 500 variants to a common ancestor would make 10^6 years, which fits comfortably within the actual time span.

You have very funny ideas of how science operates. No scientist would agree with you.

For the very simple reason that it IS a laboratory controlled experiment not an observation from nature.

The laboratory is part of nature – this is why we can make particle experiments in accelerators which confirms what happens in the same conditions in atmosphere collisions. The prediction from evolution is that new traits can be fixated, which we see in nature and also here.

That an experiment is “controlled” means that the parameters are controlled, not that the process is performed by scientist demons pushing particles around during collisions. When the same parameters occurs in uncontrolled in nature, the same process will occur. That is the very definition of a repeatable process, obviously.

This is one of the first empirically derived evidences that I have come across.

“Empirical” means roughly “try it and see”, that is experiment and observation. The largest experiment a scientist can observe is nature.

As for evidence, this is collected by testing predictions of a theory. It is very easy to find 1000s of such successful tests in biology papers every day, and 100s of them will be on evolution. Here is ~ 30 such evidences for speciation by evolution collected for biological laymen</. You can’t have looked very hard.

Oh, many organisims are perfectly fine with being frozen. If you’ve ever bought a goldfish, chances are it arrived to the store in a block of ice. Bacteria and single celled life forms have no problem with freezing temps. It’s only when you get into really complex animals, (and especially warm blooded critters) that you start having trouble with freezing. Ice crystals form in the spaces between the cells and the result is a leathal freezer burn.

There is some research on suspended animation which may bear fruit for us, however. Seems haydrogen sulfides lower our metabolic rates to almost nothing, with few if any ill effects. Add to this some lower (but not freezing) temps, and you could keep someone in hybernation for years before bringing them back out of it… so we’re getting closer to the units we saw in Kubrick’s 2001.

I doubt a committed atheist would be convinced to believe in God because of this level of evidence against evolution. If there weren’t any changes in the bacteria after 40,000 generations, would Dawkins start thinking that evolution is false? What about 1,000,000 unchanged generations?

You seem to confuse positive evidence with evidence for other hypotheses, so called false choice.

First, evidence for or against evolution isn’t affecting atheism, which is at its widest a non-interest in religion. Evidence for supernatural acts would be different, though.

Second, evolution rates differs, so a negative result wouldn’t (easily) affect any known prediction. You would have to look for a prediction, and falsify it. For example of something that would falsify evolution would be a population of precambrian rabbits. Evolution predicts nested hierarchies and that population would break that.

Well the creationist will say this is microevolution and they agree with that, but not macroevolution.

The interesting thing is if it is speciation, not biologists separation of mechanisms. (Where AFAIU macroevolutionary mechanisms never have been proven, so the usual evolutionary mechanisms explains all of evolution.)

According to some biologists this could be speciation, since before gene sequencing bacterias were ordered from their characteristics, which includes such ecological traits as if they will survive in an environment with citrate as feed media (new bacteria) or not (old bacteria). This holds up even with sequencing, since using evolutionary environmental information combined with the evolutionary genetic information still makes for the best resolution of populations (and their history).

Of course, a creationist is only interested in the bacteria ‘kind’. Until he gets an infection, and the type of bacteria suddenly matters, as well as the science on antibiotic resistance.

Anyway, here they have just the experiment they asked for earlier, a lab experiment with speciation. Now see them move the goal posts.