Creation vs. Evolution

[Spencermm]

One of my favorite short stories by Mark Twain(he's my favorite author, so I'm sure I am biased) is The Diary of Adam and Eve, or An Excerpt From The Diary of Adam and Eve- can't rememebr at the moment which it is.
Essentially it is a story about the differences between men and women and how we should cherish those differences. The first few chapters made my wife angry, but she stuck with it and eventually loved it.
I read it every time there are bumps in the road of my marriage and it always helps.
I think Old Yeller was the only story that has led me to tears, but I get a little misty in the last few pages of this story.
It's not a religious book really, so maybe even some of you who are less inclined toward Biblically based stories might enjoy it as well.
Spencer

 

[coachpill]

You're mixing and matching papers to support a claim not made by the researchers. To be short, the citrate metabolizing e coli were derived from SEPARATE STRAINS from the ribse-deficient and DNA-repair defective strains. THE CITRATE-METABOLISING STRAINS CATABOLIZE RIBOSE JUST FINE.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008, PNAS, Blount et al.pdf
It's pretty clear on pages 7899 and 7900 of Lenski's inaugural PNAS paper that he is speaking of the same bacteria. In fact, on page 7900 of the paper, there is a reference (#31) to the paper where I got the information from originally. Go to the following link and click on the link for #122 Richard Lenski's Web Page

The PNAS paper is discussing Lenski's long-term experiment and includes reference to the paper discussing the original 12 populations...that paper, of course, states quite clearly that all 12 populations lost the ability to catabolize D-ribose.

I may be wrong, but didn't the cit+ bacteria come from those original 12 lines?

Where I do agree with you is when you state that not all the evidence is in just yet.

 

[coachpill]

EDIT: This is worth adding. Modern eukariotes arose as a product of cooperative parasitism; basically our energy-generating organelles are bacteria that we paracitized (or vice-versa). So the "jump" to eukariot-ism wasn't much of a jump, genetically speaking.

You state that as a fact; I find that interesting. Isn't that the exact kind of thing that many have been arguing against on this thread...the stating as fact those items that are clearly speculation at best?

In fact, this form of paracitism is observed among bacteria today - Bdellovibrio and e coli for example.

So you're saying that your best example to support the endosymbiotic theory of mitochondria/chloroplasts (in other words, the theory that postulates the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes) is the parasitic Bdellovibrio that invades E. coli, uses hydrolytic enzymes to break down and exhaust the nutrients within the E. coli, then produces offspring that lyse the E. coli (killing it by the way) before they move on to another E. coli? Ok.

The least you can do is to claim that endosymbiosis is pure speculation and that you have a belief system in place that allows you to assume that it happened...I can at least respect that.

 

[Warthaug]

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008, PNAS, Blount et al.pdf
It's pretty clear on pages 7899 and 7900 of Lenski's inaugural PNAS paper that he is speaking of the same bacteria. In fact, on page 7900 of the paper, there is a reference (#31) to the paper where I got the information from originally. Go to the following link and click on the link for #122 Richard Lenski's Web Page

I'm sorry, but I cannot think of a single way to say this nicely. You are wrong. Period, end of story. In fact, your claims go directly against much of what Lenski's written in his own work. Not even the paragraph you're referring us to would support your claim; its simply a description of some of the strains they've published along with a description of general changes observed across all strains. In fact, the paper doesn't even make reference to ribose metabolism, as those are completely different experiments, never mind the strain issue.

In fact, if you'd bothered to read the methods section of the two papers you continually refer to you'd have seen that the ribose-defective strains and cit+ strains arose from completely different experiments; with the respective strains being selected out of mixed populations using different techniques.

I may be wrong, but didn't the cit+ bacteria come from those original 12 lines?

I don't get why this is so hard to explain; these are pretty standard techniques most biologists use frequently (I nearly left my old position to work for a company that uses this kind of "directed evolution" for commercial purposes). So let me try again, lets see if we can teach a little undergrad microbiology here:

1) You start out with 12 strains. On average each of cells in these strains experiences a mutations or two each generation, meaning every generation the number of genetically unique strains increases several thousand fold. So after one generation you are no longer working with 12 strains, but rather 12 populations (of 2 cells each) containing 2 unique "strains" of cells. After the next generation you have 12 populations of 8 unique cells. A few days later you have 12 populations of billions of unique cells.

2) After a while you then take those 12 mixed populations and look for bacteria with mutations of interest, using a selective screen. What this does is select the tiny proportion (usually on the order of 1-in-a-billion) of mutants which have the characteristic you are looking for.

3) You then analyze those mutants, and based on what you find you can determine how frequent those mutations are, how the occurred, etc.

The key point in the above is that you generate a mixed population, and then select out the rare mutants of interest. And while the Rib- mutant was more common than the Cit+ mutation, both are still rare mutations. Rib- being 1:8x10^-5/generation, Cit+ being 1:10^-13/generation. to put that in context, the mutation rates of humans is 1:10^-8/generation, exactly mid-way between the two mutation rates observed here.

And yet, strangely enough, most of us catabolize ribose just fine...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

You state that as a fact; I find that interesting. Isn't that the exact kind of thing that many have been arguing against on this thread...the stating as fact those items that are clearly speculation at best?

It is the logical conclusion, based on the facts at hand. Simply put:

1) Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genomes, which are organized and operated they way bacteria, not eukariotes, organize and operate their genomes.

2) The genomes of these organelles closely match those of existing bacteria species, differ from those species in the way you'd expect from divergent evolution. Moreover, the mito/chloroplastic genomes differ greatly from eukariotic genomes, and differ in a way not consistent with divergence or other known genetic/evolutionary mechanisms.

3) Mitochondria and chloroplasts contain genes and other structures unique to bacteria, and which are not found in eukariotic genomes.

4) Mitochondria and chloroplasts have a similar lipid makeup, utilize the same methods of energy generation, and have the same general structure as the bacteria they are genetically related to.

So, from an evidentary point of view the logical conclusion is that they are derived from bacteria, rather then being something which formed via eukariotes.

So you're saying that your best example to support the endosymbiotic theory of mitochondria/chloroplasts (in other words, the theory that postulates the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes) is the parasitic Bdellovibrio that invades E. coli,

Hardly. Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote - I was simply pointing out that the kinds of parasitism which would be necessary for acquiring mitochondria and chloroplasts are common in nature. As in such an event is not necessarily the freak accident you would suggest it is.

Although I can honestly say that your attempts to twist my words were pretty much exactly what I predicted when I wrote that paragraph.

uses hydrolytic enzymes to break down and exhaust the nutrients within the E. coli, then produces offspring that lyse the E. coli (killing it by the way) before they move on to another E. coli? Ok.

Would this be a bad time to point out that many strains of Bdellovibrio are non-lytic, and survive as endosymbiotes with e coli and cholera over multiple generations? Or that those same strains are the basis of some commercial products, used to introduce DNA into non-refractory strains of e coli?

Of course you had to ignore those inconvenient facts when you wrote the above...

The least you can do is to claim that endosymbiosis is pure speculation

Hardly. As pointed out above, it is the only conclusion consistent with the data we have. At the end of the day mitochondria and chloroplasts are bacterial in their genes, in their structure and in their function. The logical conclusion is that they are derived from bacteria, likely through the same parasitic mechanisms we observe occurring today. The illogical conclusion - the one you're supporting - is they arose spontaneously in some other fashion and just happen to look and function like bacteria...

Bryan

 

[boulderjohn]

One of my favorite short stories by Mark Twain(he's my favorite author, so I'm sure I am biased) is The Diary of Adam and Eve, or An Excerpt From The Diary of Adam and Eve- can't rememebr at the moment which it is.
...
It's not a religious book really, so maybe even some of you who are less inclined toward Biblically based stories might enjoy it as well.
Spencer

You should also read The Mysterious Stranger. You will see more clearly his use of irony in his writing. If you read Letters from Earth, it will further show his attitudes, always cloaked in irony. Then then you will see how the diary of Adam (which was published) and the diary of Eve (which was not completed) are indeed religious works, as is his fragmented diary of Methusalah.

For example, Eve goes to Adam to show him her discovery that a lion has eaten some flesh, and Adam shows her how that could not be true, since animals eating other animals would be out of character for the grand scheme of creation. She has him examine the lion's mouth, where they discover the existence of canine teeth, which seem more suited to tearing flesh than crushing strawberries. As they discuss this and other contradictions to their innocent beliefs in wonder, the perceptive reader should be making discoveries along with them.

Another interesting discussion is their discussion of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve asks Adam what evil is, but since he has never been told what it is, he cannot answer. They have been told that if they were to eat of it, they will die, but they don't know the meaning of the words "die" and "death," either, so they don't realize there is any threat involved. In fact, Adam immediately agrees with Eve's sudden burst of inspiration: "Let us eat of it;we shall die, and we shall know what it is, and not have any more bother about it."

The religious point of view is subtle, but it is all throughout the work.

 

[Spencermm]

You should also read The Mysterious Stranger. You will see more clearly his use of irony in his writing. If you read Letters from Earth, it will further show his attitudes, always cloaked in irony. Then then you will see how the diary of Adam (which was published) and the diary of Eve (which was not completed) are indeed religious works, as is his fragmented diary of Methusalah.
The religious point of view is subtle, but it is all throughout the work.

Well, you caught me. I was trying to save you guys from hell by sneaking some religion into you! (Totally kidding) I guess it was so subltle that I didn't consider terribly or overtly religious, even though it was centered around Biblical characters.
I've read The Mysterious Stranger, but not Letters from Earth or Diary of Methusalah. I'll try to find them and give them a read- thanks!
He's the only author that has ever made me laugh out loud. The Story of the Good Little Boy and The Story of the Bad Little Boy come to mind.
Spencer

 

[coachpill]

Would this be a bad time to point out that many strains of Bdellovibrio are non-lytic, and survive as endosymbiotes with e coli and cholera over multiple generations?

Actually, it would be the perfect time. I've only read of the "destructive" nature of Bdellovibrio. Would the Bdelloplast in the example above then consist of an actually living E. coli? If you have something on hand that I can link to and read, that would be awesome.

 

[nereas]

...As an aside- never heard that the Babylonian king was cast down from heaven to Earth either.

Exactly.

The Biblical scriptures (scrolls) explain the role of Lucifer/Helal (shining one), Satan (Ha Shatan / the accusor), Legion (the many) in several different places.

There is, of course, as has been pointed out, what jews believe, and there is on the other hand what the scriptures say, and as east is east, and west is west, nary the twain shall meet.

Jesus (Jeshua) of Nazareth tried to set the jews straight, regarding their many erroneous doctrines, for which he earned their hatred. According to the New Testament authors, they were worried that he would destroy their roles. Among their own community, that never really happened. Christianity took root mostly in Greece and Rome, then on from there to the non-semitic nations of Europe.

I am not real interested in whatever jews believe, especially when it contradicts the Biblical scriptures. Jews can profess that there is no Lucifer/Satan/Legion, however the Biblical scriptures state otherwise in many places.

Arguments that attack others personally, using words like "fanatic," are satanic arguments.

Arguments that interpose science or philosophy as contradictory to religion are also satanic.

Philosophy and other such intellectualization serve the forensic purposes of discovery and debate, but do not provide anything regarding religion.

Science explains observations with theories and ideas, but has no relationship to religion at all. Those who argue that science "proves" religion to be wrong are using satanic arguments. I am sure Lucifer/Satan/Legion loves all of you who do this, and I suspect he will come calling later to collect his "friends."

Religion is a testimonial witnessing by prophets, seers, and revelators, to explain why, not how. You are free to believe the prophets, or you may not.

But you won't ever get very far arguing about it. And especially not, whenever you utilize satanic arguments.

 

[Thalassamania]

OK, I surrender, nereas gets added to the satanic ignore list ... sheesh.