sorry bud, that was a uncalled for slur… Something that doesn’t forward the conversation. I actually use the profile pic to remind me of Numbers 22 in the bible where the Prophet was trying to make Profit by cursing Israel for a King… Or was contemplating it… The Donkey stopped in the front of an angel and the prophet did not see the angel so he gets off the donkey and punches it in the head. And the Donkey speaks. why did you hit me… haven’t i did you well etc. The point being it took the stubborn donkey to see God trying to intervene while the person who should see couldn’t see.
This means to me, some of the most intelligent look down on others thinking they know everything but miss some of the most obvious things. I see myself as the donkey with more sight than the Prophet. and in this case You.
Do you also see the irony in that?
well, you can try it… I think they used bacteria because of the replication rate, if you tried that with humans it would take at least 12 -15 years at the absolute bare minimum for each generation of replication to force evolution. So be my guest. turn bacteria into a fish or anything other than bacteria and we will all give you a Nobel prize.
Generation time, yes. By now ~70 000 generations have passed since the experiment began. That would correspond to approximately 1.4 million years of human evolution, about a fifth of the time since the common ancestor we share with the chimpanzee.
And of course bacteria come in many different “types” of species, just like mammals, or primates, or “fish”, or whatever else. Bacteria is a domain of life. Whale-sharks are fish, so are goldfish, and eels. It’s still a fish though.
There are bacteria as genetically different from each other as you are from a plant(in fact, more so). Heck, they even come in wildly different and very weird shapes. Some are many thousands of times smaller than others, some have screw shapes(literally look like cork screws in a microscope), some are irregular and pretty much plastic, and still others are almost perfectly spherical.
Incidentally, the bacteria in the Lenski experiment have in fact evolved a changed morphology. You can read about that here:
Bacterial differences goes well beyond size and shape of course. Some can make spores and some can’t. Some have an outer membrane in their cell envelope and some don’t. Their diets are so varied they are in fact the most variable among all organisms on Earth. Some can literally eat rocks.
This thing with “they’re still bacteria” is like saying “it’s still a mammal” after a 4-legged terrestrial organism evolved into a whale. By some measures, the differences between different bacterial species are even more extreme than what you might find between any two animals. Yes, sure, it’s still a bacterium, but it’s quite a different one now.
You just have no clue what you’re talking about, that much is obvious.
Cool, but you now at least understand that you were wrong about every assertion you made about what that experiment was about?
Frogs, whales, spiders, sunflowers, humans, and birds are still only eukaryotes, so one big happy family, right? Salmon, gecko’s, and lions are still only chordates. Zebras, alligators, and bats are still only tetrapods. Chimpanzees and orangutans and Scotts are still only primates. Welcome to your relatives.
Why? I already know far more about them than you do. Google them yourself.
While you’re at it, you can look up the difference between a hippo and a hypo.
No scientist will disagree with you that humans represent one “track” or one “line”, as you put it. Of course we all share a human common ancestor. This fact doesn’t get you to a literal Adam and Eve though.
I’ll also point out that evolution doesn’t involve lizards turning into cats turning into pigs turning into humans etc. Those are all related groups, but more like cousins than direct ancestors and descendants. I hope you know that.
This isn’t true. As others have already pointed out, so called “living fossils” are the exception, not the rule. Looking in the fossil record, especially in older rocks, many species are very different to anything alive today. Take for example jawless fish. Today, there are basically just two - hagfish and lampreys, but in the fossil record, we find a huge diversity of “funny looking” things: conodonts, anaspids, theleodonts, galeaspids, osteostracans, etc.
If your response is “but they’re just jawless fish”, then I have to question how useful your definition of “unchanged” relative to modern day animals. If this massive diversity of jawless fish counts as basically all the same thing, then you might as well say that all mammals, including us, are also basically all the same thing - we’re all just mammals.
Its true that all modern humans are part of “one track”. However, our track is one of several tracks that descended from an ancestral hominin population, which in turn was a track that came from an ancestral hominid population. This goes back until all the tracks coalesce into the last eukaryotic common ancestor. Of course, this goes beyond LECA as well.
Mudskippers are fish too. Do you have a problem with extant fish giving rise to new fish species or an ancient fish being the ancestor of extant fishes?
This strawman version of evolution you created needs a good beating. The beating stage is all yours.
More strawmen. Yawn.
You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
No disagreement here.
This is gibberish.
Well yes, they are jawless fish and there are Eels with 2 Jaws. so what. There is sheeps head fish with human like Teeth, with a grin. There are fish with stripes but they are not ancestors of zebras. There is a platypus not even a relation to a beaver that had a duck bill and lays eggs like a turtle. Variety and similar features do not mean they are the product of evolution… And you cant put a little horse beside a big horse like children do and say Look evolution. If that is the case the Great Dane Dog is the grand daddy of horses today. You need Proof. DNA from Ancient species not modern ones and then a list of connections /Causes showing how evolution worked… there is none of that.
The 30 year experiment, which I think is the longest experiment in world history on bacteria, did not produce alternate species of bacteria… At least I never read any such data suggesting such. And why would we expect such… Unlike the theory of evolution suggesting a need for change, Bacteria has been around since before cave man, before fish, before almost everything right… and its still here… Change is over rated.
How do you define a bacterial species? What distinguishes one species of bacterium from another? According to one definition (metabolic capacity), it did in fact produce a new species of bacteria.
Do you actually know anything about this experiment, or the topic of bacterial evolution at all?
You are more ignorant than most creationists we get here, and that’s saying a lot. Next you’ll be asking “If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say to you. Why are you here?
So to be clear, if these extinct animals don’t count as “a glut of very funny looking things” by your definition because we can classify they as jawless fish, what exactly are you imagining that we should expect to see in the fossil record according to evolution? Do you think evolution would predict that the vast majority of the fossil record would be organisms that defy all classification? Why?
Do you think moray eels are unique in this regard? Many fish have two or more jaws like this, in the sense that pharyngeal arches have been modified (basically by adding teeth) to form a second jaw. This isn’t some kind of radical difference in morphology as you seem to be implying.
Of course not all similar features indicate shared ancestry. The teeth of Sheepshead fish and the stripes of zebrafish could be said to be convergent with humans and zebras respectively. Your platypus/beaver comparison is unclear, because obviously platypuses are mammals so reasonably closely related to beavers. The platypus “duck bill” is entirely superficial in it’s similarly to actual duck bills, and the egg laying is consistent with the ancestral state of mammals - live birth only evolved in the lineage of placental mammals which didn’t appear until after platypuses (as monotremes) had already diverged.
You think we can only “prove” evolution if we have DNA from every ancestor and descendant (i.e. every generation of each lineage)? That’s quite silly, don’t you think? We can reconstruct evolutionary relationships based on the DNA of living species and the morphologies of living and extinct species. The latter is based on specific morphological features (characters), not simplistic traits like body size.
I guess he is here to provide some comedy relief.
Zebrafish have horizontal blue/yellow stripes, which aren’t really convergent with zebras. Pilotfish are striped like zebras, though I doubt Scott ‘Evolution_of_a_Hypo’ knows about any of these details.
I was of course speaking very superficially, as the teeth of sheepshead fish are hardly that close to human teeth either:
Sure, I read all about it a couple years back… And No I am no specialist in any of these areas. And I never said I was. What I said was that I was not aware of any claim by the study suggesting any sort of evolution of the bacteria into another species… but that it became resistant… etc.
thats a poor picture, but the front teeth do look similar. they have roots and buck teeth, enamel etc… They are far more human than what you see on most fish.
the point was, just cause you have stripes doesn’t make you a relation to something else with stripes.