Time for a field trip for those in Texas, Kansas, etc who don’t believe evolution exists?

Using a process called paleo-experimental evolution, Georgia Tech researchers have resurrected a 500-million-year-old gene from bacteria and inserted it into modern-day Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria. This bacterium has now been growing for more than 1,000 generations, giving the scientists a front row seat to observe evolution in action.
[…]
“The altered organism wasn’t as healthy or fit as its modern-day version, at least initially,” said Gaucher, “and this created a perfect scenario that would allow the altered organism to adapt and become more fit as it accumulated mutations with each passing day.”

The growth rate eventually increased and, after the first 500 generations, the scientists sequenced the genomes of all eight lineages to determine how the bacteria adapted. Not only did the fitness levels increase to nearly modern-day levels, but also some of the altered lineages actually became healthier than their modern counterpart.



  1. LibertyLover says:

    Stop with the facts already!

  2. moss says:

    Surely, no one expects the average Know-Nothing, god bless us every one, Kool Aid Party Khristian to suddenly switch over to science, reality, reason and history for any sort of guidance?

  3. Sea Lawyer says:

    The people who won’t accept the evidence for evolution at all will never be convinced. But even for the religious types who are more than willing to accept so-called “microevolution,” this will probably still not change their minds of evolution on a larger scale.

    • Guyver says:

      The people who won’t accept the evidence for evolution at all will never be convinced.

      Who cares? It’s not like it’s scientific law or something… or are you implying that scientific theories and scientific laws are one in the same thing?

  4. theweerdough says:

    In the end was it still E. Coli?

  5. NewformatSux says:

    Isn’t that how Jurassic Park operated? What if the bacteria had gotten out of their Petri dish?

  6. Mr Diesel says:

    I am surrounded by people who believe in something or someone they can’t prove exists, sort of like the flying spaghetti monster and yet don’t believe in the things that can be proved.

    Pretty stupid.

    • orchidcup says:

      Objectivity is subjective.

    • Guyver says:

      I am surrounded by people who believe in something or someone they can’t prove exists, sort of like the flying spaghetti monster and yet don’t believe in the things that can be proved.

      Equally stupid as atheists who ignore causality when accounting for the big bang and cosmic egg (aka singularity). At some point, even the atheistic movement relies on some form of faith to justify their stance.

      • orchidcup says:

        You insist on viewing a lack of knowledge about something as “faith.”

        Not knowing is not faith.

        Not knowing is not knowing.

        Faith is believing something while there is no evidence for it.

        Faith is not fact.

        • Guyver says:

          Your faith is believing that there is no creator. Your faith hinges on debating formal religions.

          There is no evidence for your position or the complete opposite.

          Just because you BELIEVE you can sufficiently debate formalized religion is not a reason to conclude that your position is a matter of fact.

          Each side claims to know and bases their belief on one thing or another to reach the conclusion they “know” to be true. At the end of the day, no one truly knows.

          Agnosticism is clearly the better position since not knowing is not knowing as you put it. Concluding something in the absence of truly knowing is a matter of faith regardless if it is atheism or theism.

    • Matt says:

      Oh please, stop already. …or at least come up with something more original than the “flying spaghetti monster”.

      Apparently you aren’t aware that a quarter of the country are Catholics and nearly all of them are perfectly comfortable with the idea of evolution. And they’re hardly the only denomination to accept it.

      Do Atheists just get off on the notion that they’re battling the backward, science-hating, Christians or what? Make you feel like a smarty-pants? Regardless of the facts?

      Sure seems like it.

  7. Nolimit662 says:

    Orchidcup I was thinking THE EXACT SAME THING LMFAO!!!

  8. The0ne says:

    I will never believe this made up crap call evolution. It’s a cult, a religion that’s there to mislead people. God, now there’s something to believe in. There’s that black book to read from if you’re unsure and millions upon millions of zombie type followers to umm follow. That’s the world we’re in, lets join it instead of bickering amongst each other. Aren’t we a Christian nation already? Lets act like one.

    But I have to say, I don’t believe in this science fiction called science or evolution or what have you because I believe in ghosts. Yes, ghost. I’m already sitting with anticipation for Ghostbusters 3! With that, how can anyone not believe.

  9. Marcus says:

    Wow, a million $ budget, a staff of trained scientist working with the most advanced scientific methods are able to create something, that looks like (micro)evolution… I guess that will show those stupid christians like myself who believe in I intelligent design!

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      Evolution is evolution, and it has significantly more evidence to support it than does Intelligent Design… which has none.

      • Marcus says:

        Aeh, so you say a couple of intelligent beings standing in lab and manipulating DNA and creating their desired result is proof for accidental evolution, not for intelligent design?

        • orchidcup says:

          If you believe in intelligent design, then how do you account for your existence?

          • Marcus says:

            Aaaaaaannnnddd Rimshot!

            You want me to answer that you are proof that man is a descendent of the noble ape? Or stone? Putting the discussion on such a childish and mean level is unhelpful.

            I once was much more critical of religion, but after a long critical search I came back to it. At that time I was very much into the whole evolution dinosaury-stuff, but after a while, I found this whole trillion (yes trillion) dollar industry disgusting. As one of these scientist you can virtually claim any garbage you like, as long as it doesn’t point to the fact that there is a god and that there is a sense in life!

        • Sea Lawyer says:

          Wait, are you trying to take the actions of actual people and extrapolate that show evidence for some mythical being in the sky?

          • Marcus says:

            If you go into the forrest and see a wooden hut, you think: somebody build it there, but when you see a awesome machine like the human body, you think: that must have happend as a series of accidents that happend over billions of years. That’s a very scientific view, you have there my friend!

          • Sea Lawyer says:

            You clearly have a very firm understanding of what science is.

      • Guyver says:

        Evolution is evolution, and it has significantly more evidence to support it than does Intelligent Design… which has none.

        Does that mean evolution is scientific law? Nope.

        One thing Intelligent Design has going for it is that at some point, the atheists have to ignore what created the singularity / cosmic egg which created our universe. Who or what created this egg / singularity? How far back can you go on the causal chain.

        Will anyone ever know? Unlikely… but that doesn’t stop the self-absorbed people who consider themselves “smart” to disqualify everyone else’s dissenting view.

        • orchidcup says:

          Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile science with religion.

          Not knowing how the big bang occurred does not suggest that a Supreme Being was the causality. Not knowing is simply not knowing.

          It is not an article of faith to say “I don’t know.”

          What we do know has resulted in new technologies and products.

          Most people have no idea how an automobile actually works, but they drive to work every day. An automobile is intelligently designed by engineers, but that does not suggest the universe was engineered.

          • Guyver says:

            Not knowing how the big bang occurred does not suggest that a Supreme Being was the causality. Not knowing is simply not knowing.

            Agreed.

            What we do know has resulted in new technologies and products.

            Tangential point implying that you also “know” something about evolution which is nothing more than a theory.

            Most people have no idea how an automobile actually works, but they drive to work every day. An automobile is intelligently designed by engineers, but that does not suggest the universe was engineered.

            So you’re simplfying the universe down to an automobile? :)

            What is clear is neither religion or science has the answer. We’re all predisposed to lean one way or the other.

            At the end of the day, neither side can establish causality or explain what was before the cosmic egg / singularity.

            But that won’t stop people from claiming to know something or make analogies to automobiles in order to rationalize atheism.

  10. ECA says:

    The Difficulty?
    Is raising something from the DEAD AND PAST.

    Do you REALLY want to bring back a VIRUS/Bacteria that could have caused MANY PROBLEMS in the past.

  11. Airsick says:

    Is that a 500 million year old gene? Nope. Chuck Testa.

  12. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Adaptation is not evolution, it remains bacterium, unevolved.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      Your comment is like saying that because a perch remains a fish, it is unevolved from the fish that predated it.

      • orchidcup says:

        There are no fish that predate the perch. The earth is only approximately 6,000 years old.

        The fossil record and the geological record were created by God to deceive us into thinking our planet is much older.

        I don’t know the purpose of the deception.

      • Airsick says:

        You have to admit it is strange that e.coli is evolving _around_ the “500 million year old gene” – the spliced in gene has not changed in any of the samples. [From the article] “When the researchers looked closer, they noticed that every EF-Tu gene did not accumulate mutations. Instead, the modern proteins that interact with the ancient EF-Tu inside of the bacteria had mutated and these mutations were responsible for the rapid adaptation that increased the bacteria’s fitness. In short, the ancient gene has not yet mutated to become more similar to its modern form, but rather, the bacteria found a new evolutionary trajectory to adapt.”[/article]

        They had eight strains and none mutated the same way “modern” e.coli “evolved”. Seems suspicious to me that all of the bacterial proteins are changing to work better with the ancient gene rather than mutating the old genes to a more modern form. Not to you?

        • Sea Lawyer says:

          Past selection pressures present at the time are what produced the eventual current form. Why would you assume that the pressures remain the same so that the ancient gene would evolve just as it did before?

          • Airsick says:

            Your reply reminded me of the giraffe neck chopping video in which Richard Dawkins asserts evolution to be true because of the mistakes it makes, and also of a short story in which the neanderthal race was resurrected and because they were physically superior the human race began to get wiped out again.
            Naturally the “pressures” (your word) must guide the “evolutionary trajectory” (article’s word): but that makes it harder (if not impossible) to prove we observing “evolution in action” since we are getting different results in eight different test tubes.
            Experimentally (and IMHO) it would be better evidence if the same “pressures” produced the same organisms.

          • Sea Lawyer says:

            “Experimentally (and IMHO) it would be better evidence if the same “pressures” produced the same organisms.”

            Why is that? Mutations occur randomly. To say that all eight test tubes should produce the same result would mean that it is not random. If you were to rewind the clock on Earth a billion years, I’m confident that what eventually would evolve to be “humans” could very possibly show striking differences from our current form.

    • So what says:

      Alfie I think you may be the single case study against the evolution of the human being.

  13. Marcus says:

    Science, or Wissenschaft(Knowlegeship/creation) as it is called in the tong of my people, is about fining facts. Evolution is a unproven theory and for a couple of scientific reasons, it can never be proofen. Anyone who pretend evolution to be a fact is thus a bit delusional.

    Christianity is a faith. I don’t pretend I can proofe it and for reasons you can find in the bible and in logic, it might not be bennificial for a lifting being to get that proofe while alife(read book of Moses for example).

    • orchidcup says:

      I understand evolution to be a theory. It is a theory that explains many observations of things that occur in nature.

      Theology is theoretical examination of scriptures that are believed to be inspired utterances of a Supreme Being.

      I find it far too coincidental that Hebrew scriptures describe a Supreme Being that happens to be favorable to the Hebrew tribe.

      When this Supreme Being decided to choose a particular tribe as his chosen people, as luck would have it, he chose the Hebrews.

      When this Supreme Being decreed a Promised Land for a particular tribe to dwell in, as luck would have it, the tribe turned out to be the Hebrews.

      When this Supreme Being decreed that slavery was an accepted norm for society, there was only one tribe that was forbidden to be slaves, and as luck would have it, the one tribe turned out to be Hebrews.

      And so on and so forth.

    • plarsen says:

      Whenever somebody goes into a scientific discussion using the word theory in the colloquial sense of the word it is most probably a complete waste of time to discourse.

      Not understanding the scientific method is a mark of the truly ignorant.

      Gravity is a theory. Most would probably consider gravity a fact also. Science, however, to the surprise of many, does not seek to establish fact or certainty.

      Evolution is no less a theory than gravity. Both are, colloquially speaking, facts!

      Perhaps Richard Dawkins is correct when trying to avoid using theory in the scientific sense and just stating:

      “One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.”

      Nice of him to call the plain stupid for just “philosophically naive”

  14. Glenn E. says:

    And still the scientists didn’t see the irony (or whatever) , that they were playing the role of God, by intelligently redesigning the germ, by tinkering with its DNA in the early stage. So how does this prove there is no god? Which is all they ever seem to want to do, in science. And get paid pretty hansomly for it, too. By various funds and grants, with an atheist agenda. Meanwhile scores of lethal diseases kill people by the millions. And the cures aren’t coming. Because some jerks are wasting time, proving Darwin!!!!!

    Yeah, that’s truly compassionate, non-religious science, for ya. Always think up ways to kick the faithful in the teeth, for believing in anything good. While the same scientists advance any really useful medical technology, hardly a jot.

    • orchidcup says:

      God loves scientists.

      Scientists tinker in the lab and and produce Magnetic Resonance Imaging so doctors can peer into the deepest parts of the human body to discover tumors and heal patients with clogged arteries and whatnot.

      What compassionate God would not want people to be healed and their lives saved?

      There is no atheist agenda. The agenda is to discover knowledge that can be applied to real problems.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      Disease keeps populations in balance. Attempts to cure all disease are self-defeating.

      But that aside, studying how pathogens evolve aids in developing cures for the diseases they cause. But keep missing the point and whining because not everybody believes your god fantasy.

  15. Teri Greene says:

    By their words and actions, proponents of Intelligent Design are themselves a strong argument against Intelligent Design.

  16. dege says:

    umm…
    So let me get this straight…

    You took a 500 million year old bacteria gene.
    Put it into a modern bacteria.
    Waited 1000 generations later.
    And you STILL have a bacteria.

    And that proves evolution?

    umm… ok.

    This may show micro-evolution (adaptation, etc.).
    But this does not prove that man evolved from primordial slime…