Joined: Jan. 2008
|Quote (sparc @ Sep. 20 2012,17:28)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2012,10:27)|
|It’s pretty nifty to see a new biological function evolve,” said Zachary Blount, postdoctoral researcher in MSU’s BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action. |
Nah, you are wrong ZB. Both Joe and Gordon Mullings say so and that's good enough for me.
|In the Nature paper, Blount and his teammates analyzed 29 genomes from different generations to find the mutational pieces of the puzzle. They uncovered a three-step process in which the bacteria developed this new ability.|
The first stage was potentiation, when the E. coli accumulated at least two mutations that set the stage for later events. The second step, actualization, is when the bacteria first began eating citrate, but only just barely nibbling at it. The final stage, refinement, involved mutations that greatly improved the initially weak function. This allowed the citrate eaters to wolf down their new food source and to become dominant in the population.
“We were particularly excited about the actualization stage,” Blount said. “The actual mutation involved is quite complex. It re-arranged part of the bacteria’s DNA, making a new regulatory module that had not existed before. This new module causes the production of a protein that allows the bacteria to bring citrate into the cell when oxygen is present. That is a new trick for E. coli.”
Ah, but it's a breakdown of existing function, this new module. Oh, wait. How about it could digest citrate all along and a previous mutation broke it's ability to ingest it is all so it's not really anything new this gain of function via random mutation. Oh, no, that's wrong too.
fucks sake, can't an IDiot catch a break round here?
Ah, my todays ID prediction became true:
Three comments down the thread Joe G ways in:
|Creationsts will not accept this research. They will state that adding citrate to the media was an intervention in the frst place that influenced the outcome of the experiments. “Methinks it is like a weasel”, Dawkins, latching, in 3 … 2 … 1 …|
|What is all the hype about? Even YEC’s baraminology is OK with the type of “evolution” Lenski is observing and studying.|
Also there is no way you can determine that the bacteria “accidentally” rewired” their genome.
Saw this article, had to check back in whether the UD wreck is already on it. I am disappointed.
Back to waiting for their in-depth analysis why this all proves ID. You know, right after their vindication through the ENCODE project (that still doesn't help pass the onion test and that still doesn't fucking make "It is so because I imagine that is the way god would've done it" a scientific prediction), I'd have expected them to be all giddy after design has been caught in the act.
I guess, it is too much to hope that Conservapedia will react to it again...
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner