Difference between revisions of "Blog/October 2009/Oct 23rd"
From RonWareWiki
< Blog | October 2009
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
In Science and Technology news: a recently published [http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18 report in Scientific American] reveals the results of genetic drift in 40,000 (forty thousand) generations of E. Coli -- the longest running experiment of its kind to date. After all that, the E. Coli is still E. Coli -- although some were able to consume citrate (E. Coli cannot do that ordinarily) (see an interesting [http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O discussion on that topic] from last year). | In Science and Technology news: a recently published [http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18 report in Scientific American] reveals the results of genetic drift in 40,000 (forty thousand) generations of E. Coli -- the longest running experiment of its kind to date. After all that, the E. Coli is still E. Coli -- although some were able to consume citrate (E. Coli cannot do that ordinarily) (see an interesting [http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O discussion on that topic] from last year). | ||
| − | Another interesting paper indicates that [http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 ancient bacteria are virtually indistinguishable] from modern ones. This raises a serious question for my scientific readers: where is the macro-evolution? There should be direct evidence of it all around us, and yet we see none. Please refer me to the appropriate scientific literature if I am wrong. | + | Another interesting paper indicates that [http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 ancient bacteria are virtually indistinguishable] from modern ones. The "money quote" is: ''Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels''. This raises a serious question for my scientific readers: where is the macro-evolution? There should be direct evidence of it all around us, and yet we see none. Please refer me to the appropriate scientific literature if I am wrong. |
For my non-scientific readers: "macro-evolution" refers to one species evolving into another species. The term "species" generally refers to varieties of organisms which cannot interbreed (or do not normally interbreed). A simple thought-experiment will illustrate one serious problem with macro-evolution. Suppose you have a population of creatures all of one species. One of them develops a mutation of such a type that it cannot breed with the rest of the members of the species... in effect, it has become a different species. The problem is obvious: that species dies out after one individual. So you need to have two such (identical or compatible) mutations in the same population at the same time (and the mutated individuals need to mate with each other). Or you need a "two step" solution: some mutation occurs which takes the individual to a 'half-way' position where he can still breed with the host population, but down the line another mutation renders further interbreeding impossible. | For my non-scientific readers: "macro-evolution" refers to one species evolving into another species. The term "species" generally refers to varieties of organisms which cannot interbreed (or do not normally interbreed). A simple thought-experiment will illustrate one serious problem with macro-evolution. Suppose you have a population of creatures all of one species. One of them develops a mutation of such a type that it cannot breed with the rest of the members of the species... in effect, it has become a different species. The problem is obvious: that species dies out after one individual. So you need to have two such (identical or compatible) mutations in the same population at the same time (and the mutated individuals need to mate with each other). Or you need a "two step" solution: some mutation occurs which takes the individual to a 'half-way' position where he can still breed with the host population, but down the line another mutation renders further interbreeding impossible. | ||
Revision as of 12:25, 23 October 2009
Oct 23rd (See this week's devar torah)
Send Ron feedback on this blog
Hi again!
Thankfully, this week was very calm and peaceful... and hot! We are eagerly awaiting any sign of the approaching fall season; but so far, nothing doing. Tomorrow night we resume asking for rain in our prayers (here in Israel, not elsewhere), so hopefully those prayers will be responded to positively.
In a burst of unexpected honesty, the "Palestinian Authority" says it has no evidence of Israeli 'war crimes', though I'm sure they'll find a way to fabricate some. In further good news, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan refutes the Goldstone blood libel, in the UN.
As you probably remember, Arik Sharon (the former Prime Minister of Israel) fell into a coma several years ago and is still awaiting Judgement Day. But what would he think if he woke up today? It would be much funnier were it not so true. He would probably agree with this former Egyptian terrorist that giving concessions strengthens radicals.
In Science and Technology news: a recently published report in Scientific American reveals the results of genetic drift in 40,000 (forty thousand) generations of E. Coli -- the longest running experiment of its kind to date. After all that, the E. Coli is still E. Coli -- although some were able to consume citrate (E. Coli cannot do that ordinarily) (see an interesting discussion on that topic from last year).
Another interesting paper indicates that ancient bacteria are virtually indistinguishable from modern ones. The "money quote" is: Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels. This raises a serious question for my scientific readers: where is the macro-evolution? There should be direct evidence of it all around us, and yet we see none. Please refer me to the appropriate scientific literature if I am wrong.
For my non-scientific readers: "macro-evolution" refers to one species evolving into another species. The term "species" generally refers to varieties of organisms which cannot interbreed (or do not normally interbreed). A simple thought-experiment will illustrate one serious problem with macro-evolution. Suppose you have a population of creatures all of one species. One of them develops a mutation of such a type that it cannot breed with the rest of the members of the species... in effect, it has become a different species. The problem is obvious: that species dies out after one individual. So you need to have two such (identical or compatible) mutations in the same population at the same time (and the mutated individuals need to mate with each other). Or you need a "two step" solution: some mutation occurs which takes the individual to a 'half-way' position where he can still breed with the host population, but down the line another mutation renders further interbreeding impossible.
The serious question to my scientific readers is: given the infinitesimal probability of even one such occurrence, how can you support the notion that all the millions of species on Earth were formed by such random events? If you can believe that premise, you must be a champion Lotto player! 40,000 generations of E. Coli remained E. Coli in this experiment. Indeed, in 40,000 generations of humans we seem to have remained humans. How is macro-evolution possible solely as a result of random mutation?
Until next week,
Shabbat shalom!
| Top: Blog | Prev: Oct 16th |