Topic: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

[Nemesis]

Macro is a change of one species to another, do you see that happenening now a days?

Just checking the definitions you are useing.

Considering that speciation takes many generation in most circumstances such an event is only likely to be directly observed in fast reproducing species.

THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY MONKEYS IF IT WAS TRUE!

This demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge of the Theory of Evolution.

1/ Humans are not evolved from monkeys but share a common ancestor with monkeys and apes according to evolutionary theory. (See 2/ below).

2/ When one species evolves from another that does not mean the orignal species goes extinct.  (See 3/ below)

Micro is changes in one species to suit it to current lifestyle and threats, example, the six-linned skinks in my backyard have long legs while the ones in my frontyard have shorter ones, there are more trees up front, which means they have those legs because they don't need to run far to get to cover, while the ones in the back run very fast to get away from predators (and collectors).

3/ The bacteria in the experiment that led to this thread have evolved into a new species.  They can be put into an environment where the original species would die of starvation and still thrive as they can digest food that none of the original species can. This separates them from the original species and the 11 other populations maintained in the experiment.  Note that their having evolved into a new species did not cause the original species elsewhere to go extinct.  (See 2/ above)

[Spartan-039]

I still doubt it, perhaps it's just a new variety of the species that's sutied to the new enviornment.

[Nemesis]

I still doubt it, perhaps it's just a new variety of the species that's sutied to the new enviornment.

Which is one way that species is defined. 

[Spartan-039]

A species is like the only one of it's kind, an example would be a tiger, but there are different variations in the species that differ from regions. There are Bengal tigers, Caspian tigers, so on, so forth. Another example would be anoles, there's one main species, but there are many diffrenent variations of that anole that may include size, color, and perhaps the body structure.

[Panzergranate]

The "fight or flight" instict may have some effect on the human race's evoulution, in some parts of the world.

For instance, the Gauls and Franks were a warrior race, thousands of years ago, who fought a lot with each other or other tribal races.

Now those with big balls would be more inclined to fight, and run the probable risk of death in battle, where as those who were less well endowed would chose to run away as fast as their legs would carry them, probally aided by the lack of sizable gonads.

This is why the most likely survivors of ancient Gaul and Frankish battles were the only ones around to pass on their genes, hence why their decendants, the modern Frenchman, are the genitalia empoverished rifle dropping surrender bunnies that we know them as today.

A prime example of how the "coward" gene propgates and spreads over the generations.

[Spartan-039]

Too bad the race of Spartans that were in the world have died out, we could use them now a days, I consider myself a Spartan, I'm desended from a Spartan king.

[Centurus]

Too bad the race of Spartans that were in the world have died out, we could use them now a days, I consider myself a Spartan, I'm desended from a Spartan king.

RPG doesn't count. 

[knightstorm]

Too bad the race of Spartans that were in the world have died out, we could use them now a days

The Spartans had a policy of state sponsored pedophilia.  At the age of 12 a Spartan boy would be paired off with a man in his mid 20s.  This man would serve as a combination mentor and lover.  Because of this, Spartan men had a hard time getting it up when they entered into their arranged marriages, so it became tradition for the bride to shave her head, and dress like a young boy on her wedding night.  Sparta declined because it was unable to maintain its population.  Do you really want our society to be like that?  Also, Sparta was a police state that was based on a massive population of slaves known as Helots.  There are a lot of unsavory aspects to Spartan society that were not featured in the film 300.

[Centurus]

Don't forget that Sparta had one of the earliest eugenics practices in history.  Spartans were expressly forbidden to ever marry outsiders.  Spartan women could only marry Spartan men, and vice versa.

In addition, only the healthiest babies were allowed to survive.  If a baby was born with any defects, including being small I believe, they were left in the mountains to die of the elements, and predators.

[Dracho]

Too bad the race of Spartans that were in the world have died out, we could use them now a days, I consider myself a Spartan, I'm desended from a Spartan king.

The Spartans had a policy of state sponsored pedophilia.  At the age of 12 a Spartan boy would be paired off with a man in his mid 20s.  This man would serve as a combination mentor and lover.  Because of this, Spartan men had a hard time getting it up when they entered into their arranged marriages, so it became tradition for the bride to shave her head, and dress like a young boy on her wedding night.  Sparta declined because it was unable to maintain its population.  Do you really want our society to be like that?

Actually, Thebes kicked the crap out of them at the battle of Leuctra.  Sparta never recovered.  Unfortunately for Thebes, their victory was short-lived as this guy named Philip of Macedon came down and kicked their a$$es.  He was providing a little on-the-job-training for his son Alexander.

About 200 years later these guys from Italy showed up at place called Pydna and taught the Macedonians about combat engineering and the merits of a small sword & a big shield.

[knightstorm]

Actually, Thebes kicked the crap out of them at the battle of Leuctra.  Sparta never recovered.

The Spartans had been suffering from a declining birth rate long before that, which is one of the factors that made the defeat possible.

[knightstorm]

In addition, only the healthiest babies were allowed to survive.  If a baby was born with any defects, including being small I believe, they were left in the mountains to die of the elements, and predators.

I wouldn't really criticize the Spartans for this because that was a common practice for dealing with unwanted children in ancient Greece.

[Dracho]

Actually, Thebes kicked the crap out of them at the battle of Leuctra.  Sparta never recovered.

The Spartans had been suffering from a declining birth rate long before that.

That could well be, but they outnumbered the Thebians at Leuctra, but were flat out-generaled.  the Thebians broke from Greek tradition and deployed an oblique infantry attack against the Spartan front and smashed their flank with a 50-deep line of infantry, which had never been done before (Greek Phalanx's were typically 12 deep).

[knightstorm]

Actually, Thebes kicked the crap out of them at the battle of Leuctra.  Sparta never recovered.

The Spartans had been suffering from a declining birth rate long before that.

That could well be, but they outnumbered the Thebians at Leuctra, but were flat out-generaled.  the Thebians broke from Greek tradition and deployed an oblique infantry attack against the Spartan front and smashed their flank with a 50-deep line of infantry, which had never been done before (Greek Phalanx's were typically 12 deep).

As I understand it, as the Spartan population declined the army was forced to rely more heavily on slaves so while they could still field armies, they overall training quality was not as high.  So the declining birthrate was a factor in Sparta's downfall.

[Centurus]

In addition, only the healthiest babies were allowed to survive.  If a baby was born with any defects, including being small I believe, they were left in the mountains to die of the elements, and predators.

I wouldn't really criticize the Spartans for this because that was a common practice for dealing with unwanted children in ancient Greece.

Actually, that is the least likely reason they had for the practice.  They believed in the strongest and fittest, and felt that any child that was short of those expectations weren't strong or suitable for survival.  That's why for a great deal of time in their history, they were known as probably the strongest and most fierce warriors of their time. 

[Spartan-039]

You're right about that. When the 300 Spartans held off the Persian army at Thermopyle, they thought they had trouble with only 300, try 10,000 later on, not so good. Also, Spartan boys weere taken at age 7, not 12. I also  kinda of favor what the Spartans did to those children to small or physically unfit, they would severly hamper the population with a burden of useless people, such as mentally retarded children, they can do nothing to help, so they would be "discarded" . But still, Spartans were the fiersest warriors the world has ever seen. Period.

[Nemesis]

The "fight or flight" instict may have some effect on the human race's evoulution, in some parts of the world.

For instance, the Gauls and Franks were a warrior race, thousands of years ago, who fought a lot with each other or other tribal races.

Now those with big balls would be more inclined to fight, and run the probable risk of death in battle, where as those who were less well endowed would chose to run away as fast as their legs would carry them, probally aided by the lack of sizable gonads.

I don't think that this is plausible as every race in the world today is descended from warring tribes.  Would  you say the Scots, Irish or English don't have fighting genes?  They have been on the recieving end of invasions since before the Romans and still they are fighters when they need to be.  As are their descendents in other parts of the world such as North America. 

[GE-Raven]

Is it mean to ask someone to not be "on my side?"

To answer Nem's previous question.  I have no doubt that species often evolve in a manner to help them get an edge in their environment.  However it is the "leaps" that seperate "micro" from "macro" evolution.

You know adding an eye, or other organs.  Vast changes in body structure.  That kind of thing.  All the "missing links" in the artifact record that would clear things up. 

In short micro evolution has often been found in the world and in labs.  However it also tends to outline (showing the number of generations needed for it to occur and become dominant) a timescale for large changes to be so incredibly long that movement at the Genus/Species (Not to mention Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family) level would take so long as to preclude functional "macro" evolution.

To my knowledge this has long been one of the BIG questions in evolution.

We have no evidence that any animal has ever "jumped" at the upper levels, and without evidence... well all you have is faith.

GE-Raven

[Nemesis]

In short micro evolution has often been found in the world and in labs.  However it also tends to outline (showing the number of generations needed for it to occur and become dominant) a timescale for large changes to be so incredibly long that movement at the Genus/Species (Not to mention Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family) level would take so long as to preclude functional "macro" evolution.

To my knowledge this has long been one of the BIG questions in evolution.

We have no evidence that any animal has ever "jumped" at the upper levels, and without evidence... well all you have is faith.

GE-Raven

There is a bit more than "faith".  Evolutionary theory has been used to make predictions of fossils that would be found.  Then combined with geological theories predicted where those fossils would be found and went there and dug them up.  In this case for example they did exactly that.  It wasn't faith that led them to find that fossil it was a valid test of the "Theory of Evolution", a test that it passed.  In doing so evidence for what you are defining as macro evolution was found.  Evidence of that "jump" that you deny there being evidence of.

[Dracho]

You're right about that. When the 300 Spartans held off the Persian army at Thermopyle, they thought they had trouble with only 300, try 10,000 later on, not so good. Also, Spartan boys weere taken at age 7, not 12. I also  kinda of favor what the Spartans did to those children to small or physically unfit, they would severly hamper the population with a burden of useless people, such as mentally retarded children, they can do nothing to help, so they would be "discarded" . But still, Spartans were the fiersest warriors the world has ever seen. Period.

They had to be.  They were the only Greeks to hold other Greeks as slaves (the Helots).  Spartans spent a good deal of their time keeping the Helots "in line" and they had to be fierce.  If they weren't, they'd likely wake up dead.

As for Spartan slaves fighting in their armies?  Never happen.  A Spartan would kill any slave that even thought about touching a weapon.  What you probably are thinking of as "slaves" were the Spartan "allies" and tributaries.  They were something like Auxiliaries in a Roman Legion.