Microbe evolution virtually finished 2.5by ago
| March 4, 2009 | Posted by idnet.com.au under Intelligent Design |
With all the major evolution done so early, microbe evolution has been retired for a very long time. No wonder we can’t evolve new pathways in the lab!
From ScienceDaily
New research shows that for microbes, large-scale evolution was completed 2.5 billion years ago.
“For microbes, it appears that almost all of their major evolution took place before we have any record of them, way back in the dark mists of prehistory,” said Roger Buick, a University of Washington paleontologist and astrobiologist.
All living organisms need nitrogen, a basic component of amino acids and proteins. But for atmospheric nitrogen to be usable, it must be “fixed,” or converted to a biologically useful form. Some microbes turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a form in which the nitrogen can be easily absorbed by other organisms.
About 2.5 billion years ago some microbes evolved that could add oxygen to ammonia to produce nitrate. These microbes are on the last, or terminal, branches of the bacteria and archaea domains of the so-called tree of life, and they are the only microbes capable of carrying out the step of adding oxygen to ammonia. This indicates that large-scale evolution of bacteria and archaea was complete about 2.5 billion years ago, Buick said. “Countless bacteria and archaea species have evolved since then, but the major branches have held,”
“All microbes are amazing chemists compared to us.” Buick said.
97 Responses to Microbe evolution virtually finished 2.5by ago
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In #88 Joseph asked:
“…how can it be demonstrated that every mutation is an accident?”
There are several ways to do this. Probably the most effective way to do so is to compare the sequence in question with other sequences from organisms in which this sequences is either not present, or present in a different form. In almost all cases, such comparisons have shown that something like the “new” sequence (i.e. the mutation) is present in other organisms, but in a different form (i.e. some of the sequences are different):
• the mutant sequences have different bases in specific locations, which indicates that the mutation is a point mutation, such as a substitution, insertion, or deletion
• the mutant sequences are in a different order, indicating that the sequence was inverted during replication
• the mutant sequences include relatively long sequences that can be correlated with similar sequences located elsewhere in the genome, indicating that retrotransposition, translocation, or viral transduction has taken place.
All of these can be verified using statistical analysis, as developed by evolutionary geneticists over the past few decades. If you are interested, I could provide some references to textbooks in which these methods are explained and their uses (including their advantages and shortcomings) are discussed.
“would you also please include the mechanisms by which the Intelligent Designer has brought about the examples that you have provided? Thank you!”
Allen, I already answered this. Se #83 on synthetic biology.
Allen, I have told you in #52, we are your choir. Nothing you present to us has ever undermined ID. And we continually thank you for your examples and references.
The book by Vrba and Eldredge so far has supported ID even though it is on macro evolution because there is no hard evidence in it on how macro evolution took place, only speculation. The book by Jablonka and Lamb also heavily supported ID because they could not provide any information on macro evolution either. Lots of stuff on micro evolution and it was good stuff. So we thank you for all these references supporting ID.
Every time you fail to provide empirical evidence for macro evolution (what we call macro evolution or call it mega evolution if you wish) it is support for ID.
The logic is inescapable. Either a study supports ID, is neutral to ID, or undermines ID. So far all of your examples have been the first two and mostly the first. The one above by Brookfield supports ID.
Allen_MacNeill:
Would you say that is also the same with the human HAR1F gene. It differs by a mere 18 nucleotides, but is mutated compared to the ultra-stability found in all other vertibrates. Experiments done with bacteria seem to support Behe’s suggestion that even three simultaneous mutations simply won’t happen by chance. Eighteen non-contiguous mutations is far more than chance can account for. The ultra-stability of the gene should be very strong evidence that any one point mutation will be deleterious.
Allen: I await your response to my post above [51].
“…how can it be demonstrated that every mutation is an accident?”
But that doen’t mean the new sequence occurred by accident.
OK I will grant that point mutations can be attributed to a genetic accident.
But insertions and deletions are another matter.
Still doesn’t make it an accident.
I would expect individuals to be different because individuals are affected by different epigenetic events.
That still doesn’t make it an accident.
Dr. Spetner discussing transposons:
And BTW the way evolutionary biologists define macro-evolution not even YECs dispute it.
Also it carries an ambiguity- that of “species”.
1- You are using something that NO ONE disputes to try to settle a dispute.
2- Even your use is ambiguous because “species” is ambiguous.
What an absolutely phenomenal post by AussieID at #75. Bravo! The Ivy League professor’s response? Pretend it never happened, copy and paste another questionable finding, and end his ranting with the child-like “I can do this all day”. You’re better than that Mr. MacNeill……I think.
Darwinists, here’s your problem – when you twist every finding in a way in which it’s concluded to support Darwinism – even when it does not (Liars For Darwin) – it’s not hard for the highly educated I.D. supporters to take you to school over it. Post #75 for example, or the majority of posts from DaveScot, BarryArrington, kairosfocus, and many, many more regular contributors here.
Why I’m on the subject, why is it Darwin supporters are so reluctant to publicly debate IDists? The cop-out rational explanation I’ve seen most often is that they don’t want the public to think there’s a controversy. Here’s my problem with that: according to a recent Gallup Poll, no less than 80% of the U.S. public supports I.D. (whether they know it or not) while just 14% agree with Darwinism. If you feel your argument is so strong that it’s necessary to mercilessly insult anyone who disagrees with it, as Darwinists do, then surely you have enough confidence to publicly debate it, educate the “ignorant” public, and chip away at that 80%?
I can’t help but think there’s another reason for your reluctance to publicly debate Darwinism vs I.D., and after studying said debate for the past year or so, I’m pretty sure I know what it is (think K.F.C.).
A couple of comments on my last post. That should be while not why, and cop-out should have a strike through it. It showed up o.k. in the preview yet for some reason it didn’t go through with the post. Oh well, no big deal.