Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Validation of Darwin's Theory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Validation of Darwin's Theory

    Some things never change. And some things don’t change for at least 2 billion years.

    An international team of scientists have identified a deep sea microorganism that has not evolved in at least two billion years, nearly half the age of the planet. It’s an important discovery that paradoxically provides some of the best support yet for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, said lead researcher J. William Schopf.

    The findings were published in the latest issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    “If evolution is as we understand it, organisms adapt to a changing environment,” explained Schopf, who is also a professor of earth, planetary and space sciences at the University of California in Los Angeles. “But if you take away any changes then there should be no evolution.”

    Schopf said he had been searching since his freshman year of college, some 50 years ago, for a long-standing, durable environment that could help demonstrate the idea that absence of change would equal absence of evolution.

    The team found living specimens of the tiny sulfur-eating bacteria in question off the coast of Western Australia far beneath the muddy sediment of the ocean floor. The organisms reside so far below the surface that no oxygen or light has ever reached them and they have never been disturbed by waves or other sea creatures, researchers said.

    Using cutting-edge technology, the scientists were able to compare the microbes with a set of fossils preserved in rocks found in Western Australia’s coastal waters that date back 2.3 billion years ago, a point in the planet’s history when there was substantial rise in oxygen levels. Higher oxygen levels produced a dramatic spike in oxygen-containing sulfate and nitrate compounds that sunk to the bottom of the ocean, providing the “food” that allowed these bacteria to thrive and multiply.

    They also match up exactly with fossils from 1.8 billion years ago found in the same area.

    “They all look the same and they also look the same as other modern sulfur bacteria found in the mud off the coast of Chile,” Schopf said.

    Charles Darwin focused mainly on how species changed over time in response to an ever-shifting environment, Schopf said. This discovery fits perfectly with Darwin’s theory of evolution because it demonstrates an organism that remained essentially unchanged over billions of years because it never had a reason to make adjustments.

    “These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” Schopf said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”
    https://gma.yahoo.com/discovery-bact...ws-health.html

    Fascinating.

  • #2
    This is an example, btw, of the fact that the theory of evolution does actually make predictions, and that those predictions can be confirmed. That said, it's not a prediction which is going to be particularly convincing to anyone who needs convincing. "Look how much that species didn't evolve!"
    Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
    "We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld

    Comment


    • #3
      These scientists have gone poking around in the mud, changing the environment. A billion years from now no one will remember that ... but the fact that these life forms have evolved will be used to disprove evolution. All the decendants of these bacteria ... after having evolved into super bugs that take over the earth ... will end up teaching creationism in their schools

      Though I don't see why evolution should be expected to never happen in a stable/unchanging environment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Aeson View Post
        Though I don't see why evolution should be expected to never happen in a stable/unchanging environment.
        Then you probably need to read up on how evolution works.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Aeson View Post
          I don't see why evolution should be expected to never happen in a stable/unchanging environment.
          They're not saying that mutation can't/won't happen. But without environmental need, the mutated form is far less likely to survive.

          Mutation ≠ evolution.
          Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
          RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

          Comment


          • #6
            science
            To us, it is the BEAST.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kentonio View Post
              Then you probably need to read up on how evolution works.
              No.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
                They're not saying that mutation can't/won't happen. But without environmental need, the mutated form is far less likely to survive.
                They are necessarily implying that a beneficial mutation can't possibly happen in that environment.

                "If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed."

                If mutations can happen, what is to say that one of the possible mutations couldn't be beneficial?

                Comment


                • #9
                  It doesn't even need to be beneficial if you subscribe to genetic drift. If you have mutation that is neither beneficial nor a hindrance, it can increase in presence in the population through random chance.
                  One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
                    It doesn't even need to be beneficial if you subscribe to genetic drift. If you have mutation that is neither beneficial nor a hindrance, it can increase in presence in the population through random chance.
                    We're talking about extremely simple organisms here though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Can you explain why you think that acts as a rebuttal?
                      One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
                        Can you explain why you think that acts as a rebuttal?
                        Unless I'm mistaken the less complex the organism the less scope for neutral genetic change. This would also seem to be borne out by the now proven fact that the microorganism in the op hasnt evolved in 2 billion years.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          less scope does not mean no scope
                          To us, it is the BEAST.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Genetic drift is dependent on the population size and law of large numbers. Given the populations of micro-organisms are often larger, the effects are possibly less pronounced. The article does not mention the population sizes. Given the timescales, there is plenty of chance for drift.

                            Re the second point. Is it genetic testing showing these organisms are the same, or just physical observation. Creatures can look the same, but have a different genetic makeup.
                            One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
                              Genetic drift is dependent on the population size and law of large numbers. Given the populations of micro-organisms are often larger, the effects are possibly less pronounced. The article does not mention the population sizes. Given the timescales, there is plenty of chance for drift.

                              Re the second point. Is it genetic testing showing these organisms are the same, or just physical observation. Creatures can look the same, but have a different genetic makeup.
                              I was assuming it was genetic testing, but that could be a faulty assumption on my part.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X