Evolution is a Fact #12 - Lenski's E. coli Experiment

by cofty 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ILoveTTATT2

  Hi Cofty,

  I do not understand the math of the "59 genes".
  
  

  The genome of the E.Coli bacterium contains 4,403 genes made up from 4,639,221 base pairs. So what are the chances of the same mutation happening independently in 2 populations? Fairly low but not unreasonable. So what if we find 2, 3 or 4 mutations the same? Now it’s getting remarkable. But 59 changes in the same genes in both populations! Here is an event, or series of events, that defy stupefying odds that would beggar belief if it were not for the fact that it actually happened in the lab and the evidence is there for any competent scientist to examine.

  What is the math for these odds?Is it (1/4403)^59?
  
  If so then we have 1 / 6*10^212... i.e. 0.
  
  

  This is the whole point about the power of natural selection, it achieves things that appear impossible through the step by step accumulation of favourable changes. Both tribes had independently discovered the same 59 mutations out of all the millions of possible changes.
  

  Could you expand a bit on this?
  
  Are there certain "evolutionary paths" that "must" be followed? It's almost like there were a limited number of paths and two of the tribes followed the same one...
• 

  Xanthippe

  A mutation had occurred that conferred no advantage the bacterium but it primed it to take advantage of a later mutation

  Fascinating. That explains a great deal. This is very helpful, I'm finding the details of evolution starting to drop into place.
• 

  Vidqun

  I am just glad an E.coli stays an E.coli, "according to its kind." It wil wreak havoc with the identification process in a lab if it had the ability to become for example a Klebsiella or a Pseudomonas.
• 

  bohm

  I am just glad an E.coli stays an E.coli, "according to its kind." It wil wreak havoc with the identification process in a lab if it had the ability to become for example a Klebsiella or a Pseudomonas.

  thats...not...how..phylogeny...works..must..not..be..sarcast-

  That's exactly true, it will remain E.coli even if the entire sequence of it's genome which is specific to E.coli is changed one gene at a time. It's like a bucket of blue paint. You add a drop of yellow paint and it is still blue "according to it's kind of paint". You add another drop and still blue and so on and on. It will never change color because it is of the blue paint kind!
• 

  cofty

  Vidqun - You just used the "crocoduck" argument.

  
  

  Think of evolution like a journey through "design space" where u-turns are not possible. When you set off there are an unlimited number of possibilities where you will end up. Once you begin to move in a particular direction you have excluded a large percentage of alternative destinations.

  The ancestors of the Escherichia, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas genera set off in different directions millions of years ago. The suggestion that a species of one genus could evolve into species of a different one demonstrates a woeful understanding of evolution.

  
  
• 

  cofty

  ILOVETTATT2 - Great questions.

  I stand to be corrected but I think the answer is that each of the 4,639,221 base pairs can be changed by mutations. Any nucleotides can be changed in 3 ways - A can become C,G or T.

  Many of these changes are neutral due to redundancy. A few of them would change the codon so that it codes for a different amino acid. Again some of these changes would be neutral but some would have a significant effect on the function at the level of protein.

  Of course there are many other ways for changes to happen apart from point mutations such as deletions and duplications.

  At each stage any harmful mutation would be weeded out by natural selection. I haven't done the maths but I hope that helps.
• 

  disposable hero of hypocrisy

  Thanks for posting Cofty, your posts hurt my brain, but they hurt my indoctrination more so that's a good thing. I wish I could grasp these concepts first time without having to read and re read them.

  As for clambake, what a tosser! He could come on here and say that you're full of shit BECAUSE OF *this *this *that, and definitely *this. Then adult conversation could continue. Respect all around. But no, he simply starts slagging you off. Come back with an argument mister clambake, if you're so sure Cofty's wrong.
• 

  ILoveTTATT2

  Cofty,

  So... this is how I understand it:
  
  It's like dropping a drop of water into a sphere that has a "smooth" section... i.e. infinitely many possible paths, at first... but then there is a section where the paths are well-defined and it MUST go through that evolutionary path?
  
  I guess it shows that natural selection is anything BUT random. Randomness could NOT have accounted for the same changes in the same genes... the odds are just too low!
• 

  hooberus

  Some of this might be due to what would more accurately be described as "devolution" rather than supporting unequivocally the evolutionists claimed version of history over creation.

  http://www.icr.org/article/evolutions-top-example-topples

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  
• 

  ILoveTTATT2

  BTW, Cofty, for every one of your threads there is an ICR or some other bullshit creationist website trying to debunk precisely that proof of evolution.

  I really don't bother with them anymore, since, there is usually a website debunking the debunkers.