Slashdot Mirror
Nanobacteria Discovered?
mfh writes "The BBC is reporting that a new form of life has been discovered, nanobacteria, which was previously only theorized by Finnish researchers Kajander and Ciftcioglu. A team lead by Dr John Lieske of the Mayo Clinic claims they have found irrefutable evidence of the existence of nanobacteria, which is likely responsible for a plethora of illnesses."
Great. more reasons never to leave my desk. so many nasty little bugs out there ;)
Machine9dotNet
http://www.uku.fi/~kajander/
Sounds like a new generation of biological weapons are waiting to be developed which would be far more difficult to detect...
Do 10^9 nanobacteria make up a regular one?
I guess I'd better hurry up and get my patent for the anti^H^H^H^Hnanobiotics submitted.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
See also the article by John Cisar (a sceptic) An alternative interpretation of nanobacteria-induced biomineralization
I don't think this is proven yet. Some comments from other scientist in the BBC piece suggest that the methods they used can be prone to false positives. This is probably a good one to RTFM!
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
Um... bacteria aren't viruses.
Cue the obligatory "Only on MS machines" comments....
I have no sig yet I must scream.
What size particules can standard biofilter masks remove? The kind that the military use? Medical?
Nanobacteria Photo Gallery
A very interesting discovery. In addition to potential breakthroughs in medical research, I wonder if these discoveries might shed some light on the evolution of the first procaryotes...
one word: medichlorians.
umop apisdn aw pow f,uop aseald
we start seeing "Lysol, effective against nanobacteria!"
seriously, sometimes you wish things wouldn't be discovered, because the people in the world cannot handle them. they run around "OMG! the end of the world is near because I've got bacteria!"
too much living in fear...
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
now, how long until we have nanoyogurt?
How big are prions? are these classed as bacteria simply because they have "cell walls"?
Official GOD FAQ.
The Mayo Clinic is named after the famed 19th century doctor Charles Mayonowski. His family moved to the US from Poland in 1857 where they changed their name to remove the ethnicity of it (this was the mid 1800s, remember)
Charles was born in January 1850 but the exact date isn't known. He was an average student in early school but showed a strong interest in biology. His father would often find him in the barn late at night dissecting newborn piglets.
In 1869, Charles went to England to attend school at Oxford. He later received his medical degree but had to come back to America after suspicion was cast on him when several dozen fresh graves were robbed of their corpses and were later found wrapped in burlap in the university incinerators. (the bodies showed signs of expert dissection).
Moving to Minnesota, he founded a small clinic for the poor. Many of the patients disappeared but Mayo was found to be an excellent practitioner all around. When he died the funeral was attended by over 20,000 people. Many of them relatives of the poor who disappeared (and were presumed dissected) but knew of the importance of the knowledge he gleaned from his bloody experiments.
Actually... that's all bullshit. Sorry.
Trolling is a art,
r John Lieske of the Mayo Clinic claims they have found irrefutable evidence of the existence of nanobacteria.
They do not claim such a thing. They claim to have found potential evidence of the existence of nanobacteria. Alternate explanations of the evidence have already been given (false positive DNA test, for one).
potential != irrefutable
welcome our new nanobacteria overlords...
if only I had a 6nm can o' Duffs to present as a tribute.... Doh!
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
Atkins is used to lose weight, these critters are already smaller than viruses.
Trolling is a art,
I think it's time for Lysol nanobacteria disenfectant.
Evolution or ID?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Look's like Cthulu's cousin is getting busy!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I wonder, could regular bacteria get infected by nanobacteria.
Evolution or ID?
>>> Now I have to worry about nano-bacteria? Good grief --
, :)
>>> more viruses!
i suggest you to go back to school, bacteria has as much to do with viruses as chicken have to do with milking a cow.
ps. ofcourse as a computer software flaw is seen as a virus
windows may be considered a deadly bacteria which itself can be affected by viruses
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
This, the researchers argue, means the nanoparticles were multiplying of their own accord.
Wouldn't this also occur if the sub-200nm chunks broke up further after filtration?
A Discover magazine article talked about the recent dicovery that 1/3 of all life on Earth is methane creating or consuming bacteria beneath the ocean floor. Now we find a new type of life. Anyone else get the impression that we don't know s**t?
Crushing my karma one post at a time.
The researchers had been trying to funding for years and were considered crackpots.
I think most of the story was set in Australia.
They may have called the little guys nanodes (or something very similar).
Anybody else see this?
From the article:
When the tissue was broken up, filtered to remove anything more than 200nm and the filtrate added to a sterile medium, the optical density - or cloudiness - of the medium increased.
This, the researchers argue, means the nanoparticles were multiplying of their own accord.
Doesn't sound exactly convincing. A lot of protein-like structures reproduce, but aren't considered to be alive. A good example is the prion that causes mad cow disease.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
One of the major arguments against the life harboring theory for the meteorite found in Antarctica in 1984 by Roberta Score was that the signs of life it contained were an order of magnatude smaller than anything known to man. Perhaps these signs of nanobacteria merit reopening the mars rock investigation?
According to this previous slashdot article, the bathroom would be cleaner.
and now Tom with the weather...
"But if you go back to how we defined life prior to our knowing about DNA, our criteria was that things multiplied in culture. This is what we have." And before we had telescopes, we defined the Earth as the center of the universe. Scientific progress can't just be ignored to suit your own purposes.
in bed.
> Coronary artery disease causes around 50% of deaths worldwide.
:-D
I would like to inform you that Miami is not on the border of the world, which is not flat, by the way
Their definition of life is dependent on DNA, and that requires a certain size to work right.
::shrug::
Defining these may require a discovery of perhaps another way to have an instruction set. Maybe instead of a carbon chain, they have a certain arrangement of subatomic (or sub-subatomic?) particles/waves/strings that fulfill the same function.
perhaps research here will show that stupidity is a disease.
In 1996, nannobacteria came to the attention of the world's media when scientists announced they had found fossils in a Martian meteorite of what appeared to be nano-sized bacteria.
No idea if the lil critters originally went from here to Mars on board the rovers, or came here riding meteors...but if people are now debating whether or not they're alive, doesnt it also become a debate on whether whatever exists on Mars is life ?
The Dirty Work Group
I guess I'd better hurry up and get my patent for the anti^H^H^H^Hnanobiotics submitted.
Shhh... now that you've got a cool word invented, la low until someone invents a successful company called "nanobiotics" and sue the bastards for everything they've got. It's really all you need to do these days!
Scientists have been puzzled for ages now by the existance of infected bacteria. In fact, one of Dr. John Lieske's research assistants kept asking "How can a bacteria be infected? Don't they cause infections?" This constant harassment eventually led Dr. Lieske to discover the culprits... Nanobacteria. The only question that remains is how to explain those infected nanobacteria? Hmmm...
Moderation: +3 DorkYou really pressed one of my buttons here. Did you actually read the article and judge for youself or did you just assume that it was lousy based on the ISI impact factor? By the way the impact factor for the the journal in question, American Journal of Physiology, is in the "mid-range" (~3-4), but not horrible (there are journals with impact factors less than 1). In fact, the whole idea of impact factors is pretty controversial and has been abused as a criterion for promotions, grant awards, etc.
There's plenty of bullshit published in the "so-called" top tier journals (Science, Nature, Cell, etc.) and plenty of excellent science published in what you are calling a low-impact journal.
Also, the group working on nanobacteria had to revise their work seven times - this is an unheard of level of skepticism and suggests that there is an unusual level of politics going on here.
is that a British thing?
According to dictionary.com:
[Greek nnos, nannos, little old man, dwarf, from nanns, uncle.]
This seems to imply that the Brits have it right... so why does America use nano instead of nanno?
Oh, and by the way, does that mean that these are bacteria from little old men? 'cause that's just disgusting....
This article from five years ago suggests that, while nanobacteria may not be responsible for the genetic flaw that causes PKD, they may exacerbate the situation and cause the cysts to grow at a much faster rate.
The article uses 2 n's, but slashdot uses only 1. Is this nanNobacteria? That would make more sense, since bacteria are already super small, it's hard to imagine some form of life being one billionth the size of a bacteria cell.
stuff |
file that patent in the EU, it's legal there now.
if you hurry it's probably still up for grabs
"Lame" - Galaxar
(I'll bite (again))
> I assume we ignore the portion of the planet which clearly doesn't matter enough.
I suppose you ignore.
I do not.
But that's so cool! That's precisely what makes life so much fun (well, except for girlfriends). It would be a really, really boring place if everything was already figured out, all problems solved, nothing to invent, nothing left to do but watch old sitcom re-runs.
What gets me, is that the way my memory is, someday Im going to repeat that story to other people thinking it was true. "Did you know that the Mayo guy was mad crazy?"
Who is this Karma guy and why is he bad ??
If so one can imagine that, as with other pathogens, there are different natural susceptibilities to said autoimmune diseases in different populations from different human ecologies.
It may be that this is the underlying mechanism that seems to be driving up the rates of autism among populations high in Finnish ancestry and recent increases in immigration from India. Liberalization of immigration laws in European-derived populations and a rather aggressive affirmative action program within India aimed at dismantling the caste system there may have unleashed something on particularly susceptible populations and it may prove very difficult to ferret out what that something is if it turns out to be nanobacterium.
Seastead this.
Well, pass me some crow. After checking some of the replies, an anonymous coward wrote
I think you will find that the BBC got the spelling from mississippi state univeristy.
Wondering where he found that information, I clicked on the "Related Links" link from the BBC article, did a little more clicking, and found the following excepts from this article
After many puzzling months, RLF finally went to the Biology library and found that, yes, dwarfed bacterial cells were known, variously called spores, resting stages, or ultramicrobacteria. Along the way, a friend stopped by to examine the photos and said that these looked like what had been called "nannobacteria" (term coined by R. Y. Morita in 1988).. So Folk adopted that term, analogous to "nannoplankton" or "nannofossils" common terms in geology dating back to the 1800's.
Guess it's not the BBC's fault after all, though I still prefer "nanobacteria".
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Chocolate Covered Nanos...
Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
Yeah, you'll read about it on Snopes.com one day.
:)
"Was the founder of the Mayo Clinic really a psycopathic butcher?"
I remember hearing about Kidney stones or something being caused by nano bacteria causing concretions when serum levels of the "building materials" got too high.. If they exist (and the kidney stone thing isn't a myth), I wonder if other concretions (like iron concretions in the ocean) are caused by similar processes.
meh
That's nothing new, I've been living one for years!
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
actually, it's more likely that viruses are downgraded bacteria, which lost the part they don't need anymore (since they use the corresponding host parts)... the thing could be different for these nanobacs, though... (I mean, if they really exist)
Most life as we know it uses DNA as its basis, but some primitive bacteria use RNA, As do some viruses, which aren't "technically" alive (ie: they need a host lifeform to spread, not just an organic media.)
OTOH, DNA and RNA aren't the only protiens capable of being used to pass on information. I read the articles but couldn't find anyone investigating to see if there's a possibility that nanobacteria use Prions to self replicate.
Seems like a possible avenue, since they did find DNA like activity, but couldn't (so far) find any DNA.
(Would this even be possible? Or am I just blowing smoke anally?) };->
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
Oh well, I know I am going to regret this, but here goes.
Evolutionary theory is superior in argument because:
(1) It is simpler (all you need is simple life + mutations + time, against big pre-formed superintelligence in the sky)
(2) It conforms to Occams Razor. If life looks like it has evolved (true), and there are easy to understand mechanisms by which it could have evolved (true), the simplest explanation is that it has evolved.
(3) It is not sacreligious. If you are religious and you don't believe in evolution, the only alternative is that someone has put a lot of effort into trying to fool us into believing it happened. That is hardly the behaviour of a nice deity, is it?
Actually, to make this a true statement, it should be recast as "While there is a great deal of evidence to support evolutionary theory, only a few paragraphs in a 2000 year old book support creationism."
Glad to help. Thanks for playing.
Therefore, if these particles are capable of replication, they must rely on some host cell for additional complex components, which places them in the category of 'not-truly-alive-on-their-own', like the viruses.
At this time, it is more correct to refer to these things as 'nano-spheres', NOT 'nanobacteria'.
mhack
Building a better ribosome since 1997
Why does it seem like everyone assumes that if something is alive, it will have DNA? Admittedly, science fiction shouldn't be my primary source for information on biology, but even the news article implies that most biologists assume that alien creatures (or even possibly undiscovered creatures here on Earth) will have DNA. In my (admittedly uneducated) mind, it's like saying all computers will be programmed in C, a ridiulous proposition.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Bigger fleas have smaller fleas
Upon their backs to bite'em
And smaller fleas have lesser fleas
And so ad infinitem.
And the bigger fleas, in turn
Have greater fleas to go on
And these in turn have greater still
And greater still, and so on.
Beverley: It appears to be a nanobacterial infection, Captain. It's resequencing Barclay's DNA.
Picard: Can you reverse the process?
Beverley: Not until after the next commercial break.
Barclay: Could we let someone *else* have *his* DNA resequenced next week? This is getting old.
Why do those scientists debate so much about whether those "beings" are lifeforms or not ? Even if we do not classify them as alive, if they are newly discovered to play an important role in many diseases, this discover is extremely interesting anyways.
Proper hygiene is an important contribution to fighting disease, but a lot of people are obsessed with cleanliness.
There's an entire industry that caters to these folks. Disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizers, germ-killing floor wash, etc. There are even germ-killing laundry additives. Most of these don't do anything more than proper use of hot water and soap (and occasionally bleach) will do.
But getting cynical for a moment: These nanobacteria are a great marketing opportunity. Hucksters can hype soaps, wipes, and so on that are "anti-nanobacterial." Quack doctors can advertise herbal remedies and enema preperations that blast the little devils out of the body.
I think I'll sell some high-tech stocks and invest in this fad!
Stefan
I believe it was called: midichlorians
Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
(1) is cellularly or molecularly organized
(2) does it respire (use energy and produce waste)
(3) does it grow
(4) does it adapt
(5) does it reproduce
The best we can say at this point is that viruses have some properties of life, and some lifeless properties. But life is not an either/or proposition, it exists on a contiuum. At what point is a heart-attack victim alive or dead? Is he alive until he loses consciousness? Until the heart stops? Until the brain dies? Until the body can no longer be revived? Is it even possible to pinpoint the moment where at one nanosecond he's alive (100%) and the next nanosecond he's dead (100%)?
Is a multicellular organism alive the when an egg cell has been fertilized? When only one sperm has made it to the egg, and is halfway through the egg cell wall? 90% through? 99.9% through? Before or after the genetic material has been integrated? Before or after it undergoes mitosis?
The first clue (other than it appearing in Slashdot...) was something that sounded groundbreaking but published in an obscure clinical journal.
After looking the abstract up on Pubmed, it smelled even worse.
Recap: their "evidence" is based on 3 findings
1. Presence of DNA from staining and uridine incorporation.
2. Increased cloudiness of solution after filter sterilization.
3. Electron microscopy.
None of this is very *good* evidence. Pretty much any small (nan[n]o)particle could have these properties. For example activated charcoal will absorb dye and hydroxyapatite will bind uridine. Colloidal aggregates can and do form in sterile solutions, resulting in increasing cloudiness. And everything looks like small balls under EM.
What they didn't show and what would have been more convincing was PCR to actually find some novel sequences (RNA or DNA). Also some evidence to show that these things actually multiplied like bacteria - i.e. does uridine "incorporation" increase with time at an exponential rate.
Finally, a quick Google search reveals a possible motive for this (other than NASA trying to get more money) I don't know how valid the concerns are but they seem plausible
http://drcranton.com/nanobacteria.htm
Now we just need someone to invent/discover nano-penecillin.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They are just Midichlorians. Nothing to worry about...unless your evil.
As we move inexorably towards increased space presence, we'll find more and more interesting replicating chemical reactions that warrant further study.
At what point does a chemical reaction pattern become defined as life?
If we were to find intelligent life on other planets, even capable of our more advanced technologies (telecommunications, computing, etc.) we would surely have no difficulty in classifying that as "life" - but most assuredly there would be no trace of DNA as we know it.
It's even unlikely that such life would be based on the carbon cycle we find here on Earth.
Samples of "life" such as these nanobacteria (or whatever they end up being called) are an excellent example of such a chemical process.
One of the things I find so fascinating about the Sciences is that there is no conclusion, no theory of operation, and no information set considered incontrovertible - everything is subject to revision and peer review, and only under these intense circumstances can truth truly be found... eventually.
Wow!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
AG Cairns-Smith is famous for his theory that the first forms of life on earth were actually mineral in nature. Only later did they evolve the ability to synthesize, manipulate and control organic molecules. Eventually the organics got so sophisticated that the life forms dropped the mineral part and we got the kind of life we have today.
One of the interesting things about these nanobacteria (or nannobacteria as some people (mis?)spell it) is that they seem to be associated with minerals. In fact part of the controversy over the recent experiments is whether the apparent reproduction of the nanobacteria is possibly just mineral crystal growth. And the nature of the mineral shells associated with the nanobacteria is similar to known non-organic mineral growth.
It's possible that the skeptics are right and there is no life here, just a natural process. But if minerals are growing and replicating as little balls, that really does call to mind Cairns-Smith's theory. If these minerals could then catalyze organic reactions to maintain the chemical state which promotes their growth, we'd essentially have the pre-biotic life forms that Cairns-Smith postulated.
Maybe nanobacteria are remnants of an earlier stage of life in which organisms were part mineral, part organic. They might not have DNA or RNA in the way life does today, but be some strange symbiosis that we have never seen before.
I suppose it's the same thing as viruses and prions. Do you consider a strand of proteins (or in the case of prions, a protein) a form of life? Though since all life as we know it is just a bunch of proteins, maybe they are.
By the way, does this mean that prions have lost the title of smallest recognizible organism? Anybody?
"By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth." - George Carlin
Since the little bugs seem to do their evil work by accumulating calcium deposits, maybe this is a new market for LimeAway. :-)
...and sequence it and do a bit of cladistics to show that we really are seeing DNA from a new family of organisms - then I'll believe it. I don't think that's a lot to ask for either if they're managing to actually see these things reproduce.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
are things likely to get wet? I know this is a stupid question, but it occurse to me that Lysol would never touch these little buggers because the surface tension of the droplets might bee to high and it wouldn't wet the small crevices in the skin.
Dumb question, and mostly idle curiosity really.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
Dr. Phillipa Uwins, an electron microscopist from Queensland Australia found nanobes less than 100 nanometres big when analysing core samples returned from petrochemical exploration.
1999 Discovery
Interview on Robin Cook's Science Show.
Nanobacteria Nabobot Nanotube What's next ? Nanosoftware I guess in the next century "pico" will be the new buzz word.
Sure, but the domain name nanobiotics.com is already almost two years old (and apparently for sale!). So I wouldn't be too confident on the 'inventing a new word' bit. :)
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
RTA - it mentioned the nanobacteria being smaller than viruses.
+++ATH0
Evolution is not scientific because it has never been observed or reproduced. A great deal of evolutionary theory is dedicated to making excuses why there are NO intermediate forms of any organism.
Bacteria recovered from the bodies of the members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian arctic in 1845 have been found to be resistant to modern antibiotics. Since the first antibiotics were developed in the 1940's, this resistance is not, as some claim, evidence of evolution in action but shows that the propensity for resistance was already present in the organism [See Rick McGuire, "Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria," Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]. Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should, according to evolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbial organisms show that this is false; their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world's environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few. New features apparently don't evolve.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its "parents." Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more "children." In this sense, nature "selects" genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism?s gene pool is actually constantly decreasing by means of natural selection.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not increased. While natural selection occurs, nothing evolves and, in fact, some biological diversity is lost.
While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes by reducing genetic diversity.
In 1980, the "Macroevolution Conference" was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a "turning point in the history of evolutionary theory." He went on to say: "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution...the answer can be given as a clear, No." "In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said 'We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'" [Roger Lewin, "Evolution Theory under Fire," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883, 884.]
"Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy; especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation. ... For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change." Michael Thomas, "Stasis Considered," Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.
No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occu
--If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
Don't feel like you need to be chained to your desk to avoid all those nasty microbes out there! For the very reasonable price of only $4,055, I will sell you a sterile bubble you can enjoy life in!
Hurry! This special offer is for a limited time only. Don't miss out on the chance to be rolled down a steep hill, see the glare of the sun on your very own bubble, and breathe the poorly recirculated air!
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
You're assuming all life must have DNA (or RNA) to be alive and reproduce. Surely there are other ways a living thing could exist than that specific set of atoms arranged that specific way.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
nanometre-sized organisms reproducing: obviously it's grey goo. Some evil genius has built a molecular assembler and released it on the world.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Yes, it would be powerful if it were true. Warning: don't assume it's true just because you want it to be.
/could/ happen in highly hypothetical conditions; furthermore, their results were pretty useless to explain anything more complex than the most simple assemblies.)
Von Neumann established the neccessary complexity for an organism to be capable of evolution: it has to reproduce, self-diagnose, and self-repair. If it can't reproduce, it won't possibly evolve; if it can't self-repair, it won't have enough 'genetic' stability to evolve; and if it can't self-diagnose, it can't conserve energy by performing repairs only when needed. The size of these creatures suggests something below the previously known size threshold for these functions, which indicates a possibly lower complexity.
These might indeed show us a possible path to life as we know it, thus providing the first evidential path for abiogenesis. (The Miller experiments were fine, but only showed what
So I think a lot of people will be watching these. I certainly will -- but I'm not holding my breath, either.
-Billy
Sorry, this is long, but your post requires it, I believe.
Evolution is not scientific because it has never been observed or reproduced. A great deal of evolutionary theory is dedicated to making excuses why there are NO intermediate forms of any organism.
Simply wrong. There are plenty of intermediate forms preserved in the fossil record. To name but a few; there are some beautifully preserved fossils of ammonites that show a progression of structures (the curved shells unwinding over millions of years), there are clear stages preserved in the development of flowers, and best of all, there is the evolution of mankind over the past few millions years - plenty of clear intermediate stages. A good website for the convinced skeptic is http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm, which shows the transition
from fish to amphibian.
Bacteria recovered from the bodies of the members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian arctic in 1845 have been found to be resistant to modern antibiotics.[...]New features apparently don't evolve.
Sorry, but the evolution of new features has actually been seen in bacteria, such as the appearance of a totally new metabolic pathway for sugar metabolism in the genus Klebsiella. Also, evolution of antibiotic
resistance can easily arise spontaneously, in some cases through a random single mutations in several bacterial
genes. Its no surprise to find this.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its "parents."
[..]Therefore, an organism?s gene pool is actually constantly decreasing by means of natural selection.
No, the gene pool is not decreasing. In each generation there are a large number of DNA changes resulting
from copying errors, and faulty repair of DNA damage. In addition to mutation there is a huge amount of DNA transfer between individuals, through sex. This recombination of DNA provides a huge number of new variations and combinations of genes.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not increased. While natural selection occurs, nothing evolves and, in fact, some biological diversity is lost.
Natural selection does not produce new genes; mutation and sexual reproduction can. The reason why species change (why there is no statis) is because of two factors: competition between species (fox hunts rabbit, so both keep adapting) and change of evironment (climate change etc.).
While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes by reducing genetic diversity.
There is no 'origin of the fittest', simply an on-going competition between species for resources. Natural
Selection simply means that organisms that have an advantage at the momement will tend to breed more.
In 1980, the "Macroevolution Conference" was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a "turning point in the history of evolutionary theory."
Well, he would wouldn't he?
"In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said 'We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'"
No he did not say that. In a subsequent letter, Alya says, and I quote:
"I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Le
No article on Nanobacteria would be complete without a reference to Philla Uwins. A geologist who in 1999 was inspecting (deep, hot and old) drilling samples from the Western Australian coastline with a scanning electron microscope discovered unusual possible life forms from 20nm to 150nm, christening them nanobes. Well below the accepted 200nm miniumum thought possible for life. (it is thought that no living thing can contain the necessary machinary in containers below 200nm).
What followed is probably more interesting than this reported story (the discovery of nanobes in blood and their possible link to disease predates this article). Things started to hot up in the nanobe world when some research money came forward to see if these nanobes contained the necessary DNA to disprove the many *non life advocates*. Even physicist Paul Davies (Australian centre for Astrobiology) pondered the possibility that nanobes could be a possible link between life and non-life.
Armed with some results the Unwin team sent off a paper to every *major* reputable scientific journal only to have them turned down. The most common reason.... too controversial.
So I read this story and think of *mayo* clinic and the *ohhh must be reputable* tag that goes with it and thinking why hasn't Nature or some other journal taken so long to publish these ideas?. Science publishing appears to be more about convincing publishers (and peers) less about looking at the data.
The postscript to the story: The dot com crash in 2000 killed off more research into the DNA tests, the possible application of the nanobes into eating plastic (nanobes had a voracious appetite for petri dishes) and a potential commercial spin off. Phillipa still works at UQ.
assorted links
http://www.uq.edu.au/nanoworld/uwins.html
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/pdavies.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s201
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s13
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,427
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
You know, you got as far as the second line of your first paragraph before making a monumental blunder of such proportions that it shows you really have f*** all idea about what you are arguing about. You are therefore to be congratulated - most creationists manage to screw up in the first line.
Let's look at your blooper again...
"Since the first antibiotics were developed in the 1940's, "
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The first antibiotics were *discovered* in the 1940's. Antibiotics are a naturally occuring chemical warfare mechanism evolved by microbial organisms themselves to compete within their evolutionary and ecological niches.
They've probably been around since the primeval slime and there's been a continual competition since then between antibiotic resistance and antibiotics. Penicillin and Penicillinases are a classic example of this. Indeed you can use the protein structure of Penicillinases to demonstrate evolution in bacteria with some considerable success. One of my previous co-workers even wrote his Ph.D. thesis on precisely that subject.
It's true of course that we've chemically modified some antibiotics ourselves to tune for various properties, but to assume that we hav'nt done something that nature hasn't herself already done in the 3 billion years she's been working on the subject is arrogance in the extreme. Of course there's antibiotic resistance out their for modern antibiotics. This is simply *not* a problem for evolutionary theory, in fact it's quite a nice confirmation of it.
Also note that antibiotic resistance can of course spread quite widely quite quickly - if evolutionary pressures exist to make it do so. Most antibiotic genes are on plasmids not the genomic DNA and moving plasmids around between bacteria is exceptionally easy. The little buggers actually have a form of sex to do it.
The rest of your post is full of similar elementary mistakes, but this one gets me
"Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few"
WHAT THE F****????? How on earth did you get that impression? There are countless millions of bacterial species if species is used in an analogous genetic classification sense to multicellular organisms. What you are probably getting confused with is the fact that bacterial classification has up until recently been characteristic based - and as there's not that many characteristics you can distinguish in a unicellular organism the number of 'species' recognised has been artificially limited.
Doesn't this sound familiar
The boy nodded his understanding. "Can I ask you something?" The Jedi Master nodded. "What are midi-chlorians?"
Wind whipped at Qui-Gon's long hair, blowing strands of it across his strong face. "Midi-chlorians are microscopic life-forms that reside within the cells of all living things and communicate with the Force."
"They live inside of me?" the boy asked.
"In your cells." Qui-Gon paused. "We are symbionts with the midi-chlorians."
"Symbi-what?"
"Symbionts. Life-forms living together for mutual advantage. Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. Our midi-chlorians continually speak to us, Annie, telling us the will of the Force."
"They do?"
Qui-Gon cocked one eyebrow. "When you learn to quiet your mind, you will hear them speaking to you."
Anakin thought about it for a moment, then frowned. "I don't understand."
Qui-Gon smiled, and his eyes were warm and secretive. "With time and training, Annie, you will."
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
"There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations"
I'd have though an examination of the structure of the Photosynthetic Reaction Centre and Light Harvesting proteins over bacterial and plant species was an excellent and convincing illustration of evolution.
But for real hard core data I'd refer you to the work of Woese on the evolution of the 16s RNA.
Could someone tell me what the " ^H^H^H^ " stands for?
It's basically an escape sequence for the backspace key. If you see ^W, that deletes the last word instead of the last character.
Here's the journal article in question. 1: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2004 May 13 [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links Evidence of Nanobacterial-like Structures in Human Calcified Arteries and Cardiac Valves. Miller VM, Rodgers G, Charlesworth JA, Kirkland B, Severson SR, Rasmussen TE, Yagubyan M, Rodgers JC, Cockerill FR, Folk RL, Kumar V, Farell-Baril G, Lieske JC. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. ... click the link to see the summary.
Regarding the quotes: fair enough. Quoting someone else's opinion on a subject is not proof of anything. We could both come up with quotes all day long that support our respective positions.
Regarding the primary source of your information: yes, I am familiar with the Talk Origins archive; your first two citations came directly from the same page, and the second two involve topics from that same page (I didn't look at all the bacterial flagellum articles to find the other specific articles you cited).
Wrong. it shows a creature that has some morphological similarities to fish and amphibians, quite a large difference. Taking a few similar forms and artificially arranging them to look like a transition does not mean they are transitional forms. The "progression of forms" you mention has another small problem; the "progression" is in many cases out of order in the fossil record. And the "transitional forms" of man were in many cases contemporaries of each other. The whole idea that organisms that are morphologically similar are therefore related is misleading in any case; is a platypus a transitional form between reptiles and mammals because it shares some morphological features with both? Of course not, and no biologist will tell you otherwise. Similar morphology does not indicate that any two species are related. As an example, a recent analysis of the genetic structure of different species of water fowl has revealed that the flamingo, while morphologically similar to the heron, crane, and spoonbill, is actually most closely related to the grebe (a small duck) than it is to any of the other wading birds.
By the way; the title of the page you referenced is "TRANITIONAL FORMS." Makes one call into question the thoroughness of the author, don't you think?
Then you say...There is no such thing as a 'nascent' organ in 'pre-functional form', and there never has been. At each stage, the change has to be of increased benefit to the organism. Evolution does not have the ability to look into the future and plan the construction of an organ.
I agree. However, the same page you cite categorizes the fins of Acanthostega as "half-evolved legs;" this shows his misunderstanding of the very theory he is espousing; as though evolution had legs in mind but was only halfway there. As for the heat-sensing pits of vipers; talk about a straw man! "Maybe" "someday" it "could" evolve into an eye; how is this a tr
--If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
bacteria, being a PROCARYOTE, has NO organelles. only EUCARYOTA has them. organelles are former procaryotes living symbiotically inside eucaryotic cells
SHE does throw dice.
Yeah, that's what I get for copying and pasting without thinking everything through myself, much like the guy I responded to. :)
It's true of course that we've chemically modified some antibiotics ourselves to tune for various properties, but to assume that we hav'nt done something that nature hasn't herself already done in the 3 billion years she's been working on the subject is arrogance in the extreme. Of course there's antibiotic resistance out their for modern antibiotics. This is simply *not* a problem for evolutionary theory, in fact it's quite a nice confirmation of it. I brought that up because evolutionists always trot it out to say "See??? They developed resistance! That proves evolution because they evolved!" You can't have both arguments.
Now, about that whole "species" argument: Paleontologists will take any minor variation and declare it a new species. I wonder what future paleontologists will say when they dig up our bones, or our dogs' bones? "Wow; look at all the different human and canine species!"
--If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
"I brought that up because evolutionists always trot it out to say "See??? They developed resistance! That proves evolution because they evolved!" You can't have both arguments."
Well, yes you can actually. Your assuming 'evolution' is some monolithic process. It's not, there can be lots of different mechanisms whereby variations occur, propegate, and are selected for. And bacterial evolution is even more complex than the the multicellular variety because of lateral gene transfer and other such exotica. With antibiotics what you probably have is the relatively slow co-evolution of antibiotics & antibiotic resistance couple with the relatively fast lateral transmission of resistance via plasmid transfer when the evolutionary pressures (i.e. human use of antibiotics) promote it.
"Now, about that whole "species" argument: Paleontologists will take any minor variation and declare it a new species. "
That's an interesting point, but almost in the reverse sense to what you imply. It's a favourite Creationist falicy to misunderstand what a species is and how we define it, but generally Creationism is so scientifically screwed up that it never gets as far as asking interesting questions.
Bottom line of course is that our definition of a species is decidedly fuzzy around the edges. The usual definition - a group of organisms of similar characteristics that can interbreed - is one of those definitions whereby you recognise it when you see it but otherwise would be hard put to deliniate a priori.
We are very good at defining species among present day mammals and birds. There's lots of visible characteristics to look at, we can examine breeding populations, and generally gather a lot of data. We get much less good at it the further 'down' the evolutionary tree we go. In recent years analysis of genetic variation between and within species has nicely illustrated this. For example the amount of genetic variation within a typical amphibian or fish species is roughly similar to that we'd see in a whole genus, or even family, of mammals. The implication is that there are actually far more species of 'lower' organisms around than we recognise - in other words because of our bias towards studying mammals and birds in depth we tend to artificially put the sieve for sorting into different species at a much finer setting among these than we do in, for example, fish.
With paleontologists it's pretty certain we are dramatically underestimating the number of species. For example there are three distinct species of zebra but it's doubtful if we'd pick up more than one from fossil evidence. Paleontologists by definition cannot view the breeding population of the animals/plants they study, nor see non-skeletal characteristics or behaviours. Another example - no palentologist would ever be able to tell a willow tit and marsh tit apart from fossil evidence - no matter how well preserved (http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/marshtit.htm)
A few thoughts on your response; another long post, then I'm done. We've both made the error of simply asserting without citing.
No - you made that error, not me. I provided citations. I don't, and never have, simply just assert anything. I have given argument and
example and explanation, you haven't.
Regarding the quotes: fair enough. Quoting someone else's opinion on a subject is not proof of anything. We could both come up with quotes all day long that support our respective positions.
Yes, but you haven't. That is the point. The best you could do is come up with a quote that was demonstrably mistaken. You can't get out of that with 'we could both...' etc.
If you are going to argue, you need to do better. You make some good points - the macro/micro evolution is an very interesting one, and raises important questions about the mechanism of evolution, but almost no-one (sane) uses it to question whether evolution occurred. You are getting confused, and assuming that the gradualist/punctuated evolution argument (now accepted as being a mistaken distinction) questions evolution itself.