2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

[revelarts]

2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

Quote:

Wedged inside rocks in the deep sea off the coast of Western Australia lurks an organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years, scientists say. From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile. But do the findings contradict Darwin's theory of evolution? "It seems astounding that [this] life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of the Earth," the study's leader, J. William Schopf, a paleobiologist at UCLA, said in a statement. "Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained." Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection states that all species develop from heritable genetic changes that make an individual better able to survive in its environment and reproduce. So how can Darwin's theory account for these apparently nonchanging bacteria? The answer comes in looking at the bacteria's similarly stable surroundings. True, the deep-sea bacteria in this study haven't changed for eons, but neither has their environment, Schopf said. Darwin's theory doesn't call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so the microbes' lack of evolution is consistent with the theory, Schopf added. To compare the fossils, Schopf and his colleagues used a method known as Raman spectroscopy to measure the composition and chemistry of the rocks. Then, using confocal laser scanning microscopy, they produced 3D images of the fossils and compared these visualizations with the modern bacteria. The ancient microbes looked identical to the present-day ones, the team found.... 2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

one article on the discovery says
"2-billion-year-old bacteria that hasn’t evolved is more evidence for evolution: scientists"


soooo, NO Evolution is evidence FOR evolution? really? that's a double think item there.
But it wouldn't be so bad if they would just be consistent.
Because if they had found a mutated bacteria (bacteria changed into... well even just a slightly different bacteria over 2 billion years) it would have been hailed as CONCRETE evidence FOR evolution as well. Seems you can have it both ways in evolutionary "science".

years ago Scientist in Antarctica discovered Lake Vostok. A lake as large as one of the great lakes. They believe it's been covered in ice 2+ miles thick for 15 MILLION years. completely cut off from surface contamination and earths atmosphere. Temps at the surface above the lake have been recorded at -89 degrees Celsius. the water has also been under extreme high pressures, the temps more like the moons of Jupiter.... and no sun light.... for "15 million years".

around 2012 they finally drilled through very carefully to get samples from the lake.

Many Scientist EXPECTED... PREDICTED... that either there would be nothing alive at all because of the harsh conditions. OR that because of the Isolation and the harsh conditions microbes would have evolved to adapt to the alien like environment.

What'd they find?
well bits of genes from microbes, bacteria some multicelled organisms.

Some scientist scoffed saying Impossible they must be from contamination from the drilling. But they finally ruled that out.
then they said well the said well those are fossils and fragments of DNA and RNA. but others quickly pointed out that Nooo, DNA and RNA CANNOT survive 15 million years. it's to fragile. (also applies to the Dino DNA found in the past few years, proves dinosaurs where living 30,000 or less years ago)

So they have fresh samples of these creatures dna rna , so what are they.
Well they categorized about 3500 different kinds and most are the same kinds we know of today, unchanged even though living in an isolated environment for "15 million" years. How many Hundreds of millions of generations of bacteria to you think have been born and died in that lake? MORE than enough to evolve something if it were going to happen. We're told Humans from apelings evolved in less than 5 million years, microbes supposedly need far less time.

So the predictions of evolution were basically wrong.
But the news story at top of post tells us that NO evolution for billions of years in the same environment is now evidence FOR evolution as well.

"war is peace, freedom is slavery"
can't have it both ways can you?


Quote:

...They don't expect water samples from Lake Vostok will hold alien life, though any life it contains may have taken a slightly different evolutionary path than what appears on the planet today. That's because Lake Vostok, the deepest and most isolated of Antarctica's subglacial lakes, has been cut off from the atmosphere for at least 14 million years. The lakes, which were discovered via satellite imagery in the late 1990s, owe their existence to the thick Antarctic ice, which acts like a blanket to trap heat coming from inside Earth, keeping water liquid. "If they find evidence of life there — and I do think Lake Vostok has life in it — it's going to be Earth-like," astrobiologist Dale Andersen, with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, told Discovery News. "It's going to be the same kind of life you find everywhere else. It may be that life has evolved differently, but it's still Earth-like, still based on the same DNA structure," Andersen said..... Alien Life Clues in Antarctic Ice? : Discovery News

Quote:

After comparing the genetic material they found in Lake Vostok to a database of the known microbes on Earth, the biologists found a remarkable variety of critters. There were organisms known for living in salt water, fresh water, super-hot water and even in the guts and other body parts of tube worms, fish and other animals. There were low amounts of genetic material that appeared to come from animals such as a microscopic crustacean, a marine bivalve and a small sea anemone.

Thousands Of Species Found In Lake Vostok Ice | Popular Science

Quote:

Over 3500 different species have been identified by a form of statistical analysis known as metagenomics. Basically, they sequenced all the genetic material in their samples at once, and used sophisticated analytical techniques to make sense of the resulting jumble of information. This technique has proven extremely useful in identifying species in an agricultural soil sample, for instance, but this is the first time its use has revealed a whole group of totally novel organisms.

In heading off criticisms, the team addresses the idea that much of this material might be contamination or ancient life lying dead but preserved since the ice was laid down. It’s impossible that the DNA could have persisted this long as a fossil, they say, but it’s even more impossible that the RNA could have; DNA’s older, more fragile sibling constitutes the best of their evidence in favor of living communities in Lake Vostok, as its half-life is far too small to be some molecular window into the past.

Most interesting is that the life they found is not entirely bacterial. Several hundred species of eukaryotic organisms also live in the water, including over 100 multicellular species.

3,500+ species discovered in Lake Vostok, underneath miles of ice, in conditions similar to Jupiter’s Europa | ExtremeTech

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

Quote:

Wedged inside rocks in the deep sea off the coast of Western Australia lurks an organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years, scientists say. From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile. But do the findings contradict Darwin's theory of evolution? "It seems astounding that [this] life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of the Earth," the study's leader, J. William Schopf, a paleobiologist at UCLA, said in a statement. "Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained." Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection states that all species develop from heritable genetic changes that make an individual better able to survive in its environment and reproduce. So how can Darwin's theory account for these apparently nonchanging bacteria? The answer comes in looking at the bacteria's similarly stable surroundings. True, the deep-sea bacteria in this study haven't changed for eons, but neither has their environment, Schopf said. Darwin's theory doesn't call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so the microbes' lack of evolution is consistent with the theory, Schopf added. To compare the fossils, Schopf and his colleagues used a method known as Raman spectroscopy to measure the composition and chemistry of the rocks. Then, using confocal laser scanning microscopy, they produced 3D images of the fossils and compared these visualizations with the modern bacteria. The ancient microbes looked identical to the present-day ones, the team found.... 2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

one article on the discovery says
"2-billion-year-old bacteria that hasn’t evolved is more evidence for evolution: scientists"


soooo, NO Evolution is evidence FOR evolution? really? that's a double think item there.
But it wouldn't be so bad if they would just be consistent.
Because if they had found a mutated bacteria (bacteria changed into... well even just a slightly different bacteria over 2 billion years) it would have been hailed as CONCRETE evidence FOR evolution as well. Seems you can have it both ways in evolutionary "science".

years ago Scientist in Antarctica discovered Lake Vostok. A lake as large as one of the great lakes. They believe it's been covered in ice 2+ miles thick for 15 MILLION years. completely cut off from surface contamination and earths atmosphere. Temps at the surface above the lake have been recorded at -89 degrees Celsius. the water has also been under extreme high pressures, the temps more like the moons of Jupiter.... and no sun light.... for "15 million years".

around 2012 they finally drilled through very carefully to get samples from the lake.

Many Scientist EXPECTED... PREDICTED... that either there would be nothing alive at all because of the harsh conditions. OR that because of the Isolation and the harsh conditions microbes would have evolved to adapt to the alien like environment.

What'd they find?
well bits of genes from microbes, bacteria some multicelled organisms.

Some scientist scoffed saying Impossible they must be from contamination from the drilling. But they finally ruled that out.
then they said well the said well those are fossils and fragments of DNA and RNA. but others quickly pointed out that Nooo, DNA and RNA CANNOT survive 15 million years. it's to fragile. (also applies to the Dino DNA found in the past few years, proves dinosaurs where living 30,000 or less years ago)

So they have fresh samples of these creatures dna rna , so what are they.
Well they categorized about 3500 different kinds and most are the same kinds we know of today, unchanged even though living in an isolated environment for "15 million" years. How many Hundreds of millions of generations of bacteria to you think have been born and died in that lake? MORE than enough to evolve something if it were going to happen. We're told Humans from apelings evolved in less than 5 million years, microbes supposedly need far less time.

So the predictions of evolution were basically wrong.
But the news story at top of post tells us that NO evolution for billions of years in the same environment is now evidence FOR evolution as well.

"war is peace, freedom is slavery"
can't have it both ways can you?


Quote:

...They don't expect water samples from Lake Vostok will hold alien life, though any life it contains may have taken a slightly different evolutionary path than what appears on the planet today. That's because Lake Vostok, the deepest and most isolated of Antarctica's subglacial lakes, has been cut off from the atmosphere for at least 14 million years. The lakes, which were discovered via satellite imagery in the late 1990s, owe their existence to the thick Antarctic ice, which acts like a blanket to trap heat coming from inside Earth, keeping water liquid. "If they find evidence of life there — and I do think Lake Vostok has life in it — it's going to be Earth-like," astrobiologist Dale Andersen, with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, told Discovery News. "It's going to be the same kind of life you find everywhere else. It may be that life has evolved differently, but it's still Earth-like, still based on the same DNA structure," Andersen said..... Alien Life Clues in Antarctic Ice? : Discovery News

Quote:

After comparing the genetic material they found in Lake Vostok to a database of the known microbes on Earth, the biologists found a remarkable variety of critters. There were organisms known for living in salt water, fresh water, super-hot water and even in the guts and other body parts of tube worms, fish and other animals. There were low amounts of genetic material that appeared to come from animals such as a microscopic crustacean, a marine bivalve and a small sea anemone.

Thousands Of Species Found In Lake Vostok Ice | Popular Science

Quote:



3,500+ species discovered in Lake Vostok, underneath miles of ice, in conditions similar to Jupiter’s Europa | ExtremeTech

Same double think loons use the exact same stupidity to justify the global warming scam.
The world is are up with such mad, raving fooooooools!!!!!
These idiots want to have their damn cake and eat it too!!!
Reality proves they are liars, deluded and indeed crazy but then again look at the gullible under educated masses they are manipulating by using this method of insanity and subterfuge!
All the while stirring up pure righteous contempt and anger from we not so stupid as to believe all that lying tripe!

If such simple organisms did not change in 2 billion years why and how did other organisms do so??? What got me always was any catalyst they vaguely mentioned to justify the need for change had to be so paramount to its survival that in millions/billions of years the changing entity would have died out. They never explain how the need for change(catalyst) which had to be great allowed for such eons of time and how the entity thus survived if the catalyst was that great.
Evolution is pure bunk.. Now they recently scream BIG BANG IS WRONG !
Well hell, I knew that back in 1967 at age 13.....
These people espouse theories that they like(serve a political purpose) as if they are solid fact, when they are far from it..--Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

Evolution does not assert that everything keeps changing and evolving. Everything changes and involves as needed. To better procreate. Bacteria never had any problems reproducing or surviving.

[revelarts]

Evolution does not assert that everything keeps changing and evolving. Everything changes and involves as needed. To better procreate. Bacteria never had any problems reproducing or surviving.

Ok that's fine AC,
but showing CHANGE is the only evidence for evolution, not the opposite.

Darwinist have known since they 1st asserted evolution that there are many things like Horseshoe Crabs, insects and many other creatures that have not changed from the beginning of their appearance in the fossil record 250-800 "million" years ago.
At that time they had to accommodate that fact into their "theory", so to claim it now as evidence for evolution is BS.

And finding living bacteria the same as 2 "billion" years old versions shows the robustness of DNA and genetic stasis. the fact that genes don't mutate even with long stretches of time is a blow against the concept of pliability of genes in general.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ok that's fine AC,
but showing CHANGE is the only evidence for evolution, not the opposite.

Darwinist have known since they 1st asserted evolution that there are many things like Horseshoe Crabs, insects and many other creatures that have not changed from the beginning of their appearance in the fossil record 250-800 "million" years ago.
At that time they had to accommodate that fact into their "theory", so to claim it now as evidence for evolution is BS.

And finding living bacteria the same as 2 "billion" years old versions shows the robustness of DNA and genetic stasis. the fact that genes don't mutate even with long stretches of time is a blow against the concept of pliability of genes in general.

Back then people were not as gullible as millions now are. So they did not claim back then that which looked to disprove Evolution as a factor in it being a valid theory.

What they have never explained is how species that were sent towards change by any catalyst thus had millions of years to effect that great change! For in their theory it was about survival and why change if it is so minor that millions(or even hundreds of thousands) of years the species can survive without that change!??

No sir, the logic and reality denies so much of their premise. Faith in the magic of "eons of time" SERVES THAT PURPOSE.- --Tyr

[sundaydriver]

As the article states; with a stable environment and nutrient supply(sulfates & nitrates) this simple Sulfur bacteria has no further need to evolve. Change either and it will. Does this make me gullible and uneducated to believe this as one poster suggests, maybe? Or maybe it's my dozen years in my micro lab transforming different bacteria to into useful tools?

• 
  

[tailfins]

Back then people were not as gullible as millions now are. So they did not claim back then that which looked to disprove Evolution as a factor in it being a valid theory.

What they have never explained is how species that were sent towards change by any catalyst thus had millions of years to effect that great change! For in their theory it was about survival and why change if it is so minor that millions(or even hundreds of thousands) of years the species can survive without that change!??

No sir, the logic and reality denies so much of their premise. Faith in the magic of "eons of time" SERVES THAT PURPOSE.- --Tyr

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to deny God.

[DLT]

Same double think loons use the exact same stupidity to justify the global warming scam.
The world is are up with such mad, raving fooooooools!!!!!
These idiots want to have their damn cake and eat it too!!!
Reality proves they are liars, deluded and indeed crazy but then again look at the gullible under educated masses they are manipulating by using this method of insanity and subterfuge!
All the while stirring up pure righteous contempt and anger from we not so stupid as to believe all that lying tripe!

If such simple organisms did not change in 2 billion years why and how did other organisms do so??? What got me always was any catalyst they vaguely mentioned to justify the need for change had to be so paramount to its survival that in millions/billions of years the changing entity would have died out. They never explain how the need for change(catalyst) which had to be great allowed for such eons of time and how the entity thus survived if the catalyst was that great.
Evolution is pure bunk.. Now they recently scream BIG BANG IS WRONG !
Well hell, I knew that back in 1967 at age 13.....
These people espouse theories that they like(serve a political purpose) as if they are solid fact, when they are far from it..--Tyr

And then the idiots expect their "theories" to be accepted as fact and settled science....

just cause they said so. lol