Proof of Evolution!! on video! (kinda)

well, sort of.... got you to read though hey!

I have stumblerd across a video which claims to 100% proove that evolution happens, it shows a scientific experiment in which simple species run through an evolution process.

Personally i found it just about the most interesting video ive seen in a while.... second to the SS2 one, damn thats so cool!

anyways its here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

please please watch it, i really think it is a great place for a debate!

Let me know your thoughts

Rob

Some of the organism had all their DNA inverted but still survived?

A very nice demonstration of natural selection as envisioned by Darwin. However it falls far short of “NeoDarwinnianâ€

Neatly ripped apart there.

That just the information science side of the equation.

Actually, evolution has been proven to be a lot faster than what Darwin envisioned.

Don't have time to go into it here and now, but evolving something like an eye, takes only about 250.000 generations, if I remember correctly. This calculation was done with worst case scenario figures. Probably are more correct numbers, and better explanation somewhere on google ;)

It has not been proven to be faster, it has to be faster or disgarded as a theory. The Fossil record has destoryed slow evolution.

We don't have a good mechanism for fast evolution yet. Mind you, nobody can tell me how gram-negative bacteria eat either.

Probably was to hasty, what I should have written was: "The governing theories on the speed of evolution, have all come up with a result which shows that it is faster than what Darwin envisioned, and what can be seen in fossil records"

If only 250,000 generations (evolving in the right environment) produce MASSIVE results (like an eye when there was no part of one before), then we can look for REALLY IMPRESSIVE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!

Experimental results - backing up predictions - are the mark of "Hard Sciences".

With bacteria reproducing in 20 minutes (with optimum temperature and nutrients), a lab can produce roughly 30,000 generations in a year, and the 250,000 required (for MAJOR NEW STRUCTURES) in about 8 years!!!

One or two years alone should produce mind boggling results! Give us the links to these EXPERIMENTAL breakthroughs: all the news outlets seem to have missed them!

Last year we didn't know how to make stuff like that happen (adding an eye to an organism which never had any of the associated structures) by careful, deliberate manipulation. NOW, you say, we can get all that done by RANDOM PROCESSES!

Google search provided this article: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8452(19940422)256%3A1345%3C53%3AAPEOTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
as result no. 3

About the rate of evolution. With the SENSE experiments in mice, which they also did with fruitflies, they bred the flies for several generations which had a 'long' life. In the 'end' they had flies that lives several times longer then normally.

Evolution is a form of selection. But in the current society, evolution is messed up, for better for worse. It's no longer the survival of the fittest/smartest or the best.

Just watched the video.

There are very interesting studies and programmes out there about "Artificial Life". They all create in software a universe with certain "rules" like energy etc. Then they create very simple life forms (algorithms) with basic functions (depending on the complexity of the simulation) like eating, sensor funtions like seeing, reproduction/replication.

The sims (you can download a lot of these programs on your computer, a starting point e.g. is http://www.alife.org/links.html) showed that the resulting algorithms were far superior than any a programmer could have produced.

Another interesting point was that parasitism was preferred.

The software available is really great to play god if you have spare CPU time and watch basic algorithms evolve into complex ones.

One final remark: We're not talking about artificial "intelligence" here, just simple "lifeforms" following the rules of the defined universe.

It is unfortunate that I can only access the first page of this article! I envision a number of problems, including the fact that “natureâ€

I can also only access the first page, but you got the information to one of the "serious" studies, that back me up (although they where talking about years, not generations).

Survival of the fittest does not mean that we'll get a uniform perfection for all life. Some branches of the evolutionary may evolve something which they have better use for, then some other branch may evolve something else. You don't need a human eye when you live in the dark. A bee would not have much use for it either, and a hawk could never make any proper use of it, but for us humans, it's what was needed.

Yes... But a programmer wrote the sim.