My daughter takes a pill derived from a Streptomyces Tsukubaensis fungus 3 times a week. It keeps her transplanted liver happy.

edit:
from wiki:
Like ciclosporin, it was found in a soil fungus, although it is produced by a type of bacterium,

"Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?"

No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs.

"When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?"

Yes, this was a dumb question. Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record.

"If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild.

"It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

that's the magic part..it doesn't ever happen.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?


Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?
Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.
If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!
If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)
Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

>> ^shinyblurry:

Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?



Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?

Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?

It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.

If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!

If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)

Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

*badass is great.

*D&D
*Bacterium
*Michellerodriguez

I'm not going to call 'dupe' but this is very similar to:
http://videosift.com/video/High-Speed-Chase
and
http://videosift.com/video/White-Blood-Cell-Chasing-and-Engulfing-a-Bacterium

the only difference between the tree being the soundtrack.

People will not change easily, it's naive to think this will be solved by changing attitudes. We need science and technology. Bio degradable plastic is the way to go. It can be made to last a month, a year, or five years depending of the use of the plastic.
Another solution would be to genetically engineer a bacterium that's efficiently eats plastic. We'd need to make sure that it could only survive in salty water otherwise it might start eating all the land based plastic that's actually used.

The CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation), Australia's senior research lab, have discovered that CCD is caused by mainly 2 things.

First, the way bees are kept, creates tremendous stress on the insects. Its been found to lower their immune system responses dramatically.

Second, a virus thats been spreading in plague proportions, that makes the bees somehow lose their ability to navigate back to the hive (I didnt read much into how they came to that conclusion), that without the stress and lowered imune responses, wouldnt normally pose any real threat to the bees.

Work is underway to find a cure for the virus....but being that its a virus, and not a bacterium, its not exactly easy to kill.

>> ^Quboid:
Great ending, I was worried the title was flame bait.
A couple of points:
1) I don't think it's established that it's a snake. Pretty sure it's a talking animal so this is a technicality, but that it's a snake is a myth. I think QI covered this and they are actually are beyond question.
2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge
If you think about it, it's arrogant to the point of ludicrous to presume this generation has all the big stuff figured it. I'm sure as hell not a Christian or Creationist, I just think science is a work in progress and we're at a pretty early stage. I hope so! I quit Christianity when I grew out of invisible friends, but I didn't become an atheist just to join other zealots. Science is our friend, but keep questioning.

Pun / Ironic choice of phrase intentional.


You might find interesting this fascinating study this summer of unexpected evolution in bacteria cultures in the lab.

It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium [with frozen samples every 500 generations], scientists have been able to replay [the history of the 44,000 bacteria generations] to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Wow! thanks for the explanation, chilaxe.

The article you cite mentions recent use of "maggot therapy" in the US. Considering the newer strains of super-resistant bacterium and even the "flesh eating" varieties, this would seem to be the best and safest course of treatment...though the thought makes my skin crawl.

from wiki:

Leprosy (from the Greek lepid, meaning scales on a fish), or Hansen's disease, is a chronic infectious disease caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium leprae.[1] Leprosy is primarily a granulomatous disease of the peripheral nerves and mucosa of the upper respiratory tract; skin lesions are the primary external symptom.

It's a white blood cell (neutrophil) chasing a bacterium via chemotaxis.
Neutrophils are phagocytes, so one of the ways they neutralize foreign objects in the body is by engulfing them.

and here is a video of a neutrophil gobbling up fungal cell like they were power pellets:
here

I saw Stephen Hawking speak in Boston MA a few years ago. From his humorous/sarcastic anti-religious comments during that speech, I highly doubt he 'holds' onto faith at all. If anything, he may join with other logical thinkers and acknowledge that religious belief in of itself is a farce. Being nothing more than human invented superstitious notions to explain the unexplainable in complete absence of evidence.

With no evidence proving or disproving the evidence of some omnipotent 'creator' or consciousness (from our limited perspective), one cannot prove, nor can one disprove the existence of such a so-called 'being'. As for myself, I may lean more towards agnosticism, though I highly doubt any so-called 'creator' in a sense would possibly have any 'personal' interest in the evolution or well being of humanity. Humanity is after all just another life form on this planet. Not unlike a bacterium or virus. We spread. We multiply. We thrive. We have just adapted to our environment in a different manner through the mechanics of evolutionary change.

Evolution is just a theory. But so too is Gravity. Both are explanations of phenomena through the perspective of human understanding, which of course is far from complete. Those who do claim to know the universe through a perspective of 'absolutes' and 'certainty' based off of nothing but faith and the text of a pre-modern era are stuck in the middle ages. Not unlike those from the future will likely view us 1000 or 2000 years from now.

That is ... assuming our own ignorance doesn't lead to the destruction of our species. Unfortunately chances for such an end are uncomfortably high.