[_ Old Earth _] Can a whale turn into a hamster if given millions of years?

[Dave Slayer]

Could a whale eventually turn into a hamster if given millions of years?

 

[John]

Creationists say no. Evolutionists don't know but i bet that they would try to push it as factual if they could.

 

[lordkalvan]

Could a whale eventually turn into a hamster if given millions of years?

If I understand your question correctly, why would you think it could?

 

[Dave Slayer]

Could a whale eventually turn into a hamster if given millions of years?

If I understand your question correctly, why would you think it could?

Well, doesn't evolution teach that animals evolved into different kinds of animals?

 

[GojuBrian]

I think so, but there will still be whales. :D

 

[Dave Slayer]

I think so, but there will still be whales. :D

Will whales have fur?

 

[GojuBrian]

ooooohhhhhh, a furry whale? Cool!

I really like watching whales. Ever see that show on discovery where a group tries to save whales all the time?

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="Dave Slayer":11hh6y36]Could a whale eventually turn into a hamster if given millions of years?

If I understand your question correctly, why would you think it could?

Well, doesn't evolution teach that animals evolved into different kinds of animals?[/quote:11hh6y36]
Not in the way you seem to be implying with the question in your OP.

 

[Barbarian]

At least some whales retain genes for fur. I imagine they all do, if we were to check. Many cetaceans are born with some hair on them.

But I can't think of an evolutionary line that became adapted to the sea from land, and then returned to the land. Some things are beyond the reach of evolution, which is why we don't see every conceivably possible organism.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Can animals evolve into another kind of animal if given enough time? In other words, could a dog evolve into a cat? A wolf into a peacock? A mouse into a hippopotamus?

 

[lordkalvan]

Can animals evolved into another kind of animal if given enough time? In other words, could a dog evolve into a cat? A wolf into a peacock? A mouse into a hippopotamus?

Again your question seems to indicate a lack of understanding of evolution and the processes that drive it. Why would you think that the descendants of an animal alive today would evolve in a direction that would lead them to become like another, different animal also alive today? What evolutionary pressures do you think might contribute to such an evolutionary process?

 

[kenan]

Again your question seems to indicate a lack of understanding of evolution and the processes that drive it. Why would you think that the descendants of an animal alive today would evolve in a direction that would lead them to become like another, different animal also alive today? What evolutionary pressures do you think might contribute to such an evolutionary process?

This. Evolution does not say that one animal "transforms" into another: creatures, by the process of natural selection and over a long period of time, change their characteristics to suit their habitat and environment. One species does not transform into another existing species: whales, mice and cats are only called whales, mice and cats because that's what we call them. Conceivably, in millions of years (provided the Earth continues to exist), there will be no whales, mice and cats; they will have, though the process of natural selection, changed their characteristics into something which will be considered by humans alone to be a different species.

The point I'm trying to make is that the label "species" is subjective: humans classify animals for our usage only, and in time, creatures which have evolved from modern animals will be considered new species only so we can distinguish them from older species.

Take the influenza virus: it doesn't ever "turn into" a common cold virus, but every year, through the process of natural selection, it becomes resistant to the previous years vaccination. Every year, we call the new and improved virus a "new strain": it hasn't turned into something else, it's just changed.

Hope that all made sense: I did a unit of evolution in science last year at school and, although I understand it, it's difficult for me to explain it. I'm obviously not a biology teacher :D

 

[Rick W]

Take the influenza virus: it doesn't ever "turn into" a common cold virus, but every year, through the process of natural selection, it becomes resistant to the previous years vaccination. Every year, we call the new and improved virus a "new strain": it hasn't turned into something else, it's just changed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7287453.stm

Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 00:51 GMT

UK team in bacteria breakthrough

Scientists have new hopes of restoring penicillin's full antibiotic effect after discovering how a bacterium which causes pneumonia has become resistant.

The work by UK scientists could also lead to the creation of new designer drugs to tackle diseases such as MRSA.

The University of Warwick team focused on Streptococcus pneumoniae, which kills 5m children a year worldwide.

In recent years, it has been one of a growing number of bacteria which have become resistant to penicillin.

Penicillin, discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928, became the first widely used antibiotic in the 1940s.

Penicillin normally acts by preventing the construction of an essential component of the bacterial cell wall called the Peptidoglycan.

This component provides a protective mesh around the otherwise fragile bacterial cell.

The researchers focused on a protein called MurM which has been linked to changes in the chemical make-up of the peptidoglycan observed in patients infected with penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.

They found that the protein acted as an enzyme, playing a key role in the formation of structures within the peptidoglycan which build up its strength.

The higher the levels of MurM activity, the stronger the peptidoglycan became, and the more likely the bacterium would be drug resistant as a result.

Repeated in test tube

The Warwick team, whose study appears in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, were able to replicate the activity of MurM in a test tube, allowing them to study in close detail exactly how it is deployed by Streptococcus pneumoniae to neutralise penicillin.

It is hoped the results will allow researchers to develop new drugs which block bacterial resistance by disrupting the chemistry of MurM.

This could be key not only for Streptococcus pneumoniae, but also for other bacteria, such as MRSA, which also appear to rely on the same chemistry to build resistance.

Researcher Dr Adrian Lloyd said it was possible that new drugs could be developed in two to three years.

He said: "Because we now know in detail what this protein needs to be able to do its job and promote bacterial resistance we should be able to develop drugs to stop it from doing so."

Professor Kevin Kerr, a consultant microbiologist at Harrogate District Hospital, said the findings were interesting, but much more work was needed.

He said: "Solving the problem of penicillin resistance in pneumococci is a key priority for modern medicine and these results provide an important piece in the puzzle.

"The challenge must now be to see if this discovery can be exploited through the identification and development of new drugs which can inhibit this enzyme."

In other words the mechanism is already there to become resistant to drugs. They don't have to "evolve". The inherent mechanism is triggered by attack. The capability to resist drugs already exists.

There was very little news coverage in making this breakthrough known.

Repeated in test tube

The Warwick team, whose study appears in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, were able to replicate the activity of MurM in a test tube, allowing them to study in close detail exactly how it is deployed by Streptococcus pneumoniae to neutralise penicillin.

 

[Barbarian]

In other words the mechanism is already there to become resistant to drugs. They don't have to "evolve".

They do have to evolve; otherwise they'd be like other bacteria of their species.

The inherent mechanism is triggered by attack. The capability to resist drugs already exists.

Luria/Delbruck showed that the mutations don't occur in response to the exposure; they occur earlier, in a random manner, and only become widespread if they happen to be exposed to the antibiotic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria-Delbruck_experiment

There was very little news coverage in making this breakthrough known.

This was new when I was a bacteriology undergraduate in the 60s.

One bacteriologist has actually figured out how to predict what new forms of resistance might evolve:

Untangling the branches of evolution's past is a daunting enough task for researchers, but some scientists are now turning their eyes toward the future in a bid to predict evolution's course. Barry G. Hall, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, has shown how a model of evolution developed in the lab accurately reproduces natural evolution. The research, published in the March issue of Genetics, demonstrates how the model is so accurate that it can be used to predict how a strain of bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics-giving researchers a possible tool to create drugs to which bacteria cannot adapt.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081607.htm

 

[Rick W]

Luria-Delbruck_experiment - 1943

Breakthrough as per the article - 2008

 

[Barbarian]

Yeah, The breakthrough for Luria/Delbruck was to show that the variation wasn't already there; it just pops up by mutation from time to time, but randomly, not in response to the environment. They showed, for example, that antibiotic resistance could evolve in the absence of antibiotics.

The newer breakthrough was a discovery of the biochemical mechanism for one particular form of antibiotic resistance.

 

[Rick W]

The newer breakthrough was a discovery of the biochemical mechanism for one particular form of antibiotic resistance.

Sounds to me like this "new network of academics" isn't going to be restricted simply to "one particular form of antibiotic resistance".

Quite frankly I believe they are on to something. Rather than responding to "evolutionary processes" after the fact creating newer antibiotics through time-consuming research to develop new drugs this new field of study focuses on finding the mechanism responsible for antibiotic resistance. We may very well be on the threshold of eradicating diseases once thought out of our control due to a bacterium's "ability to evolve a resistance".


http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents ... _could_put

A further spin-off from this new MurM research, is that the Warwick led researchers are also able to readily reproduce every precursor step the bacterial cell uses to create its peptidoglycan. The tools developed at Warwick open up each step of the creation of the peptidoglycan (MurA, MurB, MurC etc, etc) used by an array of dangerous bacteria. This provides a valuable collection of targets for pharmaceutical companies seeking ways of disrupting antibiotic resistance in such bacteria.

The University of Warwick part of the research team have now established a new network of academics from the fields of chemistry, biology and medicine, as well as pharmaceutical companies to share and exploit this new treasure trove of targets which could help create a range of new designer antibiotic based treatments targeted at a range of bacteria that can cause significant health problems.

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds to me like this "new network of academics" isn't going to be restricted simply to "one particular form of antibiotic resistance".

No, they aren't. The beauty of this method, which was first used by Dr. Hall, is that it can anticipate the way new forms of resistance might evolve. A breakthrough, but it's been worked on for over a decade.

Quite frankly I believe they are on to something. Rather than responding to "evolutionary processes" after the fact creating newer antibiotics through time-consuming research to develop new drugs this new field of study focuses on finding the mechanism responsible for antibiotic resistance. We may very well be on the threshold of eradicating diseases once thought out of our control due to a bacterium's "ability to evolve a resistance".

Yep. But science is now able to anticipate evolutionary changes in a small way. But it's a new field, just now finding applications.

Genetics, Vol. 163, 1237-1241, April 2003,

Experimental Prediction of the Natural Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Miriam Barlowa and Barry G. Halla
a Biology Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627-0211

Corresponding author: Barry G. Hall, Hutchison Hall, River Campus, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0211., drbh@mail.rochester.edu (E-mail)

Communicating editor: H. OCHMAN

The TEM family of ß-lactamases has evolved to confer resistance to most of the ß-lactam antibiotics, but not to cefepime. To determine whether the TEM ß-lactamases have the potential to evolve cefepime resistance, we evolved the ancestral TEM allele, TEM-1, in vitro and selected for cefepime resistance. After four rounds of mutagenesis and selection for increased cefepime resistance each of eight independent populations reached a level equivalent to clinical resistance. All eight evolved alleles increased the level of cefepime resistance by a factor of at least 32, and the best allele improved by a factor of 512. Sequencing showed that alleles contained from two to six amino acid substitutions, many of which were shared among alleles, and that the best allele contained only three substitutions.

 

[Rick W]

The enzyme responsible for the resistance of penicillin isn't an evolutionary mechanism.
Not knowing the true reason for the bacteria's resistance evolution was the only acceptable answer and that's what was sought.
I'm not buying the answer of evolution when this research proves the mechanism responsible. Much research on this one particular case was done through the appropriation of a lot of money. There had to be results for the expenditure. They got what they paid for even though it was wrong.
There is no mutation through evolution of this bacteria's ability to resist penicillin. The answer to the problem has been found.
This discovery makes a lot more scientific sense. :yes
Picking apart the complexity of what happens during the process of becoming resistant is one thing. Concluding that evolution is responsible is quite another. And I can understand why evolution was the conclusion since it wasn't known what the true reason was... an enzyme that makes the bacteria resistant to penicillin. Something changed the bacteria's defense, that was obvious and observable. Mutation would have been the only conclusion.
Maybe someone needs to write these fellows and tell them they're wrong... evolution did it.

 

[Crying Rock]

Interesting research, Rick.

Thanks for sharing.

This is why evolutionary biologists need to be very careful in designating drug resistant bacteria as a new species and evidence of macroevolution. This research indicates that the drug resistance was built into the species, and is in fact part of the species genome.

:yes