Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

[A_Wise_Fool]

There needn't be trillions of intermediary.

Says you. I have proof on my side, keep reading..

The fact that you need trillions on a petri dish is simply that you need colonies in order to actually be able to see the micro-organisms.

I'm aware of cotton-swabbing bacteria between flasks and how it's done. I've done it myself.

What is more relevant is not the number of cells but rather the number of generations that it took to reach the desired evolutionary result.

Says you again, and you are wrong again. Here is why.

The only thing that matters is the number of mutations. This can be amplified by either number of generations or number of reproductions per generation.

If a stagnant population of 100 bacterial organisms have 50 generations then that is 5000 potential chances for mutations and thus that many chances for evolution to occur.

But two generations of a stagnant population of 1,000,000 bacterial organisms then there are 1,000,000 possible chances for a mutation to occur.


I still understand the relationship between generations, such as it takes several mutations to derive a new benefit sometimes, like in this case apparantly. But, mathematically, the odds of a new mutation occuring on top of an old mutation further up the family tree are just the same as them happening all at once.


So, the number of cells is just as relevant as number of generations. If there were only one bacterium per generation it would take trillions of generations to produce a similar result that the expirment resulted in. Keep reading before you respond to that one....

Let me explain something else first. Transfering generation from generation in the experiment was done with cotton swabs like it said. Since I've heard that our hands are home to billions of strands of bacteria I would assume that cotton-swabbing a dark area full of bacteria in a flask would transfer a net of about 500,000 bacteria from flask to flask each time. At the very least, it cuold be way more. So, anyway, at each generation we have half a million chances for mutations at least.

Now to play with math..

1/2million bacteria per generation * 12 colonies * 31,500 generations =


189,000,000,000 ... bacterial reproductions, or chances for mutations, before we got the ability to metabolize citrate.


If any one of those devoloped a positive mutation it would quickly permeate the colony based on its mutation benefit factor and it would be survival of the fittest; you know how that works. The rest is history. From what I read I think it took around 500 generations to permeate the colony, not that it is important.

So out of 189 billion reproductions we got a new trick that sortof benefitted the bacteria. Very low odds for something comparatively so simple.

Finally, and I hope you took my advice and havn't started responding yet...

The Loom : A New Step In Evolution

Out of that staggering hoard of bacteria, only a handful of citrate-eating mutants arose. None of the original ancestors or early predecessors gave rise to citrate-eaters; only later stages in the line could--mostly from 27,000 generations or beyond. Still, even among these later E. coli, the odds of evolving into a citrate-eater was staggeringly low, on the order of one-in-a-trillion.

So there you have it. The authorities admit it is an astronomically low chance of developing this ability, and fairly closely match my estimates. I'm going to go ahead and assume the same odds exist for any other comparative metabolism ability, call me out on that one if you wish with proof otherwise.

So roughly my 1.8billion mutations out of their ballpark 1trillion attempts figure puts the odds at about 1/5 that over 20 years some complexity would evolve in their controlled experiment. They played the odds and won and published a story about it.

Good for them.

It proves evolution, and it proves something as complex as a human could have never evolved in the time frame given like I have always said. So sad. Case closed.

There is only a single amino acid difference between those who have sickle cell and the rest of us. Let me re-emphasize that a single amino acid. There is not that much variation between humans and chimps, we have 99% of all our genetic material identical. But one of the reasons why AIDS was able to cross the species barrier.

I don't really know but I though this was due to a lack of a properly functioning amino acid correct? That would make it less complex correct? I'll look that up later.

But if I am correct, then the E. Coli did not devolop this new trait due to becoming less complex like your sickle cell example, so this proves nothing and has no application.

Edit: after rereading what you said in my comparison from the "early ancestor's" brains and our currnet brains I would simply say that if the complexity was still there a million years ago, then just push back the time frame. The complexities of our brains still needed time to develop whenever it supposedly did. And I guarantee it did not have the trillions of attempts necessary to do so...

Highschool equation? Have you even the faintest idea of the biochemical complexity of being able to metabolize something completely different? Tell such rubbish to someone who is lactose intolerant.

That was a joke. It's still quite complex. But its infinitesimle compared to the brain. Many millions of times I would assume.

That joke was to make an ephasis on the comparitive complexity of something simple whchi took trillions of tries verses our brains, which would have to take many many more trillions of tries.

So the mechanisms are sound but yet life is too complicated for evolution to occur? Talk about contradictions.

Yeah it is a contradiction... when you don't repeat what I said.

The evolutionary mechanism itself is sound but life is too complicated to have arisen given the time frame it was supposed to have evolved. Read what I said its still there.

Its like winning the lottery five times. Sure the mechanics of doing that exist, but given the time frame it won't happen.

 

[jfuh]

Says you. I have proof on my side, keep reading..



I'm aware of cotton-swabbing bacteria between flasks and how it's done. I've done it myself.




Says you again, and you are wrong again. Here is why.

The only thing that matters is the number of mutations. This can be amplified by either number of generations or number of reproductions per generation.

If a stagnant population of 100 bacterial organisms have 50 generations then that is 5000 potential chances for mutations and thus that many chances for evolution to occur.

But two generations of a stagnant population of 1,000,000 bacterial organisms then there are 1,000,000 possible chances for a mutation to occur.


I still understand the relationship between generations, such as it takes several mutations to derive a new benefit sometimes, like in this case apparantly. But, mathematically, the odds of a new mutation occuring on top of an old mutation further up the family tree are just the same as them happening all at once.


So, the number of cells is just as relevant as number of generations. If there were only one bacterium per generation it would take trillions of generations to produce a similar result that the expirment resulted in. Keep reading before you respond to that one....

Let me explain something else first. Transfering generation from generation in the experiment was done with cotton swabs like it said. Since I've heard that our hands are home to billions of strands of bacteria I would assume that cotton-swabbing a dark area full of bacteria in a flask would transfer a net of about 500,000 bacteria from flask to flask each time. At the very least, it cuold be way more. So, anyway, at each generation we have half a million chances for mutations at least.

Now to play with math..

1/2million bacteria per generation * 12 colonies * 31,500 generations =


189,000,000,000 ... bacterial reproductions, or chances for mutations, before we got the ability to metabolize citrate.


If any one of those devoloped a positive mutation it would quickly permeate the colony based on its mutation benefit factor and it would be survival of the fittest; you know how that works. The rest is history. From what I read I think it took around 500 generations to permeate the colony, not that it is important.

So out of 189 billion reproductions we got a new trick that sortof benefitted the bacteria. Very low odds for something comparatively so simple.

Finally, and I hope you took my advice and havn't started responding yet...

The Loom : A New Step In Evolution



So there you have it. The authorities admit it is an astronomically low chance of developing this ability, and fairly closely match my estimates. I'm going to go ahead and assume the same odds exist for any other comparative metabolism ability, call me out on that one if you wish with proof otherwise.

So roughly my 1.8billion mutations out of their ballpark 1trillion attempts figure puts the odds at about 1/5 that over 20 years some complexity would evolve in their controlled experiment. They played the odds and won and published a story about it.

Good for them.

It proves evolution, and it proves something as complex as a human could have never evolved in the time frame given like I have always said. So sad. Case closed.



I don't really know but I though this was due to a lack of a properly functioning amino acid correct? That would make it less complex correct? I'll look that up later.

But if I am correct, then the E. Coli did not devolop this new trait due to becoming less complex like your sickle cell example, so this proves nothing and has no application.

Edit: after rereading what you said in my comparison from the "early ancestor's" brains and our currnet brains I would simply say that if the complexity was still there a million years ago, then just push back the time frame. The complexities of our brains still needed time to develop whenever it supposedly did. And I guarantee it did not have the trillions of attempts necessary to do so...




That was a joke. It's still quite complex. But its infinitesimle compared to the brain. Many millions of times I would assume.

That joke was to make an ephasis on the comparitive complexity of something simple whchi took trillions of tries verses our brains, which would have to take many many more trillions of tries.


Yeah it is a contradiction... when you don't repeat what I said.

The evolutionary mechanism itself is sound but life is too complicated to have arisen given the time frame it was supposed to have evolved. Read what I said its still there.

Its like winning the lottery five times. Sure the mechanics of doing that exist, but given the time frame it won't happen.

In essence your argument is this - it takes trillions of generations to possibly come up with something as "complex" as our cerberal cortex.
Couple problems, our brains aren't exactly THAT complex when you take into account of a common ancestor as various other primates, it's not exactly that far of a leap.
If you are comparing our higher functioning brains from the simplicity of a flat worm yes it is a bit mind boggling but that you can not fathom of how the evolutionary mechanics are working is not proof that they are not.
Secondly, where are you getting the notion that you need trillions?
To the bacterial colony, starting with antibacterial resistence. It only takes a singular cell to develope resistence before a whole lot actually have the same resistence. Bacterial cells replicate exponentially it only takes 10 generations before you arrive a few thousand and but 30 generations before you arrive at a billion. This all within the course of but a few hours. And also it must be asked, just how many cells are within a single colony that is large enough for you to see? trillions? if you say trillions then I'd have to say you'd need to go back and re-open your microbiology book.

According to the fossil record we know factually that the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, we also know that the first primates walked the earth but a mere 10 million years after that. Trillions of intermediates were needed for the first primates? Then after around 30 million years after the first primates were the first apes and ~18 million years after that the first hominids. Trillions of intermediates? Where do you get such a figure I haven't the faintest idea. You say you have proof, well I'm looking at your post and I see no credible evidence to suggest a trillion.
You have a link, but no where in that link is a trillion even mentioned.

But the real kicker here is that you acknowledge the validity of evolutionary mechanisms yet you appear to say that human life is too complex and thus can not be a result of evolution. Well then, by all means, what natural process if not evolution resulted in human beings?

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

In essence your argument is this - it takes trillions of generations to possibly come up with something as "complex" as our cerberal cortex.

No, but close.

It takes a trillion reproductions to possibly come up with something more complex like a new metabolic process in bacteria.

It could take one generation if one trillion bacteria each produced one offspring or it could take a thousand generations of one billion bacteria if each bacterium only produced one after itself (not exponentially like they do in real life). If they reproduced exponentially it would take something like 35-40 generations to get a net of a trillion reproductions.

But, like I explained, they only used about half a million bacteria from each generation from what they cotton swabbed into the next generation's flask.

After incubating for a day, they prob had an additional billion cells in each flask. About a billion offspring that is. If they didn't cotton swab luckly little single bacterium strand in generation 31,500 with his lucky beneficial mutation into the next flask, that mutation would have never permeated. It would have stayed in that generation 31,500 flask and probably never have been discovered b/c it was one cell out of a billion. But it was allowed to move on, and it was discovered.

Couple problems, our brains aren't exactly THAT complex when you take into account of a common ancestor as various other primates, it's not exactly that far of a leap.
If you are comparing our higher functioning brains from the simplicity of a flat worm yes it is a bit mind boggling but that you can not fathom of how the evolutionary mechanics are working is not proof that they are not.

Again I don't know this, but lets assume there are at least a thousand chemical processes just as complicated as metablizing citrate in the brain, which they admit and state is one in a trillion. Thats a one in a trillion odds for each one sequentially arising. So thats one in a thousand trillion for the comlexity of the brain. Thats only adding them. If two mutations had to occur at the same time you would then have to MULTIPLY that by a trillion for each necessary simultaneous mutation... Those kind of odds don't come cheap; a trillion trillions for one new metabolic ability and a thousand trillions for the net complexity of just the chemical reactions in the brain, not including it's design scheme and how it effectively uses those chemicals.

Secondly, where are you getting the notion that you need trillions?

Its in the links. The odds were one in a trillion and he had to look at trillions over the 20 year time span, he verbally stated both of those. And I underlined them in big bold red letters where I made the quote.

To the bacterial colony, starting with antibacterial resistence. It only takes a singular cell to develope resistence before a whole lot actually have the same resistence. Bacterial cells replicate exponentially it only takes 10 generations before you arrive a few thousand and but 30 generations before you arrive at a billion. This all within the course of but a few hours.

I know. Bacteria could overun the world in a few days if they had unlimited resources and an ability to space out fast enough.

Whatever was cottonswabbed to the next flask per generation was the number of cell divisions they could test per generation. I guess half a million.

There could have been a beneficial mutation in the very first flask but they could have cotton swabbed the wrong side of the glass and missed it!! And so it was stuck there frozen never to be discovered.

And also it must be asked, just how many cells are within a single colony that is large enough for you to see? trillions? if you say trillions then I'd have to say you'd need to go back and re-open your microbiology book.

I don't know why that is relevant but I guess a billion per half inch diameter dot/colony.

According to the fossil record we know factually that the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, we also know that the first primates walked the earth but a mere 10 million years after that. Trillions of intermediates were needed for the first primates? Then after around 30 million years after the first primates were the first apes and ~18 million years after that the first hominids.

Evidence is a different subject. We are arguing theoretical mechanics of how life could have arisen. If the mechanics show that trillions of intermediates are REQUIRED and there is obviously not trillions of intermediates left over, then we work backwards to the mechanics, or now we would lable the "mechanics" our "failed hypothesis."

IOW - if the darwinian evolution mechanics NEED trillions or thousands of trilloins of attempts before it can produce anything, then obviosly darwinian evolution is wrong. There isn't enough space or "supposed time" the earth existed for that. That is, if each 'attempt' took a considerable amount of time like more than half a year.

Trillions of intermediates? Where do you get such a figure I haven't the faintest idea. You say you have proof, well I'm looking at your post and I see no credible evidence to suggest a trillion.
You have a link, but no where in that link is a trillion even mentioned.

Its in the link The Loom : A New Step In Evolution Its the first paragraph below the youtube video. You missed it but its there.

All it says is the odds. But what do odds mean in the real world?

In my biology class once we performed a lab using fruit flies. Genetically there are 1:4 odds a white eye gene will be expressed over the more dominant red eye gene. After we had about 3 generations go by we looked at all the incubated fruit flies and lo and behold out of about 100 of them 25 had white eyes. And that was the same at each generation. The next generation would have approximately produced 200 red and 50 white eyed flies. So that is what odds mean in the real world.

If there were one in a trillion odds of producing white eyes, we would have to go through a trillion flies, on average, before we would find a white eyed fly. The same is true for the bacteria. If it takes one in a trillion for something, then it will take one trillion bacteria before we get our desired result, in whatever combination of generations or population per generation to get to that one trillion mark.

But the real kicker here is that you acknowledge the validity of evolutionary mechanisms yet you appear to say that human life is too complex and thus can not be a result of evolution. Well then, by all means, what natural process if not evolution resulted in human beings?

Trust me this is the real kicker: if your theory is bunk then its your problem, not mine. You come up with a new theory.

This is an epic failure on my part for not making this obvious, but I believe God made us. I don't know how, and I'm not sure how long it took, but I believe he did just the same. And right now the most constructive thing I can do is prove other people wrong. :mrgreen: And find hints that God really did make us. Like this complexity problem and obvious design in nature.

 

[jfuh]

No, but close.

It takes a trillion reproductions to possibly come up with something more complex like a new metabolic process in bacteria.

It could take one generation if one trillion bacteria each produced one offspring or it could take a thousand generations of one billion bacteria if each bacterium only produced one after itself (not exponentially like they do in real life). If they reproduced exponentially it would take something like 35-40 generations to get a net of a trillion reproductions.

But, like I explained, they only used about half a million bacteria from each generation from what they cotton swabbed into the next generation's flask.

After incubating for a day, they prob had an additional billion cells in each flask. About a billion offspring that is. If they didn't cotton swab luckly little single bacterium strand in generation 31,500 with his lucky beneficial mutation into the next flask, that mutation would have never permeated. It would have stayed in that generation 31,500 flask and probably never have been discovered b/c it was one cell out of a billion. But it was allowed to move on, and it was discovered.

I thought you said you've done bacterial cultures. From what I'm reading here you are showing that you have not done so before.

Again I don't know this, but lets assume there are at least a thousand chemical processes just as complicated as metablizing citrate in the brain, which they admit and state is one in a trillion. Thats a one in a trillion odds for each one sequentially arising. So thats one in a thousand trillion for the comlexity of the brain. Thats only adding them. If two mutations had to occur at the same time you would then have to MULTIPLY that by a trillion for each necessary simultaneous mutation... Those kind of odds don't come cheap; a trillion trillions for one new metabolic ability and a thousand trillions for the net complexity of just the chemical reactions in the brain, not including it's design scheme and how it effectively uses those chemicals.

Again, this one in a trillion thing, I don't see where you are coming up with this. As stated before though homo sapians are not that disimilar from chimps or others of the great ape family so your calculations is off considerably.

Its in the links. The odds were one in a trillion and he had to look at trillions over the 20 year time span, he verbally stated both of those. And I underlined them in big bold red letters where I made the quote.

I don't see any statement of trillion by the scientist anywhere in the links provided nor were they the same conditions over the course of 20 years of the same colonies.

I know. Bacteria could overun the world in a few days if they had unlimited resources and an ability to space out fast enough.

No, they would never be able to do so because they'd literally puke each other to death. Bacteria grow and die exponentially.

Whatever was cottonswabbed to the next flask per generation was the number of cell divisions they could test per generation. I guess half a million.

There could have been a beneficial mutation in the very first flask but they could have cotton swabbed the wrong side of the glass and missed it!! And so it was stuck there frozen never to be discovered.

That's not how you isolate bacterial mutants. Didn't you say you've done isolation before? Less and less do I believe that you've even an idea of how to cultivate a culture.

I don't know why that is relevant but I guess a billion per half inch diameter dot/colony.

Nope still less. I think you should go back and open up that microbiology text book or at least google for it.

Evidence is a different subject. We are arguing theoretical mechanics of how life could have arisen. If the mechanics show that trillions of intermediates are REQUIRED and there is obviously not trillions of intermediates left over, then we work backwards to the mechanics, or now we would lable the "mechanics" our "failed hypothesis."

IOW - if the darwinian evolution mechanics NEED trillions or thousands of trilloins of attempts before it can produce anything, then obviosly darwinian evolution is wrong. There isn't enough space or "supposed time" the earth existed for that. That is, if each 'attempt' took a considerable amount of time like more than half a year.

Darwinian evolution does not require trillions - I don't know where you are getting this. And you can not argue against the evidence.

Its in the link The Loom : A New Step In Evolution Its the first paragraph below the youtube video. You missed it but its there.

The odds are one in a trillion as are even greater the odds of life even evolving in the first place. Which means that if you have a trillion you will likly have 1 that has that trait, that is not to say that there must actually be a trillion before you get such a beneficial muation.

All it says is the odds. But what do odds mean in the real world?

Means it's rare. Just like winning the lottery is a hundred billion to one (far more than the total populace on the planet) yet even in small rural populations we still see people winning the lottery. Hence your relating to actual need of a trillion is quite flawed.

In my biology class once we performed a lab using fruit flies. Genetically there are 1:4 odds a white eye gene will be expressed over the more dominant red eye gene. After we had about 3 generations go by we looked at all the incubated fruit flies and lo and behold out of about 100 of them 25 had white eyes. And that was the same at each generation. The next generation would have approximately produced 200 red and 50 white eyed flies. So that is what odds mean in the real world.

If there were one in a trillion odds of producing white eyes, we would have to go through a trillion flies, on average, before we would find a white eyed fly. The same is true for the bacteria. If it takes one in a trillion for something, then it will take one trillion bacteria before we get our desired result, in whatever combination of generations or population per generation to get to that one trillion mark.

Lottery tickets.

Trust me this is the real kicker: if your theory is bunk then its your problem, not mine. You come up with a new theory.

Yet you have not demonstrated that it is bunk, in contrast you've shown yourself to be ignorant with at best a elementary and bias understanding of evolution.

This is an epic failure on my part for not making this obvious, but I believe God made us. I don't know how, and I'm not sure how long it took, but I believe he did just the same. And right now the most constructive thing I can do is prove other people wrong. :mrgreen: And find hints that God really did make us. Like this complexity problem and obvious design in nature.

What design of nature? What complexity problem? By introducing a supernatural explaination you've completely missed the boat of scientific explaination as well as the further need to explain the origin of the supernatural itself.
The fossil record, mitochondrial DNA, Y chormosomal DNA, as well as genetic similarities between life forms all lend proof to evolution.
Again, you don't doubt the mechanics of evolution yet you attest to evolution being unable to produce anything complex and must insert a supernatural explaination? Sounds more like that you don't quite understand evolution.

It seems more like your explaination now is as follows.

"I don't understand how something as complex as humans could've possibly come about through evolutionary mechanisms, so instead of trying to figure it out, I attribute it all to a supernatural cause. Done

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

Again, this one in a trillion thing, I don't see where you are coming up with this. As stated before though homo sapians are not that disimilar from chimps or others of the great ape family so your calculations is off considerably.

...


I don't see any statement of trillion by the scientist anywhere in the links provided nor were they the same conditions over the course of 20 years of the same colonies.

Well congradulations you found the word "trillions" in the link later in this post after I pointed it out for the third time. You clearly didn't read it. You said the word "trillion" was nowhere in the article, twice, after I posted a quote of the article in large red letters and still you said it wasn't there when it was staring you right in the face. Scroll back up the page...

That's not how you isolate bacterial mutants. Didn't you say you've done isolation before? Less and less do I believe that you've even an idea of how to cultivate a culture.

Please tell me how its done then.

Nope still less. I think you should go back and open up that microbiology text book or at least google for it.

Please provide me a link saying how many strands of bacteria are in a colony of half an inch.

Darwinian evolution does not require trillions - I don't know where you are getting this. And you can not argue against the evidence.

This is where I'm getting it.... from the origianl OP article:

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ – and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

And since you aren't capable of finding that yourself here is a google cache of that same webpage with it highlighted:'Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab' by New Scientist - RichardDawkins.net


So there you have it for the third time. It had trillions of cells and it did not reproduce the desired result as per what the original article said.

The odds are one in a trillion as are even greater the odds of life even evolving in the first place. Which means that if you have a trillion you will likly have 1 that has that trait, that is not to say that there must actually be a trillion before you get such a beneficial muation.

Congradulations on finding the word trillion again... Yes, on average you need the exact number of trials to achive said trait. Sometimes its more sometimes less. Like for instance, above when they tried to duplicate the resulted trait, it took them trillionS plural... meaning more than one trillion. But it averages out to a trillion the more times the experiment is conducted.

Means it's rare. Just like winning the lottery is a hundred billion to one (far more than the total populace on the planet) yet even in small rural populations we still see people winning the lottery. Hence your relating to actual need of a trillion is quite flawed.

:rofl Wow it's obvious that you just made that up and know nothing of probability statistics.

Powerball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odds of picking the jackpot winning numbers are 1:146.1 million.

The odds are one out of 150 million. Not 100 Billion. There are more than 150million people in America, therefor the need is met.


So, now you must take back your statement:"Hence your relating to actual need of a trillion is quite flawed"

And admit that it actually does take, on average, a trillion cell divisions to derive something as complex as metabolizing citrate. Sometimes it will take less and sometimes more, but on AVERAGE it takes a trillion in this case.


*** BTW if you don't admit you are wrong at least in this one point I am done.

Yet you have not demonstrated that it is bunk, in contrast you've shown yourself to be ignorant with at best a elementary and bias understanding of evolution.

You've shown yourself to be ignorant of probability statistics.

BTW most people know that the back of EVERY lottery ticket says something like "odds of winning are 1:1 hundred million" or close to that range.... Not 100 Billion.... Its quite pathetic that you would fake some common sense figure, that you are clueless about, without fact checking and then go on to base an argument off of it to prove me wrong.

Again, you don't doubt the mechanics of evolution yet you attest to evolution being unable to produce anything complex and must insert a supernatural explaination? Sounds more like that you don't quite understand evolution.

It seems more like your explaination now is as follows.

"I don't understand how something as complex as humans could've possibly come about through evolutionary mechanisms, so instead of trying to figure it out, I attribute it all to a supernatural cause. Done

Really? Which part of evolution am I confused about? I see it necessary to have trillions and trillions of intermediates based on probability of mutation. Of course reality says that cannot happen b/c it would take hundreds of billions of years. Therefor I say the theory is bunk.

You know reality says there cannot be that many intermediates, so you assume it doesn't take that many intermediates because you want the theory to be correct. But you have yet to prove beneficial mutations can occor (through random chance alone) in less-than-trillions of reproductions. You just assume it can because if it did it would match your theory. The burden of proof is on you. And despite the article saying the re-experient went through trillions of bacterial strand divisions and produced NOTHING, you still think it takes much less than that.

You are the one with the bias my friend.

 

[nkgupta80]

Well congradulations you found the word "trillions" in the link later in this post after I pointed it out for the third time. You clearly didn't read it. You said the word "trillion" was nowhere in the article, twice, after I posted a quote of the article in large red letters and still you said it wasn't there when it was staring you right in the face. Scroll back up the page...




Please tell me how its done then.




Please provide me a link saying how many strands of bacteria are in a colony of half an inch.



This is where I'm getting it.... from the origianl OP article:


And since you aren't capable of finding that yourself here is a google cache of that same webpage with it highlighted:'Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab' by New Scientist - RichardDawkins.net


So there you have it for the third time. It had trillions of cells and it did not reproduce the desired result as per what the original article said.







Congradulations on finding the word trillion again... Yes, on average you need the exact number of trials to achive said trait. Sometimes its more sometimes less. Like for instance, above when they tried to duplicate the resulted trait, it took them trillionS plural... meaning more than one trillion. But it averages out to a trillion the more times the experiment is conducted.





:rofl Wow it's obvious that you just made that up and know nothing of probability statistics.

Powerball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The odds are one out of 150 million. Not 100 Billion. There are more than 150million people in America, therefor the need is met.


So, now you must take back your statement:"Hence your relating to actual need of a trillion is quite flawed"

And admit that it actually does take, on average, a trillion cell divisions to derive something as complex as metabolizing citrate. Sometimes it will take less and sometimes more, but on AVERAGE it takes a trillion in this case.


*** BTW if you don't admit you are wrong at least in this one point I am done.



You've shown yourself to be ignorant of probability statistics.

BTW most people know that the back of EVERY lottery ticket says something like "odds of winning are 1:1 hundred million" or close to that range.... Not 100 Billion.... Its quite pathetic that you would fake some common sense figure, that you are clueless about, without fact checking and then go on to base an argument off of it to prove me wrong.





Really? Which part of evolution am I confused about? I see it necessary to have trillions and trillions of intermediates based on probability of mutation. Of course reality says that cannot happen b/c it would take hundreds of billions of years. Therefor I say the theory is bunk.

You know reality says there cannot be that many intermediates, so you assume it doesn't take that many intermediates because you want the theory to be correct. But you have yet to prove beneficial mutations can occor (through random chance alone) in less-than-trillions of reproductions. You just assume it can because if it did it would match your theory. The burden of proof is on you. And despite the article saying the re-experient went through trillions of bacterial strand divisions and produced NOTHING, you still think it takes much less than that.

You are the one with the bias my friend.

Assigning probabilities to the event that certain systems arise isn't a simple task. The probability of something like a mammal or a human may look entirely small, but one shouldn't view it as a sequence of single mutations adding one small feature at a time until the bacteria becomes a human.

Firstly bacteria or one-celled organisms reproduce rapidly. Therefore probabilities of certain desirable mutations may be small, but their occurence increases with a greater population.

Where it gets interesting is when we get into interactions between these cells and arrive at multi-cellular organisms. System interaction suddenly becomes less random and more selective. We have very little understanding of this (this is one of the long-term goals of bio-informatics), but a simple crude analogy is the "game of life." A grid of cells given simple rules produce complex results when acting together. You can imagine that one celled organisms acting together produce very complex results. Add in selective pressures, and you see less randomness in complex systems evolving.

Another way of looking at it is to imagine two populations of bacteria. Population one evolved to secrete compound A, and population 2 evolved to secrete compound B. One can quickly see that interaction between these two populations could possible create a symbiosis of some sort if these compounds were mutually necessary. Probability of this system arising becomes large given the proximity of these populations and selective pressures.

This is essentially what our body is. An amalgamation of cells that have produced an extremely complex system. The goal of bioinformatics and systems biology is to start getting away from the reductionist approach to biology(although this is still crucial), and start putting small structures we've learned about together and seeing what kind of behavior results.

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

Assigning probabilities to the event that certain systems arise isn't a simple task. The probability of something like a mammal or a human may look entirely small, but one shouldn't view it as a sequence of single mutations adding one small feature at a time until the bacteria becomes a human.

I strongly disagree. First the author of the experiemt stated that there were only a base number of "simple mutations" which could occur given how much coding there was in the bacteria. He said that given so many generations during the experiment each mutation must have occured several times over given the time span and average odds of each mutation occuring. Very simple to assign a probability to those events. The interesting part is that the mutation which resulted in a benefit was a "complex" occurence resulting by several random mutations having happened over the course of the experiment; which built apon each other. Lets say there were four.

For the first three mutatoins there was no net benefit, and probably no net deficit in the bacteria's ability to reproduce. But by the third it started metabolizing citrate. All you have to do is understand the probability of each proper mutatoin consecutively occuring and add them, and then you have a probability for the new trait.

Secondly it should be viewed as each random mutatoin, or set of random mutations, adding up for the bacteria to eventually becoming a human. Thats how the change occurs therefor there is no need to view it differently.

Firstly bacteria or one-celled organisms reproduce rapidly. Therefore probabilities of certain desirable mutations may be small, but their occurence increases with a greater population.

Yes this is exactly what I've stated somewhere up there in my post.

Where it gets interesting is when we get into interactions between these cells and arrive at multi-cellular organisms. System interaction suddenly becomes less random and more selective. We have very little understanding of this (this is one of the long-term goals of bio-informatics), but a simple crude analogy is the "game of life." A grid of cells given simple rules produce complex results when acting together. You can imagine that one celled organisms acting together produce very complex results. Add in selective pressures, and you see less randomness in complex systems evolving.

I don't have any idea what you mean by "selective pressures."

Its all by random and undirected accidents; that is a core facet of evolution. Then natural factors select the most fit traits. The natural factors are constant in this context, they always promote the most advantageous traits.

You say "something" starts making "them" ... "more selective" and that doesn't make any sense. In this context it seems you WANT to say the random mutations suddently become more directed to the most beneficial trait. But that is not how it works. They are random and they stay random, the good ones stay and the bad ones leave.

I understand how a complex system can proactively "choose" what is best for an environment and adapt by expressing certain genes and not others, but the net complexity remains the same, thus it is not evolution.

Another way of looking at it is to imagine two populations of bacteria. Population one evolved to secrete compound A, and population 2 evolved to secrete compound B. One can quickly see that interaction between these two populations could possible create a symbiosis of some sort if these compounds were mutually necessary. Probability of this system arising becomes large given the proximity of these populations and selective pressures.

Again selective pressures are always random, if they are not then its not evolution; it's guided adaptation.

This is essentially what our body is. An amalgamation of cells that have produced an extremely complex system. The goal of bioinformatics and systems biology is to start getting away from the reductionist approach to biology(although this is still crucial), and start putting small structures we've learned about together and seeing what kind of behavior results.

In the past few days I just started reading about bioinformatics and 'collective intelligence" in bacteria so im not too sure about it.

What do you mean by reductionist approach?

 

[nkgupta80]

I strongly disagree. First the author of the experiemt stated that there were only a base number of "simple mutations" which could occur given how much coding there was in the bacteria. He said that given so many generations during the experiment each mutation must have occured several times over given the time span and average odds of each mutation occuring. Very simple to assign a probability to those events. The interesting part is that the mutation which resulted in a benefit was a "complex" occurence resulting by several random mutations having happened over the course of the experiment; which built apon each other. Lets say there were four.

For the first three mutatoins there was no net benefit, and probably no net deficit in the bacteria's ability to reproduce. But by the third it started metabolizing citrate. All you have to do is understand the probability of each proper mutatoin consecutively occuring and add them, and then you have a probability for the new trait.

Secondly it should be viewed as each random mutatoin, or set of random mutations, adding up for the bacteria to eventually becoming a human. Thats how the change occurs therefor there is no need to view it differently.



Yes this is exactly what I've stated somewhere up there in my post.

my point is that primitive life took a lot longer (comparatively) to evolve than complex life. That is because adding a new thing to the system required a rarer set of mutations which didn't add much information. However, with each new mutation, we increase the set of possible complex systems that can develop. Hence we increase the chance of a new behavior occurring. This is because each new mutation adds a lot more information.

I don't have any idea what you mean by "selective pressures."

Its all by random and undirected accidents; that is a core facet of evolution. Then natural factors select the most fit traits. The natural factors are constant in this context, they always promote the most advantageous traits.

You say "something" starts making "them" ... "more selective" and that doesn't make any sense. In this context it seems you WANT to say the random mutations suddently become more directed to the most beneficial trait. But that is not how it works. They are random and they stay random, the good ones stay and the bad ones leave.

I understand how a complex system can proactively "choose" what is best for an environment and adapt by expressing certain genes and not others, but the net complexity remains the same, thus it is not evolution.

ack bad wording, didn't mean to use seleciton in that way. my bad. My point is on emergent phenomena, and how much information you really get from each mutation. This amount goes up exponentially for each mutation. So with each new addition, we get new emergent behaviour. Thats why as we get to more and more complex animals, less genetic differences are observed. What is different is how the genetic code is read, and how the minor differences cause major changes in the phenotypic expression.

Secondly, it is not right to consider the structures we see today as the only possible functioning structures that could have evolved. There are many possible mutations that can lead to interesting complex structures. It just happens that the path taken was the path we see now. Yes the probability that a human evolved exactly the way it is today is minor. But what are the alternate outcomes. Do they have to be nothing? We could have easily had functioning humans that in fact had 4 legs or perhaps 10 hearts, or whatever. you get my point.

Again selective pressures are always random, if they are not then its not evolution; it's guided adaptation.

In the past few days I just started reading about bioinformatics and 'collective intelligence" in bacteria so im not too sure about it.

What do you mean by reductionist approach?

Reductionist approach is what biology is mainly today. Break structures down to components and understand the details of each component. Systems biology is taking the next step and putting these structures together to see what kind of system behavior develops. an extremely difficult to study but very interesting as a field.

 

[jfuh]

Well congradulations you found the word "trillions" in the link later in this post after I pointed it out for the third time. You clearly didn't read it. You said the word "trillion" was nowhere in the article, twice, after I posted a quote of the article in large red letters and still you said it wasn't there when it was staring you right in the face. Scroll back up the page...




Please tell me how its done then.




Please provide me a link saying how many strands of bacteria are in a colony of half an inch.



This is where I'm getting it.... from the origianl OP article:


And since you aren't capable of finding that yourself here is a google cache of that same webpage with it highlighted:'Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab' by New Scientist - RichardDawkins.net


So there you have it for the third time. It had trillions of cells and it did not reproduce the desired result as per what the original article said.







Congradulations on finding the word trillion again... Yes, on average you need the exact number of trials to achive said trait. Sometimes its more sometimes less. Like for instance, above when they tried to duplicate the resulted trait, it took them trillionS plural... meaning more than one trillion. But it averages out to a trillion the more times the experiment is conducted.

I had asked you where you saw this and you hadn't given me such a place. plain and simple.

:rofl Wow it's obvious that you just made that up and know nothing of probability statistics.

Powerball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The odds are one out of 150 million. Not 100 Billion. There are more than 150million people in America, therefor the need is met.

:coffeepap:In powerball you must select 6 number's correctly to win the lottery.
And the first 5 once a number is taken it won't repeat itself except for the powerball which is another free for all.
So.
The highest number of powerball is 99, the lowest is 1.
Thus
1/99x1/98x1/97x1/96x1/95 for the first five and then x1/99 for the last powerball again.
That gives an odds of ~1.18 x 10^-12 That's 10 to the negative 12 power please by all means what value as 12 zeros after it? million?
PLease, do some math will you.

So, now you must take back your statement:"Hence your relating to actual need of a trillion is quite flawed"

And admit that it actually does take, on average, a trillion cell divisions to derive something as complex as metabolizing citrate. Sometimes it will take less and sometimes more, but on AVERAGE it takes a trillion in this case.


*** BTW if you don't admit you are wrong at least in this one point I am done.

Your point is flawed, do the math.

You've shown yourself to be ignorant of probability statistics.

Do the math.

BTW most people know that the back of EVERY lottery ticket says something like "odds of winning are 1:1 hundred million" or close to that range.... Not 100 Billion.... Its quite pathetic that you would fake some common sense figure, that you are clueless about, without fact checking and then go on to base an argument off of it to prove me wrong.

how many 0's are behind 100 million? oh right, 6. What unit has 12 zeros behind it?

Really? Which part of evolution am I confused about? I see it necessary to have trillions and trillions of intermediates based on probability of mutation. Of course reality says that cannot happen b/c it would take hundreds of billions of years. Therefor I say the theory is bunk.

The article does not say trillions of intermediates.

You know reality says there cannot be that many intermediates, so you assume it doesn't take that many intermediates because you want the theory to be correct. But you have yet to prove beneficial mutations can occor (through random chance alone) in less-than-trillions of reproductions. You just assume it can because if it did it would match your theory. The burden of proof is on you. And despite the article saying the re-experient went through trillions of bacterial strand divisions and produced NOTHING, you still think it takes much less than that.

You are the one with the bias my friend.

Bias would be accepting the validity of the mechanism, but still denying it's validity because of religious hocus pocus.

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

my point is that primitive life took a lot longer (comparatively) to evolve than complex life. That is because adding a new thing to the system required a rarer set of mutations which didn't add much information. However, with each new mutation, we increase the set of possible complex systems that can develop. Hence we increase the chance of a new behavior occurring. This is because each new mutation adds a lot more information.

Alright..

Yes, you must "add an arm" before it becomes beneficial to develop feathers capable of flight. Why does it suddenly get easier to develop that kind of feather only after you have an arm? This is what you are getting accross to me and it doesn't make sense.

More "options" of complex mutations does not mean comparatively "faster" arriving of beneficial mutations.

ack bad wording, didn't mean to use seleciton in that way. my bad. My point is on emergent phenomena, and how much information you really get from each mutation. This amount goes up exponentially for each mutation. So with each new addition, we get new emergent behaviour. Thats why as we get to more and more complex animals, less genetic differences are observed. What is different is how the genetic code is read, and how the minor differences cause major changes in the phenotypic expression.

You are saying "information from each mutation goes up exponentially for each mutation once ____ occurs." This is where I'm loosing you. I think you want to fill in the blank with "greater number of mutations."

So that would mean the more complex an organism is the more each new mutation will produce even greater comparative complexity per mutation, compared to a mutation of an organism of lesser copmlexity.

A super exaggerated example would be bacteria making a new metabolism trait in the same ammount of time/odds/trials a mammal would have to make a new functioning organ.

That sure would fit very well considering it takes trillions of mutation chances to metabolize citrate in bacteria that reproduces ever few minutes on the hour while a mammal can take up to a decade and half to reproduce and provide a chance for mutation.

But I see no reason it suddenly starts getting easier to make traits other than it magically answers the dilema better than anything else.

Secondly, it is not right to consider the structures we see today as the only possible functioning structures that could have evolved. There are many possible mutations that can lead to interesting complex structures. It just happens that the path taken was the path we see now. Yes the probability that a human evolved exactly the way it is today is minor. But what are the alternate outcomes. Do they have to be nothing? We could have easily had functioning humans that in fact had 4 legs or perhaps 10 hearts, or whatever. you get my point.

Yes and I don't think I said it needs to be exactly like a human. As a matter of fact that would have no application to my argument.

The only thing I said was that one chemcial metabolism ability was one in a trillion - therefor I assumed any chemical abiliity, no matter whatever it is you want it to be, would have the same odds. The human body I'm sure has to have thousands (A guess I admit) of chemical abilities. I don't see any mechanism which allows for any of them to come about at better or lesser odds. Which leads me to.....

Reductionist approach is what biology is mainly today. Break structures down to components and understand the details of each component. Systems biology is taking the next step and putting these structures together to see what kind of system behavior develops. an extremely difficult to study but very interesting as a field.

Systems biology might be what you think is the reasoning behind devoloping capabilities at easier than previosly stated odds; a requirement for your posiition b/c we dont' have time for trillions of mammals to work with like we do with bacteria.

So answer me this please:

A human being is a great example of biological system and you appear to believe a biological system is capable of developing more complex mechanism and traits more easily than a single celled organism. Then...

-If a human suddenly would benefit from metabolizing citrate(I think we already can but for arguments sake) what mechanism, possibly having to do with emergence like you said earlier, would allow this human system to randomly develop this chemical metabolism ability FASTER or in FEWER NEEDED ATTEMPTS than the Ecoli bacteria? (a fantastic application question b/c you say more complex systems can achive beneficial traits faster than bacteria)

-There may be a way to "push the goal post back" on that question so here is a similar one: How would a hundred or thousand celled multicellular-organism develop that same ability faster as, In a conceptual sense, you say must be possible?

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

I had asked you where you saw this and you hadn't given me such a place. plain and simple.

I quoted it in my post the very first time I used it. Did you think I dishonestly just made it up?

:coffeepap:In powerball you must select 6 number's correctly to win the lottery.
And the first 5 once a number is taken it won't repeat itself except for the powerball which is another free for all.
So.
The highest number of powerball is 99, the lowest is 1.
Thus
1/99x1/98x1/97x1/96x1/95 for the first five and then x1/99 for the last powerball again.
That gives an odds of ~1.18 x 10^-12 That's 10 to the negative 12 power please by all means what value as 12 zeros after it? million?
PLease, do some math will you.

Your point is flawed, do the math.

Do the math.

how many 0's are behind 100 million? oh right, 6. What unit has 12 zeros behind it?

ONLY because you said please. Im getting quite sick of this lackluster effort you are giving my posts and was about to quit wasting my time.

Powerball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of May 2008, to play the game, a player pays $1 and picks five numbers from 1 to 55 (white balls) and one additional number from 1 to 42 (the red Powerball number.)

So you do know how probability works. I commend you. But you had the facts wrong. It's five out of 55 and one powerball out of 42, not 99 like you thought.

It comes out to one in 150 million or so.

I'm hoping you didn't actually know this and then tried to slip it by me.

The article does not say trillions of intermediates.

It said one in a trillion, meaning the odds. Meaning on average, you need a trillion attempts, or reproductions to get somthing as complicated as a net metabolism ability.

Now an attempt/reproduction itself is not an intermediate. Not that it matters.

 

[jfuh]

I quoted it in my post the very first time I used it. Did you think I dishonestly just made it up?


ONLY because you said please. Im getting quite sick of this lackluster effort you are giving my posts and was about to quit wasting my time.

Powerball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So you do know how probability works. I commend you. But you had the facts wrong. It's five out of 55 and one powerball out of 42, not 99 like you thought.

It comes out to one in 150 million or so.

I'm hoping you didn't actually know this and then tried to slip it by me.

I was under the impression that it was over 99 numbers - there was no intention of "slipping it by".
So re-entering the figures what we get is 1/55*1/54*1/53*1/52*1/51*1/42 = 5.7 x 10^-11
So ten times less than the probability I calculated out before.
So as I said, do the math.
I don't think you are making it up more so that I think you are academically lazy - as I had demonstrated by too lazily looking up the actual values of a power ball lottery range.

It said one in a trillion, meaning the odds. Meaning on average, you need a trillion attempts, or reproductions to get somthing as complicated as a net metabolism ability.

Now an attempt/reproduction itself is not an intermediate. Not that it matters.

Actually yes it does matter. It's the very core of the problem because you are equating the probability of an intermediate appearing to actually equate to the number of intermediates. Two distinctly different situations.

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

I was under the impression that it was over 99 numbers - there was no intention of "slipping it by".
So re-entering the figures what we get is 1/55*1/54*1/53*1/52*1/51*1/42 = 5.7 x 10^-11
So ten times less than the probability I calculated out before.
So as I said, do the math.
I don't think you are making it up more so that I think you are academically lazy - as I had demonstrated by too lazily looking up the actual values of a power ball lottery range.

We are both even more lazy than you realize. You properly did the equation with the wrong numbers and multiple sites also disagreed with you so I assumed using the correct numbers would match up with all the the websitees 140 millions odds prediction so I just assumed that would solve it. But I was concerned after you redid the equation, and so I did too, and came up with a number much higher than all the websites were claiming and so I looked into it some more and realized that the key here is that the numbers do not have to be in order like we both thought. If they were then you would be right.

It really does come out to 146 million if they balls do not need to be in order, which is the way it is played. This link explains it if you care:About Odds


Now back to the point of this... one does need to play out the odds with trials and time before something can be achieved, in this case winning the lottery. So, as my link said it was one in a trillion odds of that chemical metabolism to evolve meant that in real life on average we need one trillion cell divisions before we get that trait. Therefor that need has to be met before we likely will see the trait, sometimes it will be more and sometimes less like I've said.

Another thing, since the way the powerball lottery is played the odds of winning are one in 146 million or so, and that takes several weeks to several months to have a winner, then if it was one in a hundred billion, an increased factor of I think one thousand, then it would take several years to several decades for anyone to win the lottery on average, because the need is not immediately met. (billions of more combinations than people playing)

Actually yes it does matter. It's the very core of the problem because you are equating the probability of an intermediate appearing to actually equate to the number of intermediates. Two distinctly different situations.

[/QUOTE] I'm sorry this was supposed to be implied by my argument.

There were no known intermediates between the first generation and the one that had the new trait. Therefor that makes it the first intermediate between something of higher complexity.

So with each new trait, each new supposed intermediate between something more complex like a jellyfish, there will be trillions of cell divisions/reproductions.

It doesn't help your case either way; having trillions of intermediates (that doesn't make sense anyway because most things aren't trillions of times different) or trillions of reproductions between EACH of a few thousand intermediates before we get to a jellyfish. You can pick whichever one you want. All I'm saying is that we can't have trillions of jellyfish "A" before we get to slightly different with new trait jellyfish "B" and then trillions more to get to slightly different with new trait "C" and so on: they wouldn't fit in the ocean.

 

[nkgupta80]

Alright..

Yes, you must "add an arm" before it becomes beneficial to develop feathers capable of flight. Why does it suddenly get easier to develop that kind of feather only after you have an arm? This is what you are getting accross to me and it doesn't make sense.

More "options" of complex mutations does not mean comparatively "faster" arriving of beneficial mutations.

You are saying "information from each mutation goes up exponentially for each mutation once ____ occurs." This is where I'm loosing you. I think you want to fill in the blank with "greater number of mutations."

So that would mean the more complex an organism is the more each new mutation will produce even greater comparative complexity per mutation, compared to a mutation of an organism of lesser copmlexity.

A super exaggerated example would be bacteria making a new metabolism trait in the same ammount of time/odds/trials a mammal would have to make a new functioning organ.

That sure would fit very well considering it takes trillions of mutation chances to metabolize citrate in bacteria that reproduces ever few minutes on the hour while a mammal can take up to a decade and half to reproduce and provide a chance for mutation.

But I see no reason it suddenly starts getting easier to make traits other than it magically answers the dilema better than anything else.

Cause complexity stops being jsut about what mutation corresponds to what feature, and more about how those features interact. So yes the citric acid cycle takes trillions of bacterium to produce, but what makes us different from bacterium is how those processes get aggregated together to create new functions, which does not necessarily require the development of new base chemical processes. Rather it just requires the development of even one catalyst to trigger the emergent phenomena. More on this at the end.

Yes and I don't think I said it needs to be exactly like a human. As a matter of fact that would have no application to my argument.

The only thing I said was that one chemcial metabolism ability was one in a trillion - therefor I assumed any chemical abiliity, no matter whatever it is you want it to be, would have the same odds. The human body I'm sure has to have thousands (A guess I admit) of chemical abilities. I don't see any mechanism which allows for any of them to come about at better or lesser odds. Which leads me to.....


Systems biology might be what you think is the reasoning behind devoloping capabilities at easier than previosly stated odds; a requirement for your posiition b/c we dont' have time for trillions of mammals to work with like we do with bacteria.

but in fact most of the chemical processes involved in human bodies were already developed from simpler organisms. Any complex behavior is where systems biology comes in. Most of the complex processes are amalgmations of these smaller processes. So looking at lets say a muscular system vs. a digestive system a lot of the base processes are the same. THe only difference is how when you put 1000 of these cells together do they specialize, and how ceertain extra proteins and compounds act as signalers, etc. its not like each system had to be designed from scratch. THis greatly reduces probabilities of something complex like this occuring.

So answer me this please:

A human being is a great example of biological system and you appear to believe a biological system is capable of developing more complex mechanism and traits more easily than a single celled organism. Then...

-If a human suddenly would benefit from metabolizing citrate(I think we already can but for arguments sake) what mechanism, possibly having to do with emergence like you said earlier, would allow this human system to randomly develop this chemical metabolism ability FASTER or in FEWER NEEDED ATTEMPTS than the Ecoli bacteria? (a fantastic application question b/c you say more complex systems can achive beneficial traits faster than bacteria)

-There may be a way to "push the goal post back" on that question so here is a similar one: How would a hundred or thousand celled multicellular-organism develop that same ability faster as, In a conceptual sense, you say must be possible?

well see the things that a human can further develop cannot be compared with what a bacteria can develop. So if it took a bacterium that long to develop the citric acid cycle, it will take a human as long (given that it doesn't have any of those components). But again when you talk of something like a functioning organ, its not just about base proteins as it is the way those components interact to form a dynamic system. This looks very complex if we were to design it from scratch, but luckily emergent phenomena allows it to function in that way due to the functions of each component.

Again look at the game of life simulation. Creating the complex behaviour from scratch seems to show some kind of design. However, each cell has a few simple rules associated with it, that allows for emerging phenomena. (therefore you need less information encoded in the genome for that same seemingly more complicated phenomena