An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported—a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. But the researchers say that the organisms' lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The findings are published online today by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists examined sulfur bacteria, microorganisms that are too small to see with the unaided eye, that are 1.8 billion years old and were preserved in rocks from Western Australia's coastal waters. Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago—and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-scientists-hasnt-evolved-billion-years.html
[Abstract]: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/27/1419241112
(Score: 5, Funny) by middlemen on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:56PM
God wanted it that way !
(Score: 5, Funny) by dyingtolive on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:12PM
Funnily enough, I was wondering if the organism discovered was Republicans.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Touché) by hemocyanin on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:50PM
Now that Democrats have evolved into the New GOP, will they too stop evolving like the Old GOP (aka parody of itself) has?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:25AM
Here I was thinking it might be a human male
oh well. will just have to wait another couple M years to see if one evolves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:24PM
Funnily enough, I was wondering if the organism discovered was Republicans.
That's not fair at all. The GOP has demonstrably changed over the years. Just a single obvious example is the ADA. It's a Republican Party's health care plan that is demonized, called Obama-Care, and generally despised by... the Republican Party.
I might personally use the term devolved, but they certainly have not remained static.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:40AM
So you're saying it's a Republican?
(Score: 5, Funny) by VLM on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:59PM
that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years
Good effort but you all have the wrong link, try:
http://www.teaparty.org/ [teaparty.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:06PM
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:07PM
"the researchers say that the organisms' lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
No matter what the evidence atheists will attempt to claim this. First of all the ideas of natural selection and mutation were around before Darwin. He didn't come up with these ideas and to credit him is either ignorant or dishonest. He simply proposed, with no evidence, that natural selection and random mutation resulted in universal common desc3ent. What's being objected to isn't that natural selection and random mutation occur, that's a dishonest strawman, it's the idea that universal common descent occurred. To conflate the two is disingenuous. So far I have seen very little evidence to support hypotheses of universal common descent.
(Score: 5, Funny) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:35PM
Unlike you, he quoted his references, so he's winning 1-0.
(Score: 1) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 03 2015, @11:47PM
I wonder if the A/C's reference is the Bible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:49AM
While I am a Christian by faith I don't claim to have all the answers. There are many things I can't explain. But from an evidence perspective I just don't see evidence supporting UCD. Regardless of what I may believe I am merely pointing out that UCD is unsupported by evidence. You may not like this fact but no matter how much you don't like it doesn't change the facts. The burden isn't on me to disprove UCD it's on proponents to provide supporting evidence and so far I simply haven't seen any. This article certainly doesn't provide any.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:01PM
I am merely pointing out that UCD is unsupported by evidence
Look up the name Carl Woese. There is molecular evidence that life branched out very early in three directions from a common ancestor. One branch, probably more similar to the earliest life than the other branches, led to bacteria like those in the article, which have survived in niches that are more similar to early conditions on Earth, one branch led to the rest of the bacteria, and the third branch led to pretty much everything else.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:45PM
> So far I have seen very little evidence to support hypotheses of universal common descent.
No, you'd need to build some kind of "family tree" of all species, living and dead, showing life forms changing their form over generations and branching into different species. I guess you could try to do this by looking at the physical characteristics of organisms and assuming that those with similar features are somehow related, taking into account geographical relationships. A big task for living species, but not impossible I suppose. Of course, for the extinct species that would involve building some kind of highly extensive record of fossils, a "fossil record", if you will that attempts to add extinct species in the family tree as well. You'd have to account not only for geography but also for time, so you'd want to work out the age of all those fossils too. Who's got time for that?
Of course, your task would be much easier if there were some clue actually inside each living thing - perhaps something deep in the chemistry of all living cells that enables inheritance of traits, and allows us to trace the familial connections between them. Something common to all life on Earth. If only there were such a thing.
Then you'd have to cross-reference your family tree and your inherited-cellular chemistry and hope that it all more or less matched up. I mean, what are the chances of pulling that off, for all of the millions and millions of recorded species of plant, insect, bird, animal, fungus and bacteria ever recorded? Only if the two different things matched up really well, for millions and millions of species, that fits well with what we know of the time and geography that the live in, could you sensibly conclude that all life on Earth is related, and therefore all sprung from the same origin.
What a shame that there isn't a dedicated branch of science that has been busily doing exactly that for the last couple of centuries. We'd be well into the project by now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:10PM
"No, you'd need to build some kind of "family tree" of all species, living and dead, showing life forms changing their form over generations and branching into different species."
Showing that there are various life forms that share similarities and differences doesn't mean anything. Cars and bikes share similarities and differences yet no one would assume they, by themselves, evolved from one another or a common ancestor.
"Of course, for the extinct species that would involve building some kind of highly extensive record of fossils, a "fossil record""
Unfortunately the fossil record comes nowhere near what we would expect if UCD is true. Abrupt changes followed by long periods of stasis and more abrupt changes with very rough transitions. Sure you can come up with nonsense explanations to explain away why the evidence isn't what we would expect if UCD is true but I'm not interested in such explanations. I want evidence for UCD and it's not there.
"Of course, your task would be much easier if there were some clue actually inside each living thing - perhaps something deep in the chemistry of all living cells that enables inheritance of traits, and allows us to trace the familial connections between them."
You aren't 'tracing' anything you are simply assuming UCD to be true and basing your alleged relationships on similarities and differences. This doesn't evidence UCD. Similarities and differences exist among all matter and objects. That there are similarities and differences across different organisms means nothing. Bikes and cars have similarities and differences. Different software written by different software designers have similarities and differences. You can likewise 'trace' their alleged 'lineage' by comparing different files but that means nothing.
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:07AM
"Showing that there are various life forms that share similarities and differences doesn't mean anything. Cars and bikes share similarities and differences yet no one would assume they, by themselves, evolved from one another or a common ancestor."
um, bad example, because that is EXACTLY the case: pneumatic tires came from bikes, essential for cars... *many* bike shops experimented with all sorts of car-like vehicles before they -*ahem*- 'evolved' (sic) into cars as we know them...
perhaps you've even heard tell of a certain set of bike-making brothers who took it a step further...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:44AM
No it's a good example. They didn't 'evolve' all on their own through unguided forces, they were put together and assembled.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:46PM
You do realize that you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the diversity of species, right?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:54PM
What's more, you don't have to accept natural selection & evolution to be an atheist. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who believe in neither. (Not exactly sure what the *do* believe in, but that's not my problem)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:53PM
What's being objected to isn't that natural selection and random mutation occur, that's a dishonest strawman, it's the idea that universal common descent occurred. To conflate the two is disingenuous. So far I have seen very little evidence to support hypotheses of universal common descent.
This is the first time I have seen someone attempt to shoot and move the goalposts simultaneously.
I hope you stretched first.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bootsy on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:11PM
If you get a chance visit Down House
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/home-of-charles-darwin-down-house/ [english-heritage.org.uk]
You will not only see a yearly recreation of some of his experiments he did in his own huge back garden but also a discussion of the internal battle that the Christian Charles had with these ideas and their implications. He kept from publishing them for a very long time and his wife had huge issue with them. He didn't just come up with this stuff one day. A awful lot of research was done. A modern day scientist in a University would never have been given this long to see through an idea.
(Score: 2, Informative) by kanweg on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:17PM
"So far I have seen very little evidence to support hypotheses of universal common descent."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com]
You're welcome.
Bert
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:15PM
the fact that mitochondria were at first an individual organism, but then were absorbed by many and then all eukaryote cells is evidence of common descent. there are still prokaryotes though so it's not universal.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:17PM
I figured at least sites like this would be devoid of the willfully ignorant creationists, as they abhor any form of information. I guess they will even infiltrate places that make their skin crawl to spread their lies.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:10PM
A friend I frequently debate current events w/ will add this news to his quiver for sure. He believes any money spent on putting humans into space (beyond the space station) is wasted because we still have not discovered all there is in every nook and cranny of the earth.
I'm in the "why can't we do both?" camp.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:28PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6EDzhDv-Is [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:32PM
I like how they put Buddy Holly in the same category as Einstein.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:45PM
He didn't say which Einstein, Einstein!
Could be Alfred, Bob, Napoleon or even Albert Lawrence Einstein (now known as Albert Lawrence Brooks).
(Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:53PM
Or Doc Brown's dog
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:01PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:44PM
I like oranges slightly better than apples, so I never, ever eat apples.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 03 2015, @05:15PM
The theory of evolution posits a case where literally no evolution happens, called the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. It is an impossible to realize ideal, but as a population gets closer to meeting its requirements, its rate of allele change decreases.
What the scientists actually mean is that this organism's population has had proportionally very little change for the past 2 billion years compared to more intensely competitive organisms in shifting niches.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:09PM
They don't even mean that. They aren't comparing genomes, they aren't comparing proteins, they're comparing gross physical featues. And of those only the ones that fossilized.
So what they are really saying is "The gross shape is well enough adapted to it's life that there's been no observable change that fossilized.".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2015, @06:59PM
And it's posting to SN!
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:39PM
Everything wants to be people, and people want to be people with little bodies and big brains with skulls that are contoured to match the brains. This is just as movies and Josh Feuerstein taught me!
Next you'll be telling me devolution isn't a thing and that Cartoon Network only runs stuff like The Boondocks late night.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday February 03 2015, @07:50PM
Just because in their case it has not resulted in significant changes to gross morphology in no way means it has not been evolving.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:52PM
However, the scientists are proposing that the environmental changes are negligible for such creatures, whereas our environment has changed quite a lot in the same timeframe. Therefore it is to be expected that we will have evolved more than them. Which is evidenced in what's known about our phenotypes over the billennia (there's probably no such word, but there ought to be).
Punctuated equilibrium is permitted to have arbitrarily long periods of equilibrium. Some even say that equilibrium is the norm, the punctuations are the unusual state.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:35PM
You realize they live on the same planet we do, right?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday February 04 2015, @08:25AM
You realise our planet has many widely varying environments, right? Why don't you move to the Arctic, the bottom of the Mariana Trench, or the middle of Death Valley? It's the same planet.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 04 2015, @10:48AM
SN site perl coders - is the <sarcasm> tag supposed to work, as, according to 'preview', it doesn't.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:01PM
These creatures have evolved just as much...
How do you define the amount of evolution a creature has undergone?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 07 2015, @04:25AM
By this definition it should be possible to show what they are claiming - long term lack of evolution - but their evidence does not actually support it. Again, they have no genetic data. They are comparing gross morphology visually.
What I actually meant is slightly different - their evolutionary history is just as long as ours. Its evolution may well have been extraordinarily slow - but the stable morphology only suggests and certainly does not demand that conclusion. Heck it may not be stable morphology at all, the population could have been wiped out completely a dozen times and then a new population evolved into the same shape each time. These are bacteria we are talking about. We have the modern DNA but no ancient DNA to compare it to, and even with large vertebrates judging descent by gross morphology has proven to be less than perfectly accurate.
All known life has the same ultimate ancestor and therefore the same start point and the exact same length of evolutionary history, whatever its current form.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?