I was recently shown an article (several years old) in which a strain of bacteria in a very carefully controlled experiment arguably evolved into a new species. I'm not an expert on what does and does not constitute a species differentiation, but the gist of this result is that the bacteria were cultured in a nutrient deficient environment and they evolved the ability to metabolize a form of sugar that was present but that originally they couldn't metabolize. But the really big thing was that in order for this to happen, TWO separate adaptations had to happen in different parts of the DNA and either adaptation alone gave no increased survival benefit. So it appears to be an example of a random mutation being maintained in the DNA not because it is "good", but because it wasn't sufficiently "bad" to be selected against. So when the other random mutation occurred, NOW you had an organism that had a significant survival advantage over it's peers and so it flourished. I believe that the original strain became extinct (within the flasks that the superior strain evolved in).

 

More typically, mutations that don't produce a significant advantage don't result in new species, as the mutated organisms either die out or re-assimilate. The two mutations would (probably) need to occur in fast sequence. Bacteria can exhibit fast mutation due to rapid population growth. That's one reason why infectious bacteria is so hard to control.

 

Right now, as I understand it, the big debate is whether two very dissimilar species can produce viable off spring. To the best of my knowledge this has not happened, though a liger comes to mind. Since tigers and lions are both felines I tend to not count them.

It is a bit of a reach to have two species mate and produce fertile offspring, but just because we (humans) have never seen it does not mean it can not happen. Just for the record, I believe this story to be funny but not all that likely.

It is important to note though, most new theories are thoroughly rejected by mainstream science when first proposed. Plate tectonics comes to mind here. It is almost a truism you have to wait for the old guard to die off and the new guard of scientists to take over for a radical theory to gain traction.

For a long time it was thought that Neanderthals and Cro-magnons(Homo sapiens) could not inter breed, being two different species. But as the Genome project got farther along, they've found that they could inter breed, and we have definitely Neanderthal genes in our DNA.

 

I still find it amusing that humans share about 55% of their DNA with bananas

 

I still find it amusing that humans share about 55% of their DNA with bananas

Amusing? It makes perfect sense!

 

Are you saying there is Human/Banana interbreeding going on right now, out there??

 

Are you saying there is Human/Banana interbreeding going on right now, out there??

Is that why there are no seeds in the bananas.

 

I still find it amusing that humans share about 55% of their DNA with bananas

That's why the male sex organ looks like it does.

 

Bananas is they are a berry, not a fruit.

 

Bananas is they are a berry, not a fruit.

All berries are fruits, but not all fruits are berries. Unless you can find a definition that says otherwise.

 

All berries are fruits, but not all fruits are berries. Unless you can find a definition that says otherwise.

When I die, I prefer to be berried, not fruited. There is a difference, you know.

 

Bananas is they are a berry, not a fruit.

Huh?

Then what are those things that stud the outside of a strawberry?

Wild bananas are filled with large, hard seeds.

Domestic bananas have been bred to have small, soft seeds in the very center. They are not viable seeds, but that has nothing to do with whether they are a "berry" or not, it is because they have been bred that way. Look next time you eat one.

 

There are a lot of things that are berries that you might not think are:

Peppers (all)
Tomatoes
Avocados
Pumpkins
Watermelons
Coffee pods

Things we think of as berries that are not:
Strawberries
Blackberries
Raspberries (including Pi)
Cherries

IIRC, berries need to be from a single ovary (flower) and there should be no separation between the seed(s) and the meat of the fruit.


Not sure about beans and peas. They come from a single ovary, but they seem to be separate from the stingy 'meat' of the fruit.

Strawberries, blackberries and raspberries all have little flower clusters that produce the fruit and each fruit is the result of multiple ovaries.

 

I still find it amusing that humans share about 55% of their DNA with bananas

Bah! The only thing I want to share with a banana is a bowl of corn flakes.

 

I still find it amusing that humans share about 55% of their DNA with bananas

It makes perfect sense when you look at many people's forum questions.

"Hmmm, why does he keep asking silly questions and not following anyone's advice?"

Because he is 55% banana! Simples.

 

It makes perfect sense when you look at many people's forum questions.

"Hmmm, why does he keep asking silly questions and not following anyone's advice?"

Because he is 55% banana! Simples.

I was just thinking the same thing!!

I'm also tempted to start directing them to: Lerning theoritacol physics

 

Ceareosly, hav yew notised how spelling has deteariorated

 

Ceareosly, hav yew notised how spelling has deteariorated

Oh yeah!

It's hard to really judge on a forum because you don't know who is a native English speaker, who is not but is typing their own English, and how is relying on a translation program (though that generally is a grammar and word choice issue more than a spelling issue).

And, of course, everyone is going to make more typos and spelling errors in a forum environment because most of us are typing quick responses and getting the post out the door. I'm constantly having to edit posts to fix typos.

Be I do believe that (in the U.S., at least) we have significantly reduced the expectations on students for good writing skills -- and it didn't start with the present generation, I know that the expectations that I learned under in the '70s and ''80s weren't nearly as high as the expectations my parents worked under.

The "texting" generation has only made this far worse. I fully understand the value and utility of "text speak" in that venue. But it amazes me how people seem to think that it is okay to use that in every venue.

 

I know we are not in Off-Topic, but...

As a teenager, I was an avid reader (of mostly sci-fi), but I believe reading really improves your spelling, maybe without you realizing it!

I believe recreational reading is not the norm these days, at least with the younger folks.

 

I know we are not in Off-Topic, but...

As a teenager, I was an avid reader (of mostly sci-fi), but I believe reading really improves your spelling, maybe without you realizing it!

I believe recreational reading is not the norm these days, at least with the younger folks.

I agree. It improves your spelling, your vocabulary, and your grammar. It exposes you to different ways of expressing things and will generally expose you to more historical information and technical information than you can hope to get in run-of-the-mill television and movies. Which is not to say that there isn't plenty of junk history and science in the printed word to go around.