http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

...
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

prayer can cure food poisoning

http://www.icr.org/article/14/

http://www.icr.org/article/1186/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

http://www.icr.org/article/14/

http://www.icr.org/article/1186/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

hahaha, you didn't understand the article, did you? This is *macro*evolution being demonstrated. Read it again and ask your teacher to help you with the big words.

ok genius... here's a better answer for you.

It's still same genus and species so it' isn't Macro-evolution. Also there are hidden genes and Dormant Genes which the article doesn't clarify.

Most importantly no NEW information is being added. This isn't evolution at all. For evolution to take place there must be new information added, which there isn't The bacteria already had the necessary dormant or hidden information in order to do what it did.

So change the topic to Creationist PWNS e.coli by armbar

Most importantly no NEW information is being added.

Read the article before further embarassing yourself.

Profound change
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski


creationists via rampage slam that armbar

these bacterium are still e. coli. xcept68 is also correct in that it was a dormant trait that was already in the genetic sequence.

so answer this. if e. coli "evolves" this ability after a mere 44,000 generations, then why is every ol' little e. coli bacterium you found out there in "the wild" lacking this trait? surely if evolution was at play here then all the e. coli you would find after the 76458265498543254326854674743259432554343598734598 793274923847692749283759 generations they've gone through in the wild would be able to metabolize citrate. what's up with that?

:billiejean:

these bacterium are still e. coli.

No they're not. E. coli can't metabolize citrate. It's part of what defines E. coli.

Okay here's an example. Humans have 2 eyes. Now suppose we found a society of people in the amazon who all had 3 eyes. You, not understanding evolution, would say they're just humans with 3 eyes. Just like you'd also say a tiger is just a lion with stripes, and a giraffe is just a an antelope with a long neck.

yer dumb

these bacterium are still e. coli. xcept68 is also correct in that it was a dormant trait that was already in the genetic sequence.

so answer this. if e. coli "evolves" this ability after a mere 44,000 generations, then why is every ol' little e. coli bacterium you found out there in "the wild" lacking this trait? surely if evolution was at play here then all the e. coli you would find after the 76458265498543254326854674743259432554343598734598 793274923847692749283759 generations they've gone through in the wild would be able to metabolize citrate. what's up with that?

:billiejean:

Referring to the turtles Darwin encountered some had long necks because they needed to reach higher for food, those that didn't have to reach as high had normal necks.

To simplify, an entire species world wide does not evolve simultaneously.

it is survival of the fittest, things evolve to survive and compete through mutation.

these bacterium are still e. coli. xcept68 is also correct in that it was a dormant trait that was already in the genetic sequence.

so answer this. if e. coli "evolves" this ability after a mere 44,000 generations, then why is every ol' little e. coli bacterium you found out there in "the wild" lacking this trait? surely if evolution was at play here then all the e. coli you would find after the 76458265498543254326854674743259432554343598734598 793274923847692749283759 generations they've gone through in the wild would be able to metabolize citrate. what's up with that?

:billiejean:

the ones in the wild did not get that trait because ones in labs are in petri(sp?) dishes; different environment different conditions. evolution is adaption to your condition or habitat, if conditions/habitats didnt alter the process of evolution, everyone would evolve the same, no whites no blacks, just genki sudo's(we are all one).

my guess is the ones in the lab were constantly being tested if they could metabolize the citrate, so most likly they were exposed to high levels of it, and adapted to its situation.

the ones in the wild did not get that trait because ones in labs are in petri(sp?) dishes; different environment different conditions. evolution is adaption to your condition or habitat, if conditions/habitats didnt alter the process of evolution, everyone would evolve the same, no whites no blacks, just genki sudo's(we are all one).

my guess is the ones in the lab were constantly being tested if they could metabolize the citrate, so most likly they were exposed to high levels of it, and adapted to its situation.

read it twice, bitches.

fuck that didnt even read it once

Either way it's still e.coli. And the turtles are still turtles. My buddy has a long ass neck, I even refer to him as turtleneck, like the sweater, but without wearin one, but he didn't grow it to reach the Capt crunch on the top shelf. So that's absolutely we todd ed. It's still a turtle.

Either way it's still e.coli. And the turtles are still turtles. My buddy has a long ass neck, I even refer to him as turtleneck, like the sweater, but without wearin one, but he didn't grow it to reach the Capt crunch on the top shelf. So that's absolutely we todd ed. It's still a turtle.

It's a turtle that mutated to survive.
Your friend having a long neck has nothing to do with the issue.
Don't mix up the focus anymore please.

ohhh did I offend you and throw you off topic.. .Darwin forbid! dumbass evolutionists thought that Giraffes evolved to have longer necks because they found an okapi skeleton. then they found they were still existent. Go figure.

they are retarded, and I win once again!

xcept is awsome, i wanna get an "I heart xcept68" tee shirt

Either way it's still e.coli. And the turtles are still turtles. My buddy has a long ass neck, I even refer to him as turtleneck, like the sweater, but without wearin one, but he didn't grow it to reach the Capt crunch on the top shelf. So that's absolutely we todd ed. It's still a turtle.

how can you compare millions of years of evolution to your friend wanted to get captain crunch?

the ones in the wild did not get that trait because ones in labs are in petri(sp?) dishes; different environment different conditions. evolution is adaption to your condition or habitat, if conditions/habitats didnt alter the process of evolution, everyone would evolve the same, no whites no blacks, just genki sudo's(we are all one).

my guess is the ones in the lab were constantly being tested if they could metabolize the citrate, so most likly they were exposed to high levels of it, and adapted to its situation.

there are so many various environments in the wild that there things are in, there have to be plenty exposed to citrate somehow. also, the way evolution is supposed to work is NOT "oh hey theres some citrate let's adapt to use it" but rather entirely random mutations that create traits that stick around if they allow greater chances of survival in their environment. citrate does not damage normal e.coli though, so that trait was not necessary to survive. thus, this trait should show up in the wild too as it would not affect e. coli that aren't exposed to citrate in any negative way.

because it's as silly as your story is.

because it's as silly as you're story is.

*your

-' & -e

Happy?

there are so many various environments in the wild that there things are in, there have to be plenty exposed to citrate somehow. also, the way evolution is supposed to work is NOT "oh hey theres some citrate let's adapt to use it" but rather entirely random mutations that create traits that stick around if they allow greater chances of survival in their environment. citrate does not damage normal e.coli though, so that trait was not necessary to survive. thus, this trait should show up in the wild too as it would not affect e. coli that aren't exposed to citrate in any negative way.


They were exposed to citrate and used it to mutate.

how can we prove the earth is millions of years old.

how can we prove the earth is millions of years old.

Go ask your teacher. If you haven't yet covered that subject you may be able to get extra credit and a pretty sticker.

how can we prove the earth is millions of years old.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

how accurate are these radiometric readings? i believe i heard something about measuring the mammoth they found a while ago. The first part they thawed was one age while the other part was a different age and it was off a lot. I dont have a link but i was just wondering if this is a reliable method.

how accurate are these radiometric readings? i believe i heard something about measuring the mammoth they found a while ago. The first part they thawed was one age while the other part was a different age and it was off a lot. I dont have a link but i was just wondering if this is a reliable method.

its a different system for measuring rocks. It is very accurate because you can literally break down the minerals to see when they were formed.
As for the mamoth thing? I imagine there are alot of complications in thawing a biological life form frozen for so long.

Also.. heres some info on Lucy

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ahloeBhlcYk&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ahloeBhlcYk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ohhh did I offend you and throw you off topic.. .Darwin forbid! dumbass evolutionists thought that Giraffes evolved to have longer necks because they found an okapi skeleton. then they found they were still existent. Go figure.

they are retarded, and I win once again!

You cannot debate anything without making the argument silly. This is because you do not understand the issue or are too thick headed to TRY and understand the issue. Stop being a cock and try to have a legitimate debate or GET THE FUCK OUT of this forum please.

The only way to date rocks is by the index fossils.

the only way to date fossils is the rocks that they are in...

Got Circular?

The only way to date rocks is by the index fossils.

the only way to date fossils is the rocks that they are in...

Got Circular?


Atomic disintegration. Look it up, do some REAL research.

only way that they can have a starting point of how to calculate the machinery is by the index fossils. hmmm.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/geologictime.asp

answering genesis.org? :gojerkit:

see GiantRodorkRedux... The only thing a creationist Bible believing God fearing Christian can offer is rebuttals from Pro-Christian/Creationist websites and the Bible. For this world is corrupt. if you aren't interested in reviewing what is offered as valid, then don't debate it. Just shut the fuck up, because you are a narrow-minded moron that is blind by your state established religiousity of evolution. Now, go read the link, then refute it. You offer your spew of trash, I refuted it with evidence against it. Until you show how it isn't valid... It stands and you do not.

Now, go read the link, then refute it.

Why should we read the links you post when you don't actually read them yourself? You just search google and post links with titles that seem to agree with your position.

see GiantRodorkRedux... The only thing a creationist Bible believing God fearing Christian can offer is rebuttals from Pro-Christian/Creationist websites and the Bible. For this world is corrupt. if you aren't interested in reviewing what is offered as valid, then don't debate it. Just shut the fuck up, because you are a narrow-minded moron that is blind by your state established religiousity of evolution. Now, go read the link, then refute it. You offer your spew of trash, I refuted it with evidence against it. Until you show how it isn't valid... It stands and you do not.

any information we offer you look at as not valid without any research, why should we treat your christian propaganda any differently? because it agrees with what you say, give me a break. If anyone here is narrow minded it is you. I have an open mind and believe that christianity teaches good lessons through its parables. As do several other religions.

see GiantRodorkRedux... The only thing a creationist Bible believing God fearing Christian can offer is rebuttals from Pro-Christian/Creationist websites and the Bible. For this world is corrupt. if you aren't interested in reviewing what is offered as valid, then don't debate it. Just shut the fuck up, because you are a narrow-minded moron that is blind by your state established religiousity of evolution. Now, go read the link, then refute it. You offer your spew of trash, I refuted it with evidence against it. Until you show how it isn't valid... It stands and you do not.

I believe in fossils. I believe in scientific dating processes. Here is one reason I believe that the world is hundreds of millions of years old or even older. I know what you're thinking.. who is this crack-baby daddy trying to full with dis rubbish? The proof is in the pudding.


The absolute age of a fossil is determined by dating the fossil with radioactive isotopes. Radioactive isotopes have unstable nuclei that break down, or decay, and form other elements. These isotopes decay at a constant, known rate. The period of time it takes for one-half of the radioactive material to decay is called the half-life of the isotope. Remember that isotopes of an element differ in number of neutrons. Carbon-12, the most common and stable isotope of carbon, has 6 protons and 6 neutrons an d therefore has an atomic mass of 12. Carbon-14, an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon has 6 protons and 8 neutrons and an atomic mass of 14. Carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14. The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years.

The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere is assumed to be constant over time. Organisms take up the two isotopes of carbon in about the same ratio that the isotopes are found in the atmosphere. Thus, when an organism dies, the ratio of c arbon-14 to carbon-12 in its remains will be the same as that in the atmosphere. As time goes by, the amount of carbon-14 will decrease as it changes into nitrogen-14. However, carbon-12 does not decay. By comparing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in a fossil with the ratio of these isotopes in the atmosphere, scientists can date fossils that are up to 50,000 years old.

Scientists use other radioactive isotopes, such as potassium-40, to date older fossils. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.28 billion years. Uranium-238 is another radioactive isotope with a long half-life that can be used to date older fos sils. Uranium-238 is used to determine the age of cores of silt taken from seabeds.

The Fossil Record
By dating fossils and examining geologic strata, scientists have been able to put together a time scale for the history of life on earth.

Fossil evidence indicates that over time organisms of increasing complexity appeared on the earth. Bacteria and blue-green bacteria are the first fossils that were preserved from the Precambrian era. During the beginning of the Paleozoic e ra, complex multicellular invertebrates dominated life in the oceans. By the end of the Paleozoic era, plants and animals has colonized the land surface of the earth.

The fossil record contains many examples that could be interpreted to mean that species evolved from more ancient organisms.


http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/IMAGES/geologic.jpg

http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/index.html

/thread

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?
by Martin Estrin, M.A.
"Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them" (Ecclesiasties 12:1).

Humans don't seem very satisfied. There is always something else they feel they need. Where are they trying to get to? On the other hand, most apes are quite content. If I were to apply some home-spun logic to the theory of evolution, then I would logically have to believe that apes evolved from man.

If evolution means that a species changes to improve itself, it seems more logical that humans would grow hair to keep warm, reduce their diet to the most nutritious foods, eliminate high mortgages by adapting to the outdoors, and do away with money, complex governments, saying what you don't mean, war, stress, traffic congestion, and genocide (which occurs when you let other members of your species needlessly starve). Apes have accomplished all this.

Apes, by evolving from man, have "created" a more workable and more sane life-style. If the ultimate aim in a more advanced society is for peace and equity, then those who evolved into the ape species have certainly surpassed their forbears of the human species.

Pass me a banana. I want to be an ape.

Real Science Is Not Arbitrary

Life—according to evolutionists—began when different chemicals, under the right circumstances, came together and formed a more complex unit which eventually developed into an organism.

It took millions of years for life to begin because the right kinds of chemicals, initially, didn't know they were right for each other until, under some arbitrary, chance circumstances, they finally met and made a match. Then, it required millions of more years for organisms to co-mingle and become transformed into complex creatures.

The key factor in the theory of evolution is that the right elements came together under arbitrary circumstances. It would have to be that way, because if the elements were to be put together in a planned, or predestined, or systematic way, there would need to be a force directing them. The life forms that resulted would, then, have been "created."

Charles Darwin advanced the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859. As it was gaining wide acceptance in the scientific community in the 1920s, noted scientist Sir William Cecil Dampier wrote:

The fundamental concepts of physical science, it is now understood, are abstractions, framed by our mind, so as to bring order to an apparent chaos of phenomena.

In other words, some scientists believed it was valid to use an abstract as theory to provide a simple answer to something that they could not otherwise observe and called it "evolution science." Yet, what is true science? Is it merely theory, or is it demonstrated fact? Is it arbitrary and unpredictable, or specific and systematic? In true science, a theory may be the basis for inquiry and study; but until it is "proven up," it is only speculation. It is not scientific to guess at conclusions.

In addition, whatever has been determined to be scientific fact always turns out to be part of an elaborate pattern. When you take a closer look at fact-based science, it is very systematic.

Science looks at the way something is. Research may have to discover how it is. But once a discovery is made—for instance, the speed of light—it becomes a scientific fact because it repeats itself in exactly the same way. Scientific facts are consistent and predictable—from the simplest to the most complex.

Two plus two is four; and two times two is four. It is absolute, conclusive, and unalterable. The way you do a certain calculation, whether basic math or complex algebra, is the way it will always be done, and it will always produce the same result. Physics. Chemistry. Electricity. Radio waves. Plant life. Animal life. The physical and life sciences are all very precise and systematic sciences. Each follows a specific pattern. There are basic forms of each, as well as scientific combinations. For example, you can "mate" an orange and a tangerine because they are from the same family. But you cannot mix apples and oranges, even though they are both fruits. Nor is there any logic or proof that an apple evolved from an orange, or an orange from an apple. Likewise, monkeys and humans may have many similar physical features and social behaviors, but that seems to be a rather thin link to conclude that humans are the offspring of monkeys.

Furthermore, for anything to be considered scientifically true, it has to be something that can be duplicated. If evolution were true, wouldn't scientists be able to recreate the sequence of change that transformed monkeys into humans?

Instead, scientists in the 1950s discovered that each organic species—both plant and animal—has a specific, complex code for its species. It is called DNA which are complex segments of information in a cell that determine what kind of a plant or animal something is. The DNA signature is unique for every species, plus every creature has a DNA pattern which is unique for it. In other words, "Joe" has a DNA code for the human species, as well as a DNA pattern unique to him.

More importantly, that DNA pattern has to be in a specific sequence for each species. In humans, there are three billion bits (called nucleotides) of information which fall into a very precise DNA sequence.

And this DNA sequence cannot, and does not, rearrange itself to create something new. DNA does not have the independent capacity to add nucleotides at will. Once a given program is established, it remains fixed in its basic sequence.

So in terms of pure science, "evolution science" appears to be a contradiction—an oxymoron. Evolution is unpredictable and arbitrary, while science is systematic—based on a preexisting system. And in a broader sense, it does not seem the universe could have created itself arbitrarily and still be completely, totally, and in every regard, systematic.

More Questions Than Answers

Evolution faces additional problems besides not fitting into the standard definition of science. Despite the extensive research in this field, it has to be acknowledged that some 130 years after the theory was proposed, there are still more questions than answers.

The Darwin concept of evolution was chiefly based on a cause-and-effect scenario: creatures changed and developed because of the necessity to adapt to new surroundings.

In this century, various paleontologists have discovered bone fragments of skeletons which they claim are extinct creatures that are the "missing links" between apes and man, thus supposedly proving evolution, and proving that today's humans are better adapted than these other creatures of a bygone era.

But what supporting evidence do we really have? Why are we so quick to believe that a one-of-a-kind, hunch-backed skeleton 400,000 years old is suddenly the "missing link"? A few years after this discovery, some different fossils—supposedly one million years old—were found in another part of the world and were called the "missing link." Is there a link between these two links? And where are all of the other missing links? Where is the chain of evidence that shows how the unique parts of creatures evolved? How did the eye develop? How did we get a heart, stomach, other organs, teeth, hearing, smell, nerves, muscles, bones, and skin all in one nice, neat package?

And a sperm meets an egg, we get another creature, almost as easily as using the Xerox. For that matter, how did the distinction of male and female genders occur?

How does evolution explain an unattractive, slithering caterpillar going into a chrysalis and emerging as one of nature's most delicately beautiful creatures—a butterfly?

But the most basic and difficult question of all is: How did inorganic material make the transition to organic, living cells? In fact, this was one of the first questions raised about evolution theory. But the proponents of evolution past and present avoid it. I. L. Cohen points out in his book, Darwin Was Wrong—A Study in Probabilities: "The idea that life sprang spontaneously from dead inorganic matter was quietly set aside, under-emphasized, and virtually forgotten."

With so many pertinent questions, and such weak science in the limited answers offered, at best, evolution seems to end up being a jigsaw puzzle with a significant number of pieces missing. Looking closely at the issues surrounding evolution, it seems perplexing that so many scientists still cling to and advocate it, even to the point of endorsing it as factual truth in science textbooks.

http://www.icr.org/article/773/

Evolution: Real Science or Nonsense?
by Martin Estrin, M.A.
...
http://www.icr.org/article/773/

Awesome work with the attribution. Though if I saw it was from icr I wouldn't have bothered reading it. As usual, the author has no idea of what evolution is (or science either). Do you have any references where these ICR folks define what they think the word evolution means?

And this DNA sequence cannot, and does not, rearrange itself to create something new.


Evolution is hereditary. Mutation happens from generation to generation. How can you actually take this article seriously when the author does not understand evolutionary theory?

mutation isn't what evolution is. Mutation is never beneficial. That's the problem. See something as big as this puts the final nail in the theory. Without positive lasting mutations, evolution cannot occur from a species to a species.

Ediot: I think you may not understand what the theory of evolution is. Maybe read Evolution for dummies, or idiots guide to evolution. They are comprehensive

mutation isn't what evolution is. Mutation is never beneficial. That's the problem. See something as big as this puts the final nail in the theory. Without positive lasting mutations, evolution cannot occur from a species to a species.

It not possible for man to evolve from ape-like creatures in 6 thousand years. That is not enough time for the generational mutation to happen. The world and man kinds place on it is older then 6000 years. I don't expect you to ever understand evolution because you deny the fact that the world is older then the bible states.

Ediot: I think you may not understand what the theory of evolution is. Maybe read Evolution for dummies, or idiots guide to evolution. They are comprehensive

You might want to pick up a copy for yourself, it would be good for you to read more then 1 book in your entire life.

I actually have that book, along with "what evolution is, by Ernst Myer" and "Darwin and his beagle" as well as about 10 other books. One of the things that Ernst Myer says is, how prokaryotes haven't evolved or changed in 3.5 bil years. It's interesting huh. Because if something is the same for that long with no change. You know why? Because evolution is a lie. Don't say that they had no reason to change, because they have the same influences on them as everything else.

I actually have that book, along with "what evolution is, by Ernst Myer" and "Darwin and his beagle" as well as about 10 other books. One of the things that Ernst Myer says is, how prokaryotes haven't evolved or changed in 3.5 bil years. It's interesting huh. Because if something is the same for that long with no change. You know why? Because evolution is a lie. Don't say that they had no reason to change, because they have the same influences on them as everything else.

how can they have not changed in 3.5 bil years but the earth is only 6k years old? You just contradicted yourself and ruined your argument. Try again.

when quoting something from an author writing on evolution who is having this problem, I was merely using what he wrote. If something hadn't changed in a supposed 3.5 bya, then evolution surely doesn't happen.

The earth is only 6k yrs old.

Why can't it be?

Why don't you google the latest information on Mudrock or mudstone.

75% of the geologic column consists of this. Scientists are conceding that it could have been lain down rapidly.

;983567']there are so many various environments in the wild that there things are in, there have to be plenty exposed to citrate somehow. also, the way evolution is supposed to work is NOT "oh hey theres some citrate let's adapt to use it" but rather entirely random mutations that create traits that stick around if they allow greater chances of survival in their environment. citrate does not damage normal e.coli though, so that trait was not necessary to survive. thus, this trait should show up in the wild too as it would not affect e. coli that aren't exposed to citrate in any negative way.

Its possible that the mutation also happens in the wild, but in the wild it would not raise the fitness of that strain, it would probably lower its fitness because it would be wasting resources by producing proteins to metabolize citrate.

Those 12 strains of E.coli have been growing in dishes with glucose and citrate for more than 20 years, the capability to utilize the alternative nutrient is an advantage under these conditions.

Id also like to mention that practically all living organisms can already metabolize citrate, us included. Im guessing that this new trait in E.coli is actually a single protein that permits citrate to be transported into the cell. But I dont know because the article costs money, maybe Ill check it out when Im back at university.

hahaha, you didn't understand the article, did you? This is *macro*evolution being demonstrated. Read it again and ask your teacher to help you with the big words.

Its not macro evolution, its still micro. Macro evolution is the process which leads to a whole new taxon, like the evolution of a whole new species. In this case it is still E.coli, it is the cit+ strain of E.coli.

Biologists use lots of different mutated strains in experiments, a strain that lacks recombination capability is called rec-, its still E.coli, even if we normally do associate the property of recombination to E.coli.

Micro evolution is still the same species and therefore speciation, as was demonstrated by Joseph in Gen chap. 31. speciation would have had to happened much faster in Biblical models since the flood to today.