So, now we have observable
evolution with a replay button...
Article synopsis:
Scientist grows twelve separate colonies of bacteria in the lab, all derived from the same original cell; One colony evolves a radical new trait after 35,000 generations. To test this, the said scientist uses "backup copies" (staples from the colonies frozen every 500th generation) to re-wind the evolutionary path.
the conclusion is that only the one particular colony ever had a chance of evolving the new trait and only because of something that happened to it's 20,000th generation, 15,000 generations before the radical new mutation appeared.
Thoughts:
As if we needed it, more proof of evolutionary principles. At least we now have a testable model for examining evolution.
I want to know what the reaction if the ID/creationism crowd will be; I fully expect dismissal, but what form of dismissal exactly? I can think of at least one variation; "it's a laboratory experiment, this is no more natural than pocket watches!"
Anyway, I thought that this was a fascinating little experiment that at least some of you guys would want to know about.
...because
dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Posts
This is the emergence of a brand new trait for the E. Coli without human intervention (due neatly to population isolation and all the normal evolutionary principles we know about). Essentially, this is virtually macroevolution. Hell, if it went on for long enough something like this would be a precursor to speciation - these E. Coli are going for a new evolutionary niche.
What I bet creationists will do to poo-poo it is just a) not even try to understand what has just happened, boiling it down to the petty lab argument and the assertion that the scientists must have done something like feed them magic citrate pills.
This is still really neat, though.
NNID: Hakkekage
It's great that they have the replay button, clearly this was an incredibly well defined experiment.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I can picture it now. Several hundred thousand generations of E. Coli have developed, it's all going sweet, and then the biologists notice, to their horror, that the container holding the bacteria is rapidly disintegrating from the inside.
Technically no, but yeah pretty much. Microevolution would be all the changes in traits and alelle frequency that don't result in speciation. Macroevolution is speciation. The one leads to the other, and they're both just stuff evolving, but you could slice things closer if you wanted.
Who didn't check their genetic code back in the CVS properly?!
The 400 lb gorilla in the room, of course, is that "speciation" is a nebulous concept itself.
Have ID supporters ever said that we're all trending towards perfection? I've never heard such claims, and while this is awesome, I'm not sure how this helps deconstruct their arguments.
How do you even define speciation in E. Coli? They're asexual.
No, but numerous ID supporters have said that "evolutionists" (spoken in the same tone the town busybody would have said "communists" in the seventies) have claimed exactly that.
Apparently these claims of claims are based on the idea that natural selection eliminates "unfit" individuals. However, they who speak this falsehood never bother to ask what unfit means, nor what happens to the individuals that aren't unfit but are still different to their ancestors.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
The article mentions that one of the things they use to identify E. Coli is that it doesn't eat citrate. Now it does. I mean that's pretty damn close - you'd be all "it's like E. Coli, but it eats citrate - must be a subspecies"
Yeah, bacterial species definitions are always kinda indistinct around the edges.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I was curious about that comment as well. I've never heard, from anyone, that evolution always leads to the best possible outcome. It seems pretty obvious to me that evolution most certainly does not lead to the best possible outcome, I can't see how it would.
I guarantee you it will boil down to the "distinctions" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They'll point out it's still a bacterium, not a grasshopper.
That's when you point to the colonies that turned into Mikeman's 400lb Gorilla.
I think the coolist thing by far is that they've grown enough bacteria for every possible point mutation to have occured in only 20 years. That in itself is pretty awesome.
Horizontal gene transfers, or "Why don't our damn antibiotics work anymore?".
And the chocolate is delicious science.
Intelligent design is creationism.
I did a presentation on this in one of my physical anthropology courses. Basically HGT= kewl but also = ZOMGRUN! mutant bacteria and rogue GM crop genes! While I have doubts about this being a problem, it might be somthing we should look into.
Also, im glad there is another thing to point at as proof of evolution.
but they're listening to every word I say
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Creationism, as it's currently used (IE, what people are trying to force into schools) hold that living creatures were, well, created in their current state, and have changed very little over time.
In other words, nonsense that isn't in any way supported by evidence.
I'd just like to point out that yes, it's possible to be a creationist while also accepting everything about modern evolutionary theory. And you even won't contradict yourself.
Then promptly gets, in the vernacular, 'pwnt' by Professor Lenski, the original author of the research.
A quote, if I may: And then, apparently, Conservapedia promptly deleted certain significant sections of the talk page for this and accidentally omitted other parts.
Show of hands, people; who is even slightly surprised?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
The correct term is "memory hole".
No, it is not. Creationism by definition is a rejection of evolution. You are talking about theistic evolution, which is "Yeah, it totally happens, yay for science, that's just how God does his thing."