Evolution Science Breakthrough

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
realthinker
Sage
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
Location: Tampa, FL

Evolution Science Breakthrough

Post #1

Post by realthinker »

Posted on New Scientiest:
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.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
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.
Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special – either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
Evidence of evolution

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.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

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."
Based on the text above, it looks like they've shown a change in species, from E. coli to something that is contrary to what is identified as E. coli.

Are such results in bacteria significant enough to cause the anti-evolution crowd to reconsider? If not, please explain.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?

User avatar
Undertow
Scholar
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:01 am
Location: Australia

Post #2

Post by Undertow »

I've heard of this before. Pretty interesting stuff. Here's the paper in PNAS:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0803151105v1

Consequently, I was just looking over old Microbiology papers for uni and came across the "citrate test" which is used to distinguish Escherichia species (-ve) and Salmonella species (+ve).

Looks like this research has blown that distinguishing feature out of the water and it's one supposed to distinguish these microbes at the Genus level, not the species. Amazing.
Image

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #3

Post by Cathar1950 »

It makes sense to me.
Lets say there are changes in the population that don’t have any emergent qualities but another change may work with a later change or be carried along and show up in a later population after another change that left the older parent population.

User avatar
daedalus 2.0
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: NYC

Post #4

Post by daedalus 2.0 »

Oh, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick I see this as just another bone of contention: was it followed by valid research, was the scientist imbued with the Spirit, were there Priests and Pope's on hand to witness the miracle, etc....?

This is a significant leap, as are many scientific discoveries during the calendar year, for the Human race, but, as Isaac Asimov says:

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
The Creationists will howl or hem and haw, as is their wont. They are idiots. I see no other way of saying it. We all, Theists and Atheists alike, have better things to do than entertain the ramblings of a few madmen who can afford a computer and internet service.
Imagine the people who believe ... and not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible.... It is these ignorant people�who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us...I.Asimov

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #5

Post by Cathar1950 »

daedalus 2.0 wrote:Oh, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick I see this as just another bone of contention: was it followed by valid research, was the scientist imbued with the Spirit, were there Priests and Pope's on hand to witness the miracle, etc....?

This is a significant leap, as are many scientific discoveries during the calendar year, for the Human race, but, as Isaac Asimov says:

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
The Creationists will howl or hem and haw, as is their wont. They are idiots. I see no other way of saying it. We all, Theists and Atheists alike, have better things to do than entertain the ramblings of a few madmen who can afford a computer and internet service.
I am not sure they are all idiots even they hold positions idiots might now know any better to hold.
I was watching this movie last night called the "sobbing stone" I guessed the plot and what it was about about an hour before the team so-called evangelical view of scientists. It was a bad movie and it might have been a better play as it was intended. But one guy was saying that how it was so interesting that those that believe in an infinate God tend to not be able to grow beyond a collection 2000 to 3000 writings when it comes to anything new.
I was just recomending a book to one of my dear friends.

I am reading an interesting book "The Wisdom to Doubt": A justification of religious skepticism by J.L. Schellenberg. It looks at the use of skepticism of both religious and irreligious skepticism and how a lack of it can stifle our ability to understand and learn.

I might also add grow mature or change.

User avatar
daedalus 2.0
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: NYC

Post #6

Post by daedalus 2.0 »

Yes, I am quite opinionated about the subject and may be wrong. I would be interested in new perspectives.
Imagine the people who believe ... and not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible.... It is these ignorant people�who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us...I.Asimov

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #7

Post by micatala »

daedalus 2.0 wrote:Oh, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick I see this as just another bone of contention: was it followed by valid research, was the scientist imbued with the Spirit, were there Priests and Pope's on hand to witness the miracle, etc....?

This is a significant leap, as are many scientific discoveries during the calendar year, for the Human race, but, as Isaac Asimov says:

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
The Creationists will howl or hem and haw, as is their wont. They are idiots. I see no other way of saying it. We all, Theists and Atheists alike, have better things to do than entertain the ramblings of a few madmen who can afford a computer and internet service.
While I don't see referring to creationists as idiots is particularly productive, I do by and large agree that there is a significant contingent of people who will simply not accept evolution, regardless of the evidence.

In particular, I would expect many creationists would simply dismiss this situation as "microevolution". They are not really changing into a new species, they are still bacteria, even if they have this additional feature. You still haven't shown that a bacteria can evolve into a person.

As long as the hardcore creationists continue to cling to their misconceptions and misrepresentations of what evolution actually is and says, it will be nigh on impossible to convince them.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Nameless

Post #8

Post by Nameless »

I know what happened..
Goddidit!
He put in that one citrate sucking redneck bacterium to confuse those silly scientists!
Ho Ho Ho!
*__-

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #9

Post by micatala »

Nameless wrote:I know what happened..
Goddidit!
He put in that one citrate sucking redneck bacterium to confuse those silly scientists!
Ho Ho Ho!
*__-
Well, this would certainly be a claim the ID folks might make. However, to be fair they do for the most part accept that evolutionary changes can occur. Whether this particular change requires an "unspecified intelligence" to intervene would depend upon whether the change requires an irreducibly complex mechanism or an increase in information.

If the ID folks actually have a definition for information or "complex specified information" that holds water, we could perhaps investigate whether this change represents an increase in information or not. I confess, I have not read Dembski or Behe directly and so can't speak to how this situation could be analyzed using their criteria.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
daedalus 2.0
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: NYC

Post #10

Post by daedalus 2.0 »

micatala wrote:
Nameless wrote:I know what happened..
Goddidit!
He put in that one citrate sucking redneck bacterium to confuse those silly scientists!
Ho Ho Ho!
*__-
Well, this would certainly be a claim the ID folks might make. However, to be fair they do for the most part accept that evolutionary changes can occur. Whether this particular change requires an "unspecified intelligence" to intervene would depend upon whether the change requires an irreducibly complex mechanism or an increase in information.

If the ID folks actually have a definition for information or "complex specified information" that holds water, we could perhaps investigate whether this change represents an increase in information or not. I confess, I have not read Dembski or Behe directly and so can't speak to how this situation could be analyzed using their criteria.
After discussing Behe and Dembski for 3 years with an avid ID'ist I can safely say - as can he - that ID is dead. CSI and all the other pseudo-scientific jargon they have used is just one big collection of fallacies: Argument from Personal Incredulity, God of the Gaps, etc.
Imagine the people who believe ... and not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible.... It is these ignorant people�who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us...I.Asimov

Post Reply