Evolution proven in a petri dish

[-apoc-]

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

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."
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)
Read our Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions special report.

[RendeR]

"Fascinating"

[jeff061]

God is responsible for that mutation. There will never be a "poke in the eye" for the illogical.

[Lathum]

i predict this thread ends badly

[DaddyTorgo]

wow...that's fascinating

[molson]

I wish I was smart enough to be an evolutionary biologist, that's some interesting stuff.

[KWhit]

Very interesting, but I generally agree with what jeff said above.

[JediKooter]

Just what we need, another bacteria. Where's the monkeys that can talk??

[Ksyrup]

"evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome"




DULY NOTED

[Passacaglia]

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.

Big deal. I can win the Front Office Bowl ten times in a row, if I use the save-and-replay cheat.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by jeff061

God is responsible for that mutation. There will never be a "poke in the eye" for the illogical.

Sounds to me some are just grumpy that you can never refute the existence of God. As an agnostic, I don't have a place on either side of the fight, but I find it ironic when someone from either side can take a piece of knowledge and try to spin it to match their faith in religion or atheism.

And I agree with the posts above, fascinating stuff.

[-apoc-]

I personally don't see the incompatability of the theory of evolution and religion unless you prescribe to the most literal interpretations of the bible and believe the Earth to only be 6000 years old ect.

[Kathy Griffin]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome"




DULY NOTED

Oh come on! You'll be hearing from my lawyers.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Sounds to me some are just grumpy that you can never refute the existence of God.

I'm grumpy that people believe that the concept of evolution is contrary to their belief in God. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, and I would fault anyone on either side who argues they are. The existence of evolution does not mean there is no God. God never denied the existence of evolution.

However, if your definition of God is dependent upon evolution not existing, then I can see how science, logic and reason would be your mortal enemy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'm grumpy that people believe that the concept of evolution is contrary to their belief in God. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, and I would fault anyone on either side who argues they are. The existence of evolution does not mean there is no God. God never denied the existence of evolution.

However, if your definition of God is dependent upon evolution not existing, then I can see how science, logic and reason would be your mortal enemy.

Nobody believed they were not mututally exclusive concepts until evolution became an accepted part of the scientific community. Then the religious changed their mind and pure creationists became something of a fringe group.

There's nothing wrong with that, but the religious need to stay out of the scientific debate, where they have a pretty bad record over the last few thousand years. Faith should be enough.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by molson

There's nothing wrong with that, but the religious need to stay out of the scientific debate, where they have a pretty bad record over the last few thousand years. Faith should be enough.

Would it then be fair to ask scientists like Richard Dawkins to stay out of religious debate, like whether or not there is a God? It would seem science should be enough, but Dawkins has quite a bit to say about the very religious question of the existence of deity. I just have a difficult time separating science and religion on a topic like this one. In order to have a useful discussion, I don't think either side can ask the other to exit the room.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Would it then be fair to ask scientists like Richard Dawkins to stay out of religious debate, like whether or not there is a God?

Top 5 answers on the board. Name something you can bring up to upset Christians.

*buzz*

EVOLUTION!


Show me EVOLUTION!

*ding ding ding*



(dawkins, dawson.. eh.. whatever, close enough)

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Sounds to me some are just grumpy that you can never refute the existence of God. As an agnostic, I don't have a place on either side of the fight, but I find it ironic when someone from either side can take a piece of knowledge and try to spin it to match their faith in religion or atheism.

And I agree with the posts above, fascinating stuff.

The only logical stance is to be agnostic. So nope.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Would it then be fair to ask scientists like Richard Dawkins to stay out of religious debate, like whether or not there is a God? It would seem science should be enough, but Dawkins has quite a bit to say about the very religious question of the existence of deity. I just have a difficult time separating science and religion on a topic like this one. In order to have a useful discussion, I don't think either side can ask the other to exit the room.

What Dawkins does for a living is irrelevent to that discussion however. Dawkins simply believes there is no such thing as God and believes in it strongly enough to try and refute those who do believe it.

As for seperating the two, again, this is a matter of individual belief. you've got three options:

1: God created everything as it is, period
2: God did nothing and everything evolved to this point and will continu to do so
3: Some combination of points 1 and 2.


if you find it dificult to seperate them then it would seem your beliefs fall in #3. Dawkins falls in #2 and others fall in #1.

Science and Religion are not the same things. Just because one exists does not disprove or prove the existance of the other. They are different topics entirely.

How one chooses to BELIEVE the universe came into being is open to interpretation, some will believe that science holds the answers, some will believe that Faith holds the answers, some will combine the two.

Nobody has been proven wrong, its all a matter of opinion.

[jeff061]

Well, unless of course you are contributing knowledge to mankind, which I am not .

In order for our knowledge to grow someone needs to come up with an unsubstantiated idea and then work to prove it.

Edit: That was in response to my previous post.

[Greyroofoo]

atheists rule

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

I personally don't see the incompatability of the theory of evolution and religion unless you prescribe to the most literal interpretations of the bible and believe the Earth to only be 6000 years old ect.

[DaddyTorgo]

this thread just calls out for

[Buccaneer]

he looked at trillions of cells

I call BS.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I call BS.

I see trillions of cells everyday, whats the BS?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

I personally don't see the incompatability of the theory of evolution and religion unless you prescribe to the most literal interpretations of the bible and believe the Earth to only be 6000 years old ect.

Why shouldn't you take the bible literally? How should you take it? Why wasn't it written clearly enough for people over the past 2,000 years - longer in the case of the OT - to realize that this is the case? Seems like a pretty major screw up by the authors considering all the harm the literal interpretation has caused.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by jeff061

The only logical stance is to be agnostic. So nope.

I'm agnostic about some sort of higher or intelligent power that might (or might have) resemble(d) a god, but I'm completely 110% atheist when it comes to any sort of organised religion. That's the only logical stance from where I'm sitting.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Nobody has been proven wrong, its all a matter of opinion.

Lots of people have been proven wrong. The Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Greeks, and all those other civilizations of the past whose gods are now remembered only by historians and the writers at Stargate SG-1.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Top 5 answers on the board. Name something you can bring up to upset Christians.

*buzz*

EVOLUTION!


Show me EVOLUTION!

*ding ding ding*



(dawkins, dawson.. eh.. whatever, close enough)

I laughed

SI

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Lots of people have been proven wrong. The Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Greeks, and all those other civilizations of the past whose gods are now remembered only by historians and the writers at Stargate SG-1.

Doesn't mean they were proven wrong, unless at the point of a sword counts.

It means they were replaced!

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

this thread just calls out for

I personally think the or are much more appropriate for this thread. Though the is certainly not uncalled for

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Doesn't mean they were proven wrong, unless at the point of a sword counts.

It means they were replaced!

Zeus must have been mighty pissed off these past couple of millenia! Certainly explains the pretty awesome electrical storm we had round these parts a month or so ago.

[SFL Cat]

A proponent of ID weighs in...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

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

Look, I beleive in evolution as a Christian, but you have to admit that those final lines take this from an interesting and normal science story to someone with an obvious axe to grind, which casts the whole story in a suspicious light in my eyes as a result.

[twothree]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

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

That was just the FSM changing the results with his noodly appendage.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Kathy Griffin

Oh come on! You'll be hearing from my lawyers.

What are they going to work out a payment schedule so you can repay him for mentioning you?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Look, I beleive in evolution as a Christian, but you have to admit that those final lines take this from an interesting and normal science story to someone with an obvious axe to grind, which casts the whole story in a suspicious light in my eyes as a result.

The author of the article perhaps, but it was written by a journalist and not the researchers, so I don't see why that would cast suspicion on the findings.

Though to be honest, I group anti-evolutionists in with the Flat Earth Society, Hollow Earth advocates, etc. etc. If you want to believe something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, go right ahead, but you can't expect immunity from ridicule any more than I could if I went around insisting that the sun rotates around Earth.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Zeus must have been mighty pissed off these past couple of millenia! Certainly explains the pretty awesome electrical storm we had round these parts a month or so ago.

You gotta remember, Zeus was always fairly preoccupied with his winky and which lovely young lass was going to ride the lightning next.

He may not even have noticed yet.

[Bonegavel]

You can't argue with a christian as christianity (most/all religions?) was set up with this in mind. Anything that happens is God's will. End of story. Game. Set. Match. Seacrest Out! Adios. Bye bye.

Indoctrinate kids as early as possible (like liberalism ) and it makes it hard for them to use their logical brains later to overcome this madness. I know from personal experience (took me until I reached my 30s).

[SFL Cat]

This seems like a particularly uninteresting take on the subject. What is his point exactly? That evolution is difficult? I think that that's the whole point of this entire excercise in the first place.

In particular, his second to last sentence seems to need a lot more explaining before I will take his thesis as valid: "If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation."

It seems like a very extreme version of the straw man argument. In my studies of evolution and genetics, I don't recall anyone arguing that simple point mutations led to the diversity of life we see today.

I think his point is that the mutation that allowed the e coli to metabolize the citrate isn’t the type of mutation that would ultimately lead to the development of organisms with more complex molecular systems – which is the whole argument behind evolution – over time, random mutations have resulted in simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms.

Also, if this evolved trait required not just one, but two or more simultaneous mutations, this greatly increases the odds against a “lucky” roll of the dice especially considering that the majority of mutations are harmful to organisms. Considering this occurred in only one of the experimental colonies and required 30,000-40,000 generations of the fast growing bug, this would seem to be the case. This would also indicate that such “beneficial” mutations in more complex organisms would be even less likely. I haven’t read his books, but from what I’ve gathered, he argues that Darwinian evolution can’t account for the diversity of life on our planet today, unless an outside “engineering” or “guiding” component is involved. Now, whether he attributes this to the Divine, space aliens, or whatever…I’m not sure.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I understand that that's his contention, but that doesn't seem like a scientifically verifiable hypothesis. The mutations needed to cause great evolutionary change, it seems to me, would be quite "lucky" and would require many many generations and many many instances of these mutations not occuring, or not occuring in concert. He seems to be saying (and this is the only thing I've read from him) that because it is so difficult it is impossible. In contrast, I don't see that to be even that large of a stretch, let alone a scientific impossibility.

You say that this occured in only one of the colonies, over 30,000 to 40,000 generations, and seem to imply that since this was "rare" the odds of it happening with other "rare" things is infititesimal. The important thing to remember is that these colonies that he was experimenting with would represent such a small number of the totality of life, even just bacterial life, on the planet and the time period involved (assuming that we can agree the earth is older than 6000 years old) is so much larger that I don't think he is making his case at all.

oh shit. Ronnie Dobbs FTW!

[flere-imsaho]

This thread has officially broken my brain. F*** you people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

I personally don't see the incompatability of the theory of evolution and religion unless you prescribe to the most literal interpretations of the bible and believe the Earth to only be 6000 years old ect.

It's pretty amusing how the Bible was taken literally up until science started disproving a lot of the shit. Then it's not taken literally.

Lets face it, Christianity changes so frequently it's hard to determine what to take literally and what not. It changed when it was found the Sun didn't revolve around us, that the Earth wasn't flat, that the Earth was over 6,000 years old, etc. Why bother using it if you have to change it everytime science comes along and makes it look dumb?