Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Lachean · 06-10-08, 11:46 AM

Wow, today's a good day for Science & Tech news...

'Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab' by New Scientist - RichardDawkins.net

Quote:

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.

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.

...

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."

My favorite line from the article was, "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."

WI Crippler · 06-10-08, 01:50 PM

Thats intelligent design at work right there.

Sorry, I just had to.

Cool story.

Resplendent Independent · 06-10-08, 02:46 PM

Fantastic story. Hadn't seen this yet.

niftydrifty · 06-10-08, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

Wow, today's a good day for Science & Tech news...

'Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab' by New Scientist - RichardDawkins.net

My favorite line from the article was, "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."

don't creationists have a way to explain this all away? they will say that it's "micro-evolution" and not "macro-evolution."

Resplendent Independent · 06-10-08, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

don't creationists have a way to explain this all away? they will say that it's "micro-evolution" and not "macro-evolution."

Sure they will, but honestly, there has been overwhelming evidence of evolution to date. If you are still denying it than new evidence isn't going to change anything. Creationists start with a belief based on faith (that God created everything) and then collect and/or deny evidence to support that belief. Scientists do the opposite: we start with evidence and build a theory to account for that evidence. These are two entirely inconsistent world views that will never be resolved by evidence.

obvious Child · 06-10-08, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

don't creationists have a way to explain this all away? they will say that it's "micro-evolution" and not "macro-evolution."

Which is easily countered with macro is just the aggregate of micro. A billion tiny changes leads up a few large changes.

DarkWizard12 · 06-10-08, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resplendent Independent

Sure they will, but honestly, there has been overwhelming evidence of evolution to date. If you are still denying it than new evidence isn't going to change anything. Creationists start with a belief based on faith (that God created everything) and then collect and/or deny evidence to support that belief. Scientists do the opposite: we start with evidence and build a theory to account for that evidence. These are two entirely inconsistent world views that will never be resolved by evidence.

Excuse me; While you "evolutionists" and "creationists" bicker, it is very obvious which theory is right. We were created by super-microbes and from rocks and stones rised man! And there is centuries of evidence to back it up! And this article is just more evidence!

winston53660 · 06-10-08, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Excuse me; While you "evolutionists" and "creationists" bicker, it is very obvious which theory is right. We were created by super-microbes and from rocks and stones rised man! And there is centuries of evidence to back it up! And this article is just more evidence!

Pfffft, super microbes gimme a break. It was the super DUPER microbes!!!

DarkWizard12 · 06-10-08, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

Pfffft, super microbes gimme a break. It was the super DUPER microbes!!!

lol, I'm just reusing the senseless propaganda from the last "Generation X" ID meeting. Seriously, if this is going to be the newest perversion of science brought forth by the "Next Generation" crowd, quite frankly, I'm going to be scared.

the "Evolutionist" vs "Creationist" was bad enough, now we are going to have to deal with this. Not to mention the Exogenesis crowd as well.

winston53660 · 06-10-08, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

lol, I'm just reusing the senseless propaganda from the last "Generation X" ID meeting. Seriously, if this is going to be the newest perversion of science brought forth by the "Next Generation" crowd, quite frankly, I'm going to be scared.

the "Evolutionist" vs "Creationist" was bad enough, now we are going to have to deal with this. Not to mention the Exogenesis crowd as well.

LOL, we usually disagree on everything but it is good to have a sense of humor