Evolution article: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Rustican

Member
Feb 7, 2005
120
0
76
Just something I thought was worth reading.

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."

Link

Cliffs:
Researcher spends 20 years growing 12 populations of bacteria taken from the same source for 44,000 generations.
Sees that one population has evolved, gaining the ability to metabolize a different type of nutrient.
Able to reproduce the result by unfreezing earlier generations (gen 20,000)and watching them evolve to the 44,000 generation.
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,404
386
126
Its an interesting article. Most of use don't really need further proof of evolution; however it does help show that supposed missing links in evolution aren't really missing. Drastic changes do happen quickly.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,662
9,097
136
Originally posted by: KB
Its an interesting article. Most of use don't really need further proof of evolution; however it does help show that supposed missing links in evolution aren't really missing. Drastic changes do happen quickly.

"Missing links" is just a way to divert attention away from the actual evidence. Fossilization is a fairly rare event.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
How can you be sure this wasn't 'intelligent design' at work? :laugh:
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Funny enough there are schools of thoughts among creationism where this is perfectly acceptable. I think you guys would be surprised that religious people argue more amongst themselves about how we came to be than Secular people argue with religious people. (I mean, its not a black vs white but a black vs white with the white being the rainbow fighting amongst themselves where some colors are pretty damn close to black you can distinguish them)
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Other bacteria break down citrate, but E. coli doesn't so to fix what sounds like one defective gene in E. coli it took 31,500 generation. 31,500 generations in humans would be about 630,000 years, for what might only be a single single gene. That sounds more like it's discrediting the evolution of man.

630,000 years for a single gene. What would it take to go from apes to humans at that rate? Trillions of years? Quintillions?
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Originally posted by: Robor
How can you be sure this wasn't 'intelligent design' at work? :laugh:

Suprise, 3rd response in made it a religious thread.

There is nothing in religious that says evolution didn't happen.

"Adam and Eve were created in God's image".

Whats God's image? A man? A human? An erect mammal with 2 arms and legs? God's image has been and always is, Love, that is mentioned in the scriptures. Can you find somewhere in your evolution where Love came to be, and the scientific/biological need for it? You'd think selfishness would have been the main passed on trait, those who are selfish are more likely to live longer and survive. Think about it, if you can.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,109
1,576
126
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Other bacteria break down citrate, but E. coli doesn't so to fix what sounds like one defective gene in E. coli it took 31,500 generation. 31,500 generations in humans would be about 630,000 years, for what might only be a single single gene. That sounds more like it's discrediting the evolution of man.

630,000 years for a single gene. What would it take to go from apes to humans at that rate? Trillions of years? Quintillions?

Actually, reading the article, it mentions that many gene mutations occurred throughout the process, but that this one mutation is huge. Also to say that all species evolve at the same generational rate is just kinda stupid. You could also take the other route and go by years required. If this experiment has run 20 years, and the Earth is over 5 billion years old. That means that in that time, evolving a new major gene change every 20 years, early bacteria could have had 250,000,000 major gene changes to make it to this date. Sounds like enough to have a planet full of very diverse life to me.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Funny enough there are schools of thoughts among creationism where this is perfectly acceptable. I think you guys would be surprised that religious people argue more amongst themselves about how we came to be than Secular people argue with religious people. (I mean, its not a black vs white but a black vs white with the white being the rainbow fighting amongst themselves where some colors are pretty damn close to black you can distinguish them)

Yep. Those saying this is some mighty blow to creationism just don't understand the actual prinicples behind it.
 

CottonRabbit

Golden Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,026
0
0
It's funny that the actual experiment and publication was meant to address a completely different issue than what is being discussed here and in the news article. This wasn't something done to "prove" macroevolution.

This is the main point of his work, taken from the abstract:
More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.


Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Other bacteria break down citrate, but E. coli doesn't so to fix what sounds like one defective gene in E. coli it took 31,500 generation. 31,500 generations in humans would be about 630,000 years, for what might only be a single single gene. That sounds more like it's discrediting the evolution of man.

630,000 years for a single gene. What would it take to go from apes to humans at that rate? Trillions of years? Quintillions?

It didn't take 31,500 generations to make a single change. Millions of other changes happened while this event unfolded. This doesn't disprove evolution at all, nor does it add much to the huge body of evidence proving it.

From the actual paper:
All evolved higher maximum growth rates on glucose, shorter lag phases upon transfer into fresh medium, reduced peak population densities, and larger average cell sizes relative to their ancestor (22?26). Ten populations evolved increased DNA supercoiling (27), and those populations examined to date show parallel changes in global gene-expression profiles (4, 28, 29). At least three genes have substitutions in all 12 populations (30, 31), and several others have substitutions in many populations (27?30), even though most loci harbor no substitutions in any of them (32). At the same time, there has also been some divergence between populations. Four have evolved defects in DNA repair, causing mutator phenotypes (3, 33). There is subtle, but significant, between-population variation in mean fitness in the glucose-limited medium in which they evolved (2, 23). In media containing other carbon sources, such as maltose or lactose, the variation in performance is much greater (34). And while the same genes often harbor substitutions, the precise location and details of the mutations almost always differ between the populations (27?31).

During that time, each population experienced billions of mutations (22), far more than the number of possible point mutations in the 4.6-million-bp genome. This ratio implies, to a first approximation, that each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times. It must be difficult, therefore, to evolve the Cit+ phenotype, despite the ecological opportunity.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Other bacteria break down citrate, but E. coli doesn't so to fix what sounds like one defective gene in E. coli it took 31,500 generation. 31,500 generations in humans would be about 630,000 years, for what might only be a single single gene. That sounds more like it's discrediting the evolution of man.

630,000 years for a single gene. What would it take to go from apes to humans at that rate? Trillions of years? Quintillions?

:confused: That's not what the article says. Single gene changes occur in every generation. You are not your parents' clone.

This was a transition effectively (if arbitrarily) into a new species, where a new and unique trait was evolved.
In comparison, the last time something like this happened in human evolution was about 1 million years ago when we developed weaker jaw muscles that made room for our brains to enlarge.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Other bacteria break down citrate, but E. coli doesn't so to fix what sounds like one defective gene in E. coli it took 31,500 generation. 31,500 generations in humans would be about 630,000 years, for what might only be a single single gene. That sounds more like it's discrediting the evolution of man.

630,000 years for a single gene. What would it take to go from apes to humans at that rate? Trillions of years? Quintillions?

Get your brain in gear! This was a new species, the equivalent of ape one day and human the next.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It's very interesting. As someone who believes in evolution, I've always had some basic questions about it - a lack of understanding how complex things develop. For example, winged creatures - assuming that wings gradually develop, *why* do they go through all those complete useless phases leading up to where they actually allow flight? It's not as if wing-stubs help survivability.

I'm not talking about where the interim phases are useful, but ones where there's a gap between the 'before' and the later useful development that's large and boggling to think of as random mutation, especially with a long, complicated development. It's not as if the first little wing stubs know they're going to lead to flight.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
I have a feeling most didn't even bother to read it. Just passed it off as gods work and left it at that.

Interesting article will bookmark for future reference.

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." as for posted by the OP religion was mentioned way before anyone posted here!

I guess you better pull those since books back out of the fire losers.

:p
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
It's very interesting. As someone who believes in evolution, I've always had some basic questions about it - a lack of understanding how complex things develop. For example, winged creatures - assuming that wings gradually develop, *why* do they go through all those complete useless phases leading up to where they actually allow flight? It's not as if wing-stubs help survivability.

I'm not talking about where the interim phases are useful, but ones where there's a gap between the 'before' and the later useful development that's large and boggling to think of as random mutation, especially with a long, complicated development. It's not as if the first little wing stubs know they're going to lead to flight.

Wing stubs help survivability. Even without a full wing, if a creature falls of a cliff, the one with a small wing stub may be able to slow down their descent enough to live. If it falls off a tree, it may be able to live. Even the smallest differ ant traits can drastically change survivabilty
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
BladeVenom

630,000 years for a single gene. What would it take to go from apes to humans at that rate? Trillions of years? Quintillions?

Do you feel comfortable making extrapolations from information that you seem to know nothing about?

Did you notice the article mentioned many mutations?

Do you think humans and bacteria have the same number of genes?

Do you realize that the population sizes were controlled?

Do you realize that this was a protected environment and that humans were subjected to numerous stresses during their development?

Do you realize that humans are orders of magnitude larger than bacteria and therefore are a much bigger target for the various forms of natural radiation that can trigger mutation?

Are you aware that the bacteria had a limited range of food sources while humans during their history have consumed an almost infinite number of foods, fluids, and seasonings in infinite combinations that may have lead to mutations?

I could go on and on, but it would not be necessary if you would just learn a little about the subject on your own.

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Craig234

It is likely that wing motion came from the motions of prey snatching. As the limbs became more winglike, they may have become better at capturing prey by the addition of envelopment which limited prey movement and restricted its vision; limiting its ability to escape. More success at food gathering meant more opportunity to survive, especially in lean times.

I think it is wrong to dismiss the value of interim changes just because we haven't yet imagined what use they might be.

edit:

I doubt there were just stubs of wings, they developed from arms/forelegs.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
It's funny that the actual experiment and publication was meant to address a completely different issue than what is being discussed here and in the news article. This wasn't something done to "prove" macroevolution.

Welcome to the AT forums where anything Bush, Clinton, or religion related is a fair beating subject.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,252
51,833
136
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
It's funny that the actual experiment and publication was meant to address a completely different issue than what is being discussed here and in the news article. This wasn't something done to "prove" macroevolution.

Welcome to the AT forums where anything Bush, Clinton, or religion related is a fair beating subject.

What are you talking about? As I understood his post he just thought it was funny that the experiment provided a huge chunk of evidence in favor of evolution without even meaning to.

It doesn't matter if the experiment was set out to 'prove' evolution, what actually happened is what matters... and this is big big news.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,252
51,833
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
It's very interesting. As someone who believes in evolution, I've always had some basic questions about it - a lack of understanding how complex things develop. For example, winged creatures - assuming that wings gradually develop, *why* do they go through all those complete useless phases leading up to where they actually allow flight? It's not as if wing-stubs help survivability.

I'm not talking about where the interim phases are useful, but ones where there's a gap between the 'before' and the later useful development that's large and boggling to think of as random mutation, especially with a long, complicated development. It's not as if the first little wing stubs know they're going to lead to flight.

It's not as if the flagellum knew it was going to be a motor.

Here's a good video on it: good science and good music.

Video!