Evolution in a Bottle

Forget Chanel No 5 or absinthe, the most exciting thing you can get in a bottle is evolution itself.  While it has incredibly obvious results in nature, you can't actually see it happen - something about having to wait millions of years.  Scientists in Michigan State University have observed it in the lab, and it only took twenty.

By breeding bacteria in jars Professor Richard Lenski has been able to make a stop-motion animation of evolution in action.

He split a single colony of Escherichia Coli into twelve containers, where each group was then allowed to breed in a glucose-citrate solution (the species of E. Coli chosen can eat glucose but not citrates).  Every day samples from each jar were frozen, providing a perfect record of their genetic progress.

Over time the bacteria evolved to better suit their environment, adapting to replicate faster on the all-glucose diet.  But one colony suddenly took off, consuming the previously indigestible citrate - a molecule that literally would not fit through the original bacteria's membrane.  A new breed of E. Coli had evolved to consume the available resources and, over a multi-generational evolutionary battle, came to outperform the original glucose eaters.

Because of the daily samples, there is now a complete genetic paper trail of the changes (although full identification and understanding of the changes will take a little longer).  This is an incredible breakthrough in evolutionary research, and a pretty nice argument to break out in the creationism 'debates' ("Prove evolution!"  "Okay, I've got it right here IN THIS BOTTLE!")

Of course, the experiment will have no effect on the unintelligent design crowd - if they were swayed by little things like "proof" and "material evidence" they wouldn't exist.  Nothing but radical brain surgery will change the mind of a zealot.  But it does make their argument much more amusing for those of us with working minds - now, not only did an omnipotent and benevolent 'designer' set everything up to look like it evolved, but He Who Is The Light also snuck into Michigan State University every night to mess with jars of goo.

Which doesn't sound very intelligent.

Evolution in a bottle

Comments

[mrG]

Ah, but you forget, zealots are low-hanging fruit, the straw-dogs of the evolutionist scientism. If evolution is intelligently directed, then this more rapid than chance experiment lends credence to THAT view, as the no-brain bacteria were able to decode the pattern integrity of the new environment to their advantage. Did I mention that they don't have brains?

To be a 'theory', the evolution hypothesis would have had to predict this outcome in advance, not post-hoc as does tarot reading and psychotherapy (oooh, I'm a-gonna get hate mail for that!) and I see no such prediction in this study, it instead is said to be, in your words, 'surprising', ie, unpredicted and therefore, I'm sorry, but the study actualy contradicts the theory.

But let's not give up just because scientism zealotry sees results where none were existant :) We can correct this! Simply ...

1) calculate the random mutation rates in the genetics of the e-coli and compute the probability of this particular mutation occuring, then show that the time-scale of the experiment can allow for this particular mutation.

2) show that other more-probable random mutations also occurred but were annihilated. Because the 'surprising' result is the highly improbable and completely unpredicted mutation, we also need to show that the vast majority of non-adapting progeny DIED whereas the sliver of a fringe of the only just barely surviving mutants were the direct ancestors of all surviving bacteria. This should be easy from genetic markers in the surviving members.

3) reverse the effect. change sample 1 into sample 2 and sample 2 into sample 1 simply by changing the environment.

Providing the mutations occur at the rate predicted by random genetic search (and I suspect there are a chain of improbable mutations which had to occur to produce the surprise result) it still does not rule out intelligent guidance of the process, but it would suggest that, when it comes to unimportant forced mutations of e-coli, God isn't really any smarter than a pair of dice ;)

[SDH]

I'm sure that peer review will demand just those points to be considered. But it doesn't hurt to take a stab in the dark now and then.

But why on earth would mutations require outside direction to occur? I thought that when we figured out how birds fly, we figured it really wasn't the hand of a supreme being holding them up? If there's an "intellegent" design then it was put in motion at the beginning of the universe. No need to stir the pot more than the first time. Now THAT'S intelligent design.

[Joseph]

Funny how evolution has given birth to creationism. Before we came along 1+1=2, but now I'm afraid 1+1= magic. Still, I can't help but think religion is serving a need purpose. The universe is quick to rid it's self of things that are not needed.

[Coyote]

With Global Climate Disruption ramping up, we will have plenty of opportunities to observe evolution within a short time frame (100 years).

[Ben Lillie]

I'm actually surprised there isn't an "evolution" perfume. It's a catchy name, and there should be a market for it. I guess that now we know it's should include citrus.

[Jackson Streten]

I don't understand why believing in evolution and believing that there may be something outside of the confines of our universe have to be exclusive beliefs. I disagree with the second half of the article. Anybody who says that one disproves the other is... an idiot. I do believe that the dimensions we live in were created in some kind of big bang - and I definitely believe that we evolved from apes - but if somebody can explain to me 'exactly' how the universe came about from absolute nothingness then I will happily eat my words and give up any belief that there are things outside of this universe.

[mrG]

re: the modern notions of 1+1=magic, there is a hilarious cartoon about this vis a vis the LHC and the Higgs Boson, and the interesting history of the "Big Bang" conjecture, over at http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm -- it's down the middle of the page, two scientists at a blackboard, opaque equations to the right leading in, equations to the left leading out, in the middle it says ...

Reminds me a little of Charles Thaxton.

[Dennis]

"To be a 'theory', the evolution hypothesis would have had to predict this outcome in advance..."

mrG, one need go no farther than this gut-buster of a statement to realize that, like every other creationist, you haven't a clue what evolutionary theory actually says. This is not only NOT TRUE, it's exactly the opposite of true, yet like you go on to build an entire tower of babble (pun intended) based on your ignorance.

E would only predict that in an environment with an untapped but potentially usable resource, something will eventually evolve to use that resource. It doesn't say anything about how, or when, or in what way. Statistical analysis might say something about when (more or less), but that's anothe subject. Speaking of which, where do you get your "more rapid than chance" statement from? You a mathematician? Didn't think so.

Anyway, I could go on and on, since pretty much every sentence in your post contains either a logical or factual error, but I've only got an hour for lunch...

[jennifer]

Isn't this an example of evolution that was intelligently directed (by the scientist)?

This article would be more interesting if there were more facts and less snark.

[jennifer]

Isn't this an example of evolution that was intelligently directed (by the scientist)?

This article would be more interesting if there were more facts and less snark.

[TeeMan]

I really enjoy reading your blog and I do appreciate your efforts. I just don't understand why you have to attack religion/spirituality/theology on a consistent basis?