Evolution witnessed in a lab and the man has the proof (20,000 generations of it.)

[AlphaMale]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html


Basically a guy got some E Coli and let it sit for 20 years isolated and then observed the changes in the new populations.
Over time the population grow the ability to digest citrate which for which E. coli is easily identifiable by not being able to do so.

[Murder_Worship]

hmm thats pretty kool

[TSanders]

I bleeb thats more along the lines of adaptation IMO.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Nothing new really, doing things like this is how we have many major vaccines.

[MyUsernameHere]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Nothing new really, doing things like this is how we have many major vaccines.

Actually, its why many of our medications don't work after a while.

Generally speaking, an evolutionary change that would enable a life form to be killed (susceptibility to drugs) isn't going to be propagated very far throughout the species.

[afinalfantasy]

Everything keeps evolving, even us humans.

[AlphaMale]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Nothing new really, doing things like this is how we have many major vaccines.

actually it's not much like it at all

Basically the guy got 12 isolated E. Coli cells and over 20 years the population grew and grew. Thousands and thousands generations lead to many of the E. coli cells gaining DNA that allows them to break down Citrate. Basically

From 12 cells came new DNA


What they do for vaccines and medicine is they get a cell and then they give it viruses to insert strands of DNA into it and then that infected cell reproduces with the desired trait.



This is probably the first true proof that evolution happens. Everything else was just tons of strong evidence. This is probably one of the most important experiments of the decade. Of course people can choose to deny it and thats cool.

[Chipsonfire]

Although not the first time it's been seen, I do think it is the first time it's been observed in a lab. Nylonase is another example, being a bacteria that evolved to digest nylon in a similar amount of time. This is indeed big news, though, being that it was done in a controlled environment.

[Benjamin Strange]

Originally Posted by TSanders

I bleeb thats more along the lines of adaptation IMO.

Isn't adaption the very basis of evolution?

[Benjamin Strange]

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs

[MakiSupaStar]

I like that dolphin story.

[Benjamin Strange]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

I like that dolphin story.

I aim to please.

[dryheatbob]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Strange

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs

"Oh ****!" , says humanity.

After reading that subtitle on the article, I couldn't stop laughing enough to read the article.


Bob

[machine gewehr]

I'm a living proof of evolution.

I was a healthy boy whom never smoked or drunk alcohol.I was swimming,playing football,every sport that was available. I was happy and some other pink happy stuff.

10 years later,I'm a chimney,an alcoholic,desperate and every other black,dark&unhappy depressing stuff.

I evolved in the way of living in Istanbul.See?Evolution my friend,evolutoin.

[Ericman197]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Strange

Isn't adaption the very basis of evolution?

Probably the biggest misunderstanding of evolution is that it is somehow adaptive to the environment. Even the article suggests that evolution sometimes, but not always, is adaptive. Evolution is simply the accumulation of random mutations.

For example, developing resistance to medications is up to chance. Out of a pool of a trillion bacteria, there may already be a few that are resistant to a new medication. Over time these bacteria will survive and the gene will become more common, and perhaps random modifications will make it stronger.

One of the ways the adaptive evolution theory was debunked was through bacterial resistance. It was found that exposure to antibiotics did not cause bacteria to develop resistance. Rather, some bacteria are already resistant, while some would mutate to develop the resistance even if never exposed to the chemical. It is only selective forces which make such a gene more common. Normally the resistant mutations have little or no benefit, and so they only penetrate a tiny portion of the population (say 1/1,000,000 bacteria). However when the medication kills off the other 999,999 bacteria, and the resistant ones reproduce, now you have a totally different genetic picture.

[12bass]

Originally Posted by Ericman197

Probably the biggest misunderstanding of evolution is that it is somehow adaptive to the environment. Even the article suggests that evolution sometimes, but not always, is adaptive. Evolution is simply the accumulation of random mutations.

While mutations themselves may be random, the effects (over time) of such mutations on the phenotype are not at all random, and very much dependent upon the reproductive success of the mutant phenotype, and note that reproductive success is extremely environmentally dependent. In fact, most mutations are maladaptive, or fatal, however, some are adaptive.... and yes, often a small population of a given species already possesses beneficial traits, and is therefor selected for when the reproductive environment calls for it.

[Psychicpet]

Originally Posted by 12bass

While mutations themselves may be random, the effects (over time) of such mutations on the phenotype are not at all random, and very much dependent upon the reproductive success of the mutant phenotype, and note that reproductive success is extremely environmentally dependent. In fact, most mutations are maladaptive, or fatal, however, some are adaptive.... and yes, often a small population of a given species already possesses beneficial traits, and is therefor selected for when the reproductive environment calls for it.

and you're from Saskatoon... wow.






great post, but I'm still with Maynard and the boys, and until 46+2 happens, well, that's some real evolution there

46 + 2

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by AlphaMale

actually it's not much like it at all

Basically the guy got 12 isolated E. Coli cells and over 20 years the population grew and grew. Thousands and thousands generations lead to many of the E. coli cells gaining DNA that allows them to break down Citrate. Basically

From 12 cells came new DNA


What they do for vaccines and medicine is they get a cell and then they give it viruses to insert strands of DNA into it and then that infected cell reproduces with the desired trait.



This is probably the first true proof that evolution happens. Everything else was just tons of strong evidence. This is probably one of the most important experiments of the decade. Of course people can choose to deny it and thats cool.

Im not talking about inserting genetic cassettes into bacteria.

Im talking about where they grow the bacteria in culture which is harsh towards the bacteria, this causes the bacteria to adapt over thousands of generations, and then by the end of it, the bacteria will have adapted to a new environment and will no longer be able to thrive within humans. I think thats how they produced the BCG, but could be wrong, it was one of the major vaccines which was done in this manner. And that could be seen as a forced evolution.

[AlphaMale]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Im not talking about inserting genetic cassettes into bacteria.

Im talking about where they grow the bacteria in culture which is harsh towards the bacteria, this causes the bacteria to adapt over thousands of generations, and then by the end of it, the bacteria will have adapted to a new environment and will no longer be able to thrive within humans. I think thats how they produced the BCG, but could be wrong, it was one of the major vaccines which was done in this manner. And that could be seen as a forced evolution.

Ah I see, thanks for correcting me, yeah I think thats considered evolution via artificial selection. But yeah, this still is news. This guy has an archive of 3,000 generations of E. Coli and how it changed over time from the 12 original ones. He has actual proof that things can evolve in a controlled environment. Before evolution only had tons and tons of strong evidence (which proved it to me).

[AlphaMale]

Originally Posted by Ericman197

Probably the biggest misunderstanding of evolution is that it is somehow adaptive to the environment. Even the article suggests that evolution sometimes, but not always, is adaptive. Evolution is simply the accumulation of random mutations.

For example, developing resistance to medications is up to chance. Out of a pool of a trillion bacteria, there may already be a few that are resistant to a new medication. Over time these bacteria will survive and the gene will become more common, and perhaps random modifications will make it stronger.

One of the ways the adaptive evolution theory was debunked was through bacterial resistance. It was found that exposure to antibiotics did not cause bacteria to develop resistance. Rather, some bacteria are already resistant, while some would mutate to develop the resistance even if never exposed to the chemical. It is only selective forces which make such a gene more common. Normally the resistant mutations have little or no benefit, and so they only penetrate a tiny portion of the population (say 1/1,000,000 bacteria). However when the medication kills off the other 999,999 bacteria, and the resistant ones reproduce, now you have a totally different genetic picture.

True most variations come from genetic drifts.