E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Brian Baer
Petri dishes containing colonies of two strains of E. coli bacteria that can be tracked by their different colors. By watching the change over time in the relative abundance of the two types, researchers were able to track new beneficial mutations as they arose.
A slow and steady approach to evolution appears to give the winning edge, at least in a petri dish, according to a new study.
The finding stems from the long-term evolution project in Richard Lenski's lab at Michigan State University with the bacteria Escherichia coli. Lenski studies evolution through experiments on these bacteria, which have now grown for more than 50,000 generations.
In this experiment, Lenski and colleagues pitted four genetically distinct sub colonies of the E. coli against each other to find out which one would eventually take over a petri dish.
It turns out that the sub colonies of E. coli that acquired mutations more slowly — and at first appeared less fit — beat out their more rapidly evolving counterparts and eventually won the race.
The reason for the plodders' success comes down to what's called a higher evolvability — the potential to continue to adapt to the environment in which they live — than their speedier counterparts, according to the researchers, whose results were published in the March 18 issue of Science.
According to the analyses, after 500 generations, all the lineages had beneficial mutations to a gene called topA, which involves winding DNA into a tight coil to make it easier for turning genes on and off. But these mutations were slightly different in the slow and fast evolving colonies, a difference that would be the eventual downfall of the fast-evolving E. coli.
The sub colonies were allowed to evolve for a further 883 generations, and then the team looked to see which mutations had accumulated. This time they found a mutation in a gene called spoT, conferring an advantage to the slow-evolving bacteria that was absent in the speedsters, Nature News explains.
It turns out that the previous topA mutation in the speedsters rendered the potentially beneficial spoT mutation useless. Since only the plodders had this beneficial mutation, they went on to win.
More stories on E. coli and evolution:
- The world inside a bacterium
- Evolution happens faster in the tropics
- Fastest evolving animal identified through DNA
John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).
Leave a Comment:
Slow and steady wins.
Couch potatoes rejoice!
Aesop was correct!
I wonder if this idea applies to humankind and with what ramifications. The rise of human intelligence and human population has been anything but slow and steady. A million years ago, we invented fire. Cooked food resulted in bigger brain size (at least that's the theory). Now we have colonised the entire planet. And have nuclear weapons.
The nuclear incident in the aftermath of the Japan's quake made me think thus. Let's say the Japan incident makes it the 3rd nuclear incident this century (World War II, Chernobyl and now), leaving the others out for simplicity's sake. For a minimum of one nuclear incident per 200 years, humankind will face 5000 nuclear incidents in 1 million years. And that's scary because it takes one major incident to mess things up.
Bacteria have survived for 3 billion years on this planet, without needing intelligence. Makes one wonder if intelligence is good for the survivability of a species in the long term.
Oh my gosh. When is the scientific community ever going to differentiate the difference between evolution and adaptation?!?!?!? This story has NOTHING to do with evolution... the E.coli strands were not EVOLVING into another species (the definition of EVOLUTION - which is based on theory)... they were ADAPTING, in other words taking on mutations that help them survive better in their environment. Adaptation happens within all species and is a documented fact. Evolution (in theory) takes place when the mutations are so severe that an organism actually becomes a different organism. To date, there is no hard evidence that one species "evolved" into another, there is only scientific speculation based on observing adaptations and making the leap to assume they must eventually evolve and thus explains the variety of life on our planet. Irresponsible reporting like this is what confuses the issue and leads everyone to assume that evolution is more than a theory and therefore you must be a fool to consider other theories regarding the origins of life.
Yes the old argument that is not evolution but adaptation. Adaptation is the process of evolution, see cause and effect. Also I guess by your constant use of theory you think that something being a theory somehow removes a factual tag to Evolution. Well how gravity works is a theory and I am pretty sure gravity is real.
Also in the bacterial world we can see a bacterial species drift away into two separate species. Its been documented. As for hard evidence it is everywhere in the bacterial world. Everywhere. Campylobacter jejuni and Camplybacter coli jump to mind.
Oh my gosh. When is the creationist community ever going to realize that adaptation IS evolution.
"Evolution (in theory) takes place when the mutations are so severe that an organism actually becomes a different organism."
WRONG. Evolution is the ACCUMULATION of SMALL mutations, exactly like occurs in this experiment. No species ever gives birth to a different species, and yet evolution occurs nonetheless. when you understand that, you may begin to understand evolution.
Theory is worth the facts, laws, and hypothesis that support it. Let's see if you have an I.Q. capable of atleast completeing a McDonald's connect the dot game. You have a book. You with me so far champ? Okay, so this book has a title (Theory). The title (Theory) gives an entire general referance to its contents inside. For example if I said Bible, which is the title, I made referance to all it's content without having to name every single piece of content. That would take forever huh kiddo? Now, what content could this title (Theory) possibly be reffering to. *Takes out colorful soke puppet* Why the chapters (Laws) of course, which are usualy made up of paragraphs (Facts), because a title (Theory) without chapters (Laws) and paragraphs (Facts) is just pointless. That would like having an empty fire extingusher while standing in the middle of a lit stake. Those silly witches being women and all! *Gestures soke puppet as laughing*.
But wait talking soke! Why IS it called a Theory? You might ask?
Well my little trooper, you see science starts with a question or hypothesis that progresses toward a conclusion. While on the way to that conclusion you may run into unseen sistuations or even contridicting data. This is called... being HONEST. You may have to trash your hypothesis or restate your hypothesis. Now when the conclusion is meet then it is eternally subject to peer review. That means scientist can always come along and try to disprove it whenever they want! Those meany heads! However, this is a good thing because that keeps our understand as accurate as possible.
Another creationist idiot rant...and you are wrong, the definition of a species relates to reproduction and the inability to interbreed within a genus. Magpies don't mate with chickens a-hole. But are still birds of a different feather.
A while ago I read an article by a PhD explaining that he has observed evolution in humans because the last three generations have gotten bigger than those before them. Yet taking animal husbandry 40 years ago I learned that providing balanced nutrition to three generations of females in their formative years would make the forth generation of offspring larger up to their full genetic potential. As you stated, that is adaptation, not evolution, when food is scarce, smaller offspring, when food is plentiful, larger offspring. We still have a long way to go, if we could trade what we do not know for what we do know, it would be the bargain of the all time.
Hey William.... let me ask you this... if Hominids (i.e. Homo Eretus) were around before Homo Sapiens... then how would Homo Sapiens come to be if earlier Hominids didn't adapt THEN evolve into other species? Did they just poof out of thin air????
You see your ignorance on the subject of evolution is why the scientific community has a hard time communicating to the general public. If you like, I have a new some "new clothes" that I just made for you if you would like to wear them. Adaptation is the first step in evolution.
The adaptation and mutation is what evolution is all about
Here is the problem (or challenge) for the modern synthesis-
To produce verifiable, repeatable experiments producing direct evidence demonstrating that organisms have the potential and ability to create useful, ADDITIONAL, novel, bioinformation, specifying the construction of newly acquired biological systems and their corresponding structures and functions.
Thus far, experimentation and observation has produced evidence limited to modifications consisting of enhancements, reductions, and/or elimination of pre-existing bioinformation, and the corresponding biological systems, organs and structures; however, any direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that evolution produces bauplan add-ons is virtually absent, speculative, and undemonstrated.
For these reasons, and more, evolution fits quite nicely with creation and/or intelligent design theory- as everything appears to be the product of adaptations resulting from defects in the replication, transmission, and translation of pre-existing biological information, which ultimately results in evolution by losses, not gains insofar as bauplan organization is concerned. This is why we find that modern birds, reptiles, mammals, and fishes consist of simplified and streamlined bauplans as compared to ancestral forms.
Had Darwin known these facts, and had the church of that day been open to free, uninhibited scientific inquiry, the misconceptions and misunderstandings corrupting science over the past several hundred years might have been far less debilitating, and scientific progress could have abounded far more.
Sadly, it is science itself now inhibiting the freedom for scientific inquiry within acadamia and beyond.
" however, any direct evidence supporting the hypothesis that evolution produces bauplan add-ons is virtually absent"
If you mean physically watching it happen, then if course we haven't seen it and never will. But that in itself is consistent with evolutionary theory. But science can also advance through inductive inference, which is extremely strong in the case of macro-evolution. The fact remains that there is no other hypothesis that can explain the observed evidence.
I would love the see the evidence for intelligent design. I've looked. I think I have a reasonably solid understanding of their ideas, but I can't for the life of me find anything that that has ever made a testable prediction that was then confirmed. Most of it makes no testable predictions, and that's the best case, too. A lot of it is outright gibberish.
Oh, crap!! My stupid ancestors in Scotland didn't know about evolution. They just bred better and better sheep, cattle and dogs to manage them with. Those stupid Scots. They didn't understand that Creationism was a fact so they went ahead and did some evolution anyway. How will I ever live this horrid ancestral flub up down? I am so ashamed.
"Here is the problem (or challenge) for the modern synthesis"
No. Actually, it's not a problem for them. In real science, the evidence "for" the modern understanding of biology has mounted SO RAPIDLY over the last few decades that NOBODY has even tried to keep up with it all. Scientists are more concerned with their own work, for which they have no need to "prove evolution" to someone who does not understand the evidence.
Interestingly, the more we look at DNA, the more we see the connections between distantly related organisms, matching exactly what our understanding of evolution would suggest (and telling us more than Darwin would have ever imagined possible).
It's quite stark, actually, so here's A CHALLENGE FOR CREATIONIST:
First, develop an understanding of how DNA and the machinery of cells work, then come up with a hypothesis that says: IF evolution occurred as modern science suggests, THEN the following will be true in the DNA within/between particular organisms [or conversely, if you have some competing theory that is anywhere near specific enough, you can substitute your theory]. Then, LOOK at the DNA and see if it fits! The beauty of this approach is that the result could, in principle, could go either way, and no matter what you find, you will almost certainly learn something!
I had a discussion with my father-in-law today concerning religion. Why is there religion? We concluded that it must have been selectively advantageous to our ancestors. Imagine as our less intelligent apelike ancestors became aware of their ultimate fate of old age, disease, and death. It is tough to think about even now, but back then when life was even more uncertain, miserable, and possibly hopeless it could have been unbearable. But wait, let's believe that our life is just a testing period, an interlude before either paradise or hell. Hang on to that belief and life is a bit better. The sacrifices and pain to raise children just a bit easier to take. As a result those humans with religion were more fit and had more children.
The inescapable conclusion is that all religion, including the holy trinity, is the result of evolution. I believe it is the ultimate irony to this debate that the atheists and agnostics are right, but doomed to extinction!
Were those premises supposed to come to that "inescapable" conclusion. There is a huge leap from your premises to conclusion.
And are you admitting that religion makes life better?
If the definition of "better" in this case is more likely to have more children and raise them to adulthood, then yes. In general (possibly overgeneralizing), very religious individuals are in my estimation more likely to sacrifice their own lives for those of their family, particularly their children. They tend to have larger families. In an evolutionary sense, those with religion are likely to be "fitter" than those without.
I do admit that I overreached in using "inescapable" and instead I would now have written: "Our conclusion was that ...." and left inescapable out.
Dale are you talking past tense or current? I am agnostic and I would very well sacrifice my life to save that of my loved ones, I would risk my life to help a fellow human in need. You do not need to follow a religion in order to be a good person or to have morals or a sense of duty to help your fellow man.
There are many many more people that are not religious that have the same mindset. Your statement is pretty liberally applied when you stop to think that it is mainly based on your opinion and personal observations of where you live.
One doesnt need God to be Good, its called humanity, and that in itself is a form of evolution otherwise known as spiritual evolution which has nothing to do with religion.
I am also agnostic tending toward atheist and have two kids. I have a nephew, who is deeply religious, who has 7 by last count. It is just my observation that in general, religious folks have more children. In your case, Pirate C, do you have a bunch of kids or just one or two?
My contention is not that there is a "god", but rather that religion is the result of evolution. It is one means by which intelligent life can deal with uncertainty and mortality.
That is true that religious folks do have more children. I dont have any kids, I am not planning on having any. I just dont see the need, I do have a very close family though. I would gladly sacrifice my life in order to protect them.
My only direct dependant is my dog which is a Beagle, and while it might sound stupid to some people I love him very much and would lay down my life to protect him without any hesitation. My dog is the definition of mans best friend, He was adopted from a no kill shelter. He isnt a typical dog, all my friends and people that have meet him have remarked on this.
The only thing I am fearful about my dog is the way he is excessively friendly to people. He is very much a people person and his display of love and affection to complete strangers is amazing. I am more fearful that someone would steal him then harm him though.
I think I am in the same category as yourself as I am agnostic with a lean toward not believing in a typical God exiting, at least not as man kind has him classified as.
I am more believing in that there is a higher power, such as the like of the Universe having a consciousness and that our natural evolution is to evolve past our animal instincts to a higher level of spirituality. I just find it amazing that us humans try to depict "God" with human emotions.
As for religion, I am right beside you in that. I can only hope that religion can evolve further to keep up with Humanities knowledge. But I think at some point in the future that religion will start to fall behind.
Read Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. He clearly explains this experiment and others that CLEARLY show evolution happening in an observable timeframe.
The notion that you could use science to legitimize a scientific theory fails to recognize that the folks you are seeking to convince aren't interested in being convinced.
I read about this experiment in The Greatest Show on Earth. It was very interesting to read about it again. I used to be a YEC until I read Jerry A. Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Because of it I want to be an evolutionary biologist. Awesome article!
Thanks for sharing this — it gives me great hope for humanity that even someone raised in a YEC community (which I know uses pretty much every method of indoctrination they legally can) can see reason when the mountains of evidence get high enough! And thanks for the pointer to the Coyne book, which I hadn't seen before and looks very useful. Best wishes to you in your scientific career!