Ready, set, mutate... and may the best microbe win

Rice University ^ | 18 May 2006 | Staff (press release)

[Right Wing Professor]

Ah, the familiar creationist catch-22.

Creationist: Evolution isn't science. It can't be duplicated in a lab.

Scientist: Yes it can! Here's an example of how evolution can be duplicated in an exactly reproducible way.

Creationist: But you did it in a lab. You designed the experiment, so it isn't evolution!

Repeat until the scientist becomes nauseous.

More importantly, this experiment refutes the creationist canard that evolution is a random process.

[VadeRetro]

"The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

That's geek-speak for "evolution is testable."

[VadeRetro]

We are once again on this thread seeing the amazing new science of "You can't make me see"-ism. There are none so dumb as those who will not think.

[PatrickHenry]

That's geek-speak for "evolution is testable."

So you say, monkey-boy! Meanwhile, creationist research is moving along very nicely: NoahsArkSearch.

[Seamoth]

But they're still microbes.

[RadioAstronomer]

It is those macrobes you need to look out for. Big enough to trip over.

[ahayes]

Millions or 20 million. Estimate or guesstimate?

Estimate based upon known rates.

The conclusion reached by the researchers seems to be that " "The duplicate study suggests that the pathways of molecular adaptation are reproducible and not highly variable under identical conditions," Shamoo said.

Why?

Proteins will not have an infinite number of useful sequences at any particular set of conditions. Many of the point mutations that occurred will not have caused any change in the protein sequence due to codon redundancy. Other point mutations will cause sequence change that is neutral and likely to be lost through genetic drift. Others will cause sequence change that is detrimental. They found the few beneficial point mutations that make the protein more effective under the specific conditions tested.

It is like when you get in your car to drive to work there are hundreds of routes you could take, but probably only a couple that get you there in good time.

[VadeRetro]

There are at least three posters on evolution threads who spend an inordinate amount of time suggesting that mutations are somehow directed.

Before Newton, angels were pushing the planets around. Now they lurk in cells and rearrange DNA.

[ahayes]

Yes, the God of the Gaps effect has also shrunk the angels. :-(

[doc30]

Which confirms the fact that I am not a dreaded "anti-evolutionist", though to be clear I am a creationist, since I never suggested selection was random.

So, in other words, this experiment managed to 'capture' the Intelligent Designer in a bottle and made it do it's design work over and over again? Do you realize that in your post, you are implying that science tested God's creative ability in a test tube and controlled it? The other option is that is was the product of natural causes.

[js1138]

You forgot to mention that if the experiment is reproducible, it isn't random.

Just being helpful.

[mc6809e]

Another waste of money on this "study." Hm...any time you put two living things together that are disparate in strength and/or size, the stronger one will win, will it not?

You're not reading the article correctly.

There weren't two living things put together to fight it out. There was a single strain of bacteria. Over time, mutation caused new strains to evolve. At one point, there were 6 vying for dominance. One finally came dominate all the rest.

This stain was not part of the original culture. It evolved.

[Antonello]

How many base pairs in the target gene?

It depends on the temperature, since G. stearothermophilus RNA denatures with an increase in heat. At 20^oC, A-U is 17+/-2 and G-C is 29+/-2. At 52^oC, A-U is 7+/-2 and G-C is 25+/-2.

What is the mutation rate per generation?

0.4% (1 base in 250 mutated) per generation.

How many bases were impervious to mutation?

8+/-3.

At least one of the above answers is correct and at least one is incorrect. Please identify and correct any wrong answers.

[Right Wing Professor]

You forgot to mention that if the experiment is reproducible, it isn't random. Just being helpful.

No fair. You've played this game before.

[aNYCguy]

Another waste of money on this "study."

I'm getting the distinct idea you didn't understand the article. You get that different genotypes were selected by fitness (the primary fitness criteria being efficiency of high-heat metabolism), but you seem not to realize that all but one of the genotypes competing for dominance were not present in the original population. This is an example of novel beneficial mutations being fixed in a population due to natural selection.

natural selection will favor the stronger. Do not really need a study to reach that conclusion!

You think this research was done just to provide evidence that natural selection occurs? Yes, you definitely didn't understand the article.

Scientists aren't arguing any more about whether natural selection, or evolution, or genetic drift, etc. occur. Sorry to disappoint, but that train has left the station. Rather, scientists perform experiments such as this to try to determine how and in which specific ways they occur, under what conditions.

In this case, the experiment examined the apparent number of evolutionary pathways available for this fitness test. The most interesting part, in my opinion, is the observation that four of the six differentiating genetic variations occurred in regions which are identical in heat-resistant and non-heat-resistant strains.

There's a lot that's interesting here. Don't be bored simply because these scientists aren't focused on convincing you that the most basic tenets of biology are correct.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

By the way, these guys are forcing this; setting up the experiment with purpose, intent, will, intelligence, etc. in manmade containers with manmade, controlled environments, and human-designed instruments. This is an experiment, which means human interaction and influence. A study would just be a hands-off observance. Will they then turn around and tell us "ha, TOLD YOU it doesn't take intelligence"? What does this say about their opinion of themselves?

This is exactly the kind of experiment that creationists said had to be done to prove evolution could happen. They're identifying the exact genes that mutate, what they mutate to, the proteins that are formed, the pathways that they affect in the cell metabolism, and they're able to replicate it.

Do I see the bar raising again?

And isn't it great that creationists don't have to do any work to create evidence for their ideas?

[Right Wing Professor]

If I may...(I have access to the full paper)

How many base pairs in the target gene?

1953

What is the mutation rate per generation?

Approximately 5 X 10^-10 per nucleotide per generation

How many bases were impervious to mutation?

None. There were 5 X 10¹⁰ cells in the turbidostat. That means that there were, on average, 25 mutants for each base pair present in the turbidostat. The system was mutationally saturated, and so probed all possible single-point mutational selection paths.

[furball4paws]

Done this kind of thing many times although without the genetic tools in some cases.

Did you sneak into the lab at midnight to do your cackling like I did?

[ahayes]

No, I cackled openly, in between saying things like, "Yuck, this stinks."

[PatrickHenry]

This is exactly the kind of experiment that creationists said had to be done to prove evolution could happen.

Lies ... frauds ... Hitler ... it's all about sex ... atheism ... government grants ... leftists ... evil ...
</whimpering creationist mode>