Skip to comments.Evolutionary Process More Detailed Than Believed
Posted on 01/20/2009 9:22:06 AM PST by Boxen
New evidence from a study of yeast cells has resulted in the most detailed picture of an organism’s evolutionary process to date, says a Texas A&M University chemical engineering professor whose findings provide the first direct evidence of aspects, which up until now have remained mostly theory.
Working with populations of yeast cells, which were color-coded by fluorescent markers, Katy Kao, assistant professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, and Stanford University colleague Gavin Sherlock were able to evolve the cells while maintaining a visual analysis of the entire process.
(Excerpt) Read more at dmc-news.tamu.edu ...
LOL! What did the yeast evolve into?
2 posts. Not bad.
A yeast better adapted to the conditions imposed on it.
LOL! What did the yeast evolve into?
Predictable, I was counting the number of posts until someone tried to innoculate himself against the obvious.
Gig 'Em Aggies :-)
TAMU Class of '88; Law Hall (may it R.I.P.) Ramp 9 Mule; f.u.p.!
Not your title, but it’s a pretty crappy title.
“...shows the evolutionary process to be much more dynamic than initially thought...”
Shouldn’t the title be, “Evolutionary Process More Dynamic Than Believed”?
Finally! Something good has come of evolution!
“In other words, as Mother Nature sorts things out, some adaptations go by the wayside, with the latest generation of an organism sometimes showing no traces of them.”
One can only wonder what sorts of adaptations modern humans have missed out on as we fanned out from Africa and settled the planet.
Observing the color-coded yeast populations as they evolved to respond to their environment, Kao saw some colors expand while others contracted a sign that adaptations were occurring. But rather than one segment of the population continuing to shrink until it was completely replaced, some segments were able to compete long enough to acquire further adaptations. When this happened, Kao explained, these populations of cells once apparently less-fit began to swell while once-dominant populations started to shrink. This constant reduction and burgeoning of populations signaled the development of multiple beneficial adaptations and a subsequent competition by the cells that acquired them, Kao said.
Addressing Behe's Edge of Evolution.
Incorrigible ~ Finally! Something good has come of evolution!
I'm holding out for it to evolve into beer...
“Katy Kao, assistant professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, and Stanford University colleague Gavin Sherlock were able to evolve the cells”
Intelligent design on a very small scale (smaller intelligence as well)
It'd have to be. I don't beleive it at all.
Sounds to me like they selected genetic potential that was already there in the yeast. They strained for breed of yeast that meets the conditions imposed on it. No evolution at all.
Well before that, mammals lost the ability to see UV, like birds, insects, and reptiles can. Indeed, most mammals (except primates) are color blind to one degree or another.
Hundreds of millions of years of lurking in the dark to avoid getting eaten by dinosaurs made (black and white) night vision far more important than color discrimination.
Now, a proposal ~ the super computers buried in the DNA strands in the nuclei of each yeast cell were busy computing relative advantages and coming up with "necessary changes" which were then processed out as appropriate basepairs.
This idea is consistent with the finding last month that the granularity of the quanta of time was discovered demonstrating that our particular universe is, essentially, holographic in nature.
Something that's "holographic" can have supercomputers wherever needed Fur Shur.
It appears that this research is hinting at the possibility that mutation is not random but is somehow sensitive to the environment arising on an as needed basis. The the transitions are not merely ‘linear.’
Please you evodules, understand that if this is your new paradigm, welcome aboard. Many creationists do not accept the neo-darwinian thesis because purely random mutation doesn’t cut it as a source of new information.
You could say that, but you wou be incorrect.
Essentially, we were watching evolution in action, Kao said. Were watching evolution in real time. Were actually seeing a mutation that shows these things have adapted and seeing their population thrive and expand from this adaptation. This is how evolution works.
In one of our experiments we were able to see five independent population expansions. We had one adaptive mutation that allowed a population to expand, but before it was able to completely take over another un-mutated population of the same cells acquired a different mutation that allowed it to succeed and impede the expansion of the first population.
In addition to determining if and when a population acquired an adaptation, Kao also identified the specific adaptations that were acquired. She accomplished this using a DNA-based technology that enabled her to determine the specific locations on the genes of the yeast cells that expressed beneficial adaptations.
What she found was that as populations rise and fall, some of these beneficial adaptations factor into the continued evolution of the organism; others dont.
BTW, this is not actually new material. We've seen the idea "run backwards" I think last year or so. What happened was a guy found that a bug had a "mutation" that had predecessor mutations still extant in the base population, and there were predecessor mutations for those, but for some of the bugs there were "missing mutations". They seemed to have gone from "base condition" to "highly mutated condition" without apparant intervening steps ~ still, you could check out other bugs in the same batches and find those mutations.
I suspect this particular study was merely to test the hypothesis of the earlier study with extant populations exhibiting a variety of mutations of mysterious origins.
Rather than say "this is how evolution works" I'd suggest they say "see what yeast can do". It's real hard to infer anything from yeast that can be replicated in, for example, cows.
You retain color vision because the rods (measuring contrast or light level) overlap the response wavelengths of blue cones.
To test if your ancestors had that environment for a lengthy period of time draw a hellow line on a white paper. Now, illuminate the room with a blue light. If you cannot see the yellow line, they did. If you can see the yellow line, you are a more primitive type human who has not evolved to his or her full potential.
Oh, yes, the red part ~ if you are a guy you prefer redheads and can check'em out a good 10 miles away!