Predicting Evolution: A Beginner's Model

Silance writes "According to ScienceDaily , Scientists have developed a method of accelerating evolution in the lab that accurately mimics natural evolution. Drug-resistant E.coli strains from the 1940's that were subjected to the evolutionary speed-up process indeed followed the same evolutionary path as their natural bretheren. It is believed that the process could be used to predict the future monkey-wrenches that evolution might lob our way. Neat-o!"

Comments

monkey wrenches like that pesky natural selection.

[Romancer]

Then we can have viruses and plagues that are more evolved than us.

I also wonder what evolution we would have "naturally" gone through.

Yet another sorry day for creationists.

[cp99]

With every paper like this one, the case for evolution gets stronger (not that it needed it), whereas the pesudoscientists falls apart (not that it hasn't already).

Re:Yet another sorry day for creationists.

[Kopretinka]

You see, not all creationists take the view that the universe was created as we know it, in seven days = 168 hours.

There has been a view that the Bible talks about God's days (periods of creation), each of which could take millions of years. AFAIK this view is that of God-assisted evolution. He gives the right impulses and the monkeys move off the trees.

This is not ridiculous, there are still some missing links in the known evolution and it does indeed seem that in a few moments in the history evolution sped up like hell.

In fact, this may be a pure chance as well as an act of God, and this cannot be resolved until God manifests Himself, like a face in the sky speaking everyone's language at once telling us to finally shut up and be good to each other.

(Personally, I believe this is possible, as much as the pure-chance scenario. No difference to me, really.)

Re:Yet another sorry day for creationists.

[bpowell423]

The case for micro-evolution (variations within a species) is well founded. But "micro-evolution is true, therefore macro-evolution is true", just doesn't follow. Hall's e-coli bacteria have developed resistance to different antibiotics, but they're still e-coli bacteria.

Re:Yet another sorry day for creationists.

[Avatar1000]

I'm sorry - but by making it clear that your religion is at stake, and is in serious danger should 'macro' (your term) evolution be real, you have made your argument very weak. Scientific data is meant to be examined objectively, without influence from personal agendas. It is sadly true that sometimes scientists (being only as human as the rest of us) do fail in this regard; it is one of the strengths of science that the data can be re-examined and better (more objective and explanatory) hypotheses reached.

Re:Yet another sorry day for creationists.

[Verteiron]

Let's see the independantly-verified study on Mt. St. Helens lava. You know what's interesting? After a fairly exhaustive search (after a creationist that I know brought up this very point) both online and in the real world, I could find nothing on this study anywhere EXCEPT within Creationist writings. Nowhere in any of them were sources cited (other than unqualified fellow creationists). This is the most common rule of Creationism: Anything a fellow creationist comes up with, that fits what you want to believe, is accepted as fact without question.

Now, I'm willing to accept that qualifications aren't everything. If you'd like to claim that earning a Masters of Archeology prejudices a person to believe in radiocarbon dating's accuracy, fine. It doesn't matter to me who presents the proof. Proof is proof. Perform a double-blind test here; publish your results.

The advantage to science is this; the biggest way to make a name for yourself is to disprove or enhance a long-standing theory. If you can prove that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, you may not be popular at first, but you will be famous. But if you and your fellow creationists wish to be taken seriously, present proof based on facts. Speeches by other creationists (one of Kent Hovind's favorite sources) and "the bible says so" does not count as fact.

Re:Yet another sorry day for creationists.

[Verteiron]

Gentry did rule out long half-life isomers of polonium as a cause of the halos. However, his theory was supplanted in 1989 (Odom, L.A., and Rink; "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle" Science 246: 107-109). This new theory completely accounts for all apparent violation of physical laws in a logical manner; thus, it in no way provides evidence for a near-instantaneous creation. Gentry has yet to publish a rebuttal, more than a decade after these new findings came to light. As for his "challenge", it has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific literature, which may account for no one bothering to rise to it. More information on this subject may be found here.

Of course, I've made no mention here of Gentry's notoriously sloppy methods and faulty assumptions (nice summary of these, with references, here), as I wouldn't want you to think I'm attacking him personally, rather than his conclusions.

As for the helium, a creationist named Roger Lenard recently re-presented this tired old argument. Unfortunately, he, like most creation "scientists", presented no evidence for this theory. He did state that "a prestigious university" found that the amount of hydrogen in biotite is "too high", but no one ever comes clear on what "too high" is. Nor will he tell anyone where these measurements were performed, the name of the university, or even provide the data he cites as his sole reference. The paper many creationists look to for support here is actually by our good friend Gentry; however, even his statements do more to prove that the levels of helium currently present are exactly right for an evolutionary timescale. The "too-much-helium" argument has been discredited for years. Science cannot help it if creationists choose to ignore this.

However, none of this has anything to do with my original post. You've employed another common Creationist trick, which is to dodge the question by supplying more "proof" that other unrelated evolutionary methods/theories are faulty. So allow me to get back to the subject at hand...

You use inaccuracies in dating Hawaiian volcanic rock as proof that all radiometric dating is flawed. And you are absolutely correct, I find, in stating that wildly inaccurate dates are determined from potassium-argon analysis of this rock. However, you've neglected to mention that geologists already thought that rocks formed under those particular conditions would give unreliable K-Ar ages because they would trap argon before it could escape. The studies in question were performed to confirm this under controlled conditions, and thus to confirm to the scientific community that this particular type of rock (and, by extension, most rock of seabed origin) is unsuitable for radiometric dating.

Oops.

In addition, I'd like to know how this disproves the accuracy of other dating methods (uranium-lead and rubidium-strontium, for example), since these methods will all produce the same results in rocks with well-understood geological context. Confidence in radiometric dating techniques comes from years of careful comparisons to other radiometric techniques and to relative age determinations from biostratigraphy (fossils in layered rocks). In some cases, there are multiple isotope systems that may be analyzed in the same sample. Since these different systems react differently to the processes that disturb age recording, if the systems disagree with one another the age significance of the data is suspect. If they all agree, then there is phenomal evidence for the accuracy of the dating.

As for the accuracy potassium-argon dating having any bearing on carbon-14 dating (the kind used to date organic artifacts up to 50,000 years old), this is ludicrous. The two methods have very little in common, and carbon-14 dating is known to depend on variations in atmospheric conditions.

So where's the leap of faith? The only one I've seen so far is the one that leads to your ghetto of scientific illiteracy.

For more references, information, and general illumination, read this very helpful document: The General Anti-Creationism FAQ
Here are rebuttals, with evidence and references, to all of the arguments you've thus far presented, as well as all of the other major creationist arguments.

Not that this discussion deserves consideration...

[Anonymous Coward]

but which is the more perfect God?

The One who builds a grand machine starts it running and enjoys the show?

Or the One who continually needs to tune it up?

Did God create the universe? Is solely a question of of religion. How does the universe work? Is the domain of science, but most importantly, not answered by the first question. A fact lost on most creationists.

sounds inherently...

[Zarf]

sadistic.

"You can introduce a lot of mutations in the lab," explains Hall. "In effect, you can take millions of copies of this gene and give each one a different mutation." Those mutated genes are introduced back into the cells, "and then you ask, can you grow on lactose now?"

So basically you screw 'em up somehow and then torture them. I know that they're just microbes but it still... if you prick them do they not bleed? The process is still, "Ooh, you still alive, *zap* how 'bout now? Still kickin'? *zap* how 'bout now? Nope? *zap* how 'bout now?" Perhaps I have too much imagination but just picture this with fuzzy animals... not funny "ha ha" funny strange.

Isn't that a lot of work?

[Sprunkys]

I'm not sure if this source is accurate, but if the e-coli bacterium has more than 4 million base pairs... damn, isn't that a lot of combinations? a lot of possibilities for mutatiions? How can you simulate such mutations if each mutation occurs within the next day (maybe even hours) or so??? I don't know where my logic failed, but this seems to me as an awful lot of computation and experimenting if you want to look at the development over a period of 40 years...
i reccon that must amount to at least 40*365.25=15 thousand reproductions, multiply this with 4*3 million if you want to change (not cut one out, add one or anything) just 1 base pair per reproduction and it starts to become a mind boggling big project.
And sure, there are a lot of paths that won't result in viable bacteria, but still..

can someone tell me how they do this and where my calculations go wrong?

else it is a very interesting idea, researching all possibililities... i wonder when we will be able to do this with human genes... just to find out what kind of creatures may evolve from our genome in due time.

Re:Isn't that a lot of work?

[nucal]

Not really, they just made a bunch of random mutations and then sequenced the DNA of the bacteria that survived. So you do not need to worry about irrelevant mutations to the DNA - which reduces the sample size. The bacteria that do survive will do so to varying degrees - some will barely make it, while others do very well. Take 25-50 of the really good survivors, sequence the gene required for survival (which is automated and cheap to do) - then compare to naturally occurring mutations that confer the same level of resistance.

The key point here is the selection pressure will tend to result in the same types of mutations regardless of how the genes are mutated - you don't get a whole host of weird mutations to enable the bacteria to survive, only a few key protein changes are beneficial.

Artificial societies

[babbage]

I seriously doubt that any complex system such as evolution could ever be simulated with perfect accuracy. More likely, we can get to the point where likely outcomes can be guessed but the paths that lead to them will probably always be a surprise to us.

Check out the article on artificial societies from the current (April 2002) issue of Atlantic Monthly. I was thinking of submitting it to Slashdot anyway, but it particularly relates to this discussion too. The header blurb is:

The new science of artificial societies suggests that real ones are both more predictable and more surprising than we thought. Growing long-vanished civilizations and modern-day genocides on computers will probably never enable us to foresee the future in detail--but we might learn to anticipate the kinds of events that lie ahead, and where to look for interventions that might work

The article goes on to discuss many applications of this technique. None of them are specifically about genetic evolution, though one does analyze the settlement patterns of a pre-Columbian society in the American southwest, and the computed simulation, given information about climate patterns and so on, does roughly mimic what the archaeological record suggests really happened to the Anasazi.

The interesting thing is that the simulations, including this one, are really not much more sophisticated than Conway's famous "life" AI experiments -- they take a couple of crude populations and set up trivial rules, and then run with them until a pattern emerges. In spite of how crude these simulations are, the parallels to the observed world can be striking, suggesting that such simulations can be used to understand evolution, historical trends, racism, genocide, economics, etc.

Re:Artificial societies

[molo]

Does this remind anyone else of Assimov's "Psycho-History" of the Foundation series? Freaky.

This only shows Natural Selection, not Evolution

[young-earth]

Natural selection is obvious, it's visible to all. And micro-evolution is the clear outcome of it, things like antibiotic resistance. But in most cases that's due to a loss of genetic information. Think about it - if you have your limbs removed you're resistant to handcuffs. But you lost something to achieve that.

That's why once the antibiotic is removed the population drifts back to the norm - the un-selected bacteria are more fit, have more diversity to draw on, in other situations..

Yet another headline that is a bit over the top

re: Ummm...

[silance]

Actually, it's not a BS experiment. If you can see how bacteria can evolve around potential treatments for them, you can see how long they will be suceptable to the treatment, and by what evolved mechanism they are able to survive. You could then use that information to develope a drug that delivers an initial punch while also preventing the predicted evolutionary escape route.

Predicting the future of organisms?

[sean23007]

Can we use this to find out new information about the human race? Obviously the technology can only operate on bacteria right now, but can it be adapted to work on organisms? We could see how long it would take for monkeys or dolphins to gain sentience; we could see how long it takes for pigs to be able to fly :) ; we could see how long it takes for humans to be able to fly, or have some kind of telepathic powers. That could really bring some ethics questions into the equation...

Re:Not that this discussion deserves consideration

[pubudu]

Did God create the universe? Is solely a question of of religion. How does the universe work? Is the domain of science, but most importantly, not answered by the first question. A fact lost on most creationists.

True, the answer to the second question does not necessarily follow from that to the first, but this is not the sole argument of the creationists. IANAC (well, actually I am, but not in the way they are), but I'm pretty sure they would quote a scripture or two to support their views of how the universe works beyond "b'reishit bara elohim et ha'shamiim v'et ha'aretz" (--'cause if you're not going to cite His words the way He said them, your citation can't be taken for Gospel). Let us take the example of Adam as representative: that God created the universe does not mean that He took from the earth and molded Adam, breathing into him; we need another line of scripture to show that. Creationists would argue that we have that line, and thus is the root of their belief.

Kooky literalists vs Intelligent Adgenda vs Facts

[Kibo]

The kooky literalists aren't the ones who pain me. They've lost, they've been voted out of the mainstream and may recieve their consolation prizes in the event of a Jehova approved Armaggedon.

Personally, I have a little bit more of a problem with the "intelligent design" brand of kook. It's pretty clear their only motivation is to wedge their God into other people lives under the guise of empirical truth. Funny how similar people legislated God into the pledge of allegiance in a naive and embarisingly futile attempt to push back the clock to a Ward Cleaver ideal that never really existed. Maybe such pledges for children too young to understand them are the fine line between nationalism and fascism. Maybe it's even a good thing that people who invested too much faith in a magic guy in the sky, rather than personal responsability, added those little words that didn't belong and got it kicked out of schools. Although, perhaps not all. But I think there is some value giving kids a sense of national identity. These are the people affecting change. And never for the better. The people trying to find Noah's Ark, they might make the news, but never a difference, and as such, they're pretty harmless.

I would bet that every state has its properly apportioned share of state representatives that are trying to get a mandatory intelligent design curriculum state wide. Enough time is wasted in our schools as it is. We don't need to be inventing worthless garbage that will be competing with the little bit of useful information our educational system disseminates.

In short I find the AC +2 insightful as well :)

And at least you're a professional karma whore, I'm still an unranked amature.

Re:Micro-evolution = yes, Macro = no

[(void*)]

Why does one have to draw a line between micro and macro?

The claim cannot be evolution!

[rufusdufus]

Evolution is not pre-programmed, at least not according to the commonly held theory. The claims at the top of the page would require this to be so and would be a huge leap in evolution theory---a leap down the drainpipe disproving it. Evolution represent adaptation to the environment by individuals based on random mutation, pre-programming would be a sure indicator of a Grand Plan.
I suggest the poster misunderstood the article.

Re:Micro-evolution = yes, Macro = no

[Avatar1000]

The quote you provide from the Creationists.org site could be construed as a misrepresentation. The quote is:

"...Evolutionists don't want the weaknesses of evolutionary theory to be known to the public. In fact the negative effects of engaging in a debate with a Creation Scientist is so bad that evolutionist, Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California, says, ?Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ?defend evolution,? please decline....you probably will get beaten" [creationists.org]

The quote from Eugenie Scott is probably accurate, and as a student of molecular biology and biology enthusiast I have encountered the same advice on several occassions. In fact, a similar observation is early in the preamble to the excellent "Abusing Science: The case against creationism" by Philip Kitcher. Humorously enough though, it isn't the weakness of Evolution that prompt this advice, but the weaknesses of "Creation Science".
Virtually every old, threadworn, thoroughly debunked fallacy from a hundred years or more ago is still part of the "Creation Science" arsenal vs Evolution - just because a claim has been closely inspected and soundly refuted doesn't mean that a "Creation Science" advocate won't trot it out. As a result, it is easily possible to embarass Evolutionists by simple "Crapflooding" - a "Creation Science" advocate can trot out more shoddy thinking in thirty seconds than can be cleaned up by even the best prepared Evolutionists careful scholarship in thirty hours. The result? The audiences attention wanders off, and the lesson carried home by everyone is 'Well, the Evolutionist couldn't refute everything...'
The evidence against "Creation Science" is out there, it is thourough, complete, and utterly ignored by "Creation Science" advocates (the talk-origins faq is probably a good starting point)- because they are only trying to promote an agenda. Solution? Don't try to argue - it is impossible to move them from their position, even if you did manage to convince them - denying them a forum is the one of the only ways to keep the pseudo-science from spreading. The other is a good education, complete with scientific literacy and critical thinking skills; a seemingly impossible dream for public schools here in the US.
More of a rant than I really intended - hope I didn't offend, but this is one of my pet peeves...