Slashdot Mirror
First Lab Demonstration That the Ability To Evolve Can Itself Evolve
ananyo writes "Research on Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, shows that the capacity to evolve can itself be the target of natural selection. B. burgdorferi can cause a chronic infection even if its animal host mounts a strong immune response — evading those defenses by tweaking the shape and expression of its main surface antigen, VIsE. A series of unexpressed genetic sequences organized into 'cassettes' recombine with the VIsE gene, changing the resulting protein such that it escapes detection by the host's immune system. The researchers studied the molecular evolution of the cassettes' genetic sequences in 12 strains of B. burgdorferi. They found that natural selection seemed to favor bacteria with more genetic variability within their cassettes, and hence a greater capacity to generate different versions of the antigen. 'Greater diversity among the cassettes in itself shouldn't be a selective advantage considering they aren't expressed and don't do anything else,' says lead author Dustin Brisson. 'But we did find evidence of selection, so the question is: what else could it be for besides evolvability?'"
My cassettes all migrated to CD's, and then from there to digital audio.
So extrapolating from that it seems the end game for all evolution is becoming beings of pure energy, DRM optional.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
According to the scientiific dogma. Given enough time it fills all ecologic niches, inlcuding intelligence and outer space space.
due to selection bias
It just seems common sense to me that if evolution can/does affect every mechanism in a living organism, then the mechanism governing the ability to evolve must itself be included.
Maybe I'm overlooking the significance of this discovery but why is it surprising that a bacteria strain with a greater "genetic variability" would fall under natural selection? Wouldn't such a strain naturally survive others considering it allows the bacteria to rearrange antigens and thus the ability to evade detection and destruction by the host's immune system, even if those latent facilities aren't immediately apparent to an observer who doesn't know the full evolutionary history of the strain?
Wasn't Lyme disease created in a lab by humans, in Lyme, CT? I'm not sure this is the best example.
yes.
these researchers created a *false distinction* in their research question
They took what you call 'the mechanism governing the ability to evolve' and found a behavior in nature that they could drive a false dichotomy wedge into to create a *factor* where none exists. Here is where they invent the distinction out of *thin air* based on their personal opinion:
highlighted portion is **pure speculation** and forms the leverage for their whole experiment...if that ***opinion*** by the research is wrong the whole thing sinks...and it is just that one dude's opinion...which is not how a scientific research question is formed
bottom line: the process they describe, the bacteria being selected b/c some are more likely to survive is absolutely 100% main line accepted theory...their work does not in any way represent a new or different behavior in life
disclaimer: I am not a creation science supporter...i hate it...but I also hate equally the notion that **science can prove God does or does not exist**...looking at bacteria to somehow 'prove' evolution makes 'god' a delusion is itself a delusion.
science cannot prove **OR** disprove something abstract like a supernatural 'god'
Thank you Dave Raggett
When I read the summary of this article I see..
"The process of evolution itself evolved into existence. The proof is that some bacteria with MORE DNA variability are more adaptable and tend to survive natural selection more effectively."
So, it sounds like we're talking about why some strains of bacteria don't make it (natural selection) as opposed to processes that make bacteria more complex (evolution).
http://requisitevariety.co.uk/what-is-requisite-variety/
This is like pokemon mega-evolution right? Science bitch!
A godless lie
From my perch atop Mt. ignorance have always believed if you want to evolve cool things somewhere along the line ability to judge and communicate improvements to what you spawn had to evolve from the primary objective function at some early point along the way. I just don't think we are currently smart enough to see it.
Any and all inherited traits can evolve, including the capacity for evolution, itself.
Technoli
This is very implied in Darwin's work. He points out that species that have more children at once tend to have greater variance among those children (and thus, "capacity to evolve") than those that have fewer children at a time. Meaning, at some point, the amount of variance had to vary.
I heard you like evolution
so I put evolution in evolution...
There's a book called "Darwin's Unfinished Business" written by a guy named Simon G. Powell. He goes into depth on evolution, and how it's inherently intelligent, and self-improving. I'm not going to go all in here explaining more about it, read that book if you're interested. But he nails it, in my opinion. The fact that a seed has embedded into it the instructions to not only build another tree, but another fruit, and another seed - and not just a seed, but a seed that is able to continue on carrying the intelligence torch as it were, in order to continue evolving in a manner that continuously becomes more and more intelligent, or more and more able to make sense of it's surroundings.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
There is infinitely more evidence that god is the name of the initial experiences of the newly awakened fetal brain than there is evidence that god is the name of a bearded old guy in the sky.
This flies in the face of all that is good and natural -- the ability to evolve was clearly put in place by some kind of intelligent designer. This is blasphemy, I tell you.
The ability to evolve of the ability to evolve may actually evolve.
It is easy to imagine a scenario where evolveablity is a long term selective disadvantage. Imagine a species with certain traits that allow it to survive a catastrophe that occurs infrequently. However these traits are dead weight during the good times (=most of the time). If the creature evolves to fast, it will lose all its catastrophe surviving traits during the good times and and get wiped out during a catastrophe. However if it evolves slowly these traits will survive the catastrophe and culling during the catastrophes will insure it keeps its catastrophe surviving traits. And perhaps the characteristic of slow evolution.
Now if only we could get some of those fundamentalist Christians in a lab and prove their thinking can evolve...
I made a ****disclaimer**** to head off common trolling subjects...
seems like I need to adapt my anti-troll comment strategy a bit considering your comment
Thank you Dave Raggett
I can piss in a jar and call it a "hypothesis"....
That...doesn't...necessarily...make...it...so....
The hypothesis is just one glaring area where the **false distinction** error is evident.
It is an error in logic....based on a false distinction that invents a factor to test where none should logically exist in an area of a theory that has been proven.
Another way to say this is, proving that 'the ability to evolve' itself has the ability to evolve is a logical contradiction.
the 'ability to evolve' has never been in question **scientifically**....so why create an illogical false distinction to prove it?
ability to evolve is the same as 'change over time'...its the same conceptually...essentially these researchers were really just testing if the bacteria 'changed over time' then added the academia **hype language** to get a book deal
these guys are Richard Dawkins wannabes!
Thank you Dave Raggett
here's why:
the definition of 'god' changes in indescribable ways depending on **which person you ask**...and of course **when you ask that person**
any 'CLAIMS' made by religious people about what a **supernatural** god does are not provable or disprovable by any **natural** means...if X religious nutjob says 'god makes it rain' and you prove them wrong by explaining the natural process of rainfall, the religious nutjob can just say, "but god made nature to do that"....it's a ****never ending argument**** the only way to win is not to play!
the arguments you bat around...about how philosophers have **tried** to prove god exists....**they are all bullshit** so stop arguing against them!
neither *you* nor *anyone* can ever prove or disprove that a *supernatural* god exists with a methodology by definition base on the natural world
it's not a scientific question!!!!!
Thank you Dave Raggett
And it didn't at once time. But when it was developed there was an explosion in the rate of evolution. Because sexual recombination is a superior form of evolution to simple mutation.
That said... I'd like to think that genetic engineering is the next step after sex in the evolution of evolution.
That is... intelligent design. Organisms making themselves into what they want to be... deliberately.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The authors make two fundamental logical errors in reaching their conclusion. The fact that variability is there upon which selection may act alone is of no consequence. Selection only takes place when some mechanism of selection initiates (a drought, a flood, a new predator, etc) a new selective regime that differentially sorts and filters existing variability. Since this can result in any of an infinite number of potential outcomes there is no reason to suppose that a special configuration will be optimal in the future, whether expressed in a parent or not, will be preadapted to the correct and final outcome since until fixation occurs one doesn't have selection that drives differentiation. Rather, producing offspring that are variable is in principle more beneficial, since its likely that at least some of the variability will be favorable in any of the most probable futures. It is simply a logical fallacy to conclude as do the authors that because they have found "evidence of selection", when then hadn't anticipated it, that implies selection for "evolvability".
I implemented an evolutionary system in software (for generating fractals). Some of the parameters that were allowed to evolve were meta-parameters about mutation rates and mate selection. These converged to non 0 values, thus proving the same thing as done in this research. I don't see how any other outcome could be mathematically possible.
I like how you break it down to two identifiable concepts and go from there.
That's a good way not to alienate them while you fix their illogical way of thinking ;)
Thank you Dave Raggett
you know what else there's 'a lot' of?
random bullshit masquerading as scientific research
the way you felt when you read those '...'s is exactly the same frustration I feel when I have to read about another bullshit 'research' study
Thank you Dave Raggett