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?'"

47 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. All I know is... by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
    1. Re:All I know is... by Megane · · Score: 3, Funny

      My viruses are totally retro. They use 8-track tapes.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:All I know is... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Matter-energy conversion principle says that you already are pure energy, just that some of that energy is expressed as mass.

    3. Re:All I know is... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Best post on /. in weeks!!

    4. Re:All I know is... by asliarun · · Score: 1

      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.

      Not trying to do the "one up" thing here, but IMHO, the end game for evolution would be to become beings of pure information. Energy and matter are merely vehicles to store and transfer information content. We would probably get equally frustrated with the limitations of existing as energy beings as we currently do with the flaccid biological bags that we exist in.

      And your DRM comment is indeed something to ponder on - the artificial copy protection mechanisms that we have slapped on top of our existence - not just at physical levels but even in our minds.

    5. Re:All I know is... by as.kdjrfh+sxcjvs · · Score: 1

      Its from bits - - we already are beings of pure information. It's information all the way down and all the way up, even us lumpy bags of dirty water.

  2. evolution has no goal by peter303 · · Score: 2

    According to the scientiific dogma. Given enough time it fills all ecologic niches, inlcuding intelligence and outer space space.

  3. Common sense by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Common sense by abroadwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right, it is common sense. My initial reaction to this was the same as yours. That said, it's very useful to verify common sense scientifically, because it's amazing how often common sense proves to be wrong when formally tested. Take nothing on faith, not even (and perhaps especially) the obvious.

    2. Re:Common sense by krovisser · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this isn't new. Dawkins talked about this his book: The Greatest Show On Earth

  4. Why is this suprising? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Why is this suprising? by robot_love · · Score: 2

      I always thought this was the acknowledged importance of sexual reproduction as well: It increases the variability.

      --
      .there is enough of everything for everyone.
    2. Re:Why is this suprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm also surprised about the surprise. After all, the evolutionary success concerns not the individual, but the whole set of descendants. A higher mutation rate (as long as it is low enough to not threaten the reproduction at all) means that the organism will be able to move more quickly adapt to the environment (and the immune system of the host is actively changing, therefore being able to adapt quickly would be a major advantage). On the other hand, organisms which are already well-adapted to an essentially unchanging environment would experience an evolutionary pressure to reduce their mutation rate, so less of their offspring leave the optimum which is already reached.

    3. Re:Why is this suprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Damn, and here I thought the point of sexual reproduction was the sex.

    4. Re:Why is this suprising? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I think it's more that the evolutionary pressure is not currently present, so what you're seeing is a genetic holdover from past generations. Imagine you're witnessing the evolution of the giraffe, in years of drought the tallest survive as they can reach leaves higher up on trees than others. What do you see in rainy years when there's plenty food lower down, do you expect giraffes to keep getting taller? Why not, because even though it may seem pointless and irrational in this generation maybe in three generations there'll be an extreme drought that only the tallest survive and the genes that selected for it, despite the lack of advantage and need will come out as winners in the end. In the same way this bacteria selects for greater variability because history has given it reason to and it'll keep selecting for it until there's a stronger selection pressure to the contrary.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Why is this suprising? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      because history has given it reason to and it'll keep selecting for it until there's a stronger selection pressure to the contrary.

      No, that's not how evolution works.

      In rainy years, they all live. They all reproduce. And taller giraffes will not reproductively fare any better than shorter ones, everything else being equal.

      "Selection" is not a concious effort, nor even a subconcious effort, nor even an instinctual biological response at a cellular level. There is no "selection in anticipation" of some future.

      Really the organism does not "select" at all. Nature "selects" by literally killing off the less fit, inhibiting them from reproducing.

    6. Re:Why is this suprising? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Glad I read your summary before TFA. Reading a claim that "Evolution can evolve" is like a claim of "movement can move", or "changes can change". I'm guessing that the article is nonsense like the summary, so I'm sure not racing to read it. I could be wrong, but your summation increases my reluctance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  5. Re:Lab by HiChris! · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wasn't Lyme disease created in a lab by humans, in Lyme, CT? I'm not sure this is the best example.

    Um No. The area of Lyme/Old Lyme, CT is where is was identified. They didn't originally even know that it was a tick-born bacterial infection.

  6. exactly_research 'begs the question' by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if evolution can/does affect every mechanism in a living organism, then the mechanism governing the ability to evolve must itself be included.

    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:

    '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.

    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
    1. Re:exactly_research 'begs the question' by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It certainly is the way science is done. It's called an hypothesis.

      And yes, this research isn't seeking to overturn current dogma. It's seeking to support it.

      You are completely missing the basis and point of this research. It's not all that controversial or unusual. God may or may not still exist and TFA isn't anywhere near trying to bring up that question.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:exactly_research 'begs the question' by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I realize that this is perhaps difficult, but belief in Theology requires the belief in a God first. The latter is a Philosophical question which can not be answered by science as the person mentioned. They never mentioned a Theology, and your bringing that up distorts the point.

      If a person comes to a philosophical conclusion that there is a "God", "Creator" or what ever they wish to call it, then belief in a Theology will normally follow. You don't have to agree with their conclusion of having a God, but you can't prove them wrong any more than you can prove to them that there is no creator.

      Where you, and so many others, fail (in critical thinking, explaining your position, and addressing someone that believes in a creator) is that you combine the two questions into a single thought. Is there a God becomes "is there Theology" and they are absolutely _not_ the same question.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:exactly_research 'begs the question' by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Gah, reverse the last half of my 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph. Simplified "Neither of you can 'prove' the other to be incorrect.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  7. There's even a term for it: Requisite Variety by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Informative
  8. Well yeah. Why wouldn't it? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    Any and all inherited traits can evolve, including the capacity for evolution, itself.

    1. Re:Well yeah. Why wouldn't it? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Any and all inherited traits can evolve, including the capacity for evolution, itself.

      Wouldn't that imply that there could possibly be creatures that don't have the capacity for evolution? That does not seem correct to me as even a clone can evolve through cosmic rays hitting the DNA directly. Still counts as evolution.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    2. Re:Well yeah. Why wouldn't it? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Individual organisms don't evolve. Only species and populations evolve. You're talking about mutation.

    3. Re:Well yeah. Why wouldn't it? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm talking about a cosmic ray hitting the DNA in the egg or sperm cell of the individual. Or if it was a pure cloning species, then the clone formed from the mutated cells. Both of these would still be considered evolution. Mutation is a cause of evolution isn't it? Evolution just needs changes in the individuals and a selection pressure.

      I just think it is crazy to say that evolution can evolve. That's like saying change can change. It's meaningless. The rate that the species can evolve might vary depending on different factors. But it is always evolving to some extant. Unless it's the sole individual in the species and no clones or copies are ever made. Then it would not be evolving and only be mutating.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    4. Re:Well yeah. Why wouldn't it? by Kahlandad · · Score: 1

      That's like saying change can change. It's meaningless.

      That's exactly what I told my calculus prof.

  9. Simon G. Powell by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Simon G. Powell by Kahlandad · · Score: 1

      "He goes into depth on evolution, and how it's inherently intelligent"

      I can't fathom why so many people buy into this junk.

      Because it's an easy intellectual compromise to make.

  10. Heretics, all of them by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Heretics, all of them by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      This is blasphemy, I tell you.

      Not anymore. G0d evolved.

  11. Re:Lab by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obama's Social Security Number begins 042, a which is only issued to Connecticut residents.
    This Social Security Number was issued in the late 1970's.
    Lyme Disease was first identified in Connecticut in.... you guess it... the late 1970's.

    Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

    Obviously Obama created Lyme Disease in a lab in the 1970's, as part of his plan to manufacture fake evidence of evolution, to turn Americans away from God, to ensure he'd be able to usurp the Presidency of the United States after the new Millennium arrived.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  12. Soon in the news by mstefanro · · Score: 1

    The ability to evolve of the ability to evolve may actually evolve.

  13. Evolveablity could be a disadvantage! by anwyn · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Evolveablity could be a disadvantage! by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Sounds like other things related to rates of change:
      velocity
      acceleration
      jerk
      jounce

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  14. trolls bring it... by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:trolls bring it... by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      Most of your posts in this thread come off as quite irate

      only to people who hold beliefs irrationally...the 'irate' feeling they have is the cognitive dissonance from the reality of my words intruding on their expertly constucted fanatsy

      for rational people, my tone is cathartic

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  15. piss in a jar with Richard Dawkins by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I can piss in a jar and call it a "hypothesis"....

    That...doesn't...necessarily...make...it...so....

    It certainly is the way science is done. It's called an hypothesis.

    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
  16. Re:For A Better World by Kahlandad · · Score: 2

    Paradoxically, that would require a miracle.

  17. your arguments will never work or not work by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    here's why:

    since most people who believe in a supernatural god make CLAIMS about the real world.

    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
    1. Re:your arguments will never work or not work by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, and try to explain it as two questions normally. "Is there a God" and "Is there a Theology". Numerous atheists mix the two arguments to claim that there is no God. Numerous Religious people mix the two arguments to claim that there is a God. Philosophers don't delve very deep into the Theology portion until they have a reasonable answer for having a God.

      I almost laugh at times at how an atheist appears to be as much of an evangelist as the Jehovah's Witness you can't get to leave your porch. It's difficult to get either to listen to rational points on the subject. Most of the time my explanations fail even when I ask them to break it into two questions. The biases we learn are incredibly strong.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  18. Re:Lab by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Foxnews has immediately offered you a job

  19. Well... Sex exists by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    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.
  20. Re:Lab by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Foxnews has immediately offered you a job

    Screw that, no way in hell I'd take a job working for the Liberal Mainstream Media.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  21. interesting distinction by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    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
  22. that was my point by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    That's a lot of long random pauses between words.

    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