Slashdot Mirror
Deep-Sea Microorganism Hasn't Evolved For Over 2 Billion Years
sfcrazy writes: Evolution is a natural process — everything evolves over a period of time, depending on the environment. But now scientists have discovered an organism which hasn't evolved for over more than 2 billion years. That's almost the half of the life of the Earth. "The scientists examined sulfur bacteria (abstract), microorganisms that are too small to see with the unaided eye, that are 1.8 billion years old and were preserved in rocks from Western Australia’s coastal waters. Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago — and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile." Scientists say the extreme stability of the environment around the organisms made further adaptations unnecessary.
Just because a fossil looks similar does not mean it hasn't evolved. Most evolution happens on the molecular scale, if you looked at the genomes I guarantee they would be different.
~2.3 billion years > ~35 million years. Just saying...
They seem to be going by visual appearance. There may be loads of DNA changes that affect metabolism chemistry and behavior that wouldn't be detectable by visual inspection of fossils. Looks can be deceiving.
Also in the TFA: "If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed."
It's possible for a chance mutation or set of mutations to "discover" a new feature even in a stable environment. There are probably always better designs in highly remote combinations of mutations.
Table-ized A.I.
Morphological changes may have been minimal, but I suspect genomic changes have still occurred. Neutral drift alone would assure that these bacteria were not identical at the molecular level to their two billion year old ancestors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Is part of evolution
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
If they reproduce asexually, then evolution has to count only on random mutations and copying errors. Sexual reproduction intentionally mixes up the genes so you get new combinations all the time. Evolution based on random mutations that still produce a viable organism is closer to monkeys at typewriters.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
To summarize: Fossils that look similar "haven't evolved". That is quite possibly the stupidest thing that I read today.
Has our educational system sunk so low that it must be mentions that you need a microscope to see bacteria?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Most, but not all.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
In a simple and stable environment, the critters could have adapted a locally optimal form and strategy (given the evolutionary path they had already taken), to the point where all variations reachable from the current form function worse and are selected out. "reachable" is key here. You (your lineage) are very unlikely to evolve into spherical iron rock crystal creatures of roughly the same mass. The relative Kolmogorov complexity to get your form to that form, as well as the energetic infeasibility, mitigate against that direction, no matter how random evolutionary variation is. There are always constraints, not only on survival probability, but also on variation direction possibility.
This has zero to do with religion. It's about combinatorics, complex system constraints, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Not so, some are large enough to see with the naked eye: Sogin, Nature, vol. 362, page 207
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Species, Species II, Species III and Species - the awakening . http://speciesfilms.wikia.com/...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Hmmm ... I don't think WASP means what it think it means.
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is typically used to describe lacoste clad and teeth whitened mcMansion types, not bible banging NASCAR fans
sometimes there is no force nor need for evolution.
.. and from TFS:
...made further adaptations unnecessary.
It really bugs me when I see the theory of evolution referred to this way. There is no "need" or "desire" or "necessary" involved. Similarly, "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with who is in the (subjectively) best shape or who is the smartest (though there may be correlations). Fish did not decide that they'd like to walk on land or breath air (if they did, it had nothing to do with that happening).
If these things haven't evolved in 2 billion years, it simply means that any mutations that may have occurred resulted in lines that did not reproduce as effectively. That's still a very impressive feat, but it's not because it didn't "need" to, it's because when it did change it didn't do as well. In this case, it's very likely that this is at least partially due to the simplistic nature of this bacteria (fewer dip switches in its DNA, so to speak) and, of course, as the article points out, the very consistent environment (allowing for an optimized implementation to consistently out perform any random brethren).
How can the prove that the sulfur bacteria has not evolved? Note: They could prove that the sulfur bacteria still exists like it did long ago. But, I see no way they can prove there was NOT failed evolution paths taken in the past. And, I am NOT sure that there has NOT been evolution paths taken in the past that has resulted in bacteria so different that it might not be currently believed they evolved from this sulfur bacteria. Tim S.
I have always interpreted the "need" or "necessary" as the requisites that have to be fulfilled in order to find a certain organism in a certain place today (or whatever time they are talking about). So yes, the organism or the species don't "need" adaptations, they just survive or not, but you "need" the adaptations in order to explain how they can survive there. This kind of place "need" very few explanations because there is not real change and any organism that could survive at the beginning could just keep doing it.
Nevertheless, this finding assumes quite a lot of things, they compared the morphology of fossils with modern organism and propose that the lack of visible differences means no adaptations, also they compared bacteria from two distant geographical places and assumed that this means genetic isolation (likely but not certain). I would prefer if they waited until they could report on both modern bacterial genomes (trivial task nowadays) before making such bold conclusions.
Lamarck called; he wants his discredited theory back.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A wasp is a very complex multicellular organism though, and yet it stopped evolving so long ago. The american alligator species is 150 million years old !
I would think that any organism would seek a better or easier path and perhaps come back to center as no gain was found but I think the drift would be endless even if the return to center is endless. Otherwise we would have to explain the ability of an organism to simply be content and intelligent enough to stop trying to change.Other than a decision making process the only other explanation might be divine intervention.
There is no seeking, no contentedness, no intelligence, no decision making process, and no divine intervention.
There is only a stable environment, in which no mutations have occurred that conferred a reproductive advantage.
There is beauty in simplicity.
How did eyes evolve? The structures are too complex to be accounted for by traditional evolutionary explanation mechanisms.
That old chestnut? Open your eyes.
~2.3 billion years > ~35 million years > 6000 years old planet
The likelihood of getting a vaguely complete DNA sequence from multi-billion-year old fossils is slender. Our best example of "ancient DNA" from fossils has a less than 1% complete genome from rocks a little over 100Myr old. 2000 Myr old fossils might have a 0.0000000000000000001 % complete genome (if preserved in exceptionally well.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"