NationStates Jolt Archive

I have no better place to put this, so it may as well go here.

I was reading an article (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66188,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5) in Wired.com (http://www.wired.com) about sequencing the genome for a type of bacteria that feeds exclusively on pollutants. The article itself is interesting, but I read something that particularly caught my eye.

It turns out the bacteria likes to hang out where it can find food, that is, PCE and TCE.

That seems natural until you consider that D. ethenogenes specifically eats PCE and TCE, and the harmful compounds were introduced to the environment only about 60 years ago. The genome sequence suggests that the bacterium has evolved in response to humans dumping the chemicals, Seshadri said.I believe one of the big criticisms of evolution is that no one has ever been able to prove under laboratory conditions that a species will adapt (evolve) given sufficient stimulus. Perhaps it's because it takes even longer than we thought?

I believe one of the big criticisms of evolution is that no one has ever been able to prove under laboratory conditions that a species will adapt (evolve) given sufficient stimulus. Perhaps it's because it takes even longer than we thought?

I remember reading about a species of moth that lived in England. in this one specific area. The mosth had white wings which matched the bark on a type of tree in the are. Camoflauge. Along cam the Industrial Revolution and all the trees in the area slowly became stained dark grey or black due to all the smoke in the area. Over time the moths wings changed to black as well as they were adapting to their environment.

I know, it's not a lab condition but I think it's interesting.

Well, evolution actually does happen pretty quickly in some cases, such as the insect immunities to pesticides, as well as the many different breeds of dogs.

I remember reading about a species of moth that lived in England. in this one specific area. The mosth had white wings which matched the bark on a type of tree in the are. Camoflauge. Along cam the Industrial Revolution and all the trees in the area slowly became stained dark grey or black due to all the smoke in the area. Over time the moths wings changed to black as well as they were adapting to their environment.

I know, it's not a lab condition but I think it's interesting.

Actually the moths existed in black and white forms. Pre-Industrial revolution there was a higher percentage of white. Post-IR black was more common. All because predators ate the ones they could see and the ones who could hide through camoflage had the adaptive advantage. It's not evolution, just an example for allele frequency in a population changing due to environmental change. The animal itself did not evolve.

Adaptation can affect evolution but it is not a cause of it. Adaptation just changes what evolution has to work with. It's a one-time deal where evolution is a continuous never-ending process.

The above article you posted does show that organisms have evolved. Even though they do not know when the little buggers first became able to metabolize those toxins. It could have been in the first few hours of exposure until a species became able to metabolize them or it could have been decades later (likely it was sometimes later, brief exposure would likely not cause evolutionary change but constant exposure probably would. But it really depends on the concentration).

Then again the laws of evolution are not fully sketched out (that's why its still called a theory) so an organism may be able to evolve with a brief encounter of some stimulus. Who knows.

Well, evolution actually does happen pretty quickly in some cases, such as the insect immunities to pesticides, as well as the many different breeds of dogs.

Humans bred the dogs to be that way. It's not evolution since that is an artificial process and evolution is natural (and long long long...).

The pesticide thing is true though. Although I haven't read any reports on whether or not any genetic change is behind the immunity to insecticides (but I wouldn't put it passed bugs. They are notorious for interesting behaviour.).

Kind of like the bacteria that exists off of nylon (man-made product) and the termites that eat only concrete (man-made product).

Humans bred the dogs to be that way. It's not evolution since that is an artificial process and evolution is natural (and long long long...).

Actually, it still would be evolution, if speciation had yet occurred. If we keep the breeds of dog separate long enough that they become separate species, that would be human-induced evolution.

However, selective breeding (in multicellular organisms anyways) is a big part of what pushes evolution. The difference is that this is usually pushed by which organism survives longest and therefore has the most opportunity to breed, rather than which one is chosen by humans.

I was reading an article (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66188,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5) in Wired.com (http://www.wired.com) about sequencing the genome for a type of bacteria that feeds exclusively on pollutants.
Yes, that is known as artificial remediation. I think it will be the very best thing of all to come out of genetic engineering. In fact, the DNA of a certain oil-eating bacteria was the first genome to be patented.

The pesticide thing is true though. Although I haven't read any reports on whether or not any genetic change is behind the immunity to insecticides (but I wouldn't put it passed bugs. They are notorious for interesting behaviour.).
First, yes, entomology is indeed one of the most interesting areas. But immunity to poisons is not "interesting behaviour", it is universal. It is just that insects have such rapid generations that we can notice it in a shorter time span with them. The same has been witnessed with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which have impossibly rapid generations. And yes, insecticide resistance is indeed a genetic trait.

I remember reading about a species of moth that lived in England. in this one specific area. The mosth had white wings which matched the bark on a type of tree in the are. Camoflauge. Along cam the Industrial Revolution and all the trees in the area slowly became stained dark grey or black due to all the smoke in the area. Over time the moths wings changed to black as well as they were adapting to their environment.

I know, it's not a lab condition but I think it's interesting.

This one doesn't work. There were both black and white moths around, just a lot fewer of the black ones. Then the pollution happened and the color ratio reversed. Nothing new showed up.

This one doesn't work. There were both black and white moths around, just a lot fewer of the black ones. Then the pollution happened and the color ratio reversed. Nothing new showed up.
Yes, but it proves Darwinism, which is pretty important part of evolution.

Hell, natural selection in larger organisms takes hundreds of thousands of years, not a few decades. In smaller organisms, bacteria and the like the time span is shorter, but it is still a fair amount of time.

In smaller organisms, bacteria and the like the time span is shorter, but it is still a fair amount of time.
In E.O. Wilson's biochemical time, yes, quite a while. But going up to organismic time, is a week or two, or even days with some, really that long? And retroviruses are the best example of all, they mutate so fecking fast it's not funny,

Yes, but it proves Darwinism, which is pretty important part of evolution.

Actually, it doesn't. This is basic genetics that goes back to Mendelson. Hell, even the Bible talks about breeding goats for certain traits.

However, there are examples of evolution within the time span of human existence. Viruses have evolved and jumped hosts to give us many of the diseases that inflict humankind. Influenza, measles, mumps, and smallpox are just some of the viruses that have evolved into a different type of virus to make the jump from animals to humans.

Actually, it doesn't. This is basic genetics that goes back to Mendelson.
If you read who I quoted, I was referring to survival of the fittest demonstrated by the moths in England. So, yeah, I wasn't referring to selective breeding, eugenics if you prefer. I actually was referring to Darwinism.

However, there are examples of evolution within the time span of human existence. Viruses have evolved and jumped hosts to give us many of the diseases that inflict humankind. Influenza, measles, mumps, and smallpox are just some of the viruses that have evolved into a different type of virus to make the jump from animals to humans.
Wow, why thank you. As anyone who knows anything about me on this forum, I completely pathologically and epidemiologically ignorant. I have no obsession with diseases, with virology in particular. I have no morbid fascination with those strands of genetic material with just several proteins that are capable of turning our body into one giant haemorrhaging bruise (filoviruses). And there are many more examples of evolution. Developed insecticide resistance in a very short period of time has been listed. Mosquitos and DDT are the first instance that somes to mind, though they are actually innumerable. And virus strains emerging that bypass antibodies. Like HIV strains that turn up that just ignore the highly active antiretroviral therapy we give the infected hosts. As I said, retroviruses are the fastest mutating thing we are aware of. And don't even let me get started on bacteria, especially antibiotics.

is it evolution or homostaesis?

is it evolution or homostaesis?
What? What does homoeostasis have to do with this? That is a physiological and ecological concept, not relative to the current discussion. (Though ecology and physiology are inextricably linked with evolution, but not for this discussion)

the article said the batericia evolved but did it evolve or just get used to its new enviorment..... just trying to understand.
(i've been out of science class for almosta month sorry)

the article said the batericia evolved but did it evolve or just get used to its new enviorment..... just trying to understand.
Evolve. Adaptation is not really possible for unicellular organisms like that, it takes more complex organs to really handle that.

Mutation isn't Evolution, though it can lead to evolution like changes. I've always seen that Evolution is when a species adapts to its surroundings and it passes down in the genes. I don't believe in the Evolution to the point of it crosses to a new species, but thats just me personally, something I won't get into.

The bacteria that was in the article might not have changed at all, it could have been a dormant strain and had stayed down low in the world counts and then with the introduction of a new element they started becomeing the domanate again. I've noticed that people like to jump on the idea that things evolved, much like the moths, many people thought it was evolution at work, but upon closer examination it was really a population change.

Mutation isn't Evolution, though it can lead to evolution like changes. I've always seen that Evolution is when a species adapts to its surroundings and it passes down in the genes. I don't believe in the Evolution to the point of it crosses to a new species, but thats just me personally, something I won't get into.
Wait...do you seriously believe in Lamarckism?!? Holy crap-f**king monkeys! I've never met or even heard of one in contemporary society before! Or maybe I just misinterpreted what you meant.

The bacteria that was in the article might not have changed at all, it could have been a dormant strain and had stayed down low in the world counts and then with the introduction of a new element they started becomeing the domanate again. I've noticed that people like to jump on the idea that things evolved, much like the moths, many people thought it was evolution at work, but upon closer examination it was really a population change.
Two words: natural selection. Genetic variation in the sense that there are different strains is brought about by mutations. The ones who are fittest to survive do so, and reproduce. Traits are brought about by mutation, no matter when they come about.

Wait...do you seriously believe in Lamarckism?!? Holy crap-f**king monkeys! I've never met or even heard of one in contemporary society before! Or maybe I just misinterpreted what you meant.

umm, I didn't say it was that fast, I do believe my other statements was it takes time, not just a generation. You took an extreme look to my words.


Two words: natural selection. Genetic variation in the sense that there are different strains is brought about by mutations. The ones who are fittest to survive do so, and reproduce. Traits are brought about by mutation, no matter when they come about.

how about this one, there are 1000 different breeds of a fly, and over the course of time most of them get killed off because they aren't fast enough, or eat things that have died out in nature etc. Now there are only 20 flies around. Evolution, right? Seeing as how every year people are finding new things everyday. Giant squids off the shores of africa thought extinct for one. Alligators have been around since the "dinosaur" age, yet haven't changed, even though their enviroment has changed and moved around, they just followed it on their stout little legs.

There is proof of adaption in a limited form, but nothing substancial. Or they wouldn't call it a theory, something that has evidence of, but not to the point or proving it as true. Its an idea or concept, not a proof. I'm sure this will rouse more insult, but I don't really care. Unless you have full proof otherwise, i don't want to hear it.

Yes, but none of that explains why Soylent Green is made of people.

I believe one of the big criticisms of evolution is that no one has ever been able to prove under laboratory conditions that a species will adapt (evolve) given sufficient stimulus. Perhaps it's because it takes even longer than we thought?
Actually it's because supposedly they haven't made completely new species in lab conditions. The reason for this is because no one keeps the same strain of bacterium or fly etc.. breeding long enough to get it to form a new species.