In a new post at UD, Denyse O’Leary quotes an article from The Scientist (which she misattributes to Science):
Populations of Escherichia coli grown in the lab quickly evolve tolerance when exposed to repeated treatments with the antibiotic ampicillin, according to a study published today (June 25) in Nature. Specifically, the bacteria evolved to stay in a dormant “lag” phase for just longer than three-, five-, or eight-hour-long treatment courses, before waking up and growing overnight until the next round of treatment began.
Denyse comments:
They don’t think, but something seems to be doing their thinking for them. Not natural selection acting on random mutation because they evidently choose to avoid it whenever possible. That is, they avoid direct conflict with antibiotics, whether natural or human-directed.
It’s fascinating. A simple non-teleological explanation is staring her in the face, but she manages to look right through it and latch onto a baroque and bizarre teleological explanation instead. Such is the tight grip of the teleological mindset.
Denyse, what is the “something” that is “thinking” these bacteria into antibiotic tolerance, and how does that work, exactly?
Yea right, the simple non-teleological answer is, prove its teleological, what’s the big deal if its teleological, we already knew its teleological anyway, its no problem for evolution.
Just ask Allan. Yawn.
phoodoo,
Phoodoo, we have an adequate and mechanistic explanation already. But I’d love to hear about the ‘guardian of E-Coli’ (from you).
The relevant SEP entry distinguishes between “teleomentalism” (teleology that depends on psychological intentions of an agent), and “teleonaturalism” which does not involve psychological intentions.
O’Leary and others at UD usually assume teleomentalism as part of ID. Thus far, they have no evidence.
As for teleonaturalism — I don’t have a problem with that. I see biology as evidencing a lot of it. I also don’t see anything particularly mysterious about teleonaturalism. The behavior of heat seeking missiles looks teleological in that sense, and those missiles are designed by physicists and engineers.
We typically avoid damage and death, therefore we didn’t evolve via RM + NS.
OK, but why do so many work so hard to avoid thinking at all well?
Glen Davidson
Neil Rickert,
Oh, its teleological, but natural! Why didn’t you say so early. No we don’t need any explanations, because we just called it natural. Oh boy!
Yea yea, life was designed and all, but its natural, not a problem for evolution, ask Allan.
Every new discovery for the unpredicted qualities of life is not a problem for evolution, because we stick the word natural in front of it.
You can find my explanation on my blog.
Phoodoo, this isn’t surprising nor advanced. You might want to get up to speed before critiquing ?
Phoodoo, “micro-evolution”, including the evolution of tolerance and resistance in micro-organisms, is already commonly accepted by creationists. Why do you now suddenly balk at accepting that differential reproductive success does such things?
Sooo, if there’s an invisble “thinker” sitting around and “guiding” these bacteria to be tolerant of antibiotics, why does it take several generations for this to take effect? (you know, almost as if mutations need to happen and then selection to work on that variation).
Shouldn’t the invisible “thinker” be able to just instantly make the bacteria go into their dormant state? Why does it need to evolve first in increments?
Also, why would this invisible “thinker” desire to make bacteria resistant to antibiotics? That’s not very nice of “it”.
phoodoo,
I seem to be a source of annoyance to you, phoodoo! I’m devastated. 🙂
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not a problem for evolution. Sorry. On the contrary, it is a classroom example of evolution in action. There is nothing in this study that suggests anything is going on other than evolution. Mechanisms for achieving elevated survival in the the presence of an antibiotic can be many and varied.
So, why do you think it is a problem for evolution? What arouses your ire when people like me don’t see the problem? Instead of getting pissy with me for not seeing the problem as you do, explain what the problem is I’m supposed to be seeing.
Not to mention the demise of a significant part of each generation, necessary for the relevant mutations to become fixed in the population… Did anybody mention differential reproductive success?
Denyse, what is the “something” that is “thinking” these bacteria into antibiotic tolerance, and how does that work, exactly?
I’m gonna take a shot at that those. Ptah, using underground fire?
phoodoo@UD
I think he’s paraphrasing.
It’s also false, he’s not the one who posted it.
Rumraket,
He’s talking about this.
I would hardly say I am annoyed, I am amused actually. Because if life is as I say, the fittest struggling to survive, rather than survival of the fittest, these continuing kind of discoveries are exactly what one would expect.
I find it amusing that you believe everything is possible with accidental mutations. Pondering how hardly seems necessary for a certain block of people. What random mutation would allow bacteria to go into a dormant state for exactly the length of time necessary, and then come right back to an active state when the danger has passed? Is that a copying error?
I get that you guys can just say its simple, no one is surprised by this. Its sort of a multi-purpose meaningless response. In fact its so simple, why would a science journal even write about it. Its so simple, I can’t believe they haven’t already described exactly the random states that have taken place to allow them to do this.
For that matter, epigentics is also so simple to develop, its amazing that no one has bothered to publish just how easily such a system came into being. I guess they just figure its so simple its obvious-not even a mystery.
Not really Phoodoo. I was surprised by endosymbiosis and reverse transcriptase for example. I’m not surprised by the very basics, which are beyond you.
If you’re committed to your stuff then we’re not going to change your mind, as you only want the most superficial understanding.
You could improve your case if you could show how to anticipate the effects of coding change. Simply demonstrate that foresightful design is possible.
Should be simple.
You are forgetting the bit about differential reproductive success, or, simply put, that most of the early generations die because of the exposure. It’s not just one random mutation: it’s hundreds of thousands or millions of random mutations, depending on the size of the population, most of which perish with the bugs that carry them – leaving only the few that accidentally provide better tolerance or resistance.
Why did you forget that?
Richardthughes,
Yep, I hear you Richard, bacteria learning how to time their metabolism to turn on and off at exactly the time the lab technicians add anti-biotics to a petry dish is EXACTLY what we would should expect from the “basics” of biology. Probably they just have a simple iphone app for it to tell all their bacteria friends-sort of like Uber for bacteria nap time. No surprise at all. What’s with all the skepticism.
You guys are funny.
Is that what you think happened? Please, expound in exquisite detail!
Bacteria: “OMD OMD – its him again, that antibiotic guy. PLAY DEAD EVERYONE!” Something like that?
All you have to do to ensure your name lives forever in human history is propose an explanation that fits the observed data better then the current explanation.
I’d like to be sceptical, but you’ve given me nothing to go on as an alternative. What’s a better explanation?
I don’t think any explanation could be more ridiculous than,. well, when they copied, they copy their genetics so poorly that some of them accidentally screw up a copy which makes them go dormant, for exactly the right time amount of time to not be effected by the anti-biotics-just a fortuitous accident that paid of for some really.
Same way our kidneys developed, whats so surprising.
I’ve already given one, OMagain! Ptah and underground fire.
He doesn’t understand the current explanation. He doesn’t know what was actually observed, over the course of dozens of generations. He thinks the first time an improvement occurred it was precisely the fittest possible variant. Creationists think black and white, remember?
Which current explanation, lucky mistakes?
Yes, if you like.
It is not practical to gene-sequence every individual in order to locate the mutations that were unsuccessul during the sifting process. Although something of that sort has been done in the long-term Lenski experiment. Now, I know you’ll have a rote-learned response to the Lenski experiment ready to play at this point. But mutations were indeed behind the ‘surprising’ behaviour exhibited. These mutations were not discovered by all the lineages in the experiment. In fact, they were only discovered by 1. So if bacteria are typically ‘struggling to be fit’, why do they not all succeed in this struggle? Why does the mutation observed look exactly like random accident?
There is nothing miraculous or problematic going on if you appreciate that Natural Selection is an optimising process. There are 2 factors: dealing with the antibiotic stress, and being capable of growth in competition with other cells. When the response to the selective effect is to introduce a lag to growth, it really is no surprise to discover that the lag that succeeds best is ‘just enough’. Antibiotics, introduced in that cyclic way, put a premium on having a lag, but not on an indefinite lag. Cell lines that undergo too much lag will be outcompeted by their fellows that undergo less lag. In most environments, after all, bacteria outcompete each other in precisely that way, by better use of resources. As a bacterium, you snooze, you lose. This is a very well-established result, confirmed by undergraduates the world over. So what I find amusing is that your science isn’t even up to this level, in order to sensibly evaluate the experiment, yet you pour scorn on people who know enough to know why, and take the trouble to explain why, it isn’t a problem for evolution.
Ah, you could have just said “lucky mistakes” instead! That way phoodoo get’s to look like a hero at UD for destroying the strawman of “lucky mistakes”.
OMagain,
How is it a strawman, if that is the theory? Don’t be silly.
Is that what you think happened?
Then address what Allan just said, destroy that instead of “it twas mere luck”.
What would be silly would be expecting you to first understand what you are attempting to critique.
But please do continue. Any lurkers on the fence about their belief in ID can see for themselves the tactics of the IDers directly. Ignore the fact you’ve got nothing, and attack, attack attack.
Yet when your attacks succeed (you cured me of Darwinism, remember?) and you are asked to then create, witness the silence.
You are actually doing my side a favour with your tactics. So please continue!
Richardthughes,
No. Its not what I think.
Its what the article in Nature journal said happened:
” Specifically, the bacteria evolved to stay in a dormant “lag” phase for just longer than three-, five-, or eight-hour-long treatment courses, before waking up and growing overnight until the next round of treatment began.
“I was very surprised that the bacteria are able to modify their lag time just as much as they need to,” said microbiologist Tom Coenye of the Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Microbiology”
It doesn’t say they hit the exact spot all in one go, phoodoo.
OMagain,
What Allan said was that some bacteria must get lucky breaks which make them stay dormant for exactly that length of time and so they survive. How am I supposed to address that? By asking him what evidence he has for this?
He doesn’t have any, so why should I ask. Darwinism stopped being a science of evidence long ago.
How do we get epigenetics? Its easy, it just happens.
How do we get kidneys? Those with them survive longer, easy.
Well thank goodness. Of course it wouldn’t be a problem for evolution, but thank goodness.
Doesn’t need to. You’re assuming that it’s a digital phenomenon, either on or off. Could well be that just being closer to the optimal lag increases ones chances at survival by some percentage.
You’re not even bothering to try and understand what we’re explaining, are you?
So we don’t really know when they began their dormancy and have “just longer” as the exit point.
What mechanism do you propose for their shifting clocks?
Richardthughes,
Information
What mechanism do you propose, lucky breaks?
Okay, information.
How’s it stored, where does it come from?
We think its stored genomically and it comes from a combination of mutations to create new information and selection which keeps appropriate / useful information. We can unpack these mechanistically and both are easily observed in the lab.
You?
So the information for a clock is stored in their genes? And the information for how to be altruistic is stored in ones genes? And the information about which is better to eat, cheese or dirt is stored in one’s genes? And the information for how salmon know when and where to swim upstream is in their genes?
Yes, that’s why it’s ripe to be replaced with something that better explains the observed data!
So why don’t you give it a go!?!
How do we get epigenetics? Its easy, it was designed!
How do we get kidneys? They were designed!
MAGIC. It’s Designer Magic
DM for short.
Not to be confused with the Dungeon Master.
No, actually it probably is the Dungeon Master who is magically twiddling xis fingers into DNA strands and inserting “new info” into E. coli.
We certainly don’t expect that the Real Designer would be arsed to meddle with petty little tweaks of antibiotic resistance. The RD, remember, used to be renowned as the omnipotent omniscient entity which started everything with xis famous “LET THERE BE LIGHT”.
Nowadays, xe must have assistants like the DM to do the scut work.
No, it’s transmitted by the designer!
No, it’s transmitted by the designer!
No, it’s transmitted by the designer!
No, it’s transmitted by the designer!
phoodoo,
Easy there Gish Gallup. I’m surprised you’ve not brought up “fine tuned universe”. Try to focus on the task at hand.
Then why is the Designer so goddamned stupid? Why did the Designer input such goddamned persnickety affinity for “home” into those innocent baby salmon? Their lives end up wasted and their lineages go extinct when they try to return only to find out that we humans have messed up their home stream. Why didn’t the bloody Designer input one extra bit of info, something like “if way home is blocked, go back downstream and try again at the next stream opening”?
In fact, if the Designer is so frickin’ marvelous, why did xe input this migration instinct to begin with? Why not just leave them as happy little stream fishies, sweet as perch? Why not just leave them as happy open-ocean fishes, hot tuna? Pick one or the other. Why the kludge-y mishmash of both fresh- and salt-water lifestyles requiring dangerous transitions between?
A kludge like salmonid migraticn is a hallmark of NON-designed, NON intelligent evolution.
Either that, or it’s a hallmark of a Designer that is both half-witted and malevolent.
You could not pay me enough money to believe in, much less worship, the tinpot Designer they picture being responsible for all these “miraculous” life-hacks.
Edit- took out half the profanity. Left haLf because the idiocy of admiring this supposed Designer makes me furious, and I don’t want to resist expressing it sometimes.
Admin appreciates your efforts 😉
Since dormancy is genetically regulated, it really isn’t a stretch to say mutations can tweak the timespan up or down.
Since mutations happen and invariably some will affect the duration of the dormant state. I don’t see why it’s a problem that to begin with in the experiment, while most of the bacteria die, some very few individuals stay dormant long enough. It doesn’t even have to be super precise, for all we knew there are individual bacteria that reactivate shortly before the danger is over but nevertheless manage to survive because of low exposure.
Subsequent rounds of selection can then hone in on the optimal timeperiod. This is what the researchers reported happening: It took multiple rounds of selection to optimize the lag period.
I agree that would be stupid, because the genetic basis for this has yet to be elucidated. But since you’re here feigning ignorance and incredulity with respect to evolution’s ability to explain the phenomenon, it seems rather idiotic to complain when people actually bother to speculate on how it could do so.
At this stage we don’t really know HOW they do it, but the above is a suggestion to how we normally see evolution adjust such behavior in organisms. At least in principle this just isn’t the issue you are trying to make it out to be.