
Evolution experiment has now followed 68k generations of bacteria - xbmcuser
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/evolution-experiment-has-now-followed-68000-generations-of-bacteria
======
ggm
I think this is an enormously cool experiment on two fronts. Firstly because
its a reasonably direct test of our assumptions about the basic operating
model of inheritence and evolution. I could imagine critique of it on that
basis, but unless somebody stumps up to fund another, this is _it_ for that
measure. So, whilst we're comfortable with a theory as a theory, this is an
experiment of that theory, its operation, its behaviours over time, which
permits the individual (ok every 500) generations to be analysed and compared.

Secondly, because it displays some behaviours as an experiment which I find
interesting. The logistic curve of change for instance: a ramp up from slow
start, and a long tail, against the cheap-to-achieve changes which maximised
reproductive outcome against the constraint. The lack of an 'end point' (so
yes, we as humans can continue to evolve and now we may have a reason to
believe its slower than other species for a reason: we're beyond our
constraint hump)

------
tabtab
Re: "one of the 12 cultures evolved the ability to survive by eating
citrate..."

Is it possible it got this trait from outside contamination, since other
strains can eat citrate? Viruses can snip in foreign DNA, for example. To
check, hopefully there's enough generation archives to see exactly how the
ability arose. If it were a single gene "flip" rather than a set of changes,
then it could be native.

------
mooreds
Very cool. Here's more details if you want a deeper dive than what the
original article had: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-
term_evolution_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-
term_evolution_experiment)

~~~
joveian
Thanks, that whole section on "Evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one
population" is the most interesting thing I've read this year.

------
BenjiWiebe
And by now, the bacteria have been monitoring the researchers for signs of
evolution...

Anyways, what I found interesting is that one of the strains can now
metabolize citrate, which as per the article E. Coli "traditionally" can not.

------
lucio
The article will be more accurate if evolution was not treated as a volitional
choice.

~~~
lohankin
Can you cite any experiment that can distinguish volitional choice from non-
volitional choice (whatever that means)?

In the absence of such experiment, both options are purely speculative (by
definition).

BTW, is your statement above a result of volitional choice, or non-volitional
choice? How do you know? :)

~~~
tasty_freeze
This is a silly argument. You can't seriously be suggesting that the bacteria
are choosing to modify their DNA in anticipation of future benefits. For sure,
nothing is ever 100% absolutely known, but some things are so unlikely that we
can safely assume they are not true, rather than putting a wordy disclaimer on
every single "fact" that we state.

Getting back to the original point, people, including me, will say things like
"this shopping cart wants to pull to the right" knowing full well that the
shopping card has no desires at all. It is a useful metaphor that confuses
nobody.

~~~
lohankin
Modifying something for future benefits is exactly what sentient beings are
doing. Yeah, bacteria are small. But small is not the same as dumb.

~~~
sabertoothed
What are you suggesting? I am not sure you are making any sense.

