Wolfhnd

Strong selective pressure can lead to rapid and reproducible evolution in bacteria. "Bacteria that lack a vital protein for growing flagella—tail-like structures that enable the microbes to swim—can attain flagella in as little as four days given enough pressure to evolve, according to a paper published in Science today (February 26). Furthermore, this fast fix evolves in nearly the same way in each independent strain: through the repurposing of a distantly related protein. “This is a fascinating set of evolution experiments,” wrote evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in an e-mail to The Scientist. “Their experiments show how a biological function—in this case, flagellar motility in Pseudomonas fluorescens—can re-evolve after the deletion of a seemingly critical gene. The bacteria regained motility not by reacquiring the lost gene . . . but instead by mutations in other genes that put their products to new uses.” " http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42284/title/Evolutionary-Rewiring/ I'm really lost as to what to think about this finding. It could be that it is just the law of large numbers and every conceivable mutation was available for selection. It could also be that the repair mechanism are more complex than imaginable. The third possibility is a little of both. Opinions?

I have been reading studies for years now and I'm still not sure when it comes to mammals. The mother fetus connection seems to be one of the alternative explanations which is why many researchers are focusing on the male contribution.

Fair enough I guess I left the question kind of vague on purpose. What bothers me is that there seems to be a bit of a backlash from scientist who think the general population is going to be mislead into thinking it equates with Lamarckian Evolution. While there may be some quacks out there trying to sell cure all remedies based on some sort of connection to epigenetics I don't see the public caring one way or the other about the science. People believe whatever they want to. The question about mammals still seems to be unsettled see the below quote. End the Hype over Epigenetics & Lamarckian Evolution "However, Heard & Martienssen are not convinced. In their Cell review, they admit that epigenetic inheritance has been demonstrated in plants and worms. But, mammals are completely different beasts, so to speak. Mammals go through two rounds of epigenetic "reprogramming" -- once after fertilization and again during the formation of gametes (sex cells) -- in which most of the chemical tags are wiped clean. They insist that characteristics many researchers assume to be the result of epigenetic inheritance are actually caused by something else. The authors list four possibilities: Undetected mutations in the letters of the DNA sequence, behavioral changes (which themselves can trigger epigenetic tags), alterations in the microbiome, or transmission of metabolites from one generation to the next. The authors claim that most epigenetic research, particularly when it involves human health, fails to eliminate these possibilities." http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/end_the_hype_over_epigenetics__lamarckian_evolution.html

What is your opinion? Is it established science or will other explanation win out?

The tittle of this post raises question that I have been considering. I think that at times argument or debate may be necessary for clarification but science is a cooperative adventure where ideas are shared and refined. Debate for debates sake can impede cooperation and lead to unnecessary animosities. We would not share our ideas if there was certainty that they could not be falsified unless for the purposes of indoctrination or self aggrandizement. The internet is a wonderful medium for sharing ideas and feelings but like all social activities there is a necessary segregation of individuals by interests. The question then is not if these forums are an information kiosk rather than a forum for debate but how inclusive the management wishes to make them. There should be no expectation that the language of science should be excluded for the sake of inclusion of the general population. There also should be no expectation that clarity would be achieved by the use of a common language. In general I have found this forum courteous and patient with non scientists. This reflects I believe the democratic nature of science in which the only requirement for inclusion is that an individual is curious and studious. There is a problem that we are all aware of however. It can best be illustrated by the latest cover of National Geographic promptly and bolder headlined "Science Under Attack". Science being the step child of the enlightenment has a heritage opposed to authoritarian dictate. I commend the management of this website for not descending to the level of those that attack science and resisting the temptation to exclusion and authority that politics so often lead us to. Upholding the egalitarian nature of science is the best defense against it's enemies.

I was wonder myself what happened and can find nothing more. Looks like the researcher moved on to this. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Results?SearchText=doi:%20C2EE03222H

I was just reading this article Poisoned Planet and I glanced over to the side and see Top Comment: A quick flipping through the Bible shows that this article is invalid. It just struck me as funny as hell for some reason.

This is clearly evolving into to long of discussion for a single topic. We can take it up issues by issue again sometime. I had prepared a long reply but I think that a blog may be a better mechanism for this type of discussion.

Speciation is one of those pre genetics hangovers

I'm just going to respond to one of these comments because I don't want to waste anymore of your time. Let me know if that is ok? "I think welfare as a dueling example of both sides being emotional is a false equivalency. The whole modernized western world practices various forms of social aid. It is provably successful. The counter approach of sink or swim & personal responsibility has no successful examples in the current times. One is more logical than the other once emotions are placed aside." All I'm trying to do is remove the rose colored glasses that we Liberals wear when we look at history. Marxism is Evidently a huge failure everywhere it has been tried. I don't think that says much about Marx because he was just another philosopher trying to find his way out of the "fly bottle". The false equivalency in my opinion is equating socialism with ideas that have long since been discredited. I also think that the idea that liberalism should not be as emotional as conservatism is a mistake. Their is nothing wrong with a bit of emotional "intelligence" if it doesn't distort history. ​That socialism is evidently the preferred system is in my opinion undeniable. That doesn't give us an excuse to not admit it's short comings. It also doesn't allow us to ignore Historical evidence that suggest that welfare is detrimental to personal dignity. Prior to the "great society" programs instituted by Johnson (who was a liberal by the way) the illegitimate birth rates of black teenagers was lower than white teenagers. Part of what extended welfare did was destroy a sub culture of interdependence and social mores. The reasons for this are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion but it is in part due to what Johnson had to compromise to get his ideas of social justice even looked at. The main concession was that he made was to make welfare a profitable business for some industries like construction and the food distribution sectors. It is the same problem that Eisenhower ran into when he talked about the "military industrial complex" you have to make compromises. Painting Johnson as an enemy of liberalism is not only unfair it takes the discussion out of the realm of historical context. My main point is that I don't want to pull the same non sense as conservatives and rewrite history to fit my personal perspective.

Just curious were you there in the 60s to watch events unfold? So you think that eliminating the draft after the war was all but over in 1973 was an important event? I guess you also think that the current system where the majority of people join the military as an economic necessity is fair? Perhaps you think there is no need for a military? That is going to be a long discussion for another time. In Roe vs Wade you certainly have a stronger case. It in fact represents one of the successes of the Feminist movement. What you have to remember however was that by 1971 the movement for woman's rights was a hundred years old. What that has to do with student protests is hard to understand. Here is what that red neck from Texas said when he was trying to figure a way out in 1964 "Well, they'd impeach a president, though, that would run out, wouldn't they?" Johnson never wanted the war it just happened to him while he was trying to build his great society. I guess ruining Johnson and giving us Nixon could be seen as one of the great accomplishments of the Student movements in the 60s. The majority of American people wanted out of Vietnam but a few of the more savvy or worldly types knew that Stalin had killed 30 million in Russia and could see the same thing happening in Southeast Asia. The War protesters were just lucky that there were only 1,040,000 political deaths following the Hanoi victory, it could have been much worse. That also doesn't count the 2 million the Khmer Rouge killed and there were no protests of either of these atrocities. The obvious truth is those kids had no idea what they were talking about. All they knew was what the majority of American knew and that is that nobody cared what really happened in Vietnam. The center piece of American foreign policy has always been why do I care about a bunch of foreigners and I don't want to die in a foreign war. The same kinds of protest proceed both world wars so they are not in any way unique. The only thing I'm suggesting is maybe we are the side that should get the facts right? Let the conservatives wallow in their own fantasies. None of this really matters as long as people on both sides are more swayed by emotion than reason. I hope we can at least agree on that? I want to elaborate on my last post a bit. What I see as the real difficulty is that liberals have tried to corner the market on positive emotions, brotherly love etc. which is in part due to the conservatives dominance in negative emotions. Take welfare for example, a liberal may say we should love and care for all people and a conservative will counter with lazy people need to get jobs. Because of the way our brains work the second statement has more impact. We are programmed to respond more intensely to fear, anger, and other "negative" emotions more than empathy. It's hard to have empathy with something you are afraid of. Rational argument in general has even less emotional impact. Assuming that conservatives actually are more inclined to "think" emotionally I don't see that as much of a disadvantage for them. The rise of Adolf Hitler could be seen as his ability to tap into the power of negative emotions. The popularity of Reagan could be seen as his ability to tap into the fear of change and uncertainty. People attributed Reagan's success to the comfort and warmth of returning to traditional values but that would have had little appeal if it was not in opposition to the perceived dangers of continuing liberal reforms. The best course of action then for a liberal agenda is to constantly remind people how bad the good old days really were. Convincing people how dangerous "traditional" values really are seems like the best strategy. To do that we need to get the history right as nothing could undo this strategy quicker than making it appear as propaganda. Denying what that this photo is the epitome of sophistry is not good for our cause.

There is also genetic engineering which could result in speciation.

Liberals deny science, too "Liberals get a lot less flack, in general, for ignoring scientific findings. Yet there is also reason to think they, too, are susceptible to allowing their political biases influence their reading of certain scientific questions. And now, a new study just out in the journal Sociological Spectrum accuses them of just that." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/28/liberals-deny-science-too/ This topic is just too important to let go. For a long time I thought that I was the only Liberal who thought that science was pointing us away from what Pinker calls the "blank slate" ideology of my generation. The simplicity of the "blank slate" ideology should be repugnate to anyone with an open mind. We have become addicted to easy fixes and the idea of unlimited flexibility but throwing government money at problems has become a two edged sword. Most problems require more than just money and words to solve they need sophisticated analysis and social cooperation. One of the most painful experiences of my life time was to watch Liberalism being taking over by the simplistic moral positions favored in the 60s. While students were running around screaming the real work of reforming society was being done by a preacher from Atlanta Georgia and a red neck from Texas. Even the one issue where the counter culture made progress, sexual liberation, came with a huge price. I would argue that most of the real gains made by woman rest more on what the civil rights movement did than on feminism. Mind you without feminism woman may well have been left out of civil rights movement but it's the anti discriminatory laws that came from the civil rights movement that were critical. Liberals need to focus as much on responsibility as they do on rights or at least on a more complete moral palette to compete with the appeal of conservatism.

This thread should have been called the origin of a sexual predisposition or similar. Sexual dimorphism is a phenotypic difference between males and females of the same species not sexual attraction.

I don't want to sound negative but I think this could be dangerous. You experiment will be contaminated with god only knows what and as I said radiation is dangerous. I may just be a worry filled old man but have you thought of the possibility of generating new pathogens? While your experiment is probably pretty save I suspect there our people capable of sophisticated DNA modification in their basements. As the kind of technology become prevalent for modifying DNA there is an increasing risk that it will be but to misuse. There are several reasons why this kind of thing should be done in a lab and I have to suggest you get you biology degree before playing around with it. I will give you a link to paper that may suggest something that is more appropriate. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7508/abs/nature13291.html Grafting is an old way of producing new plants and seems safe to me.

Piece of plutonium in your bedroom? I was thinking particle radiation was what was suggested as it seems most effective at getting past the natural protection organism may have. X-rays is perhaps the only thing available to the average person that could be used to generate a secondary source of particle radiation? I'm not a physicist lol

It would be fun to build a large "natural" pond with the material described. My current pond is concrete but I have used polymer liners before with success. Anything that holds water can be turned into a fish pond. Ponds are a fun pass time and I would encourage anyone interested to give it a go.

Thanks guys even in this day and age it's hard to trust that products are "safe". I will try and run down some more information or post in a pond forum.

"Also, do you guys think this might even have a possibility of success?" You would be better using something with a rapid population turn over. Radiation is dangerous you know? I'm certain that if you do it right and you have a large enough population you would be successful in demonstrating some favorable mutations. Labs usually use bacteria for this sort of thing.

Thanks for the clarification that I'm not sure I included. I was trying to be as open minded as possible about what was being discussed and what the question was without going into detail about the original posts. I hope you can comment on the trend for some scientist to attribute "intelligence" to bacteria as my comments on horizontal gene flow was meant to imply some sort of evolutionary continuity. I assumed that the original post was fishing for a continuity that included early organism but that was just a guess. There is a lot of fairly speculative literature out there that could be misleading but is interesting.

I made a mistake earlier in this post that I apologize for when I select web references. I hope nobody got the impression I supported the views of the linked website. Google can be dangerous if you are careless.

The scientific evidence strongly suggests that mating is not "random". The "random" element seems to relate to opportunity

I'm building a fountain for the center of my fish pond out of ceramics that I need to hold in place or more importantly no strike each other. This stuff looks perfect as there is a need for occasional disassembly for cleaning.

(Phys.org) —Scientists at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory have designed and tested an all-solid lithium-sulfur battery with approximately four times the energy density of conventional lithium-ion technologies that power today's electronics. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-all-solid-sulfur-based-battery-outperforms-lithium-ion.html#jCp

I know this is a weird question but I can't seem to find any information on the subject?