Scientists place 500-million-year-old gene in modern organism

Jul 11, 2012
Postdoctoral Fellow Betül Kaçar and Associate Professor Eric Gaucher are watching evolution in action resurrecting a 500-million-year-old gene from bacteria and inserted it into modern-day Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria. Credit: Georgia Institute of Technology

It's a project 500 million years in the making. Only this time, instead of playing on a movie screen in Jurassic Park, it's happening in a lab at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Using a process called paleo-experimental evolution, Georgia Tech researchers have resurrected a 500-million-year-old gene from bacteria and inserted it into modern-day Escherichia coli(E. coli) bacteria. This has now been growing for more than 1,000 , giving the scientists a front row seat to observe evolution in action.

"This is as close as we can get to rewinding and replaying the molecular tape of life," said scientist Betül Kaçar, a NASA astrobiology postdoctoral fellow in Georgia Tech's NASA Center for Ribosomal Origins and Evolution. "The ability to observe an ancient gene in a modern organism as it evolves within a modern cell allows us to see whether the evolutionary trajectory once taken will repeat itself or whether a life will adapt following a different path."

In 2008, Kaçar's postdoctoral advisor, Associate Professor of Biology Eric Gaucher, successfully determined the ancient genetic sequence of Elongation Factor-Tu (EF-Tu), an essential protein in E. coli. EFs are one of the most abundant proteins in bacteria, found in all known cellular life and required for bacteria to survive. That vital role made it a perfect protein for the scientists to answer questions about evolution.

Using a process called paleo-experimental evolution, Georgia Tech researchers have resurrected a 500-million-year-old gene from bacteria and inserted it into modern-day Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria. This bacterium has now been growing for more than 1,000 generations, giving the scientists a front row seat to observe evolution in action. Credit: Georgia Institute of Technology

After achieving the difficult task of placing the ancient gene in the correct chromosomal order and position in place of the modern gene within E. coli, Kaçar produced eight identical bacterial strains and allowed "ancient life" to re-evolve. This chimeric bacteria composed of both modern and ancient genes survived, but grew about two times slower than its counterpart composed of only modern genes.

"The altered organism wasn't as healthy or fit as its modern-day version, at least initially," said Gaucher, "and this created a perfect scenario that would allow the altered organism to adapt and become more fit as it accumulated mutations with each passing day."

The growth rate eventually increased and, after the first 500 generations, the scientists sequenced the genomes of all eight lineages to determine how the bacteria adapted. Not only did the fitness levels increase to nearly modern-day levels, but also some of the altered lineages actually became healthier than their modern counterpart.

When the researchers looked closer, they noticed that every EF-Tu gene did not accumulate mutations. Instead, the modern proteins that interact with the ancient EF-Tu inside of the bacteria had mutated and these mutations were responsible for the rapid adaptation that increased the bacteria's fitness. In short, the ancient gene has not yet mutated to become more similar to its modern form, but rather, the found a new evolutionary trajectory to adapt.

These results were presented at the recent NASA International Astrobiology Science Conference. The scientists will continue to study new generations, waiting to see if the protein will follow its historical path or whether it will adopt via a novel path altogether.

"We think that this process will allow us to address several longstanding questions in evolutionary and molecular biology," said Kaçar. "Among them, we want to know if an organism's history limits its future and if evolution always leads to a single, defined point or whether evolution has multiple solutions to a given problem."

Explore further: Efficient genetic editing: Scientists develop new system that could be used to treat a host of genetic conditions

Related Stories

Slower evolving bacteria win in the end

Mar 18, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists in the US have found bacteria that evolve slowly are more likely to survive in the long term than those evolving more quickly.

Mutations: When benefits level off

Jun 08, 2011

Beneficial mutations within a bacterial population accumulate during evolution, but performance tends to reach a plateau. Consequently, theoretical evolutionary models need to take into account a "braking effect" in expected ...

Recommended for you

Identifying the source of stem cells

Oct 30, 2014

When most animals begin life, cells immediately begin accepting assignments to become a head, tail or a vital organ. However, mammals, including humans, are special. The cells of mammalian embryos get to ...

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar Dickarian
3.7 / 5 (23) Jul 11, 2012
Yes, I saw this in a movie. No, it did not end well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (37) Jul 11, 2012
Yes, I saw this in a movie. No, it did not end well.
In 2001 HAL was a bad guy. In 2010 he was a good guy. But they were just movies.
This bacterium has now been growing for more than 1,000 generations, giving the scientists a front row seat to observe evolution in action.
Even so, creationists will still not buy it.
Deathclock
4.1 / 5 (26) Jul 11, 2012
"the ancient gene has not yet mutated to become more similar to its modern form, but rather, the bacteria found a new evolutionary trajectory to adapt."

Which is to be expected. This is amazing research indeed but no one should expect this to replicate what actually occurred evolution-wise 500 million years ago.
Peter Hent
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2012
Even so, creationists will still not buy it.


They'll buy the cure sure enough.
SteveL
5 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
Yes, I saw this in a movie. No, it did not end well.
In 2001 HAL was a bad guy. In 2010 he was a good guy. But they were just movies.
I don't consider HAL the bad "guy" at all. HAL was lied to. Bad information equates to bad results be the intelligence electronic or biological.
SteveL
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2012
Yes, I saw this in a movie. No, it did not end well.
I'm thinking of killer bees. I certainly hope they are using modern bilogical controls. Modern life may not have any resistances to something this old.
LagomorphZero
4.8 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
For the lineages that became healthier than the modern counter parts, I wonder what would happen if they switched the ancient gene back to the modern one? would the benefits of the mutated neighbor genes still apply?
Strap
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
The mutations of the ancient gene are dependent on what they are exposed to. It would be unlikely to expect a recreation of the climate that existed 500 million years ago with enough accuracy to send this gene down the same evolutionary path. Still,it would be fun to watch.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2012
Even so, creationists will still not buy it.


They'll buy the cure sure enough.


Yeah, they'll deny this up and down (the 0.01% who ever hears of it) but if this leads to a medical advance you can bet your ass they'll have no problem reaping the benefit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Jul 11, 2012
Yes, I saw this in a movie. No, it did not end well.
In 2001 HAL was a bad guy. In 2010 he was a good guy. But they were just movies.
I don't consider HAL the bad "guy" at all. HAL was lied to. Bad information equates to bad results be the intelligence electronic or biological.
Yes but we did not know this until the sequel did we? When the first movie was written it was politically correct to fear the machines. By the time the sequel was written the machines had become our friends.

VD expresses the current sociopolitical climate. Sadly he is a dupe in this respect.

2001 was not written with a sequel in mind. 2010 was a little silly. Jupiter as a 2nd sun would fry everybody.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (27) Jul 11, 2012
They'll buy the cure sure enough.
Except for Christian Scientists and islamists who would still think we are trying to infect them with HIV.
Silverhill
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2012
(SteveL) I don't consider HAL the bad "guy" at all. HAL was lied to. Bad information equates to bad results be the intelligence electronic or biological.
(TheGhostofOtto1923) Yes but we did not know this until the sequel did we? When the first movie was written it was politically correct to fear the machines.
Unfortunately for the ability of the audiences to understand, the novel did not come out until several months after the movie. The book explains HAL's problem, which was that he had irresolvable, conflicting attitudes about the mission. The story was not (meant to be) a fear-the-machines thing.

Jupiter as a 2nd sun would fry everybody.
Not necessarily. Remember the mass of Jupiter (and therefore the available fusion energy), and its distance (and the inverse-square law).
Neurons_At_Work
4 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2012
Now if they could just find a way to get my 10 year old jeans around my modern organism. THAT would be a breakthrough.
Birger
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2012
Now if they could just find a way to get my 10 year old jeans around my modern organism. THAT would be a breakthrough.


Haha, yes, the research about anti-obesity therapies is a big industry, but there are few advances so far...I look more and more like a Brontosaurus every year.
Cracker
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2012
you people need to get a grip... it's just science.
Billy_Madison
2 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
The movies suggest recreating dinosaurs are dangerous...

So instead we are going to manipulate bacterium that can already cause sickness. Nothing could go wrong if it got out... right?

Jurassic Park 5: Pandemic Zombie Apocalypse coming to a city near you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (24) Jul 12, 2012
Unfortunately for the ability of the audiences to understand, the novel did not come out until several months after the movie. The book explains HAL's problem, which was that he had irresolvable, conflicting attitudes about the mission. The story was not (meant to be) a fear-the-machines thing.
Beg to differ. The movie was complete in itself and the book was not needed to explain it. HAL was presented as the villain, a typical theme of the time, and a human had to come in and save the day.
Not necessarily. Remember the mass of Jupiter (and therefore the available fusion energy), and its distance (and the inverse-square law).
We are already having heat problems (apparently). Another source of energy within the solar system would guarantee it.

Hey QC/Lurker why dont you do some of your calculating and figure out how much?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Jul 12, 2012
Jurassic Park 5: Pandemic Zombie Apocalypse coming to a city near you.
-And this is the current Phobia du Jour. Nukes are already passe arent they? Hopefully the next to catch on and be promoted will be religion.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2012
The story was not (meant to be) a fear-the-machines thing.
Beg to differ. The movie was complete in itself and the book was not needed to explain it. HAL was presented as the villain, a typical theme of the time, and a human had to come in and save the day.
Then regard them as two different stories, because in the book the machine-based intelligences were not feared things. HAL became desperate (perhaps even psychotic) due to a conflict between his enthusiasm for the mission and a deep-seated fear of ET contact, a fear that he could neither explain nor allay. (Psychology experiments had shown that humans had a deeply rooted xenophobic streak. HAL, having a fully human psychology, also had that streak, unbeknownst to his designers and teachers.)
Ooo O
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2012
Just be careful. Biology to me is by far the most dangerous form of science. Who knows what might happen if we get carried away with this stuff.

Take your time and dont rush anything. I also do not suggest messing with anything bigger than a foot tall. I understand they are just transplanting genes at this point. But we all know where this is going.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (26) Jul 13, 2012
Then regard them as two different stories, because in the book the machine-based intelligences were not feared things. HAL became desperate (perhaps even psychotic) due to a conflict between his enthusiasm for the mission
Right. So when intelligent machines are in charge they go crazy and start killing people, so we can only trust people to be in charge. And this message is not meant to scare people?

In 'Aliens', bishop the android had become a good guy. We see the same sort of turnaround in the Terminator films. Schwarzenegger had become a good guy. The message had become 'machines are more trustworthy than people'. This was about the time that PCs were being promoted and people were being offered a new Friend. Remember 'Electric Dreams'? A PC with a soul.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2012
So when intelligent machines are in charge they go crazy and start killing people, so we can only trust people to be in charge. And this message is not meant to scare people?
You should say: "when intelligent machines are in charge -- AND they have not been provided with proper safeguards -- they go crazy and start killing people".

Perhaps the real message is: No human personality, however constructed (carbon- or silicon-based), should be trusted with absolute power. *Anyone* can be, or become, feared in the wrong circumstances.
After all, consider how much misery and destruction have been caused by ordinary, biologic humans who have had too much power and not enough control. *That* message should scare people (but, too often, does not).
bell_paul
3 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?
antialias_physorg
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2012
For the lineages that became healthier than the modern counter parts, I wonder what would happen if they switched the ancient gene back to the modern one? would the benefits of the mutated neighbor genes still apply?

That is a very interesting thought. Switching out the old gene could either lead to a completely new adaptation or a reversion to the old form.
Definitely something they should try out.
darwin_orgod
Jul 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SatanLover
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?

both.
KenJackson
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2012
... said Kaçar. "Among them, we want to know ... whether evolution has multiple solutions to a given problem."


Why is the scientist describing evolution in living, God-like terms?
elektron
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2012
It's the organism that is modern or ancient, not the protein that a gene encodes. A protein with a good shape will survive forever as it can be used in completely different capacities by different organisms.
SteveL
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?

both.
Evolution is the result of selective breeding.
SatanLover
3.3 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?

both.
Evolution is the result of selective breeding.

Evolution is the result of physical laws. it not only applies to biological systems but to all chemical and physical processes.
Biology is one of the systems that evolved from the chemical processes, some where else possibly there is a syntological system, similar to biology here just with different materials.

Selective breeding is only something that can accelerate evolution into whatever we think or want.
rkilburn81
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2012
Even so, creationists will still not buy it.

Unlike most Christians, I realize that God didn't "magic" the universe into being. The way I understand it, (He/She/It) set up the Laws that would be the base operating system, and as the program runs you merely tweak the equations of the program as needed to produce the desired results. Evolution is a tool of creation, fundamental in all aspects of the Universe.
Energy becoming matter, quarks and leptons becoming hydrogen, hydrogen becoming helium and the heavier elements, elements forming chemical groups and chains, chemical chains begin to self replicate and adapting to their environment, organelle become cells, cells become organisms, organisms becoming ever higher organisms, until what what once star matter looks to the stars and wonder.

I see this as the Universe wanting to know Itself, and is proof to ME that God exists.
MarkmBha
Jul 15, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MarkmBha
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2012
So much for evolution....
dtxx
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2012
Bad fucking idea. Bad, bad idea.
antialias_physorg
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2012
There is nothing new under the sun.

If you never get anything new then that begs the question where all the old stuff came from.
Biology is one of the systems that evolved from the chemical processes,

I would even go so far as to say that there is no real difference. the lable 'alive' and 'not alive' are merely that: labels. The same laws apply accross the board. There is not a single law that aplies to living things that does not apply to non-living things and vice versa (only compound laws that can be broken down into simple laws that again apply to both and where the difference is merely a matter of quantity - not quality)



SteveL
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?

both.
Evolution is the result of selective breeding.

Evolution is the result of physical laws. it not only applies to biological systems but to all chemical and physical processes.
Biology is one of the systems that evolved from the chemical processes, some where else possibly there is a syntological system, similar to biology here just with different materials.

Selective breeding is only something that can accelerate evolution into whatever we think or want.
History (evolution) doesn't care if the breeder is selected by any attribute other than ability to breed. Whatever attributes enabled a being to successfully breed and pass on their gene code is all that really counts for evolution.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (25) Jul 16, 2012
I see this as the Universe wanting to know Itself, and is proof to ME that God exists.
Its amazing what you adlibbers will do just to preserve the hope that there must be SOME WAY you can beat the odds and live forever. Sadly there isnt. And in a few gens no one will know you were ever here.
Zatoichi
4 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2012
Georgia Tech is a very professional institute and I am sure they are using proper containment protocols. This sort of research is fascinating but I think potentially dangerous, even more than Jurassic Park. I am a survivor of a massive MRSA infection after surgery, so I am wary when I read about newly evolved strains of bacteria concocted in laboratories.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?


They are the same thing. Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
So much for evolution....


Rather than assuming that you're a fucking idiot I'll give you a chance to explain yourself...
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?

both.
Evolution is the result of selective breeding.


No, it's not... selective breeding is a small and totally unnecessary component. Random mating is ONE of like 7 requirements for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which means no evolution occurs in a population. There are 6 other properties of a population that can, independently, cause evolution to occur other than selective mating.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
... said Kaar. "Among them, we want to know ... whether evolution has multiple solutions to a given problem."


Why is the scientist describing evolution in living, God-like terms?


It's called an anthropomorphism... It's figurative language.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Jul 17, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?
They are the same thing. Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?
They are the same thing. Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
So in other words they are different things then, right?
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?
They are the same thing. Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?
They are the same thing. Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
So in other words they are different things then, right?


No... evolution occurs via natural selection OR artificial selection... it doesn't matter the cause of selection, it's still evolution. So, no, wrong... evolution and selective breeding are not mutually exclusive, one is not a substitute for the other, evolution can include selective breeding, or not, it's evolution either way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (21) Jul 17, 2012
No... evolution occurs via natural selection OR artificial selection... it doesn't matter the cause of selection, it's still evolution. So, no, wrong... evolution and selective breeding are not mutually exclusive, one is not a substitute for the other, evolution can include selective breeding, or not, it's evolution
"Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of NATURAL SELECTION acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

"Selective breeding: the intentional mating of two animals in an attempt to produce offspring with desirable characteristics or for the elimination of a trait."

-Why some people want to redefine universally understood words, is beyond me. Show me some references for your creativity.
Deathclock
2.9 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Show some references? Why don't you? Where did you get that definition?

Evolution is the change in the frequency of expression of one or more alleles within a population.

Otto, I minored in evolutionary biology, I could talk circles around you on this topic. I've never seen a specific method of selection (or variation for that matter) cited as a requirement. Let me guess, you're looking at Miriam Webster, right? Do I really have to lecture you on why pedestrian dictionaries are incompatible with scientific terms?
Maat
3.1 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
I didn't think Otto was a creationist... according to his (incorrect) definition of evolution dogs haven't evolved from wolfs, since they were mostly guided by artificial selection. It's clear who's right and who's wrong here.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
Exactly, that's a great point thanks for bringing it up. The same could be said for dairy cows or chickens or almost any commercial crop or produce, most of which look NOTHING like their original form found in the wild. These organisms evolved through artificial selection, which is as much evolution as anything that changes due to natural selection.
mindflux
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2012
There is a flower within my heart,
Daisy, Daisy,
Planted one day by a glancing dart,
Planted by Daisy Bell.
Whether she loves me or loves me not
Sometimes it's hard to tell,
And yet I am longing to share the lot
Of beautiful Daisy Bell.

Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do,
I'm half crazy all for the love of you.
It won't be a stylish marriage --
I can't afford a carriage,
But you'd look sweet upon the seat
Of a bicycle built for two.
We will go tandem as man and wife,
Daisy, Daisy,
Ped'ling away down the road of life,
I and my Daisy Bell.
When the road's dark, we can both despise
P'licemen and lamps as well.
There are bright lights in the dazzling eyes
Of beautiful Daisy Bell.
mindflux
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2012
Oh...

ad·ap·ta·tion (dp-tshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of adapting.
b. The state of being adapted.
2.
a. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.

I think we can all agree on this. These experiments aren't proving anything new. Move along.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
These experiments aren't proving anything new. Move along.


Why are there so many stupid people that post here?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 18, 2012
I didn't think Otto was a creationist... according to his (incorrect) definition of evolution dogs haven't evolved from wolfs, since they were mostly guided by artificial selection. It's clear who's right and who's wrong here.
-Except dat deys not mine meat. GOOGLE dem fo yousef. According to the def, dogs did not evolve because they were bred. An artificial, as opposed to natural, process.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2012
Why are there so many stupid people that post here?

Same reason why so many obese people watch sports (and think they'd be much better than the coaches, atheletes they watch): Dunning-Kruger.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
Why are there so many stupid people that post here?

Same reason why so many obese people watch sports (and think they'd be much better than the coaches, atheletes they watch): Dunning-Kruger.
-Says the artificial engineer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
Show some references? Why don't you? Where did you get that definition?
1)copy it; 2)paste it in the GOOGLE box; 3) hit ENTER. Simple. Even minor evolutionary biologists can do it.

DC says
They are the same thing.
-But then he says
Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
Which clearly makes them 2 different things. How might this difference manifest itself might you ask? Well, people who majored in evolutionary biology might want to ask questions like 'what fundamental genetic difference might we discern? Do these differences occur in different parts of the genome? Could we discern prior domestication in apparently wild animals? Can precursor animals truly be reconstituted from domesticates? How permanent are domesticated changes? Do they result in endemic disease?' Et cetera.

These sorts of questions might not occur to people who think the 2 are 'the same thing.'
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2012
-Says the artificial engineer.

Please: Artificial intelligence engineer - you you must be that specific about what I do.

And I do remember that you requested links to my work at some other time - which I provided.
So yeah: I have 'been and done': Engineering, science, informatics... again. Have you? Any of that?

This experience doesn't give me omniscience, but it does give me some inkling as to what is possible, probable, and how long stuff takes in these fields to come about and be implemented in the real world on a product basis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
These sorts of questions might not occur to people who think the 2 are 'the same thing.'
-Whatever the hell THAT means.
Please: Artificial intelligence engineer - you you must be that specific about what I do.
Sorry - Ersatz Engineer of AI. Better? It's like - software architects are not REALLY architects now are they?
but it does give me some inkling as to what is possible, probable, and how long stuff takes in these fields to come about and be implemented in the real world on a product basis.
-But I would have to consult dunning or Kruger before I could decide whether you could offer competent opinions in structural or mechanical or electrical engineering matters. You know real and natural engineering stuff.
Have you? Any of that?
Oh come on - don't I display the polished articulation of a professional?
Deathclock
2.9 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2012
Show some references? Why don't you? Where did you get that definition?
1)copy it; 2)paste it in the GOOGLE box; 3) hit ENTER. Simple. Even minor evolutionary biologists can do it.


Yeah, likewise... ironic. Your definition was wrong, your definition means that domesticated dogs did not evolve from wolves you idiot. /rolleyes

Biological evolution is the change in frequency of expression of one or more alleles within a population over successive generations. Past that into google and learn something, you twat.

DC says
They are the same thing.
-But then he says
Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
Which clearly makes them 2 different things.


It clearly makes them both examples of biological evolution, which was the question as asked... I'm done with you, you're a troll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (22) Jul 18, 2012
Yeah, likewise... ironic. Your definition was wrong, your definition means that domesticated dogs did not evolve from wolves you idiot. /rolleyes
Not mine dweeb. Did you find them yet ? /scratch nuts /fart
-And actually, according to the correct defs, dogs were created from wolves, by people. Please do show me a respectable ref that says dogs evolved from wolves and I will shut up /burp
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2012
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
http://atheism.ab...dogs.htm

http://www.pbs.or..._02.html

http://ngm.nation...1.1.html

http://www.scienc...98905139

http://books.goog...volution of canis familiaris&ots=BbbtWyl2v9&sig=qaJ9hssjpeM1TfzRAVg9YkmD1pY#v=onepage&q=evolution%20of%20canis%20familiaris&f=false

Shall I go on?
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
No? Okay I'll continue:

http://en.wikiped...stic_dog

"This rapid evolution of dogs from wolves is an example of neoteny or paedomorphism"

Further:

"A domesticated species is defined as a "species in which the EVOLUTIONARY process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs."
mindflux
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2012
These experiments aren't proving anything new. Move along.


Why are there so many stupid people that post here?


Why are you deluded?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 18, 2012
This rapid evolution of dogs from wolves is an example of neoteny or paedomorphism
Hmmm it appears that, rather than referring to natural selection, this anonymous wiki editor was a little careless in using this form of 'evolution': "a process of change in a certain direction"

...Sorry, I had a very good response to your speciousness but this CRAP
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

-seems to have obliterated it. I'll have to reconstruct it tomorrow.

PHYSORG _ GET RID OF YOUR LINK PLEASE
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2012
I didn't link to ONE wiki article, otto... I linked to a large variety of sources, including scientific publication in peer reviewed journals.

You're a complete fucking idiot if you don't think dogs evolved from wolves... seriously answer the question, are you a young Earth creationist? Because you're acting like one.

Why don't you just accept that you were wrong, you seem to be in all out denial in an attempt to save your dignity, but you are only hurting it the further you dig this hole you are burying yourself in.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2012
How's this, is UC Berkely a good enough source for you?

"...farmers and breeders allowed only the plants and animals with desirable characteristics to reproduce, causing the EVOLUTION of farm stock. This process is called ARTIFICIAL SELECTION because people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce."

Evolution is evolution, regardless of whether the selection component is natural or artificial. Now shut the fuck up, seriously.

http://evolution....ge.shtml
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2012
"Natural and Artificial Selection: Mechanisms of Evolution"

http://suite101.c...n-a37285

"With ARTIFICIAL SELECTION experiments, EVOLUTION can be studied in the laboratory..."

http://www.blackw...tion.asp
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2012
University of Wisconsin - Madison:
"Evolution By Artificial Selection"
http://www.ablewe...ffer.pdf

"Artificial selection is an artificial mechanism by which evolution can occur."
http://rationalwi...election

"Artificial Selection and Evolution"
http://faculty.vi...Lab1.htm

Can I stop now? Are we done here or do you insist on acting like a fool still?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 19, 2012
You're a complete fucking idiot if you don't think dogs evolved from wolves... seriously answer the question, are you a blah??
Sorry the DISTINCTION between evolution and domestication is the same as that between natural and artificial; ie man-made.

Humans take milk and 'influence' it to make cheese and ice cream. Milk is a nautral substance; cheese and ice cream are artificial.

The distinction is very useful in many ways. For instance, husbandry may affect genes differently than natural selection does. Peacock feathers are sustainable in the wild whereas large jugs are probably not.

Our overlarge, defect-prone brains might not survive in their bulbous, energy-hungry state for too many generations without the constant challenge of intertribal conflict. Hunting animals is easy; hunting humans who are in turn hunting you, is hard.

The human brain evolved to meet this challenge. Or was it bred by conscious, artificial, cultural means? There IS a difference.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 19, 2012
Suite 101
http://community....com/join

-What kind of source is this??

""With ARTIFICIAL SELECTION experiments, EVOLUTION can be studied in the laboratory..."

-Which does not mean that they are equivalent, only that one can inform us about the other.

Your U of W ref cites The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Chapter 1 - Variation Under Domestication

"Having alluded to the subject of reversion, I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but certainly revert in character to their aboriginal stocks."

-Note his use of the terms domestic and wild? Darwin certainly acknowledges the distinction and goes on to discuss what we can learn from it.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2012
Darwin is as relevant to modern evolutionary theory as Copernicus is to modern astronomy. I have to tell that to creationists all the time. You really sound like one of them...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (14) Jul 20, 2012
Darwin is as relevant to modern evolutionary theory as Copernicus is to modern astronomy. I have to tell that to creationists all the time. You really sound like one of them...
Ha. So you're saying Darwin never said anything useful? Or the excerpt I posted is not useful? Or the statement I made is not true? What?

You like making emotional but empty pronouncements don't you? Like 'evolution and selective breeding are the same thing' or 'evolution is evolution'.

Sorry but you argue like a godlover.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2012
"Having alluded to the subject of reversion, I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but certainly revert in character to their aboriginal stocks."

This quote has nothing to do with the argument... Selection that is natural and selection that is artificial both cause evolution. Whether or not a population that evolved through artificial selection would revert back to it's original form has no bearing on this at all and is irrelevant.

Evolution is not uni-directional... if something evolves from form A to form B due to some change in selection pressures, and then evolves back into form A when that change is reverted, it has still evolved over that period of time... it doesn't matter that it ended up back where it started. Is this what is confusing you?

Biological evolution is the change in the frequency of expression of one or more alleles within a population over successive generations. That's all...
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2012
Evolution does not have an end-goal, Otto... It's an optimization function who's parameters are constantly changing. You cannot represent the evolution of a species with a progress bar. There is no such thing as progress or regress. Going from form A to form B then back to form A again is as much an example of evolution as going from form A to form B and then to from C. The former can occur due to a temporary change in the environment that temporarily changes the selection pressures on the population.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2012
Do note however, that going from A->B->A in the example above is a simplification, the first A and the second A would almost certainly be different genetically, even if they were physiologically identical. It's more like A1->B->A2...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 20, 2012
This quote has nothing to do with the argument...
Sure it does. Darwin is saying that natural selection and artificial selection are 2 different things. You say:
Is this evolution or is it selective breeding?
They are the same thing. Selective breeding (aka artificial selection) is evolution with artificially induced rather than naturally occurring selection pressures.
-Which makes it seem that you are equating natural and artificial selection, as if they are equivalent. Darwin said that domesticants tend to revert, which is only one of the many ways they DIFFER.

And then you go on to say
No, it's not... selective breeding is a small and totally unnecessary component.
Unnecessary component of WHAT? Domestication? I really dont think you are very focused here. Run out of Ritalin did you?
Evolution does not have an end-goal, Otto
Domestication certainly DOES however, and so by your own def it CANNOT be evolution. Make up your mind.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2012
Sure it does. Darwin is saying that natural selection and artificial selection are 2 different things.


Two different ontological things by nature that they are not synonymous terms, yes, but that is NOT what was asked. They are BOTH components of evolution, BOTH cause evolution, they are the same in that way, which is what was asked and what I was answering. You are playing semantic games to try to "get me" because I made you look like a fool when you said that dogs did not evolve from wolves.

And then you go on to say
No, it's not... selective breeding is a small and totally unnecessary component.
Unnecessary component of WHAT? Domestication? I really dont think you are very focused here.


I didn't "go on to say" that, it was a DIFFERENT question that I was answering, the two statements were unrelated. Of what? Of EVOLUTION... OBVIOUSLY.

Knock it off, I, and everyone else, sees what you are doing.
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2012
The original question was "is it evolution or is it selective breeding"

The answer I gave, and the correct answer, is that it is both, because selective breeding CAUSES evolution... the question was faulty, because it was posed as if the two alternatives given were mutually exclusive when they are not. Selective breeding and evolution are not comparable, because one is a result of the other. Everyone else reading this understands this, you are being difficult because of some grudge you have against me so you are coming up with these ridiculous semantic arguments that rely on taking everything that has been said here out of context, just fucking stop it already.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.