Another example of experimental testing of hypotheses in evolution. Bet hedging.

[rjw]

Hi All,



Below is an example of testing a hypothesis within ToE, namely the plausibility of “bet hedging” evolving by random mutation + natural selection within a population. Bet hedging is the existence of several different genotypes within a population which allow a population of organisms to quickly adapt to fluctuating environments.

There is nothing different about this, than using the lab to test a hypothesis about something that happened in the recent past. There is nothing different about this, than using the lab to test hypotheses about processes that operate now, but which cannot be observed - for example what happens inside stars or atoms, what happens inside clouds high up in the sky, or what happens between particles of light and atoms in the atmosphere.

You will never see a YEC or an IDer offer anything comparable to this.


=========================

At this link:-

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2009/11/experimental_evolution_of_bet.html

is a good review of the article reported under this abstract:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19890329


The conclusion of the research is interesting (references omitted, highlighting mine):-

Owing to the historical nature of the evolutionary process, the origins of most adaptive phenotypes are obscure. Here we have provided a mechanistic account of the adaptive evolution of a widespread trait. Bet hedging arose as an adaptation to fluctuating selection imposed by an exclusion rule and bottleneck, two population processes that are likely to play a key role in the evolution of stochastic phenotype switching in nature. Insight into the underlying molecular detailsreveals how evolution tinkered with central metabolism to generate a strategy that could reasonably—one might think—have taken tens of thousands of generations to evolve. The rapid and repeatable evolution of bet hedging during our experiment suggests it may have been among the earliest evolutionary solutions to life in variable environments, perhaps even preceding the evolution of environmentally responsive mechanisms of gene regulation.

Note the words “mechanistic account”, “molecular details”, “evolution tinkered with central metabolism”? They also express some amazement that this system of bet hedging could evolve quickly. Furthermore this is another example of something having its origins perhaps in deep time. It appears that many of our important genes have their origins in the time when the only life forms on earth were the billions of gadzillions of trillions of bacteria feeding, breeding and dying in a million different environments across a few billion years in time, until complex multicellular life came along.

For those who doubt the importance of mutation. They went searching for them and compared genotypes with the original ancestral genotype:-

Using whole-genome re-sequencing, the entire 6.7-megabase-pair genome of 1B4 was analysed to unravel its mutational history. Nine mutations separating 1B4 from the original ancestor were identified, confirmed by Sanger sequencing, and ordered by inspection of the affected loci in the preceding genotypes. With the exception of the final mutation, all mutations involved non-synonymous changes at loci previously demonstrated to be mutational targets in the evolution of wrinkly spreader types. The final mutation was a single non-synonymous nucleotide change in carB (Arg674Cys), which encodes the large subunit of carbamoylphosphate synthetase (CarAB, EC 6.3.5.5), a central enzyme of the pyrimidine and arginine biosynthetic pathways.

To test the fitness of their lineages, they allowed them to compete with each other and with the ancestral organism:-

Although bet hedging facilitated the long-term persistence of 1B4, the evolutionary emergence of this genotype required it to reach a detectable frequency within a selection round. To examine if 1B4 owed its emergence to a higher fitness than its immediate ancestor (1A4), we competed these two genotypes in static microcosms, the environment in which 1B4 emerged. This indicated that 1B4 was indeed more fit than 1A4 (one-sample t-test, n = 8, P = 0.0002.

[snip]

Repeated single-cell bottlenecks can drive the fixation of random deleterious mutations, causing a decline in fitness. To test if this had occurred during our experiment, we measured the fitness of all genotypes in the 1B4 lineage relative to the original ancestor in both static and shaken microcosms. This revealed no evidence for a decrease in fitness. Interestingly, the results indicate non-transitive fitness interactions between some consecutive genotypes (for example, 1A4 is more fit than 1B4 relative to 1A0, but less fit than 1B4 during direct competition).

Anyway, just another example of experimentation in evolution, something which many insist, cannot be done.




Regards, Roland



REFERENCE

Hubertus J. E. Beaumont, Jenna Gallie, Christian Kost, Gayle C. Ferguson & Paul B. Rainey, “Experimental evolution of bet hedging”, Nature 462, 90-93 (5 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08504; Received 7 July 2009; Accepted 15 September 2009

 

[rjw]

Sorry. Duplicated the post in trying to correct some errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

You will never see a YEC or an IDer offer anything comparable to this.

Why should they?

YEC has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

Why would a YEC even concern himself with, say, photosynthesis, if he didn't have to?

Are they supposed to use YEC as a tool to make a discovery, or make something better, or invent something?

YEC isn't a tool, it is simply an historical fact.

Would you hire a YEC as your lab assistant?

If you did, would you be surprised if he knew more than you did?

 

[Nathan Poe]

YEC isn't a tool, it is simply an historical fact.

Is that the current story?

 

[Wedjat]

That's pretty cool stuff.
A common theme that I keep seeing is people being surprised by how fast evolution can happen.
And we had billions of years.
It kind of puts a stopper on people who say "we didn't have enough time"

Why should they?

Generally when you tout something as a fact you want to provide some kind of evidence to back it up. Basically you're saying, "why should creationism be held to the same standards of evidence and experimentation that everything else is?"

YEC has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

Clearly. That doesn't exempt it from having to provide evidence to prove that it's right.[/quote]

Why would a YEC even concern himself with, say, photosynthesis, if he didn't have to?

So YEC's are lazy and unwilling to explore aspects of their proposition. Probably because whatever they study they already know the answer... "God did it"
How did photosynthesis come about?
God did it
Why do different animals have similar bone structure?
Because of God
2+2?
God

Are they supposed to use YEC as a tool to make a discovery, or make something better, or invent something?

Every other theory can, why not theirs?

YEC isn't a tool, it is simply an historical fact.

Yeah... they haven't taken one step to prove that it's actually a fact though.

Would you hire a YEC as your lab assistant?

Depends where I'm working. I had a chemistry teacher once who was brilliant in his field. He was a YEC, but that didn't subtract one bit from his ability to do organic chemistry.

If you did, would you be surprised if he knew more than you did?

Again depends on the field. If he knew more about evolution that I did, then I would be surprised that he was still a YEC, since most YEC views on evolution are based around falshoods, misunderstandings, and ignorance. Something you're quite proud of I'd add.

 

[Sanguis]

Why should they?

YEC has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

Why would a YEC even concern himself with, say, photosynthesis, if he didn't have to?

Are they supposed to use YEC as a tool to make a discovery, or make something better, or invent something?

YEC isn't a tool, it is simply an historical fact.

Evidence? The "facts" YEC put forward aren't exactly reasonable, without a shred of evidence it's unverifiable, so how can anyone with even a tiny fleck of sanity claim that YEC is a fact?

Would you hire a YEC as your lab assistant?

If you did, would you be surprised if he knew more than you did?

I doubt I would. YECs are notorious for twisting facts, misrepresenting figures, using straw men, and a whole other range of logical fallacies, all to promote their YEC religious agenda. I wouldn't particularly trust someone like that with research. What if the results they discovered weren't in line with what they want their God to be?

Also, I'd have to question the authenticity, or validity of their qualifications.

 

[rjw]

Why should they?

YEC has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

[snip]

???

You have never heard of "creation science" as an alternative to ToE? I have and I believe that some folk still want equal time in the science class room. And creation science is, AFAICT, YEC.

(Or are you the only YEC?)





Regards, Roland

 

[laconicstudent]

Why should they?

YEC has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

Why would a YEC even concern himself with, say, photosynthesis, if he didn't have to?

Are they supposed to use YEC as a tool to make a discovery, or make something better, or invent something?

YEC isn't a tool, it is simply an historical fact.

Would you hire a YEC as your lab assistant?

If you did, would you be surprised if he knew more than you did?

He was criticizing the YEC tendency to slander science and lie, and make scientific claims without following the scientific method.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have never heard of "creation science" as an alternative to ToE?

I don't know what all "creation science" teaches.

It's a contradiction in terms, as far as I'm concerned.

I have and I believe that some folk still want equal time in the science class room.

Then they're wanting to be in the wrong class room.

They need to vie for "equal time" in history class, not science class.

And creation science is, AFAICT, YEC.

I suppose so --- I'm not really sure --- but I suppose so.

(Or are you the only YEC?)

I'm not a YEC at all.

I'm two pixels shy of one, but not yec yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

He was criticizing the YEC tendency to slander science and lie, and make scientific claims without following the scientific method.

Well, I wouldn't know.

Sounds like he knows more of what a YEC is than I do.

Which is fine by me.

I wouldn't say they "lie" though, unless I used such a loose definition as you guys do --- which I don't.

 

[thaumaturgy]

YEC isn't a tool, it is simply an historical fact.

And is not supported by any of the available evidence. "Facts" usually are supported by a preponderance of evidence.

Would you hire a YEC as your lab assistant?

I know this is an inconvenient fact which I keep mentioning (it makes YEC "Martyrs" feel holy when you don't have to face these facts), but I have a friend who is a chemist who is also a YEC (or was verging on it at the time). He is so incredibly smart it floored me. I once saw him build a diffusion pump from random spare parts he found around the lab. He really impressed me in the chemistry we were doing at the time. So much so that when he started working after grad school I personally wrote some letters of reference for him. (When we met I was a postdoc and he was one of the grad students).

NOW, here's where the details kick in. He knew next to nothing about geology so his "YEC nature" was understandable. He didn't use Young Earth concept in the kind of chemistry we were doing and for which he was applying for work. He could have expressed a belief in alien abduction as long as his unrelated chemistry was strong.

Now if he decided one day that the reason his reaction didn't run was because he had failed to pray hard enough the night before or that God was choosing today to subvert this particular law of chemistry, then we'd have a different story here.

If you did, would you be surprised if he knew more than you did?

If he was a geologist and a YEC I'd go toe-to-toe with him. He would have to bring real data to the table and a preponderance of the evidence to support his contentions.

In my friend's case his YEC-ish stances were largely founded on two things:

1. Ignorance of Geology
2. Sincere Christian faith

Note neither of those is based on science per se.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's a contradiction in terms, as far as I'm concerned.Then they're wanting to be in the wrong class room.

They need to vie for "equal time" in history class, not science class.

Isn't being laughed out of one field enough for some people?

 

[Sanguis]

For once, I agree with Av.

It should be taught in History class, as something people used to believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

And is not supported by any of the available evidence. "Facts" usually are supported by a preponderance of evidence.



I know this is an inconvenient fact which I keep mentioning (it makes YEC "Martyrs" feel holy when you don't have to face these facts), but I have a friend who is a chemist who is also a YEC (or was verging on it at the time). He is so incredibly smart it floored me. I once saw him build a diffusion pump from random spare parts he found around the lab. He really impressed me in the chemistry we were doing at the time. So much so that when he started working after grad school I personally wrote some letters of reference for him. (When we met I was a postdoc and he was one of the grad students).

NOW, here's where the details kick in. He knew next to nothing about geology so his "YEC nature" was understandable. He didn't use Young Earth concept in the kind of chemistry we were doing and for which he was applying for work. He could have expressed a belief in alien abduction as long as his unrelated chemistry was strong.

Now if he decided one day that the reason his reaction didn't run was because he had failed to pray hard enough the night before or that God was choosing today to subvert this particular law of chemistry, then we'd have a different story here.



If he was a geologist and a YEC I'd go toe-to-toe with him. He would have to bring real data to the table and a preponderance of the evidence to support his contentions.

In my friend's case his YEC-ish stances were largely founded on two things:

1. Ignorance of Geology
2. Sincere Christian faith

Note neither of those is based on science per se.

Is this noise a YES or a NO to my question?

 

[AV1611VET]

For once, I agree with Av.

If you stick around long enough, you'll actually get to agree with me on a lot of stuff:

1. I believe in microevolution.
2. I believe Creationism should not be taught as science.
3. I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
4. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
5. I believe the universe is expanding.
6. I call Intelligent Design a sham.
7. I claim there's no evidence for creatio ex nihilo.
8. I claim there's no evidence of a worldwide flood.
9. I claim Noah's Ark was not a ship.
10. I claim the Bible is not a science book.
    

It's just that 5% that I don't agree with science on that makes science rear its ugly head and show how intolerant it is to anyone who dares disagree.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you stick around long enough, you'll actually get to agree with me on a lot of stuff:

1. I believe in microevolution.
2. I believe Creationism should not be taught as science.
3. I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
4. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
5. I believe the universe is expanding.
6. I call Intelligent Design a sham.
7. I claim there's no evidence for creatio ex nihilo.
8. I claim there's no evidence of a worldwide flood.
9. I claim Noah's Ark was not a ship.
10. I claim the Bible is not a science book.
    

It's just that 5% that I don't agree with science on that makes science rear its ugly head and show how intolerant it is to anyone who dares disagree.

Do you think you deserve tolerance for being wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think you deserve tolerance for being wrong?

Do you?

And since you mentioned it: Atheists had better hope I'm wrong.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you?

Not in the slightest -- when I'm wrong, I deserve to be corrected by someone who's right.

And since you mentioned it: Atheists had better hope I'm wrong.

Not exactly a long shot, there.

 

[Cabal]

If you stick around long enough, you'll actually get to agree with me on a lot of stuff:

1. I believe in microevolution.
2. I believe Creationism should not be taught as science.
3. I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
4. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
5. I believe the universe is expanding.
6. I call Intelligent Design a sham.
7. I claim there's no evidence for creatio ex nihilo.
8. I claim there's no evidence of a worldwide flood.
9. I claim Noah's Ark was not a ship.
10. I claim the Bible is not a science book.
    

It's just that 5% that I don't agree with science on that makes science rear its ugly head and show how intolerant it is to anyone who dares disagree.

Please. Methodology is far from "5%" of science.

 

[Freodin]

If you stick around long enough, you'll actually get to agree with me on a lot of stuff:

1. I believe in microevolution.
2. I believe Creationism should not be taught as science.
3. I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
4. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
5. I believe the universe is expanding.
6. I call Intelligent Design a sham.
7. I claim there's no evidence for creatio ex nihilo.
8. I claim there's no evidence of a worldwide flood.
9. I claim Noah's Ark was not a ship.
10. I claim the Bible is not a science book.
    

It's just that 5% that I don't agree with science on that makes science rear its ugly head and show how intolerant it is to anyone who dares disagree.

This again goes to show your warped view of the world.

You agree SOOOO much with science and all of us... these insignificant 5% can certainly be ignored. But no, science is so evil and intolerant that it need 100% acceptence.


Let me tell you: you got it wrong, again. The problem is that these "5%" that you openly disagree invalides anything you "agree" with.

You want agreement? Fine. I agree with you. I agree with the Bible. 99,9%!

Jesus walked on water? I agree! God created the world in 6 days? I agree! The beast will put his mark on anyone who wants to buy and sell? I agree!

Name whatever you want from the Bible... I agree with it!

And now we come to the sole point where we disagree on the Bible - you say that it is true, I say that it is a myth.

But, zounds! look at all the things we agree about!