Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Misleading claims about a long running evolution experiment

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Richard Lenski’s experiment is in the news again:

The LTEE required 33,000 generations and many years for the bacteria to acquire the supposedly new trait. In the video Lenski says that one of his lab’s researchers wanted to explore “why did it take so long to evolve this and why has only one population evolved that ability?” The implication is that this is a complex trait that required many slow mutations to arise. Lenski says it was a “difficult” trait to evolve because it required both a “rare mutation” and also a “series of events” where multiple mutations were needed before any advantage was conferred. Van Hofwegen realized there was something fishy about these claims. As he explained to IDTF:

“The only difference is that in the conditions of the [LTEE] experiment, they didn’t have a transporter. They [E. coli bacteria] didn’t have the ability to bring that citrate outside of their cells into the cells and actually use it for energy. And so when I looked at that experiment as a microbiologist I thought, all they have to do is turn that thing on. That’s really easy for bacteria to do. Why did it take them 33,000 generations to do that?”

Van Hofwegen draws a comparison to a light switch. Normal E. coli have the metabolic pathways to live off citrate, and they have the ability to transport it into their cells. But under the conditions of the experiment that “light switch” was turned off. The bacteria didn’t need to evolve a new metabolic pathway or a new transport feature to eat citrate. All they needed to do was turn on their transporter under the oxic conditions of the LTEE experiment. The organisms used the “light switch” to express their citrate transporter. So how did they do it?

A 2016 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Bacteriology, “Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA,” co-authored by Van Hofwegen and biologists Scott Minnich and Carolyn Hovde, has the answer. In their research they witnessed the same trait, the ability to use this “lemony dessert,” arise in under 100 generations and 14 days. This result was repeatable 46 times. They found that the trait is not very genetically complicated — again, akin to flipping a switch — and that there is more to the story than is being been told. Indeed, their paper shows that no new genetic information arose during the evolution of this trait.

Casey Luskin, “Viral Video Overstates the Evidence About Bacterial Evolution” at Evolution News and Science Today

Hey. The Darwinians are marketing magic and it is really difficult to refute magic.

Here’s the vid making the claim:

Comments
ET@8 Yes, it was a simple case of evolution, but no new complicated mechanism was created. Very little new information. So Darwinists have absolutely no basis in touting this as proof that Darwinist RM + NS can create complex new structures (like the vertebrate body plans originating in an eyeblink of evolution time at the Cambrian Explosion).doubter
June 22, 2021
June
06
Jun
22
22
2021
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Martin_r, E coli already had the ability to digest citrate. In the presence of oxygen the gene that codes for the citrate transport protein is not expressed. In an anaerobic environment E coli digests citrate just fine. without that protein citrate cannot get through the membrane. What happened was that gene was duplicated. The duplicate was put under the control of a binding site that was active in the presence of oxygen. This allows for the protein to be made in the presence of oxygen. It involved a change in allele frequency over time and descent with modification. And that means it is a case of evolution..ET
June 22, 2021
June
06
Jun
22
22
2021
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Hmmm,
Lenski makes it sound like this is an entirely new capability: “E. coli going back to its original definition of a species is incapable of that.” He gives the impression that bacteria suddenly evolved the ability to eat an entirely new food source — a “remarkable” evolutionary adaptation that they were “incapable” of performing previously. But this is simply false. Normal E. coli can eat and metabolize citrate. The pro-evolution website Evo-Ed, at Lenski’s own university, explains: "Like many organisms, E. coli has a citric acid cycle, and so metabolizes citrate while growing on various substances. It can also grow anaerobically by fermenting citrate."
And that, (being intellectually dishonest towards the evidence), is exactly how Darwinists always fool the general public into believing they have any scientific evidence whatsoever for Darwinian evolution. I thought that Minnich's work might have slowed Lenski down in his over the top claims for having experimental proof for Darwinian evolution.
Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. - Minnich - Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416
Apparently I was mistaken in my belief that Lenski would be intellectually honest towards the empirical evidence that was presented by Minnich and company. As the work by Minnich and company demonstrated, not only is the citrate adaptation not evidence for Darwinian evolution, (since the mutations are obviously not random as Lenski had presupposed), the citrate adaptation is actually evidence AGAINST Darwinian evolution since some unknown epigenetic mechanism is directing the mutations in a non-random, repeatable, fashion. Moreover, not only was Lenski’s Citrate adaptation never proof for 'speciation', (as Lenski has tentatively tried to claim), but, as Dr Behe points out in the following article, the Citrate adaptation turns out to be proof that evolutionary processes, in the long run, actually send species on a ‘death spiral’, i.e. into “spectacular devolution.” Which is exactly the opposite kind of real-time empirical evidence that Darwinists need in order to, (finally), empirically substantiate their theory as to being somewhat feasible.
Michael Behe, “Citrate Death Spiral” at Evolution News and Science Today - June 17, 2020 Excerpt: "The new paper now reports on 2,500 generations of further evolution of the citrate mutant, in nutrient media that contains either citrate alone or citrate plus glucose (as for earlier generations). As always with the Lenski lab, the research is well and thoroughly done. But the resulting E. coli is one sick puppy. Inside the paper they report that “The spectrum of mutations identified in evolved clones was dominated by structural variation, including insertions, deletions, and mobile element transpositions.” All of those are exceedingly likely to break or degrade genes. Dozens more genes were lost. The citrate mutant tossed genetic information with mindless abandon for short term advantage. In a particularly telling result, the authors “serendipitously discovered evidence of substantial cell death in cultures of a Cit+ clone sampled from … the LTEE at 50,000 generations.” In other words, those initial random “beneficial” citrate mutations that had been seized on by natural selection tens of thousands of generations earlier had led to a death spiral. The death rate of the ancestor of the LTEE was ~10 percent; after 33,000 generations it was ~30 percent; after 50,000, ~40 percent. For the newer set of experiments, the death rate varied for different strains of cells in different media, but exceeded 50 percent for some cell lines in a citrate-only environment. Indeed, the authors identified a number of mutations — again, almost certainly degradative ones — in genes for fatty acid metabolism that, they write with admirable detachment, “suggest adaptation to scavenging on dead and dying cells.” The degraded E. coli was eating its dead. Lessons to Draw Let me emphasize: the only result from the decades-long, 50,000-plus generation E. coli evolution experiment that even seemed at first blush like it had a bit of potential to yield a novel pathway in the bacterium has resulted instead in spectacular devolution." https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/citrate-death-spiral/
Besides Lenski constantly overstating what is actually happening in his LTEE, just so as to provide fraudulent evidence for Darwinian evolution, one of Lenski's students has also pulled this 'intellectually dishonest' stunt:
More Darwinian Degradation - M. Behe - January 2012 Excerpt: Recently a paper appeared by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled “Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity” and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times.,,, It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis.?http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2012/01/more-darwinian-degradation/
Because of such intellectually dishonest antics by Lenski and, at least, one of his students, I would have a very hard time talking face to face with Lenski without getting very angry with him for being so intellectually dishonest towards the general public with what the evidence actually say. Lenski's current fraudulent video now has, as of this writing, over 3,100,000 views. That is a lot of misinformation to the general public that Lenski is responsible for! Again, I would have a very hard time talking face to face with Lenski without getting very angry with him for being so intellectually dishonest towards the general public.
"But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen." Richard Feynman - Cargo Cult Science
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5: 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
June 22, 2021
June
06
Jun
22
22
2021
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Sandy ...right.... my bad....martin_r
June 22, 2021
June
06
Jun
22
22
2021
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Martin_r lenski’s experiment is not an evolution but an adaptation.
Nope, you don't understand evolution . If you jump 2m today you will be able to jump to the Moon ...one day. :)))Sandy
June 22, 2021
June
06
Jun
22
22
2021
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
lenski's experiment is not an evolution but an adaptation. The bacteria (the same species as before) just ADAPTED to digest citrate. That is it. After 33,000 generation, it is still the same E.coli bacteria. again, this is an A D A P T A T I O N .... why do Darwinists call it an EVOLUTION ???? Can somebody explain to me? Seversky? JVL ? Anybody ? PS: i looked at wikipedia, actually, "The populations reached 73,500 generations in early 2020" So, let me repeat, after 73,500 generations, IT IS STILL THE SAME E.COLI BACTERIA.... SO WHERE IS THE EVOLUTION ???? 73,500 generations!!!! WHERE IS THE EVOLUTION ???? WHY IS THIS E-WORD EVEN USED ???? Perhaps one day i will be able to digest petrol... did i evolved into some other species???? I just adapted to eat something else than i used to...martin_r
June 22, 2021
June
06
Jun
22
22
2021
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Yikes! Dr. Lenski sure had me fooled. Congratulations . . . I guess. -QQuerius
June 21, 2021
June
06
Jun
21
21
2021
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
In Lenski's experiment citrate metabolism was only weakly selected for. Van Hofwegen et al modified the experiment so the trait was strongly selected; and so it appeared more rapidly.aarceng
June 21, 2021
June
06
Jun
21
21
2021
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
The experiment demonstrates the severe limits of evolutionary processes.ET
June 21, 2021
June
06
Jun
21
21
2021
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply