Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution of an Irreducibly Complex System – Lenski’s E. Coli

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On another thread we have been discussing abiogenesis in particular, but there was also some discussion about the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Commenter CHartsil indicated that “we actually watched an IC system evolve” in reference to Lenski’s E. coli research. At my request, he has posted a brief summary of the research and his take, which I am now elevating to a new thread on this important topic.

For those who disagree with CHartsil’s take, strong objections on substantive grounds are of course welcome, whether relating to Lenski’s research or CHartsil’s interpretation of it, but not irrelevant personal attacks. Thank you.

—–

Guest Post by CHartsil:

This is a pro-ID board so I doubt I need to explain irreducible complexity. When arguing against it, most will bring up Ken Miller or Nick Matzke. They have great points but theirs are indirect and theoretical pathways for systems considered IC. That’s why I’m fond of Lenski’s cit* E. coli.

This particular strain of E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate aerobically. While most E. coli can do this anaerobically, part of the definition of wild-type E. coli is actually the inablity to use citrate as a substrate aerobically. This may not have been a terribly fascinating addition of function if not for the frozen fossil records kept by Lenski et al.

These frozen generations allowed Lenski to determine that this trait was not acquired via a single mutation as it could only be repeated after generation 20,000. Given the distinct cladistic division amongst the populations at the border generation, it was determined that there were at least two potentiating mutations prior to the cit* event.

In this third clade a tandem duplication resulting in a novel regulatory module leading to the aerobic cit* could be repeated and verified. It has been noted since that the fitness of the population has been improving without notable upper limit, increasing based on the number of copies of the new regulatory module.

I find this to be sufficient in warranting the dismissal of the concept irreducible complexity. In Lenski’s E. coli, we observe the rise of a new function resulting from a new gene and new gene regulation. This function is comprised of now interdependent components which demonstrably did not exist in parent generations. It is by definition irreducibly complex and it was observed to evolve.

—–

Nota bene: for purposes of the above discussion, CHartsil is using the following definition of irreducible complexity: “a system comprised of interdependent parts, the removal of any of which will cause the system to cease functioning.”

Comments
Hey Hangonasec Maybe this will help. Right now in another thread Reciprocating Bill is arguing that the theory of evolution would be falsified if a large change like one species evolving into another was ever directly observed however according to your definition such a change is well with in the range of the definition. It's heads you win tails we loose When a term can mean anything it means nothing. peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Hangonasec says The essence, to repeat, is generational replication/reproduction with variation. I say, Why not just let the "essence" be the definition. That would be the simple and clear thing to do. I would argue that the reason you need to go beyond the essence is because you want to subsume all the epicycles that keep being added with out acknowledging that you have moved the goalposts . you say, Still, that vague ‘the process’ allows much latitude, and certainly includes all the things I have indicated – I say, Did you catch the term "gradual" in the second definition and "Darwinism" as a synonym. Surely the addition of those terms would exclude the processes we are now discussing. Don't you agree? You say, Of course ‘the bulk’ is imprecise, but only those with a degree in advanced word-gaming would struggle with the concept. I say, I understand the concept. My problem is with processes that directly contradict the concept being included in the term so the term looses it's original common sense meaning. That is equivocation and it is a discussion killer. As witnessed by the OP peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Creation is change is it not? How much creation can we have before it’s not evolution 20% 80%
Well, it's pretty obvious that creation from scratch, ie 0% inheritance, is not evolutionary, as defined. The essence, to repeat, is generational replication/reproduction with variation. The bulk of the genome is copied as is in an evolutionary scenario, with comparatively little coming from anywhere other than the parent(s). Of course 'the bulk' is imprecise, but only those with a degree in advanced word-gaming would struggle with the concept.
"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
That's not very good, TBH. It's also the one Google gives you, indicating a lack of depth in research! Still, that vague 'the process' allows much latitude, and certainly includes all the things I have indicated - 'conventional' mutation plus rearrangements, whole-genome duplications, LGT, genome merger, etc. You reject my definition because 'it can be anything' and replace it with one that ... well, can be anything!Hangonasec
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Hangonasec OK, fifthmonarchyman, what definition of evolution should we be using? I say How about the dictionary one offered by PAV in comment 186 Quote: 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. [synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection "his interest in evolution"] 2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. Webster end quote: That would work for me Of course it would require us to ascribe the kinds of instantaneous jumps we see in HGC and the origins of IC systems to something other than evolution. Happy coincidence maybe, sympathetic Magic maybe It would also eliminate the kind of mischaracterizations we see in the OP and allow for some actual fruitful discussion of the IC argument. peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Hangonasec says, Creation of an entire fully-functioning genome is not evolution. I say What? before you specifically agreed to this definition. "Any heritable change to an organism is evolution." Creation is change is it not? How much creation can we have before it's not evolution 20% 80%. Zac says, if a cat conceives and gives birth to a dog, or God forms a man from the dust of the ground, then it is not evolution I say, I'm confused A cat giving birth to a dog would require a change in the genome would it not?? So would the morphing of Actinobacteria into homo sapien. It seems to me that you guys need to get your heads together and come up with a specific definition that you are happy with and get back to me. I can't discuss this with you if the meanings of words keep changing. Is the instantaneous combination of multiple integrated parts into a new functioning system evolution? Apparently it is. On the other hand Zac seems to now offer the condition that such a change must be incremental but that qualification was not on the table before. How much change is allowed at any one step before we are beyond the scope of evolution. 80% 20%. How do we quantify what one step is is it one generation 4 generations? Is the endosymbiotic absorption of an entire organism all at once an incremental change? The questions just keep coming.Not only is the definition of species extremely fuzzy in your worldview apparently evolution is as well I hope you see the communicational difficulty that results from equivocation. Peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
OK, fifthmonarchyman, what definition of evolution should we be using? Bearing in mind that LGT, heritable transpositional rearrangements, genome unions, permanent heritable changes caused by intelligent agents etc must be something - you can't simply define them out of existence because you have decided that evolutionary change only occurs through point mutation. And bear in mind that, whatever definition you choose, you may well be the only one using it.Hangonasec
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: You can thank your co-travelers for turning your argument into something like “stuff happens and we call that evolution” Evolution, from the Latin evolutio to unroll (as a scroll), implies incremental change. Whether a particular instance is consider incremental depends on the level of analysis, but generally, if a cat conceives and gives birth to a dog, or God forms a man from the dust of the ground, then it is not evolution.Zachriel
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
See what happens when you equivocate. Communication becomes impossible
No, communication becomes impossible when people clarify their viewpoint and yet their interlocutors resort to silly word-gaming off the back of that clarification. Creation of an entire fully-functioning genome is not evolution. Tinkering with a current genome would be, if heritable. The essence is of change in descent - some mechanism (there are several) that changes the heritable material passed down a series of generations, such that, instead of exact copies, there are variations.Hangonasec
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
CHartsil says. Except that we know it evolved. I say, Apparently that just means there was a "heritable change to the organism". If that is your only claim it is completely vacuous. The equivalent of observing any change whatsoever. It simply means the population is different now than it was before. You can thank your co-travelers for turning your argument into something like "stuff happens and we call that evolution" talk about boring peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
"How- “built-in responses to environmental cues”" If you’re claiming it was designed, the onus is on you to show how and how you determined that.CHartsil
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
How- "built-in responses to environmental cues" How that was determined- in part because "it just happened" is a pathetic explanationJoe
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
LoL! If you're claiming is was accidental the onus is on you to show how and how you determined that.Joe
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
"CHartsil- you have no idea if it was unguided evolution" If you're claiming it was designed, the onus is on you to show how and how you determined that.CHartsil
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
CHartsil- you have no idea if it was unguided evolutionJoe
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
"In fact we could hold that the system was created from scratch all at once and at the same time that it evolved." Except that we know it evolved.CHartsil
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
CHartsil says, It requires multiple components to be in place to function at all, and it evolved. I say, Using the definition that has been proffered here. We can grant your point and Joe's at the same time and in the same relation. In fact we could hold that the system was created from scratch all at once and at the same time that it evolved. See what happens when you equivocate. Communication becomes impossible peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
PaV: It’s not quite so simple because bacteria in natural environments are switched to other food sources and allowed to grow over and over again. That's right. The natural environment is far more complex than Lenski's lab! One of the surprising results is that so much evolution took place in Lenski's lab even though the environment was largely static. PaV: Multicellularity happens. Not a big jump, really; just individual cells now communicating and adhering. Depends on what you mean by "big jump". It's a huge change from the point of view of microbes. PaV: So, as the rate slows down more and more, we see large-scale phenotypic changes happening faster and faster. Of course, "faster and faster" is still tens of millions of years. Several factors probably impact the Cambrian Explosion, the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere, the end of a global ice age, the evolution of the Hox body plan system. and adaptive radiation. PaV: This does not fit into Darwinian expectations. Darwin's expection was that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."Zachriel
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Let’s see… An ocean of microbes over a billion years compared to a few lab specimens over a couple of decades.
It's not quite so simple because bacteria in natural environments are switched to other food sources and allowed to grow over and over again. But, certainly, yes, a billion years of bacteria mutating. Wow. And what happens? Multicellularity happens. Not a big jump, really; just individual cells now communicating and adhering. Yet, we know that multicellular organisms aren't going to replicate as fast as one-celled organisms. So, as the rate slows down more and more, we see large-scale phenotypic changes happening faster and faster. The Cambrian Explosion. This does not fit into Darwinian expectations.PaV
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
"It has been demonstrated that is so. And you don’t have anything that counters ID’s claims." My OP counters it, in case you haven't noticed. It requires multiple components to be in place to function at all, and it evolved.CHartsil
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Zacho chokes:
The IC Argument considers (falsely) that irreducible structures can’t evolve incrementally
It has been demonstrated that is so. And you don't have anything that counters ID's claims.Joe
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
fmm
If you define evolution in that way Biological ID is evolution and IC structures are the result of evolution by definition.
It is not impossible for intelligent agents to produce heritable genetic changes, nor to act as selective agents, so yes, intent can be directed towards evolutionary change. Nonetheless, there are numerous other mechanisms which cannot simply be brushed aside as of minor significance.Hangonasec
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: If you define evolution in that way Biological ID is evolution and IC structures are the result of evolution by definition. Evolution, from the Latin evolutio to unroll (as a scroll), implies incremental change. The IC Argument considers (falsely) that irreducible structures can't evolve incrementally (wherein intermediates have selectable capabilities), but have to be snapped together in one piece, as it were.Zachriel
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Hey Hangonase, If you define evolution in that way Biological ID is evolution and IC structures are the result of evolution by definition. Obviously IC structures exist so obviously they are the result of evolution It's fine if you want to define it that way but it makes discussion impossible. quote: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?" George Orwell end quote: peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
If you have natural selection you have evolution. Yes evolution can occur in the absence of NS but that has nothing to do with what I said.Joe
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Zachriel @216, Understood!Hangonasec
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Joe
If you have natural selection you have evolution. Why? Because there would be a change in allele frequency, which is the very definition of evolution.
Which would not make them synonyms - even if the only cause of allele frequency change were natural selection (which it isn't).Hangonasec
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Hangonasec: like quantum particles popping into and out of existence We were cutting it rather fine! There seems to be a limit though ...Zachriel
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
fmm
[player 1 ... player 2] That’s what HGC does it lets one organism steal the “evolutionary powers” of other organisms without going through the actual evolutionary process necessary to acquire them. Of course it’s beneficial for the absorbing organism but it’s not evolution as it’s understood by the public. It’s cheating.
'Cheating' is widespread in evolution. See, for example, The Selfish Gene. A fair chunk of the public has read it, if not understood it. Nonetheless, this is not an accurate representation of horizontal mechanisms. If, say, a virus or a phage inserts a retroelement into a genome, or there is simply uptake of 'naked' DNA from the medium, this can prove beneficial, just as a transposon from within the genome, or a plain old mutation for that matter. The host is not stealing the virus's 'powers' - it does not become virus-like. Its genetic sequence is simply amended in some way, heritably.Hangonasec
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Your position is that any heritable change to a population has to be the result of evolution whether it has any connection to RV/NS or not. That's not the same statement as before.
fmm: Any heritable change to an organism is evolution. fmm: any heritable change ... the result of evolution.
Evolution is what we call the change in populations. A heritable change to an organism that enters the population is evolution. Hangonasec: I would differ with Zachriel somewhat in that it does not have to become widespread Not widespread, just not stillborn. We modified our original statement with ETA.Zachriel
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
If you have natural selection you have evolution. Why? Because there would be a change in allele frequency, which is the very definition of evolution.Joe
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 11

Leave a Reply