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
This is not an IC system and no one can demonstrate that gene duplications arise via blind and undirected processes.Joe
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
CH:
Again, if you’re claiming it was designed to evolve, the burden is on you to show that.
Again, if you’re claiming it evolved by accumulations of genetic accidents, the burden is on you to show that.Joe
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
#56 wd400 Every detail? Just the relevant aspects being discussed -- the nature of the novel capability/solution generator: is it aimless random process or intelligently guided process. Neither the L-D experiment nor the analogous students example can addresses that question. Namely, you brought up the fact that in L-D experiment only some bacteria developed resistance and asserted that this fact somehow implies that mutation was "random" or "aimless". I brought up the counterexample with students which shows that intelligently guided process (trying to answer the test questions) can also yield only sporadic successes. Intelligently guided does not imply sure success in every try. Hence, the mere generic presence of failures or sporadic successes of some problem solving process sheds no light on the nature of the underlying process. Lot more homework needs to be done before one can connect the two (as described later in this post). Is your position really that cells are, in every generation, deliberately trying (and almost always failing) to create specific mutations that will protect them from a phage on the next part of the experiment they are part of? Consider processes in your brain which you can introspect directly. There are constantly some flows of thoughts and internal dialogues going on. That doesn't mean you're constantly divining and solving some problem that might come up in the finals or in debates at UD. But the thinking process may well be an exercise for something that might come up. Similarly, the cellular biochemical networks are constantly computing (thinking) their next optimal action using anticipatory algorithms encoded and accumulated by themselves and their ancestors for billions of years of computations and problem solving. The constant flux of biochemical changes in the these networks (which include DNA and its occasional mutations, although it's mostly epigenetic activity tweaks) is the molecular manifestation of their computational process, their optimization of the internal state for anything their algorithms anticipate might come next. Your brain does the same kind of anticipatory self-optimization of its internal state for whatever its algorithms anticipate might come next, consciously and unconsciously, and its self-optimization similarly leaves molecular traces throughout the brain. The only scientifically demonstrably "random" mutations would be those induced via randomized mutagenic process by the researchers, just as "randomized" drug trial requires researchers to randomize test subjects between placebos and drugs. Anything else can introduce uncontrollable biases and spurious correlations. What experiment could prove the randomness of mutation to you? Consider an example of someone claiming to toss fair dice randomly. How would you test that claim experimentally? You would first construct the model space that contains all the final states for the dice, assign probabilities to each final state of the allegedly "fair dice" (such as 1/6-th to each final face). Then you let them "randomly" toss the dice and if the observed frequencies deviate "too far" (for given certainty level) from the predicted for the random tosses of the "fair dice", then you know that process wasn't random in some way. Either the person was tossing it in some particularly "skillful" way, or the dice was loaded i.e. it wasn't a "fair dice." For DNA molecule no one can presently compute such probabilistic model of "random" mutations since that would require full quantum mechanical treatment of the large molecule and computation of all possible transition probabilities to nearby states within some distance from the initial state (or accessible within some time interval relevant for the experiment). Since such computations even for much smaller molecules is out of reach of present technology, and the dimension of Hilbert space (which is the state space of quantum system) grows exponentially with number of particles, computing such transition probabilities for DNA is astronomically farther out of technological reach. Further, on the experimental side of the proof, controlling and measuring the initial microscopic quantum state of each molecule in each test of the model so it matches the initial quantum state used for the model computations (the analogue of letting the person "randomly" toss his "fair dice") is even harder for our present technology than figuring it out in the model space. Note also that over decades under the pressure of falsifying evidence, the neo-Darwinian priesthood has gradually backed off from the above "random toss of fair dice" semantics of their "random" mutation, while retaining the terminology unchanged. The semantics was relaxed into more flexible but more vacuous and even less falsifiable claim: mutation is "random" or "aimless" with respect to "fitness" (a term which either is used as tautology or as another unquantifiable "quantity"). Note that merely measuring the actual rate of different "spontaneous" mutations sheds no light on the nature of the underlying "spontaneous" process that generated them (intelligently guidied or undirected random). Anything that can be concluded or reasoned from such empirical rates holds equally well for empirical rates of attempted innovations in any example of intelligently guided evolution (such as that technologies, languages, sciences...). In short, there is no presently a way for testing "randomness" or "aimlessness" of the mutation conjecture of the neo-Darwinism, whether one means the stronger or the weaker form. Hence, "random mutation" is a vacuous, purely ideological add on (in order to prop atheistic ideology) with no connection to any empirical or theoretical facts or demonstrations. It's an empty bluff of the neo-Darwinian priesthood imposed via bullying of doubters and heretics into submission. For the sake of fairness, neo-Darwinist RM conjecture is no more or less scientifically demonstrable than the Seattle version of ID, in which the "intelligent mind" allegedly sneaks in and out of the "material universe" every now and then, at its whim apparently, to help out the "natural laws" by tweaking some molecules into "irreducibly complex designs" or to inject, somehow, large quantities of "specified complexity." Between the two ideologies, neo-Darwinism is on top for now only because it has bigger and louder bullies on its side. That, plus the hand on the main levers for research funding and peer reviewed publishing. But they are both relics from the centuries past, forever locked in their ancient battle. Both should have been mothballed by 1950s, at the latest, when the DNA structure and some of its functionality were discovered.nightlight
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Good grief, is this guy involved in the Facebook crap? GoodbyeUpright BiPed
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
The FACT that nobody else on the entire planet has ever claimed this to be an example of an IC system (including Lenski) should be a tell tale sign of this rambling nonsense. Hartsil lies on facebook about having a degree in Cell Biology (while using a fake name) and misunderstands even basic biochemistry. UD needs to stop entertaining every troll of the street and stick to reporting actual ID news.Paleysghost
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
Hartsil has had this misguided argument up on his fake group for over a year and it's been ripped apart Ad Nauseam (just like it has been done above in this thread). Why is UD even entertaining this troll?Paleysghost
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
Chart, Your attack on IC is misinforned and pointless, as are all such attacks. IC is an intractable fact of biology. In order to organize the cell into an autonomous self-replicator capable of open-ended evolution, you must have — regardless of any particular individual's beliefs about origins — prescriptive control over matter. In other words, you have to have the translation of information. You cannot translate information without IC. To translate information into physical effects requires two irreducibly sets of matter. One set must serve as a representational medium (i.e. encode the information) and the other set must establish what the effects of that encoding will be (i.e. have the capacity to produce the specified effect). The organization of the system must accomplish this task while preserving the necessary physicochemical discontinuity between the medium of information and its post-translation effect. All instances of translation have this specific architecture, including the translation of information inside the living cell. It's a necessity dictated by physical law. You are simply unaware of it.Upright BiPed
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Of course there are anomalies in a system (random mutations! Any system with parts are prone to failure and for things to go wrong! If there is no error correction, redundancy or any type of strategy the system will simply fall apart....... We recognize this in biological systems too........ If you think I'm talking crap let the science speak! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522932Andre
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
What’s the difference between that and example of some group of students studying the same school materials, then in the finals some of them can solve particular problem while others can’t, even though they all might be using all their intelligence to figure it out?
Every detail? Is your position really that cells are, in every generation, delibertly trying (and almost always failing) to create specific mutations that will protect them from a phage on the next part of the experiment they are part of? What experiment could prove the randomness of mutation to you?wd400
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
It's entirely relevant. You compared the addition of functional genetic information to someone being smarter than someone else.CHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
well said nightlight.computerist
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
#51 CHartsil "Did the students that can solve it get an entirely new brain part which aided them in solving it? It is irrelevant for the nature of the "novelty generator" (aimless/random vs directed/intelligent), which is the problem being argued in that subthread, how the particular new problem solving capability is encoded. As a matter fact, though, the memories are encoded as molecular differences at low enough level.nightlight
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Chartsil I hope you're not calling me a troll...... if that is the case you've lost this argument that you brought up. I can simply not phantom how somebody that sees purpose in nature all the time deny that purpose and I simply cannot accept this drivel you call aimless or directionless, if this was the case we would see biological systems falling into gooey slops all over the place all of the time, but that's not the case now is it? We observe purpose, we observe direction and we do so empirically.Andre
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
"What’s the difference between that and example of some group of students studying the same school materials, then in the finals some of them can solve particular problem while others can’t," Did the students that can solve it get an entirely new brain part which aided them in solving it?CHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
#44 CHartsil "Again, if you’re claiming it was designed to evolve, the burden is on you to show that." I am saying that contrary to your claim, the experiment you brought up has no bearing on the question about the nature of the novelty generating mechanism (random/aimless vs intelligent/guided). It sheds no light on the question whether the neo-Darwinian mechanism (RM+NS) suffices to produce the required mutations as you claim it to do.nightlight
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
And trolling...CHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
CHartsil There is no new parts ..... It did not poof out of nowhere, it is existing systems altered and changed to cater for a specific environmental pressure, this is an absolute sure fire sign of a designed system because what we empirically observe here is the following; a Risk management strategy, redundancy and a serious amount of fault tolerance!Andre
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
#42 wd400 In this scenario the cells have to predict they will face a phage soon. But only some of them, in some lines of the experiment. What's the difference between that and example of some group of students studying the same school materials, then in the finals some of them can solve particular problem while others can't, even though they all might be using all their intelligence to figure it out. It is additionally irrelevant whether they all came from the same common ancestor (some ancient Adam and Eve or some such), or even if they are siblings or twins. The experiment (along with any other done so far) is simply non sequitur regarding the neo-Darwinian conjecture about the nature of novelty generating process (intelligent/directed vs random/aimless). That is simply a conjecture not backed by any empirical evidence. What is even worse than the mere lack of empirical evidence (one can always hope something will turn out eventually) is that simultaneously the conjecture is contrary to the nature of novelty generating processes in any other evolutionary phenomena in which we understand how the novelty is generated, such as evolution of technologies or sciences. In all instances of evolutionary phenomena in which we understand the nature of the novelty generating mechanism we always find the intelligent process as the generator. Hence, neo-Darwinist conjecture not only lacks supporting empirical evidence, but it outright contradicts all the existent empirical knowledge about novelty generating processes needed in all other evolutionary phenomena that we understand.nightlight
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Andrew, which part are you not understanding? It's a system that evolved that requires multiple interdependent partsCHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
This post is ludicrous on so many levels its not even funny...... The Lenski experiments is nothing more than good old adaptation....... We have seen this with the Galapagos finches, once hailed the definitive proof of a very suspect theory.... The same will happen to the e-coli, when the environmental pressures ease they will revert back to their original form, perhaps we can get Lenski to test that? All biological systems are preloaded with an amount of variables for its environment. There is no single system that can write its own code, it gets that information elsewhere on what it has to do........Andre
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Again, if you're claiming it was designed to evolve, the burden is on you to show that.CHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
#40 CHartsil you missed the point of my post. If you're claiming that the E. coli was designed and aimed to change in a certain direction, that's your burden to show that. I think you missed my point. The experiment didn't demonstrate that the phage resistance was result of "random" or "aimless" mutation subsequently filtered by natural selection. There is nothing shown in that experiment (or any other) about the nature of the mutation generating process (random/aimless or intelligent/directed aka J. Shapiro's NGE process). Hence, the experiment doesn't show that the neo-Darwinian process (RM+NS) is capable of producing or has produced that particular adaptation (whether one calls it IC adaptation or just XY adaptation or anything else). The experiment is simply non sequitur regarding the neo-Darwinian conjecture you are trying to support with it.nightlight
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
I guess I was wrong about the published L-D experiment, though I (and many thousands of undergrads) have done it from 1 cell.
Note that “guiding intelligence” need not be some gigantic, non-material hand coming down from heavens to “intelligently” tweak the genes, as Mayer or others from Discovery Institute imagine. Yes, Luria-Delbruk did demonstrate that nothing of that sort (such as any visible heavenly intervention) happened during their experiment. But the intelligence in the domain of molecular scale bioengineering is already more than evident in the cell itself. It doesn’t need to come down from heavens as some ancient mideastern shepherds and their modern day followers from Seattle have theorized.
In this scenario the cells have to predict they will face a phage soon. But only some of them, in some lines of the experiment.wd400
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
#39 @ wd400 THe experiment starts from a single cell, so the results can't be explained by variation that existed before the experiment started. That's not correct. They say it was more like 50-500 bacteria: "In order to be reasonably certain that the resistant bacteria found in the test had not been introduced into the test culture with the initial inoculum, the test cultures were always started with very small inocula, containing between 50 and 500 bacteria from a growing culture." But even if the culture was grown from a single bacterium, what they have shown was that mutation arose in some bacteria of the colony they grew from the initial culture before the exposure to the phage. That's all they were trying to prove and then managed to demonstrate experimentally. Their experiment demonstrates absolutely nothing about the nature (intelligently guided/computed or "random", "blind", "aimless"...) of the process that produced those mutations, at whatever point in time-space they occurred. The number of the initial bacteria in the culture, be it 1, 50 or 500, is completely irrelevant for the question about nature of the process that generated the mutation. The contested hypothesis of the neo-Darwinism is that this process is "random" or "aimless", but that was never demonstrated, either empirically or theoretically. Note that "guiding intelligence" need not be some gigantic, non-material hand coming down from heavens to "intelligently" tweak the genes, as Mayer or others from Discovery Institute imagine. Yes, Luria-Delbruk did demonstrate that nothing of that sort (such as any visible heavenly intervention) happened during their experiment. But the intelligence in the domain of molecular scale bioengineering is already more than evident in the cell itself. It doesn't need to come down from heavens as some ancient mideastern shepherds and their modern day followers from Seattle have theorized. After all the cell can engineer and construct new live cells from scratch (from simple 'food' molecules), which is a feat of biochemistry and molecular biology light years ahead of anything our science knows how to do. To say nothing of the even more mind-boggling intelligence needed to first build trillions of such cells and then compose them into a live organism. The intelligence and depth of understanding of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, programming,... that are required for such project are beyond anything we can presently even imagine doing. Just try designing and building from scratch a nano-scale electric motor with performance characteristics comparable to flagellum or ATP synthase that your cells build by the thousands every second without breaking a sweat, as it were. Or just type randomly, aimlessly on your keyboard and see whether the instructions on how to do it come through by chance. After all, in the infinitely many among the infinitely many universes, infinitely many of your replicas will surely get it the first time. Any of your infinitely many successful replicas can then report to my replicas in those particular universes what the correct construction procedure is. Give it a shot, you're sure to hit the jackpot.nightlight
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
"The Lenski experiment does nothing other than to show one particular preexisting strain became dominant when an artificial set of environmental conditions were forced on them. No evolution took place." It was a change in heritable traits and the change was irreducibly complex by any definition. I'm even giving IC enough credit to imply it warrants debunking. It's still just a gap argument. nightlight, you missed the point of my post. If you're claiming that the E. coli was designed and aimed to change in a certain direction, that's your burden to show that.CHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
I added a little in an edit that may have crossed with your post Nightlight. THe experiment starts from a single cell, so the results can't be explained by variation that existed before the experiment started.wd400
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
#37 wd400 You are welcome to explain how "random" or "aimless" nature of the mechanism behind mutation responsible for phage resistance follows from that experiment. Bacteria has been battling phage for over 3 billions years. Why is it implausible that some technique bacteria developed over those billions of years, which it encoded into its DNA, might not happen to be effective against some phage that experimenters in 20th century chose to expose it to? There is nothing in that experiment that sheds any light on the mechanism behind the novelty generating process. They only show that the mutation already existed in some bacteria before their exposure. That is a non sequitur regarding the nature of the mechanism that produced those mutations at some earlier time. Go ahead, explain how exactly do you deduce from their findings that the mutation was produced (at some earlier time) by a random, aimless process. Such conclusion simply doesn't follow.nightlight
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Well, you might have read the page or indeed the paper. But you haven't understood the experiment at all. (the populations in the experiment start from a single cell. The variance in viable cells that the experiment measures tests exactly the hypothesis you describe)wd400
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
#35 @wd400 "Did you read the page? It’s hard to believe that you could write this after doing so. Read that paper ages ago and revisited it since in numerous "debates" as well. Explain where exactly that or any other experiment show that the mutation was "random" or "aimless". The Luria-Delbruk experiment merely shows that mutants with right resistance to particular phage existed in the population before the experimenters exposed them to the phage. So what? It's like you running into a question similar to something you have seen before. In technological evolution, which we understand to be intelligently guided, that is perfectly analogous to engineer having figured out how to solve some problem (or had developed technique for that type of problem) before the same or similar problem turned up at his new job. The pre-existence of either the mutation in biological case or solution in engineering case, doesn't demonstrate that the mutation/solution was previously produced by a random or aimless process as neo-Darwinian dogma postulates. Hence, that experiment is non sequitur regarding the question whether the process generating evolutionary novelties is "random" ("aimless") or deliberate and intelligent (i.e. in algorithmic language, computed via anticipatory, goal directed algorithms). To demonstrate "aimlessness" and "randomness" of novelty generating process in biological systems you need some biological phenomenon that doesn't have direct analogies in intelligently guided instances of evolution, such as those of technologies or languages.nightlight
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Nothing in that or any other experiment demonstrates that mutations were “random” or “aimless”. Exactly the same kind of statistical analysis can be done on evolution of languages or technologies, even though we recognize that intelligent processes were guiding those changes. The evolution of languages is in fact reconstructed in the same way as evolution of biological organisms via measurements of distances, linguistic or genetic.
Did you read the page? It's hard to believe that you could write this after doing so.wd400
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply