4 ms·

Just because evolution is governed by randomness doesn't mean you can't make educated predictions about how an organism will evolve (at least given a set of oth

Just because evolution is governed by randomness doesn't mean you can't make educated predictions about how an organism will evolve (at least given a set of otherwise constant environmental pressures, which is far from assured in the article's E Coli experiment). This is the whole premise behind convergent evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

josephpmay 9y ago
I completely agree. I think this is an excellent way to study evolution. I just don’t see anything particularly novel in the research (not saying it’s not deserving to be studied or published- But I don’t get why it was presented the way it was in the article other than drumming up publicity)
Retric 9y ago
You can make a prediction about what not how. Set things up and E Coli will develop antibiotic immunity, repeat the experiment 100 billion times and you might see 1+ billion different solutions. Insert fragments of a solution and repeat the experiment and you increase the odds to get the same solution, but the original solution space was still vast. Consider, we say cancer mutates to disable specific genes, but not how those genes are disabled because it's outcomes not methods that are so common.
- AllegedAlec 9y ago
  > repeat the experiment 100 billion times and you might see 1+ billion different solutions You won't, though. There has been some excellent research on this done by amongst others Burmeister and Meyer in the Lenski group. Evolution is 'channelled' into certain solutions by its previous history and the process of co-evolving with other species.
  - Retric 9y ago
    That simply means some solutions are more probable than others, but there is a very long tail. Or at least as extrapolated from computer simulations.
    - AllegedAlec 9y ago
      Sure. It's still a game of chance. However, evolution is not random in the purest sense. Evolution itself skews the distribution of the kind of mutations you see. For example: on of the papers by the Lenski labs show that the lambda phage evolves a certain defense mechanism very reliably in duplicated studies, despite it requiring several very specific mutations.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Random does not mean a uniform distribution. Toss 2 six sided dice and 2's and 12's are uncommon. But it's still a random process. Also, saying you often get some set of mutations may be likely if subsets of those mutations provide advantages or there is some process that makes those mutations more likely.
        AllegedAlec 9y ago
        > Random does not mean a uniform distribution. Toss 2 six sided dice and 2's and 12's are uncommon. But it's still a random process. True, but dice don't adjust their own shape so that they're more likely to stop at certain values. > Also, saying you often get some set of mutations may be likely if subsets of those mutations provide advantages or there is some process that makes those mutations more likely. Yeah, but doesn't take away from the fact that evolution is canalised into certain options (most of the time) by its own evolutionary history.
        Retric 9y ago
        I am not disagreeing with that. I am simply saying even if 95% of the time you see a small set of options the other 5% get's increasingly bizarre. Start grouping them and the last 0.001% case has just about anything. So, sure you can specify odds, but again that's very different than saying something is not random and thus predictable. PS: I tend to focus on black swan events because they tend to be more important. If you focus on the most likely outcome that becomes less important over time. M1 - M10,000 might each be happy paths, but M1 - M10,000 is is extremely unlikely to have all of them be happy paths.

josephpmay 9y ago

I completely agree. I think this is an excellent way to study evolution. I just don’t see anything particularly novel in the research (not saying it’s not deserving to be studied or published- But I don’t get why it was presented the way it was in the article other than drumming up publicity)

Retric 9y ago

You can make a prediction about what not how. Set things up and E Coli will develop antibiotic immunity, repeat the experiment 100 billion times and you might see 1+ billion different solutions. Insert fragments of a solution and repeat the experiment and you increase the odds to get the same solution, but the original solution space was still vast. Consider, we say cancer mutates to disable specific genes, but not how those genes are disabled because it's outcomes not methods that are so common.

AllegedAlec 9y ago
> repeat the experiment 100 billion times and you might see 1+ billion different solutions You won't, though. There has been some excellent research on this done by amongst others Burmeister and Meyer in the Lenski group. Evolution is 'channelled' into certain solutions by its previous history and the process of co-evolving with other species.
- Retric 9y ago
  That simply means some solutions are more probable than others, but there is a very long tail. Or at least as extrapolated from computer simulations.
  - AllegedAlec 9y ago
    Sure. It's still a game of chance. However, evolution is not random in the purest sense. Evolution itself skews the distribution of the kind of mutations you see. For example: on of the papers by the Lenski labs show that the lambda phage evolves a certain defense mechanism very reliably in duplicated studies, despite it requiring several very specific mutations.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Random does not mean a uniform distribution. Toss 2 six sided dice and 2's and 12's are uncommon. But it's still a random process. Also, saying you often get some set of mutations may be likely if subsets of those mutations provide advantages or there is some process that makes those mutations more likely.
      - AllegedAlec 9y ago
        > Random does not mean a uniform distribution. Toss 2 six sided dice and 2's and 12's are uncommon. But it's still a random process. True, but dice don't adjust their own shape so that they're more likely to stop at certain values. > Also, saying you often get some set of mutations may be likely if subsets of those mutations provide advantages or there is some process that makes those mutations more likely. Yeah, but doesn't take away from the fact that evolution is canalised into certain options (most of the time) by its own evolutionary history.
        Retric 9y ago
        I am not disagreeing with that. I am simply saying even if 95% of the time you see a small set of options the other 5% get's increasingly bizarre. Start grouping them and the last 0.001% case has just about anything. So, sure you can specify odds, but again that's very different than saying something is not random and thus predictable. PS: I tend to focus on black swan events because they tend to be more important. If you focus on the most likely outcome that becomes less important over time. M1 - M10,000 might each be happy paths, but M1 - M10,000 is is extremely unlikely to have all of them be happy paths.