If the Rate of Evolution is so much faster in organisms with shorter generation time,how come bacteria haven't majorly evolved in the last 100 years since we were able to observe them?
How come e.coli hasn't for example grown a flagellum,or shows other changes to the e.coli that were observed thousands of generations ago?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
www-lsm.in2p3.fr
twitter.com
> trusting science
> 2018
Because hey are quite suited for their environment.
evolution requires sufficient environmental pressure famalam.
Bacteria DOES evolve very quickly, which HAS been observed. With, believe it or not, E. coli:
en.wikipedia.org
>Implying Genetic Drift doesn't exist
We should see at least some changes,deleterious,neutral or beneficial doesn't matter.
But E. Coli do have flagella
What is antibiotic resistance
They actually evolve.
Each days, thousands of bacterias and fongus are evolving and we don't even Knox about it, because we have reported only a very small percentage.
The evolution process is constant. Every new generation has its own specificity, not remarquable tho. But on a long range of time, microorganisms begin to synthetise some enzymes to consume a specific -ose or protein, beyond the mecanism of operons, they litteraly can produce new molecules.
Otherwise features like flegellum are huge fruits of evolution. These are beauties of life.
Link to an experience related to bacteria's evolution
hey moron, try to understand the ppoint im trying to make. if Ecoli evolses a flagellum, there have to be specific environmental advantages to that. also the beginning evolutionary stages have to be also advantagious. this means that sometimes things dont evolve because they are not into an environment that requires a flagellum(or whatever) or prohibits the evlution of one.
sorry, i am not familiar with genetic drift. might be a gap in my knowledge. tell me more.
But aren't they made of very few specific molecules and shit ? Shouldn't we be able to map out their possible routes of evolution already ?
What. Are you responding to the wrong post?
>very few specific molecules
no
Basically some alleles get fixed simply by pure chance because those carriers had a higher rate of reproduction.
It's random chance,and the effects of Drift go down with increasing population size,which is why you don't really see it in huge bacteria cultures.
Drift is something you can see in small populations,like after a bottleneck event,selective sweep or in the founder effect.
oh i thought you were OP, ignoring my first reply, and telling me they do evolve, wich is obvious and missing the point entirely.
So the higher rate had nothing to do with the changed genes? and doesnt this require that the gene change does not negatively effect survival?
I feel I need to reiterate that E. coli do have flagella. Please don't make people dumber and teach them that they don't
i dont actually know shit about eColi itself, and i was just rolling with OP's example. i figured the way evolution works was relevant even when im not sure what the specific bacteria we are talking about, looks like.
>But aren't they made of very few specific molecules and shit ?
What do you mean by this ?
There are thousands of unique types of proteins in bacteria such as E. coli.
>Shouldn't we be able to map out their possible routes of evolution already ?
In the 21th century ? I don't think so.
We can imagine, hypothesis, but map the evolution process is still a fucking thing, even for bacterias.
Ex: put a bacteria unable to synthetize B-galactosidase on a medium filled with lactose and an other sugar, just enough to make it grow.
Take the dame bacteria basis agin, and again on the medium, we can assume that the bacteria in X years (something like thousands of years to be honest) would get the B-galactosidase and use the lactose.
That's seen on an easy eye, again, the evolution process is a big mess actually.
>Higher rate had nothing to do with the changed genes
I don't quite understand what you are asking,do you want to know if the rate of evolution is dependent on the Gene?
In most cases yes,pseudogenes evolve neutrally,while some Genes are under constant pressure to evolve and have much higher mutation rates.
Other genes are highly conserved and evolve so little that you can't even see a difference between the human one or one from for example a mouse.
As for the effect of the gene affecting survival:
No,that's one of the things about drift,if the population is small enough the chance of a deleterious mutation getting fixed is higher,simply because there aren't enough ''positive'' alleles to counterbalance.
So genetic drift is basically a mutation that is not deterimental or advantagious to a species, but gets to survive through random chance?
(i realise that i dont know about evolution)
thanks for the wake up call
Not quite,Genetic Drift is any mutation that get's to be carried on through random chance.
It could be detrimental,it could be neutral or it can be advantagous.
What?, isnt that just mutation?
No,mutation only refers to new alleles coming into a species through changes in their Nucleotid Sequence
Drift refers to the fixation over multiple generations thereafter
How come you haven't evolved to not be a faget OP?
and the specific cause of this fixation is? random chance?
If it is even relevant?
...
>So genetic drift is basically a mutation that is not deterimental or advantagious to a species,
Meh, I wont say that.
Hair system is useful for human being. Even if appendix could be removed, we can't just say that those are useless features.
And this >It could be detrimental,it could be neutral or it can be advantagous.
Tbh.
Yes,random chance,like I've been saying for the last 30 minutes
s..sorry.
can you reccomend any books that go in depth?
id like to be more suited to discusssions like this.
> There are thousands of unique types of proteins in bacteria such as E. coli.
Well that was enough to answer. I can't even imagine the combination of what can come out of thousands of separate parts. I just thought bacteria was much more simpler
Are you the namefag from the other thread?
Evolution:A very short Introduction by Brian and Deborah Charlesworth is pretty good,it's 8 bucks on amazon and should give you the basic gist.
no, why?
namefag?
thanks famalam
>random chance
Today maybe.
Meteo was total random chance 100years ago, now we can predict decently the weather in 1 day.
What I want to say is that this "random" process is actually qualified as random because we don't have the science, tools and money for this. Like I said : evolution map for the next century maybe.
Lets get the free will discussion going.
whats it boys?
complexity or probability
Meh,I don't agree
There are Mutations that are objectively neutral and yet they get fixed even though they don't have any purpose,simply because carriers of those happend to reproduce more.
predestination
no
>I just thought bacteria was much more simpler
They are much more simplier than mammals and pluricellular species.
But they are still a huge piece of problems. The more you know about these enzyme sacks, the more you respect them and the life itself.
Thats it im outta here
Probability but we couldn't get the right answer, because we can't put the entire universe in our problem since we don't know where it ends.
>There are Mutations that are objectively neutral and yet they get fixed even though they don't have any purpose,simply because carriers of those happend to reproduce more.
Totally agree with this. I was talking about the mecanism itself, molecular/polymerase bounds etc.
fucking normies and their shit humour
>objectively neutral
Is science racist?
>Codon degeneracy isn't real
There are ecoli with flagella. Also There has been significant evolution in the last 100 years. Evolution need s a selective pressure. ABX are a novel selectiv epressure in that they are being exposed in levels never encountered before. Hence were back to people having arms faces and dicks rot off and death from infections we have foolishly come to think of as relatively benign
There's no need to be upset
no need at all
How come the bacteria on your teeth hasn't evolved to protect themselves against brushing? With all the people in the world brushing their teeth you would think this would have happened by now
i bet you just learned those terms this year
/thread
>how come bacteria haven't majorly evolved in the last 100 years
>what are antibiotic resistant bacteria
Also evolution doesn't just suddenly say I think wings would be bitching on this snake. Evolution works by taking what works and sticking to it.
Genetic drift is the random sampling of a population so that only the genes from the sample are passed on to the next generation. This is often due to natural disasters and stuff wiping out a random part of a population so only the survivors genes remain in the gene pool. This can lead to fixation of alleles, where only one allele for a locus is the only survivor due to extinction of all other alleles at the locus, since all individuals carrying them were killed. Genetic drift ultimately results in a random alteration of allele frequencies in a population, with the frequencies in smaller populations changing more than in larger ones. Whoever was asking about drift hope that helps
>bacteria
>not the perfect lifeforms
good luck getting rid of them
the most studied bacterium and thus most studied biological model, E. coli, still has genes which purposes are unknown, i.e we don't know if they are protein coding or RNA coding and if they are proteins, we don't know their function
>E. Coli
>no flagella
Confirmed shitposter
done
Done what? Make UV-resistant bacteria?
no I got rid of bacteria with UV lights. There is no radiation resistant bacteria or anything for that matter.
Two years ago,why?
Congrats OP this is the most retarded thing I've read today. If you'd studied biology past highschool you'd know why your question is terrible
But I have a bachelors in Biology :'(