This is a placeholder text
Group text
by GSD Admin on 25 November 2012 - 07:11
A biologist who has been watching a dozen bottles of bacteria evolve for nearly a quarter of a century is hoping he can find someone to keep his lab experiment going long after he dies.
Meanwhile, just by coincidence, a botanist who works across campus is carefully tending an experiment that started before he was born, all the way back in 1879.
These two researchers, both at Michigan State University in East Lansing, represent different sides of an unusual phenomenon in science: experiments that outlive the people who started them.
Most researchers design studies to churn out results as quickly as possible. But because nature can work on vast time scales, some questions can take longer to answer than any one scientist's career.
Richard Lenski began his evolution experiment in 1988 with a simple question: Does evolution always lead to the same end point? If he started with 12 identical flasks, full of identical bacteria, would they all change over time in the same way? Or would random mutations send each bottle's population spinning off in a different direction?
Enlarge G.L. Kohuth/Michigan State University
Richard Lenski examines the growth of bacteria on a plate on Jan. 12. He began an evolution experiment in 1988 with 12 identical flasks of bacteria to see if the populations would change over time in the same way.
"This was an experiment that was intended to be a long-term experiment, although I had no idea that it would be multiple decades," says Lenski, an evolutionary biologist. "It does just keep producing new and interesting results, so it doesn't seem to be near the end of its life span."
Every day, someone in his lab has to do the brief, tedious chore of feeding and caring for the bacteria. On day number 8,449, Lenski reached into an incubator and pulled out his old friends.
These E. coli bacteria reproduce so rapidly that, in one day, they speed through seven generations — creating the equivalent of their great-great-great-great grandchildren and letting Lenski watch their evolution in real time.
Lenski brought the flasks over to a lab bench and reached for his glasses. "When I started this experiment, I didn't need reading glasses," he notes, "and now looking at things close-up is always more work than it used to be."
For the first decade of his experiment, the bacteria in each flask mostly changed in similar ways. For example, they all were producing larger cells.
Then things got kind of boring for a while because the changes started coming more slowly. Lenski had other projects going on in his lab, and figured that maybe he'd learned all he could from this one.
"And so I was sort of thinking, 'OK, maybe it's time to stop the experiment,' " he says, recalling that he asked a few colleagues what they thought of that idea. "And they basically said, 'Nope, you can't stop it, it's gone on too long.' "
So he stuck with it. And a few years later, in 2003, something happened. The liquid in one flask looked strange. "This flask was considerably more cloudy," says Lenski. "I was suspicious that we had a contaminant."
It turns out that the bacteria in that one flask had actually changed in a dramatic way. After 30,000 generations, they had suddenly gained the ability to consume citrate, a chemical that had always been in the flasks — but that was never intended to be a food, since laboratory E. coli normally can't eat it.
What's more, Lenski was able to trace exactly how that new trait emerged. Over the years, he's been freezing samples of his bacteria, so he was able to go back and track every little genetic change that's taken place through the generations, using technologies that didn't even exist when he first started this study.
Lenski is now convinced that this study should keep going far into the future, to see what else might evolve. He'd like to see this experiment go on not just for 50,000 bacterial generations but 50,000 human generations, to "really get some very hard numbers on the process of evolution."
The fact that Lenski won't be around to see those hard numbers doesn't seem to bother him.
"My wife and I were very fortunate that one of our daughters had a baby about 20 months ago. And that really changes one's perception of time even more than a long-term experiment," Lenski says.
He notes that people tend to conflate the universe with their own existence, "but having children, grandchildren and so on ... you really just come to grips with the vast span of time that is available. And we only get to occupy a tiny portion of it."
Lenski, who is 56 years old, thinks he'll watch his bacteria for about another decade. Then he'll have to find someone to inherit this project. It's not a particularly expensive or difficult study — so he just needs to find someone younger who has a lab and is willing to carry his vision forward.
"They might be in their, you know, early- or mid-30s or something like that," Lenski says, "and then they can decide whether they want to do it for just the next five or 10 years or whether they want to continue it for another 30 years and perhaps pass it on to somebody who hasn't even been born yet."
Is it really possible to keep an experiment going like that? The answer is undoubtedly yes, as Lenski learned years ago when he heard of another long-term study happening on campus.
"Here I was, proud of myself for what was at that time maybe a 15-year experiment, discovering that it wasn't even the oldest experiment on campus — that there was another one up around 100 years, or even past that," recalls Lenski.
Seeds Buried Long, Long Ago
That experiment is currently cared for by Frank Telewski, who runs Michigan State University's botanical garden. The garden is named after botanist William J. Beal, and he started a long-term study on seed germination all the way back in 1879.
Beal was inspired by local farmers who had been asking him this question: If we weed our fields year after year, will we ever reach a point where the weeds just don't come back?
"Well, that was a very interesting question," says Telewski, because it wasn't at all clear how long seeds might remain viable in the soil. "We know that seeds can remain dormant for a long period of time, and Professor Beal's key question was, 'How long?' "
Enlarge Kurt Stepnitz/Michigan State University
Bottles like this 90-year-old one were filled with seeds and sand, then buried by William Beal. Researchers periodically unearth a bottle and plant the seeds to see if they grow.
So Beal put a precise quantity of seeds from different species into 20 sand-filled bottles and stashed them underground. The original plan was to dig up one bottle every five years and see what would grow.
"Clearly, burying 20 bottles and only taking one out every five years, the plan was to go beyond Professor Beal's career, let alone Professor Beal's life," says Telewski.
The only writings from Beal about his experiment are dry scientific reports, but Telewski assumes it meant a lot to him.
"He had to be passionate about it," says Telewski. "You don't do something like this, you know, with that long-term desire, without being passionate."
Beal opened six bottles before he retired. Then he passed it on to a colleague, Henry Darlington. Eventually it was taken over by others, including Robert Bandurski and Jan Zeevaart, who passed it on to Telewski.
The experiment has lasted longer than Beal ever intended because the caretakers extended it. They first decided to open a bottle only once every decade, and now, once every two decades.
Telewski dug up his first bottle 12 years ago. He did it at night, with a flashlight, trying not to draw any attention to the secret burial spot. He says it was exciting to think back and remember that the last person to see the seed was Beal, 120 years ago. "For me that holds a level of significance, that holds a level of fascination, charm," says Telewski.
And he says the mysteries of long-term seed viability remain scientifically interesting. Only two plant species sprouted from the last Beal bottle. Telewski can't wait to dig up the next bottle, in 2020.
Will that be the year that nothing germinates, wonders Telewski, or "will something that hasn't germinated in 30, 40 years all of a sudden appear?"
This kind of inherited experiment is unusual, says Telewski, but in another way, the whole of science is one big long-term effort. Every time researchers record a careful observation, or stash a specimen in a museum, they make it possible for some unknown person of the future to pick up where they left off.
"And isn't that wonderful that somebody, somewhere, thought forward enough to say, 'Let's hold onto this, let's keep this experiment going, let's design this experiment to go on and see where it takes us,' " says Telewski.
Telewski already has someone in mind to inherit the Beal study when he retires. "There's one particular person I've been speaking with, and I think she's going to be very excited to pick it up," he says.
If all goes as planned, he thinks the experiment will probably outlive her, too.
Long-Term Science Experiments
Some research studies don't yield quick results, and scientists design experiments that continue for years, if not decades. Below is a sampling of some long-term projects, many of which continue to this day. (Mouse over the bars for more information about each study.)
A biologist who has been watching a dozen bottles of bacteria evolve for nearly a quarter of a century is hoping he can find someone to keep his lab experiment going long after he dies.
Meanwhile, just by coincidence, a botanist who works across campus is carefully tending an experiment that started before he was born, all the way back in 1879.
These two researchers, both at Michigan State University in East Lansing, represent different sides of an unusual phenomenon in science: experiments that outlive the people who started them.
Most researchers design studies to churn out results as quickly as possible. But because nature can work on vast time scales, some questions can take longer to answer than any one scientist's career.
Richard Lenski began his evolution experiment in 1988 with a simple question: Does evolution always lead to the same end point? If he started with 12 identical flasks, full of identical bacteria, would they all change over time in the same way? Or would random mutations send each bottle's population spinning off in a different direction?
Enlarge G.L. Kohuth/Michigan State University
Richard Lenski examines the growth of bacteria on a plate on Jan. 12. He began an evolution experiment in 1988 with 12 identical flasks of bacteria to see if the populations would change over time in the same way.
"This was an experiment that was intended to be a long-term experiment, although I had no idea that it would be multiple decades," says Lenski, an evolutionary biologist. "It does just keep producing new and interesting results, so it doesn't seem to be near the end of its life span."
Every day, someone in his lab has to do the brief, tedious chore of feeding and caring for the bacteria. On day number 8,449, Lenski reached into an incubator and pulled out his old friends.
These E. coli bacteria reproduce so rapidly that, in one day, they speed through seven generations — creating the equivalent of their great-great-great-great grandchildren and letting Lenski watch their evolution in real time.
Lenski brought the flasks over to a lab bench and reached for his glasses. "When I started this experiment, I didn't need reading glasses," he notes, "and now looking at things close-up is always more work than it used to be."
For the first decade of his experiment, the bacteria in each flask mostly changed in similar ways. For example, they all were producing larger cells.
Then things got kind of boring for a while because the changes started coming more slowly. Lenski had other projects going on in his lab, and figured that maybe he'd learned all he could from this one.
"And so I was sort of thinking, 'OK, maybe it's time to stop the experiment,' " he says, recalling that he asked a few colleagues what they thought of that idea. "And they basically said, 'Nope, you can't stop it, it's gone on too long.' "
So he stuck with it. And a few years later, in 2003, something happened. The liquid in one flask looked strange. "This flask was considerably more cloudy," says Lenski. "I was suspicious that we had a contaminant."
It turns out that the bacteria in that one flask had actually changed in a dramatic way. After 30,000 generations, they had suddenly gained the ability to consume citrate, a chemical that had always been in the flasks — but that was never intended to be a food, since laboratory E. coli normally can't eat it.
What's more, Lenski was able to trace exactly how that new trait emerged. Over the years, he's been freezing samples of his bacteria, so he was able to go back and track every little genetic change that's taken place through the generations, using technologies that didn't even exist when he first started this study.
Lenski is now convinced that this study should keep going far into the future, to see what else might evolve. He'd like to see this experiment go on not just for 50,000 bacterial generations but 50,000 human generations, to "really get some very hard numbers on the process of evolution."
The fact that Lenski won't be around to see those hard numbers doesn't seem to bother him.
"My wife and I were very fortunate that one of our daughters had a baby about 20 months ago. And that really changes one's perception of time even more than a long-term experiment," Lenski says.
He notes that people tend to conflate the universe with their own existence, "but having children, grandchildren and so on ... you really just come to grips with the vast span of time that is available. And we only get to occupy a tiny portion of it."
Lenski, who is 56 years old, thinks he'll watch his bacteria for about another decade. Then he'll have to find someone to inherit this project. It's not a particularly expensive or difficult study — so he just needs to find someone younger who has a lab and is willing to carry his vision forward.
"They might be in their, you know, early- or mid-30s or something like that," Lenski says, "and then they can decide whether they want to do it for just the next five or 10 years or whether they want to continue it for another 30 years and perhaps pass it on to somebody who hasn't even been born yet."
Is it really possible to keep an experiment going like that? The answer is undoubtedly yes, as Lenski learned years ago when he heard of another long-term study happening on campus.
"Here I was, proud of myself for what was at that time maybe a 15-year experiment, discovering that it wasn't even the oldest experiment on campus — that there was another one up around 100 years, or even past that," recalls Lenski.
Seeds Buried Long, Long Ago
That experiment is currently cared for by Frank Telewski, who runs Michigan State University's botanical garden. The garden is named after botanist William J. Beal, and he started a long-term study on seed germination all the way back in 1879.
Beal was inspired by local farmers who had been asking him this question: If we weed our fields year after year, will we ever reach a point where the weeds just don't come back?
"Well, that was a very interesting question," says Telewski, because it wasn't at all clear how long seeds might remain viable in the soil. "We know that seeds can remain dormant for a long period of time, and Professor Beal's key question was, 'How long?' "
Enlarge Kurt Stepnitz/Michigan State University
Bottles like this 90-year-old one were filled with seeds and sand, then buried by William Beal. Researchers periodically unearth a bottle and plant the seeds to see if they grow.
So Beal put a precise quantity of seeds from different species into 20 sand-filled bottles and stashed them underground. The original plan was to dig up one bottle every five years and see what would grow.
"Clearly, burying 20 bottles and only taking one out every five years, the plan was to go beyond Professor Beal's career, let alone Professor Beal's life," says Telewski.
The only writings from Beal about his experiment are dry scientific reports, but Telewski assumes it meant a lot to him.
"He had to be passionate about it," says Telewski. "You don't do something like this, you know, with that long-term desire, without being passionate."
Beal opened six bottles before he retired. Then he passed it on to a colleague, Henry Darlington. Eventually it was taken over by others, including Robert Bandurski and Jan Zeevaart, who passed it on to Telewski.
The experiment has lasted longer than Beal ever intended because the caretakers extended it. They first decided to open a bottle only once every decade, and now, once every two decades.
Telewski dug up his first bottle 12 years ago. He did it at night, with a flashlight, trying not to draw any attention to the secret burial spot. He says it was exciting to think back and remember that the last person to see the seed was Beal, 120 years ago. "For me that holds a level of significance, that holds a level of fascination, charm," says Telewski.
And he says the mysteries of long-term seed viability remain scientifically interesting. Only two plant species sprouted from the last Beal bottle. Telewski can't wait to dig up the next bottle, in 2020.
Will that be the year that nothing germinates, wonders Telewski, or "will something that hasn't germinated in 30, 40 years all of a sudden appear?"
This kind of inherited experiment is unusual, says Telewski, but in another way, the whole of science is one big long-term effort. Every time researchers record a careful observation, or stash a specimen in a museum, they make it possible for some unknown person of the future to pick up where they left off.
"And isn't that wonderful that somebody, somewhere, thought forward enough to say, 'Let's hold onto this, let's keep this experiment going, let's design this experiment to go on and see where it takes us,' " says Telewski.
Telewski already has someone in mind to inherit the Beal study when he retires. "There's one particular person I've been speaking with, and I think she's going to be very excited to pick it up," he says.
If all goes as planned, he thinks the experiment will probably outlive her, too.
Long-Term Science Experiments
Some research studies don't yield quick results, and scientists design experiments that continue for years, if not decades. Below is a sampling of some long-term projects, many of which continue to this day. (Mouse over the bars for more information about each study.)
by GSDguy08 on 25 November 2012 - 14:11
by beetree on 25 November 2012 - 14:11
by BabyEagle4U on 25 November 2012 - 15:11
I create by hand hybrid plants and flowers all the time. I can tell you from my measly experience alone that if certain seeds are planted directly from the plant/fruit/flower they germinate in high numbers in the least amount of time. Whereas the seeds are given time to dry/packaged/stored the seeds will eventually germinate even many years years later.
A good example is my Passiflora's Incarnata, Caerulea and Lutea. When my Lutea gives me fruit after the first generation I must plant those seeds immediately straight from the fruit. No time for drying or saving for the next year. They MUST be planted directly from the fruit right away to get a second generation the following year. If I don't do this, I won't see a second generation from those seeds off the parent plant until at least 3 years later. I learned this. Think of cheese, time, and when to sell. That's how seeds are sold.
I'm sure everyone at some point in time bought seeds packaged on a store shelf that didn't germinate - or at least didn't germinate according to the package instructions.
Now, here's something interesting. I created a 2way cross polyploid hybrid from two first generation hybrids (F1)Edulis x Lutea + (F1)Incarnata x Edulis = (F1)Polyploid Passiflora "anynameIwant" (after the 4th generation). This polyploid hybrid gave me seedless fruit the first generation, second generation and third generation. The fourth generation gave me fruit with seeds. Those seeds I planted directly from the fruit - germinated in less than 20 days. The seeds I dried and planted the next season didn't germinate for 6 years. So you figure 1 season to season drying = 6 years !! That is not evolution because the seeds that germinate can only represent it's parents that produced it.
That means somewhere along the line, seeds become something like a time release seed depending how long they are left to dry.
So if that Frank cares for those seeds he did plant but didn't germinate - they may very well germinate decades later depending on what species the seeds came from and how long they were left to dry before put in those bottles. But still, that not evolution. Those could be air plant seeds for all we know.
Why names of those 20 different species of plant seeds isn't mentioned - can only lead me to think - there is concealment in this story for a reason to hinder public comments.
Just my opinion.
by Shtal on 25 November 2012 - 17:11
Evolution is dying religion.
Actually it is dead already.
Neither experiment adds genetic information. Therefore, this is not evolution in the molecules-to-man sense.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2012/11/08/bacteria-evolve-key-innovation-or-not/
by GSD Admin on 25 November 2012 - 19:11
Evolution is not a religion. Shtal that is a messed up statement, no one has ever said that evolution is a religion and it shows that at least you have major issues accepting proven scientific data.
And hate to tell you folks but you are wrong. This bacteria changed and it changed genetically as subsequent generations also fed off citrate. Plus by keeping generation after generation he was able to study how the genes changed.
"After 30,000 generations, they had suddenly gained the ability to consume citrate, a chemical that had always been in the flasks — but that was never intended to be a food, since laboratory E. coli normally can't eat it.
What's more, Lenski was able to trace exactly how that new trait emerged. Over the years, he's been freezing samples of his bacteria, so he was able to go back and track every little genetic change that's taken place through the generations, using technologies that didn't even exist when he first started this study."
GSDguy, In nature it would be able to do this but these are controlled experiments. Come on that is all you have? It is weak to say the least. If these experiments were done in a natural state then you would have claimed the environment had changed and therefore the experiments did not take place in a controlled environment.
One thing is for sure and that is I am not going to argue true science but you all will argue about a book written by men many years ago. lol.
by Ninja181 on 25 November 2012 - 19:11
This experiment is conducted in a "fixed" environment. Everything is constant.
Throw the whole experiment out in the real elements, rain, sun, freezing, unthawing, glaciers, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. I'll be the bacteria wouldn't even survive.
This can't be compared to human evolution IMO
by GSDguy08 on 25 November 2012 - 19:11
To your other comment.... No, I would not have said that. Regardless, this evolution post proves absolutely nothing. It is interesting though how you and other atheists push and throw evolution on those who believe in God and creation.......but yet if we in any way push creation, scriptures, and God on any of you we are deemed the hypocrites and are told we shouldn't do that.
by GSD Admin on 25 November 2012 - 19:11
Edited to add: You truly don't know how they came to be either as you didn't witness them or any of the things the bible claims. A virgin birth? What is the opposite of GOD?
by Micaho on 25 November 2012 - 22:11
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top