Science News has a report on a very cool experiment done by Dr. Richard Lenski at Michigan State (Lenski is also with the Digital Evolution Lab at MSU, along with Rob Pennock and Wes Elsberry, but this is an experiment with real bacteria, not artificial organisms). This is a really cleverly designed test of how a mutation that does not confer a survival advantage can later be coopted by a second mutation that can be selected for. Long excerpt below the fold:
Lenski's team watched 12 colonies of identical E. coli bacteria evolve under carefully controlled lab conditions for 20 years, which equates to more than 40,000 generations of bacteria. After every 500 generations, the researchers froze samples of bacteria. Those bacteria could later be thawed out to "replay" the evolutionary clock from that point in time.After about 31,500 generations, one colony of bacteria evolved the novel ability to use a nutrient that E. coli normally can't absorb from its environment. Thawed-out samples from after the 20,000-generation mark were much more likely to re-evolve this trait than earlier samples, which suggests that an unnoticed mutation that occurred around the 20,000th generation enabled the microbes to later evolve the nutrient-absorption ability through a second mutation, the researchers report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In the 11 other colonies, this earlier mutation didn't occur, so the evolution of this novel ability never happened.
"I would argue that this is a direct empirical demonstration of Gould-like contingency in evolution," Lenski says. "You can't do an exact replay in nature, but we were able to literally put all these populations in virtually identical environments and show that contingency is really what had occurred."
The next step will be to determine what that earlier mutation was and how it made the later change possible, Lenski says. If the first mutation didn't offer any survival advantage to the microbes on its own, it would make the case airtight that Gould was right. That's because a mutation that doesn't improve an organism's ability to survive and reproduce can't be favored by evolution, so whether the microbe happens to have that necessary mutation when the second evolutionary change occurs becomes purely a matter of chance.
"I don't think they've necessarily shown" that the first mutation gave the microbes no survival advantage, comments Christopher Dascher, a microbiologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "But they certainly point very strongly in that direction."
Lenski notes that the growth rate and the density of bacteria in the colony jumped up after the second mutation, but not after the first one.
This is a brilliantly thought out experiment. And by the way, Carl Zimmer does a great job of explaining the whole thing here.

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 



Comments
"This is a brilliantly thought out experiment."
Or a way to keep the funding coming in for 20 years :)
Posted by: Hanspeter | June 3, 2008 10:09 AM
Puts on fundie hat:
Hah! Proof that Darwinism is BS! /hat off
Should we place bets as to when we'll see an argument similar to this turn up in fundie circles?
Posted by: llDayo | June 3, 2008 10:43 AM
This is not correct. A mutation that does not improve an organisms ability to survive cannot be favored by natural selection , but natural selection is only one component of evolution. Neutral mutations (and it is not yet clear that this one was truly neutral) can spread by other means such as genetic drift.
Posted by: Tex | June 3, 2008 11:57 AM
Tex-
I think that's just a matter of expressing the same thing two different ways. If we rewrote the sentence so it said:
Then I think your criticism would be valid because there are other mechanisms by which a mutation is fixed in a population aside from natural selection. But the person who wrote the quote you took likely just means that non-selective mechanisms for population genetics aren't really "favoring" that mutation, that it becomes fixed through a process that has no bearing on whether that mutation is better than non-mutation and is essentially random.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 3, 2008 12:05 PM
Or?
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 3, 2008 12:46 PM
Hanspeter said, "Or a way to keep the funding coming in for 20 years".
Ed said, "This is a brilliantly thought out experiment."
Q.E.D., biatches.
Posted by: BruceH | June 3, 2008 1:21 PM
BruceH, not sure if you're responding to me. If so, my point was that it doesn't have to be one or the other. It could, for example, be a brilliantly thought out experiment and a way to keep the finding coming for 20 years, or even a brilliantly thought out experiment because it's a way to keep the finding coming for 20 years.
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 3, 2008 1:42 PM
@noncarborundum:
From the Q.E.D., I took his meaning to be something like this: The fact that this might/will keep the funding coming, is yet another reason to think it's a brilliantly thought out experiment, in addition to the other obvious reasons. Which, if I understood *you* correctly, was essentially what you said, as well.
Posted by: Kaerion | June 3, 2008 7:34 PM
@noncarborundum:
From the Q.E.D., I took his meaning to be something like this: The fact that this might/will keep the funding coming, is yet another reason to think it's a brilliantly thought out experiment, in addition to the other obvious reasons. Which, if I understood *you* correctly, was essentially what you said, as well.
Posted by: Kaerion | June 3, 2008 7:38 PM
Actually, it is a singularly lousy way to keep funding going for 20 years. Imagine this grant proposal "I'm going to grow e. coli, then freeze some and dilute the rest, the same way every day for 20 years, then I'm going to look for mutations". The fact that he got it funded, and it proved to be a brilliant idea, with profound insights into evolutionary mechanisms and biology, is hindsight. Very few reviewers at the funding agencies would see this as a good idea. It is a singular credit to Dr. Lenski that he took on this type of an effort. Incidentally, there are several other investigators doing related experiments in mice and in other E. coli, so the idea has taken hold. Nevertheless, I think this is great and courageous work by Lenski and his co-workers (maybe especially them...)
Posted by: Paul Orwin | June 4, 2008 1:24 AM
Paul Orwin said:
Perhaps, but so often the conclusions that one draws from a long term study are far removed from the actual stated purpose of the research.
In this case it smacks of the kind of project a Prof would give to a series of RAs as an aside from their usual drudgery, perhaps with funding from a discretionary fund that one receives with tenure. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it didn't receive ANY direct funding until something interesting actually DID show itself.
Posted by: John S | June 4, 2008 1:53 AM