Is There Nothing E. coli Cannot Do? Part Two of a Continuing Series...

In my new Dissection column over at Wired, I take a look at a remarkable new experiment on E. coli. Scientists randomly rewired the network of genes that control much of the microbe's activity and found that it generally just kept humming along.

One thing worth adding...in an accompanying commentary, Matthew Bennett and Jeff Hasty at UCSD write,

This conclusion also flies in the face of the popular misconception among opponents of the evolutionary theory, who believe that the genetic code is irreducibly complex. For instance, advocates of 'intelligent design' compare the genome to modern engineered machines such as integrated circuits and clocks, which will cease to function if their internal design is altered. Although sometimes it is instructive to point to similarities between the design principles behind modern technology and those behind genetics, the analogy can only go so far. Engineered devices are generally designed to work just above the point of failure, so that any tampering with their construction will result in catastrophe. In the event of failure, new clocks can be purchased or central processing units replaced. But nature does not have that option. To survive -- and so evolve -- organisms must be able to tolerate random mutations, deletions and recombination events. And Isalan and colleagues' work provides an important step forward in quantifying just how robust the genetic code can be

.

Another reason why I ended up writing a whole book about this bug.

More like this

In today's New York Times I have an article about the quest to create a virtual organisma sort of digital Frankenstein accurate down to every molecular detail. The creature that the scientists I write about want to reproduce is that familiar denizen of our gut, Escherichia coli. There are two…
The language of DNA is written in a four-letter alphabet. The four different chemical units of DNA (called nucleotides) create an incomprehenisbly vast range of possibility codes. Consider a short sequence of 41 nucleotides. There are over 4.8 trillion trillion possible sequences it could take. In…
One of things I've done in my job is write letters of recommendation for various genome sequencing projects, particularly antibiotic resistance related projects, so it's always good to see that those letters might result in published work. So onto to an incredibly resistant Escherichia coli strain…
Jessica asked if I think viruses are alive. John has given his opinion. I will waffle, but I hope in an interesting way. The hard thing about answering that question is that we'd have to agree on what it means to be alive. We all have a sense that we know what's alive and what's not, but I think…

Escherichia rules!

As an engineer, the irreducible complexity argument seems wrong on another level. New products are not generally designed in a vacuum - they build on the successes of previous gadgets. So, Watt's steam engine wasn't the first, it was just so much better than older engines that it was practical for many new uses. And the internal combustion engine builds on steam engine tech. And little bits of these things, valves and such, can often be removed and used for unrelated purposes.

And, all the same, signs of irreducible complexity in the design of life wouldn't be evidence that God did it. It doesn't say much either way. Genetic algorithms are really pretty good at these things. If anything, i wonder less that genetics could make animals like humans, and more that it took so long. That suggests that the goal was probably something else entirely.

Or that there was no goal at all.

By Ray Freeman-Lynde (not verified) on 26 Apr 2008 #permalink