




















Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment2. Comment #196402 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm
It's about how the regulatory mechanisms controling the activation of other genes, and thus the cell's metabolic processes, behave as though they are anticiplating changes in their environment.
They have a network of trigger and responses so that the bacteria can respond to changes in one condition just in time to take best advantage of the opportunity presented by an another changing condition before it happens.
"Oh, it's getting hotter. I better switch over to aerobic respiration so I'll be ready for the oxygen when it gets here."
More remarkable, these algorithyms change over generations. The population learns to recognise when rising temperatures means they should switch to aerobic respiration, and when it means they should switch to anaerobic.
"Oh, it's getting hotter. I'd better switch over to anerobic respiration so I'll be ready for when the oxygen level drops."
The process of selection is optiming the response triggers patterns over generations, enabling the bacteria population to learn. The simulation they used demonstrates how this is possible without a designer reprogramming the cells. The networks of trigger and responses evolve into working algorithyms; but the code they develop displays a lot of useless kruft.
Design without a designer.
3. Comment #196408 by jaytee_555 on June 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I had only read a half dozen lines of this article when I thought, hey!....what's all this 'thinking ahead', 'learning' and 'smart' stuff? This is all very interesting, for sure, but it is STILL basic natural selection.4. Comment #196413 by mordacious1 on June 19, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Hey, these little guys have survived for a wee bit of time now, and will be here when we are long gone. The fact that they are adaptable this way doesn't suprise me. Finding the evidence that they sense cues is good stuff.5. Comment #196418 by 8teist on June 19, 2008 at 11:23 pm
6. Comment #196424 by King of NH on June 20, 2008 at 12:06 am
7. Comment #196432 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 12:29 am
8teist8. Comment #196433 by 8teist on June 20, 2008 at 12:37 am
9. Comment #196435 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 12:47 am
One can define heaven anyway they want, since it doesn't exist, and I'm sure the lower GI tract is Nirvana for them.10. Comment #196449 by riemann on June 20, 2008 at 1:56 am
Fair point, King of NH, but there are fundamental differences between how a bacterium regulates its behaviour and, for instance, we do. As in any aspect of nature, there are of course all sorts of intermediate stages from fully genetically determined bactaria behaviour to not-so-much genetically determined human behaviour, which Dan Dennett dubbed "The Tower of Generate-And-Test." You can check out what he means from the link below. Seen in this light, the difference between cognition or lack of it really, functionally matters. Therefore phrases like "thinking" and "learning" cannot be used as mere metaphors with vauge definitions. That's the reason i objected to the conclusions of the experiment.11. Comment #196477 by Telic on June 20, 2008 at 2:56 am
To predict mealtimes accurately......
12. Comment #196487 by Greyman on June 20, 2008 at 3:21 am
No. Thinking and learning are the proper terms.
The bacteria have the collective ability to solve a problem and react with learned behaviour. The solving and learning just does not take place on an individual level and they store the information in gene regulation networks rather than networks of neurons.
Using the Tower of Generate and Test definitions, riemann provided above, individual bacterium are first tier, or "Darwinian", creatures but over generations a population acts effectively like a single second tier, or "Skinnerian", creature.
13. Comment #196499 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 20, 2008 at 3:51 am
Thanks Greyman, I would have jumped to the conclusion that this was meerly natural selection in action but your last two posts explain the significance of this very well. Thanks.14. Comment #196890 by kornyjorge on June 20, 2008 at 2:51 pm
15. Comment #196895 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm
[rant]: If you've been reading these posts for awhile, you may realize that it is one of my pet peeves to attribute human atributes, like "deciding to grow a hard shell for protection", to other species. It's usually journalists translating science articles for the "laymen" and it pisses me off. Make the laymen more knowledgeable, not less. [Rant ended]16. Comment #196991 by Thor'Ungal on June 20, 2008 at 9:08 pm
i for one welcome our new bacterial overlords.
17. Comment #197385 by King of NH on June 22, 2008 at 12:11 am
Therefore phrases like "thinking" and "learning" cannot be used as mere metaphors with vauge definitions.
18. Comment #198458 by Telic on June 24, 2008 at 2:51 am
1. Comment #196345 by riemann on June 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm
This is truely exciting and scientific way of thinking at its best. However i have one difficulty getting my head around. I fail to see how this new emergent adaptation is one that's "learned" by the bacteria, rather than a particular genetic variaton selected by artificial selection to adapt to the newly introduced feeding patterns. This sentence highly suggests to me that it's ordinary selection at work, not an undetermined (by genes that is) way of dealing with enviroment at large, or even one determined but with a loose leash. I am not even sure what anything less than a fully determined trait would mean for a bacteria. Surely it's not the individual bacterium that acquires the new trick, but its descandants? The best i can relate to the premise of this experiment is this: "Genetic variation to adapt for any feeding pattern exists almost readily for bacteria, and therefore the ones that have these variations tend to fare better than the rest of them." Right? But isn't this the very definition of natural selection? If so, what's the fuss all about? I am sure though it's me who's missing a point, rather than the researchers. Further elobarations would be much appreciated.Other Comments by riemann