[From Rick Marken (2010.04.09.1010)]
I’m having a discussion with my sister-in-law about evolution and I’m trying to refer her to research that suggests that mutation rate increases when organisms experience environmental “stress”. I found a reference in one of my papers (co-authored with one W. T. Powers) to an article in Nature by Cairns et al (1988). By I seem to remember seeing an even more recent reference to this kind of work (mid to late 1990s), in American Scientist I believe. Does anyone know of this or any other articles describing research on changes in mutation rate as a function of environmental stress (suggesting an E. coli approach to evolutionary change)? I seem to remember the Cairns et al work being quite controversial. Does it still have any impact on evolutionary thinking or has it been debunked in some way?
Best
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2010.04.09.1119 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2010.04.09.1010) --
I seem to remember the Cairns et al work being quite controversial. Does it still have any impact on evolutionary thinking or has it been debunked in some way?
The objections I have seen all assume that the variations have to be systematic in order to have regular effects, and that implies guided evolution which is generally rejected because of Who the imagined guide has to be. The most important thing that E. coli reorganization has to offer is a way for truly random changes can be used to achieve systematic ends. And my "Origins of purpose" paper shows how those ends can arise simply from the fact that failure to control results in failure to reproduce accurately. That's just another way to say "selection pressure" and "mutation."
I have frequently come across mentions of the observation that stress leads to increased variability of behavior. You might look up "stress and variability."
Try googling "+scholarpedia stress and plasticity".
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.09.1040)]
Bill Powers (2010.04.09.1119 MDT)–
The objections I have seen all assume that the variations have to be systematic in order to have regular effects, and that implies guided evolution which is generally rejected because of Who the imagined guide has to be. The most important thing that E. coli reorganization has to offer is a way for truly random changes can be used to achieve systematic ends. And my “Origins of purpose” paper shows how those ends can arise simply from the fact that failure to control results in failure to reproduce accurately. That’s just another way to say “selection pressure” and “mutation.”
Thanks. Nice to hear from you. Where is the “Origins of Purpose” paper, by the way?
Best
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.09.1100)]
Rick Marken (2010.04.09.1040)–
Thanks. Nice to hear from you. Where is the “Origins of Purpose” paper, by the way?
Never mind. Found it at Dag’s site:
http://www.livingcontrolsystems.com/intro_papers/evolution_purpose.pdf
Best
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
I thought I had read something recently, a quick search revealed I had:
What Doesn’t Kill Microbes, Makes Them Stronger
you might want to evaluate it quickly, because sciencenow doesn’t keep
articles in the open for long.
– Martin
···
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/11-01.html?etoc
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.09.1010)]
I’m having a discussion with my sister-in-law about evolution and I’m
trying to refer her to research that suggests that mutation rate
increases when organisms experience environmental “stress”. I found a
reference in one of my papers (co-authored with one W. T. Powers) to an
article in Nature by Cairns et al (1988). By I seem to remember
seeing an even more recent reference to this kind of work (mid to late
1990s), in American Scientist I believe. Does anyone know of
this or any other articles describing research on changes in mutation
rate as a function of environmental stress (suggesting an E. coli
approach to evolutionary change)? I seem to remember the Cairns et al
work being quite controversial. Does it still have any impact on
evolutionary thinking or has it been debunked in some way?
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bill Powers (2010.04.10.0858 MDT)]
···
At 04:06 AM 4/10/2010 -0600, Martin Lewitt wrote:
I thought I had read something
recently, a quick search revealed I had:
What Doesn’t Kill Microbes, Makes Them Stronger
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/11-01.html?etoc
This is a wonderful find, Martin. Microbes can increase their own
mutation rates (read: tumbling rates) as a response to stress (read: as a
way of reducing intrinsic error). If we knew whether the mutations are
random, we could say this is E. coli reorganization.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.10.0830)]
Bill Powers (2010.04.10.0858 MDT)–
I thought I had read something
recently, a quick search revealed I had:
What Doesn’t Kill Microbes, Makes Them Stronger
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/11-01.html?etoc
This is a wonderful find, Martin. Microbes can increase their own
mutation rates (read: tumbling rates) as a response to stress (read: as a
way of reducing intrinsic error). If we knew whether the mutations are
random, we could say this is E. coli reorganization.
I agree. Thanks Martin L.
Best
Rick
···
At 04:06 AM 4/10/2010 -0600, Martin Lewitt wrote:
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com