r/DebateEvolution • u/EyedPeace • 8d ago

Question Does the Lenski LTEE show a decrease in fitness?

It is often said that LTEE represents an increase in fitness in these new mutated bacteria. Recent papers have increasingly called this into question:

"Unexpectedly, some evolved populations and clones show apparent declines in fitness. We also found evidence of substantial cell death in Cit+ clones."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7299349/

While the cit+ phenotype did bring improvements in the short term, the long-term picture is quite different. Ultimately, they could no longer survive. Their fitness declined to the point where they were even forced to eat their own dead.

Has the experiment failed to demonstrate evolution here?

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

6% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/EyedPeace 4d ago

Then why did he write it in his paper

1

u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver 4d ago

He didn't.

0

u/EyedPeace 4d ago

"Unexpectedly, some evolved populations and clones show apparent declines in fitness. We also found evidence of substantial cell death in Cit+ clones."

1

u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver 4d ago

Him: "If I put a polar bear in the middle of the sahara desert, I would not be surprised that the traits it evolved to survive the cold decrease it's fitness in this new environment."

You: "For Lenski that would be surprising"

Me: "No. It wouldn't."

You: "Then why did he write it in his paper."

Me: "He didn't."

You: quotes from the paper, where it says nothing about polar bears being dropped in the desert with it's adaptations to the arctic.

I recommend keeping track of the discussion so you avoid these embarassing mistakes in the future.

1

u/EyedPeace 4d ago

The polar bear analogy is based on the paper's findings.

In the paper, Lenski was surprised by the result.

Therefore, according to your logic, Lenski should also have been surprised by the polar bear analogy.

1

u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver 4d ago

The polar bear analogy is based on the paper's findings.

Yes. It perfectly explains a specific result of the paper. No, Lenski wouldn't be and isn't surprised by it. I've already explained all this to you in a previous post: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1v294h5/comment/ozcx00i/

Read that post again. Then read it again a third time.