The Longest-Running Evolution Experiment

Publisert 16. juni. 2021
If you ran evolution all over again, would you get humans? How repeatable is ? This video is sponsored by @BountyBrand.

Special thanks to Prof. Richard Lenski and team for showing me around the lab - it is an honor to be able to witness and document such a historic science experiment.
Thanks to Dr Zachary Blount for the help with research and setting up the competition time-lapse, Dr Nkrumah Grant for microscope images of the long-term line cells @NkrumahGrant
Devin Lake, Kate Bellgowan, and Dr. Minako Izutsu for being part of this video. Long Live the LTEE!

LTEE website - myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html
Intro footage courtesy of the Kishony Lab - kishony.technion.ac.il
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
References:
Lenski, R. E., & Travisano, M. (1994). Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(15), 6808-6814. - ve42.co/Lenski1994

Lenski, R. E., Rose, M. R., Simpson, S. C., & Tadler, S. C. (1991). Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. The American Naturalist, 138(6), 1315-1341. - ve42.co/Lenski1991

Good, B. H., McDonald, M. J., Barrick, J. E., Lenski, R. E., & Desai, M. M. (2017). The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations. Nature, 551(7678), 45-50. - ve42.co/Good2017

Blount, Z. D., Borland, C. Z., & Lenski, R. E. (2008). Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(23), 7899-7906. - ve42.co/Blount2008

Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E., & Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, 362(6415). - ve42.co/Blount2018

Wiser, M. J., Ribeck, N., & Lenski, R. E. (2013). Long-term dynamics of adaptation in asexual populations. Science, 342(6164), 1364-1367. - ve42.co/Wiser2013

N, Scharping. (2019). How a 30-Year Experiment Has Fundamentally Changed Our View of How Evolution Works. Discover - ve42.co/Scharping

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Special thanks to Patreon supporters: Mike Tung, Evgeny Skvortsov, Meekay, Ismail Öncü Usta, Paul Peijzel, Crated Comments, Anna, Mac Malkawi, Michael Schneider, Oleksii Leonov, Jim Osmun, Tyson McDowell, Ludovic Robillard, Jim buckmaster, fanime96, Juan Benet, Ruslan Khroma, Robert Blum, Richard Sundvall, Lee Redden, Vincent, Marinus Kuivenhoven, Alfred Wallace, Arjun Chakroborty, Joar Wandborg, Clayton Greenwell, Pindex, Michael Krugman, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Sam Lutfi, Ron Neal

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Research and Writing by by Derek Muller, Petr Lebedev and Casey Rentz
Animation by Iván Tello
Filmed by Derek Muller, Emily Zhang and Raquel Nuno
Edited by Derek Muller
Music by Jonny Hyman and from Epidemic Sound epidemicsound.com
Additional video supplied by Getty Images
Thumbnail image courtesy of the Kishony Lab
Produced by Casey Rentz
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Kommentarer

  • Day 42, Interesting... 42 is the answer!

  • Yea... Keep letting it evolve to the point that it literally jumps out an eats your pecker..

  • What if you did an evolution experiment with the tallest Person getting a kid with the tallest woman other super tall persons also do this. If they do this it would mean that they get tall kids and what if the kid marry ? Could you get 3 or 4 meter (12 feet) tall people after ten generations? You could try the same with super intelligent people . Or people with good ears . Or good immune systems .

  • THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. THIS EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES WHAT IS KNOWN AS NATURAL SELECTION, EXCEPT IT'S NOT NATURAL BUT HUMAN INDUCED. THERE IS NO NEW GENETIC MTERIAL EVOLVED HERE, BUT SIMPLY AN EXPERIMENT ON GENTIC SELECTION

    • "THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "THERE IS NO NEW GENETIC MTERIAL EVOLVED HERE" They have literally identified the novel causative element by sequencing.

  • Profound Indeed, from one microbiologist to another , cheers!

  • So basically how long does it take for Covid to evolve a zombie strain?

  • Answer: 42. Question: How many days does E. Coli need to fill out the observable universe?

  • This is NOT Evolution, This is Adaptation. This isn't your back yard Darwin.

    • evolution is just adaptation on a large time scale.

  • Science is wonderful.

  • Evolution is real but Darwin didn’t know the full picture. No scientist ever knows the full picture.

    • that's why it's a theory, we're still tweaking it as we learn.

  • ..so he's in the early stages of evolution in the creation of the "Grey goo".. awesome..

  • *Generation 93'000:* "One bacterium evolved and is threatening me with a knife"

  • Idiots be like: - "It is adaptation not evolution." - "Still bacteria." Veritasium makes a high quality explanatory and relevant information video, and most people still cannot absorb it. It is really sad how people are stupid. They cannot even understand basic natural selection theory as pure logic over chaos. There is nothing special on random mutations caused by chemical chaos generating natural selection. Most people don't understand and never will, they are naturally lazy.

  • Micro-evolution... just to clarify.

  • 42

  • What was the Hypothesis of this experiment ?

  • It amazes me how people can watch this and still not understand how common and natural mutations are it doesn’t mean that it’s bad it also doesn’t mean it’s good. It happens it’s life!! All bacteria and viruses have done this. It’s evolution at it’s finest…nothing stays the same

  • In the 99.9% that’s trashed think about all the variants that would be seen. It’s mind blowing thinking about it. Also picturing it multiplying in a person gives me a totally new perspective on germs and viruses. 6 or 7 generations a DAY!! 🤯

  • How do we know we aren’t one of these colonies?

  • 75k generations? And yet...they're still bacteria.

    • "And yet...they're still bacteria." Of course they're still bacteria, that's how evolution works. Descent with modification. Suggesting they would be something other than bacteria is suggesting that the something could not be a descendant of its ancestors, it's a contradiction.

  • The magnificent hamburger perceptually walk because environment prospectively vanish times a motionless butcher. ambiguous, evasive operation

  • Christians will say this is fake

    • Of course, they do not understand the basic fundamentals of science.

    • they've already started lol.

  • I can't even keep my sourdough alive...

  • Imagine that dishcloth represented a virus on a facemask? Imagine it. Imagine it on a child. Imagine it on a person who puts the mask in their pocket and puts it on to enter a store and then puts it back in their pocket.

  • Subindo please🙏

  • I knew it 42!

  • 3:03. Quality of video during online classes.

  • At 5:20 the answer is 42 👻

  • I wonder at what generation will the bacteria start to grow arms and legs.

  • Cleaning up using paper is incredibly environmentally wasteful. Disastrous. The immune system can easily resist the sponge bacteria and things like those keep our immunity going, instead of it atrophying Sponsorships are ok, but i see this as something that promotes harm more than any good I use cellulose sponges (because plastic ones dont really decompose ,ofc). edit; typo

  • Id love more biology videois ^^

  • day 42

  • I was attacked by my cat last year and have an incredibly rare actinomyces neuii infection of some of the bites. Before this, I hadn't been on antibiotics since I was a toddler, and during the first few courses last August, I joked I hoped never to be on them again. Now that we got DNA testing of the tissue to suss out the bacteria, I'm about 6 weeks in to a course of antibiotics that will last between 3 and 18 months, with an average of about a year. So the first minute of this video just made me feel fantastic.... Fantastically paranoid, that is.

  • Technically this is adaption, not evolution: the bacteria is adapting to be able to survive the poison, not turning into something other than the bacteria it was at the start. At the beginning and end, it’s still the same kind of bacteria, just with the ability to endure the greater concentration. Not true evolution.

    • @Caitlyn Foster "“Eukaryote” simply means an organism with dna in chromosomes contained in a distinct nucleus in its cells." Eukaryotes are members of the clade Eukaryota. The packaging of their DNA is the origin of the name and an identifying trait of the group, but saying that an organism is a eukaryote says far more than simply that it has a nucleus. In fact, it is possible that a lineage of bacteria could develop a nucleus, at which point they would STILL be bacteria and STILL NOT be eukaryotes, because those terms are used to refer to clades, not characteristics. "everything should be classified exactly as its evolutionary ancestors were." Humans are also classified as hominids, as primates, as mammals, as therapsids, as synapsids, as amniotes, as tetrapods, as stegocephalians, as rhipidistians, as sarcopterygians, as teleostomians, as gnathostomates, as vertebrates, as chordates, as deuterostomes, as bilaterians, as metazoans, opisthokonts, and as amorpheans. Each of which is a subset of the next. Suggesting that something NOT be classified as in the clade of their ancestors is to say they AREN'T descended from their ancestors. How could something not be a descendant of its ancestors? That does make any sense, does it?

    • @Crispr CAS9 “Eukaryote” simply means an organism with dna in chromosomes contained in a distinct nucleus in its cells. Yes, I would say we fit that classification; but you’ve avoided the entire question by throwing out a vague term. We aren’t talking about how our cell nuclei work. We’re talking about your opinion that everything should be classified exactly as its evolutionary ancestors were.

    • @Caitlyn Foster " from a bacterium-like starting point" Note the 'like' in that. LUCA was a prokaryote, but it was NOT a bacteria. "Are you saying that makes all life, whether fish or dogs or humans, simply “bacteria” because that is what we supposedly came from?" All animals, including humans, are still eukaryotes because we descended from eukaryotes. Mushrooms and plants are also eukaryotes.

    • @Crispr CAS9 So... correct me if I’m wrong. The theory of evolution currently has the idea that all life evolved from a bacterium-like starting point, though it branched out and different branches developed differently. Are you saying that makes all life, whether fish or dogs or humans, simply “bacteria” because that is what we supposedly came from?

    • @Caitlyn Foster "How would it turning into something other than bacteria disprove evolution?" Because that would be a descendant that isn't a member of its parent's clade, which is a fundamental violation of descent with modification and monophyly that are absolutely inviolable under evolutionary theory. "certain species developed into other species?" Certain populations diverge and accumulate differences. Species are labels assigned by people. Absent people assigning the labels, there can be no species. But the populations would still be there, and they'd still be every bit as different. However, the extent of those differences is highly correlated to people assigning different species labels to those populations. But at absolutely no point can descendants NOT be descended from their parents, because that's not possible. So if the parents are bacteria, ALL of the descendants MUST be bacteria as well. Doesn't matter if they are 12' long marine herbivores, they'd still be bacteria.

  • Shouldn't they wear gloves? :D Awesome video !

  • So 42 is the universe...and everything?

  • Hello Monkey guys 😂

  • I love science ❤ It's like being a part in the evolution of knowledge

  • So it metabolizes citrate? yes. But it's still E coli? You confirmed it? yes. Okay. Let me know when it doesn't pass an E coli identity test.

  • So when it will start speaking?

    • maybe around generation 6 quadrillion lol.

  • Please make sure you close that lab door tightly we don’t want new stuff coming out from labs 🧫

  • Replace the word evolution with adaptation please. Because science. Evolution implies information being ADDED to the genome. Please show evidence of this.

    • @JC Wood Medical testing. It's coming.

    • @Crispr CAS9 " Fine, then I guess we both agree that all life 'adapted' from a single common ancestor over the course of 4 billion years, right?" Um, no. The whole point is that LIFE IS THE PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. And only a MORON refuses to see that. Now, what that intelligence is, I leave up to individual interpretation. Believing that life evolved because it rained on rocks is about as stupid as it gets.

    • @To Serve Man I am the only one of you who actually argued using reason and explained the reasoning. But I am the dolt? Lol. DUNNING-KRUGER, folks. They are so superior in their own minds they can't comprehend how stupid they actually are. I have explained the logic and the reasoning of why what you call evolution is a FANTASY, and is actually just adaptation. Since you are incapable of doing anything but responding with flat, regurgitated statements devoid of reasoning, you have lost the argument. That is how this actually works, and all the ad-hominem that followed pretty much proved it.

    • @JC Wood @"Thanks for proving my point, and my case. " No you have demonstrated that forms other than reasoning are going to be necessary when marginalizing you dolt liars. I'm sorry but I've talked it over with gawd and he agrees: It is medical testing for the lot of you.

    • @Crispr CAS9 Thanks for proving my point, and my case. Feels good.

  • Can someone help me understand? Because it doesn't make sense to me.

    • @Equilibrium ok, i'll try to remember to do it tomorrow, but my brain is turning off.

    • @zhou sei The video is long, full of information that I couldn't retain quite as good although watching it over and over. So i guess the whole thing, but you can give me a quick summary

    • observe e coli, new proteins pop up... some are helpful, others not so much. or what part was difficult, i don't wanna limit anything here...

  • This is really cool, but let's all hope those hyper mutant e coli don't accidentally get released into the wild from that building being destroyed by a natural disaster or something.

    • honestly most of them would probably die, they've been cultivated in an unchanging medium for 37 years, being exposed to the real world which is full of other types of bacteria and substances might not be great for them. that's just a guess on my part though, I could be completely wrong.

  • I read about this experiment on Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth book. This experiment is astonishingly great. Your video doesn't fall behind, great content. Thank you so much for that.

  • Can you make a relativity-based explanation of the tides in oceans?!

  • The fresh ping preoperatively suck because speedboat routinely squeal through a erratic judge. chubby, scattered attraction

  • How are you defining evolution? You have here demonstrated micro-evolution - evolution within a species: bacteria in and bacteria out. No one has a problem believing there is micro-evolution going on, which creates changes within a species. Sometimes these changes - mutations - are advantageous: longer beaks; stronger muscles; ability to live in a changing environment, such as one that has had antibiotics added to it. Mutation has NEVER added new DNA information, which would be essential for interspecies evolution to occur.

    • @Beaman Surchit that's an equivocation fallacy, you're conveniently re-defining the (already misleading) phrase 'change in type'. this is why we come up with better descriptions and terminology, "type" is clearly too informal and (afaik) isn't used in evolutionary biology. have fun searching for your philosopher's stone or your perpetual motion machine, or whatever important stuff you've got going on; sorry to have wasted your very important time by responding to you.

    • @zhou sei And yet change in type is exactly what the theory of evolution REQUIRES: a) Life began from a SINGLE form of life - a single TYPE. b) We now have many TYPES. c) Even if it takes innumerable miniscule mutations, there IS change in TYPE. a + b = c At some point there HAS BEEN change in type. As I told crispr above, I really need to get on with a time sensitive project. Unless you have something profound to add I'll be leaving now. Sorry if I mistook your intention earlier. (BTW: I'm not yelling I'm giving emphasis. I don't know another way to do it here other than with CAPS.)

    • @Beaman Surchit i was making a rhetorical exaggeration of his "change in type" argument to demonstrate the absurdity of even that. change in type makes no sense, even if you aren't talking about a fish giving birth to a monkey.

    • @Beaman Surchit "How many generations of changing alleles are required for a bacteria to become ... not bacteria - a new species?" It is a new species when people decide it is, but that decision is correlated to the extent of divergence. In bacteria, the delimitation is usually by ecotype (by which Ara-3 should already be a different species) or 3% 16S divergence (by which it should be a new species in another few million generations). But at no point would the descendants of bacteria not be bacteria, because bacteria is a clade, and descendants are always in all of the clades their ancestors were in. "Isn't the whole point of the theory to suggest the "evolution" of slime into ... eventually ... homo sapiens?" Thinking that getting humans is the 'point' of evolution is a radical misunderstanding of the theory. Evolution explains the origins of humans, it doesn't require it. " but eventually it has to get there - eventually you MUST have interspecies evolution." Given sufficient accumulation of divergence, you can get extremely modified descendants, which would result in labeling the new population as a different species from the ancestral population. Experimental speciation is well documented and extremely repeatable. "We each could of course throw our own "experts" at the many issues" Casey Luskin is not an expert in any relevant field, EvolutionNews is a crank website, and nonetheless the linked article *still* manages to confirm that you can get new information from mutations. And if mutations can produce new information, as we must now agree they can, and if some fraction of those mutations are beneficial, as is necessarily true, then I'm not sure what you think the problem is. In terms of producing complex features by mutation, you can look at the development of placental viviparity in lizards, happening in real time in the wild. "If evolutionary theory is correct, transitional forms of life should be literally all around us" The preservation of transitional forms is a question of geology and historical contingency, not biology. Nonetheless, we have excellent fossil sequences for most major transitions of the past 500 million years. And by the way, Darwin went on to say: "On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form." "We should be able to "read" evolution from nature just as easily as from a book." Much like understand a book is only easy if you understand the language, understanding evolution is only easy if you understand the underlying chemistry and statistics. At which point, evolution is unmistakable.

    • @zhou sei I wasn't even remotely making such a ludicrous suggestion. edit: I should have added: Ham doesn't either. If you have actually listened to Ham's arguments you were either listening very carelessly; or your comments here are disingenuous at best.

  • E.coli is still E.coli

  • Would this be considered gain of function if the e.coli develop a competitive advantage?

  • Finally we understand why 42 is the answer

  • I am not watching Evolution in action. Because bacteria turns resistance against enemies, does not prove a fish turning into a human over billions of years. You just take one truth and stretch it over billions of years. That's not how science works.

    • this one particular experiment doesn't prove that we have a fish as a common ancestor, but it is one small experiment in the grand compendium of observations, confirmed predictions, and handshakes across the aisle between sciences that aren't normally associated with eachother. you have to take the whole, you can't point to one small part of a theory and be like "see? this doesn't prove common descent". well, put it in the bag with whale bones, endogenous retroviruses, and the geological record as it pertains to fossil finds... the picture starts to look pretty complete.

    • "I am not watching Evolution in action" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is.

  • It's not gonna end well.

  • All those generations and none of them have have grown even as big as an ant? Great evidence against evolution between kinds of living creatures.

    • @mellowfellow14 "It took over 3 BILLION years of evolution, excnction, changes climates ect to give rise to modern man" about 4 billion, actually.

    • @21trips No and you never will, because that isn't evolution through natural selection works; again you show you have no understanding of it. Speciation is a gradual process, it takes thousands if not millions of years, hence you will never see a ''fish becoming a dog'' or any other creationist nonsense. It took over 3 BILLION years of evolution, excnction, changes climates ect to give rise to modern man, yet you are expecting a bacteria to ''evolve into a lizard'' in a few decades? Nonsense.

    • @mellowfellow14 Natural selection works really well within a kind of living creatures but you have never seen one kind of living creature turn into another kind of living creature from natural selection like from bacteria to a lizard or fish or insect, have you?

    • " Great evidence against evolution" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "between kinds of living creatures." Kinds is a nonsense word without scientific validity, and evolution prohibits one extant life producing another extant life form. Asking as evidence for a thing something that would disprove that thing does nothing but underline your ignorance of the subject.

    • How to show everyone you have no understanding of evolution through natural selection in 1 sentence.

  • That commercial at the end just wiped out my following.

  • Finally we know what 42 really means - It's the number of days it takes e.coli to expand enough to fill the entire observable universe

  • 30 seconds into the video, and all I can think is: "Okay, but is it a good idea to forcibly evolve e-coli bacteria into being resistant to antibiotics?"

  • The bad computer universally pinch because parade rheologically injure as a freezing shorts. quiet, splendid heart

  • Generation 999k: The bacteria started behaving like nanobots.

  • I have a doubt, have they ever checked for a bacteria that could survive the autoclave?? I mean there could be a bacteria that might have mutated so much that it might have gained ability to survive the autoclave.....

    • some spores can, but i wonder if a tardigrade might?

  • Grow bacteria that eat plastic.

  • Imagine doing this to humans. Welcome to grimdark.

  • Did you ask the professor how lethal those E.Coli bacteria are if they were to infect a human?

  • how come no one is talking about how beautiful that lab is

  • Just curious, is there any risk of the super-evolved E. Coli infecting the scientists?

  • Can we please get a video on lucid dreaming?

  • Wait, but evolution wouldn’t really happen if you didn’t have the selective pressure of competing with other bacteria for resources. I mean it would, the bacteria would still have mutations, but as long as the those mutations weren’t fatal, the colonies would simply randomly generate new versions but none of them would be selected for. In other words, there wouldn’t really be any “improvement” because there wouldn’t be any need to. What would they be improving at? I guess what I’m saying is that your environment is changing and it’s hard to imagine one in which nothing changed. Even in lab conditions, there’s still selective pressure. And as the colony grows, that pressure increases. So evolution is happening in the colonies not in spite of there being no environmental change in the lab, but because of it. Or are you saying that the environmental change is relatively small in the lab compared to the “wild.” And therefore, we’d expect to see a higher rate of evolutionary adaption in the wild than we would expect in the lab? Or were you saying that even in a static environment, there’s always a way to become better adapted to it, there is no perfect way to be adapted? It seems to me, nature would find the top best ways to be adapted and they would probably be different. But I also ask the question, is it even possible to keep the environment static and unchanging? And environment with 10 million bacteria in the same media is very different than an environment with 10. Even an environment with 11 bacteria is different than one with 10. So how could you effectively keep the environment the same? Or am I just missing the point? Lol

    • "Or were you saying that even in a static environment, there’s always a way to become better adapted to it, there is no perfect way to be adapted?" This one, I believe.

  • But why does it stay coli and doesn't evolve into a new species of bacteria?

    • @Crispr CAS9 true, I wish I had the mental fortitude to reply to this many comments

    • @momo penguins It's therapeutic, and let's me procrastinate in a way that's still science. Besides, I keep checking, and people keep saying silly things.

    • @Crispr CAS9 Oi m8, u deserve a goddamn medal and a cosmic refund for all the time you put into these comments.

    • @zhou sei You can use reproductive viability as a metric for species delimitation, but it is extremely problematic. Two populations might be completely interfertile, but never mate in the wild. Or consider ring species fertility.

    • @Crispr CAS9 in organisms with sexual reproduction, don't we just call it a new species once they cannot mate to produce viable offspring?

  • Horrifying

  • Deliberately creating superbacteria... what could go wrong?

  • SCIENCE!

  • At what point in the experiment did the E. Coli change into a different species of microorganism?

    • The E coli don't change into a different species. The population diverges and accumulates differences, and at some point people determine these differences sufficient to label the populations as separate species. Species is a human concept, and a human label. By an ecotype conception of microbial species, the Ara-3 strain should already be classified as a separate species. By a more conventional delimitation, not until the populations reach a 3% 16S divergence.

  • its adaptation not evolution

    • @Sahnoune Khaled "especillally by your statement about the definition of species" How do you think bacterial species are delimited? How do you think they SHOULD be delimited? Why?

    • @Sahnoune Khaled we don't yet have a theory on origins of life, afaik... just a bunch of hypotheses, such as 'abiogenesis' that young earth creationists love to think is the "aha gotcha science" moment for some reason.

    • @Crispr CAS9 you had to respect the other opinion im not convinced by your answers especillally by your statement about the definition of species even the scientific who made the experiment didn't pretend that..you dont monopolise the truth ...

    • @Sahnoune Khaled I said respond to what I said or don't respond at all. Your comment does nothing to address anything I said in my initial comment. Be serious or be silent.

    • @Crispr CAS9 alright youre 100 percent true and im 100 perpent..false...i only want a answer how the life started from dead matter in the first place..i need 100 % evidence not speculation and unproven theories

  • Ah a miniverse

  • So let me get this straight... you guys are evolving super hungry, super fast breeding bacteria that aren't fussy eaters :/

  • But after the equivalent of "1.5 million years" of evolution, they haven't really evolved. They are still E.coli, just better adapted E.coli. They still have the DNA of E.coli. They haven't evolved into worms or another organism. I would say this is evidence of adaptation, not evolution.

    • "I would say this is evidence of adaptation, not evolution." Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "They haven't evolved into worms or another organism." If they evolved into worms or another organism, that would disprove evolution. Expecting as evidence for evolution something that would disprove evolution is a fairly clear demonstration that you don't understand what evolution is in the first place.

  • This is cool to watch however a non-scientist here would think that these bacteria are adapting not evolving. Meaning these bacteria didn’t grow a tail or change their physical attributes to become something else. The closest they came was that they introduced something new to their diet. A far cry from physical change. My kid decided to try mushrooms last week but he’s still my son. Definitely cool but not what I think defines evolution.

    • @zhou sei u should also get a medal of some sort for all these comments

    • that's not how evolution works... you'd have to see what happens to your descendants over tens of thousands of generations. pokemon evolve like you are describing, we can't just eat a magic radioactive mushroom and suddenly grow a super useful arm out of our neck...

    • "would think that these bacteria are adapting not evolving" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is.

  • Bounty? Really? Bizarre.

  • Promoting paper towels is pretty dumb. You're trying to make people afraid of doing something that was never dangerous with a very unscientific experiment, and promoting an unnecessary product that's bad for the environment. I'm disappointed that a science channel I respect would accept a sponsor like this.

  • So, is this theory can apply to viruses too? If so, people can estimate how frequently Covid-19 will change per generation in theory?

  • This is absolutely amazing, I am fascinated by evolution. I want to see more Also I'm surprised you advertised bounty. There is nothing wrong with a little bacteria and germaphobia is indicative of a disconnection with the earth. Let's reduce and reuse, not encourage waste due to neurotic fears.

    • yes, very disappointing. Especially his completely unscientific 'experiment' to prove why they're useful.

  • So this is what will actually kill us all?

  • I also use paper towels but I use the less expensive brands

    • @relentlessmadman there are brands that do recycled paper for their t.p. and toallas papel.

    • does any one make paper towels from hemp yet????

  • My question is would there ever be a singularity that would happen during the evolutionary process

    • @Danny Ramirez like a genetic black hole?

    • @zhou sei no i mean genetically. Would there be a generic singularity

    • you mean like the mass of a black hole?

  • What a brilliant universe G-D Created, even a tiny bacterium is programed to evolve, WOW!!!

    • ​@zhou sei Simple, where is the evidence that the London bridge was built by someone maybe it created itself? A creation is evidence on its creator, and the more complex and brilliance of the creation the more the evidence of a powerful creator.

    • where is there evidence of this god fella?

  • Eat E. coli, Jonathan Wells!

  • 11:15 I got goosebumps here.

  • Sponsored by paper towels... How about you stop promoting non eco-friendly products?

  • gloves??

  • @Veritasium, you might suggest the professor and his students to use mipar (mipar.us) to count those bacteria. Counting by hand is not necessary nowadays.

  • Could you try this with various antibiotics? seperated from each other in the same fashion ? Did you try bacteria from the Ganges river? I heated that there is a antibiotics plant dumping these batches of bacteria in the water…

  • would be funny if one day thes ebacteria became small animals with eyes

  • The smartest ad integration

  • Wow, this is real nice science, love it! Keep going with you works its really cool. :D

  • Wait, so if I get the ending there. Life shows a capacity to transcend entropy?

    • Define "Entropy." And nothing in the universe (flowing chain reactions) transcends the universe.

  • When did Adam Ragusea start doin science content ?

  • According to the evolution theory they were supposed to develop into a multicellular organism or something. And this is what we do not see.

    • we cannot predict what will happen with any reliability; we know we came from a common ancestor as did a sheep or a bird, but there isn't some set endpoint to evolve into. ie, these e. coli might evolve into a multicellular organism given enough generations, but we can't know what it will be like at any given generation until we see it.

    • "According to the evolution theory they were supposed to develop into a multicellular organism or something." So you're saying you don't know anything about evolutionary theory? Fun.

  • Veritasium FAKE for money: big experiment setup to pitch paper towels - microprint disclamer in the end says that experiment is "not representative". Not the the sort of statistical significance that I've grown used to wrt this channel. Oh, and you should always use recycled material or wash. There's always room for a couple kitchen cloths in the washer.

  • I'm really concerned about how they handle bacteria... No gloves, just a slight "Touch" in the fire and "importante" the material and bacteria are being exposed to Open air...

    • These are non-pathogenic E. coli, they're unable to harm anyone. The only thing to be concerned about is cross-contamination.

  • It's all well and good until the germs can transfer through xenonite