Nice Bacteria Finish Last

Nice Bacteria Finish Last

www.the-scientist.com

"Bacteria in a population can function as a multicellular organism of sorts - where mutants that acquire a mutation affording resistance to the antibiotic will share a signaling molecule, indole - helping out the more susceptible members of the population,"...

"In general, we've always believed that the guy that gets the [antibiotic resistance] mutation survives and everyone else dies," Collins said. "What we show is that the guy that gets the mutation pops up and helps everybody else."

(visit the link for the full news article)

The science is very cool, but the idea of altruism in bacteria is mind-boggling.

Just a few antibiotic resistant bacteria (mutants) pump out enough of the antibiotic flushing agent (indole) to keep their community alive. ...They end up weaker as individuals, but their sacrifice buys enough time so the other members of their community can catch up and build their own antibiotic resistance.

By pumping out indole into the medium, the resistant bacteria are essentially doling out life rafts to the vulnerable population -- allowing them to float on when they would otherwise most likely die.

...In the paper, Collins and his colleagues likened this mechanism to "kin selection," where individuals of a species work to benefit the group, and not necessarily themselves.

..."So this small number of cells starts a chain reaction,"

Thus does a species survive. Not by survival of the fittest individual, but through the altruistic service of a few adapted individuals.

I knew that.





www.the-scientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Ah, so important in today's theater of over population and selective diseases which manage to continue to resurface each year, interesting how you say, perhaps not stronger but the multiples alone do seem to buy them the needed time for mutative survival.

C-Diff and MERSA come to mind. The weird part is that they can learn to adapt and piggy back on other more common transmissible bacteria and virtually go unnoticed until an immunocompromised individual comes directly in contact.

You have to respect the little boogers for what they are, little geniuses.

This is interesting. Very interesting.

It seems that altruism may be one of those "fractal behaviors" that I have mentioned before. This is a behavioral set that is emulated on multiple levels up the biological chain.

We see altruism among dolphins, dogs, that gorilla that coddled the injured child at the zoo. We see noble actions frequently among the animals of the world.

So you have to then ask yourself, how does the human condition breed such rampant sociopathy? Sociopathic behaviors are well outside the norm, if this research is to be understood correctly.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This is interesting. Very interesting.

It seems that altruism may be one of those "fractal behaviors" that I have mentioned before. This is a behavioral set that is emulated on multiple levels up the biological chain.

We see altruism among dolphins, dogs, that gorilla that coddled the injured child at the zoo. We see noble actions frequently among the animals of the world.

More info? Links? [ie., to your own threads or posts]

So you have to then ask yourself, how does the human condition breed such rampant sociopathy? Sociopathic behaviors are well outside the norm, if this research is to be understood correctly.

Good question.

Maybe not the human "condition", but "conditioning"?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Well that isn't 100% true. There are several species in the Animal Kingdom (almost all spider species for example) that are cannibalistic or exist in solitude. Some even in our own phylum exhibit behaviors that are more aggressive. Most of this is territorial behavior which is primarily where our own animosity stems. Some mammals live in solitude and some insects will destroy entire colonies of some of their cousin species.



This is not always the case obviously. Many many times animals exhibit behaviors that are uncharacteristic. For example a leopard and a baby monkey or a cat and a crow.

Personally I think what this does the most is shed at least some light on how multi-cellular organisms may have developed and how early. Even maybe the answer to why the multicellular organism formed.

Yes we have seen this behavior in larger animals but it's quite a breakthrough to find similar behavior in bacteria.

reply to post by soficrow


Digging up links on random meanderings would be a waste of yours and my time. I may elaborate on this on my blog soon, as it is something interesting to me and an idea i don't want to dissipate in the grey mist of time.

Behaviors in animal life (we won't discuss plant life) are controlled by electrochemical response. In the same way, biological design is controlled by the strict rules of chemical bonds. Things will only grow in certain manners when they are composed of certain elements. The design properties are all designed from the very atomic structures which formulate you as a biological entity.

Because of this, we see "amazing" things such as the fractal nature of the physical design of the universe, and it is splashed as well across the physical design of the animal kingdom.

All of this dictated not by complex scripting, but rather by simple rules surrounding things like covalent electrons. Temperature ranges implicate themselves, as well, as temperatures that exceed the design specifications implied by the rules of physics can cause the actual design of the chemical bonds (the actual crystalline structure) to change in a way that creates a defect. Same with faulty DNA, which may use the wrong elemental combination when forming the biological form. Any number of things can create an inability to live.

To extrapolate this further, in the same way thoughts and concepts can be wholly controlled by the electrochemical processes happening in the body. There are only so many electrochemicals at play. And they will follow the same rules of design, with only so many combinations available, regardless of how wide and diverse the sum total may be. And we can, in the exact same way, expect to see a series of fractal behavioral type patterns that are derived from the very nature of the results of electochemical interactions.

I hope that makes sense, to at least some degree. Realize, I am no scientist. I am a dreamer. I am just sharing a dream with you.

reply to post by DaMod


It certainly would not be an exclusive behavior, as there are a few more electrochemical reactions going on than that, many designed for some aggression, especially against certain types of animals (like the terriers being "small animal aggressive" by nature, although not exclusively).

I should have mentioned...

This observation - that "fit" individuals use themselves to ensure their community's survival - contradicts Galton's theory of "Survival of the Fittest."

And implies the opposite:

Species survival depends on the altruistic sacrifice of fit individuals.


Interesting, dontcha think?

reply to post by soficrow


I've always know this too. Its altruism and advancements, peoples dreams and breakthroughs in new ideas, adaptions to their bodies or environment, and cooperation that furthers survival of the species.

The other is just propaganda.

Originally posted by soficrow
I should have mentioned...

This observation - that "fit" individuals use themselves to ensure their community's survival - contradicts Galton's theory of "Survival of the Fittest."

And implies the opposite:

Species survival depends on the altruistic sacrifice of fit individuals.


Interesting, dontcha think?

I would suspect that is because the theory of "Survival of the fittest" is either being misinterpreted, or it is a superficial observation.

Acts of altruism are seen throughout the animal kingdom. Grief is not merely a human attribute, despite the attempts by some to dehumanize all non human entities. While the wiring may be different, the electrochemical reactions are the same, and will lead to many of the same events.

Now, "Survival of the fittest" could be seen as true, but only when viewed myopically through a thought experiment that does not seek contradictory evidence. It is obvious that a more fit entity will be more hearty and thus increase survivability.

But, like all models involving intelligence, behaviors are not accounted for outside of strictly biological sense are not considered. Things like sympathy/empathy create a wild card that downgrade our 19th century postulations to merely suppositions.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Good thoughts, interesting.

FYI - If we were allowed to write our own headlines, this one might have been:

How Greed Threatens the Survival of the Species.

..... and kudos to highlyoriginal; check this one out:

30 Statistics That Prove The Elite Are Getting Richer, The Poor Are Getting Poorer And The Middle Class Is Being Destroyed