The Longest-Running Evolution Experiment

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 -
Intro footage courtesy of the Kishony Lab -
Lenski, R. E., \u0026 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. -

Lenski, R. E., Rose, M. R., Simpson, S. C., \u0026 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. -

Good, B. H., McDonald, M. J., Barrick, J. E., Lenski, R. E., \u0026 Desai, M. M. (2017). The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations. Nature, 551(7678), 45-50. -

Blount, Z. D., Borland, C. Z., \u0026 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. -

Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E., \u0026 Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, 362(6415). -

Wiser, M. J., Ribeck, N., \u0026 Lenski, R. E. (2013). Long-term dynamics of adaptation in asexual populations. Science, 342(6164), 1364-1367. -

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

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
Additional video supplied by Getty Images
Thumbnail image courtesy of the Kishony Lab
Produced by Casey Rentz




  • This episode was great! Really interesting.

  • disappoinited that derek is now hawking that idea that greater bacterial spread is somehow dirtier, and that you should use disposible environment wrecking paper over washable cloths.

    Lief BambergLief Bamberg3 órája
  • Imagine being the chad bacteria to first eat the citrate

    WowZersWowZers3 órája
  • 42, ¿coincidence? I think not

    Rodrigo SeguraRodrigo Segura4 órája
  • Prof Richard Lenski has the same accent as Rich Evans and it's throwing me off.

    FrenchnostalgiqueFrenchnostalgique12 órája
  • Me seeing 1% selection first hand: "So that's what the aliens are doing to our universe and what the Great Filter could be."

    AzuriumAzurium13 órája
    • Context: imagine that at 7:30 he's talking about intergalactic species expanding across the universe.

      AzuriumAzurium13 órája
  • The educated dumbasses still call it evolution. After 70000+ generations the bacteria is still producing bacteria. The bacteria has not produced anything but bacteria. Why is it so hard to get un biased conclusions? The only thing that has been observed is ADAPTATION not evolution.

    Christian412 AmericaChristian412 AmericaNapja
    • "The educated dumbasses still call it evolution" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "The bacteria has not produced anything but bacteria" If they produced something other than bacteria, it would disprove evolution. You understand that, right?

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS98 órája
  • Nah, if the flask breaks we become the solution to the experiment.

    SuperSonic BoomSuperSonic BoomNapja
  • It’s called mutation or adaptation. NOT EVOLUTION! The bacteria will always remain bacteria, just more resistant.

    Michael KurekMichael KurekNapja
    • Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS98 órája

    Guy FoxGuy FoxNapja
  • I am forever grateful to Dr IGUDIA on HUlabel who cured me from herpes with his herbal medication, you are so real and trusted.

    Samaila AbdullahiSamaila AbdullahiNapja
  • Beautiful video. Biosciences are a rich hunting ground for new videos.

  • So...when do they turn into monkeys??? Can monkeys evolve into bacteria???

    David BlankDavid BlankNapja
    • "So...when do they turn into monkeys" Based on evolutionary science, never. If you think evolution suggests otherwise, you don't understand evolution.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS9Napja
  • well don't judge the Qu when they do this to us :^)

  • I see you evolving from young youtuber :D

    lalit pallalit pal2 napja
  • A million bacterial monkeys typing on a million bacterial type-writers.... One of them finally wrote the opening to hamlet

    wildstar2424242424wildstar24242424242 napja
  • 13:48 A couple more generations and they’ll be growing eyes and noses.

    Mike TacosMike Tacos2 napja
  • Then someone breaks the glass.

    Mike TacosMike Tacos2 napja
  • I'll bet you I can make a dog "evolve" so that it will CRAVE something that canines would NEVER consume if left to their own tastes(sp?)...

    Chris KollChris Koll2 napja
    • what?

      mwuahamwuaha2 napja
  • Are tests like this being done on viruses?

    TrutherTruther3 napja
  • So what you are saying is, after 75,000 generations, it's just better bacteria, but in the same amount of generations we went from monkey to man? Why didn't it macro evolve?

    FuriousGeezerFuriousGeezer3 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 fair enough! I am still seeing no evidence of macro evolution, but that timeline sure makes it look like more of a possibility. My timeline was clearly off

      FuriousGeezerFuriousGeezer2 napja
    • @FuriousGeezer "it's a long time from bacteria to monkey" Monkeys are not descended from bacteria. "We get what a billion or so years?" 3.5 billion from first life to complex life, another 100 million to get on land, another 150 million for mammals, another 100 million for primates, another 50 for humans. Approximately.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS92 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 Both are human though, yes. I poorly worded it.

      FuriousGeezerFuriousGeezer2 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 it's a long time from bacteria to monkey and again to man. Not sure there is time for that🤷🏼‍♂️. We get what a billion or so years?

      FuriousGeezerFuriousGeezer2 napja
    • In the same number of generations, our ancestors went from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. Both of those are humans.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS92 napja
  • so how long til one of the containers crawls off? :P

    NeileyNeiley3 napja
  • using the same needle for different flask samples???!!

    sfsf3 napja
  • The human scale equivalent of this would be alien abduction encounters, where aliens continuously sample humans as they observe our evolution.

    Bangs CutterBangs Cutter3 napja
  • Shouldn't forget all the generations of students who evolved the professor's knowledge and status! 🧐

    Brad ShymonBrad Shymon3 napja
  • Wait. She wasn’t wearing gloves. Am I missing something?

    realitycheck2001realitycheck20013 napja
  • Ok thats stretch of a comparison. The mutations of a one cell bacterium are quite different than the mutations that would have to occur for an ape like creature to transform into what man is today. I don't care how many million years you tack on to it.

    Gary CLarkGary CLark3 napja
    • ​@Gary CLark "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form." Let's say that was completely true for every group. How would it be relevant to anything in my prior comments, specifically? Does it provide a metric for 'flourishing'? Does is it address the greater fitness of chimpanzees in their environment? The nature of scientific theories and laws? No to all. Nor does it present a mechanism for 'crafting' organisms. Does it support any of your later statements that do address some of these? No again. So why bring it up? Most groups don't fit that pattern, by the way. "Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record" First, same initial commentary as above. Anyway: If you mean in the Cambrian, then that is partially true, although we are starting to find some organisms from the Ediacaran. That's still enough to show the evolution of all vertebrates, for instance. " fully formed" We never expect to find any 'half-formed' organisms, that's not how evolution works. "and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group." This isn't a problem for human evolution. The fossil record is fairly extensive. "This pattern is contrary to what would be expected from Darwinian evolution." Darwinian evolution only makes predictions on what should be found in the fossil record in the sense of predicting the chronological order of specimens that might be found, not what should be found in the actual rocks. For instance, if an initial radiation occurs rapidly in a small population, especially for small and soft bodied animals, it is unlikely that we would find many fossils at all. But if we DID find some, then they should occur in a particular pattern. Failure to find the Ediacaran soft-bodied ancestors of vertebrates, for instance, is neither consistent with nor contrary to evolution. Finding a rabbit mixed in with the Ediacaran would definitely be contrary to evolution. "Genetics has punched more holes in it lately." Genetics provided a stronger support for evolution than any single field has ever provided to any single theory in the history of science. "and not to rely on random chance mutations to explain" Mutation is a known process that can do what needs to be explained. That certainly doesn't mean it is impossible for some other process to be involved, but until it is presented, mutation will continue to be the best explanation currently available. "I am however enjoying this conversation." I've talked to a few people under this video, you've been the best so far.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS98 órája
    • @Crispr CAS9 my reasoning for specific placements of species is as follows: Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. This pattern is contrary to what would be expected from Darwinian evolution. Your partially right about laws and theories. I don't think one is better than the other, theories are more complex and less quantifiable. Going into the whys and hows. scientific law predicts the results of certain initial conditions. I think that evolution is as well established in proof and data as it should be considering it's been around for about 150 years. Genetics has punched more holes in it lately. I think we need more information from all kinds of sources, and not to rely on random chance mutations to explain the propagation of species on the whole planet without stepwise fossil records. I am however enjoying this conversation. It's been helpful to me to continue to formulate my ideas about how things came to be, so thank you.

      Gary CLarkGary CLark18 órája
    • @Gary CLark "I would consider flurishing of species is a metric of evolution" And what do you mean by flourishing? Think about it this way: At the end of this, we need to plug something into an equation. What is the *number*? ""survival of the fittest" I would also consider a metric of evolution." Great. Fitness here means differential reproductive success, which can be mathematically modeled. Chimpanzees have massively greater fitness in their environment than humans. Humans have higher fitness in ours. Both are extremely fit in their own environments. " I am using opinion because all these Ideas are theory" Theory isn't opinion, it is the highest level of science backed by monumental amounts of evidence. "and that many organisms are crafted in such a way as to place the greatest amount of organisms in a space where all can thrive" And what is the known mechanism to accomplish that? "we are quite a long way off from a law of evolution" There are many laws in evolution. A law in science is just a mathematical correlation. Laws are lower than theory, since theories contain many laws.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS9Napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 I would consider flurishing of species is a metric of evolution. , "survival of the fittest" I would also consider a metric of evolution. if these aren't metrics of evolution like the ability of the bacteria to evole to overcome the antibiotics and contitue to propogate, then what are we even talking about. I am using opinion because all these Ideas are theory, we have fossil records of what we think might have happened, we have similar genetic and physical structures that would indicated a similar ancestor, but let say for example that the reason for similar structures is that it this structure is best suited for it's environment and that many organisms are crafted in such a way as to place the greatest amount of organisms in a space where all can thrive. your talking like there are 1 set of facts that guide all of evolution and if it doesn't fit into some arbitrarily defined catagory than it isn't true, I'm saying we are quite a long way off from a law of evolution if there ever can be one. The problem is we don't know what we don't know.

      Gary CLarkGary CLark2 napja
    • @Gary CLark "less than 1billion in 1900 now we have almost 7 billion." Yes, the population has increased substantially. If you think that means 'more evolution', you're mistaken. "Suited to their environment and creating their own environment are two different things." Yes, because only one of them is indicative of evolution. So the substantial increase in population in humans isn't indicative of anything. "We are responsible for the sheep growth" Okay... So what's the metric for success again? You haven't said. "We are at the top of the apex hierarchy, which means have to power to destroy every living creature on the planet including ourselves." Which is technological advancement, not evolution. So still no point... "I would call that evolutionary superiority." You would definitely be wrong, then. That one isn't a matter of opinion. If it isn't evolution-related, it can't be evolutionary superiority. "Man does kill and for most of recorded history killing has been deemed immoral." If killing itself was immoral, the word 'murder' wouldn't exist. In any event, that introduces the possibility that a subset of chimpanzees might be doing something the rest consider immoral. Which essentially confirms my point. So...

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS92 napja
  • Still waiting. When did bacteria have gain in function/information and become a dog? Nowhere in the world does that occur. Besides all fossils having soft cell tissues in them is clear and abundant evidence evolution does not occur. There are not enough trillions and quadrillions of years for "mutations" required to have gained in function as soft cell tissues have how long a life? Your experiment does nothing but proves the existence of a "pre-programmed will to survive" or immunity as your body posses. Mankind did not evolve from apes or will they evolve into something other than humans. Transitional fossils? Where?

    Chris MChris M3 napja
    • @Chris M "That is the events evolution proposes." No, it isn't.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS93 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 That is the events evolution proposes.

      Chris MChris M3 napja
    • "When did bacteria [...] become a dog?" If bacteria became dogs, that would disprove evolution. You understand that, right?

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS93 napja
  • E.Colocaust :(

    Vinícius MVinícius M3 napja
  • Isn't it possible to try and make bacteria evolve into eating stuff we treat as garbage ? Like idk all the "bad" gases etc. Could solve a lot of problems

    Chris CarriereChris Carriere3 napja
  • I hate to mention this, but unless you are composting your paper towels, use re-usable microfiber cloths that you can throw in the washer. I use them occasionally, but rarely for cleaning.

    Stephanie HyattStephanie Hyatt4 napja
  • 12:31 ... I 100% read Gattaca haha

    Ismael AbufonIsmael Abufon4 napja
  • The lucky 1% gets to reproduce..... like the super rich haha

    Ismael AbufonIsmael Abufon4 napja
  • Space itself is the thing that is evolving. All the matter, energy and radiation that exists in the universe at one time fit into something the size of a soccer ball or perhaps a football stadium. It all came from space. It is all here to benefit space. Space would not be as expansive as it is without the matter and energy it created in less than one second.

    Peter SmoyerPeter Smoyer4 napja
  • I could sit down and talk with that guy for days lol. Very interesting and informative. If I could meet him I'd have to thank him for his work

    Antisocial AtheistAntisocial Atheist4 napja
  • The best example of this kind of research is a really old story by the author of 'Game of Thrones' George R.R Martin. It's one of his best. It's a short story called 'Sandkings'. There is the book on youtube. Also the outerlimits video also on youtube. Sorry I can't put up links you'll have to search youtube. Very scary one to read. I suspect you will like it. muhahaha

    Plum AmazingPlum Amazing4 napja
  • When the music kicked in I got a wave of nostalgia. I saw your source, but what it reminded me of was the Majora's Mask Milk Bar Theme. The most simultaneously upbeat and sorrowful music I can think of right now. Only the first 5 or so notes of your music matched the Theme, but it was enough to spark my memory.

    FalsimerFalsimer4 napja
  • that transfer process was suprisingly lax! :o i would’ve thought you’d want to do this under suction cabinet with purified atmosphere and such.

    Benjamin MárkusBenjamin Márkus4 napja
  • “33 years ago, even on weekends ever since ..” Bacteria are annoyingly hard workers.

    sokin jonsokin jon5 napja
  • Perhaps this is adaptability? Quiet possible that bacteria have different (higher) adaptability potential then higher animals?. The bacteria still remained "bacteria" at the end, even after 30 years relentless "experimentation", and did no really "evolve" into a new species? Am I missing something?

    mbbs2008mbbs20085 napja
  • This is a great experiment in micro evolution and also acts as an experiment in macro evolution as well, if macro evolution were possible there would be signs after 70k generations but, that is not the case. No matter how resilient or mutated these samples are they are still E. coli bacteria and not E. coli/??? Or something completely different.

    mike powersmike powers5 napja
    • stove, etc. It's WAY too wasteful to use paper towels! SHAME on you, for promoting such wastefulness!!

      sokin jonsokin jon5 napja
  • So this is what Chase is doing these days. Decided he liked the red-head look, too.

    jonnyjazzzjonnyjazzz5 napja
  • Evolution really isn't true devolution or decay is much more realistic

    Emmanuel NEmmanuel N5 napja
  • Where are the damn gloves?

    Tom JamesTom James5 napja
  • This video was amazing. I was hooked from the beginning.

    Máté ÓcsaiMáté Ócsai5 napja
  • bounty blew my mind

    Roberto Serrini • The TravelclastRoberto Serrini • The Travelclast5 napja
  • It seems dangerous to me learning bacteria to survive antibiotics

    Ad LakerveldAd Lakerveld5 napja
  • This is a perfect plot for a disaster movie

    X17X175 napja
  • why 42 though?

    X17X175 napja
  • This is the great experiment Richard Dawkins describes in his book _The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution_!

    betaneptunebetaneptune5 napja
  • As far as I understand the environment in this experiment is strictly controlled with constant and optimal temperature and nutritional content. There are no other species present. E.coli to grow faster in such an environment is most likely explained by the fact that these bacteria evolve to spend less energy and time to adapt to different temperatures, nutritional shortages (ex. storing carbohydrates), and competing with other species, allowing them to concentrate all metabolic activity on growth and reproduction. Thus, the "constant improvement" proposed by the researcher is questionable. This is probably not an improvement, it is only an action of increasing the activity of only one vital metabolic function (growth by using glucose) at the expense of others (adaptation to temperature, nutritional shortage, competition, etc.).

    Ezgi UmutEzgi Umut5 napja
    • @Ezgi Umut "My comment is not a claim" Yes it is. You claimed that something was the most likely explanation, you must support this. You've also made a collection of claims in your new comment, and provided support for none of them. You're just making stuff up, no one cares.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS94 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 My comment is not a claim, rather a necessary discussion before accepting that this experiment provides evidence to "continuous improvement" in a stable environment. I consider that it should be called continuous adaptation to the experiment's growth medium. The first generation E.coli of this experiment comes from the real world where it spent significant energy to preserve membrane potential to the changing electrolyte concentrations of its habitat, to adapt to temperature changes and nutritional content as well as producing multiple enzymes to produce energy from many non-glucose substrates. The hospitable and stable environment provided in this experiment is expected to result in selective atrophy of the aforementioned metabolic features of the bacterium that it gained to survive harsh living conditions; allowing more energy to be spent on growth and reproduction rather than metabolic defensive buffers, competition, etc. The researcher has to disprove this interpretation before concluding that continuous improvement takes place even in stable conditions. These bacteria are still adapting to this new friendly habitat (no fluctuations in sodium, phosphate, potassium, magnesium, citrate, ammonium concentrations, temperature, nutrition ) even if it has been going on for 30 years (which is not a long time) especially considering that it is markedly different from what the bacteria have evolved in millions of years. The atrophy of previously essential functions with environmental change has been described in many species even in vertebrates in Galapagos.

      Ezgi UmutEzgi Umut4 napja
    • @Ezgi Umut " It is more likely that the outcome (growth rate) is better not because of progress, but rather from the atrophy of other metabolic functions that are necessary for life in the real world" This is your claim, present your evidence to support it.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS95 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 the ability to grow without glucose (ex. metabolizing citrate) is a different discussion that takes place during the video. However, the main topic of interest that the researcher emphasizes at the conclusion is the constant improvement of the growth rate which concerns the bacteria incubated at the standard DM25 liquid medium (10% glucose). It is more likely that the outcome (growth rate) is better not because of progress, but rather from the atrophy of other metabolic functions that are necessary for life in the real world, that have become obsolete in this experiment method.

      Ezgi UmutEzgi Umut5 napja
    • "it is only an action of increasing the activity of only one vital metabolic function (growth by using glucose)" The interesting finding is that are able to grow in the complete absence of glucose. Are you sure you watched the video?

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS95 napja
  • “33 years ago, even on weekends ever since ..” Bacteria are annoyingly hard workers.

    hoiy vinosahoiy vinosa5 napja
  • I'm put in mind of 'The Outer Limits' episode 'Wolf 359'.

    Blue FiveBlue Five5 napja
  • This reminds me of Primer

    Soapy's ThoughtsSoapy's Thoughts6 napja
  • Evolution is Adaptation Adaptability

    Yout FunnyYout Funny6 napja
    • i just love the hippie labcoat at 11.50 :-) ....sadly not gonna happen in my lab :-(

      hoiy vinosahoiy vinosa5 napja
  • Paper towels? Um, NO. Dish cloths, hand towels, sponges, all can be - get this - *WASHED* to sanitize them. No need, at ALL, to waste trees in order to wipe down the counter, stove, etc. It's WAY too wasteful to use paper towels! _SHAME on you,_ for promoting such wastefulness!!

    Mary Ann BittleMary Ann Bittle6 napja
  • Damn, the ThermoFisher ad was awesome. Don't know what it was but the music and video were very satisfying:)

    Robe005Robe0056 napja
  • No we're not viewing evolution as it happens. You are describing 'minor evolution' which is an adaptation to environment. It's still the same bug. It hasn't turned into another kind of bacteria. And the corn is still corn. Major evolution would result in a different bacterium or a different plant. I wish you evolutionists would stop lying to us. Stop using the smoke screen of minor evolution to prove that major evolution is a fact.

    Fred BachFred Bach6 napja
    • ​@Fred Bach "That was a library addition using Crisper " I don't know which experiment you're talking about, but it isn't any of the ones featured in this video. "Let me know when it turns into something that is not an E-coli." 'E coli' is a species designation, and species designations are human labels for human abstractions of populations. A sub population of E coli is no longer E coli when humans decide it, and by the ecotype conception of species delimitation the Ara-3 strain is already a new species. "Does the citrate ability come via the Rogues' Gallery or from elsewhere in the genome?" The citrate ability comes from a novel mutation, as confirmed by genomic sequencing of the ancestral and descendant strains. " If the latter, what will happen if you took the citrate away for 75000 generations? Might it lose its ability to handle citrate? " Sounds like you just suggested it can't be evolution if *more* evolution happens afterwards. I hope that isn't what you intended, since that would be silly.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS95 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 the bugs were given a Rogues gallery of what compounds to be immune to. For instance the square carbon ring in penicillin family drugs. That was a library addition using Crisper.... rather than a genetic mutation. Your username comes from that process. It's still an E-coli with a bigger library and a genetic variation. This ability is given to most lifeforms. Let me know when it turns into something that is not an E-coli. Does the citrate ability come via the Rogues' Gallery or from elsewhere in the genome? If the latter, what will happen if you took the citrate away for 75000 generations? Might it lose its ability to handle citrate? This reminds me of the moths in England that turned from a light shade to a dark shade and back to light again when the air pollution was cleaned up. I know you will attribute that to preditors. You actually need to do the other half of the experiment and put the new bug in an old environment for 75000 generations and see what it gains and loses.

      Fred BachFred Bach5 napja
    • lots of small changes eventually make large changes...

      Null PointerNull Pointer6 napja
    • "No we're not viewing evolution as it happens." Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "It's still the same bug." It isn't the same, the descendant can use citrate as a sole carbon source, which the ancestor could not. They have identified the mutations responsible, which were not present in the ancestor. It is demonstrably different. "It hasn't turned into another kind of bacteria. " 'Kind' is a nonsense word without any scientific validity. "Major evolution would result in a different bacterium" Then mission accomplished, as explained above. "or a different plant." If any of the descendants of bacteria were plants, that would disprove evolution. Asking as evidence for a thing something that would actually disprove that thing is a fairly clear indication you don't understand the subject in the first place.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS96 napja
  • And in 30 more years (equivalent to 3 million years from the start), still nothing cool happened. Yawn.

    Oogie PadoogieOogie Padoogie6 napja
  • Time for flask beer pong?

    Fred LeonardFred Leonard6 napja
  • when you touch the elbow for said hi don't keep social distance needed for prevent covid

    patricio patriciopatricio patricio6 napja
  • New Hollywood movie plot, Planet of the Bacteria.

    Adnan haiderAdnan haider7 napja
    • So, as opposed to a Grey Goo scenario (Out of control Nano-Bot Replicators), this would be a Green Goo scenario?

      Polaris RavenPolaris Raven5 napja
  • So "life finds a way" even if it doesn't need to?

    random black holerandom black hole7 napja
  • Imagine if we are just an experiment inside an alien race flask, and we die because otherwise the experiment would become unmanageable.

    Jorjon JorjonJorjon Jorjon7 napja
  • That was interesting.

    LoBoToM81LoBoToM817 napja
  • 33 years and it’s still bacteria.

    Scott PikeScott Pike7 napja
    • Just as evolution predicts.

      Random DudeRandom Dude7 napja
  • Everyone gangsta until bacteria evolve to have collective consciousness

    avadhut patilavadhut patil7 napja
  • i just love the hippie labcoat at 11.50 :-) ....sadly not gonna happen in my lab :-(

    tarkarastarkaras7 napja
    • millennia of “hominid” evolution? So how long did it take to get to “hominid” again? Would you mind taking me through that process, even theoretically, step by step? I’m very

      miko foinmiko foin7 napja
  • Tell me when the bacteria becomes a fish🤫

    Mohammad HasanainMohammad Hasanain7 napja
    • @Mohammad Hasanain "ok so you flipped to racism" Excuse me? That's a substantial accusation. Either support it or retract it. " I am a native speaker" Then the educational system has failed you. "and you judge me by my name" I judged you by your obvious inability to communicate in English. I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you were able to at least communicate in some other language. If you claim you're just incoherent generally, I'll take your word for it. When you've learned how words work and what a reasonable number of them mean, feel free to revisit this conversation and try again.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS95 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 ok so you flipped to racism what would you do if I was in your county just god knows. All the things you talked about are things I can feel their influence but I can't feel the influence of the precious evolution. write what ever you want now, I will not answer you because I am a native speaker and you judge me by my name "science guy"

      Mohammad HasanainMohammad Hasanain5 napja
    • @Mohammad Hasanain "it's clear that you don't understand what am I saying" Given the fact that I am a native speaker of the language we're using, and I'm guessing you are not, I'd say that it is *much* more likely the problem is that *you* don't understand what I am saying. "so just answer this question, when was there any proof and I mean proof on evolution" Same time as there was proof of gravity: Never. There is no proof in science. If you deny evolution because there is no 'proof' then you must also deny gravity, electricity, the existence of microbes, and the reality of your own mind. Because you can't 'prove' any of them.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS95 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 it's clear that you don't understand what am I saying or don't want to so just answer this question, when was there any proof and I mean proof on evolution and something transforming to something else like an ape or fish caroling out of the see 🤷🏽‍♂️

      Mohammad HasanainMohammad Hasanain6 napja
    • @Mohammad Hasanain "so science doesn't work on proof is that correct?" Yes. "If it is you're talking about a new science you invented" No. "and if you said "observed " an observation is enough proof for such a thing" An observation isn't proof. It is a data point that increases confidence. "where was it observed can you tell me?" PMC3277146 & PMC4380822, and others. "What I meant when I talked about the experiment was that it didn't happen in this experiment while it was this long, when can it happen?" Here's your logic, spot the error: "I just flipped a coin 5 times and didn't roll a six, therefore rolling a six with a fair die is impossible!" "So if I told you that I'm confident the moon is made of cheese" I'd be curious as to what statistical analysis you based that on, but strongly suspect you just didn't understand what I mean by 'confidence'. I'm using a statistical definition, not a common one.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS96 napja
  • Love the turbulent flow Tshirt. LOL. This little feud is hilarious and I'm here for it.

    PsychentistPsychentist7 napja
  • Generation 69,000: E. Coli have spelled out the words, “Let us out.”

    Larry PanozzoLarry Panozzo7 napja
  • I would love to sit in the lectures of this professor. It is so pleasant to hear him explain!

    kolim jonekolim jone7 napja
  • Lol, evolution isn’t real. There settled

    isaiahisaiah7 napja
    • lol, nobody of any relevance cares about your opinion.

      Null PointerNull Pointer6 napja
  • Let's hope those bacterium are not harmful to life around them when they escape. I'm not qualified to know whether they represent a danger or not but I do know that no containment protocols are 100% guaranteed, never can be.

    avitarmageddonavitarmageddon8 napja
    • i feel as if they wont survive well in the wild considering they're evolving in extremely favourable conditions for them

      Heinrich HimlaHeinrich Himla5 napja
  • What kind of idiots want to breed bacteria that are immune to antibiotics?

    Texas RayTexas Ray8 napja
  • I wonder if it’s possible for a mutation to arise where it produces an antibiotic that it is immune to but the other members of the population aren’t. It would probably require a long chain of silent mutations to occur in a very specific way and the resistance ability would have to evolve shortly before the antibiotic ability otherwise it may be too prevalent in the population

    Eren JAEGEREren JAEGER8 napja
  • This is extremely interesting, brilliant video all around. Something very disturbing about watching these bacteria evolve rapidly and seeing the rate explained compared to earth 🌍 while having seen them wearing masks due to Covid

    Classic RikiClassic Riki8 napja
  • Can anyone please explain why he used fluorescent powder and uv torch? Please please please🙏🙏🙏🙏🙄

    Micro ScaleMicro Scale8 napja
  • absolute champ, this video is exactly what I need for the biology assessment I'm doing, there's so much useful information and you made me think about what I'm writing in a different light as well.

    Dylan BirrerDylan Birrer8 napja
  • 0:59 Before I watch this video again.. Where can I get that t shirt? :O

    Strange VelocityStrange Velocity8 napja
  • People saying “but they’re still bacteria” really have no clue how evolution works XD

    pNsBpNsB8 napja
    • @Hassan Selim "where no longer bacteria (eg: they became multicellular?)" Becoming multicellular wouldn't make them no longer bacteria. In fact, there *are* multicellular bacteria. Bacteria is a clade, and you can't escape your ancestry. Your descendants must always be in the same clades you are in, under evolutionary theory.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS93 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 thank you for your great explanations, I just have a question about a statement you made. You said that if by the end of the experiment the resulting creatures where no longer bacteria (eg: they became multicellular?) then it would disprove evolution. Why is that?

      Hassan SelimHassan Selim3 napja
    • @Stay Tune Kaison "no you cannot have one without the only" Organisms exist with one and not the other, so you are demonstrably wrong.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS98 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 no you cannot have one without the only if you shoot someone an the heart stops the brain continues functioning for a while before it stops so it shows if u do have one without the other it won’t last very long And example would be a lizard an it’s take if you cut a lizards take it will still be moving for a little bit it will stop so it cannot work wit a much more complicated things such as the brain or the heart

      Stay Tune KaisonStay Tune Kaison8 napja
    • @Stay Tune Kaison "Darwin and his discovery on the birds beaks was that evolution or adaptation" If we interpret the differences as adaptive, then it was adaptation. Regardless, it was absolutely evolution, since we've documented the changes in their genomes for the different populations. "and let’s move to Darwinian evolution" You want to 'move on' to something 150 years out of date? "so before humans existed the heart had to evolve and grow so did the brain" Apes have hearts. So do mammals. So do amniotes. So do vertebrates. So do chordates. But by the time you are back to basal chordates, you are talking about a 'heart' that is a single enlarged, centralized, and slightly more heavily muscled ventricle that is fully homologous with the distributed vesicles of other deuterostomes. Which are, in turn, homologous with the types of vesicles found in protostomes. Which is basically just a slightly increased musculature around a vessel to improve lymph circulation, which isn't even needed for the smallest organisms. And that is to say it is, in comparison to a human heart, *much* less than half a heart. And yet it worked just fine for those organisms in their environment. So you can actually trace the development of hearts all the way back to a point where they weren't even needed. You can do the same for brains. " so which came first cause you can’t have one without the other? " You absolutely can have one without the other. "When the first bacteria appeared it had to eat but the senses weren’t a thing so how did it know where to eat or eyes weren’t thing so how did it find it’s food again with no senses" The same way bacteria find food now, since they don't have eyes now either.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS98 napja
  • No gloves lol

    David GhettoDavid Ghetto9 napja
  • The brainwashing on this subject is surpassed by no other! Absolutely astonishing. So 75,000 generations of bacteria becoming. . . um, bacteria. . . is the equivalent of 1500 millennia of “hominid” evolution? So how long did it take to get to “hominid” again? Would you mind taking me through that process, even theoretically, step by step? I’m very interested to know just how the suite of organs that fill the torso evolved into a coordinated interacting interdependent group of unique components comprising complex animal life. Like bacteria. . .becoming bacteria. And please, no assumed “populations” for a starting point.

    gregormann7gregormann79 napja
    • "And please, no assumed “populations” for a starting point." Explain evolution, but don't talk about evolution? Sounds like you don't know what the subject is in the first place.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS99 napja
  • Well, this looks like a disaster waiting to happen (one day)

    Adriana GabrielaAdriana Gabriela9 napja
  • Yet people say Darwin is wrong and God is real 😂😂

    Abhin AravindAbhin Aravind9 napja
    • Darwin doesn't have to be false for g-d to exist

      srak 123srak 1237 napja
  • So then one of these bacteria gets loose and infects the human population and low and behold there is no antibiotic that can save us. Did we not learn anything from the covid lab leak in wuhan???

    Dan KDan K9 napja
  • Congrats! Sounds like a billion dollar experiment to prove how different breeds of dogs are possible. 😆

    ShipwrightShipwright9 napja
  • Religion has left the chat

    Rahul RajRahul Raj9 napja
  • I thought this video was about artificial neural network. Dammit.

    Reyhan AlhafizalReyhan Alhafizal9 napja
  • Read a great book about this (and other experiments like it) on a flight the other day, Improbable Destinies by Jonathan Losos. In case anyone wants to go even more in depth!

    LDPCLDPC9 napja
  • Mirco evolution and natural selection/Adaptation is a cool thing.

    ShadowdragonBADShadowdragonBAD9 napja
  • You have been told over and over that change is Evolution. It is not. You are different from your parents and grandparents. But you are all still 100% Homo sapiens. Likewise, bacteria change. But they stay 100% bacteria in their bacterial domain. Bacteria have been observed since 1670, pretty much around the clock and around the world. Ancient fossilized bacteria have been found. They all have been nothing but bacteria. Change is not evolution. That is just one of the ridiculous mantras and myths used to support a pseudoscience narrative. You are not an ape or bacteria update. Find out who you really are. Look outside the box. The truth is there.

    Lorica LassLorica Lass9 napja
    • @Lorica Lass What I said is the definition of evolution, so by definition the bacteria did evolve. Evolution doesn't say a bacteria will become a non bacteria, it literally says the opposite. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT? A species can become a different species, but it can't change its domain, kingdom, class, genus, etc.

      Preetha O.CPreetha O.C7 napja
    • @Preetha O.C You think that bacteria steadfastly staying nothing but bacteria is somehow showing Evolution. Do you think if you toss out the words allele frequency that just explains everything? It explains zero to support your case. The bacteria are still bacteria in their bacterial domain. They haven’t changed into a non-bacteria. They are no way evolving. There is zero evidence that any bacteria at any time has ever become a non-bacteria. There’s a lot of data about bacteria though! It’s all over the world presently and recorded from history. What does the real data show? Anything about allele frequencies to support Evolution? No it just shows bacteria staying bacteria. Every single time.Bacteria stay bacteria. Try to grasp that. Bacteria that stay bacteria aint evolving. This is a really simple concept. Try to wrap your head around it. If you can’t understand that then you have no right to be calling someone else stupid. Goodbye!

      Lorica LassLorica Lass7 napja
    • @Lorica Lass Kent Hovind doesn't understand evolution (or he is a con man that lies for a living, which is most likely the case). He has been corrected multiple times and still repeats the same stupidity.

      Preetha O.CPreetha O.C8 napja
    • @Lorica Lass I literally explained that evolution doesn't say a bacteria will become a non bacteria, it will become a different species of bacteria. Every descendant of every organism will be a part of every clade it's ancestor was part of EVEN IF it creates a new clade. One SPECIES can become a different species, but no other clade can change. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies of a population with generations, so even if it doesn't become a new species, it can still be considered evolution.

      Preetha O.CPreetha O.C8 napja
    • @Preetha O.C I’m sorry but your post doesn’t make any sense to me. You have been trying to deal in the imaginary, and the never seen, to defend your faith in evolution. You’re speculating about something that has never been seen, while ignoring all the great history of what has been seen. No such thing as a bacteria turning into a non-bacteria has ever happened. But we do know for sure that if a bacteria stays bacteria in its bacterial domain,it ain’t showing any evolution! It is showing the exact opposite of evolution. Therefore this whole video is based on a fantasy. You are believing a fantasy. Wake up. You are being had. Learn to think. Learn to do critical thinking. This is all so obvious. I should not have to repeat the obvious. I gave a reference of a video above which points out the absurdities of evolution over and over. Based on observable scientific data. If you don’t see the obvious, and you don’t want to look outside the box, then nothing further that I have to say to you will compute with you. Therefore, nothing personal, but to keep from wasting your precious time and mine you are now on mute. I pray that you will learn to see through scam artists like Richard Dawkins who tell you that you came from a bacteria, while ignoring the fact that, as I said already, all the evidence, even from ancient fossils, show that bacteria stay bacteria. Period. Yes, they changed somewhat. But they stay bacteria.

      Lorica LassLorica Lass8 napja
  • great watch

    Misha KosMisha Kos9 napja
  • Here is a key question, how long will it take for this E. coli to turn into Salmonella? Or into Bacillus or Listeria?

    evangelizarECevangelizarEC10 napja
    • @evangelizarEC "shows the equivalent hominid evolution" From Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. So still Homo. Of course, that happened in a population with a smaller effective population size and higher mutation rate in a highly variable and changing environment, all of which increases the rate you might expect differences to accumulate. "you still have E. coli but with one lineage able to consume citrate" Whether or not it is still E coli depends on how one delimits species. By 3% 16S, it would still be E coli, by ecotype delimitation, it would be a new species. But it would never be any currently extant species, because that's not how evolution works.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS99 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 And I'm sure you'll be able to explain it to me so would like to hear it from you. What I'm pointing out is what is implied from the video (~2:20 shows the equivalent hominid evolution... at the end ~11 min, you still have E. coli but with one lineage able to consume citrate) - the changes observed are adaptations to the environment (~min 6-7). That's the discrepancy, according to the timeline portrayed, while hominids change... E. Coli stays E. Coli but now 1/12 of it can consume citrate. I'm anticipating that in another 3 decades... one will still find E. Coli.

      evangelizarECevangelizarEC9 napja
    • If that's how you think evolution works, you don't understand how evolution works.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS910 napja
  • The existence of this experiment warms my heart. Such good data!

    viiont eooiyviiont eooiy10 napja
  • 12:25, the citrate phenotype was not the product of random mutation. Because this particular trait cannot be obtained from the same sample which means the experiment result is not reproduceable rendering the hypothesis unscientific. I think, this is how all species appeared from previous generation all on a sudden not gradually. But its not by so called "evolution" as claimed by Darwin. Its divine. BTW, human is extraterrestrial unlike others!!!

    A. M. Mustofa SorwarA. M. Mustofa Sorwar10 napja
    • "Because this particular trait cannot be obtained from the same sample which means the experiment result is not reproduceable" It can and it has.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS910 napja
  • Evolution or adaptation? ... After 75000 generations, equivalent to 1 million years ... still a bacteria

    Alexandre FrascariAlexandre Frascari10 napja
    • "Evolution or adaptation?" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. " still a bacteria" If it wasn't still bacteria, that would disprove evolution. You just asked as evidence for a thing something that contradicts that thing. Which suggests you don't have a single solitary clue what evolution actually is in the first place.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS910 napja
  • Isn’t this adaptation not evolution? It’s still ecoli, it’s not evolving into a human, it’s simply adapting and remaining the same being.

    Oceanic OppsOceanic Opps10 napja
    • @Oceanic Opps It gained the ability to eat something that it previously couldn't. That is not like us eating a new dish.

      Preetha O.CPreetha O.C8 napja
    • @Nicholas Leclerc when you try new foods do you turn super human?

      Oceanic OppsOceanic Opps9 napja
    • For Christ's sake, it literally gained the ability to eat a new molecule ! It's at least a new genus in its entirety !!!

      Nicholas LeclercNicholas Leclerc9 napja
    • "Isn’t this adaptation not evolution" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "It’s still ecoli, it’s not evolving into a human" If E coli gave rise to humans, that would disprove evolution. You understand that, right? Because it looks like you just asked for a thing as evidence in support of evolution that would be directly contrary to evolution, which is only possible if you have a gross conceptual misunderstanding of what evolution is in the first place. "and remaining the same being." The Ara-3 strain *isn't* the same, they have a change in allele frequencies with respect to their ancestors, specifically a novel allele not found in their ancestors. Which performs a function not found in their ancestors. You know, *exactly* the sort of thing evolution predicts.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS910 napja
  • It is unbelievable how many misunderstandings are there about Darwin's evolution. Unfortunately many of them can be found in this video. First, Lenski's experiment is not about Darwin's evolution whose book was titled "On the Origin of Species". E.coli is not a species and, respectively, there is no way that an adaptation process can result in the origin of a new E.coli species. Second, Darwin is not an author of concepts of adaptation or natural selection. They were proposed long before him. In fact, Lenski's experiment is about adaptation and origin of new variants of a bacteria proliferating by mitosis (in contrast to meiosis required for Darwinian evolution). As an example of evolution, Darwin talks about evolution from bears to whales (because bears swim for hours). In contrast adaptation talks about an ability to survive in the presence of a toxin, for example again. The analogous for this would be development of tolerance to a mosquito or snake bite in humans. The list might be continued. Lenski's experiment did not change our view on evolution of species at all, because it could not. This is the first time I click 'dislike' button.

    Vladimir TsibulskyVladimir Tsibulsky10 napja
    • @Vladimir Tsibulsky "now you are demonstrating that your hypothesis is not falsifiable." I just demonstrated precisely how a species hypothesis is falsified. "By the way, it is not my hypothesis, it is yours." No, it is not. I agree with the current species hypothesis of humans, which includes all of humans in a single group. It is well supported by the evidence. "In my opinion, species is not a hypothesis, but physical entity. " Then show me a 'species' absent any organisms. If you can't, you are wrong and it isn't a physical entity. "For detail, please read any handbool on biology." Okay, they agree with me.

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS99 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 now you are demonstrating that your hypothesis is not falsifiable. By the way, it is not my hypothesis, it is yours. In my opinion, species is not a hypothesis, but physical entity. For detail, please read any handbool on biology.

      Vladimir TsibulskyVladimir Tsibulsky9 napja
    • @Vladimir Tsibulsky "Isn't it obvious: the have different anatomy, different functions, different life span, psychology etc" So you have a criteria on which to base your species hypothesis, now are the groups delimited by that criteria more closely related to one another than to any members of the other group? It turns out they are not, and so some men are more closely related to some women than to some other men, and so your species hypothesis is falsified. Do you understand how it works yet?

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS99 napja
    • @Crispr CAS9 Isn't it obvious: they have different anatomy, different functions, different life span, different genoms, different psychology etc. I hope you can pretty quickly divide a group of people into two quite different groups: men and women. Each group will agree that 'yes, we are different'.

      Vladimir TsibulskyVladimir Tsibulsky9 napja
    • @Vladimir Tsibulsky "It seems, that according to your definition, men and women are different species." Are you saying you think all men are more closely related to one another than any of them are to any woman?

      Crispr CAS9Crispr CAS99 napja
  • The obvious problem ..bactaria does what bactaria does. Other stuff doesn't do what bactaria does. It does what other stuff does.. So if the suggestion is "this proves evolution" -it doesn't! It just proves bactaria does what it exists to do. And never changes from doing it.

    MSFMSF10 napja