Comments on: More Microcosm News: “A Fascinating Tapestry” and a Paperback in the Works http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/12/02/more-microcosm-news-a-fascinating-tapestry-and-a-paperback-in-the-works/ A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:44:26 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Wienke http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/12/02/more-microcosm-news-a-fascinating-tapestry-and-a-paperback-in-the-works/comment-page-1/#comment-12545 Wienke Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:28:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/12/02/more-microcosm-news-a-fascinating-tapestry-and-a-paperback-in-the-works/#comment-12545 One question that keeps recurring while reading introductory texts in the life sciences is: How did they ever figure that out? It was with exactly that question in mind that I was browsing the science bookshelves last month, when an event rarer than a beneficent mutation occurred—I actually found what I was looking for, this book on E. coli research! The smelly microbe seems to have starred in every major discovery of the last century. It makes for great reading. You could have even included the “slow, tough, unglamorous work” on the metabolic pathways. But since you didn’t, here’s a link to a nice post on MadSci.org telling how Szent-Gyorgyi used pigeon hearts to work out which enzymes act when (OK, it’s not E. coli): http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-03/920598575.Gb.r.html I was surprised to read that Lamarck’s theory was still a contender in the 1950s, and the section on “Slot Machines and Velvet Stamps” led me to wonder what it would have been like if he had been right. Responsively adapting organisms would evolve so efficiently that they would quickly reach stasis with their environment, resulting in fewer life cycles, fewer repetitions. In contrast, organisms subject to natural selection must cycle endlessly through inherited states, in tension with their environment, and therefore participating in the general struggle more vigorously. Darwinian evolution makes for a richer experience. Other things I’m wondering about are how the siderophores “slide back into” E. coli (p. 23), whether biofilms are thought to be precursors of cellulose and/or pectin (pp. 55-56), and how anybody ever survives infection with Shigella (pp. 62-63). The early chapters were the most fun, especially the explanations of feed-forward loops and flagellar mechanics, but I also appreciated the account of the intelligent-design fiasco. It’s hard to find the actual arguments laid out elsewhere. Thanks, in advance of Christmas, for the book. One question that keeps recurring while reading introductory texts in the life sciences is: How did they ever figure that out? It was with exactly that question in mind that I was browsing the science bookshelves last month, when an event rarer than a beneficent mutation occurred—I actually found what I was looking for, this book on E. coli research! The smelly microbe seems to have starred in every major discovery of the last century. It makes for great reading. You could have even included the “slow, tough, unglamorous work” on the metabolic pathways. But since you didn’t, here’s a link to a nice post on MadSci.org telling how Szent-Gyorgyi used pigeon hearts to work out which enzymes act when (OK, it’s not E. coli): http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-03/920598575.Gb.r.html

I was surprised to read that Lamarck’s theory was still a contender in the 1950s, and the section on “Slot Machines and Velvet Stamps” led me to wonder what it would have been like if he had been right. Responsively adapting organisms would evolve so efficiently that they would quickly reach stasis with their environment, resulting in fewer life cycles, fewer repetitions. In contrast, organisms subject to natural selection must cycle endlessly through inherited states, in tension with their environment, and therefore participating in the general struggle more vigorously. Darwinian evolution makes for a richer experience.

Other things I’m wondering about are how the siderophores “slide back into” E. coli (p. 23), whether biofilms are thought to be precursors of cellulose and/or pectin (pp. 55-56), and how anybody ever survives infection with Shigella (pp. 62-63).

The early chapters were the most fun, especially the explanations of feed-forward loops and flagellar mechanics, but I also appreciated the account of the intelligent-design fiasco. It’s hard to find the actual arguments laid out elsewhere.

Thanks, in advance of Christmas, for the book.

]]>