Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We didn’t know bacteria had morals

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Well, get this:

Far from being selfish organisms whose sole purpose is to maximize their own reproduction, bacteria in large communities work for the greater good by resolving a social conflict among individuals to enhance the survival of their entire community.

This part is rubbish, of course:

“It’s an example of what we call ’emergent phenomena’,” explained Gürol Süel, an associate professor of molecular biology at UC San Diego who headed the research effort.

“Emergent phenomena” is an elegant of saying “We don’t know what we are talking about.”

That’s fine, just admit it. Meanwhile:

The conflict is essentially this: Bacteria at the outer edges of the biofilm are the most vulnerable within their community to chemical and antibiotic attacks. At the same time, they also provide protection to the interior cells. But the bacteria at the outer edge are the closest to nutrients necessary for growth. So if they grow unchecked, they can consume all the food and starve the sheltered interior cells.

But that doesn’t happen, because the biofilm develops an ingenious solution to this problem that the scientists call “metabolic codependence.” Essentially, the interior cells produce a metabolite necessary for the growth of the bacteria on the outside. This provides the inner cells with the ability to periodically put the brakes on the growth of outer cells, which otherwise would consume all the food and starve the cells they are protecting from attack. By periodically preventing the growth on the periphery, inner cells ensure that they have sufficient access to nutrients. By keeping the protected inner cells alive, the biofilm has a much higher chance of surviving antibiotic treatment.

This strategy allows bacteria with conflicting needs to take turns, like drivers approaching an intersection from different directions. In many ways, the internal social conflict within bacterial communities is not unlike the conflicts that opposing groups of individuals must find ways to resolve in order to maintain successful nations or communities.

So clearly there is intelligence involved? But will they admit that? If so, we must hope these people have stocked up on No! Troll spray TM.

They can use it, without even having to be nice to us, the developers.  😉

See also: Matching Darwin’s “Tree of Life,” the “Tree of Intelligence”
comes crashing down

Note: This story was filed under “Animal minds” because we don’t (currently) have a category called Bacteria minds. Should we? Apologies to obsessives everywhere.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
"In many ways, the internal social conflict within bacterial communities is not unlike the conflicts that opposing groups of individuals must find ways to resolve in order to maintain successful nations or communities" By this statement, it seems that the new bacterial organization was narrowly passed by a 56-44 vote of the Bacterial Senate after surviving a filibuster by the e. Coli faction. To date, the Bacterial Supreme Court has refused to strike it down. The mutually-enforced delusion is strong in this one.SpitfireIXA
July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
"Just a regulatory circuit that produces this catbolite when the cell is surrounded by others and not when they are on the edge." Oh, that sounds easy WD400. Good thing Darwin was clueless about cellular regulatory circuits - would have freaked him out. Shaggy Sheep and Labradoodles were more his speed. And beaks too. Can't forget the beaks.ppolish
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
The bacteria need neither morals or intelligence to pull this off. Just a regulatory circuit that produces this catbolite when the cell is surrounded by others and not when they are on the edge. In fact, despite the press release, this is just the result of individual level selfishness. Mutations that create "cheater" cells that express that limiting-catabolite on the edge of the film would prosper in the short term, but their biofilms would collapse in the long term, so (individual-level) selection will favour this behaviour. There is a lot of research on this sort of behaviour in Pseudomonas fluorescens if people are interested in learning more.wd400
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
"Far from being selfish organisms whose sole purpose is to maximize their own reproduction...." Take THAT Dawkins. UC San Diego questioning the UC Berkeley/NSF website dogma. To be fair though, much UC Berkeley research is also questioning. Who edits/writes that website anyway. ".....bacteria in large communities work for the greater good by resolving a social conflict among individuals to enhance the survival of their entire community." Moral Laws emerge from Physical Laws. But do bacteria follow Moral Laws?ppolish
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Bacteria supposedly is just a different configuration of inanimate chemicals. So, chemicals have morals also. Hydrogen and Oxygen bind together to help one another. This enables streams to run freely down hillsides and sea bubbles to float happily in the air. This is what is known as "chemical codependence". Certain molecules sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the group. Sand would be safer just staying flat on the ground, but in the spirit of cooperation, sand-grains join together to form sand dunes by the beach, and thus protect more vulnerable grains of sand elsewhere. In sand storms, sand grains take flight, and fortunately they land safely through internal guidance mechanisms, currently not-well known to science. Other sand just stays in the air and disappears. That is the origin of 'fairy dust' is it is commonly called. If you can capture some fairy dust, you can sprinkle it around to make other chemical compounds feel better about themselves.Silver Asiatic
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply