Guided evolution (split from Evolution not limited to life on earth?)

[swansont]

5 hours ago, mar_mar said:

no. it was my question what evidence does science need.

You need an hypothesis that can be falsified before you can discuss what evidence is needed.

[StringJunky]

Mar-mar; To add to swansont's post, in case you aren't aware:

Falsifiable - This means that scientific theories and hypotheses must be testable and potentially disprovable through observation and experimentation. Falsifiability helps to ensure that scientific claims are based on empirical evidence and can be subject to scrutiny and revision based on new data. - from another forum.

God is not falsifiable, therefore they can have no place in science discussion.

[Luc Turpin]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

This is like in the example of salmons. If they don't go through the trouble of migration to their spawn sites, they would live a fair bit longer. But they would not contribute to the gene pool. In other words, if there was a mutation that prevents them from conducting that migration, it would improve their survival, but eliminate them from the gene pool and would therefore vanish as trait (negatively selected).

When using the word survival, I was talking about collective not individual survival.

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

Intelligence has shaped our environment, so the contribution to human evolution is indirect. We change selective pressures and that can affect our gene pool. The one part that could be somewhat considered direct is sexual selection. What is considered to be attractive in a mate can be culturally shaped and this could lead to proliferation of specific traits.

Evolution and intelligence is harder to assess as we really do not know how it is inherited and estimates of inheritability have been diverging quite a bit. Mostly because it is seemingly a very malleable on top of the inheritable bits. I don't understand what you mean with your last questions.

Interesting

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

I don't understand what you mean with your last questions.

 

As in something else than inheritable traits under positive selection; another selection mechanism.

 

As an explanatory note, I am not questioning the core of evolution theory, but pondering the possible need to reshape its outer shell. Pretentious is my contention that a growing body of evidence on the prevalence of intelligence in nature may be chipping away at the edges. It might be similar to the discovery of horizontal gene transfer and its implication on the theory. Or less we forget Margulis and symbiosis, which took a bit of a bite off of the expression “red in tooth and claw”. Again, only time will tell if a paradigm shift has begun or not.

[CharonY]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

When using the word survival, I was talking about collective not individual survival.

Does not matter, selection happens on the individual not on the collective level. Also, the same issue applies. It is about reproduction not only survival. A group entirely composed of mails may survive as many hardships as they want, their gene pool will end with them.

 

26 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

As in something else than inheritable traits under positive selection; another selection mechanism.

Well, that is a semantic issue, something can be either under positive, negative or neutral selection. It does not refer to the mechanism itself under which they are positive, negative or neutral. 

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

As an explanatory note, I am not questioning the core of evolution theory, but pondering the possible need to reshape its outer shell. Pretentious is my contention that a growing body of evidence on the prevalence of intelligence in nature may be chipping away at the edges.

I think the issue is that you might be have a view on evolution that is not the one used in science. There is no real necessity to see intelligence as a fundamental different trait than, say the ability to use oxygen to create energy, for example.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Wait. I mentioned that this example is incorrect, but you insist on it. It is incorrect in the core.

It's not  religious belief, it's immaturity. Faith is not about waiting for God to do my work for me.

It's not YOUR religious belief, but you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods. They don't believe in evolution because they never studied it, they only learned to ridicule it.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Are  you waiting your neighbors to "evolve" from the country neighbors to respectful city neighbors?

Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Why have you mentioned that they are from the country?

To let you know that my neighbors didn't realize that, in the city, their taxes paid for city trash services. They didn't know where their trash was going, and assumed it was their god answering their prayers.

 

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

That is kind of an absurd thing to say.  If the evidence is not trustworthy it is by definition not evidence.

Seems like you just want to argue for fun which I am not interested in.

Not at all, it's quite nuanced when you think about it; the average guy on the street, thinks they know the answer to many different thing's, until you drill down with a couple of well aimed why's, rainbow's for instance, we all know there's no pot of gold at the end, but when asked most would say "it's something to do with reflection or refraction or something, hang on let me google it" and then we enter a whole new rabbit hole of trust...

[Luc Turpin]

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

Does not matter, selection happens on the individual not on the collective level. Also, the same issue applies. It is about reproduction not only survival. A group entirely composed of mails may survive as many hardships as they want, their gene pool will end with them.

Thanks for pointing it out. Obvious that it is about reproduction not only survival

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next.

Now I am a bit confused on individual vs collective survival. 

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think the issue is that you might be have a view on evolution that is not the one used in science. There is no real necessity to see intelligence as a fundamental different trait than, say the ability to use oxygen to create energy, for example.

If you are implying intelligent design, I am not. Oxygen allows you to stay alive. Intelligence allows you to survive and reproduce.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Intelligence allows you to survive and reproduce.

Apparently so does ignorance since it seems they tend to reproduce in far higher numbers than the non-ignorant 

There’s an old quote about not judging a fish based on its ability to climb a tree.  Do you know that one? 

Likewise, we should never judge the intelligence of a deaf friend based on their ability to detect perfect tones or discover the familiar voice of a loved one amidst the cacophony of a crowd. 

There are limitless contexts to which intelligence may be applied, and similarly endless “shapes” of “intelligence.” 

Does this entity have skills accurately recalling past events? Does it have skills accurately forecasting futures today unwritten?

Does this entity have the ability shape the surrounding environment, to build a dam, or construct a nest? Is the entity an individual or a colony of individuals farming and building mounds? Does it have the ability to camouflage itself with chromatophores and control 8 legs independently all at once?

Does this entity have a sense of self? Does it process and remember sounds better or do they process and remember sights better? Are they good at calculating complex math in their head without pen paper or tool? Are they able to fix a tractor using a spoon and some duct tape, or resolder a computer chip?

Is this entity a gifted author or poet, or do they perhaps build amazing pieces of artwork and exhibit quality craftsmanship using wood or gems or edible ingredients on dinner plates? Are they good at puzzles or playing Tetris? Are they good at getting unlost along the side of a towering mountain, or avoiding icy spots driving down winter roads?

Do they regularly find insights into the mysteries of the cosmos that intelligent others for centuries before them walked passed simply unaware? Do they know how to predict a tornado, or collect nutrients months in advance before getting covered for months by a frozen layer of tundra? Do they know how to sense and avoid dangers and plan for future security, and can they do anything to act on those plans and make them real?

Or, are they simply going with the flow like a twig in the shoulders of a mighty stream?

All of these things involve “intelligence,” but intelligence doesn’t require all of those things. Sometimes intelligence is simply being kind to the person in front of you, or perhaps sharing your nitrogen with the trees beside you, remembering to breathe and be grateful your skins not turning blue. 

And let’s say “all of nature” is intelligent. Okay, super. So what? Does that mean she knows how to simmer a great gumbo, or that she can manufacturer computer chips by the billions at a 3nm scale? Does it mean she’s really good at fractions and calculus, or drawing hyper accurate maps of cities? 

No, of course not, so why use the term “intelligent” at all when it would likely be better to focus on specific things that are far more relevant and interesting… like asking whether the tree that fish is trying to climb happens to currently be underwater. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Oxygen allows you to stay alive.

Not all organisms require molecular oxygen.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Intelligence allows you to survive and reproduce.

That’s only one evolutionary “strategy” but only humans and possibly a few other species follow it, with regard to human-like intelligence. (if you want to cast a wider net than that you really need to provide a definition of intelligence)

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Now I am a bit confused on individual vs collective survival. 

I'm not sure why what I said would confuse you in quite this way. By definition, evolution happens within a population over time. It's a mistake to think of individuals unless those individuals are successfully reproducing to pass their genes along to future generations.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Apparently so does ignorance since it seems they tend to reproduce in far higher numbers than the non-ignorant 

There’s an old quote about not judging a fish based on its ability to climb a tree.  Do you know that one? 

Likewise, we should never judge the intelligence of a deaf friend based on their ability to detect perfect tones or discover the familiar voice of a loved one amidst the cacophony of a crowd. 

There are limitless contexts to which intelligence may be applied, and similarly endless “shapes” of “intelligence.” 

Does this entity have skills accurately recalling past events? Does it have skills accurately forecasting futures today unwritten?

Does this entity have the ability shape the surrounding environment, to build a dam, or construct a nest? Is the entity an individual or a colony of individuals farming and building mounds? Does it have the ability to camouflage itself with chromatophores and control 8 legs independently all at once?

Does this entity have a sense of self? Does it process and remember sounds better or do they process and remember sights better? Are they good at calculating complex math in their head without pen paper or tool? Are they able to fix a tractor using a spoon and some duct tape, or resolder a computer chip?

Is this entity a gifted author or poet, or do they perhaps build amazing pieces of artwork and exhibit quality craftsmanship using wood or gems or edible ingredients on dinner plates? Are they good at puzzles or playing Tetris? Are they good at getting unlost along the side of a towering mountain, or avoiding icy spots driving down winter roads?

Do they regularly find insights into the mysteries of the cosmos that intelligent others for centuries before them walked passed simply unaware? Do they know how to predict a tornado, or collect nutrients months in advance before getting covered for months by a frozen layer of tundra? Do they know how to sense and avoid dangers and plan for future security, and can they do anything to act on those plans and make them real?

Or, are they simply going with the flow like a twig in the shoulders of a mighty stream?

All of these things involve “intelligence,” but intelligence doesn’t require all of those things. Sometimes intelligence is simply being kind to the person in front of you, or perhaps sharing your nitrogen with the trees beside you, remembering to breathe and be grateful your skins not turning blue. 

And let’s say “all of nature” is intelligent. Okay, super. So what? Does that mean she knows how to simmer a great gumbo, or that she can manufacturer computer chips by the billions at a 3nm scale? Does it mean she’s really good at fractions and calculus, or drawing hyper accurate maps of cities? 

No, of course not, so why use the term “intelligent” at all when it would likely be better to focus on specific things that are far more relevant and interesting… like asking whether the tree that fish is trying to climb happens to currently be underwater. 

Oh, yes. +1

[TheVat]

A lot of confusion can be helped by finding a basic guide to evolutionary biology and learning the domains of microevolution and macroevolution and what changes they cover.   Most online chats seem to focus mainly on microevolution.  A common example is pesticide resistance.  Unlike intelligence, it's pretty easy to define and then to track how it changes in species populations.  (and it's another good example of rapid evolution where intelligence is not at all the focus)  Corn borers didn't get smarter or bore in faster or change coloration to fool birds or lady beetles, they just had a small percent of each generation that had a higher tolerance for chemical pesticides and survived to reproduce.  So now there are no pesticides that kill corn borers.  And so we had to transfer specific genetic material from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt, to the plant’s genome so it would contain something that borers couldn't stand.  And so it goes.  The corn borer survivors will be ones that can eat Bt corn and they will proliferate.  At some point, we'll just give up on that and send in the lady beetles and restore avian populations that like the borers more than the kernels. 

Edited January 6 by TheVat

[mar_mar]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:08 AM, Phi for All said:

but you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods.

It is your belief what others think.

On 1/6/2024 at 4:08 AM, Phi for All said:

Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next.

But what about a well known fact that we can see whole in small.

On 1/6/2024 at 4:08 AM, Phi for All said:

To let you know that my neighbors didn't realize that, in the city, their taxes paid for city trash services. They didn't know where their trash was going, and assumed it was their god answering their prayers.

It is also your belief what others think.

*

Ok, hold on. I've found another one article from The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Something from it:

Step three is Fodor's coup de grace: how, he says, can that possibly be? The whole point of Darwinian evolution is that it has no mind, no intelligence. But to "select for" certain traits – as opposed to just "selecting" them by not having them die out – wouldn't natural selection have to have some kind of mind? It might be obvious to you that being the same colour as your environment is more important than being white, if you're a polar bear, but that's because you just ran a thought-experiment about a hypothetical situation involving orange snow. Evolution can't run thought experiments, because it can't think. "Darwin has a theory that centrally turns on the notion of 'selection-for'," says Fodor. "And yet he can't give an account – nobody could give an account – of how natural selection could distinguish between correlated traits. He waffles."

This evolution theory is wrong in the core, especially when it comes to origin of a human. It is written on a knee. Why don't you answer is evolution a change or development. If it is the change, what changes occurred towards common ancestor?? If science doesn't operate with such concepts as consciousness and mind, this change is some MUTATION!!! If it does operate, than this theory is comparison between a monkey and  a human. And it is ugly. When i realize what some homo sapiens (???) do for others, i want to say don't offend monkeys that humans are their descendants. Animals don't do this to each other.

So, what exactly process does this picture describe???????

And isn't this evolution theory a whole antropomorfizm?

And something else. What if in the future AI would create similar picture , with human on the left side and AI on right, and named it "The theory of evolution"??!! Ultimately, AI is an offspring of a human.

[dimreepr]

36 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

So, what exactly process does this picture describe???????

 

The picture describes the arrogance of man...

40 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And isn't this evolution theory a whole antropomorfizm?

Anthropomorphism usually describes our empathy for a dog, bc of it's sad look, god is just the other side of that coin; which has nothing to do with nature and how it evolves...

[mar_mar]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Anthropomorphism usually describes our empathy for a dog, bc of it's sad look, god is just the other side of that coin; which has nothing to do with nature and how it evolves...

Even not anthropomorphism , but projections. There is a popular term in psychology.

"Projection is when an individual unconsciously projects their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors onto someone else"

So, this is also projection on nature.

And it's very important to talk to a person, and to one's representations about this person. It's important to listen. And also to listen to nature.

Edited January 7 by mar_mar

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mar_mar said:

Even not anthropomorphism , but projections. There is a popular term in psychology.

"Projection is when an individual unconsciously projects their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors onto someone else"

So, this is also projection on nature.

And it's very important to talk to a person, and to one's representations about this person. It's important to listen. And also to listen to nature.

It reminds me of that little kid, in the play ground, that hides behind the bully before they start to taunt.

IOW, If you need god, then you're hiding from yourself...

[Luc Turpin]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Apparently so does ignorance since it seems they tend to reproduce in far higher numbers than the non-ignorant 

There’s an old quote about not judging a fish based on its ability to climb a tree.  Do you know that one? 

Likewise, we should never judge the intelligence of a deaf friend based on their ability to detect perfect tones or discover the familiar voice of a loved one amidst the cacophony of a crowd. 

There are limitless contexts to which intelligence may be applied, and similarly endless “shapes” of “intelligence.” 

Does this entity have skills accurately recalling past events? Does it have skills accurately forecasting futures today unwritten?

Does this entity have the ability shape the surrounding environment, to build a dam, or construct a nest? Is the entity an individual or a colony of individuals farming and building mounds? Does it have the ability to camouflage itself with chromatophores and control 8 legs independently all at once?

Does this entity have a sense of self? Does it process and remember sounds better or do they process and remember sights better? Are they good at calculating complex math in their head without pen paper or tool? Are they able to fix a tractor using a spoon and some duct tape, or resolder a computer chip?

Is this entity a gifted author or poet, or do they perhaps build amazing pieces of artwork and exhibit quality craftsmanship using wood or gems or edible ingredients on dinner plates? Are they good at puzzles or playing Tetris? Are they good at getting unlost along the side of a towering mountain, or avoiding icy spots driving down winter roads?

Do they regularly find insights into the mysteries of the cosmos that intelligent others for centuries before them walked passed simply unaware? Do they know how to predict a tornado, or collect nutrients months in advance before getting covered for months by a frozen layer of tundra? Do they know how to sense and avoid dangers and plan for future security, and can they do anything to act on those plans and make them real?

Or, are they simply going with the flow like a twig in the shoulders of a mighty stream?

All of these things involve “intelligence,” but intelligence doesn’t require all of those things. Sometimes intelligence is simply being kind to the person in front of you, or perhaps sharing your nitrogen with the trees beside you, remembering to breathe and be grateful your skins not turning blue. 

And let’s say “all of nature” is intelligent. Okay, super. So what? Does that mean she knows how to simmer a great gumbo, or that she can manufacturer computer chips by the billions at a 3nm scale? Does it mean she’s really good at fractions and calculus, or drawing hyper accurate maps of cities? 

No, of course not, so why use the term “intelligent” at all when it would likely be better to focus on specific things that are far more relevant and interesting… like asking whether the tree that fish is trying to climb happens to currently be underwater. 

Transcending the ego………done!

Agree with all that you said except for two things

1- "All of these things involve intelligence', and sometime intelligence requires those things to be able to express itself.

2- 'Okay, super. So what?' Well it makes a hell of a difference. It is a direct assault on the philosophical underpinnings of science. You are moving away from a stricly material world. Its' a big deal.

Finally, after reading thousands upon thousands of studies on things, I speculate that there may be a bit more to things than things. I and others find this a very valid field of scientific inquiry.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Not all organisms require molecular oxygen.

That’s only one evolutionary “strategy” but only humans and possibly a few other species follow it, with regard to human-like intelligence. (if you want to cast a wider net than that you really need to provide a definition of intelligence)

First point - agreed; anaerobic bacteria

Life - cells

Intelligence - Many definitions; here is one -capable of intergrating physically different signals (mechanical, electrical, chemical, temperature, pH, etc.) before generating a response.

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not sure why what I said would confuse you in quite this way. By definition, evolution happens within a population over time. It's a mistake to think of individuals unless those individuals are successfully reproducing to pass their genes along to future generations.

Oh, yes. +1

First point - CharonY said "Does not matter, selection happens on the individual not on the collective level.' You said "Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next' Hence the confusion.

Second point "Oh, yes. +1 - thought you were the moderator, not taking side, but what do I know, I am just an ignorant fool.

[mar_mar]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It reminds me of that little kid, in the play ground, that hides behind the bully before they start to taunt.

IOW, If you need god, then you're hiding from yourself...

I explained my vision of this theory.

What do you think about origin of a man?

And yet. Do you operate with such concept as conscience. If you do, where does it come from for you? There is no conscience concept in the science. It's altruism here.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am just an ignorant fool.

Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’re clearly more than just that. 

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

There is no conscience concept in the science

Actually, there is. In both psychology and sociology. At least your record of consistently invalid posts remains unabated. 

[TheVat]

Not sure why I bothered to post on-topic here  yesterday, using a concrete example, but I won't repeat that mistake again.  Good luck and adios.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Intelligence - Many definitions; here is one -capable of intergrating physically different signals (mechanical, electrical, chemical, temperature, pH, etc.) before generating a response.

There has to an option for more than one response. A block of iron responds to a rise in temperature by expanding, or to outside pressure by shrinking, but a block of iron is not intelligent. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It is your belief what others think.

I believe it because I can gather evidence to support my statement. I TRUST what I said, rather than have FAITH in it. I said, "...you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods". Haven't you ever heard about how the Christians persecuted early scientists like Galileo for claiming the Earth revolved around the sun, because the Bible claims in Psalms that the god set the Earth on its foundations so it can't be moved? The Bible claims rabbits have split hooves in Deuteronomy, and that all flying insects walk on all fours in Leviticus, so it's NOT just my belief what others think. I have evidence. Surely you see that?

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

But what about a well known fact that we can see whole in small.

I assume this is that weak macro vs micro argument creationists always bring out. Well, you're forgetting all the time involved (can I also assume you also believe your god is fooling everyone about the age of the Earth?). Small changes each generation over tens of thousands of generation produces speciation. You really should study before ridiculing.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It is also your belief what others think.

I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or a reasoning barrier, or just you trying to obfuscate because you have no good arguments, but this response is just weird. I gave you a scenario about my imaginary neighbors, I told you what they were thinking because they told me. I was asking you what you would do if faced with that situation in real life. You answered it, briefly, when you said you would tell them the truth. Ever since then, you've avoided answering further.

I just wanted to show you how people can be wrong in their religious beliefs, like all of us can be wrong. The difference is, science uses information we can TRUST, so we don't get caught in a process where we just blindly believe things we can't support.

 

[mar_mar]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Actually, there is. In both psychology and sociology. At least your record of consistently invalid posts remains unabated. 

Don't forget that in science you have only bag with bones. You don't have definition for consciousness either for mind, or awareness. You don't know what they are. So where does conscience come from??? Maybe...you took this concept from religion?

[iNow]

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

So where does conscience come from?

You’ll need to define that for me, but the simple answer is likely an evolved tendency toward aligning with group norms and an upbringing within a culture that reinforces them socially. 

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

in science you have only bag with bones

That’s good stuff. Have you considered putting these fun little nuggets of yours inside fortune cookies?

[npts2020]

13 hours ago, mar_mar said:

So where does conscience come from???

Seems to me conscience comes from ones personal philosophical leanings. Consciousness, on the other hand, is one of those "eye of the beholder" type things where it means exactly whatever the person using the term wants it to mean unless there is some other agreed upon definition

[Luc Turpin]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

There has to an option for more than one response. A block of iron responds to a rise in temperature by expanding, or to outside pressure by shrinking, but a block of iron is not intelligent. 

Agree with the issue you raised with the above indicated definition

Here is another one that introduces concepts of 'unforeseeable" and decision-making into the definition

‘An intelligent cell contains a compartment, which is capable of collecting and integrating a variety of physically different and unforeseeable signals as the basis of problem-solving decisions.’

Also, not necessarily a definition, but a description of what is the main trust of my argument.

‘Intelligence is inherently collective rather than individual. We are collections of cells, with each cell possessing competencies developed from their evolution from unicellular organisms. This forms a multi-scale competency architecture, where each level, from cells to tissues to organs, is solving problems within their unique spaces. Properly recognizing intelligence, which spans different scales of existence, is vital for understanding life’s complexities.  This perspective suggests a radical shift in understanding ourselves and the biological world around us.”

Michael Levin, developmental biologist – Tufts University

5 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Seems to me conscience comes from ones personal philosophical leanings. Consciousness, on the other hand, is one of those "eye of the beholder" type things where it means exactly whatever the person using the term wants it to mean unless there is some other agreed upon definition

Consciousness is what allowed you to think and write this post. It does not come from one’s personal philosophical leanings, but its interpretation is influenced by it. Consciousness has properties; e.g. you lose it in sleep and anesthesia. The simplest definition is awake and aware of one's surroundings. But, no more on it as we are transgressing the main subject matter of this thread. Not sure if I am allowed to do so, but there is a topic on 'mind" somewhere in Science Forums. 

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

Not sure why I bothered to post on-topic here  yesterday, using a concrete example, but I won't repeat that mistake again.  Good luck and adios.

Apologies for being late in responding. I was trying to locate a study that would have introduced a surprising twist to your borer post. The study implied that under environmental stress, bacteria manipulate their DNA and create circumstances to increase the rate of transcription mistakes in order to find a way of surviving under stress.  Highly controversial and that is why I wanted to find the study before posting it, but cannot do so. Also, I know that one study does not make it so and that I might be describing the study incorrectly.  The experiment was about removing the usual source of energy of bacteria, replacing it with one that they could not use (or could no longer use; I am not sure; which would make a significant difference on interpretation of findings) and see what happens". The outcome was a successful transition to the new source of energy. The devil is in the details here, and I do not have them.  Will continue searching for the study.