The Longest-Running Evolution Experiment

Published on Jun 16, 2021
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., & 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., & 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., & Desai, M. M. (2017). The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations. Nature, 551(7678), 45-50. -

Blount, Z. D., Borland, C. Z., & 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., & Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, 362(6415). -

Wiser, M. J., Ribeck, N., & 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


  • Wait, but evolution wouldn’t really happen if you didn’t have the selective pressure of competing with other bacteria for resources. I mean it would, the bacteria would still have mutations, but as long as the those mutations weren’t fatal, the colonies would simply randomly generate new versions but none of them would be selected for. In other words, there wouldn’t really be any “improvement” because there wouldn’t be any need to. What would they be improving at? I guess what I’m saying is that your environment is changing and it’s hard to imagine one in which nothing changed. Even in lab conditions, there’s still selective pressure. And as the colony grows, that pressure increases. So evolution is happening in the colonies not in spite of there being no environmental change in the lab, but because of it. Or are you saying that the environmental change is relatively small in the lab compared to the “wild.” And therefore, we’d expect to see a higher rate of evolutionary adaption in the wild than we would expect in the lab? Or were you saying that even in a static environment, there’s always a way to become better adapted to it, there is no perfect way to be adapted? It seems to me, nature would find the top best ways to be adapted and they would probably be different. But I also ask the question, is it even possible to keep the environment static and unchanging? And environment with 10 million bacteria in the same media is very different than an environment with 10. Even an environment with 11 bacteria is different than one with 10. So how could you effectively keep the environment the same? Or am I just missing the point? Lol

  • But why does it stay coli and doesn't evolve into a new species of bacteria?

  • Horrifying

  • Deliberately creating superbacteria... what could go wrong?


  • At what point in the experiment did the E. Coli change into a different species of microorganism?

    • The E coli don't change into a different species. The population diverges and accumulates differences, and at some point people determine these differences sufficient to label the populations as separate species. Species is a human concept, and a human label. By an ecotype conception of microbial species, the Ara-3 strain should already be classified as a separate species. By a more conventional delimitation, not until the populations reach a 3% 16S divergence.

  • its adaptation not evolution

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

  • Ah a miniverse

  • So let me get this straight... you guys are evolving super hungry, super fast breeding bacteria that aren't fussy eaters :/

  • But after the equivalent of "1.5 million years" of evolution, they haven't really evolved. They are still E.coli, just better adapted E.coli. They still have the DNA of E.coli. They haven't evolved into worms or another organism. I would say this is evidence of adaptation, not evolution.

    • "I would say this is evidence of adaptation, not evolution." Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "They haven't evolved into worms or another organism." If they evolved into worms or another organism, that would disprove evolution. Expecting as evidence for evolution something that would disprove evolution is a fairly clear demonstration that you don't understand what evolution is in the first place.

  • And everyone wonder how we get to the Fauci Ouchie and the bio-terrorism we going through now. Starts like this right here

  • This is cool to watch however a non-scientist here would think that these bacteria are adapting not evolving. Meaning these bacteria didn’t grow a tail or change their physical attributes to become something else. The closest they came was that they introduced something new to their diet. A far cry from physical change. My kid decided to try mushrooms last week but he’s still my son. Definitely cool but not what I think defines evolution.

    • "would think that these bacteria are adapting not evolving" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is.

  • Bounty? Really? Bizarre.

  • Promoting paper towels is pretty dumb. You're trying to make people afraid of doing something that was never dangerous with a very unscientific experiment, and promoting an unnecessary product that's bad for the environment. I'm disappointed that a science channel I respect would accept a sponsor like this.

  • So, is this theory can apply to viruses too? If so, people can estimate how frequently Covid-19 will change per generation in theory?

  • This is absolutely amazing, I am fascinated by evolution. I want to see more Also I'm surprised you advertised bounty. There is nothing wrong with a little bacteria and germaphobia is indicative of a disconnection with the earth. Let's reduce and reuse, not encourage waste due to neurotic fears.

    • yes, very disappointing. Especially his completely unscientific 'experiment' to prove why they're useful.

  • So this is what will actually kill us all?

  • I also use paper towels but I use the less expensive brands

  • My question is would there ever be a singularity that would happen during the evolutionary process

  • What a brilliant universe G-D Created, even a tiny bacterium is programed to evolve, WOW!!!

  • Eat E. coli, Jonathan Wells!

  • 11:15 I got goosebumps here.

  • Sponsored by paper towels... How about you stop promoting non eco-friendly products?

  • gloves??

  • @Veritasium, you might suggest the professor and his students to use mipar ( to count those bacteria. Counting by hand is not necessary nowadays.

  • Could you try this with various antibiotics? seperated from each other in the same fashion ? Did you try bacteria from the Ganges river? I heated that there is a antibiotics plant dumping these batches of bacteria in the water…

  • would be funny if one day thes ebacteria became small animals with eyes

  • The smartest ad integration

  • Wow, this is real nice science, love it! Keep going with you works its really cool. :D

  • Wait, so if I get the ending there. Life shows a capacity to transcend entropy?

    • Define "Entropy." And nothing in the universe (flowing chain reactions) transcends the universe.

  • When did Adam Ragusea start doin science content ?

  • According to the evolution theory they were supposed to develop into a multicellular organism or something. And this is what we do not see.

    • "According to the evolution theory they were supposed to develop into a multicellular organism or something." So you're saying you don't know anything about evolutionary theory? Fun.

  • Veritasium FAKE for money: big experiment setup to pitch paper towels - microprint disclamer in the end says that experiment is "not representative". Not the the sort of statistical significance that I've grown used to wrt this channel. Oh, and you should always use recycled material or wash. There's always room for a couple kitchen cloths in the washer.

  • I'm really concerned about how they handle bacteria... No gloves, just a slight "Touch" in the fire and "importante" the material and bacteria are being exposed to Open air...

  • It's all well and good until the germs can transfer through xenonite

  • 1st gen e coli: we cant eat that its deadly! 1000000+ gen e coli: u wut m8?!

  • Crematoriums are for organisms that are already dead... Those furnaces look more like something found at Dachau

  • *how to create a supervirus*

  • This is a highly controlled environment. Compare the competitive advantage of the newest and oldest colonies in a natural world where innumerable other factors weigh in to survival. It may very well be that the older organisms are better able to survive. This is analogous to selective breeding that creates an animal with desired characteristics but is otherwise less capable of overall survival compared to its ancestors. I'm afraid this teaches me nothing.

    • "I'm afraid this teaches me nothing." Says more about you than the experiment, I think.

  • Did anyone else notice the reference from the movie “The 13th Warrior” on the fridge? Timestamp 7:50 minute

  • YES! Nothing out is not in and everything out is in ;-)) 1.5 (oo.000) is human program given by life = love = what you are in need of, who (do you) are (you)? I took my ABO once more!

  • Queen Elizabeth I (of England) cooked a fruitcake for members of parliament to celebrate its opening. A bit was saved to be included in the next parliament's opening, etc. So now, when parliament begins its new season, the members are privileged to have a bit of cake cooked by Shakespeare's favorite monarch! [i have not fact-checked this because i don't want to find out if it is not true]

  • Mad scientist fell into bacteria gacha hell...

  • Is he referring to Confirmation Bias or is it something else?

  • 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.

  • Imagine being the chad bacteria to first eat the citrate

  • 42, ¿coincidence? I think not

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

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

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

  • 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.

    • "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?

  • Nah, if the flask breaks we become the solution to the experiment.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

  • I see you evolving from young youtuber :D

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

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

  • Then someone breaks the glass.

  • 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?)...

  • Are tests like this being done on viruses?

  • 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?

    • @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

    • @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 CAS9 Both are human though, yes. I poorly worded it.

    • @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?

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

  • so how long til one of the containers crawls off? :P

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

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

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

  • Wait. She wasn’t wearing gloves. Am I missing something?

  • 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 CLark "viable offspring means to me that the offspring can then reproduce." Then you are looking for the word 'fertile'. Viable just means 'living', so the offspring is born and can survive. "The sturddlefish is sterile like the mule" That's unclear at this point. They won't hit sexual maturity for a decade, so until then it's just guess work. Also, mules are not always sterile, just usually, and the overwhelming majority of hybrids are more fertile than mules. "Do we have empirical evidence of this?" Yes, it's how reproduction works. "Is there any physical evidence to show these ancestral lineages?" The fossil record. "but I still have issue with the assumption that an organism of one species is the inherent ancestor of another species." Good news, we don't assume any single organism is an ancestor to another species. The theory operates at the level of populations, not individuals. 'Ancestral to' usually just means that a fossil population is more closely related to the actual ancestors of a modern population than to anything else, not that it literally contained the ancestors. "We don't have evidence of one species evolving into another species in the fossil record or in todays timeline" Very technically, a population becomes a different species from its ancestors when people say it does, because species is a human label. What we have extensive evidence for is populations diverging morphologically over time, and such morphological divergence is highly correlated with getting labeled as a separate species by people. But using a more colloquial understanding of 'one species evolving into another', we have plenty of examples. Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, for one. We also have really great records for the evolution of horses, whales, birds and several other groups of dinosaurs, a huge number of fish lineages, and countless invertebrates. More or less every major transition is covered. "or in todays timeline." There are dozens of laboratory examples of speciation, and several examples in the wild.

    • @Crispr CAS9 viable offspring means to me that the offspring can then reproduce. The sturddlefish is sterile like the mule. A hybrid is a hybrid and not a species for a reason. Your definition if I understand correctly relating to phylogeny in taxonomy that classifies organisms base on closely related characteristics. So you assume that because there are shared characteristics in the tree of life taxonomy of generations that the said species have a common ancestor. Do we have empirical evidence of this? Is there any physical evidence to show these ancestral lineages? I believe taxonomy to be a great way of grouping organisms in a way to understand common characteristics of organisms but I still have issue with the assumption that an organism of one species is the inherent ancestor of another species. We don't have evidence of one species evolving into another species in the fossil record or in todays timeline. It's a definition that proves to much.

    • @Gary CLark Definition from your most recent comment (my emphasis): " a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or *populations* potentially capable of *interbreeding*" Definition from your previous comment: "the ability to reproduce viable offspring" You'll notice that the Webster's definition indicates that it is referencing populations, delimited by potential interbreeding within that population. Your definition makes no indication of populations or how to delimit within. By your definition, every fertile organism is a separate species, which would obviously be nonsense. The Webster's definition, as it happens, is also wrong since it would mean there are no species of bacteria, which is obviously nonsense. And it would mean that paddlefish and sturgeons are the same species, in spite of being in different families. They would have been better to say something like: "a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations [sharing some set of characteristics, (e.g. the ability to interbreed).]" There are many common species concepts in biology, and none are universally accepted. Webster's decided to use only one of them, which is problematic, but then again they are not writing for a scientific audience. "What is your definition." Species are hypotheses that populations delimited by some metric(s) are monophyletic with respect to ancestry, and that no monophyletic subclade(s) of those populations can be delimited by the same metric(s). The resulting population's monophyly can then be tested by other delimitation metrics producing either concordant or discordant results. "Now I think that your just saying stuff to say stuff." Language is a tricky thing, and must be used with care. Especially when discussing complex topics. I use my words in very specific ways to convey very specific meanings, and I assume that others do the same. It is possible I did not respond to the meaning you intended but I can only respond to the meaning I understand, not necessarily the one you intend.

    • @Crispr CAS9 websters dictionary : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name. What is your definition. Now I think that your just saying stuff to say stuff.

    • @Gary CLark "definition of a species is the ability to reproduce viable offspring" That is not a definition of species at all, and certainly not the way the word is used in biological science. "I would argue there is proof in science or rahter evidence if you want to call that" Since proof and evidence are not synonyms, this is not a question of preference. One is correct, the other isn't. There is no proof in science. "organized randomly through mutation in a way to create vision." The organization is by selection, which is non-random. Mutations just produce the variation that selection can act on. "how do we know it's random" Because we know how mutations work, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. "Could it not be hormonal?" Hormonal differences can cause differences in fitness, but what causes the differences in hormones? To the best of my knowledge, all differences in hormones are either differences in genetics or differences in environment acting on genetics. And here we are talking about a subset of the population with a differential hormonal response when exposed to the same environment as the rest of the population, so it can *only* be the underlying genetics that explains it. "or that the organism sensing something is changing" Let's say this, or any of the rest of what you suggest happens: the question is 'how is it happening in *some* members of the population and not others?' Is there an answer other than genetics available?

  • 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 M "That is the events evolution proposes." No, it isn't.

    • @Crispr CAS9 That is the events evolution proposes.

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

  • E.Colocaust :(

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 12:31 ... I 100% read Gattaca haha

  • The lucky 1% gets to reproduce..... like the super rich haha

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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?

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • Where are the damn gloves?

  • This video was amazing. I was hooked from the beginning.

  • bounty blew my mind

  • It seems dangerous to me learning bacteria to survive antibiotics

  • This is a perfect plot for a disaster movie

  • why 42 though?

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

  • 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 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 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 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 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.

    • "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?

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

  • I'm put in mind of 'The Outer Limits' episode 'Wolf 359'.

  • This reminds me of Primer

  • Evolution is Adaptation Adaptability

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

  • 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!!