Laboratory Speciation in Helianthus Evolves a Native Species

furball4paws

[furball4paws]

Laboratory Speciation in Helianthus Evolves a Native Species

DNA examination of five species of Helianthus (H. annuus, H. petiolarus fallax, H. anomalus, H. paradoxus, and H. deserticola) suggested that H. annuus and H. petiolarus fallax are the evolutionary parents of the other three species (Rieseberg 1993, 1995, 1993). All five species are self-incompatible and fertile. Typically, H. annuus (the ancestor of the commercial sunflower) and H. petiolarus fallax form hybrids that are almost fully sterile. However, the few fertile hybrids, when subjected to sib-matings and back crossing regimes yield a new species that is fully fertile and cannot cross with either of the parental species. This new species is virtually identical to H. anomalus. The produced species is genetically isolated from the parents by chromosomal barriers. "Under laboratory conditions these changes are repeatable across independent experiments" (Niklas, p.64). The laboratory derived H. anomalus readily crosses with the native H. anomalus. Results indicate that H. deserticola and H. paradoxus may also have arisen via hybridization of H. annuus and H. petiolarus fallax. These two species have different synthetic capabilities from the parents and live in sandier and drier soils. Hybrid speciation may be common in plants where hybrids often form (see Gilia sp., Grant, 1966, Stebbins, 1959, Arnold, 1995), but is presumed rare in animals where hybrids are less common (however, see the minnow Gila seminuda, Bellini, 1994). Experiments to confirm the evolutionary parents of H. deserticola and H. paradoxus have not been performed. 1. Based on nuclear and chloroplast DNA analysis results, the Theory of Evolution predicts that H. annuus and H. pertiolarus fallax are evolutionary ancestors of H. anomalus, H. deserticola and H. paradoxus. 2. Hybrids of H. annuus and H. petiolarus fallax subjected to different regimes (at least 3) of back crossing and sib-matings, all converged into a new plant species with "nearly identical gene combinations" (Rieseberg) as the native species H. anomalus. This confirms the natural evolutionary parents of H. anomalus as predicted.

References 1. Arnold, J and S.A. Hodges. 1995. Are Natural Hybrids Fit or Unfit Relative to Their Parents? Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:67-71. 2. Bullini, L. 1994. Origin and Evolution of Animals by Hybrid Animal Species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:422-6. 3. Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd. Edition, Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA. 4. Grant, V. 1966. The Origin of a New Species of Gilia in a Hybridization Experiment. Genetics 54:1189-99. 5. Niklas, K.J. 1997. The Evolutionary Biology of Plants. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 6. Rieseberg, L.H. 1995. The Role of Hybridization in Evolution: Old Wine in New Skins. Amer. J. Bot. 82:944-53. 7. Rieseberg, L.H., and N.C. Ellstrand. 1993. What Can Molecular and Morphological Markers Tell Us About Plant Hybridization? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 12:213-41. 8. Rieseberg, L.H., B. Sinervo, C.R. Linden, M. Ungerer and D.M. Arias. 1996. Role of Gene Interactions in Hybrid Speciation: Evidence from Ancient and Experimental Hybrids. Science 272:741-44.A

Nice, neat, repeatable and meets all scientific criteria for a definitive experiment.

[jennyp]

I had a more mundane idea. You can often figure out an organism's environment from the properties of some of its proteins. For example, animals that live at low oxygen levels have hemoglobins with very low binding constants for oxygen. So, if you figured out the sequence of several proteins from the Murinae common ancestor, you might be able to figure out quite a bit about how it lived, even though you had no idea what it looked like.

Ah, sneaky! Then you'll like this method of estimating paleoelevations.

[VadeRetro]

"It could have just been designed that way, therefore it isn't evidence of evolution".

You can say about anything at all, a rubble pile or crabgrass, that it's intelligently designed. However, true information content is only demonstrated if you are able to explain what's intelligent about it and where you see the design.

[RadioAstronomer]

Love them. Thank you!!

I really like S. Harris also. :-)

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/scimags.html

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Actually, this one seems to be playing the game of "It could have just been designed that way, therefore it isn't evidence of evolution".

That is exactly why demonstrating (not merely suggesting) the process(es) which supposedly cause evolution would be much more persuasive than picking and choosing among common skeletal characteristics. If I had a good design for something, I would probably use it over and over again. Many processes have been suggested and discarded over the years from Darwin to Gould. None have been scientifically tested and validated.

[Dimensio]

That is exactly why demonstrating (not merely suggesting) the process(es) which supposedly cause evolution would be much more persuasive than picking and choosing among common skeletal characteristics.

Why bother? No matter what we show you, you can always cop-out by saying "It could have been designed that way!"

If I had a good design for something, I would probably use it over and over again.

Which is why mammalian eyes differ so wildly from arguably far superior avian eyes, and why bird wings are so incredibly different than bat wings. And why the designer chose to use the same broken Vitamin C synthesis gene in all primates, including humans. The designer was just recycling a defect.

Many processes have been suggested and discarded over the years from Darwin to Gould. None have been scientifically tested and validated.

Please. A number of proposed mechanisms have been observed. You just dismiss them because you don't want to accept the implications.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

1) If evolution is part of the "design" then so be it. I have no philosophical problem with it. Most "scientists", on the other hand, must believe it is all natural processes in order to continue subjecting it to study. It is fine with me if that's what keeps you going. The only problem I have is when you state with certainty that everything is subject to natural laws. And in order to prove that you overstate what you know and present as fact things that only conjecture, best guesses or subject to interpretation.

2) The religious text of your choice says nothing in this world is perfect.

3) I'm sorry, but they haven't. Nothing I've seen is very impressive. But many scientists seem too ready to jump to conclusions because they are the ones who fear there might be limits.

Just count what no scientist on this thread could answer or tried to sidestep or semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids, a "new species" that is not new, why it is valid to call a group of fossils "whales" because the ears and teeth are similar when the bodies are drastically different, why "When a development is really independent it shows in the DNA" does not assume the conclusion it is supposed to prove, why creation implies there should not be a "defective" GLO gene ("Defective" is an opinion, not a physical property. You are aware that some genes have multiple purposes? If you look for a gene which correlates with one property, that does not mean it does not also correlate with another property you were not looking for. And even if not, you still have to assume the conclusion absent observation of the actual or analogous occurence. The logic is rather simple.)

No, it is you who simply scoff and dismiss and move on, refusing to consider other views.

[Dimensio]

Most "scientists", on the other hand, must believe it is all natural processes in order to continue subjecting it to study.

That would be because science is unable to study anything beyond the natural universe.

The only problem I have is when you state with certainty that everything is subject to natural laws.

When speaking of science, there is no other option. If something isn't subject to natural laws, then science cannot address it in any meaningful way.

And in order to prove that you overstate what you know and present as fact things that only conjecture, best guesses or subject to interpretation.

What, you mean like not considering every cockamamie assertion that a supernatural process "might" have been behind some given event?

2) The religious text of your choice says nothing in this world is perfect.

What "religious text of my choice?" I'm an atheist.

I'm sorry, but they haven't. Nothing I've seen is very impressive.

That would be because you're not looking.

ust count what no scientist on this thread could answer or tried to sidestep or semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids,

What are you talking about? You've already been corrected on this matter.

a "new species" that is not new,

Are you playing semantic games now? Does it not get to be labelled "New" unless it is no older than a date that you specify?

why it is valid to call a group of fossils "whales" because the ears and teeth are similar when the bodies are drastically different

Are you a biologist? Have you studied the fossils in-depth to determine that there is no valid reason to call them "whales", or are you a layman who has decided that you know better than all of those uppity secularists with their "degrees" and their "education" and you know a whale when you see one, damnit, and you know that you're right because some of the fossil finds are not museum quality, and that just proves everything.

"When a development is really independent it shows in the DNA" does not assume the conclusion it is supposed to prove

We're sorry that we don't assume supernaturalistic explanations by default, as you apparently do.

Independent development resulting in DNA differences was a prediction of evolution, not a find out of nowhere that led to a conclusion. It was predicted that similarly functional structures that appeared in otherwise apparently unrelated (due to other physiological differences or the fossil record) species would show differences in the DNA. That prediction was borne out.

why creation implies there should not be a "defective" GLO gene ("Defective" is an opinion, not a physical property.

The real question is why the "broken" (in that it does not work as it does in most creatures that have it) GLO gene seems to be the same in all primates, including humans, and different in guinea pigs. If the "designer" really wanted to copy over that "feature" across species, why wouldn't it be the same? Moreover, why include such a detrimental trait? We'd do a lot better without that little inability; ever hear of scurvy? Why would the "designer" decide to include the same type of non-functional gene in all primates?

You are aware that some genes have multiple purposes?

Tell me the purpose of the "broken" GLO gene, then.

No, it is you who simply scoff and dismiss and move on, refusing to consider other views.

Please. You assume your conclusion from the beginning, and then invent bogus reasons for not accepting any evidence to the contrary; your "a designer could have done it this way" excuse for dismissing any and all presented evidence for evolution is an empty cop-out.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I'm disappointed. I was hoping for something responsive. Still, you make a few points worth addressing:

"When speaking of science, there is no other option. If something isn't subject to natural laws, then science cannot address it in any meaningful way."

That is a limitation on science, isn't it? If, for example, a city disappeared or a new species suddenly appeared in your livingroom, your inability to explain it scientifically would not change the fact of it. You could assume that such never happens and never has happened. But on what basis does science make that assumption? The sum total of all events in the universe which have occured while being scientifically observed is literally infinitesimal.

"What, you mean like not considering every cockamamie assertion..."

Cockamamie assertions usually don't take that much to dispel.

"What "religious text of my choice?" I'm an atheist."

That does not prevent you from choosing one to test my assertion.

"semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids,

What are you talking about? You've already been corrected on this matter."

js1138: "Here we have an example of a fertile hybrid that breeds despite chromosome count differences."
furball4paws: "I have chosen my words quite carefully. None of these species are hybrids. Hybrids are sterile."
furball4paws: "Hybrids are often completely sterile, because they fail to produce the appropriate sex organs."
furball4paws: "In Helianthus, hybrids of H. annuus and H. petiolarus are almost completely sterile, but there are a few with some fertility. If there weren't there would be no post."
furball4paws: "A mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse producing a hybrid. Except for one report that has not been confirmed, all mules are sterile."

If you find these "corrections", all responses to me, to be consistent, then you are insane.

"We're sorry that we don't assume supernaturalistic explanations by default, as you apparently do."

No, that would be exactly the opposite of a useful approach. But such an explanation exists until and if you eliminate it. You cannot eliminate supernatural explanations by default.

"Have you studied the fossils in-depth to determine that there is no valid reason to call them whales"

You can call them what you like. It does not make it so, particularly when the differences are far greater than the similarities. I invite you look at the chart hotlinked into post 123. The other differences are explained away by showing the known fossil species as offshoots of the main branch. The problem with that approach is that it leaves you with nothing on the main line and no filled in "missing links" at all. This flawed logic is repeated in charts of human and other species evolution.

"Independent development resulting in DNA differences was a prediction of evolution, not a find out of nowhere that led to a conclusion. It was predicted that similarly functional structures that appeared in otherwise apparently unrelated (due to other physiological differences or the fossil record) species would show differences in the DNA. That prediction was borne out."

That is a fine result. But it doesn't distinguish between the two theories. "Creationism" at its basic doesn't make a prediction in this area regardless of whether individuals have. I am very familiar with computer program design which is analogous to the function of DNA. I would not be surprised that functions in similar applications would have similar logic (reusable modules) while other applications would have quite different logic.

"Tell me the purpose of the "broken" GLO gene, then."

Telling me it doesn't have a purpose would be more to the point.

"Please. You assume your conclusion from the beginning, and then invent bogus reasons for not accepting any evidence to the contrary; your "a designer could have done it this way" excuse for dismissing any and all presented evidence for evolution is an empty cop-out."

Until the *processes* are demonstrated, you cannot eliminate the possibilities of what did happen. I need no assumptions whatever to know that and therefore it is the epitome of scientific inquiry.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The real question is why the "broken" (in that it does not work as it does in most creatures that have it) GLO gene seems to be the same in all primates, including humans, and different in guinea pigs. If the "designer" really wanted to copy over that "feature" across species, why wouldn't it be the same? Moreover, why include such a detrimental trait? We'd do a lot better without that little inability; ever hear of scurvy? Why would the "designer" decide to include the same type of non-functional gene in all primates?

That would require reading the mind of the Creator (if there is one.) I'll offer a suggestion in the form of an analogy from the Bible however:

2 Corinthians 12:7-9
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

I'll return the questions: Why would such a "defect" survive in preference to a functioning gene if natural selection were operative? That seems to be a much more difficult question than answering from a design perspective.


Out of curiosity, did you not read my last post or did you simply dismiss it?

[Dimensio]

I'll return the questions: Why would such a "defect" survive in preference to a functioning gene if natural selection were operative?

It wouldn't be a detriment if it occured in a population that was already making use of plentiful food sources that provided vitamin C.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

It wouldn't be a detriment if it occured in a population that was already making use of plentiful food sources that provided vitamin C.

And since you don't know whether that was the case or not, you have another wild-assed guess. Yes, if you assume evolution and a continuous availability of environmental vitamin C you can hypothesis that there would be no detriment to natural selection. But you cannot then use that as evidence of evolution because that was one of your assumptions!

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

It wouldn't be a detriment if it occured in a population that was already making use of plentiful food sources that provided vitamin C.

And since you don't know whether that was the case or not, you have another wild-assed guess. Yes, if you assume evolution and a continuous availability of environmental vitamin C you can hypothesize that there would be no detriment to natural selection. But you cannot then use that as evidence of evolution because that was one of your assumptions!

By the way, it doesn't do any good to shuffle them around because no matter which two you assume you have two unknowns for assumptions. You cannot solve two unknowns in one equation. And since natural selection has not been proven to cause macro-evolution, you cannot use it as an independent assumption.

[Dimensio]

And since you don't know whether that was the case or not, you have another wild-assed guess.

No, I wasn't there. However, the fact is that if a population lacked a vitamin-synthesis gene and did not have any access to a food source through which they could take in vitamin C, they would die out. It is thus reasonable to assume that every current ape species comes from ancestry that lived with access to vitamin-c enriched foods throughout their ancestry at least to the point where the vitamin C gene became broken.

Yes, if you assume evolution and a continuous availability of environmental vitamin C you can hypothesis that there would be no detriment to natural selection. But you cannot then use that as evidence of evolution because that was one of your assumptions!

Now you're trying to play semantic games in order to distract from the facts.

Fact: Humans and other existing ape species have a broken vitamin C synthesis gene.

Fact: Guinea pigs also have a broken vitamin C synthesis gene.

Fact: The broken Vitamin C synthesis genes in humans and apes are the same, however study of the guinea pig genome shows that the gene in guinea pigs is different, which means that there is more than one possible genetic sequence that can break vitamin C synthesis.

Now, it is possible that the gene got broken in exactly the same way along every different species of ape, but that seems incredibly unlikely. It is far more likely that the gene was broken in some common ancestor which then diverged into the ape species that exist today (including humans).

Next you ask how natural selection wouldn't select against individuals with the broken gene. I'm offering an explanation as to how that wouldn't have happened. I'm not assuming my conclusion to provide the explanation, I'm merely pointing out that the event of humans and apes sharing a common ancestor in which the vitamin C synthesis gene became broken is not impossible as you seem to want to assert. I'm not using the "readily available vitamin C food source" as evidence for my assertion, because I don't need to do that. If a population is unable to synthesize vitamin C on its own and can't take in vitamin C from any available food sources, it will die; if it is able to readily obtain vitamin C from its local food sources, it will be able to survive. This is true whether or not evolution is true.

[Dimensio]

By the way, it doesn't do any good to shuffle them around because no matter which two you assume you have two unknowns for assumptions.

What are you talking about? That the populations had access to vitamin C in their food sources is a given; if they didn't have it, they would have died out and they would not exist today. You're the one trying to turn it into an assumption because you are either totally ignorant of biology or you're a shameless liar trying to play semantic games.

You cannot solve two unknowns in one equation.

Who said that it was an unknown? If the populations didn't have access to vitamin C in their food sources, they would be dead. It's a given that if humans and apes share a common ancestor with a broken vitamin C synthesis gene, all divergent populations would have either had access to vitamin C through their food supply or they would have died out. This is not an assumption, it is a consequence of vitamin C deficiency. If you can't see that, even if you don't accept evolution, then you are either not terribly bright or you are being deliberately dishonest.

And since natural selection has not been proven to cause macro-evolution, you cannot use it as an independent assumption.

I'm not making an assumption. I'm pointing out lines of evidence that have led biologists to a conclusion. Is the conclusion proven? Well, no, but then nothing in science is ever proven.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

C'mon, you pulled elementary tricks in both your responses:

In 153 you said, " I'm merely pointing out that the event of humans and apes sharing a common ancestor in which the vitamin C synthesis gene became broken is not impossible as you seem to want to assert."

That is not at all what I assert. In fact, it is closer to the formulation of what you claim, which is that in the absence of direct observational evidence it is impossible or unlikely for the same single gene to have appeared with the same function in two similar species, which share 98% of their genetic code anyway, by design. That is at once counter-intuitive. Nevertheless it does not distinguish between creationism and evolution. That is my point.

In 154 you change the criteria from "plentiful food sources that provided vitamin C" to merely "access to vitamin C in their food sources" over thousands or millions of years. The argument I was making was that in times of scarcity, the individuals in the originating species who could generate their own vitamin C would have been at a competitive advantage. So one wonders how our line became dominant, not that it is impossible, just less likely.

You still haven't responded to #148.

Back to your semantic return...

[furball4paws]

note to self

[furball4paws]

btt for me

[Southack]

"However, the few fertile hybrids, when subjected to sib-matings and back crossing regimes yield a new species that is fully fertile and cannot cross with either of the parental species."

Cross-breeding can not explain the origin of the first two species, making it an intellectual dead-end for Evolutionists, Creationists, and Intelligent Designers.

[Liberal Classic]

"Oh no. Not again."

[furball4paws]

I suggest you re-read the original post carefully. You comment implies that you didn't understand it.