Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years

UC Berkeley News Center ^ | 27 October 2005 | Robert Sanders

[mlc9852]

Why do you believe that? Are you saying if a geologist doesn't believe we descended from apes, he can't find oil?

[GadareneDemoniac]

Give 'em a break, will ya? In another 8,000,000 years they'll be doing calculus and driving cars.

[RunningWolf]

Is there any science on these threads? ha ha ha ;)

[RunningWolf]

You know, he just might be

[RunningWolf]

You are an ape and a human, as am I.

Sounds just like what she (an anthropologist) told me at a University honky tonk 25 years ago, I held it against her ;)

[savedbygrace]

And you seem to be making assumptions about what I'm thinking. You so busy creating straw men out of whole cloth that you apparently don't have time to read what I actually wrote.

Either you're so dumb you're willing to accept what's written in an article ABOUT some research without reading the research itself, or you're just a koolaide drinking evolutionist who never learned to think for himself.

Got a link, or not? Yes or no, or don't bother to reply.

[Junior]

Wrong on all accounts, bucko. I know enough about research to know that if these guys were pulling stuff out of their asses (as you seem to think researchers do) they'd be put paid to by their peers.

To you, however, it's all assumptions isn't it?

[RunningWolf]

Do you have any purpose on these threads other than to yell out cheap shots from the peanut gallery?

I thought that was your job.. whats up with that?

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Tell me how I have been rude.

You haven't don't worry

Wolf

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker and plug for The List-O-Links.

[Dimensio]

But I love how she keeps responding to you saying that she's not responding to you!

Apparently this policy "started" when I claimed that all creationists are liars. Except that I didn't actually claim that, mlc9852 was lying when she said that I did. some creationists are liars and provided three examples. Rather than admit that yes, some creationists are dishonest or at least attempt address the examples that I gave to try and show that they weren't documented examples of dishonesty, she first changed the subject, and then lied and claimed that I had accused all creationists of being dishonest. Which gave me a fourth example of documented creationist dishonesty.

[furball4paws]

She let you get that close?

[Liberal Classic]

You have a point to make about the quality of my posts? Make it now.

[RunningWolf]

Hey mlc9852,

here one for all /the ape is man/ contingeint.

And if two trains leave Chicago traveling in opposite directions at 60 mph, and one contains a carload of monkeys, and one contains a carload of evolutionists, how far is it before both trains have occupants with the same IQ?

Well, calculating in for the variable=(evo cultist).., about a mile? /sarc>

Screaming chimps doing head flips..., eeh ooh ooh, eeeh ooh oh!
..,train sounds CHOO choo choo, CHOO choo choo choo choo, CHOO choo choo choo choo, WooWooohh! WooWooohh! WooWooohh!

Wolf

[staterightsfirst]

The abstract is available and full text (by subscription) is available at:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7063/abs/nature04004.html

Copyright laws prohibit the reproduction of large sections of the journal article here, however, I do have subscription access to it, so if you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Cheers!

[RunningWolf]

mlc9852; I am a human being created to be a human being. Can't speak for you.

Liberal Classic's interpretation
I am a human being... Can't speak for you.

Do you have any purpose on these threads other than to yell out cheap shots from the peanut gallery?

Liberal Classic to Wolf ; You have a point to make about the quality of my posts? Make it now.

No No, I have not read all of your posts, I'm sure some of them are very good. It seemed you were not all that serious here.

But if you were, take a look at when you took out 30% of mlc9852's words to make your 'cheap shot peanut gallery' comment, and then you make the call.
nite

Wolf

[dread78645]

Profound rebuttal placemark

[Smokin' Joe]

Because if they made it this far in just 8,000 years, just think! In a million years, they could be---frogs!

[Smokin' Joe]

While northern and southern lineages could breed successfully, they apparently had diverged enough during their million-year separation that offspring of southern females and northern males failed to develop beyond the tadpole stage. Though crosses involving northern females and southern males successfully produced frogs, the offspring developed more slowly than the offspring of pairs of northern frogs.

Do the southern frogs (or the northern ones for that matter) have some disease or parasite which could cause this effect? Something like what caused all the three-legged frogs a few years back?

[staterightsfirst]

No disease and no parasite required - over time, the genomes just diverge enough that combining the two doesn't work anymore.

They think this has to do with mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on exclusively by the mother (hence why northern female + southern male = OK but slow and southern female + northern male = no development).

Mitochondrial DNA is complimentary to the regular DNA - so say the original ancestor needs genes A and B to survive, mito. DNA produces A, and regular DNA supplies B.

Then, the southern frog mito DNA mutates slowly such that A becomes gene C - but that's okay, because B in regular DNA changes along with it to D such that they work even better than before - so frogs with DC were more successful than AB. Over time, DC becomes more and more common, because they work better.

However, northern still use AB - so when a southern female and a nothern male mate, the southern female contributes mitochondrial gene C, and the northern male contributes gene B - but B and C don't work together at all anymore and no offspring even develops!

Hope this helps...