Posted on 06/17/2003 7:05:07 PM PDT by Pharmboy
H. E. Hoekstra
Evolution has allowed some rock pocket mice,
pictured on light and dark rocks, to produce
distinct fur that helps disguise them.
In the deserts of the Southwest, among the towering saguaros and the spiny cholla cactuses, rock pocket mice hop and dash in search of a meal of seeds. But while these mice may seem to scamper haphazardly across the desert floor, their arrangement in nature is strikingly orderly.
Nearly everywhere these mice are sandy-colored, well camouflaged as they scurry across beige-colored outcrops. But in some areas, ancient lava flows have left behind swaths of blackened rock. There the same species of rock pocket mouse has only dark coats, having evolved an entirely distinct and, for their surroundings, equally well-disguised pelage.
Now, in a recent study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report identifying the gene responsible for the evolution of dark coat coloration in these mice, pinpointing the DNA sequence changes that underlie this classic story of evolutionary change, the cute and furry counterpart to the famous case of the peppered moth.
Researchers say the study is the first documentation of the genetic changes underlying an adaptive change where the evolutionary forces were natural. Scientists point out that other well-known cases involve evolution caused by humans; some have suggested that those changes may be atypical of natural evolutionary change, since they have typically involved intense, directed pressures destroying most of a population, like the spraying of pesticides or the application of antibiotics.
"This work is very important," said Dr. Mike Majerus, an evolutionary geneticist at Cambridge University, who was not part of the study. "Here man is just not involved. The sandy and lava flow substrates are entirely natural phenomena."
Other well-studied examples of human-driven adaptive change include the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects after widespread spraying and the increase in the numbers of dark-winged forms compared with light-winged forms of the peppered moth in the United States and England after industrialization turned air sooty and polluted.
Dr. Michael W. Nachman, a population geneticist, along with colleagues at the University of Arizona, Dr. Hopi E. Hoekstra and Susan L. D'Agostino, studied mice living on Arizona's Pinacate lava flow in Arizona and on light-colored rocks nearby. The researchers were able to take advantage of decades of meticulous work in which other scientists identified some 80 genes that affected coat color in laboratory mice.
On close examination, the light-colored rock pocket mice could be seen to have a type of hair coloration similar to standard, sandy-colored laboratory mice. In this pattern, known as agouti, the hair is black at the base, yellow in the middle and black again at the tip. The dark-colored rock pocket mice had completely dark hairs.
Researchers knew that mutations in a few well-known coat coloration genes in laboratory mice could cause such complete darkening of the hair, and they began by looking at two genes known as agouti and Mc1r. When they looked at DNA sequences in light and dark mice, changes in the agouti gene did not appear to be associated with light-colored fur versus dark-colored. Still, the researchers found that a certain cluster of mutations at Mc1r could be found in every dark-colored mouse.
"It's a textbook story," Dr. Nachman said. "Now we have all the pieces of the puzzle together in a natural setting."
Dr. Nachman noted that while the new study points to the Mc1r gene as the key to turning mice dark on the Pinacate lava flow, the team also found that dark mice on another lava flow in New Mexico did not share those mutations.
"So the same dark color has evolved independently in the two different populations," he said, "through different genetic solutions to the same evolutionary problem." Dr. Nachman said changes in another gene, perhaps the agouti gene, could be responsible for dark coloration in the New Mexico's Pedro Armendaris lava flow.
One could easily imagine that coloration would be of no consequence to the rock pocket mice, as they are nocturnal, darting about under the desert night sky. But researchers, working early in the last century, released light and dark mice on light and dark backgrounds in an enclosure at night and found that owls, a major predator of mice, could easily spot a mouse on a mismatched background.
Dr. Nachman noted, however, that these early researchers did not use rock pocket mice in their study, but instead used a species in which the dark and light forms were actually much less distinct.
As a result, he said, "we think the owls are discriminating even more strongly in our species." He said tiny bits of rock pocket mouse were often found in pellets at owl roosts.
Dr. Majerus said many kinds of animals showed light and dark forms, from deer mice to squirrels and chipmunks. There are even black ladybugs.
"A lot of the dark forms show an association with a particular type of substrate they're on, or the frequency of burning and charring of the trees in the woodlands," he said, noting that it would be interesting to do genetic studies in other animals, to see how many genetic solutions these other animals have come up with to turn dark.
But while many dark forms are abundant and can be studied at scientists' leisure, Dr. Majerus said that of the peppered moth was slowly disappearing.
So while there is nearly unanimous praise for the increasingly clean air in industrialized regions of the United States and Britain, there may be, at least for some scientists, a downside. "We've got about 15 or 16 years," Dr. Majerus said, "before those black forms, if they continue to disappear at the current rate, disappear completely."
On the other hand, sickle-cell anemia is worse than you may realize. It cripples and kills people.
LOL, are you saying that peppered moths change color when they die? Because that's the only way that would be relevant.
It is not irrelevant, because the moths are very hard to see if they perch in the branches of the trees and the coloring would not matter very much in such cases. So you are wrong on both counts.
O...M...G... <gracie voice>Well sure: If it's hard for humans to see them way up there in the branches of trees, then it must be just as hard for birds to see them too, in which case their color is irrelevant!</gracie voice> Um, or are you saying that peppered moths were predated upon by humans???
Either way: Oh ... mah ... GAWD!!!
This is science, and this is precisely why he was so brilliant. Next time you need a biologic advance to save your life, refuse it--if you dare.
Best,
PB
They never claimed speciation, it was MICROEVOLUTION!!
Whatever they claimed it was a lie and a fraud. There was no mutation, at most there was a change in the amount of spotted moths over white moths - but we can't be sure because the so called 'scientist' who spent years following the moth was a fraud. This is not speciation, not micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, not evolution at all. It is nothing except an example of the desperation of evolutionists in finding any living proof for their theory.
Hey thug - if you disagree with me, direct your comments at me. If you have nothing but insults as you do here, keep your comments to yourself.
I have proof that the fraud evolved, over many generations, into a little tiny white lie.
Hey thug, why don't you refute what was said. It is not mindless. It is a list of examples that show evolution to be complete garbage. Insulting the poster does not refute what was said.
LOL, are you saying that peppered moths change color when they die? Because that's the only way that would be relevant.
Shame on you Jenny. The reason that he had to paste them to the side of trees is that they do not rest on the side of trees - as I said. His statement was that they rested on the side of trees and that was when they were picked off by birds. The man was a liar and a fraud and it is an example of the shamefullness and dishonesty of evolution that they still try to use this fraud as an example of evolution.
It is not irrelevant, because the moths are very hard to see if they perch in the branches of the trees and the coloring would not matter very much in such cases. So you are wrong on both counts.-me-
O...M...G... Well sure: If it's hard for humans to see them way up there in the branches of trees, then it must be just as hard for birds to see them too,
No Jenny, you know exactly what I am speaking of. Mixed in with the leaves and branches they are hard to spot by birds.
The desperation of evolutionists in defending this fraud which in no way proves anything regarding evolution shows the desperation of evolution giving evidence of its theory.
This is science, and this is precisely why he was so brilliant.
In particular, the surfacing of such snippets is Creationist Quote Science. Darwin stated his theory as precisely as possible. He anticipated every objection which he could himself imagine. Thus, his text is replete with rhetorical questions, counter-proposals, qualifiers, and conditions. Any of these out of context looks like agonizing self-doubt.
Of course, given that Darwin was merely trying to be understood precisely, the quoter has to be willing to be dishonest in trying to insure that Darwin is misunderstood. Such willingness occurs in abundance amid the community of creationist writers.
Does your Mommy know that you talk this way, little boy?
Gore, whatever you do, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junctions (50%). The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells; his response has been mostly to claim that moths don't rest on "exposed" tree trunks (). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over trees, which is not a surprise () and it is mentioned in the references that Wells cites.
Nearly everywhere these mice are sandy-colored, well camouflaged as they scurry across beige-colored outcrops. But in some areas, ancient lava flows have left behind swaths of blackened rock. There the same species of rock pocket mouse has only dark coats, having evolved an entirely distinct and, for their surroundings, equally well-disguised pelage.
If, as the excerpt above says, it is the same species, then this is no more of a big deal than guernsies and holsteins as far as I can tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.