Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart
NY Times ^ | 6-17-03 | CAROL KAESUK YOON

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: biology; crevolist; evolution; survival
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-302 next last
To: jennyp
You're too good....

Sorry, was just sitting here laughing about the picture in my mind of a gay King thinking that his Bishop was more important then his queen, and just had to write it down.

My mind goes in strange directions when I am tired....;)
241 posted on 06/22/2003 9:21:54 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Clearly the most significant thing to understand is whether the beige colored mouse has the genetic information in its DNA to turn on the lava color in order to confuse evolutionists. Another good question that is overlooked by the author is whether the lava mouse is ever found living in the sand and vice versa.

But then that would make people actually think.

If both mice contain the genetic information to be lava or beige it could have happened to a pair of mice's offspring after getting off the Ark in the second generation (a couple of months after leaving the Ark).

The next good question would be what triggers the color variation, environment, temperature, diet (mineral consumption), the dirt they dig in, amount of sunlight (like tanning).

Posing these questions would have given the article a Design perspective, and we will have none of that.

That is why I contend we need more Creationists posing their theses in peer review journals. Scientific minded Creationists need to go back to school and attain a different set of credentials. A PhD. in theology makes it tuff to get ones articles printed in Journals.

There is currently a college and career recruiting conspiracy among Creationists at church meetings across the country to begin applying "truth pressure" on the flailing scientific community.
242 posted on 06/22/2003 9:56:08 AM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
There is NOTHING flailing about the scientific community.

Flailing in the creationist community, YES, misquotes, questionable science, and I use that word LIGHTLY, because it VERY questionable, outright lies, etc.

Yeah, you can get ALL the doctorates that you need, but expect at least 75% of them to go with evolution, once they understand the truth and quit getting bombarded with propaganda from the creationist camp. The other 25% will be questioning, and then where will you be?

All those doctorates that you tried to get for the creationist camp will have decamped and moved to the other side and the rest will become unreliable.

Religion is religion, science is science, once you finally figure that out, the better off we will all be.

Young Earth, WRONG, the earth is over 4 billion years old, the universe, closer to 15 billion.

A worldwide flood catastrophy, WRONG, there is NO evidence that a worldwide flood of ANY nature occurred, let alone one that was a mile deep.

No transitionals, WRONG, there are thousands, you creationists just keep moving the goalposts.

Go for it, I would love to see more creationists go out and get an education, then we would no longer have to argue with them, because they would no longer be creationists.
243 posted on 06/22/2003 10:06:58 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Fear not the Creationists perspective. Please reread the article before you say there is no slant to the scientific community.

Your venerated scientists often have agendas, or they aren't objective enough to think through all of the angles on any given discovery (especially from a design perspective).
244 posted on 06/22/2003 10:16:47 AM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
P.S. If you never want the answers to the tough questions, and wish to railroad those who are willing to ask them, can you claim there is an intellectually honest attempt to ascertain the truth?
245 posted on 06/22/2003 10:20:35 AM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I am going to tell you this one more time.

There is NO evidence of a designer, gentics has shown that indeed, the genes themselves seem to show natural selection, the accidental arrangements, the changing of genomes over time, using MANY different ways to get to the same function. If it had been "designed" it would have been the KISS principle, using the same genes to tackle the problems.

This is NOT the case, many different genes have been switched on and off in order to solve the same evolutionary problems, and have come to the same conclusion. This shows in a VERY efficient and hard to argue manner that it is natural selection and evolution that have caused this and NOT design.

Design is NOT scientific, UNLESS there is evidence for a designer, and the more answers we get, the less likely that indeed a designer had anything to do with it.

Evolution is the main theory that has allowed biology, genetics etc to move from the ideas of the mind into the laboratory.

Evolution is not the theory that is in trouble, Creationism, which is NOT a scientific theory, but religious Dogma is in trouble, as is ID, which again, is a HYPOTHESIS based upon religious Dogma.

They have decided that there is a designer and are doing their best to find creatures that will show their underlying assumptions.

Evolution continues to be checked and rechecked and rechecked again, it passes all tests, it has YET to be falsified, and scientists are giving it their best shot, on a SCIENTIFIC basis, whomever can replace evolution as the basic theory for biology and genetics will be famous FOREVER.

Evolution is NOT a conspiracy, it is just good science.

Evolution is about as objective as it comes.
246 posted on 06/22/2003 10:33:03 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Well, when you base your thesis on an unscientific assumption, expect to get railroaded.

There is NO scientific foundation for ID, NOR for creationism, and any scientist that claims there is, is NOT a scientist, but masquerading as one.

Come up with ONE scientifically verifiable assumption, come up with one scientifically verifiable idea. Come up with an idea that can be tested.

Evolution says that fossils will be in a certain order within strata, come up with a fossil that is out of order, and evolution will be falsified. Get digging.

Find a gene that has "made by god" on the label and you will have disproven evolution. better get checking that DNA.

Find a cow that has given birth to a pig, then you will have disproven evolution. Get out to those farms, there must be one somewhere.

There are THOUSANDS of ways to disprove evolution.

You'd better get to work.

ID makes NO predictions, it has no scientific basis, it is religious DOGMA, it's underlying assumption is RELIGIOUS, and RELIGION is NOT SCIENCE....
247 posted on 06/22/2003 10:43:04 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000

"Evolution is about as objective as it comes."
248 posted on 06/22/2003 10:44:38 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: bondserv; All
Here's very nice essay on science and the scientific method.

Please read it, and then maybe you will understand what science actually is and why it can be NOTHING BUT OBJECTIVE.

http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html

Using scientific metodology, YOU CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT OBJECTIVE.... Because the evidence will lead you to an OBVIOUS conclusion.

Notice the evidence comes BEFORE the conclusion, that is the way science works, then from there we can make educated hypothesis about what else we should find if our theory is indeed true.

Therefore we can make predictions with it etc.

Please read the above essay, and you will see why ID is NOT scientific, it starts with a conclusion, and then tries to find evidence to fit that assumption, just as creationists do. And then of course ignoring evidence that will disprove their initial assumption.

If a scientific theory makes a prediction, and it proves to be false, the theory is either modified, or tossed out for a better theory.

This is OBJECTIVE by any definition of the term.

Again, Evolution is as objective as you can get.
249 posted on 06/22/2003 12:10:35 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000

"Again, Evolution is as objective as you can get."
250 posted on 06/22/2003 12:16:28 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Wow, you are saying that evolution is purely fact, and that human being don't take those facts and extrapolate their ideas of how those facts tie together.

I am sorry to disagree with your assessment of the theory, but I must say evolution has not been proven in a scientific sense. Anytime a person guesses they are clearly leaving the realm of scientific method.

Educated hypothesis set up the tests that prove out a theory, but because a person has made an educated hypothesis does in no way verify that they are adhering to the scientific method. In fact if they cannot do reliable tests to prove out their entire hypothesis, they can in no way say that they are adhering to the scientific method.

Evolutionary theory is a step in the scientific method that has for the last 150 years fallen short of proving anything. Guess to your hearts content, but until you have the tools and methods to prove out your theory don't call it scientific.

The moon is a piece of cheese hanging in the sky. The evidence I have is:

1. Coloration is the same as my cheese.
2. It has holes that look like my swiss cheese. (Just look at it).
3. Cheese is round.
4. It makes me hungry when I look at it.

The moon is cheese, and I am a reputable scientist because I used the scientific method.
251 posted on 06/22/2003 12:35:26 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
hehehe

OUCH!
252 posted on 06/22/2003 12:38:43 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Now lets teach the children in school that the moon is cheese.

Shut up and sit down.

You are fools, there is no other way to look at the scientific evidence.

Stop disagreeing we have used science, you cannot diasagree, we are the real scientists.

Bwhahahahaha

How is my cheese?
253 posted on 06/22/2003 12:44:32 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I predict my cheese will raise in the night sky tomorrow.

See there it is, right again, when will you learn, just as I predicted.

Cheese for everyone, on me.
254 posted on 06/22/2003 12:46:50 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Then we go to the moon, and it turns out the moon is indeed NOT cheese. So your hypothesis, "the moon is made out of cheese" is NOT true, therefore it has been proven false.

Time to find a new theory to look at the new evidence.

You are indeed clueless about evolution and the scientific method.

Sad, but unsurprising, and your cheerleading section there is just as clueless.

Again, it's sad, but unsurprising.

Well, I have better things to do today then debate clueless creationists. Have a good day.

You can take the horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

I give you evidence and definitions, and you CHOOSE to ignore them because your worldview will not allow you too.

Again, sad, but unsurprising.
255 posted on 06/22/2003 12:49:46 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000

"Evolution is about as objective as it comes"
256 posted on 06/22/2003 12:58:36 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
If you choose to support cheezy science that is your choice.

But I will continue to salt your oats to see if you will have a thirst to drink from the living water.

I do acknowledge that many scientists adhere to the scientific method, but all of them put a big question mark behind everything that is related to evolution, because they realize it is still in a very infantile state, and they are not yet willing to stake their reputations on an unproven hypothesis.
257 posted on 06/22/2003 1:01:07 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, it shows exactly what natural selection would do, because if it was DESIGNED, then most likely you would find the SAME gene twisted in the EXACT same way to get the SAME effect"

"If it was designed, THEN most likely....."

What tools do you use to distinguish here between "unlikely," "likely," and "most likely?"

I can show you 1,000 cases where evos assert vociferously that genetic similarity argues for evolution. Here, you are arguing that DISSIMILARITY argues for evolution. This is why evolution is not scientific:

genetic similarity ---> evolution, and
genetic dissimilarity----->evolution. If one does not point away from evolution, the other cannot said to be pointing toward evolution.

258 posted on 06/22/2003 1:17:24 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Geritol
"You are correct, this is natural selection. It is the weeding out and reduction of genetic variation when the dark variations are all gone, if that ever actually occurs. This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times. Nor is it proof that new genetic information has not been created/manufactured/mutated into being in modern times. The existance of different color forms simply has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution OR creation. Natural selection has to do with the removal of genetic material from local gene pools, and from the whole planet under extreme conditions, but can not be used to prove creation of genetic coding."

Exactly. Or, almost exactly. That last "cannot" is perhaps a bit of irrational exuberance, though. While the normal (ab)use of natural selection does not logically lead to evolution, it's too strong to say this "cannot" occur.

259 posted on 06/22/2003 1:23:18 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
a fellow freeper noted...


260 posted on 06/22/2003 1:25:06 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-302 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson