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."
Darn Good Question...or some other color. :)
Stop & think: You're implying that Noah had to put a pair of sandy pocket rocket, er, rock pocket mice and a pair of dark rock-pocky mice onto the Ark? Because if mutations don't happen that's the only way you could have both sandy and dark pock rockets today. The study showed that the differences between the sandies & the darks were indeed because of differences in their genes.
But you have to get current on the apologetics. As you can see here, even Answers in Genesis, the predominant YEC organization, accepts speciation by natural means. In fact, they accept much more rapid speciation than mainstream science says is possible! This is because they have to get from a limited number of animals on the Ark to the millions of species we see today, in only 4000 years. So their apologetic conundrum forces them to believe in speciation that's way too fast!
(You do have the "no increase of information" dogma down correctly, though.)
Dr. Majerus said many kinds of animals showed light and dark forms, from deer mice to squirrels and chipmunks. There are even black ladybugs. ...
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."
Recapitulation of lower species in embryology.
-ccm
That's no silver bullet against the existence of evolution, as such creation happens all the time. Bacterial genetic exchange occurs via a number of mechanisms and results in DNA sequences that have never before existed.
Hence your implied proposition that "evolution is false because there is no way new genetic material can be created" is disproven by example. Game, set, match for evolution.
Go back to your bible thumping and quit trying to play scientist. Some things are ouside the province of science, and some are outside the province of religion, at least in the sense that it can be comprehended by humans.
-ccm
Here you go: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
Note that this is 29+ *separate lines* of evidence for macroevolution. Each type of evidence is supported by literally thousands (in some cases, millions) of individual pieces of evidence and experimental results.
"Human-looking" does not equal "human". You appear to be talking abou the Paluxy River tracks, which even most creationists have backed *way* off from. They were dinosaur tracks (of a known species, I don't recall offhand) which bore only a superficial resemblance to the shape of a human sole (but not even toes). The clincher was the mark of the tail behind dragged through the sand between the footprints.
On a similar theme, there is a fascinating book, 'The Hidden history of the Human Race', which deals with out of place artifacts, things which are impossible to explain. There is no shortage of peculiar things out there. I doubt very much that they are all fake.
No, not all fake, of course, but there are some folks who are overly eager to read "human artifacts" into naturally broken stone pieces, and/or overlook the questionable provenance of human artifacts (i.e., did the skull actually come from *within* the coal seam, or was it just found buried in the gravel nearby?) in order to have a better story to tell.
It's like the people who are too willing to believe that the odd light in the sky that they saw was clearly an alien spacecraft. They're not lying exactly, but they're not being as objective as they should, either.
Well, it certainly didn't take hunters long to evolve *away* from deer-colored outfits.
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.