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 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-302 next last
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
So what the Confusiornis has to do with Bats is not only beyond my Ken,

Of course there is a relationship between Vade's use of Confusiornis as an example for bat evolution. The answer is in the name of the bird - to create confusion. there is no way that a bat can in any way be compared to it or have descended from it, but the point here is to create confusion and just to say something which will make it sound like he has refuted your example. The bat is unexplainable by evolution for the many reasons you stated as well as for some additional ones shown in Amazing Creatures .

281 posted on 06/26/2003 7:05:48 PM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; jennyp
In the Darwinian sense, by exacerbating the Dependency-Support Ratio among Southern Italians (who, in terms of work-energy, need additional Offspring and simply cannot afford elderly indigents), this is not a "beneficial mutation" at all -- you are accelerating their Extinction.

It interesting that jennyp attacks you for showing that according to evolutionary theory this is not a beneficial mutation! You have shown quite well that as far as the values placed on life by the theory of evolution, this is not a good mutation. It is absolutely hilarious for jennyp to oppose your statement by reminding you of Christian values!

282 posted on 06/26/2003 7:11:59 PM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Funny that evolutionists who claim the above almost as their Bible, can never give specific facts on these threads supporting evolution. In fact, they can not give anything better as evidence for their theory than an article, written by a nobody and refuted both in A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' as well as here on FR so well that jennyp gave up on posting them all.

There is also tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution which the evolutionists cannot refute.

283 posted on 06/26/2003 7:23:44 PM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
.Darwin was cudgled by his friends into publishing before he really intended to.

The implication that Darwin's book was a rush job is totally ridiculous

No such implication exists, and my statement is accurate as it stands.

284 posted on 06/28/2003 9:25:45 AM PDT by donh (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: ALS
time to wake up and smell the encyclopeiacly

What's your point? Nothing in the source you've cited contradicts my suggestion that Darwin was urged to get a manuscript to press by his friends, out of concern that his deserved scientific credit be lost.

And, by the way, even if you had a point, it's not a point that particularly aids the creationist argument. The original contention in this piece of the thread was that Darwin made the whole thing up out of whole cloth. I was pointing out that what Darwin proposed was in the scientific atmosphere already, waiting for someone to formulate it.

You and Gore3000 are supporting my point, most particularly, with this cite you've offered. Thanks for the help, guys.

285 posted on 06/28/2003 9:35:24 AM PDT by donh (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: donh
Darwin was a plagiarist and waited 20 years to publish.

You need to get your facts straight. Your incessant need to validate darwood, finds you ignoring history.
286 posted on 06/28/2003 9:44:44 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Darwin was a plagiarist and waited 20 years to publish.

You need to get your facts straight. Your incessant need to validate darwood, finds you ignoring history.

You need to figure out what your own argument is. Your incessant need to repeat yourself endlessly finds you ignoring the rudiments of argumentation--such as having one for instance.

Please cite the documents published previous to Darwin's which "Origin of Species" duplicates to such an extent as to legally qualify as plagarism.

287 posted on 06/29/2003 8:56:19 PM PDT by donh (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: donh
"You need to figure out what your own argument is. Your incessant need to repeat yourself endlessly finds you ignoring the rudiments of argumentation--such as having one for instance."

Sounds like you are talking to the evos.

or projecting again...
288 posted on 06/29/2003 9:01:20 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I am here for you my brother. Let the beatings begin!
289 posted on 06/29/2003 9:40:54 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope; Aric2000
ya'll are kinky
290 posted on 06/30/2003 4:10:56 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: ALS
In your haste to provide another response empty of content or meaning, you have inadvertently failed to answer my request concerning your claim about plageriasm.

Please cite, in the just-supplied web reference to which you are apparently referring, or elsewhere, your evidence that Darwin committed plagarism in any of his works.

291 posted on 06/30/2003 12:17:27 PM PDT by donh (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
There is a huge chasm between adaptation for survival and evolution of a breed/species.....it all depends on the environment.

The peppered Moth fraud was discounted, even by die hard evolutionists, many moons ago.
292 posted on 06/30/2003 12:21:35 PM PDT by Quas primas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donh
In YOUR haste to not read all the times I've posted this, you've failed to get off your lazy and go look for yourself(evo-typical).

let's hope you can read, at least

293 posted on 06/30/2003 3:21:59 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
A bunch of micros, make a macro, therefore Microevolution is very important for us to understand.

Sorry , a bunch of micros producing a macro has never been observed in the fossil record or anywhere else.Variation within the species suggests an intelligent designer.

What you really mean is, Microevolution is very important for us to "believe" because without it, Darwin looks like the fool that he really was.

294 posted on 06/30/2003 3:57:15 PM PDT by Outer Limits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Outer Limits
HAHAHAHA!

bingo
295 posted on 06/30/2003 4:05:16 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Outer Limits
Excuse me? Microevolution happens ALL the time, it has been seen, it has been witnessed, and there are LOADS of them in the fossil record.

They are called TRANSITIONAL fossils, and PLENTY of them exist to be able to say what I said.

So, sorry Charlie, that was a VERY sad attempt.

Care to try again?
296 posted on 06/30/2003 4:24:45 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 294 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000; Outer Limits
loads bump
297 posted on 06/30/2003 4:42:02 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Quas primas
That was my point...see my remarks about the moth issue.
298 posted on 06/30/2003 8:19:12 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: ALS
let's hope you can read, at least

You hoped no one would read this, since this is yet another example of your dishonest use of voluminous cites which do not support your point. Journalists get fired, and students get expelled for such behaviour, but that doesn't deter you, does it?

Were this not a total bluff, you would be able to embarass me by pointing out where in this long-winded cite, lies the evidence that Darwin committed plagarism.

Of course, you cannot, so you do not.

299 posted on 07/01/2003 2:52:05 AM PDT by donh (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: donh
Your canned tripe is the usual evo response. God Himself could write a book and you would call that the same.
ooops! He did, and you do.

Darwin is a plagiarist.
live with it, like all the rest of us do.
300 posted on 07/01/2003 4:20:02 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-302 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