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."
Ooo! I don't think you have the Freeper mindset down quite yet.
Because the moths hang out under leaves. They don't hang out on tree trunks. That's why it had to be glued there.
Show me the science, not evolutionary dogma and falsified "evidence."
Imperfect, yes; but pretty durn good nonetheless.
If you showed rats turning into flying fish, you would have disproved evolution.
Oh, never mind. He'll show up eventually.
Evolution requires the generation of code for massively complex and intertwined systems. Natural selection just explains how the also-rans are wiped out. I have not proven a thing for or against evolution in any of my posts on this thread. I guess I was just hoping for an outbreak of logic or common sense. Instead I seem to be reading people arguing that a mechanism that works to diminish genetic diversity (natural selection) is proof of a system that perpetually creates new genetic code (evolution) and just thought that that was silly.Natural selection would be a natural result of evolution. It would be an obvious effect. But the existence of natural selection can not be used as an arguement for or a proof of evolution.
Oh, OK, I see what you're saying. But since natural selection is part of evolution, then this does show part of evolution in action. You yourself said that mutation happens, so that other part of evolution is already a given (within the context of this study).
How does staging a photo make the story a hoax?Because the moths hang out under leaves. They don't hang out on tree trunks. That's why it had to be glued there.
Moths hang out in a lot of places. IIRC, the most likely place to find moths was at the underside of trunk/branch joints, high up in the tree. In every tree I've ever seen, a trunk/branch joint looks just like the trunk nearby.
That, coupled with the fact that dead moths don't change color, makes your "it's all a HOAX!" charge fall apart, IMO.
A bright star with a faint binary companion in Serpens Caput is in the same field of view as M5 using a 25mm f.l. lens.
Note to everyone puzzled by the above: it's just a secret code RA and the rest of us use. If you don't believe me, just wait for the usual trolling suspects to arrive and accuse us of sending secret messages.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread....
Witnessing a drive-by flashing does NOT count as an astronomical observation, IMHO.
Doesn't matter. One contradictory example is enough to disprove the entire notion that new DNA sequences cannot be created in nature, and that therefore evolution cannot occur.
This is not necessarily proof that evolution exists, just a refutation of his argument why it cannot.
-ccm
I'm still waiting for him to apologise for the false bibliograpy on Stephen Gould.
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.