Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Darwin told us so: Researcher shows natural selection speeds up speciation

by PhysOrg

Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news126351589.html

In the first experiment of its kind conducted in nature, a University of British Columbia evolutionary biologist has come up with strong evidence for one of Charles Darwin's cornerstone ideas – adaptation to the environment accelerates the creation of new species.

"A single adaptive trait such as color could move a population towards the process of forming a new species, but adaptation in many traits may be required to actually complete the formation of an entirely new species," says UBC post-doctoral fellow Patrik Nosil, whose study is published today in the online journal PLoS ONE. "The more ways a population can adapt to its unique surroundings, the more likely it will ultimately diverge into a separate species."

Nosil studied walking-stick insects in the Santa Barbara Chaparral in southern California. Stick insects cannot fly and live and feed on their host plants. Different "eco-types" of walking-stick insects are found on different plants and exhibit different color patterns that match the features of their host plants. For example, insects of the cristinae eco-type, which feed on plants with needle-like leaves, have a white line along their green bodies.

By displacing some eco-types away from their customary host plants and protecting others from their natural predators, Nosil found that color pattern alone could initiate speciation, while natural selection on additional adaptive traits such as the ability to detoxify different host-plant chemicals are required to "seal the deal," or complete the speciation process initiated by differences in color pattern.

"Natural selection has been widely regarded as the cause of adaptation within existing species while genetics and geography have been the focus of most current research on the driving force of speciation," says Nosil.

"As far as advancing Darwin's theory that natural selection is a key driver of speciation, this is the first experiment of its kind done outside of a lab setting. The findings are exciting," says Nosil.

The PLoS One paper, co-authored by Cristina Sandoval of the University of California at Santa Barbara, is available at http://www.plosone.org/doi/pone.0001907 .

Source: University of British Columbia
http://www.physorg.com/news126351589.html

Comments 1 - 16 of 16 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #154161 by jo5ef on April 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Brilliant - not only can field experiments be performed that support evolution by NS, but you can even do it in your own back yard!

Other Comments by jo5ef

2. Comment #154181 by cam9976 on April 2, 2008 at 8:02 pm

 avatarerrrr.... duh?

Other Comments by cam9976

3. Comment #154194 by prolibertas on April 2, 2008 at 8:35 pm

This felt kind of like being told that they've just found fossil evidence for evolution... wasn't this already obvious?

Other Comments by prolibertas

4. Comment #154200 by Janus on April 2, 2008 at 9:08 pm

 avatarThe FSM knows I'm no expert so don't trust me on this, but my impression is that this is a bit like the experimental findings that confirm general relativity that we hear about every once in a while. We already know with great certainty that GR is true, but scientists keep testing it in the hopes of finding something new... and even if nothing new is found, the theory has been verified to a slightly greater extent, which is always nice.

Other Comments by Janus

5. Comment #154218 by oriole on April 2, 2008 at 10:53 pm

I found the story fascinating, but the headline and the opening sentence weakened the import of the findings.

Actually, the data showed more than an "acceleration" due to natural selection. It showed that natural selection was a key element of speciation in some cases, and in other cases even initiated the speciation. The case cited where a change of color in order to match a new environment initiated speciation is clearly a case of natural selection, therefore natural selection triggered the speciation; it wasn't just an accelerator.

This would be important to point out to any ID blowhard who might try to weasel out of accepting the import of these findings by relying on the old micro-evolution versus macro-evolution dodge. ID'ers will (at least officially) accept micro, but not macro, despite the obvious logical connection.

Other Comments by oriole

6. Comment #154277 by rod-the-farmer on April 3, 2008 at 3:10 am

 avatarWell, this MAY be an answer to the fundie question "Has anyone ever seen evolution happening ?"

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

7. Comment #154306 by Adam Morrison on April 3, 2008 at 4:50 am

 avatarFantastic! If these groups of walking sticks form a true species (ie cannot breed with other 'walking stick' populations) that's the final nail in the coffin for 'How come no new species are ever found' as well as the argument Rod mentioned.

I loves science :D

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

8. Comment #154317 by flobear on April 3, 2008 at 5:17 am

 avatarInteresting article, though I can't say I completely understand it.

To those who've commented that this helps our argument against ID'ers or fundies I personally don't agree. If the millionth piece of evidence didn't alter their irrational belief, neither will the million and first.

Other Comments by flobear

9. Comment #154319 by Marcus Hill on April 3, 2008 at 5:19 am

If you think this is ammunition against the IDiot "micro" vs. "macro" evolution argument, you're sadly mistaken. They don't accept speciation as the benchmark of what counts as "macro" evolution, they'll claim what you've got is still a bunch of stick insects and when you've seen them evolve into a cow they'll accept that "macro" evolution has occurred. If they're not trying to hide their religious predispositions, they'll even say that what you have is still within its own "kind".

I've tried to get these people to give me a clear dividing line beyond which they would accept that "macro" evolution has happened, somewhere between the many speciation events which have been observed (which they deny as being "macro" evolution) and the ridicuously long-term goal of observing a population undergo gigantic morphological changes to the extent that a crocodile's descendant looks like a duck. Oddly enough, they never give a straight answer. However, it always seems to me that the actual answer is "macroevolution is evolution to a degree beyond that which has been observed or is likely to be in the near future". As we observe more and more evolutionary change in the lab and in nature, they just keep shifting those goalposts.

Other Comments by Marcus Hill

10. Comment #154379 by BaldySlaphead on April 3, 2008 at 6:47 am

 avatar
They don't accept speciation as the benchmark of what counts as "macro" evolution, they'll claim what you've got is still a bunch of stick insects and when you've seen them evolve into a cow they'll accept that "macro" evolution has occurred.


And even if you proved that, then they'd whine, 'Ah, well, there isn't even a proper definition of a species anyway...' as though this means something.

Other Comments by BaldySlaphead

11. Comment #154497 by oriole on April 3, 2008 at 11:15 am

Marcus Hill and BaldySlaphead; you're right, of course, that the fundie spokespeople are never going to be satisfied with any evidence you give them; you could reproduce the transformation from bacteria into primates in the lab and they'd start yammering about where the bacteria came from - or make up some other absurd argument designed to soothe the faithful.

But I do want to hold out hope that we can pick off an occasional waverer from the fundie camp, and the more evidence we pile up, the more waverers we can pick off (again, I hope).

Other Comments by oriole

12. Comment #154529 by Divineosaur on April 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm

 avatarIsn't it NECESSARY for speciation?

Other Comments by Divineosaur

13. Comment #154613 by oriole on April 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Actually, divineosaur, if two subgroups of a species become separated, in the classic case by some geographical barrier, then random genetic mutations will, given sufficient time, almost certainly generate sufficient differences in fertilisation mechanisms to make cross-breeding impossible or at least extremely rare. Such speciation would not properly be attributed to natural selection if it truly arose from purely random changes as opposed to those selected by environmental pressures. However, one of the examples cited in the text above (see my comment #5) does indeed seem to be a case of natural selection generating speciation.

Other Comments by oriole

14. Comment #155131 by Divineosaur on April 4, 2008 at 7:35 am

 avatarAh! Thanks for answering that. So a simple separation that is not accompanied by any changes in selection pressure allows for a kind of "selection down-time" which lets mutations accumulate. I'm trying to put it in a way my brain likes for remembering.

Those mutations would be limited though by bumping into whatever selective pressures are present that acted on the genes of the species in question in the first place. Right? This is why I am the laity! Thanks again.

Other Comments by Divineosaur

15. Comment #155519 by oriole on April 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Basically, Divineosaur, I'd go along with what you said, although of course there wouldn't necessarily be a "down-time"; environmental influences could well drive significant natural selection in one or both of the sub-groups, so natural selection might well play a role in the speciation; it just wouldn't be essential for it to occur. Also, I'd quibble about the use of "limited" in your second paragraph; I'd prefer "affected."

Other Comments by oriole

16. Comment #155692 by Border Collie on April 5, 2008 at 9:16 am

Wow! Natural selection ... what a concept! Someone should write a book.

Other Comments by Border Collie
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: