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)
Friday, August 29, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document 'Armored' fish study helps strengthen Darwin's natural selection theory

by PhysOrg

Thanks to Ryan Hill for the link.

http://www.physorg.com/news139157763.html

'Armored' fish study helps strengthen Darwin's natural selection theory

Shedding some genetically induced excess baggage may have helped a tiny fish thrive in freshwater and outsize its marine ancestors, according to a UBC study published today in Science Express.

Measuring three to 10 centimetres long, stickleback fish originated in the ocean but began populating freshwater lakes and streams following the last ice age. Over the past 20,000 years - a relatively short time span in evolutionary terms - freshwater sticklebacks have lost their bony lateral plates, or "armour," in these new environments.

"Scientists have identified a mutant form of a gene, or allele, that prohibits the growth of armour," says UBC Zoology PhD candidate Rowan Barrett. Found in fewer than one per cent of marine sticklebacks, this allele is very common in freshwater populations.

Barrett and co-authors UBC post-doctoral fellow Sean Rogers and Prof. Dolph Schluter set out to investigate whether the armour gene may have helped sticklebacks "invade" freshwater environments. They relocated 200 marine sticklebacks with the rare armour reduction allele to freshwater experimental ponds.

"By documenting the physical traits and genetic makeup of the offspring produced by these marine sticklebacks in freshwater, we were able to track how natural selection operates on this gene," says Rogers.

"We found a significant increase in the frequency of this allele in their offspring, evidence that natural selection favours reduced armour in freshwater," says Barrett.

Barrett and Rogers also found that offspring carrying the allele are significantly larger in size. "It leads us to believe that the genetic expression is also tied to increased growth rate," says Barrett.

"If the fish aren't expending resources growing bones - which may be significantly more difficult in freshwater due to its lack of ions - they can devote more energy to increasing biomass," says Barrett. "This in turn allows them to breed earlier and improves over-winter survival rate."

Celebrating its 150th anniversary this week, Darwin's first publication of his natural selection theory proposed that challenging environments would lead
to a struggle for existence, or "survival of the fittest." Since then, scientists have advanced the theory by contributing an understanding of how genes affect evolution.

"This study provides further evidence for Darwin's theory of natural selection by showing that environmental conditions can directly impact genes controlling physical traits that affect the survival of species," says Barrett.

Comments 1 - 15 of 15 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #239147 by hungarianelephant on August 29, 2008 at 6:54 am

 avatarHaven't we seen this one before?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

2. Comment #239156 by Tezcatlipoca on August 29, 2008 at 7:04 am

 avatarIt was a different article about the same study I think.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

3. Comment #239172 by Smith on August 29, 2008 at 7:38 am

 avatarTitles like this one tend to suggest the theory needs strengthening at all.

IDer: "See! How can evolution be a fact!? How can you strengthen a fact!?"

Other Comments by Smith

4. Comment #239182 by samratpathania on August 29, 2008 at 8:04 am

 avatar

Titles like this one tend to suggest the theory needs strengthening at all.

IDer: "See! How can evolution be a fact!? How can you strengthen a fact!?"


Aren't these two different issues?
Isn't natural selection one of the mechanisms that drives evolution?
So can't we always bring forth new evidence in support of a theory that explains a fact, no matter how well established the theory is.
Though I do understand what you imply.
Please feel free to point out the fallacy of my logic.

Other Comments by samratpathania

5. Comment #239191 by Cartomancer on August 29, 2008 at 8:24 am

 avatar
"If the fish aren't expending resources growing bones - which may be significantly more difficult in freshwater due to its lack of ions - they can devote more energy to increasing biomass," says Barrett. "This in turn allows them to breed earlier and improves over-winter survival rate."
So, they think the fish have stopped growing armour because they can't take in the nutrients required to grow it, rather than because it's just not necessary to have armour in freshwater conditions (thanks to there not being as many predators which it would protect against)?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

6. Comment #239195 by Tezcatlipoca on August 29, 2008 at 8:27 am

 avatarDidn't the other article say that more armour was needed in clear conditions and less in cloudy water conditions?

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

7. Comment #239207 by Smith on August 29, 2008 at 8:40 am

 avatarsamratpathania,

It must be my poor imitation of the IDer then.

Cartomancer,

Probably there are two groupies, one tries this and another one tries that. One dies out and another one honorably becomes our ancestor.

Other Comments by Smith

8. Comment #239223 by rydrum2112 on August 29, 2008 at 9:13 am

Bad methodology,

"We found a significant increase in the frequency of this allele in their offspring, evidence that natural selection favours reduced armour in freshwater."

Of-course you did you just put 200 unarmored fish in the freshwater. In order to make this claim what they should have done is put in the percent unarmored that is found in the saltwater, along with the percentage armored and seen if there was an increase in the unarmored.

Other Comments by rydrum2112

9. Comment #239228 by Hellene on August 29, 2008 at 9:21 am

If I remember correctly the murkiness of the water was a factor.

Other Comments by Hellene

10. Comment #239261 by DamnDirtyApe on August 29, 2008 at 10:24 am

This has definately been seen before. A fine example though.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

11. Comment #239268 by IceFish86 on August 29, 2008 at 10:45 am

 avatarCartomancer:

They would most likely have to have done another study on the prevalence of stickleback, predators in aquatic and marine environments, to propose this as a possible selective force. I think the others are closer to the mark when they say the clarity of the water has a part to play (i.e. the risk that the fish will collide with objects etc.). I really don't think that a 10 pound predatory fish would have much trouble with armour, no matter how tough, on a 10cm stickleback.

Other Comments by IceFish86

12. Comment #239355 by mdowe on August 29, 2008 at 1:47 pm

 avatarAnd in another news: "Recent satellite photos help strengthen the theory that the Earth is a sphere."

Other Comments by mdowe

13. Comment #239405 by physicist on August 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm

samratpathania wrote:

Aren't these two different issues?
Isn't natural selection one of the mechanisms that drives evolution?
So can't we always bring forth new evidence in support of a theory that explains a fact, no matter how well established the theory is.
Though I do understand what you imply.
Please feel free to point out the fallacy of my logic.


I see no fallacy in your logic. The healthy scepticism of scientists drives them into searching more and more; after all, theories are not written down all the way to their tiniest detail. They also evolve and adapt as more facts accummulate. Nothing unusual here.

Other Comments by physicist

14. Comment #244175 by notsobad on September 8, 2008 at 12:02 pm

 avatarFalling apples help strengthen the Newton's theory of gravitation every day!

The titles suggests something that is not necessary.

Other Comments by notsobad

15. Comment #392861 by BordusiusIV on July 2, 2009 at 1:12 am

 avatar""See! How can evolution be a fact!? How can you strengthen a fact!?"
I think this one is not meant to be a "Look here! we found something the creationists and young earth people will not be able to refute, lets start telling them!".
As far as i see it its only a document that helps shed some light on a small part of the puzzle. Remember, evolution is just a word that is used to explain the observable data coming in from all around the globe. You might as well call "evolution" something else, still would not change the data.

Other Comments by BordusiusIV
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: