Saturday, January 3, 2009 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

15 Evolutionary gems

by Nature, Pharyngula

See Nature's article "15 Evolutionary Gems" in PDF form here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

From Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/evolutionary_gems.php

This week, Nature magazine published a short list of recent important developments in evolutionary biology that support the theory of evolution, as a tool to help explain that evolution is definitely a dynamic and useful theory in our field and to demonstrate that the evidence is still growing. Here's a short summary of the 15 stories the editors picked out, but you should also read the freely available article, 15 Evolutionary Gems. Teachers, put this in your classroom!

1. The discovery of Indohyus, an ancestor to whales.

2. The discovery of Tiktaalik, an ancestor to tetrapods.

3. The origin of feathers revealed in creatures like Epidexipteryx.

4. The evolution of patterning mechanisms in teeth.

5. The developmental and evolutionary origin of the vertebrate skeleton.

6. Speciation driven indirectly by selection in sticklebacks.

7. Selection for longer-legged lizards in Caribbean island populations.

8. A co-evolutionary arms race between Daphnia and its parasites.

9. Non-random dispersal and gene flow in populations of great tits.

10. Maintenance of polymorphisms in populations of guppies.

11. Contingency in the evolution of pharyngeal jaws in the moray.

12. Developmental genes that regulate the shape of beaks in Darwin's finches.

13. Evolution of regulatory genes that specify wing spots in Drosophila.

14. Evolution of toxin resistance.

15. The concept of evolutionary capacitance: the idea that environmental stress can expose hidden variations that are then subject to selection.

Posted: Saturday, January 3, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 47 of 47 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #311451 by Dhamma on January 3, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Edited away: An unintentionally rude post by me.

Other Comments by Dhamma

2. Comment #311453 by tvictor on January 3, 2009 at 12:20 pm

"3. The origin of feathers revealed in creatures like Epidexipteryx. "

LIES! WE WANT CROCO-DUCK!

Other Comments by tvictor

3. Comment #311458 by Steven Mading on January 3, 2009 at 1:09 pm

9. Non-random dispersal and gene flow in populations of great tits.

Must... Not.... Make.... Joke.....
Must....Resist....

Although, the way my dirty mind read this actually *does* make some sort of logical sense. There might actually be an evolutionary incentive at work here - after all it does affect likelyhood of passing on genes.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

4. Comment #311459 by Stafford Gordon on January 3, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Our twin daughters are hoping to read Biochemistry at Pembroke College and Trinity Colleges Cambridge.

I will indeed ask them to post this articele on the board; they have wonderful teachers at Chesham High School, Hertfordshire, England.

Thank you for this Josh.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

5. Comment #311475 by stephensmith on January 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Great information. Thanks for posting.

And I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one to be caught up short by #9!

Other Comments by stephensmith

6. Comment #311479 by epeeist on January 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Comment #311453 by tvictor:

LIES! WE WANT CROCO-DUCK!

No problem

Other Comments by epeeist

7. Comment #311485 by Duff on January 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Steven Mading,
Is it up to me, a non-scientist, to tell you it is not what you think. Think ornithology.

Other Comments by Duff

8. Comment #311487 by mdowe on January 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm

Re epeeist@6

LOL!! That's hilarious.

Other Comments by mdowe

9. Comment #311508 by 6ai on January 3, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Oddly enough the croco-duck only eats wild non-domesticated bananas...

Other Comments by 6ai

10. Comment #311509 by ods15 on January 3, 2009 at 2:58 pm

"One of the most prominant icons of modern day Christianity, the Crocoduck is capable of dispeling all arguements in favour of Atheism and Darwinism simply by not existing. Its sworn enemy is the platypus, which, in harsh contrast, is capable of proving god does not exist by existing."

Credit to urban dictionary

Other Comments by ods15

11. Comment #311546 by Virgil on January 3, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Wow.. that would be scary to see waddling around.

Other Comments by Virgil

12. Comment #311556 by crusader234 on January 3, 2009 at 3:58 pm

owlycat doesnt exist,god doesnt exist, I do for a while,through my children I may live for ever....

Other Comments by crusader234

13. Comment #311568 by Hellene on January 3, 2009 at 4:22 pm

epeeist, you forgot something...

Other Comments by Hellene

14. Comment #311574 by crusader234 on January 3, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Other Comments by crusader234

15. Comment #311575 by Hellene on January 3, 2009 at 4:36 pm

And lets not forget;

FishDog

Other Comments by Hellene

16. Comment #311613 by mordacious1 on January 3, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Sorry, this isn't a funny one...

How hunting messes with natural selection:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709?from=rss

Other Comments by mordacious1

17. Comment #311633 by Sittingduck on January 3, 2009 at 6:47 pm

croco-ducks.... imagine a flock of those flying overhead...

Other Comments by Sittingduck

18. Comment #311663 by tvictor on January 3, 2009 at 10:38 pm

@Hellene comment #13

My abdomen hurts from laughing so hard rofl

All hail Harun Yahya!

Other Comments by tvictor

19. Comment #311689 by fsm1965 on January 4, 2009 at 1:52 am

@Hellene comment #13

roflmao!

Other Comments by fsm1965

20. Comment #311697 by devolved on January 4, 2009 at 2:23 am

On the other hand...

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155/

Other Comments by devolved

21. Comment #311711 by Quetzalcoatl on January 4, 2009 at 3:11 am

Devolved-

On the other hand...

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155/

On the other hand: that article is rubbish. It includes gems like "no one has seen evolution", not to mention quotemining and distortion regarding transitional fossils: at the risk of being accused of pointing out the obvious, Devolved, EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!

Not to mention the claim that the appendix is an important organ. Hmm. And of course, what creationist article would be complete without the obligatory mention of the bacterial flagellum?

Then there's a reference to Expelled! Even if it wasn't abundantly obvious, that shows the article up for what it is. Bollocks.

Devolved: thanks for providing me with a great laugh. If that article is truly the best creationists can muster, it's no wonder that their claims are treated as the absurdities they are.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

22. Comment #311713 by Steven Mading on January 4, 2009 at 3:12 am

7. Comment #311485 by Duff on January 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Steven Mading,
Is it up to me, a non-scientist, to tell you it is not what you think. Think ornithology.

My comment made it very clear that I already knew "great tits" didn't mean what it seemed like the first time I read it. Yes I know a "tit" is a type of bird. Thank you for dulling the joke by explaining it to people who already got it.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

23. Comment #311733 by blu on January 4, 2009 at 4:58 am

Other Comments by blu

24. Comment #311736 by BillySands on January 4, 2009 at 5:14 am

Devolved - Ha ha ha! Why do you always appear when Gimpy disappears?

From Devolved's comic

"From this we can make a short list according to their criteria of what ‘science’ involves.

1-Observational data

2-Accurate predictions

3-Logical

4-Open to criticism

5-Accurate information

6-No presuppositions"

Watch this video and see how many you can spot:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Other Comments by BillySands

25. Comment #311750 by BillySands on January 4, 2009 at 5:38 am

From devolved's comic

So showing students examples such as light and dark coloured moths evolving into various populations of light and dark coloured moths hardly constitute proof of evolution. They do not show that amoebas somehow gained the massive amounts of functional genetic information to morph into a human being in the unobserved past.

???????

Change over time is not evolution????????

Devolved, let me put this "argument" out of its misery: 1. increase information is a creationist straw man. Rearrangements or deletions of genes and promotors can cause morphologigal differenses

2. An amoeba has a considerably larger genome than us (A. dubia is 670,000,000,000 base pairs long, compared to ours wich is only 3,200,000,000 base pairs long) - oops, your fundie author knows fuck all it would appear.

You still have a question to answer concerning chickens with teeth

And we have also seen the evolution of multicellularity in algae cultures that are co cultured with predatory rotifers. the multicellular ones cant be eaten - nice evolutionary observation wouldn't you say?

Other Comments by BillySands

26. Comment #311754 by bluebird on January 4, 2009 at 5:42 am

*Shake your tail feather*
How did I miss the memo on Epidexipteryx?!? Thanks for posting this.

Cuckoo for birds--- A while back we delighted in watching this clip of manakins from 'Nature,PBS':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Bsu4z9Y3k

Attention N.American Avian Aficionados!
http://www.birdsource.org/gbbc/

Other Comments by bluebird

27. Comment #311755 by friendlypig on January 4, 2009 at 5:42 am

God made the little Creationists,
He made them in the night,
Then he took their brains out
And filled their heads with S****!!

Other Comments by friendlypig

28. Comment #311906 by Drool on January 4, 2009 at 11:23 am

@crusader234 comment #12:

Love the Meowl! {groan}

Other Comments by Drool

29. Comment #311907 by rod-the-farmer on January 4, 2009 at 11:25 am

I thought surely one article would be the lizards deliberately isolated on an island off the Adriatic coast, and observed over 30 years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

To me, this sounds like a perfect refutation of the fundie comment "Did you ever SEE evolution taking place ? No ? Well then it has never happened."

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

30. Comment #311945 by Mr DArcy on January 4, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Unfortunately, the refutation of creationist ideas is an ongoing process, something like washing your body every so often. People like Devolved must always be answered with the best available information.

We must all keep up to date with the latest findings, because if we don't, the slimy bastards will manage to substitute pterodactyl with tiktaalik, and muddy the waters of knowledge so that their god can step in and take the credit.

Of course we should remember that the snake that talked to Eve in the Garden of Eden did not produce any ancestors, ( showing things change), which could also talk to humans. Apart from from Harry Potter that is, but then he was a wizard!

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

31. Comment #311987 by BillySands on January 4, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Mr D'Arcy,

The problem with people like devolved is that they keep trotting out the same muck that they have been refuted on time and time again (Anyone who does not know him should click on his other comments for a laugh - shame he can't see how pathetic they are).

I keep meaning to ask you, is that the summit of Ben Nevis on your avatar?

Other Comments by BillySands

32. Comment #312219 by Luis_Cayetano on January 4, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Thanks for calling my attention to A.dubia, Billy Sands. This organism has the largest genome known so far. I wonder how creationists might come to terms with it, since they're apt to say that junk DNA isn't really junk, that everything in nature is super-efficient and is built like it was designed with CAD, etc etc.

I want everyone to do something: wherever and whenever possible - if you have a blog or a website of some sort, if you're ever in a conversation with a creationist, if someone ever mentions that nature looks "intelligently designed" - bring up A.dubia. Ask: "If God is such a great designer, then why did He intelligently design this little critter with a genome 200 times larger than our own? Does such a great engineer need to build in such massive redundancy? Or perhaps it's because He designed an organism more complex than a human being...oh wait... it's not more complex."

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

33. Comment #312312 by Double Bass Atheist on January 4, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Comment by rod-the-farmer:
To me, this sounds like a perfect refutation of the fundie comment "Did you ever SEE evolution taking place ? No ? Well then it has never happened.”

Very good point. There have been several other examples of “observed” evolution, but never underestimate the fundies level of ignorance.

I always found it incredibly ironic that fundies will demand unreasonable amounts of evidence when it comes to things like evolution, but yet require absolutely no evidence when it comes to their god.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

34. Comment #312321 by j.mills on January 4, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Mr D'Arcy said:

we should remember that the snake that talked to Eve in the Garden of Eden did not produce any ancestors which could also talk to humans.

Well, ya know, in fairness to creationists, I've yet to hear of any organism that produces ancestors of any kind - though I would certainly be very interested...

Other Comments by j.mills

35. Comment #312509 by BillySands on January 5, 2009 at 3:57 am

Luis,

I expect they will either ignore it, lie about it, claim with no evidence whatsoever that it has to be that way, because the bible tells them that god created everything or set up another straw man arguement.

Maybe devolved can tell us

The worst thing from Devolved's point of view is that the author whos authority he bows down to is clearly ignorant (or stupid - or both) of the fact that Amoeba dubia's genome dwarfs ours when he says that the amoeba needs to gain information to evolve into a human.

Other good ones to throw at them is our "fossilised" L-gulonolactone oxidase gene fragment and the "decaying" haemoglobin genes of ice fish

Other Comments by BillySands

36. Comment #312519 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 4:44 am

Comment #311750 by BillySands

You still have a question to answer concerning chickens with teeth

It has been so long I can't remember who has precedence, your chicken's teeth or my evidence for the big tap and giant plughole for Noah's flood.

EDIT: Comment #312509 by BillySands

the author whos authority he bows down to is clearly ignorant (or stupid - or both)

It has been quoted here in the past - One can be honest, intelligent and a creationist, but not all three at the same time

Other Comments by epeeist

37. Comment #312520 by Quetzalcoatl on January 5, 2009 at 4:58 am

Epeeist-

You don't honestly expect an answer to either of them?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

38. Comment #312526 by BillySands on January 5, 2009 at 5:20 am

Epeeist,

I think yours has been waiting the longest. I think it means that CMI dont have a good enough fairy story just yet for him to link to.

Other Comments by BillySands

39. Comment #312528 by God fearing Atheist on January 5, 2009 at 5:20 am

#311711 by Quetzalcoatl

Not to mention the claim that the appendix is an important organ.

Can't be arsed to read the creationist article to get the context, so please forgive any misinterpretation, but the human appendix might be functional - see:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826562.100-vestigial-organs-remnants-of-evolution.html?full=true

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

40. Comment #312530 by Quetzalcoatl on January 5, 2009 at 5:28 am

God fearing Atheist-

While the human appendix may be of some function; it probably isn't to the extent that the creationist article is suggesting. The article supplied by devolved links to another article on the appendix:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/709

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

41. Comment #312539 by Rosbif on January 5, 2009 at 5:47 am

I much appreciated No. 12.
I had no idea that one of the genes affecting beak development had been studied so. This is almost poetic as these beaks were one of the anomilies that set Darwin on the road to the Origin of Species.

So now we have:
The observations
The Hypothysis
The testing
The evidence
The testing
The evidence
The evidence
The evidence
The evidence
The evidence
The evidence
The evidence
.....
.....
.....
The evidence
The evidence
The evidence

AND the mechanics of how it all works.

Shame Darwin can't see it, but surely evolution has got to be the most factual theory in the history of science/humanity.

Let's hope the entire picture of observation to mechanics is presented on prime time TV this year of Darwin. RD?

Other Comments by Rosbif

42. Comment #312543 by God fearing Atheist on January 5, 2009 at 5:54 am

#312530 by Quetzalcoatl

#312528 by God fearing Atheist
... so please forgive any misinterpretation, ...

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

43. Comment #312544 by Quetzalcoatl on January 5, 2009 at 5:59 am

GFA-

No criticism of you intended! Just clarifying what the creationist article said, that's all.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

44. Comment #312674 by larhule on January 5, 2009 at 10:37 am

Long live great tits.

Other Comments by larhule

45. Comment #313753 by Mr DArcy on January 6, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Billy Sands asks:

I keep meaning to ask you, is that the summit of Ben Nevis on your avatar?

Yes indeed! Taken by me on the day of the 3 peaks race in June 2007. I wasn't racing. For me it was a one peak marathon.

J. Mills:

Mr D'Arcy said:
we should remember that the snake that talked to Eve in the Garden of Eden did not produce any ancestors which could also talk to humans.

Well, ya know, in fairness to creationists, I've yet to hear of any organism that produces ancestors of any kind - though I would certainly be very interested...

J. Mills, just getting ahead of myself there! Quite right; should have used the word "offspring" or equivalent term. For all that, I think the point stands. Why can't modern snakes talk, unless of course that aspect of Genesis is wrong?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

46. Comment #314424 by Border Collie on January 7, 2009 at 6:40 am

I'd say its center of gravity would necessitate an extra leg (or two) up front for something of a tripod sort of ambulation.

Other Comments by Border Collie

47. Comment #314429 by Border Collie on January 7, 2009 at 6:47 am

The reason(s) for the appendix is obvious. God put those in to make sinners miserable and sometimes die when they become infected AND to give good Christian doctors a way to make a little extra cash by doing surgery. See how simple the answers are when one simply believes?

OK, epeeist, how about a duckycrock?

Other Comments by Border Collie

Reload Comments | Back to Top