Researchers Evolve A Complex Genetic Trait In The Laboratory

ScienceDaily ^

[DManA]

How did it evolve if its genome didn't change?

they studied are instances in which animals with the same genetic makeup can produce quite different traits, or phenotypes, in different environments.

[muawiyah]

And, in the end, we still have tobacco hornworms, only this time some are green and some are black.

Now, get me a tunable one!

BTW, as long as the reproductive organs still "fit", these little suckers can interbreed. However, let certain bacteria build up in those vital regions, and next thing you know there are some serious mutations, and you've got a new species or two, or three!

[RightWingAtheist]

Kent Hovind reacts to the news of evolution being observed and tested in the laboratory:

[PatrickHenry]

A thread on this research was posted on Feb 2nd: Scientists Force Evolution in the Lab.

[Brilliant]

"Thus, the black mutant hornworm had "dialed-down" levels of juvenile hormone, so that the caterpillar's color-producing machinery would be more likely to be affected by temperature. By selecting for a temperature-sensitive strain, the researchers established polyphenism in the caterpillar."




I sure hope they did not fund this with tax dollars. It sounds racist.

[FlameThrower]

While biologists have understood the basic machinery underlying polyphenisms, the mystery remained how such complex traits, which involve mutations in multiple genes, could evolve and persist.

[Creationist]

Variation within it's kind does not mean evolution.
A Doberman and Pekingese are still dogs. A Shetland and a Clydesdale are still horses.A short person and tall person are still humans.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

["It's long been known that polyphenisms are controlled by hormones, with the brain sensing environmental signals and altering the pattern of hormonal secretions," said Nijhout. "In turn, these hormonal patterns turn sets of genes on or off to produce different traits. However, we understood only the developmental mechanism, and how it is possible with a single genome in an animal to produce two very different phenotypes," he said. "There had been theoretical models to explain the evolutionary mechanism -- how selective pressures can maintain polyphenisms in a population, and why they don't converge gradually into one form or another," said Nijhout. "But nobody had ever started with a species that didn't have a polyphenism and generated a brand-new polyphenism. Such a demonstration could offer important insights into the evolutionary mechanism underlying such traits." ]

Vey interesting bump.

[bvw]

Not Darwinian, just Lamarckian at best. But not even that.

[bvw]

Yes but this is a later epoch's evolution of the same phenotype.

[muawiyah]

This is no more evolution than that which occurred when I watched a neighbor install a fuel injector on a 1957 Chevy.

[bvw]

PPS I do not know if I'd call that progress.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Variation within it's kind does not mean evolution."

Define *kind*.

[gleeaikin]

Transfers of chuncks of genes is currently being worked on extensively. See my posting of excerpts from the book "Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated" by Steve Jones, 2000. It is #21 at "Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists", which was posted on FR about an hour ago.

[Creationist]

dog kind, cat kind, horse kind, human kind, chimpanzee kind

[CarolinaGuitarman]

No, I mean, define *kind*. Specifically. And scientifically.

[LiteKeeper]

And there wasn't an intelligent scientist in the group. There couldn't have been, it was evolution.

[bvw]

He did define "kind", definition by a list of examples is a valid way to make a definition. The definition of "species" is quite variale, and about as specific as that simple list, btw. Same order of magnitude of specificity.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He did define "kind", definition by a list of examples is a valid way to make a definition."

The *kinds* he mentioned having nothing to do with biology. They are meaningless, ephemeral entities that can change to suit the creationists needs.

"The definition of "species" is quite variale, and about as specific as that simple list, btw. Same order of magnitude of specificity."

No, the species concept in biology is rather precise, even if it does get blurry in certain instances (because of the non-fixity of species). That's why most of the species known to science are also known to *primitive* cultures that have had little to no contact with civilization. Species have a real biological existence. *Kinds* do not.