PDA

View Full Version : Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home


quirk
04-19-2008, 12:18 AM
In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/04/080417112433-large.jpg

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.

“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”

Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

“These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,” says Irschick. “Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Change in diet also affected the population density and social structure of the Pod Mrcaru population. Because plants provide a larger and more predictable food supply, there were more lizards in a given area on Pod Mrcaru. Food was obtained through browsing rather than the active pursuit of prey, and the lizards had given up defending territories.

“What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history,” says Irschick.

Results of the study were published March 25 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Fund for Scientific Research in Flanders. Additional members of the research team include Anthony Herrel of Harvard University and the University of Antwerp, Kathleen Huyghe, Bieke Vanhooydonck, Thierry Backeljau and Raoul Van Damme of the University of Antwerp, Karin Breugelmans of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Irena Grbac of the Croatian Natural History Museum.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

quirk
04-19-2008, 12:19 AM
I really cant understand how with so much evidence anyone can deny the fact of evolution.

Phædrus
04-19-2008, 12:24 AM
I really cant understand how with so much evidence anyone can deny the fact of evolution.

It's very simple. Here's the fundamentalist line of thought:

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2007/creationism-proof.jpg

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 12:56 AM
I really cant understand how with so much evidence anyone can deny the fact of evolution.
Evolution is Not a fact, but a theory. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution"!

Phædrus
04-19-2008, 01:07 AM
Evolution is Not a fact but a theory. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution"!

And we've been over this before, but you don't seem to understand the difference between scientific fact, scientific hypothesis, scientific theory, and scientific law.

A fact is something you can observe. Facts are facts and cannot be challenged unless you can prove that the measurement was inaccurate or that the person claiming the fact is lying.

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a set of facts. A hypothesis is unproven and meant to be tested.

A theory is a scientific explanation for a given set of facts that is mathematically and/or experimentally tested. A scientific theory can be proven wrong if there is a repeatable experiment who's result goes against what the theory predicts (NOTE! The experiment MUST be repeatable). A hypothesis cannot disprove a theory.

A scientific law has nothing to do with any of the above but facts. A scientific law is a mathematical statement that can accurately predict what will happen under certain circumstances, like F = G((m(1) * m(2)) / r^2) (Newton's Law of Gravity) or P(1)/T(1) = P(2)/T(2) (Gay-Lussac's Law).

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 01:14 AM
A theory is a scientific explanation for a given set of facts that is mathematically and/or experimentally tested. A scientific theory can be proven wrong if there is a repeatable experiment who's result goes against what the theory predicts (NOTE! The experiment MUST be repeatable). A hypothesis cannot disprove a theory.

.

The theory of evolution is just and explanation and hasn't be mathematically proved or repeated.

Phædrus
04-19-2008, 01:19 AM
The theory of evolution is just and explanation and hasn't be mathematically proved or repeated.

Theories relating to biology generally don't have to be mathematically proven, due to their highly complex and chaotic nature (chaotic as in Chaos Theory). And by the way, I don't know if you read the OP or not, but they just finished a conclusive experiment showing that large-scale evolutionary change is possible in complex, multicellular organisms, not just microbes. So you just got shot out of the water.

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 01:30 AM
That's not evolution, but adaptation.

The lizard adapted, but didn't become another species.

Phædrus
04-19-2008, 01:34 AM
That's not evolution, but adaptation.

The lizard adapted, but didn't become another species.

"Species" is a difficult thing to define. Some biologists differentiate species on lesser criterion than the differences between a Norwegian and an African Pygmy, but humans are considered all one species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). This lizard could be considered a new species. At the very least it's a new subspecies. But species is a very difficult word to define, and you can't expect a creature to change phylum in a human life span, which is what some Creationists need as proof of evolution.

By the way, evolution = adaptation over long periods of time.

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 01:37 AM
By the way, evolution = adaptation over long periods of time.Not really.

Adaptation has limits and in no why leads to so called evolution

Phædrus
04-19-2008, 01:41 AM
Not really.

Adaptation has limits and in no why leads to so called evolution

I don't see how. What, does the DNA magically stop mutating once it reaches a certain point? That's more ridiculous than evolution, I think.

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 01:45 AM
I don't see how. What, does the DNA magically stop mutating once it reaches a certain point? That's more ridiculous than evolution, I think.
The artical says nothing about the lizards DNA mutating?

Viv
04-19-2008, 09:59 AM
Fascinating article. I saw something a while back about a Russian lab working with wild foxes I think...their study demonstrated within 10 generations these animals adapted to domestication and evolved into an animal more similar to domestic dogs, although the instincts were lurking.

Al, you're not debating semantics, are you...;)

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 12:25 PM
Fascinating article. I saw something a while back about a Russian lab working with wild foxes I think...their study demonstrated within 10 generations these animals adapted to domestication and evolved into an animal more similar to domestic dogs, although the instincts were lurking.

Al, you're not debating semantics, are you...;)No. there is a HUGE difference between "adaptation" and "evolution".

Phædrus
04-19-2008, 01:28 PM
No. there is a HUGE difference between "adaptation" and "evolution".

If you'd care to enlighten us...?

quirk
04-19-2008, 04:39 PM
Evolution is Not a fact, but a theory. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution"!

Do you dispute the theory of gravity and the theory of the sun centred solar system ?

Enver
04-19-2008, 06:25 PM
Evolution is Not a fact, but a theory. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution"!

Evolution is fact, evolution by natural selection is a theory.

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 06:29 PM
Evolution is fact, evolution by natural selection is a theory.
Both are theories, nothing more.

Dreadfulfaery
04-19-2008, 06:54 PM
No. there is a HUGE difference between "adaptation" and "evolution".

Adaptation leads to evolution.

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 09:48 PM
Adaptation leads to evolution.
And the non theory scientific proof of this is............?

quirk
04-19-2008, 10:22 PM
Al you seem to misunderstand that theory in science is different from teory in everyday language.


According to the National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

So as stated above a theory in science is something which is established.

Al Fatiha
04-19-2008, 10:28 PM
[I] Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time.

Evolution is still just a "theory", and has not become "scientific theory".

quirk
04-19-2008, 10:37 PM
Evolution is still just a "theory", and has not become "scientific theory".

Of course it is a scientific theory: http://www.molwick.com/en/evolution/index.html#top

Its to do with science so its hardly a political or religious theory.