Slashdot Mirror


Butterfly Unlocks Evolution Secret

Anonymous Coward writes "The BBC has an article about a dramatic discovery in the quest for understanding evolution. From the article: 'Why one species branches into two is a question that has haunted evolutionary biologists since Darwin. Given our planet's rich biodiversity, "speciation" clearly happens regularly, but scientists cannot quite pinpoint the driving forces behind it. Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.'"

13 of 1,130 comments (clear)

  1. Wasn't this obvious? by nokilli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mutations occur, and when they occur in parallel for members of the same species, and those mutations survive into succeeding generations, you achieve speciation. End of story. What am I missing?

    Now, if you want to talk about butterflies and evolution, then answer for me how it is that butterflies could have evolved in the first place. You're talking about a two-stage organism here, one stage does nothing but eat, the other stage does nothing but procreate. Which came first?

    If it was the caterpillar, how is it that it suddenly figures out how to create a cocoon, lay dormant for a winter, then emerge as a completely different creature? They obviously had the means for procreation on their own, so why bother becoming a butterfly?

    If it was the butterfly, why even bother with the caterpillar stage? If you can already fly around and stuff, why bother crawling?

    People cite all these other examples trying to bring down evolution, and to me they never succeed, it's obvious to me for instance how eyes evolved. But caterpillars turning into butterflies still boggles my mind.
    --
    Why didn't you know?

    1. Re:Wasn't this obvious? by Got+Laid,+Can't+Code · · Score: 5, Interesting
      No, it's non-obvious. You missed the point--the cohabiting species have special marks which allow them to choose to mate only with their own species instead of interbreeding. It isn't chance, it's choice.

      As for the caterpillar/butterfly thing, it is mysterious, but I'd like to point out that some of the simplest animals on earth go through life stages. Jellyfish, for example, hydrae, and many other invertebrates go through various stages of life. Amphibians do this as well.

      As far as I can tell, the reason behind it is a reproductive strategy. The butterfly, and other insects, has hundreds of offspring, only a few of which will survive to adulthood and then have hundreds more offspring.

      Humans do not go through such dramatic stages as a butterfly, but a butterfly might be amazed to find out that humans survive for 13 years before reaching reproductive age!

      --
      Asparagus has many and excellent powers.
    2. Re:Wasn't this obvious? by iamplupp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "If all offspring have the same number of genes as their parents, and all species on earth are evolved from one original life form, shouldn't all creatures have the same number of genes? Are there any theories out there regarding how genes are added or subtracted over time?"

      There are many mechanisms for adding, changing, and subtracting genetical information (translocations, mutations, deletations, insertions, non-disjunction etc etc. In the vast majority of cases the results are death for the offspring but in a rare few cases it results in viable and even rarer, a better adapted offspring. For an everyday example: People with Downs Syndrome have either an extra 23rd chromosome or a robertsonian translocation with pretty much the same added genetic material as a result. That means they have roughly 2 percent more genes than other people...

    3. Re:Wasn't this obvious? by Orozco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe you mean the 21st chromosome. The 23rd chromosome is the sex chromosome, and the effects of having an extra one depend on the resulting genotype. The possibilities are XYY, XXY, and XXX (gasp!). If I remember correctly, the XYY variety typically dies very young (it may not survive to birth.) The XXY flavor results in Klinefelter's syndrome, which causes sterility (the person is male, but during puberty the testicles do not fully develop) and slight deficits in speech and motor learning (which can be overcome by playing sports and having good teachers). I can't remember what happens with the XXX variety. So there's more than you ever wanted to know about Trisomy-23. To make this reply relevant to the post, trisomy typically happens through nondisjunction, in which two copies of a chromosome do not separate from each other during meiosis (this happens in the sex cells of on of the parents.)

  2. And racism? by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if this has any impact on the view of racism?

    Racism is a *very* touchy subject, and I may get flamed just for bringing it up, but doesn't this sound like butterfly racism? If this were, in fact, a provable, natural, biological mechanism, then, wouldn't we, as biological organisms, be falling prety to much the same effect? Isn't racism a social form of speciation?

    What impact would this have on the ACLU? Hiring quotas? The civil rights movement in general?

    I'm not suggesting that racism is good. But, might these be related?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  3. Non-Mutation Split by DrWho520 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In higher order animals, such as Orcas, behavioral differences can bring about the separation into two species. There are two distinct groups of Orcas, those which hunt fish and those which hunt seals. These two behaviors are fairly different, as fish hunting Orcas herd schools of fish to make consuming them easier. Seal hunting orcas are know to "dive" several feet onto ice flows to catch seals. They also thrash seals around in the water to subdue them. These two groups do not mix as their learned behaviors and sub-environs are different. It is easy to imagine that these two groups are slowly diverging, as they engage in different diets, breed within their own groups and engage in different physical activities.

    Of course, I am a physicist and a mathematician. All of my bio-knowledge comes from The Discovery Channel.

    --
    The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    1. Re:Non-Mutation Split by Boronx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another difference between the two groups is that fish hunting orcas are always chattering amongst themselves, but mammal hunting orcas are very quiet, because their pray is smart enough or has ears enough to pick up on the yammering.

    2. Re:Non-Mutation Split by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or that the seals can distinguish between the fish eaters and the seal eaters. This was in a recent National Geographic (last few months I believe) -- but the seal eating orcas look a little different and the seals flip out when they see them (understandably).

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Non-Mutation Split by AJWM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, besides the fact that they dont geographically overlap at all.

      Historically they do. I don't recall if there were ever tigers in Africa but there were certainly lions in Asia (and indeed in Europe). However, they prefer different habitats (forest vs grassland), and have different hunting patterns. Which came first (habitat preference or hunting method) is an interesting (and probably unresolvable) question.

      The point isn't that tigers and lions would interbreed in the wild, the point is that tigers and lions are so genetically similar that their branch point from a common ancestor isn't that long ago, and the branching (and speciation) occurred because of the different habitat preferences and because tiger ancestors preferred to mate with tiger ancestors rather than lion ancestors.

      (The fact that tigers and lions can mate and produce not only viable but occasionally fertile offspring throws a wrench into the usual definition of "species". Many of the anti-evolutionist arguments boil down to semantics rather than biology, so it's worth noting where these definitions break down.)

      --
      -- Alastair
  4. Re:Markings in "domesticated" animals by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think about it, cats, dogs, chickens, pigeons, cows, all of these exhibit wild variation in marking and coloration when they live with humans. Even humans themselves seem to have more variability when compared to other primates.

    It's just because of selective breeding. If you let different dog breeds mate then after a few generations then they tend towards the "basic dog" type.

    For a more detailed and accurate description take a look at the Wikipedia article on mixed-breed dogs.

  5. Obvious questions should go straight to Google by Tau+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If
    1. all offspring have the same number of genes as their parents, and
    2. all species on earth are evolved from one original life form,
    shouldn't all creatures have the same number of genes?
    Premise #1 is false. One common way for plants to speciate is to double their chromosome count (not individual genes, entire sets of chromosomes). Humans are diploid (two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent); some plants are quadruploid or hexaploid (SIX sets of chromosomes, three from each parent).
    Are there any theories out there regarding how genes are added or subtracted over time?
    Then you have crossover mutations. When chromosomes are duplicated in mitosis, the two new DNA strands are wound up with the originals and have to be untangled. This is done by enzymes which snip one strand pair, allow the other to pass through the gap and repair the bond afterwards. Sometimes this process isn't perfect, and a DNA strand pair gets part of the other's chromosome or loses a chunk. Entire genes can be lost or duplicated this way. Duplicated genes allow one of the pair to mutate and take up new functions, and it turns out that a whole lot of biological "inventions" come from genes which appear to have come from other, older genes.

    Then you've got tandem sequence repeats... which is a whole 'nother story, but they are very susceptible to DNA copying errors and you can evolve e.g. a very different curve of a dog's snout in a century by selecting for different lengths of tandem repeats.

    Yes, all this stuff is on the web. Everything you need to completely and authoritatively refute every argument made by creationists (the "intelligent design" brand or the traditional) is on the web.

    (Okay, who's the Slashcode nitwit whose filter cancels the <i> tag when a list is started?)

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  6. Re:Intelligent Design, explained Intelligently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, how about this:

    Wave two pencils in front of a person, about 30cm apart. Then, have them cover one eye and step away slowly, while looking at one pencil tip, until they can't see other due to their blind spot.

    Now, ask a squid to do the same thing.

    Guess what? Squids have no blind spot, because the optic nerve and blood vessels connect to the eye without interrupting the potosensitive cells.

    An intelligent designer (when hypothesizing that the designer was the same for both) would not have produced a defective eye for humans when they designed it properly the first time (only the day before).

    Of course, not only humans have a blind spot; all vertbrates do. Likewise, many creatures other than squids do not suffer from blind spots-encumbered vision.

    You can easily disprove intelligent design, because both "intelligent" and "design" (not to mention the other attributes of the particular designer that most folks seem to have in mind) imply certain conditions that their designs would have to exibit relative to other designs by that same author.

  7. Re:Stop a moment and observe.. by Steeltoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You are confusing dogma, spirituality and science.

    You see, religion is like a banana. It tastes good and does good. Our western modern society is actually based on this banana. However, in time people have thrown the banana and kept the skin. This has been an awful waste, because the skin is not edible and gives a stomach ache. But this makes people hold on to the skin even more, because now they've lost the banana! They even start arguing what part of the skin is "the best"..

    Basically, "the skin" is symbols, traditions, flags, icons, etc. It's just a wrapping paper. You unwrap the package, and then throw away the wrapping, not the other way around.

    Spirituality is what this banana consists of. It is based on direct experience. Everybody has some spirituality, even if it's just to accept that they have a daily life where they go to work and party on weekends. You cannot argue against somebody's direct experience..

    Science is trying to make everybody agree on the same reality. Sadly however, in the process, science has thrown away much of the banana-core too, confusing it for the skin..

    Basically, our whole "modern" society has thrown away the banana. The result is higher rates of depression, cancer, stress, suicides, etc. This is because of lack of spirituality and roots in this world. A feeling of alienation and that we don't belong here.

    So you see, I accept both spirituality and science as complentary, thus my world is bigger than if I had just accepted one or the other.

    What is needed at this time, is to globalize spirituality. Find a set of human values we all agree on and nurture and cultivate that, and cherish each other's different worldviews. Otherwise, the negative trends will just become worse.