Slashdot Mirror
Religious Ceremony Leads To Evolution of Cave Fish
An anonymous reader writes "A centuries-old religious ceremony of an indigenous people in southern Mexico has led to evolutionary changes in a local species of fish, say researchers at Texas A&M University. Apparently since before Columbus arrived, the Zoque people would venture each spring into the sulfuric cave Cueva del Azufre to beg the gods for bountiful rain. As part of the ritual, they released into the cave's waters a leaf-bound paste made of lime and the ground-up root of the barbasco plant, a natural fish toxin. The rest is worth reading, but the upshot is that the fish living in the cave waters eventually got wise, genetically speaking."
Basically, it's labelled "evolution" when something succeeds in adapting to the change but "extinction" when it doesn't. Often, it's the pace of change which makes the difference.
If, for example, the now-extinct North American camels developed random mutations (or had a latent genetic ability) that allowed one of them to, say, start climbing giant redwoods and breeding before being eaten by their human predators, then you'd possibly have American Tree Camels today.
Random chance + selective pressure + sufficient time = evolution. The article indicates that it wasn't a continuous pressure either, which probably helped speed things up. e.g.
Year one: 99% of fish die, 1% survive & spend the next 364 days breeding resistant offspring...
Year 500 or so: 50% die, 50% survive & spend the next 364 days breeding more resistant offspring...
Current times: 10% die, 90% survive & spend the next 364 days breeding very resistant offspring...
It's not so uncommon really; the 'religious' aspect is merely a teaser giving the atheist fundies something to tease the creationist fundies with. For instance, I'm involved with researching pest insects that have developed high-level resistance to fumigants that have only been in use since WWII. In some cases, visible morphological and behavioural changes have resulted. If that ain't evolution I don't know what is, and I'm sure that if people had ritual rather than practical reasons for gassing silos we could be having the same discussion about bugs...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Allow me to refer you to the REAL research paper, which says no such thing:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/09/06/rsbl.2010.0663.full?sid=b26a2194-7a63-4bfc-acdd-b62460fffa9a
Apparently, the story in the video isn't true.
http://crustacea.nhm.org/people/martin/publications/pdf/103.pdf
So, maybe I'll stick to my disbelief until I see clear evidence.
Thanks for the support on logic fallacies, it isn't even amusing anymore when people throw in labels they've read in another thread instead of arguments
No problem. It annoys me as well. Especially "ad hominem".
From what little biology I remember from school, the immunization that would result from mithridization would be precisely an acquired trait.
I could be wrong though.
Ah, well it is acquired for the individual, but not for its children. As wikipedia says, drinking alcohol is a good example - the more you drink, the more of the detoxification machinery is made by the body, so the more drinks it takes to get you drunk. Your children won't benefit from this immunity, however.
Evolution.