Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Religious Ceremony Leads To Evolution of Cave Fish

Posted by timothy on from the works-both-ways dept.

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."

23 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. I predict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    that this thread will be characterized by civil discussion and insightful exchange of ideas, with little or no flamage

    1. Re:I predict by dov_0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am a young earth creationist, but have some manners. I don't flame. I don't even bother arguing with people who refuse to debate properly or examine the many sides of the argument. For those who believe in an old Earth and evolution (whichever version) by their own choice and after examining the issues, then good for them. Many people choose just to follow what they were taught in school and on TV. I have no time for these ignorant people who have not considered things for themselves. There are also young Earth creationists who have not examined the issues on both sides. Sheesh. Not fond of them either. I came to be a young Earth creationist through studying the arguments each way, studying as much of the evidence as I could (I continue to read up on new theories or discoveries) and then making the best decision that I could. I've noticed quite a few people here on /. who quietly support young Earth ideas. Sometimes they get flamed, but they all seem to be intelligent people who have considered what they believe and know why they believe it. Gotta respect that. Now I predict that no-one will flame me... Haha. Some chance.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    2. Re:I predict by Kilrah_il · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had a hard time deciding between replying to you or using my mod points to mod you Toll.
      You see, I also believe in evolution, science and all the other things you said. I also do not believe in God and believe Creationalism is stupid. But, I, apparently, have one thing you do not: Manners.
      The parent wrote his beliefs in a polite, respecting manner. He did not say: "Stupid evolutionalists! Can't you see that GOD is with me?" He was stating his beliefs while respecting ours. The least you could do was respond in kind and not use words like: "idiots", "scum", "i truely wish you were all dead", etc.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    3. Re:I predict by Tsiangkun · · Score: 4, Informative
      Fish acquired new trait. New trait is inherited.

      Evolution.

  2. So... by Barrinmw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like bacteria but on a multicellular level.

  3. Religion causing evolution.... by Brad1138 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Boy thats an oxymoron.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:Religion causing evolution.... by siddesu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reading the TFA, I'd say it mostly speculation.

      The conclusion about the differences in reaction to the toxin is kind of speculative, as the research was done on fish, which was extracted from natural habitat, placed in stressful conditions, etc. Pinning this squarely on "evolution" and human influence is an interesting proposition, but that's it.

      This is even more true of the "evolution" part of the article. The paper presents some statistical evidence that fish from different parts of the water body respond differently to introduction of the plant toxin, but it all ends there.

      There is no information at all about whether this is a genetic or acquired trait; there is nothing on the supposed mechanisms of the said difference; nothing to suggest what the eventual genetic differences that account for this effect may be.

      It is an interesting observation, maybe a cool hypothesis, but saying "ceremony leads to evolution" is certainly over-stretching it.

    2. Re:Religion causing evolution.... by siddesu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not necessary to understand the biochemistry or the underlying mechanisms in order to deduce an evolutionary response, it's sufficient to note that the fish are more resistant to the leaf-throwing than those upstream.

      Really? Even (unlike the Darwin's case) if there are other feasible explanations? Have you heard of, for instance, mithridization -- the ability of plants and animals to acquire partial immunity from acute poisoning if a low dosage is administered for a long time beforehand?

      It is an acquired trait (not passed genetically) that can quite nicely explain this phenomenon and dispense with the need for evolution.

      I didn't see anything in the article that would discount this possibility. Without understanding the biochemistry, claiming evolutionary response is just a hypothesis, especially in a small population like the one, discussed in the article.

      Also, while you have modpoints, you obviously don't know what is a "strawman argument", go look it up ;)

    3. Re:Religion causing evolution.... by siddesu · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    4. Re:Religion causing evolution.... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed the paper talks about a "potential effect on gene flow" ("Our findings reveal potential effects of an indigenous cultural practice on three distinct processes: (i) dynamics within affected populations, (ii) gene flow among populations, and (iii) adaptive trait divergence between affected and unaffected populations.") Scientists are nothing if not careful.

      Still the fact that this is an annual event with a high dose poisening instead of gradual long term exposure makes mithridization unlikely (IMHO, not a biologist.) The paper says : "barbasco is deposited inside the cave about 100 m from the cave entrance, from where it is distributed downstream and outside of the cave." so the poison would be washed out.

      I see the guy has some of these fish in his tanks so hopefully he'll do a follow-up with specimens from the different populations bred in captivity under controlled conditions.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    5. Re:Religion causing evolution.... by gilleain · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  4. Unuseful Definition by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, this isn't considered to be "selective breeding" why now?

    1. Re:Unuseful Definition by RockModeNick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is the method of selection: In one case, humans are altering the environment of a species, resulting in evolutionary changes.

      Selective breeding involves just that, selecting the traits you want in the animal and then breeding only animals with those traits. Selecting what you breed.

        The environmental alteration version doesn't involve any conscious desire for selection; any meddling that alters survival and breeding rates is good enough. These people aren't purposefully poisoning the water to select the fish in the river that are hardest to poison.

    2. Re:Unuseful Definition by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, this isn't considered to be "selective breeding" why now?

      If you've been hoping to breed fish by throwing fish toxin in the water, trust me... you're doing it wrong.

    3. Re:Unuseful Definition by forkazoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically, there's no difference in mechanism between selective breeding and evolution. It's just a difference in intent. The idea is that the people weren't specifically breeding the fish in the same way that people specifically bred cows and wheat and whatnot. In any case, the organisms most suited to their (human influenced) environment reproduced most successfully.

  5. Re:But they're still the same species fish, right? by zblack_eagle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say that the new fish were indeed unable to breed with the fish without the adaptation, as those fish were dead

  6. Re:Already known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Peppered Moth is a famous example, but a dreadful one. There are several problems with Kettlewell's experiment, many of which are pointed out here: Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths

  7. Tomorrow's Sarah Palin Tweet Today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    OMG Todd just told me R taxes paid 4 "scientists" 2 poison/torture fishes! Y? 2 so-call "proove" evilution. G-d knoes bettr. End DOE now!

  8. Now we know the true reason for global warming by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article:

    "Since before the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the New World, the Zoque people of southern Mexico would venture each year during the Easter season deep into the sulfuric cave Cueva del Azufre to implore their deities for a bountiful rain season."

    And later:

    "Ironically, it was the last ceremony ever held, as the Zoques ended the practice that year due to political pressure from the government, which sought to preserve the cave as a hotbed for tourism and potential revenue."

    So they stopped doing ceremonies for the weather gods. This is surely not the only case. So people stop worshipping weather gods, and the climate goes wild. Coincidence? Unlikely! So now we have proof: Global warming is man-made, by neglecting weather ceremonies!

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  9. Re:But they're still the same species fish, right? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's one rock-fall blocking the river away from that happening. Population isolation happens.

  10. Re:The point by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?
  11. Re:Maybe you'll believe this guy... by siddesu · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Correlation does imply causation? by mangu · · Score: 3, Funny

    this thread will be characterized by civil discussion and insightful exchange of ideas

    Sure, let's debate whether it's the religious ceremonies that cause evolution or vice versa