Hudson River Fish Evolve Toxic PCB Immunity

[Godhumor]

National Geographic News

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water/

Bottom-feeding fish in the Hudson River have developed a gene that renders them immune to the toxic effects of PCBs, researchers say.

A genetic variant allows the fish to live in waters notoriously polluted by the now-banned industrial chemicals, and distinguishes the fish—Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod)—as one of the world’s fastest evolving populations.

"This is very, very ra­­­­­­­­­­­­pid evolutionary change," said Isaac Wirgin, an environmental toxicologist at New York University’s School of Medicine, and the study's lead investigator. "Normally you think of evolution occurring in thousands to millions of years. You’re talking about all this occurring in 20 to 50 generations maybe.”

-----------------------------------------

And evolution continues whether people want to accept it or not.

Edit: And yes, this fits the definition of evolution. This is a genetic change in the fish population and is described as a very fast evolutionary change within the article.

[Zebedeo]

1. That's adaptation

not evolution. Let me know when those fish turn into something other than fish.

[Buzz Clik]

2. You're a bit off here.

Adaptation is a type of evolution, and the acquiring of new genes is evolution.

Your concept of evolution is a bit narrow.

[Zebedeo]

7. Your definition of "evolution" is so broad

that it is meaningless. I think when most people use the term "evolution" they are referring to the origin of species, and the theory that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor.

No one of whom I am aware disputes that animals adapt to their environments. They develop protective coloring and other characteristics that help them survive from generation to generation. What is disputed is such propositions as whether fish can evolve into mammals.

You are confusing development of traits with evolution of species. Dogs have been bred since man first domesticated the wolf. Many varieties of dog are possible, from tiny Chihuahuas to huge Great Danes. But they always retain their identity as dogs - so much so that even a small child can instantly recognize them as dogs. As much as you might try, you will NEVER be able to change a dog into a squirrel - even if you breed the most squirrel-like dogs with each other for thousands of generations.

[Godhumor]

9. But evolution isn't just origin of species; it is change on the genetic level for a population

If all dogs over generations genetically changed to better breakdown an enzyme or protein, even if people don't see a physical differentiation, it is still evolution.

[Zebedeo]

11. Uh huh

I'm just saying that if you broadly define evolution as "change over time," you may have an easier time proving that evolution occurs, but you will have made it a meaningless victory. No one is disputing that advantageous adaptations within a species occur. What is disputed is whether people and Venus fly traps have a common ancestor.

[EstimatedProphet]

21. Actually, I think a lot of fundies are fighting that idea

When you begin to talk about evolution with a fundie, it rapidly turns into "God created everything as-is, and that's that" way too often.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Some people simply can't handle the truth.

Particularly not when it conflicts with what they KNOW about the world from Sunday School.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Actually, no one with a rudimentary understanding of science and gentetics disputes that they do.

ALL of the information we've garnered in the past 20 years of decoding the genomes of life on Earth has gelled- PERFECTLY- with our understanding of the evolutionary history- AND common ancestry- of all life on Earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

[bettyellen]

25. nope, these genetic changes are what causes evolution- which is a process first and foremost

the concept or theory would be nothing without the process itself, which in turn would be nothing without these genetic changes.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I think when someone uses "dispute" and "evolution" in a sentence, they don't understand science.

Evolution is a FACT. Get it? A SCIENTIFIC FUCKING FACT.

It is not "in dispute".


FACT. Deal with it.

[Zebedeo]

44. Yeah, I know (sigh)

and no dissent or even questioning of the dogma is allowed. Heretics are to be burned at the stake.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Bullshit. The scientific method is innately self-challenging. What it DOESN'T do is give special

treatment to pet ideas (like, "God Made everything!") that have no proof.

Evolution is a fact. If facts come along that say otherwise, science will incorporate those facts, because that's what science does. Dogma and religion burn people at the stake- and how dare you try to use the history of what was done to freethinkers and scientists BY religion as a metaphor for the imaginary persecution that creationist twaddle imagines itself subject to.

Don't you find it odd that everything we've learned about genetics in the past decades has CONFIRMED what we already thought about the common ancestry of life? It's not "dissent" to be willfully ignorant of the truth.

[Godhumor]

49. Dogma is religious belief (as are heretics). His point is, believe it or not, evolution happens

Even if every person in the world stopped studying evolution, it would continue to happen. Evolution is not a belief system, and it doesn't belong in the same conversation as real dogma. It is science. "Alternatives" are belief systems with no basis in scientific fact.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Yeah, I love the "equal time" argument.

[MikeH]

55. My understanding is that evolution is established fact

My understanding, based on what I know and what I have read, is that science has established evolution as fact, at least to the same degree that, say, Einstein's theory of relativity has been established as fact.

I would strongly suspect that the only reason that there is any doubt or question at all about the reality of evolution is because of the obsession that some people, namely fundamentalist Christians, have with the idea that whatever is in this one particular book, the Bible, i.e. a collection of writings written over 2000 years ago, must be absolute truth. And thus evolution must be false, because it contradicts the account of creation in Genesis (actually TWO accounts of creation). And this even though it is absurd to think of the Bible as being in any sense a scientific textbook. It seems that such people feel that God is very touchy and offended at any suggestion that anything in the Bible, the so-called "Word of God", might not be quite true.

And unfortunately fundamentalist Christians have for some time had much power and influence in our society, and thus have been able to instill doubt in much of society about the reality of evolution.

This is no different from the fact that the only reason there has ever been any doubt or question about the harmful effects of either smoking or second-hand smoke is because the powerful and influential tobacco industry has been in the business of denying such harmful effects. And the only reason that there is any doubt about the reality of global warming is because the powerful and influential oil and other polluting industries are in the business of denying the reality of global warming.

And I think the comparison of fundamentalist Christians, particularly those who have power and influence in our society, with the tobacco industry and with the oil and other polluting industries, is very apt and appropriate.

[mattvermont]

13. Evolution can only operate

on the gene. Ashift in the commonality of a particular gene in a population.
Evolution does not typically graduate slowly (aside from the standard rate of random mutation) Evolution occurs when a situation is posed in an environment to force the equation.
"Punctuated Equilibrium" is the phenomenon where a population can stay much the same for very long time, until something adverse acts upon it.
check out Eldridge and Gould, 1972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

[WatsonT]

17. No it's evolution

Adaptation consists of temporary changes to an individual, like getting a tan or adding more red blood cells when you live at high altitude for a while.

Changes in gene frequency within a population is evolution.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Wow. You're an evolution denier, too???

What a piece of work.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Fascinating. Genetically modified organisms.

... the natural way.

[ensho]

4. fascinating! and changing is not adapting, its evolution

nt

[Godhumor]

5. This is a genetic change for the population, i.e. evolution

n/t

[Zebedeo]

6. If any change is defined as "evolution,"

I am going to go for a run today so I can evolve some more endurance and a slimmer waistline. lol

[Godhumor]

8. This is evolution.

Biological definition of evolution from Dictionary.com:

change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


From the article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water):

It turns out the fish sport a handy modification to a gene encoding a protein known to regulate the toxic effects of PCBs and related chemicals, called the aryl hydrocarbon receptor2, or AHR2.

The fish are missing six base pairs of DNA of the AHR2 gene, and the two amino acids each triplet would code for. PCBs bind poorly to the mutated receptors, apparently blunting the chemicals' effects.
The adaptation occurs almost universally in Hudson River tomcod...


Even the researchers from the article call it evolution.

[Zebedeo]

10. Such adaptation

is not controversial. What is in dispute is whether one type of animal can arise from another type of animal - say, humans from apes, or birds from dinosaurs.

[Godhumor]

12. And how does that relate to this use of the term evolution, which is correct?

A species can evolve; it does not have to evolve into another distinct species to fit the definition of evolution.

[Zebedeo]

14. I'm just saying that

defining small adaptations as "evolution" and then pointing out breathlessly that "evolution" is occurring before our eyes is not likely to convince those who do not subscribe to Darwinism. The controversy is not over whether a population of animals can develop traits that are advantageous for their survival in their particular environment. That is not disputed. The dispute is over whether one type of animal can arise from another type of animal.

[Godhumor]

23. Which brings us full circle to my comments in the OP. Evolution occurs whether people want to accept

it or not.

It doesn't have to be big or grandiose (Though evolving a genetic immunity to PCBs in less than a 100 years is pretty freakin' grandiose), but it continues to happen.

Evolution is not only accepted but observable--this just adds on to the observable piece a great deal of new data.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Nothing is going to "convince those who do not subscribe to Darwinism", b/c they're in denial.

Sorry. Evolution is a FACT. People can either deal with it, or they can't.

[Zebedeo]

43. If evolution is an undisputable fact

one wonders why it would be necessary to post a thread about it. If it is a "fact" like gravity, why don't we see breathless reporting (and thread-posting) of discoveries of examples of gravity?

[Godhumor]

45. Are scientific discoveries somehow anathema to your point? Why can't we discuss them?

And to your other point, we don't understand everything about the mechanics of gravity. You would see threads dedicated to gravity when something is discovered.

But yes, evolution, like gravity, still happens regardless of how people think. These fish weren't originally immune to PCBs, and now they are. It is a huge flashing neon sign saying, "Look, here is evolution that happened in tens of generations instead of thousands!" And you know what? It is exciting.

Nature finds a way.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Because the truth upsets people and hurts their feelings.

Plus, it leads to short skirts and unmarried copulation.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Sorry if it bugs you to hear the truth. Why don't you hide the thread if the truth bugs you?

Or, you could hang out at the Discovery Institute website.

[Rex]

15. True.

Otherwise humans would need to have gills on their neck or a third arm and eye to fit that criteria.

[WatsonT]

19. You're refering to speciation

that is an aspect of evolution, not it's entirety.

[CJvR]

20. No it isn't.

That controversy is long over. There is no scientific debate on the validity of evolution anymore.

[Zebedeo]

24. Well then

I wonder why anyone would post on a political message board about it. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.

[CJvR]

26. No it is simple.

There is a political debate about evolution, at least in the US. Where other than a political forum would you expect a political debate to take place?

[Zebedeo]

30. The political debate

is not about the subject of the OP. There is no political debate concerning whether an animal species can adapt over time to its environment. The debate is over such issues as whether alternatives to absolutist canonical Darwinism are allowed to be mentioned in school.

[CJvR]

31. And since...

...there are no such alternatives, at least none founded on actual science, they quite logically can't be mentioned in a science class. Sorry Zeb but the jury has returned a verdict on this issue long ago. In fact so long ago that the jury members returned home, lived long full lives, raised children and bounced grandkids on their knees. It is over! There is no debate on this issue, except among people who are not scientists.

How can you teach alternatives when there are none?
Evolution is quite possibly the most solid scientific theory there is.


btw, wtf is "absolutist canonical Darwinism"?

[Zebedeo]

absolutist

because no alternatives to Darwinism are allowed to be considered. Canonical because those who do not toe the line are treated as heretics. And there are a number of scientists who do not agree with Darwinism. Biochemist Michael Behe is just one example.

If Darwinism is so well-proven, as you claim, please cite the fossil evidence indicating that mammals evolved from reptiles - or whatever it is you believe they evolved from.

[Godhumor]

33. I am not sure what more you want from this thread. It starts with an example of quick evolution

With a known starting point (Introduction of PCBs to the river) and a proven population-wide genetic change. Moreover, it is only in this particular population the change has occurred where cod in non-contaminated waters have not developed the same genetic differences (i.e. it is a result of the pollution that led to a population-wide event).

Throwing in non sequitur items like asking for transition fossils does nothing to disguise these facts.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Everyone to convert, repent, and stop fornicating.

That's what it's usually about. :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

40. You could disprove Darwinism real easy: Rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian layer.

So, where are they, Creationists?

[CJvR]

52. Sure alternatives are allowed.

If you can come up with a better alternative based on science and evidence you can topple previously accepted theory as Einsteinian relativity offered a better explanation than Newtonian movement laws. Indeed Darwin's original theories have been complemented several times to improve the evolutionary explanation with facts unknown to Darwin. It is facinating that Darwin's basic theory have survived over a century of scientific discovery, whole fields of science have been discovered since then and they have all confirmed evolution through natural selection.

IF any scientist have any SCIENTIFIC PROOF to disprove evolution they only have to publish it, and they will recive the Nobel price for such a discovery! However unlike politics where you only need an opinion and a platform to shout from to have a "debate" in science you actually have to know what you are talking about and be able to back it up with facts.

Behe was publicly castrated in the Dover trials. Irreducible complexity is not scientific theory but a religous one.

Evolution is well proven and there are tons of material online so you should have no problems doing your own reasearch. One tip though is to look through the genetic evidence it is not only newer but generally better than morphology IMPO.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. You don't understand how science operates at all, do you?

so-called creationist "arguments" aren't discounted because of some great scientific conspiracy or entrenched dogma. The arguments are discounted because they fall flat on their face.





http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

[CJvR]

16. You have watched...

...to much SciFi.

Individuals dont evolve, populations do.

[WatsonT]

18. Can you pass on that temporarily increased endurance?

If so then it's evolution, if not adaptation.

When the frequencies of a particular gene changes within a population over generations that is evolution.

[Wounded Bear]

22. The whole problem with the "it's not really evolution" argument...

is that is is always offered by those who don't understand nor support the counter postion.

When people allow scientists the right to critique and amend religious doctrine (not that they'd actually want to ;)) then I'll listen to creationists arguing what is and what isn't evolution. For now, I'll take my science from people who actually know and do science.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. It's "I already know the answer, now I'm going to desperately try to arrange the facts to fit"

It's fucking idiotic. And tiresome.

[magdalena]

27. This is awesome!

We can forget about all this environmentalist nonsense, pollute the bejeezus out of everything and evolve into indestructible ubermensch.

[Godhumor]

28. I'm going to go stand under an x-ray machine for 6 hours and see what special powers I get!

I'm going to guess "tumors", but we'll see!

[Godhumor]

29. Using my complementary bump...for science!

Really a wonderful, observable definition of evolution happening. Chemicals that were first "invented" 90 years ago pollute the habitat, and the fish respond at the genetic level very quickly. We have an identifiable beginning to the process and verified genetic change.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

34. I wonder if the nuke plant helped to speed up the evolution? lol!

[Ikonoklast]

51. You might be on to something there...

And I can't believe that there are evolution deniers posting here...I often wondered what it's like living a life in denial of science.

[Godhumor]

54. Blinky!

And to your final point, I think it is because so many have been taught, or believe, that science and faith is incompatible.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. Now I'm tempted to go down to the Hudson (I live 10 minutes away) and look for this cutie myself!

And yes,it seems like the science deniers are alive and well on DU. :(