Scientists see new species born | BBC

[Ediacara]

Scientists see new species born

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor


Fruit flies are usually studied
in the lab

Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species for the first time.

Biologists Laura Reed and Prof Therese Markow made the discovery by observing breeding patterns of fruit flies that live on rotting cacti in deserts.

The work could help scientists identify the genetic changes that lead one species to evolve into two species.

The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

More at the BBC

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. great

just what the world needs, another species of fly.

:)

[checks-n-balances]

3. New species being created by mutations of Fascism aren't so great either

From reading the title, I was sure that's what the article was going to be about!

[Eurobabe]

5. ROFL!

[Walt Starr]

2. But, but, but.....that; would be an observation of evolution occuring!

THAT'S OF THE DEVIL!!!!!

</sarcasm> for the humor impaired.

[HawkerHurricane]

4. Channalling my inner Creationist...

Since the Bible says things were created as they are, there can be no evidence that supports evolution, so there is no new species of fly. You are wrong, because you cannot be right. Any evidence that says you are right is to be discounted, most likely by refering to something that's a different subject, like the laws of thermodynamics, which I don't know except that I've been told that they make evolution imposible. If pressed, I will say that it is a example of micro evolution, which I've been told means variations within a 'kind' of animal (a term that has no scientific meaning).

Did I cover it?

[jukes]

6. Hawk

great job! i might add, however, the existence of dinosaur tracks OVERLAYING human footprints, in some obscure creek bed in (of course) texas.

this not only proves that evolution did not occur, but supports Vonnegut's theory that yahweh is not a conservationist (since he created the dino's @ the same time as all other creatures, but, inexplicably, allowed them to become extinct.) some suggest he blundered, but my fervent belief (& if you disagree i'll have you shot w/depleted uranium) is that it was all part of his mysterious plan to provide the neocons an excuse to obliterate the followers of SATAN, since dead dino=oil.

[Ediacara]

7. Just in case anyone thinks you may be serious :-)

I'd like to point out that it's well known the human/dinosaur tracks have been carved by a Mr "Dr" Carl Bough and show obvious signs of being chisselled....

[jukes]

8. i'm humbled, DinoLad

i should have quoted my (corrupted) source. i also appreciate you pointing out that this "dr." received his degree @ a discredited 1 room diploma mill in SoCal.

nice to see we're skimming through the same trash!

:toast:



edit for spelling, "i before e...."

[MisterP]

24. and he's offering a $100K prize for "proof of evolution"

to be judged by a Hovindbag-picked jury (and he's bankrupt, so he can't pay anyway)

Well, at least he doesn't frolic through my textbooks when not in hottubs or fame mink or rhinestones...

[MGKrebs]

9. Even so, the carving is God's will.

Even if the tracks aren't authentic, they are still provided to bring us back to the truth, and away from the misleading and fabricated blasphemy perpetrated by enemies of Truth.

As a matter of fact, I am given to believe that the good "Dr." observed these very same "new" fruit flies while carving those tracks. Which just goes to show you something!

[HawkerHurricane]

27. I considered mentioning them...

but I felt one off topic tangent was standard for the rant.

[Lisa]

10. very interesting!

So if the ranges are overlapping, I guess this would be a case of sympatric speciation (as opposed to allopatric speciation, involving geographically isolated populations). Someone is doing a study on allopatric speciation of an invasive weed (dandelions?) on islands off the BC coast, but I've been looking for a sympatric example for some time now (readings for a course I'm teaching next year). Thanks for posting, DinoBoy.

I believe that the more we search, the more examples of this kind of thing we will find ... there are so many species which seem to be difficult to classify taxonomically (e.g. "complexes" like willows, hawthorns, etc.) that are glommed together like badly-made gummibears which haven't been pulled apart yet. It may be easier to spot this in short-lived species (like fruitflies and annual weeds). The more I learn about the way in which people classify species, the more nebulous it seems -- which is kind of what one would expect if evolution were an ongoing process which has been unfolding for a very long time indeed.

My MSc supervisor used to joke that God must, besides having "an inordinate fondness for beetles", a definite bias in favour of evolutionary biologists, because She has developed so many delightful and interesting potential research topics for them!

[Ediacara]

11. Sort of off on a tangent...

But what are your thoughts on the phylocode? It's really well supported by paleontologists and some neontologists, but as far as I know, it's viewed as the plague by many botanists.

[Lisa]

14. I don't know much about it ...

I confess that biogeographers are kind of low down in the academic food chain and most of us aren't out there with the breaking news. Both the profs in my department have gone to great lengths to present themselves as non-biogeographers (not an option for me because I don't have co-appointments elsewhere on campus!). Can you recommend any recent publications on this?

Based on what little I know of the situation -- if it does get widely popularized, it may not put an end to taxonomic arguments. Some time ago people tried to standardize global soil classifications, and while the new system is taught internationally, the old names still are being used either because of tradition or because the new system just didn't fit everybody's requirements. It will probably be used (if it's simpler and more convenient), only there will be grumbling about it going too far, or far enough, or all those things researchers love to debate. Not because it's necessarily wrong or bad, especially compared to earlier systems -- just that scientists love to nitpick.

Back in the 1980s, as an undergrad, I remember that the intro biology profs presented us with 7 different classification systems. I think that was my first inkling that this sort of thing was a lot harder and less objective than I'd originally assumed.

I should really ask the gentian taxonomy expert I used to work for -- he's probably got some strong opinions on this!

[Ediacara]

16. Soils...

Blech.... All I know is that paleosols=fossil soils :-)

The phylocode is here:

http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/

And ya, while not perfect, is IMHO much better than linnean systematics, by codifying the objective "gentlemen's agreements" that had been working within the practitioners of phylogenetic taxonomy.

[Lisa]

19. wait for the pro-linneans to die off, I guess!

This seems to be one of the ways in which "the changing of the guard" happens. See how things look in a couple of decades, I guess!

But seriously, one benefit of a proposed re-organization of any type of classification is how it obliges people to look more closely at the basic assumptions (and the amount of "fudging" that has to be done). Getting that out in the open can be quite helpful (as in re-examining various plant associations when questioning Clementsian seral stages, to use a forestry example).

[Parche]

12. new species

Call Tom Delay, he is an exterminator

[lebkuchen]

13. Let's hope it's higher up on the evolutionary ladder than what's in the WH

[0rganism]

15. observing fruit fly speciation isn't news -- what's different here?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

see, especially, section 5.3

Why is the BBC claiming this is a "first"? Is it a first for the scientists involved?

[Ediacara]

18. This is observed in nature

IIRC, most, if not all, Drosophila speciation events were observed in the lab with the helping hand of radiation or other mutigens.

I will have to look into the example listed in 5.3.6, as that might be a true natural sympatric speciation event previously noted in the literature.

[Lisa]

21. in situ observations are very nice to have ...

That is, actual events happening in nature rather than controlled lab situations. (I know, scientists LIKE to be able to demonstrate things under lab conditions, but the "field people" are keen to observe what happens without humans around ... one of my favourite examples being the rock bluffs outside of Churchill Manitoba, which have a multitude of tiny ponds and a whole bunch of Daphnia pulex clones.) Some people are investigating both sympatric and allopatric speciation of stickleback (fish) populations in B.C. and Washington State, and their findings could even influence protected-species legislation.

So I found the cases in 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 quite informative. Sure brings back memories of doing electrophoresis gels on Daphnia samples!

[0rganism]

26. Gotcha -- actually, this is a pretty cool observation

I re-read the article, and this appears to be the crux of it:

"Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.

"Laura Reed maintains that such limited capacity for interbreeding indicates that the two groups are on the verge of becoming completely separate species."

Finding a natural occurance of this semi-compatibility is pretty close to pinpointing an exact branching node in the absence of laboratory stimulus.

[AspenRose]

17. Something else to rename after Reagan

Sorry I couldn't resist...

[many a good man]

20. This disproves the #1 argument of Creationists

Their main blow against the "theory" of evolution is that scientists do not have a scrap of hard evidence of one species actually evolving into another one. Plenty of proof for adaptation, but none for the evolution of species. Now we have hard evidence that this can happen!

[Peregrine]

22. Their reply is that it is still a fly

it didn't turn into a dog.:shrug:

[Ediacara]

23. well here again is that deep time problem

Creationists know full well that if they just waited a sufficient amount of time, say 20 million years, it might evolve into something that isn't a fly. That's why they make up nonsense like the speed of light changing, radioactive decay rates change etc, because they need to kill deep time to continue their mythology.

[0rganism]

25. You just can't win with the creationists

If the fruitfly speciates, that's just adaptation within "kind" or "microevolution", ostensibly because it didn't change into a dog or even a dung beetle.

But what could possibly be a stronger challenge to the Theory of Evolution than any instances of a fruitfly having canine offspring? Fruitflies spawning anything but more fruitflies would be quite contrary to the ToE.

The creationists missed the point long ago.