Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Iconic Peppered Moth - gene mutation found
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1 of 76 (785287)
06-02-2016 3:38 AM


After 15 years of analysis and experimentation the gene mutation that was responsible for the change in colour of the peppered moth from white to black has been found.
This is a really important conformation of the theory of evolution - it demonstrates not only the process of natural selection but also the role of beneficial, random, genetic mutation.
The colour change wasn't simply the result of gene plasticity, the actual mutation that occurred in an individual has been located and dated (1819 +/- 10). The date puts it exactly where you would expect it - the height of the industrial revolution when everything was soot stained and black.
Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed - BBC News
It's a slam dunk finding, but sadly the moth is still a moth.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 4:48 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 3 of 76 (785293)
06-02-2016 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
06-02-2016 4:48 AM


Faith writes:
There was never any more than ordinary microevolution brought about by natural selection to the peppered moths,
What the hell is "ordinary microevolution"?
and making the change the result of a mutation instead of ordinary microevolution raises the question: how is it that a mutation so suited to the needs of the creature just happened to come along at the right time? Aren't mutations random accidents in DNA replication, and very rare and so on?
The work demonstrates two major components of evolution directly
1. an organism adapting to a new environment by natural selection (which was already accepted as fact even by you I hope) and
2. proof that the mechanism of change was a genetic mutation. Something you refuse to believe. Well there it is.
You have been repeatedly told that mutations are normal and not at all rare. Given the quantity of moths and the number of mutations occurring naturally, it's not at all surprising that from time-to-time a mutation will occur that is beneficial and helps an organism to adapt to a new environment.
Now that you have the proof you needed, you will of course change your mind.
Or is the ToE now reverting to Lamarckianism?
No

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 4:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 6 of 76 (785300)
06-02-2016 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
06-02-2016 6:02 AM


Faith writes:
It's just weird that a very particular accident in replication came along at JUST the right time...
First off, it's not weird it's what happened. Someone wins the lottery every week, it's only seems weird if it's your neighbour.
Second, that mutation may happen all the time - we don't know. It may have happened millions of times we don't know. If it had happened before the trees were black, the creatures wouldn't have survived. It was the co-incidence of black trees and a black moth that allowed survival. That's the first mechanism - natural selection at work.
The point you need to take away is that the mutation is direct and substantial evidence for the mechanism underlying the ToE.
The thing you say can't happen has been shown to happen.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 6:02 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2016 8:28 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 13 of 76 (785354)
06-03-2016 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
06-02-2016 11:29 PM


Re: not wierd at all.
Faith writes:
Even a dominant can more or less disappear in a large population where the recessive is strongly selected. That's how you can get a predominantly blue-eyed population. The dominant could eventually die out or it could remain here and there in the population in the heterozygous form, the recessives always being so much more numerous they are an extreme rarity.
This appearance of the black moth had nothing to do with dominance or recessiveness, it was caused by a mutation.
quote:
After a long time we eventually managed to get down to a single one [DNA differences between black and white moths] which then had to be the causal mutation. To our surprise, it also turned out to be a rather unusual type of mutation."
The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex.
These odd sequences more often have a damaging effect when they disrupt an existing gene. But for one embryonic moth in the early 19th Century, when these extra 9,000 bases landed in its cortex gene, they were in fact the secret to success.
And the mutation occurred recently and at the correct time
quote:
"You can take a sample of chromosomes in the present population, identify all the sequence variance around the mutation, and infer the number of generations that it would take for that amount of scrambling to occur in the flanking sequence," explained Dr Sacchieri.
Specifically, they estimate the DNA jump happened in a 10-year window centred on 1819 - a date that fits perfectly with a gradual spread of the mutation through the population, until black moths were first spotted in 1848.
You now have the direct evidence that you said you needed to show that beneficial mutations occur that can change a phenotype and bring selective advantage. You are now an 'evolutionist' welcome.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-02-2016 11:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 25 of 76 (785396)
06-04-2016 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
06-03-2016 9:16 PM


NN writes:
In Tangle's original post where he quoted the date for its appearance in the late 1800s at the height of the Industrial Revolution.
I believe the quoted date was 1819+/- or so and not the late 1800s. That puts the age of the gene somewhere during the transition 50 year period leading up to the Industrial Revolution. The gene seems to have preceded the time when factories were belching out smoke. The height of the period would have been much later. Wikipedia gives dates for the first citings of the moths that are consistent with the age of the mutation.
I understand that Tangle originated the idea that the date was coincidental with the height of the Industrial Revolution, but that does not really seem to be the case. Much less of a coincidence, but is it really that surprising? Absent the mutation, the moth might have have been wiped out, but that might only have made it one of the species that have been lost since industrialization.
The wiki actually says
"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840."
The date of the mutation is given at around 1819.
Dr Pascal Campagne, who worked on the study, said: "Our best estimate of 1819 shows that the mutation event occurred during the industrial revolution and that it took around 30 years for it to become common enough to be noticed."
The first documented sighting of a black moth was in Manchester in 1848. (Manchester was a particularly filthy city surrounded by coal mines, iron foundries and cotton mills powered by coal.)

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 06-03-2016 9:16 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 26 of 76 (785397)
06-04-2016 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
06-03-2016 7:43 PM


Re: not wierd at all.
Faith writes:
That's pure theory, not something known by observation.
The peppered moth's evolution from white to black and back to white again is pure observation. That's how we know about it - it is documented.
The mechanism that allows the selective survival of black moths over white moths has been observed - the darkening of the trees on which the moths rest during the day leaving them open to predation against the newly black trunks. The predation process was reversed when the trees were no longer black. Observed and documented.
The mutation that caused the original colour change from white to black has now been observed and dated.
You no longer have an objection, this is the direct, observed evidence for evolution that you have been asking for.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 06-03-2016 7:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-04-2016 6:18 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 36 of 76 (785420)
06-04-2016 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
06-04-2016 6:18 AM


Re: Very weird indeed
Faith writes:
That much is common knowledge, and quite easily explained in terms of a built-in allele for the black moth.
There was no 'built in allele for the black moth'. This isn't blue or brown eyes.
We know conclusively that the black colouration is the result of a mutation. We know which gene caused it and we can date it.
Mutation is in fact harder to explain.
The mutation has been explained totally and incredibly diligently - it took 15 years of painstaking experiment. The fact that YOU find it difficult to accept is irrelevant.
There's no hiding place Faith, this is the smoking gun.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 06-04-2016 6:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-04-2016 3:37 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 39 of 76 (785427)
06-04-2016 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
06-04-2016 3:37 PM


Re: Very weird indeed
Faith writes:
Interesting of course that you don't even consider what I actually said about why mutations are harder to explain. Try it.
Whether this is true or not (it's not of course) is totally irrelevant because it *happened*.
Got that? It happened. The thing you say can't happen has been shown to have happened. The thing that the theory predicts happened.
I see that your final resort is to say that goddidit. God plays directly with moth evolution now does he?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-04-2016 3:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-05-2016 5:11 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 48 of 76 (785458)
06-05-2016 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
06-05-2016 5:11 AM


Re: Very weird indeed
Faith writes:
I haven't said it can't happen. But exploring the consequences of different scenarios makes it highly improbable this was a mutation.
The scientists that worked on this problem took 15 years over it. You, with your expert knowledge of experimental molecular genetics think that you've explored the consequencies of different scenarios? You haven't even read the paper have you, let alone 'explored the different scenarios'? Your hubris is extraordinary.
Unless it was a very old mutation that kept popping up from time to time anyway, most of the time to be eaten by birds, many years before being selected. In which case it might as well be a built-in allele anyway.
If you read just the citation it tells you exactly what the mutation was
quote:
insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex.
I don't trust this kind of science
Well we'll just have to add another group of important sciences that Faith disaproves of because they produce inconvenient results. I think we're pretty close to the whole set now.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-05-2016 5:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 51 of 76 (785466)
06-05-2016 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-05-2016 1:01 PM


Re: Yes it's totally weird
Faith writes:
If you weren't all expecting to find mutations to explain everything, I wonder if you would find them.
The strongest test of a theory is that it makes predictions that can be tested. The ToE predicts mutations as a mechanism for change in organisms. It's been a remarkable difficult thing to test experimentally but the fact that it has, is confirmation of the theory.
Second, as it has been demonstrated that mutations exist, your wonderings are irrelevant.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-05-2016 1:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024