倍可親

回復: 9
列印 上一主題 下一主題

Stickleback快速平行進化:所謂宏進化問題的破產

[複製鏈接]

71

主題

1203

帖子

299

積分

貝殼網友二級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
299
跳轉到指定樓層
樓主
blackcurtain 發表於 2007-11-27 13:20 | 只看該作者 回帖獎勵 |倒序瀏覽 |閱讀模式
原進化論專緝無法再編輯, 只好再開新貼.

原貼連接在此
http://club.backchina.com/main/viewthread.php?tid=583244&extra=&page=1

JDT在大量證據面前,不得不承認一些可觀察的進化的事實,比如細菌抗藥性,病毒的快速
變異.但他們繼續試圖否認進化這一事實,創造了所謂微進化和宏進化這一區別.這樣就
能接著圓"創造各從其類"的神話.

最新的科研結果證明所謂微進化和宏進化這一區別根本就是人為的主觀界定.他們其實
是一回事.

2005 Science 一篇關於Stickleback(見圖)快速平行進化的paper,用事實證明單一基因
的變異,足以造成宏觀的生物體結構差異.這一成果被評為該年十大科學突破之一.
Science's Breakthrough Of The Year: Watching Evolution In Action

ScienceDaily (Dec. 25, 2005) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051224100718.htm...."studies showed how small changes in DNA can trigger dramatic evolutionary events. Researchers found that a single genetic change can be all it takes to turn one species into many, as in the case of the Alaskan stickleback fish that lost its armor and evolved from an ocean-loving species to a variety of landlocked lake dwellers."


圖中魚叫stickleback. 海里的生活在阿拉斯加,體表有完整的骨質凱甲,而北半球各大
陸淡水湖中的多種stickleback不約而同都喪失了這骨質凱甲.研究表明在一萬多年前冰
川退縮時,海stickleback被留在眾多北半球的淡水湖裡,這些互不相鄰的幾個大陸上的
淡水湖裡的stickleback都進化而失去了完整的骨質凱甲,適應的原因可能有:1,淡水Ca
水平低, 2. Predator 少,耗費能量資源長完整的骨質凱甲反而成了不利因素;3.覓食條
件改變,沒有骨質凱甲更靈活.

冰川退縮這一事件,使眾多淡水湖每一個成了獨立的進化實驗,而實驗結果是:進化形成
的不同種淡水stickleback有一共同點,都喪失了完整的骨質凱甲.

線粒體遺傳分析表明這些不同湖裡的stickleback並不是來源於一個喪失了骨質凱甲的
共同祖先(relocation is not possible due to geological seperation),而是分別各
自從海stickleback這一共同祖先獨立進化來的.

Stanford這一實驗室的遺傳學分析表明,這一宏觀上的差異,起源是同一個基因Eda.這一
微小的單一基因的變異造成了整體外觀的顯著不同. 可以envision,在這一差異基礎上,
累積其他差異,形成了眾多的淡水種stickleback.

另:人類依然保有Eda基因,主要和皮膚,汗腺,毛髮有關.

這是非常有力的證據說明所謂微進化和宏進化是人為的劃分而沒有事實根據.



這裡是原文摘要供感興趣的同學閱讀.
Science 25 March 2005:
Vol. 307. no. 5717, pp. 1928 - 1933
DOI: 10.1126/science.1107239 Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Research Articles
Widespread Parallel Evolution in Sticklebacks by Repeated Fixation of
Ectodysplasin Alleles
Pamela F. Colosimo,1 Kim E. Hosemann,1 Sarita Balabhadra,1 Guadalupe
Villarreal, Jr.,1 Mark Dickson,3 Jane Grimwood,3 Jeremy Schmutz,3 Richard M.
Myers,3 Dolph Schluter,4 David M. Kingsley1,2

Major phenotypic changes evolve in parallel in nature by molecular
mechanisms that are largely unknown. Here, we use positional cloning methods
to identify the major chromosome locus controlling armor plate patterning
in wild threespine sticklebacks. Mapping, sequencing, and transgenic studies
show that the Ectodysplasin (EDA) signaling pathway plays a key role in
evolutionary change in natural populations and that parallel evolution of
stickleback low-plated phenotypes at most freshwater locations around the
world has occurred by repeated selection of Eda alleles derived from an
ancestral low-plated haplotype that first appeared more than two million
years ago. Members of this clade of low-plated alleles are present at low
frequencies in marine fish, which suggests that standing genetic variation
can provide a molecular basis for rapid, parallel evolution of dramatic
phenotypic change in nature.

1 Department of Developmental Biology, Stanford University School of
Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305–5329, USA.
2 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine,
Stanford, CA 94305–5329, USA.
3 Department of Genetics and Stanford Human Genome Center, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305–5120, USA.
4 Zoology Department and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

這裡科普版的介紹,介紹這一重大成果的意義.

Same Mutation Aided Evolution In Many Fish Species, Stanford Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2005) — STANFORD, Calif. – After decades of
laboratory work studying how animals evolve, researchers sometimes need to
put on the hip waders, pull out the fishing net and go learn how their
theory compares to the real world. According to a Stanford University School
of Medicine study published in the March 25 issue of Science, Mother Nature
is more predictable than lab experiments suggest.

In a diverse group of fish called the stickleback, nature took advantage of
the same genetic trick time and again to allow freshwater species to shed
their burdensome body armor and transform into a lighter, spryer fish. This
is among the first times scientists have shown that the same genetic change
is responsible for an evolutionary adaptation in disparate populations.

「Almost every time the stickleback evolves in fresh water it loses the
armor,」 said David Kingsley, PhD, professor of developmental biology and
lead author of the study. 「Although the trait evolved many times all over
the world, nature uses the same gene each time.」

Sticklebacks evolved from a relatively uniform marine population into today
』s broad spectrum of shapes and sizes when the last Ice Age ended roughly
10,000 years ago. Because ocean fish quickly evolved into such distinct
populations when they colonized new freshwater lakes and streams, they are
an ideal model for understanding how animals adapt to their unique
environments.

The recent work carries a few surprises. Kingsley said that the gene in
question, called Eda, is an old friend to laboratory researchers who have
found that mutations in the same gene in mice cause altered hair patterns.
However, in mice similar alterations can also be created by defects in any
one of three different genes. 「Based on the mouse work you』d predict we
would find mutations in any of the three genes in sticklebacks,」 said
Kingsley, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. 「That
』s not what we see.」

Instead, the group found the exact same genetic change in each of the 15
freshwater sticklebacks they studied, including one local species the group
collected from a stream near Fresno. Perhaps mutations in the two other
genes cause problems for the fish in addition to reducing the number of
armor plates, Kingsley said.

Most of these fish evolved independently from marine ancestors that are
covered head to hind fin in body armor. Although it』s not clear why losing
the armor is a benefit to freshwater fish, Kingsley noted that the unarmored
fish are lighter and faster than their more burdened marine cousins.

In an effort to learn more about how the armor trait evolves so quickly,
Kingsley and his colleagues sequenced that genetic region in a large number
of marine fish, all of which had a complete set of armor plates. A small
number of these fish had one copy of the Eda gene that contained the
mutation in question.

It』s likely that when a pocket of sticklebacks got isolated, at least a few
of those fish already carried the mutated copy of the Eda gene. When those
fish bred, some gave rise to offspring with two copies of the mutation and
no (or reduced) body armor. In a freshwater habitat those fish prospered and
populated the stream or lake with similarly armorless offspring.

Kingsley said this work is part of a larger study to understand how
evolution generates major morphological and physiological changes. 「We want
to learn how evolution works on a large scale,」 he said. In previous work,
his group found that several species of stickleback lacking hind fins all
shared an alteration in how a gene was turned on and off.

The striking similarity is that in both studies evolution turned to the same
genetic switch to work a visible change in the fish. However, in the fin
study the group wasn』t able to pinpoint the exact genetic alteration.

The group continues to wade out into nature, collecting additional
stickleback species from around the world that can reveal whether particular
genes are always reused when the animals adapt to new conditions, or if
evolution has other tricks up its sleeve to push organisms towards an
optimal form for their environment.

Other Stanford researchers who participated in the study include graduate
students Pamela Colosimo, PhD, first author on the study, and Kim Hosemann;
technician Sarita Balabhadra; undergraduate Guadalupe Villarreal Jr.;
technical managers at the Stanford Human Genome Center Mark Dickson, Jane
Grimwood and Jeremy Schmutz; and Richard Myers, PhD, professor of genetics.

209

主題

1487

帖子

488

積分

貝殼網友三級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
488
沙發
也和話 發表於 2007-11-29 12:10 | 只看該作者
這個要頂起來。

記得以前讀營養學時說維他命C也跟我們的進化有重要的關係,不過沒有時間研究。

blackcurtain 兄可以說說靈長類四千萬年前喪失製造維他命C的功能是怎樣幫助人類的快速進化的嗎?
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

319

主題

2萬

帖子

9284

積分

五級貝殼核心

Rank: 5Rank: 5

積分
9284
3
在美一方 發表於 2007-11-29 23:23 | 只看該作者

臆造的宏進化微進化之區別,用以前的回帖來頂一下

這個我以前也有說過,糾纏於什麼微觀進化和宏觀進化,先把定義說出來再講。這幫人也就能說出宏觀進化就是種間進化。產生新種就算么?還是說非得貓生出了狗才算?他們自己根本就不清楚,科學上對宏觀進化的尺度的把握有幾種觀點,他們知道么?啥都不知道就跟著一幫牧師瞎嚷嚷。我以前一個回帖。


原帖由 在美一方 於 2007-10-26 22:33 發表
最沒勁的是罈子上幾個號稱研究科學的基督徒起勁兒地反擊進化論的唯一王牌就是什麼微進化存在,宏進化不存在,殊不知所謂的微觀進化和宏觀進化不過是不同尺度觀察的同一個過程。真無聊。等你真給他們所謂observed reproduction-isolation說明形成新種,人家又說那是相似的亞種等等,所以他們所謂的宏進化是一個隨著不斷地被駁斥而變化的概念
舉一個平行例子來說吧。你說你在行走。人家就會說你在微行走沒有宏行走。然後你說你都從家走到bus stop啦,怎麼是沒有宏行走?人家就說,你還在曼哈頓啊!得,等你說我都走到水牛了,人家就會說,你還在紐約啊!等你說我都到Ontario啦,人家又會說,你還在北美東部啊!等你都殺到溫哥華了,人家同樣可以說你還在北美微行走呢。這種,有什麼可討論。
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

5

主題

402

帖子

90

積分

貝殼新手上路

Rank: 2

積分
90
4
Yzrsg 發表於 2007-11-29 23:29 | 只看該作者
「最新的科研結果證明所謂微進化和宏進化這一區別根本就是人為的主觀界定」

一針見血!
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

319

主題

2萬

帖子

9284

積分

五級貝殼核心

Rank: 5Rank: 5

積分
9284
5
在美一方 發表於 2007-11-30 00:05 | 只看該作者

這個狗生貓才是他們意義上的宏進化


回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

71

主題

1203

帖子

299

積分

貝殼網友二級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
299
6
 樓主| blackcurtain 發表於 2007-12-29 07:10 | 只看該作者
Since we are talking about evolution....again.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

71

主題

1203

帖子

299

積分

貝殼網友二級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
299
7
 樓主| blackcurtain 發表於 2007-12-29 07:13 | 只看該作者

回復 #2 也和話 的帖子

I am sorry I didn't reply this post. Didn't see it until today.

I am not familiar with this. Somehow it seems a single point mutation killed this enzyme (we still have the pseudogene?) in the common ancestor for primates. So no primates today can make Vc in vivo, but their diet provided ample Vc for them (fruit), fortunately.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

8
雨中栽花 發表於 2007-12-29 23:18 | 只看該作者
原帖由 唯慎 於 2007-12-29 15:35 發表
這應該是適應環境的一個很好的例子。正是因為只有單個基因的改變,而造成Phenotype 的重要變化,更加不能說明這是真正意義上的宏進化。就算宏進化不代表跨越物種的變化,這種魚的改變,並沒有在基因信息上有所增 ...


老大,我服了你了,你的生物中學就沒有及格吧。

人家的魚退化一點點都用了萬年,鴿子變蝙蝠需要多少時間?就算用你的進化理論,進化也需要時間啊。把AAWANG 和研究同學拉出來也能批判你啊,你真給學生物的丟臉。
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

9
雨中栽花 發表於 2007-12-29 23:42 | 只看該作者
原帖由 唯慎 於 2007-12-29 23:32 發表


到底這些魚是進化還是退化?為什麼所有的進化論者都把這個作為進化的標誌呢?
那你說用你的進化理論,鴿子變蝙蝠有沒有必然性?如果必然的話,需要多少時間?這過程中需要什麼步驟?


你少來這一套,沒用的退化了當然是有利的了,為什麼退化文章里都講了,你不是學生物的,還不懂?


鴿子變蝙蝠?你以為你是上帝?想變啥就變啥? 這個需要科學研究來回答。反正俺中學沒學過。要不你你翻翻聖經找找答案?不過俺知道,鴿子不管變不變蝙蝠,都不能否定進化論。
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

71

主題

1203

帖子

299

積分

貝殼網友二級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
299
10
 樓主| blackcurtain 發表於 2008-1-5 13:49 | 只看該作者
原帖由 唯慎 於 2007-12-29 15:35 發表
這應該是適應環境的一個很好的例子。正是因為只有單個基因的改變,而造成Phenotype 的重要變化,更加不能說明這是真正意義上的宏進化。就算宏進化不代表跨越物種的變化,這種魚的改變,並沒有在基因信息上有所增 ...


所謂宏進化, 比如從魚到人, 是花了上億年時間完成的....人類的生命太短暫, 百年撐死了, 而且進化論提出也不到兩百年, 這兩百年的觀察, 在地質時間上是一瞬間, 當然看不到從魚到人, 或者你想要的從鳥到扁蝠的進化.

我們能看到是一個進化樹的橫截面, 或者很短時間內觀察進化樹的變化, 結果就象你觀察千年古樹在幾年內的生長, 不會有劇烈的變化, 就是你只能觀察到進化過程的一瞬間, 當然看到的是microevolution. 從創造論者的角度, 任何一時間進化樹的橫截面(在這一觀察時間點的進化end result)上的各個點(物種), 無論多麼相近, 都被解釋為各從其類創造來的.

即使我們幸運的抓住了一個進化樹分叉的瞬間( speciation, 原種群的生殖隔離, 這些都在實驗室和自然界觀察到了的), 也會因為創造論者不斷變化的"種'的定義(他們的種的概念是個橡皮筋, 可隨意伸縮, 如果你讓他們明確定義, 他們是給不出來的, 沒有明確的定義, 和他們討論speciation, 是不會有結果的), 被定義為微進化, "還是病毒啊", "還是魚啊"....

他們要看到的宏進化是要花千萬年時間完成的, 看不到那完整的過程, 就認為沒有發生.

其實, 我們從進化end result, 各物種間的解剖, 發育, 遺傳等各方面證據, 通過邏輯能得出他們有共同祖先, 是進化的結果.

回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄后才可以回帖 登錄 | 註冊

本版積分規則

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2025-8-8 14:48

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表