Print
'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish
by National Geographic
Thanks to Viktor Nagornyy for the link.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080520-fish-evolution.html
"Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish
By Anne Minard
When a historic cleanup helped clear the waters of a polluted lake near Seattle, a population of tiny, spiny fish called sticklebacks may have "evolved in reverse" to survive.
In the 1950s, Lake Washington, an inland lake that parallels Washington State's Pacific Coast, took on 20 million gallons (76 million liters) of phosphorous-laden sewage a day (see Washington State map).
By the 1960s it had become a 300,000-acre (121,400-hectare) cesspool.
Then an unprecedented U.S.-$140-million cleanup in the mid-1960s transformed the lake into the pristine boaters' paradise that it is today.
But the lake's recovery put at least one species in a pickle: the three-spine stickleback.
The small fish, formerly hidden in the murky depths, found itself swimming in plain view of predators like cutthroat trout.
Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into rapid evolution toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.
Today's Lake Washington sticklebacks are a throwback to their ancestors, which grew armored plates as a defense, according to Katie Peichel, a biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
"We call it 'reverse evolution' because the sticklebacks are reverting to an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks, which originally founded the lake populations," she said.
Peichel is co-author of a new study on the sticklebacks that appears in the May 20 issue of the journal Current Biology.
Reverse Evolution
There aren't many documented examples of reverse evolution in nature, Peichel said, "but perhaps that's just because people haven't really looked."
In the case of the sticklebacks, returning to an older model made good sense.
When Washington Lake was polluted, visibility was only about 30 inches (76 centimeters).
Sticklebacks didn't need much armor to protect them, because the muck hid them from predators.
In 1968, after the cleanup was complete, the lake's transparency reached a depth of 10 feet (3 meters). Today it approaches 25 feet (7.6 meters).
Before the cleanup, only 6 percent of the fish were completely plated. Now 49 percent are fully armored, with bony plates protecting their bodies from head to tail.
Another 35 percent are partially plated, with about half of their bodies shielded.
This rapid, dramatic adaptation is an example of evolution in reverse, the study team says, because sticklebacks usually evolve toward less armor plating, not more.
Fast-Track Evolution
The speed of the adaptation is what most impressed Peichel.
"The biggest change occurred between 1968/1969 and 1976," she said. "This is really rapid!"
The sticklebacks in Lake Washington contain DNA from both saltwater species, which tend to be fully plated, and freshwater sticklebacks, which tend to be less so, she said.
"Having a lot of genetic variation in the population means that if the environment changes, there may be some gene variant that does better in that new environment, and so nature selects for it," she said.
"Genetic variation increases the chance of overall survival of the species."
A similar number of generations—about 10,000—separate today's Lake Washington sticklebacks and human beings from their respective ancestors, she pointed out.
And as a species, humans have faced selection pressures that call for similar kinds of adaptation.
For example, "humans in northern latitudes have light skin, and now those people are predisposed to things like skin cancer," Peichel said.
The stickleback study does not reveal a cure for such a predisposition to cancer in humans, she said.
But humans and sticklebacks share a gene, called Eda, that is responsible for the sticklebacks' armor, she said. In humans, mutations to Eda can alter skin, teeth, and hair, she explained.
More to See
Andrew Hendry, a biologist with McGill University in Montreal, said the study is a valuable lesson in evolutionary biology.
"To my mind, it shows how humans can dramatically affect the rate and trajectory of evolution in organisms with which we interact," he said.
Michael A. Bell, an ecologist at Stony Brook University in New York, said the new paper "hangs together as a pretty good story."
The role of the Eda gene is well established, he said, and the researchers did all they could to demonstrate that the sticklebacks' quick shift was a direct result of predation.
But there's a fly in the ointment, he said.
"In western North America, there are other clear lakes with stickleback populations and predators, and they're not completely plated," he said.
"Maybe you've got it right, or maybe there's some other environmental effect that's important that you didn't measure."
For her part, Peichel sees additional opportunities for study within Lake Washington.
"We would next like to look at other traits that appear to have changed in the sticklebacks, like body size, and to investigate the genetic basis for these," she said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080520-fish-evolution.html
"Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish
By Anne Minard
When a historic cleanup helped clear the waters of a polluted lake near Seattle, a population of tiny, spiny fish called sticklebacks may have "evolved in reverse" to survive.
In the 1950s, Lake Washington, an inland lake that parallels Washington State's Pacific Coast, took on 20 million gallons (76 million liters) of phosphorous-laden sewage a day (see Washington State map).
By the 1960s it had become a 300,000-acre (121,400-hectare) cesspool.
Then an unprecedented U.S.-$140-million cleanup in the mid-1960s transformed the lake into the pristine boaters' paradise that it is today.
But the lake's recovery put at least one species in a pickle: the three-spine stickleback.
The small fish, formerly hidden in the murky depths, found itself swimming in plain view of predators like cutthroat trout.
Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into rapid evolution toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.
Today's Lake Washington sticklebacks are a throwback to their ancestors, which grew armored plates as a defense, according to Katie Peichel, a biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
"We call it 'reverse evolution' because the sticklebacks are reverting to an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks, which originally founded the lake populations," she said.
Peichel is co-author of a new study on the sticklebacks that appears in the May 20 issue of the journal Current Biology.
Reverse Evolution
There aren't many documented examples of reverse evolution in nature, Peichel said, "but perhaps that's just because people haven't really looked."
In the case of the sticklebacks, returning to an older model made good sense.
When Washington Lake was polluted, visibility was only about 30 inches (76 centimeters).
Sticklebacks didn't need much armor to protect them, because the muck hid them from predators.
In 1968, after the cleanup was complete, the lake's transparency reached a depth of 10 feet (3 meters). Today it approaches 25 feet (7.6 meters).
Before the cleanup, only 6 percent of the fish were completely plated. Now 49 percent are fully armored, with bony plates protecting their bodies from head to tail.
Another 35 percent are partially plated, with about half of their bodies shielded.
This rapid, dramatic adaptation is an example of evolution in reverse, the study team says, because sticklebacks usually evolve toward less armor plating, not more.
Fast-Track Evolution
The speed of the adaptation is what most impressed Peichel.
"The biggest change occurred between 1968/1969 and 1976," she said. "This is really rapid!"
The sticklebacks in Lake Washington contain DNA from both saltwater species, which tend to be fully plated, and freshwater sticklebacks, which tend to be less so, she said.
"Having a lot of genetic variation in the population means that if the environment changes, there may be some gene variant that does better in that new environment, and so nature selects for it," she said.
"Genetic variation increases the chance of overall survival of the species."
A similar number of generations—about 10,000—separate today's Lake Washington sticklebacks and human beings from their respective ancestors, she pointed out.
And as a species, humans have faced selection pressures that call for similar kinds of adaptation.
For example, "humans in northern latitudes have light skin, and now those people are predisposed to things like skin cancer," Peichel said.
The stickleback study does not reveal a cure for such a predisposition to cancer in humans, she said.
But humans and sticklebacks share a gene, called Eda, that is responsible for the sticklebacks' armor, she said. In humans, mutations to Eda can alter skin, teeth, and hair, she explained.
More to See
Andrew Hendry, a biologist with McGill University in Montreal, said the study is a valuable lesson in evolutionary biology.
"To my mind, it shows how humans can dramatically affect the rate and trajectory of evolution in organisms with which we interact," he said.
Michael A. Bell, an ecologist at Stony Brook University in New York, said the new paper "hangs together as a pretty good story."
The role of the Eda gene is well established, he said, and the researchers did all they could to demonstrate that the sticklebacks' quick shift was a direct result of predation.
But there's a fly in the ointment, he said.
"In western North America, there are other clear lakes with stickleback populations and predators, and they're not completely plated," he said.
"Maybe you've got it right, or maybe there's some other environmental effect that's important that you didn't measure."
For her part, Peichel sees additional opportunities for study within Lake Washington.
"We would next like to look at other traits that appear to have changed in the sticklebacks, like body size, and to investigate the genetic basis for these," she said.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 61 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #183475 by movingshadow on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 am
"There aren't many documented examples of reverse evolution in nature,"No? Thousands of flightless birds aren't good enough for you? Maybe its that "Reverse evolution" is kind of dumb idea since it implies direction?
Other Comments by movingshadow
3. Comment #183477 by BaldySlaphead on May 22, 2008 at 7:01 am
And the frogamander in the same day - suck it, God.
"All in all it's just a-nother brick in the wall..."
Other Comments by BaldySlaphead
4. Comment #183479 by bugaboo on May 22, 2008 at 7:06 am
"Reverse Evolution"? I dont know what that means.I suppose they think the species present is less complex than its predecessor but so what. Its just EvolutionOther Comments by bugaboo
5. Comment #183481 by hungarianelephant on May 22, 2008 at 7:08 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution Other Comments by hungarianelephant
6. Comment #183483 by rod-the-farmer on May 22, 2008 at 7:12 am
And how will the fundies respond to this item, when one of their common statements is "No one has ever seen evolution happening." ?? Or how about the frogamander ? Swoosh - the sound of two more gaps closing (think of the doors on the starship Enterprise). Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
7. Comment #183487 by ChrisMcL on May 22, 2008 at 7:15 am
If you want to see reverse evolution, just visit a church on any given Sunday. There you will likely find a neanderthal, like John Hagee, behind the pulpit. Other Comments by ChrisMcL
8. Comment #183489 by Bonzai on May 22, 2008 at 7:15 am
"Reverse evolution" does happen sometimes.How else do you explain Wooter aka "clearmind"?Other Comments by Bonzai
9. Comment #183491 by rodviking on May 22, 2008 at 7:20 am
Terms like "reverse evolution" are misleading, as it implies that evolution has some kind of direction, or is some kind of ladder to be climbed up and down; wouldn't it would make more sense to say something like "reversed characteristic"?A lot of creationists use this widespread idea of evolution meaning "improvement" to justify some of their misconceptions, so I think it's a good idea repeat over and over again that evolution simply means "change", it has no direction, purpose or intention.
Other Comments by rodviking
10. Comment #183492 by epeeist on May 22, 2008 at 7:21 am
Comment #183483 by rod-the-farmerSwoosh - the sound of two more gaps closing (think of the doors on the starship Enterprise).And four more gaps opening...
Other Comments by epeeist
11. Comment #183497 by Tezcatlipoca on May 22, 2008 at 7:24 am
Even more than four new gaps if the postulated divide between the wormlike amphibians and the frogmanders is as early as is being presented. Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca
12. Comment #183501 by Dax on May 22, 2008 at 7:31 am
As someone who works in research, and will continue his academic career in science, I oppose the phrase "reverse evolution"... it's only reverse from the feebleminded perspective of the human mind: "oh, it had armor, then it didn't, now it does again. It must be 'reverse evolution'"It's a stupid thing to say. Scientists might understand what they are conveying, but the public will just gobble this up with their ignorant ears that only feed on sound bites. It's just as stupid as non-theistic physicists using "god" as a metaphor!
Other Comments by Dax
13. Comment #183506 by Mike O'Risal on May 22, 2008 at 7:39 am
Rodviking,There is already a term for this in evolutionary biology; it's called a reversal. This is when a character independently reverts to resemble a state found in an ancestor, sometimes a very distant one. It's a form of homoplasy, that notorious headache one gets when trying to reconstruct a phylogeny.
While not quite as common in morphology, reversals are almost par for the course in molecular biology, particular when one is examining sequences that aren't under strong selection. With only four bases to choose from, reversals in non-coding regions come up all the time where they're the result of multiple hits (changes between bases that occur again and again over the course of history).
Example: Ancestral organism sequence - ATGACTAGG
12 Generations Later - ATGAATACC
37 Generations Later - ATGACTAGG
If this (ridiculously short) sequence were used to infer phylogeny all by itself, we would likely make the incorrect inference that organism-37gen was more closely related to the ancestral organism �" and be wrong about it.
Luckily, there are numerous ways to remedy the problem.
It's not "reverse evolution," though. That's a rather silly phrase. Evolution either goes forward or not at all.
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
14. Comment #183511 by Bonzai on May 22, 2008 at 7:45 am
bugaboo and other pedants,In context "reverse evolution" here means that the fish retraced a few steps back along its evolutionary history, it makes perfect sense and it doesn't suggest any intrinsic or preferred direction to evolution. It is like saying you're going somewhere from home and while on your way see a road closure and have to backtrack towards the home direction, it is a reversal no matter which direction you were heading originally.
Other Comments by Bonzai
15. Comment #183514 by EvidenceOnly on May 22, 2008 at 7:50 am
Couldn't we consider the rising tide of IDiot and GodDidIt religious freaks as a form of reverse evolution back to the dark ages?:)
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
16. Comment #183515 by Mike O'Risal on May 22, 2008 at 7:50 am
No, Bonzai, not really. The fish didn't retrace any steps. What it has evolved are new character states that mimic ancestral states. The states look alike, but the history of how that state arose in the "younger" species is different than that in the "older" one.To use your analogy, it's more like there was a detour, so instead of going straight home you turned left, drove three miles, turned right, and arrived at a building that looked just like your old one and which happened to use the same key to open the front door.
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
17. Comment #183519 by bugaboo on May 22, 2008 at 7:55 am
Comment #183511 by BonzaiIn science you have to be pedantic. I (and others)dont like the use of the term "Reverse Evolution". Its meaningless. Other terms /phrases crop up from time to time much to our chagrin eg "more highly evolved" Would we be being pedantic if we took issue with that?
Other Comments by bugaboo
18. Comment #183523 by Bonzai on May 22, 2008 at 8:00 am
Mike,If the house looks exactly like yours and you can open its door with your key it is probably your house.
You are absolutely right that the "retracing" doesn't have to, and likely won't go through the same path, so I should have said instead "revisit some earlier states in its evolutionary history,--or at least states that are sufficiently close to those"
In that sense it is a "reversal". To my knowledge there is no principle in biology that says that you cannot talk about a state without specifying how you get there. You can reach the same state (or the same cluster of states in some "phase space") through different paths How you get there would depend, among other things, where you were. So it is still your house even though you might have taken a different path home.]
EDIT The main point is that in context, I don't find anything in the phrase "reverse evolution" that may suggest inappropriately that there is an intrinsic direction to evolution.
Other Comments by Bonzai
19. Comment #183528 by Mike O'Risal on May 22, 2008 at 8:07 am
Bonzai,The point is that it isn't the same house. You might well go inside and find that it looks entirely different.
For instance, in the example from the Nat Geo article, they're only looking at (or at least talking about) a very small number of characters. If they were to look at a broader selection, they would certainly find other difference. For instance, they might find changes in genes that code for the deposition of calcium that are different than the ones in earlier-evolving populations of the same fish. There may also be changes in other morphological characters; perhaps the swim bladder is a bit different. Maybe the tail fin has changed a little bit. When reconstructing the evolutionary history of a species, population, etc., it is very bad methodology to pick a single trait, or even too few traits. That's what induces sampling bias and screws up overall inference.
Homoplasy can be a major problem in phylogeny. You can certainly talk about a state without reference to how it arose, but you can't say anything about evolutionary relationships between populations without doing so.
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
20. Comment #183533 by Appleby on May 22, 2008 at 8:25 am
I was hoping for before-after pictures.Other Comments by Appleby
21. Comment #183535 by Mango on May 22, 2008 at 8:26 am
We tend to think of genes as set in stone unless random mutations that are "successful" lead to "evolution" but I think this is a case that highlights genome plasticity; the genome expresses itself phenotypically based upon the environment in which it develops. Other Comments by Mango
22. Comment #183536 by Bonzai on May 22, 2008 at 8:27 am
Mike,Well whether it is the same house or they can be meaningfully said to be in the same neighbourhoood would depend on how you measure distance in the phase space, It is probably true that set of characteristics being measured are not good enough for that purpose, but maybe they are. The article doesn't say,
I don't know if the purpose is to try to reconstruct evolutionary history. If that is the purpose it wouldn't be sufficient to simply knowing that you have reach a particular state, even if you can narrow it down. There are many possible paths to reach it and they cannot be ruled out apriori.
When you bring in relationship with other populations then of course there is no "reversal", for that means restoring the "environment" of the species to an earlier state as well. This is never implied.
I can be wrong, I think while it is not meaningful to talk about the direction of evolution, it does make sense to talk about the proximity of species, based on some measure. If that is true that all they are saying is that the fish evolved away from a given state and then come close to it again. Think of the original state as a point. Draw a big circle and a small circle centered at the point. At time = t, species is in a state specified by a point outside the big circle (far from the center) and then at time s, s > t, organism is found at another state, which is inside the smaller circle (closer to the circle). That is all I mean.
Other Comments by Bonzai
23. Comment #183539 by severalspeciesof on May 22, 2008 at 8:36 am
Comment #183492 by epeeist saysAnd four more gaps opening...
I share your observation, though fortunately for us, the individual gaps are getting smaller, and we should point that out whenever we can.
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
24. Comment #183548 by antcowan on May 22, 2008 at 8:54 am
The term for "Reverse Evolution" is Atavism or Throwback and can be seen on whales with legs Horses with extra toes and so on. They usually disappear through selection but this looks like a rare case were its known to be favored.Other Comments by antcowan
25. Comment #183550 by Quine on May 22, 2008 at 8:56 am
I agree with [Edit: rodviking,] Dax and Mike O'Risal. Because of the political situation, you can't ignore the impact of terms and phrases taken out of the scientific context and dropped into the public media. The public will hear "reverse evolution" and instantly get the impression that the must be a "forward" direction that was "reversed." We are struggling to get the public to have even a basic understanding of the true nature of evolution, and this does not help.P.S. Does the average person ever think of his/her neighborhood in terms of a "phase space"?
Other Comments by Quine
26. Comment #183554 by Lionel A on May 22, 2008 at 9:06 am
'Reverse Evolution' is an unfortunate, and surprising, term for a biologist to use, one that is not even 'wrong' for it is nonsense and in this a charge of pedantry is inappropriate Bonzai.
Taking your example of having to back track because of an unexpected road closure you are most unlikely to retrace your path exactly, your steps, or tyre treads will almost certainly trace out a fresh path and the points of contact of tyre to road will likely be different at each stage and the time of course would have moved forward and not returned you to some earlier time.
Evolution is tied to time which in this sense does have direction. The fish has to evolve into a new state that resembles some ancestor but which is not exactly as that ancestor.
Mike O'Risal in #183515 has explained the matter to some satisfaction.
Other Comments by Lionel A
27. Comment #183555 by mordacious1 on May 22, 2008 at 9:06 am
Well, the article said that before the clean-up, 6% had the armor plating, now 49% . I wouldn't call that reverse evolution even if I liked the term. If 0% had armor plating previously, then that would be something. In this case, natural selection is just allowing those with armor to thrive more, reverse evolution? I think not.Other Comments by mordacious1
28. Comment #183558 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 am
mordacious1-
I tend to agree with you on this.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
29. Comment #183561 by Szymanowski on May 22, 2008 at 9:15 am
Well, the article said that before the clean-up, 6% had the armor plating, now 49% . I wouldn't call that reverse evolution even if I liked the term. If 0% had armor plating previously, then that would be something. In this case, natural selection is just allowing those with armor to thrive more, reverse evolution? I think not.
"Natural selection is allowing X to thrive more" - that is evolution. A change in allele frequencies over time, as Wiki says: "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next".
The "reverse" part of this is simply describing this change in terms of its similarity to more remote ancestors of these fish. It's a useful description even though it doesn't mean that any process has reversed in direction.
Other Comments by Szymanowski
30. Comment #183567 by mordacious1 on May 22, 2008 at 9:26 am
SzymanowskiYes, I agree with you. It is just reverse evolution is such a misleading term. You could use it for the ebbs and flows of all species on the planet, ie. All species are progressing and reversing continuously. More food this year, the species grow larger, next year smaller. I would only use this term if something disappeared then reappeared because it was necessary for the species to survive.
edit: No, I changed my mind, I wouldn't use this term ever.
Other Comments by mordacious1
31. Comment #183572 by rsquared on May 22, 2008 at 9:45 am
But it's still a stickleback, it's still just a fish....Other Comments by rsquared
32. Comment #183575 by latsot on May 22, 2008 at 9:48 am
You are absolutely right that the "retracing" doesn't have to, and likely won't go through the same path, so I should have said instead "revisit some earlier states in its evolutionary history,--or at least states that are sufficiently close to those"
I think the point is that it is only coincidental that the new adaptations resemble ones in the species' past, which is why the idea of direction is inappropriate and why the term 'reverse' might be misleading.
It seems to suggest some kind of mechanism whereby evolution can 'unhappen' and to huge numbers of people who don't understand evolution well, this will be misleading.
What is the *point* of using the term anyway? It is just meaningless, especially as the article goes on to explain what actually happened anyway.
Other Comments by latsot
33. Comment #183584 by mordacious1 on May 22, 2008 at 10:02 am
Another thing, and I know I'm being picky, the article states: "In the case of the sticklebacks, returning to an older model made good sense".OK Ok You in the back quiet down. You know why we're meeting. We have to decide on whether or not we're going back to armor plating. Alot of us have been eaten by trout lately, and it is just good sense to protect ourselves. So we're gonna vote on it.
Other Comments by mordacious1
34. Comment #183586 by Border Collie on May 22, 2008 at 10:07 am
I have a question? It might seem a dumb question to you scientific guys, but bear with me. (I'm not a scientist, but have read Darwin and lots of other evolutionists.) Is this an example of evolution in "reverse" or simply another adaptation along a continuum that happens to be similar or maybe even identical to a form that previously existed? "Reverse" evolution seems like a strange concept to me. It simply seems as if the fish is adapting to its changing environment. Doesn't reverse imply a direction?Other Comments by Border Collie
35. Comment #183588 by mordacious1 on May 22, 2008 at 10:14 am
BorderI think you've got it. This is what I've been saying too. I know it is just semantics, but evolution goes in one direction. Since some people never read past the headlines, this could leave a false impression.
Other Comments by mordacious1
36. Comment #183613 by Tezcatlipoca on May 22, 2008 at 11:11 am
There's an article in May 2008 Scientific American titled Regulating Evolution. It has a case study example that features the three-spined stickleback and the loss of a prominent spiny pelvic fin for the shallow water stickleback. Something to do with variations in the Pitx1 gene. Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca
37. Comment #183632 by Filius Nithardi on May 22, 2008 at 11:49 am
A very interesting video about three-spine stickleback evolution (its armor is regulated depending on its major predator species) can be found on the site of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute:http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html
Lecture Two (Selection in Action starting) from ca. minute 32 is about the sticklebacks
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/05lect2_56f.rm (modem)
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/05lect2_225f.rm (broadband), but the other lectures are awesome as well. If you have four hours time, you should watch them all ;).
Other Comments by Filius Nithardi
38. Comment #183637 by BeyondBelief on May 22, 2008 at 11:56 am
I've got two beefs in the terminology used in this article, and it would be WONDERFUL if someone with a bigger bully-pulpit than I could address them:
1. Reverse Evolution: Really bad term, as others have noted above. Creatures (on average) adapt to their environment. No individual stickle back woke up spineless one morning, noticed the extra sunlight, and then WILLED a protective coat of armor to appear. So this is simply a good example of evolution: As the water clouded, sticklebacks with less armor thrived and the population tended to be more full of armorless fish. As the water cleared, more of the armored fish survived and thus the averages went in their favor.
2.
Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into rapid evolution toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.
followed by
In the case of the sticklebacks, returning to an older model made good sense.
I envision a stickleback "Town Hall Meeting." The Grand Stickler speaks, "Gents, I know the model X74 Spiny armor was retired in 1958 for a reason, but the time has come to bring them out of mothballs. It just makes sense, and we need to act NOW! The water is clearing!!"
The phrasing above acts as if those subjects of evolution are picking and choosing... on an individual level... to adapt their shells. It makes evolution sound directed; intentional. As writers we MUST get this kind of "evolution has a mind" talk out of the literature. It simply bolsters (and is probably created by) fundamentalist visions of what evolution is: Just like their God... or just like people: intentional, decision making, directed, choosing from alternatives.
Evolution is nothing but an observed process of what has already happened: Change. It is not predictive, either.
[edit] Ah Carp!! I just read comment 33. I swear I didn't come up with this after reading that post... but I guess this proves my point??
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
39. Comment #183640 by mordacious1 on May 22, 2008 at 12:00 pm
BeyondBeliefCould not agree more. Maybe though in your example 1. I would use Natural Selection instead of evolution, just to be more specific.
edit: Sorry, I sent the holy spirit to put that idea in your head, I do that sometimes.
edit 2: And we're not talking about carp, but sticklebacks (re. your edit)
Other Comments by mordacious1
40. Comment #183643 by Quine on May 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Creatures (on average) adapt to their environment.
"Creatures" is also a "really bad term" when used to refer to living beings that came from [Edit:
Other Comments by Quine
41. Comment #183645 by BeyondBelief on May 22, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Touche, Quine. Precision in language is tough. I am often surprised that we humans can convey ANYTHING that we all agree on.
That said, I would (not too forcefully) argue that the meaning of "Reverse Evolution" is more likely to be misconstrued than the misuse of "Creature" to refer to elements of the animal kingdom... though as I type this it does strike me that there, embedded in the word, is an approval of the concept of Creation.
You are right! 100% Bad term. I retract my as yet unposted and none-too-forceful argument above. :-)
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
42. Comment #183647 by Szymanowski on May 22, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I agree the terminology was dodgy, but surely no-one's stupid enough to interpret "returning to an older model made good sense" as meaning that the fish made a committee decision to "reverse" their evolution?... oh, right, yes, 'scuse me... people are stupid enough to believe in talking snakes too.
Other Comments by Szymanowski
43. Comment #183653 by hopeful on May 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Could it be that the article uses the term "reverse" in the sense that evolution is bringing back a characteristic that is already present in the genes, as opposed to re-inventing the same characteristic at some future time?However I agree the term is little unfortunate since it could be mis-used by some ("Don't tell me I might evolve back into a Monkey!"), but let's face it - they already misunderstand so many things what's one more?
Regardless I think the value of the research in terms of being yet another vivid example of evolution, outweighs anything.
Other Comments by hopeful
44. Comment #183654 by mordacious1 on May 22, 2008 at 12:25 pm
SzymanowskiWanna bet? I think that Richard addressed this idea in "Ancestor's Tale", that some people think that living organisms (that's for you, Quine) can "choose" the path they take. Just think how many people think that evolution is not a fact, and all the nonsense that they do believe.
Other Comments by mordacious1
45. Comment #183669 by Quine on May 22, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Thanks, mordacious1, the "Also, I am starting to complain about the "central dogma" phrase coined for biology by Francis Crick. This is so well woven into the textbooks that it will take a long time to get it moved down into the footnotes.
I would sum it up this way: "Dogma bad." Dogma is required belief that stands apart from criticism regardless of evidence. How do you teach students the "central dogma" and then turn around and also teach them that one of the greatest (if not defining) things about Science is that it has the dogma of no dogma?
Other Comments by Quine
46. Comment #183681 by mordacious1 on May 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm
QuineI agree, and I think Crick later regretted using this term. There is NOTHING in science that can't and shouldn't be questioned. I hate to say that this includes, if you want to be fanatic about it, the non-existence of god. Richard alway says that all scientists are agnostic if they are real scientists. That is hard for me to swallow, but I get his point.
Other Comments by mordacious1
47. Comment #183740 by calyx on May 22, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Im confused,I liked the title, reverse evolution sounds like evolution is going backwards and thats good cause it makes evolution sound bad, yaheey for god.
But then it says something about some fish evolving and thats impossible right cause it clearly says in the ATLAS OF CREATION:
Because all scientific findings show the manifest fact that evolution never happened
Oh well I will ignore this for now and be happy knowing that there are more gaps for me to rejoice in because of god lovingly showing us the frogamander
/sarcasm
This picture is one of the few things that I can agree on with creationists.
Seriously though, I agree with many of the posters in this thread in saying that reverse evolution is a really bad choice, you guys should be making science more accessible to the public especially when it comes to evolution, not introducing phrases that confuse things unnecessarily. Surely a better title would have been something about the "fast-track" evolution in these sticklebacks, we have evolution we can see, that's pretty important!
I can't wait to print this article off and show my creationist friend at uni, I can't wait to see his reaction to this :D.
EDIT: I take that back about the wording of the title, thinking it through, it's something that will actually attract creationists and other's to reading this article because from the outset it sounds like the conclusion is going to be something they might like... little do they know *wrings hands*
Other Comments by calyx
48. Comment #183743 by James_Oliver on May 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm
"Genetic variation increases the chance of overall survival of the species."I hope this is simply an observation and not a misunderstanding. Genes aren't selected for their ability to increase the survival chances of the species as a whole.
However, if there were a gene that somehow increased the variation within the (subsequent) group of carriers of that gene, then that gene may be more successful over many generations and could be selected for.
Other Comments by James_Oliver
49. Comment #183751 by calyx on May 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Calyx says:
Its titled, reverse evolution
The Foot says:
interesting. I'm sure it's substantial
Ah-hah, i knew it. The title is being interpreted by creationists in a way that is appealing to them, i sincerly hope that this makes more of them read it :D
Other Comments by calyx
50. Comment #183758 by Goldy on May 22, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Is this an example of evolution in "reverse" or simply another adaptation along a continuum that happens to be similar or maybe even identical to a form that previously existed? "Reverse" evolution seems like a strange concept to me. It simply seems as if the fish is adapting to its changing environment. Doesn't reverse imply a direction?
No more reverse than you putting on more clothing in the winter is a reversal to the last winter.
Summer, less clothing, winter, more clothing. Murky water, less armour, clear water, more armour.
Easy peasy.
Other Comments by Goldy
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #183469 by davemei on May 22, 2008 at 6:53 am
...though...it sucks for the trout....
Other Comments by davemei