Banner
    Breaking News: Evidence For Evolution Found!
    By T. Ryan Gregory | September 11th 2009 07:12 AM | 13 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About T. Ryan

    I am an evolutionary biologist specializing in genome size evolution at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Be sure to visit

    ...

    View T. Ryan's Profile
    One of Doug Futuyma's great quotes is this one:
    "...no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century."
    - Futuyma, 1998 Evolution Biology, 3rd edition
    Press officers are a different story. Here's one from the University of California, Riverside:
    Molecular decay of enamel-specific gene in toothless mammals supports theory of evolution

    Biologists at the University of California, Riverside report new evidence for evolutionary change recorded in both the fossil record and the genomes (or genetic blueprints) of living organisms, providing fresh support for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Read more
    It's a cool study, linking fossil and genomic data. But it's not cool because it provides "fresh support for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution". This is about the historical path and genetic mechanisms of evolution -- the fact has been well established for 150 years.

    Here's the actual abstract and author summary:
    Abstract
    Vestigial structures occur at both the anatomical and molecular levels, but studies documenting the co-occurrence of morphological degeneration in the fossil record and molecular decay in the genome are rare. Here, we use morphology, the fossil record, and phylogenetics to predict the occurrence of “molecular fossils” of the enamelin (ENAM) gene in four different orders of placental mammals (Tubulidentata, Pholidota, Cetacea, Xenarthra) with toothless and/or enamelless taxa. Our results support the “molecular fossil” hypothesis and demonstrate the occurrence of frameshift mutations and/or stop codons in all toothless and enamelless taxa. We then use a novel method based on selection intensity estimates for codons (ω) to calculate the timing of iterated enamel loss in the fossil record of aardvarks and pangolins, and further show that the molecular evolutionary history of ENAM predicts the occurrence of enamel in basal representatives of Xenarthra (sloths, anteaters, armadillos) even though frameshift mutations are ubiquitous in ENAM sequences of living xenarthrans. The molecular decay of ENAM parallels the morphological degeneration of enamel in the fossil record of placental mammals and provides manifest evidence for the predictive power of Darwin's theory.

    Author summary
    Enamel is the hardest substance in the vertebrate body. One of the key proteins involved in enamel formation is enamelin. Most placental mammals have teeth that are capped with enamel, but there are also lineages without teeth (anteaters, pangolins, baleen whales) or with enamelless teeth (armadillos, sloths, aardvarks, pygmy and dwarf sperm whales). All toothless and enamelless mammals are descended from ancestral forms that possessed teeth with enamel. Given this ancestry, we predicted that mammalian species without teeth or with teeth that lack enamel would have copies of the gene that codes for the enamelin protein, but that the enamelin gene in these species would contain mutations that render it a nonfunctional pseudogene. To test this hypothesis, we sequenced most of the protein-coding region of the enamelin gene in all groups of placental mammals that lack teeth or have enamelless teeth. In every case, we discovered mutations in the enamelin gene that disrupt the proper reading frame that codes for the enamelin protein. Our results link evolutionary change at the molecular level to morphological change in the fossil record and also provide evidence for the enormous predictive power of Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification.
    I can see why the reporter got somewhat confused. But note what they say, as there is a subtle but important distinction: this provides evidence for the predictive power of evolutionary theory. This is news, because it is sometimes argued that evolutionary research is purely descriptive. Examples like this and the discovery of Tiktaalik in the type and age of rocks where an intermediate fossil was predicted to occur show just how strong modern evolutionary ideas are.

    As evidence for the fact of evolution, though... *yawn* ... just put it on the pile with all the rest.

    Reference

    Meredith, R.W., Gatesy, J., Murphy, W.J., Ryder, O.A., and Springer, M.S. 2009. Molecular Decay of the Tooth Gene Enamelin (ENAM) Mirrors the Loss of Enamel in the Fossil Record of Placental Mammals. PLoS Genetics 5(9): e1000634.


    _____________

    For descriptions of the study, see Ed Yong and Carl Zimmer (both among my top science writers list).

    Comments

    gimme 5 examples of predictions, i mean real predictions: not fit the model hogwash

    T Ryan Gregory
    1) That a transitional fossil linking fishes and tetrapods would be found in rocks of a specific age (from the Devonian) and formed in freshwater environments.  CONFIRMED.

    2) That human chromosome 2 would show clear signs of fusion of two chromosomes that are separate in other apes when examined at the level of DNA sequence.  CONFIRMED.

    3) That genes for producing features thought to have existed in ancestors but absent in descendants will still be found when genomes are examined in detail or even through atavism.  CONFIRMED (see also the paper mentioned above).

    4) That proteins in the bacterial flagellum will turn out to be similar to proteins with other functions.  CONFIRMED.

    And a classic...

    5) Darwin predicted that the evidence would show that humans evolved in Africa based on similarities to other apes.  CONFIRMED.



    If you prefer examples in video form:






    Richard William Nelson
    Darwin predicted "innumberable" transitional links - where are they?
    Hank
    Why do you write this same thing in every comment?  As others have pointed out, you are term mining, since he said 'innumerable' as a turn of phrase and not an aspect of science.

    We get it, you're trying to sell a book.  So go sell it.   Darwin is dead, his science was amazing for his day but arguing over a book written 150 years ago is inane.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Richard William Nelson

    Because my question keeps getting deleted - why?

    Hank
    Authors have moderation ability so maybe he deletes it - but if someone writing for free in the interests of science outreach and to educate people is deleting it, it's because it's a silly attempt at pretending you are unravelling some secret conspiracy; not because the question has merit.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Richard William Nelson
    What part of the question is sily?
    Hank
    It's silly because: (a) you think your question has been deleted when I ask why this is the only thing you write, but instead you can't even remember where else you wrote it and got the same answer and that means; (b) you don't have anything except bookmarked argument points.  So you don't care about science, you just care about your agenda.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Richard William Nelson
    The question was asked again simply because a scientific answer was never given.

    My agenda is to engage in a conversation and ask questions and debate answers.

    What "Tree of Life" scenario do you ascribe to. The 2009 Special Edition of Scientific America entitled "The Evolution of Evolution" on page 43 clearly indicates that any "Tree of Life" scenario remains in chaos today.  No?
    Hmmm so these mammalian species all lost the genetic coding for enamelin and the ancestors of these mammals had the genetic coding. So as I understand it the ancestors had more information, and the information decayed and was lost in subsequent generations. I think both the ID theory, and the creationist theory predict that also. The other question is where did the coding for the enamelin originate in the first place? Does evolution predict that and offer a solution?

    Gerhard Adam
    I think both the ID theory, and the creationist theory predict that also.
    That's your first mistake.  I can definitely understand why your nick is "Circularreason", although "circular" seems to be an optimistic description.
    Prove it. Explain exactly how my reasoning is circular Gerhard. Don't just make unsupported statements.

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually my statements are completely supported by your lack of reasoning.