Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution: In blind cave fish, a protein change supports controversial evolution mechanism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
blind and sighted forms/Haplochromis

From Scientific American:

In the classic view of evolution, organisms undergo random genetic mutations, and nature selects for the most beneficial ones. A recent study in Science adds a twist to that theory: variability already present in a population’s genome may remain hidden in times of plenty but come unmasked in stressful situations, ready to help with adaptation.

HSP90 binds to other proteins to keep them properly folded, but under stress may allow for more variations.

Amazing, how it all “just happens”.

Abstract In the process of morphological evolution, the extent to which cryptic, preexisting variation provides a substrate for natural selection has been controversial. We provide evidence that heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) phenotypically masks standing eye-size variation in surface populations of the cavefish Astyanax mexicanus. This variation is exposed by HSP90 inhibition and can be selected for, ultimately yielding a reduced-eye phenotype even in the presence of full HSP90 activity. Raising surface fish under conditions found in caves taxes the HSP90 system, unmasking the same phenotypic variation as does direct inhibition of HSP90. These results suggest that cryptic variation played a role in the evolution of eye loss in cavefish and provide the first evidence for HSP90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution in a natural setting. –

See also: Cavefish Study Supports Controversial Evolutionary Mechanism

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Well thankfully, Jules, that is why we have this mighty designer who can "pop" eyes, according to Mung, back into the fish when they start leaving their caves.AVS
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
All I'm saying is that an organism that spends its entire life in the dark and does not need eyes, does not need an on or off switch for eyes. In fact they don't need any of the genes required for correct eye development. And yet they have them. The most seamless answer to me, is that the blind populations have evolved from the sighted population, and benefit from the loss of functional eyes. A designer would not have given this species the blueprints for eyes if they were never going to use them would he? I don't think I can explain it any other way.AVS
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
AVS, your objection only works based on an extremely short term view of what is beneficial and what isn't. You are basically saying that it would be smarter to bet that a population of fish will never ever need eyes no matter what happens to the environment over millions of years. That is not wise bet.Jul3s
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
There's a difference between an intelligent designer and a magician. With an intelligent designer, we can gain an appreciation for the intelligence in the design. With a magician, we can learn only that magical things happen. -QQuerius
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
AVS, as "intelligent designer," would have designed an eye that popped into existence as needed and popped out of existence when not needed. AVS, as "intelligent designer," could predict when an eye would be needed and when an eye would not be needed and could thus design an "eye popping" mechanism that would pop eyes into and out of existence as needed.Mung
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
AVS it makes all the sense in the world and who knows, maybe one day they will be needing those eyes again and viola the switch is back on again. This is intelligently designing a species to help them adapt and survive best. But I guess u dont think thats reasonable or logical do you. Almost everyone else does :)wallstreeter43
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
What an excellent comparison. You don't think it's odd that an organism that spends its entire life in the dark, has eyes? If you had been designing that fish, would you have given them eyes? I don't think I would've. Wouldn't have made much sense to me. That's all I'm saying.AVS
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
AVS, your question is bizarre considering how straight-forwardly the answer is given in the article. Why would you question the intelligence behind giving a design an off-switch? Your criticism is nonsensical.Jul3s
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
If I believed in the design of all organisms, I would certainly be questioning the intelligence behind this.
Why? Does having an eye in some way become an immediate detriment to a being in complete darkness? You've never been in complete darkness? You did not immediately pluck out your useless and in fact detrimental eyes? Why not?Mung
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
You don't think it's odd that these fish live in complete darkness and yet they have eyes? If I believed in the design of all organisms, I would certainly be questioning the intelligence behind this.AVS
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
As a creationist I love the critters who are blind in caves etc. many insects and fish etc. I see it as evidence of how adaptation happens quick and for some equation of need. the idea that a fish with a mutation making its eyes not work was a benefit over others seems unlikely. it happened everywhere. Other options are more likely. Bring them out and see if the eyes of descendents start working again. Its not evidence for evolution but only a result that speculation acts on. Its not evidence for a origin for a mutation that stops the eyes either. one mans mutation is anothers adaptation from another mechanism.Robert Byers
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply