Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jumping gene drives moth colour change

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Melanic peppered moths mating/Ilik Saccheri

The story is packaged as evidence for natural selection, but wait till you hear the details. Michael Denton is right.

From ScienceDaily:

Jumping genes, more formally known as transposable elements (TEs), are mobile segments of DNA that can change their position within a genome and alter the expression of other genes. Using fine-scale linkage and association mapping combined with next-generation DNA sequencing, the team established that a large transposable element, inserted within the moth’s cortex gene, was responsible for the colour change.

Dr Ilik Saccheri, from the University’s Institute of Integrative Biology, who led the research, said: “This discovery fills a fundamental gap in the peppered moth story. The fact that this famous mutant is caused by a transposable element will hopefully attract more interest in the impact of mobile DNA on fitness and the generation of novel phenotypes.”

The same jumping gene appears to control some cases of butterfly mimicry.

Dr Saccheri commented: “This is highly unexpected, both because the butterfly and moth polymorphisms appear very different to the eye, and the species are separated by over 100 million years. What this suggests is that the cortex gene is central to generating pattern diversity across the Lepidoptera, and more generally that adaptive evolution often relies on a conserved toolkit of developmental switches.” Paper. (paywall) – Arjen E. van’t Hof, Pascal Campagne, Daniel J. Rigden, Carl J. Yung, Jessica Lingley, Michael A. Quail, Neil Hall, Alistair C. Darby& Ilik J. Saccheri More.

In short, Michael Denton is right. Denton focuses on the many examples of fundamental features of life forms, like the pentadactyl limb of vertebrates, that are uniform but serve no adaptive purpose in particular at a given time, pointing perhaps to discoverable physical patterns in nature, like those of the chemical elements.

Denton is right: Patterns available for 100 million years will prove adaptive in one situation or another but they probably did not arise as in Darwin’s famous dictum:

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

See also: Michael Denton on the discontinuity of nature

Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

and

Life continues to ignore what evolution experts say

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I've read about half of Barbara McClintock's seminal paper on transposons. And she makes clear that the occurence of the movement and placement of transposons is non-random. I personally believe that the organism/cell uses transposons to turn on, and to turn off, certain coding regions of the genome, and that it does so in accordance with its needs. How this happens, exactly, I don't suppose to know; but, of course, this is worthy of examination, and, I suppose, is happening as we speak. My view is, naturally, in accordance with a theory of intelligent design. I say "theory" here because should enough information about transposons be obtained that indicates intelligent action on the part of organisms, then ID would be more than a hypothesis. Unless there is a reason for me to change my thinking about transposons, and their presumed mode of action, this, IMO, severely undermines the entire neo-Darwinian structure. Your thoughts.PaV
June 6, 2016
June
06
Jun
6
06
2016
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
PaV - what are the important differences between ordinary random mutations & mutations caused by transposons? I can think of some differences, but these these may not be what you are thinking of (and I would still say that they would lead to random mutations, albeit with very different probabilities of the resulting genotype).Bob O'H
June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
aarceng: It's much worse than that, really. "Jumping genes" are not like ordinary random mutations. So here you have the 'pillar' of 'microevolution' found to be the product of non-random genetic mechanisms. As the 'evo-devo's have been saying for some time, now, "neo-Darwinism is dead." What the 'evo-devo's either don't realize or don't understand is that with 'neo-Darwinism''s 'death', all rational understanding of how life emerges through strictly material causes now vanishes.PaV
June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
It really doesn't matter since all the Peppered Moth shows is microevolution which isn't in question.aarceng
June 4, 2016
June
06
Jun
4
04
2016
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Is that the best you can do?PaV
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
Maybe read the link?wd400
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
wd400:
What you are on about? Transposons are kept in genomes because species with small populations are not very good at getting rid of them. The colour variant took off because it made moths live longer. What has any of this to do with Denton or anything else?
What is really at issue here is not that "the colour variant took off because it made moths live longer," but WHERE did this variant come from? What was the mechanism? In a college course, these are the sources they give: point mutation, gene duplication, polyploidy and chromsome inversion (recombination). Which of these gave rise to this phenotypic change? Answer: None of these. Isn't it true, in fact, that poplation genetics can't answer this? P.S. Remember, Barbara McClintock, the founder of "jumping genes," was humiliated out of science by J.B.S. Haldane back in the 50's because she had the temerity to say that "jumping genes" are NOT random. So, look what we have: a "famous" phenotypic change, ballyhooed as the classic case of NS (really, neo-Darwinism), and it's effects are--per Barbara McClintock--NON-RANDOM! Here's the most likely scenario for those of us who live in the "epigenetic" era: the carbon ingested by the moths led to a "directed mutation" (James Shapiro) which changed the regulation of an already present gene, changing not the protein replicate, but simply the amounts.PaV
June 3, 2016
June
06
Jun
3
03
2016
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
I can usually work out what mistake you are making in interpreting a press release, but I have to say I'm utterly flumoxxed by this one
Denton is right: Patterns available for 100 million years will prove adaptive in one situation or another but they probably did not arise as in Darwin’s famous dictum...
What you are on about? Transposons are kept in genomes because species with small populations are not very good at getting rid of them. The colour variant took off because it made moths live longer. What has any of this to do with Denton or anything else?wd400
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
The same jumping gene appears to control some cases of butterfly mimicry.
No! What they're saying is that the transposon jumped into the same gene in both the peppered moth and Heliconius butterflies. But I think the genetic changes are different in Heliconius (I don't have access to the paper, though).Bob O'H
June 2, 2016
June
06
Jun
2
02
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply