Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another dismissed form of evolution, hybridization, shows at least some viability

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

First, we are not talking about the supposed pig-chimp hybrid that allegedly produced humans (and was taken seriously by some), nor the similar idea suggested for caterpillars in the National Academy of Science’s publication PNAS, for which idea Scientific American promptly dubbed PNAS the “National Enquirer” of the sciences.

All that said: Hybridization might still be a viable idea for evolution—if strictly limited to probable situations, and not invoked to solve otherwise intractable problems.

Okay, here from ScienceDaily:

Scientists have detected at least three potential hybridization events that likely shaped the evolutionary paths of ‘old world’ mice, two in recent times and one in the ancient past. The researchers think these instances of introgressive hybridization — a way for genetic material and, potentially, traits to be passed from one species to another through interspecific mating — are only the first of many needles waiting to be found in a very large genetic haystack. While introgressive hybridization is thought to be common among plants, the finding suggests that hybridization in mammals may not be the evolutionary dead end biologists once commonly thought.

Note:

Nakhleh said other studies may have missed evidence of hybridization because the researchers weren’t specifically looking for it. “Why is it that biologists in general who look at mammalian genomes haven’t found hybridization? I think it’s because they started with the hypothesis that it couldn’t be there and used tools that would ignore it.

But note, they are all still mice, and no obviously counterfactual claims are made here concerning mice.

Here’s the abstract:

We report on a genome-wide scan for introgression between the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) and the Algerian mouse (Mus spretus), using samples from the ranges of sympatry and allopatry in Africa and Europe. Our analysis reveals wide variability in introgression signatures along the genomes, as well as across the samples. We find that fewer than half of the autosomes in each genome harbor all detectable introgression, whereas the X chromosome has none. Further, European mice carry more M. spretus alleles than the sympatric African ones. Using the length distribution and sharing patterns of introgressed genomic tracts across the samples, we infer, first, that at least three distinct hybridization events involving M. spretus have occurred, one of which is ancient, and the other two are recent (one presumably due to warfarin rodenticide selection). Second, several of the inferred introgressed tracts contain genes that are likely to confer adaptive advantage. Third, introgressed tracts might contain driver genes that determine the evolutionary fate of those tracts. Further, functional analysis revealed introgressed genes that are essential to fitness, including the Vkorc1 gene, which is implicated in rodenticide resistance, and olfactory receptor genes. Our findings highlight the extent and role of introgression in nature and call for careful analysis and interpretation of house mouse data in evolutionary and genetic studies. – Kevin J. Liu, Ethan Steinberg, Alexander Yozzo, Ying Song, Michael H. Kohn, Luay Nakhleh. Interspecific introgressive origin of genomic diversity in the house mouse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014; 201406298 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406298111

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
wd400 says, We have two opposing forces, selection (for the most part) is driving the lineages apart and recombination (via hybridization) is bringing them together. quick questions...... So recombination can act as a throttle on selection? If recombination is successful will it defeat selection? If hybridization is more common that we thought does that mean that selection is less successful/important than we thought? peace peacefifthmonarchyman
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
PAV, What do you believe the finch should have died out from, according to Darwin? Its increased fertility?goodusername
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
It's as if you are going out of your way to demonstrate both your over-confidence and your ignorance. Hyrbrid vigor is well understood.It arises when you cross inbred lineages, as the F1 produces many heterozygotes for the loci fixed for deleterious alleles in one parent. Some or all of the fitness lost by those deleterious alleles that are not completely dominant will be regained in the hets, and so you get off spring that outdo either parent. Rather than being a reason to pack up and start again, hybridization among Galapagos finches is nice example of how hybridisatoin works within population genetics. We have two opposing forces, selection (for the most part) is driving the lineages apart and recombination (via hybridization) is bringing them together. That these lineages maintain distinct morphologies, songs and niches in the face of the potential homogenising effects of hybridisation is good evidence that they are indeed good species.wd400
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
PaV: Per Darwin, the hybrid finch on Daphne Major should have died out. Not sure why you would say that. It's certainly not supported by your quote from "Origin of Species". Darwin states that the hybridization can occasionally increase fertility. The Grants found the hybridization in Darwin's finches was most successful when intermediate beak forms were advantageous, but less successful otherwise. PaV: And it is based on this reasoning of Darwin that he concludes that varieties are ‘incipient species.’ They are not incipient, but distinct species.Zachriel
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Charles Darwin: OOS: "Nevertheless I believe that in all these experiments the fertility has been diminshed by an independent cause, namely, from close interbreeding. I have collected so large a body of facts, showing that close interbreeding lessens fertility, and, on the other hand, that an occasional cross with a distinct individual or a variety increases fertility, that I cannot doubt the correctness of this almost universal belief amongst breeders." Per Darwin, the hybrid finch on Daphne Major should have died out. But it didn't. It took over. And it is based on this reasoning of Darwin that he concludes that varieties are 'incipient species.' But he was wrong about his own finches! And, he didn't fully understand the concept of hybrid vigor, for which, till this day, no acceptable explanation has been given.PaV
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
It's become increasingly clear in recent years that hybridization between animal species is relatively common, and an important evolutionary force. Hell, there's evidence of this in humans, an important adaptation to high-altitude got into the Tibetan population by way of another human species What I find boring if they way you think any finding that increases our knowledge of biology requires the scrapping of everything we already knew. We can uses genetics and genomics to detect hybridsation, we can model it very easily (it's just migration between populations, after all), and in turn built statistical measures that let us infer the demographic and selective history of alleles given hybridization. This "oh, but the researchers were suprised" shtick is equally boring. Suprising results are the ones that get published and get press releases written about them (and press officers will always try an emphasize the novelty of their researcher's work). That this mouse lineage has this history is a little suprising, but it adds to a long list of examples of hybridsation in animals so it's not generally uprising that hybridization is an important evolutionary force.wd400
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
wd400: Unlike you, I'm intuitive. Unlike you, I don't have a career to protect. Taken together, when I see problems for Darwinian theory, I pay attention; you simply sweep them under the rug.
Nakhleh said other studies may have missed evidence of hybridization because the researchers weren’t specifically looking for it.
Could this possibly be because it didn't fit into their models of evolution? Does this apply to you?
While introgressive hybridization is thought to be common among plants, the finding suggests that hybridization in mammals may not be the evolutionary dead end biologists once commonly thought.
Your comments seem to suggest that if I knew more biology, then I wouldn't be surprised by this. Why are they surprised? Why aren't you? Compare your answer to that of Zachriel. Specifically, address this issue: how do you deal with the possibility of "hybridization" in your population genetics models?PaV
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
vh: nothing is a theoretical problem for evolutionary theory It would be hard to argue hybridization is a theoretical problem as Darwin pointed to hybridization as evidence in support of his theory.Zachriel
December 23, 2014
December
12
Dec
23
23
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
No one saw it coming. And it had devastating effects. I wonder what wd400 thnks of this. Just the normal -- PaV knows very nearly nothing about biology but takes any slightly interesting result to mean the end of evolutionary biology. Boring.wd400
December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Pav, nothing is a theoretical problem for evolutionary theory. Everything can be incorporated.vh
December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
What we see in most research reports are descriptions of the current mechanisms, though still missing many details. Any known documentation containing a detailed description of hypothetical processes leading to setup the mechanisms that operate within the cells in all scenarios?Dionisio
December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
PaV: “hybridization”!!! That’s not supposed to happen. Actually, hybridization is much more common in birds than mammals. Nor is hybridization a theoretical problem for evolutionary theory. Indeed, it's important evidence in "Origin of Species".Zachriel
December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
If you read Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch," you'll find that the first half reads like the perfect illustration of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Fascinating and substantial stuff. But the second half reads like someone has lost their way. Nothing seems to add up; Darwinian expectations aren't turning up in the results; and the ultimate result of the experiment in time ends with: ............... "hybridization"!!! That's not supposed to happen. And hybridization means you almost have to throw out all of the results, the great results, previously measured on the Galapagos Island where they were recorded. No one saw it coming. And it had devastating effects. I wonder what wd400 thnks of this.PaV
December 22, 2014
December
12
Dec
22
22
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply