From ScienceDaily:
More than 1200 types of colourful cichlid can be found in the large African lakes Malawi, Victoria and Tanganjika. Not only are they very diverse in colours, they also have numerous colour patterns such as horizontal or vertical stripes. “But that’s not all” explains Axel Meyer, “cichlids are prime examples of evolution. They are extremely diverse in terms of social behaviour, body shape, colour pattern and many other biological aspects, but at the same time certain features repeatedly evolved independently in the different lakes.” This principle of repeated evolution — biologists term it convergent evolution — makes cichlids the perfect target to study the genetic basis of this phenomenon. If similar colours and body shapes have emerged in several evolutionary lines independently from each other this means that evolution reacted to similar environmental conditions in the same way. The question now is: When evolution repeats itself, how does this work genetically?
Convergent evolution implies underlying patterns rather than randomness. The researchers found a “stripe gene,” agrp2.
From an evolutionary point of view, the cichlids’ stripes are rather unstable. Over the course of a few million years, they have been lost and re-emerged in the African lakes many times over. As these species (with and without stripes) are so young, they can be interbred in aquaria. Breeding and examining the cichlids with and without stripes in the laboratory shows that all cichlids carry the “stripes gene,” but the switches (regulatory elements) of this gene differ. “This genetic switch causes the gene in species without stripes to be more activated. As a result, a lot of protein is produced. The “stripes gene” agrp2 works as a “stripes inhibitor”: if gene production is high, stripes will be suppressed, if production is low, they will remain. The researchers were able to demonstrate this by using modern genetic methods. “If we use CRISPR-Cas to remove the gene from the genome of a species without stripes,” Kratochwil explains, “then even a “stripeless” fish will suddenly develop stripes, as we showed with a CRISPR-Cas mutant fish. This proves that the stripes gene is the decisive genetic factor.”
The latest findings on this genetic mechanism, the activation or deactivation of stripes by the “stripes gene,” were published in the current issue of Science magazine. Interestingly, the cichlid’s agrp2 gene is a copy of the agouti gene in mammals, which is responsible for the different coat colours of cats, dogs, horses and striped baby birds. “The world of animals might be much less colourful without the agouti gene family,” reflects Claudius Kratochwil. The mechanism of the “stripes gene” in cichlids clearly makes repeated evolution possible within the briefest of times, relatively speaking. If characteristics are lost during evolution, usually this loss is forever, as the Belgian palaeontologist Louis Dollo already realized exactly 125 years ago, and wrote up his conclusions in “Dolls Law” in 1893. The special aspect of the stripes gene agrp2 is that it makes repeated evolution of a characteristic possible in a simple way. If a cichlid loses its stripes that does not mean they will never return or vice versa. These molecular-biological studies also show that palaeontological rules and evolutionary rules have to be questioned once again. Paper. (paywall) – Claudius F. Kratochwil, Yipeng Liang, Jan Gerwin, Joost M. Woltering, Sabine Urban, Frederico Henning, Gonzalo Machado-Schiaffino, C. Darrin Hulsey, Axel Meyer. Agouti-related peptide 2 facilitates convergent evolution of stripe patterns across cichlid fish radiations. Science, 2018 DOI: 10.1126/science.aao6809 More.
Notice the curious way the finding is described. Belgian palaeontologist Louis Dollo “realized” that if “ characteristics are lost during evolution, usually this loss is forever.” Yet the precise nature of this discovery is that Dollo is likely wrong. Kratochwil closes with “These molecular-biological studies also show that palaeontological rules and evolutionary rules have to be questioned once again.” Yes indeed, and we had best begin by identifying whether we are supporting or not supporting a given dogma.
What conceptual myths like Dollo’s Law mainly explain is this type of thing: “Museum director: Darwin’s theory of evolution not only underpins all biological science, it has an immense predictive power.” That is, increasingly, the only feature of the evolutionary landscape that Darwinian concepts shed light on is the behavior of the believers and enablers, the doubters and dissidents, and people who just can’t afford to lose their job.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Remember Dollo’s Law?: Once a trait was lost through evolution, it could not be regained.
and
Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?
“… the cichlids’ stripes are rather unstable. Over the course of a few million years, they have been lost and re-emerged in the African lakes many times over.”
OK, ya wanna tell me HOW we know that something as ephemeral as STRIPES can be documented over a period of millions of years? I guess this MIGHT be possible through lots of detailed studies of the DNA from 2 million year old cichlid fossils, but come on: the guys know (guess?) the cichlids have lived in lakes in Africa for “a long time”. And so they’re ASSUMING that the stripes and colors have ALWAYS changed the way we’ve observed in modern cichlid populations over the hundred years or so. Does that even COUNT as Science? If 2 guys without degrees sit around drinking beer, are their comments on fish and fishing “science”?
as to this comment from the article:
First, cichlids certainly are NOT prime examples of evolution but are prime examples of the tremendous variety that is inherent in a distinct species. Much like the tremendous variety that is inherent within wolves that is then subsequently expressed in dogs.
These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the ‘limited and rapid variation from a parent kind’ predicted by the Genetic Entropy model (John Sanford):
Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, (fish), comments
Second, ‘convergent evolution’ may be what evolutionists have named the repeated appearance of certain features, for example eyes, in completely different species, but just because they tacked the name ‘convergent evolution’ onto the repeated appearance of a certain features in completely different species , it certainly does not mean that Darwinists have given any kind of coherent explanation for why this repeated appearance of a feature should happen.
The fact of the matter is that ‘convergent evolution’ is actually evidence against Darwinian evolution, not evidence for it.
Simon Conway Morris has a website documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of unexpected and unexplained ‘convergent evolution’:
Of related note:
Are the cichlids different species or just different varieties within one species? Since they can interbreed in aquariums I would favour the latter.