Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Tuatara, the fastest (and perhaps slowest) evolving animal

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yet another missed prediction made by the chance & necessity theory of evolution. The Tuatara is one of the slowest evolving animals we know of – stable in form for tens of millions of years after it separated from early dinosaurs. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution predicted that its rate of molecular (DNA) evolution would likewise be very slow. Many things about the Tuatara are slow. It grows very slowly, its metabolism is very slow, it thrives in cold (for a reptile) temperatures, it reproduces only once every 2 to 5 years, and doesn’t reach sexual maturity until 10 to 15 years of age. Yet when research was conducted into the rate its DNA changes it was found to be the among the fastest known among all vertebrates.

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal

New DNA research has questioned previous notions about the evolution of the tuatara

In a study of New Zealand’s “living dinosaur” the tuatara, evolutionary biologist, and ancient DNA expert, Professor David Lambert and his team from the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution recovered DNA sequences from the bones of ancient tuatara, which are up to 8000 years old. They found that, although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined. The research will be published in the March issue of Trends in Genetics.

“What we found is that the tuatara has the highest molecular evolutionary rate that anyone has measured,” Professor Lambert says.

The rate of evolution for Adélie penguins, which Professor Lambert and his team have studied in the Antarctic for many years, is slightly slower than that of the tuatara. The tuatara rate is significantly faster than for animals including the cave bear, lion, ox and horse.

“Of course we would have expected that the tuatara, which does everything slowly – they grow slowly, reproduce slowly and have a very slow metabolism – would have evolved slowly. In fact, at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly, which supports a hypothesis proposed by the evolutionary biologist Allan Wilson, who suggested that the rate of molecular evolution was uncoupled from the rate of morphological evolution.”

Allan Wilson was a pioneer of molecular evolution. His ideas were controversial when introduced 40 years ago, but this new research supports them.

Professor Lambert says the finding will be helpful in terms of future study and conservation of the tuatara, and the team now hopes to extend the work to look at the evolution of other animal species.

“We want to go on and measure the rate of molecular evolution for humans, as well as doing more work with moa and Antarctic fish to see if rates of DNA change are uncoupled in these species. There are human mummies in the Andes and some very good samples in Siberia where we have some collaborators, so we are hopeful we will be able to measure the rate of human evolution in these animals too.”

The tuatara, Sphendon punctatus, is found only in New Zealand and is the only surviving member of a distinct reptilian order Sphehodontia that lived alongside early dinosaurs and separated from other reptiles 200 million years ago in the Upper Triassic period.

Comments
Yet again, it seems like everywhere you look there is further evidence for some process of front-loaded evolution. Perhaps I am overstating it, but not by much I think.Upright BiPed
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Clarence:
"and if necessary theories need to be modified (or even abandoned) where necessary to account for the facts). Every scientific theory is provisional, and is always subject to change when new facts demand it."
Not so with evolution. Evolution is biologists only theory. It can not be discarded because if it were then they would have to consider the alternative which is some form of creation. That is impossible for Darwinists to accept because they are almost all athiests. That is why Darwinism can never be disproven by the current scientific status quo.Peter
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
jerry (#13): "But then where does that leave all the other reptiles which are quite primitive and how did the dinosaurs get this oxygen distribution system." I think Peter Ward has proposed a hypothesis where it originated in late Permian times and rapidly took over during the End-Permian mass extinction, when the atmospheric oxygen percentage drastically declined for many millions of years. This gave a strong selective advantage to the trait during that period and established the dominance of the dinosaurs. That is the hypothesis anyway. Of course this as usual assumes that such a complex innovation somehow came about in a Darwinian fashion in innumerable small steps.magnan
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Peter: "Evolution is such a greate theory. It can never be disproven." Yep. Like Dobzhansky said: "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." Like expecting "that the tuatara, which does everything slowly....at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly." Yeah. So counter-counter-intuitive. I think the theory needs a battery change, because the light seems to be dimming.JPCollado
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
jerry: "We are seeing a couple snapshots here not a movie playing out over time." Point well taken.JPCollado
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
congregate: "What does ID predict about the history and biology of the tuatara?" Not just restricted to the tuatora, but also extended to living systems in general (according to the article, scientists are going to do similar studies of humans and fish). A number of predictions could be made in alignment with IDT: That à la Behe style, there is a limit to molecular changes in how they may affect the morphology of the organism; That a change in the sequence of nucleotides on a DNA molecule offers a defective framework for studying evolution; That stasis, rather than constant change, is the rule rather than the exception. There are others, I am quite sure.JPCollado
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
"any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool" This still works fine for a definition of evolution. There might be some changes in this definiton in the future because there is now a recognition that there are epigeneitic factors that get passed along during sexual reproduction along with the DNA. Not all changes in the DNA produce changes in alleles that affect phenotype. Actually phenotype means more than outward or inward appearance. There could be changes in enzymes or neurological processes. For example, the tuatara has some unusual behavioral and developmental processes. We are seeing a couple snapshots here not a movie playing out over time.jerry
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Clarence: "The facts are the facts, and if necessary theories need to be modified (or even abandoned)...Every scientific theory is provisional, and is always csubject to change when new facts demand it." But not so with neo-darwinian evolution. I thought it was the 'cornerstone' of biology. If a theory is modifiable to the point of being discarded, how then can we be sure it is foundational to begin with?JPCollado
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
I just want to know what they mean by "high molecular evolutionary rate." It can't be mutations, since there is no such thing at the molecular level. You need genes for that. So what are they referring to? These scientists are so blinded by evolutionary dogma that they are having trouble making the appropriate distinctions.JPCollado
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Glad you posted this. So gone are the days when evolution is defined as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool"? This is supposed to be main quip that darwisciples oftentimes resort to when defining evolution.JPCollado
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Hi bFast, Now Dr. Dembski and Dr. Wells would not agree I don't think. I listened to Dr. Wells' interview on ID THE FUTURE, he comes across as very intelligent and knowelagable. He inspires more trust I think than someone like Richard Dawkins. Who comes across as a bit sketchy.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
DeepDesign, "Then the fossil record offers no proof for Darwinian evolution? Do I have this right?" "Proof" is a big word. I would say that there is reasonable fossil evidence of darwinian-level intermediates for many/most animals within any family. Darwinism above family in the phylogenic tree has little to no fossil support.bFast
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
SO taking the fossil record at face value. Without imagining transitional forms that didn't fossilize.. as the Darwinists do. Then the fossil record offers no proof for Darwinian evolution? Do I have this right?DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Good link on Bird-Dinosaur Link by Casey Luskin. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1275DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
TRIBUNE 7 Are you refering to just to the Cambrian Explosion? Or are there other major bursts of complexity also?DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
bfast, I know there are pockets of resistance to the dino to bird transition. But some of the stuff I read recently is really pushing the transition. It is to the point that they want the dinosaurs to have the unique oxygen system of the birds because they know such an evolutionary transition to it would be almost impossible. But then where does that leave all the other reptiles which are quite primitive and how did the dinosaurs get this oxygen distribution system.jerry
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
"What does ID predict about the history and biology of the tuatara?" Probably nothing. But it might wonder why it didn't diversify very much via Darwinian micro evolution processes. Maybe it did but the variation are all extinct. There were various sub species but essentially they all were very similar. We will not know for sure since all but two are extinct. I think one thing that flowed from Dave's post is that there is fast DNA change but little phenotype changes in 200 million years. Of course one cannot say that past changes in the DNA were as fast as today.jerry
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Deep Design -- (Can) someone tell me what the fossil record actually shows, without being ideologically driven? That most of the major forms of complex life appeared almost simultaneously about 530 million years ago.tribune7
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
DeepDesign, I think that what Philip Johnson is talking about are a few major phenomena in the rock record. One would expect, from the theory, that two species would separate, then slowly differentiate to become multiple species. At some point, the difference between the left side of the bush and the right would merit the title genus. It is not at all this way. The super-developments happen early and abruptly. There is much more evidence of the intermediates of most genuses than there is of the huge differences like the phila. In general animals appear according to the pattern of the philogenic tree: domain, kingdom, philum, class, etc. In general, classes and above leave virtually no evolutionary intermediates. There are other unexpected phenomena of the rock record, but that, to me is the most startling. It is, noteably, the natural prediction of front-loading.bFast
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
What does ID predict about the history and biology of the tuatara?congregate
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Jerry, "Now a major themes of the Darwinists, almost a fundamental canon of their belief system is that birds evolved from dinosaurs." Actually, there is a significant community that rejects the dinosaur to bird link. Their strongest evidence seems based on genetic drift theory, which seems to show from multiple dating channels that birds separated from dinosaurs much earlier than the dominant thory suggests.bFast
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
DaveScot, here is another intriguing link for ID discussion. "1st Rule of Evolution: Strive For Complexity" http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20080217211910data_trunc_sys.shtml This link is interesting, certainly something not predicted by neo-Darwinism, but in what way is ID a better explanation.bFast
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
clarence, you said "On the contrary - like any other scientific field, the facts are precisely what do have to be explained. If scientists wanted an easy life they could just ignore facts." But they do ignore facts all the time. Especially when writing textbooks on biology and evolution. The facts falsify the Darwinian theory of evolution except when it is trivial as in micro-evolution yet they never acknowledge it.jerry
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
It is hard to understand where this animal fits into the scheme of things. There is a cladogram in the Wikipedia page for it. In terms of evolution this cladogram showed five branches, tuatara, lizards, snakes, crocodiles and birds. Now a major themes of the Darwinists, almost a fundamental canon of their belief system is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Yet this cladogram shows that birds and crocodiles had a common ancestor and there are no dinosaurs. This is a major problem for the Darwinists unless someone can explain it away. The reason is that birds are warm blooded, have a four chambered heart and an oxygen delivery system unique on the planet while crocodiles are cold blooded have a three chambered heart and a normal oxygen delivery system. Where do dinosaurs fit into this scheme since the tuatara and the dinosaurs roamed together. I am sure there must be many alternative schemes. I often wonder how these classifications get made and how much of them is speculation alone. By the way I am nearly finished the Jablonka and Lamb book recommended by Allen MacNeill and in it is a hypothesis that the development of a species in the embryo will produce identical phenotypes even though there will be numerous genetic changes that have taken place over time. Some of these genetic changes could be changing the organism in ways that are not physically noticeable but may affect its behavior and capabilities. A lot of this is speculative but it emphasized the persistence of phenotypes.jerry
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Continued from # 2 I read an essay by Philip Johnson of ID fame. He said basically that the fossil reccord is pretty clear and that it is not what one would expect if Darwin's theory were correct.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
"Evolution is such a greate theory. It can never be disproven. No wonder so many scientist like Darwinism. It makes their jobs so much easier when they don’t have to explain the facts." On the contrary - like any other scientific field, the facts are precisely what do have to be explained. If scientists wanted an easy life they could just ignore facts. As this article shows, they don't. The facts are the facts, and if necessary theories need to be modified (or even abandoned) where necessary to account for the facts). Every scientific theory is provisional, and is always csubject to change when new facts demand it.Clarence
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Can someone help a new guy out? Does someone tell me what the fossil record actually shows, without being ideologically driven?DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Evolution is such a greate theory. It can never be disproven. No wonder so many scientist like Darwinism. It makes their jobs so much easier when they don't have to explain the facts.Peter
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply