Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Convergent evolution: Distantly related birds, same crests

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
The second bird’s crest is result of single mutant gene/Sydney Stringer

From ScienceDaily:

A few years ago biologists found that a prominent change in pigeon plumage, head crests, could be traced to a mutation in a single gene. Now the research team has found an almost exact repeat in the evolutionary playbook in distantly related doves.

Evolutionary playbook? Doesn’t that imply a strategy? Oh wait, that’s heresy. Watch your language around Top People!

Evolutionary biologist Michael Shapiro and his team from the University of Utah made international headlines in 2013 when they found that a prominent change in pigeon plumage, head crests, could be traced to a mutation in a single gene.

Now, in the new advanced online edition of Molecular Biology and Evolution, the research team has found an almost exact repeat in the evolutionary playbook. A mutation in the same gene, EphB2, has led to a similar result in domesticated ringneck doves. The mutation causes the feathers on the back of the head and neck to grow up toward the head in a striking look.

“We know that many genes are involved in feather development, so it’s rather remarkable that the same gene appears to control the same trait in two distantly related species,” said Shapiro.

Next, armed with new DNA banks of bird species, Shapiro’s team will examine how far and wide this unique evolutionary twist may be found amongst other bird species and wild populations.

Here’s the abstract:

Head crests are important display structures in wild bird species and are also common in domesticated lineages. Many breeds of domestic rock pigeon (Columba livia) have crests of reversed occipital feathers, and this recessive trait is associated with a non-synonymous coding mutation in the intracellular kinase domain of EphB2. The domestic ringneck dove (Streptopelia risoria) also has a recessive crested morph with reversed occipital feathers, and interspecific crosses between crested doves and pigeons produce crested offspring, suggesting a similar genetic basis for this trait in both species. We therefore investigated EphB2 as a candidate for the head crest phenotype of ringneck doves and identified a non-synonymous coding mutation in the intracellular kinase domain that is significantly associated with the crested morph. This mutation is over 100 amino acid positions away from the crest mutation found in rock pigeons, yet both mutations are predicted to negatively affect function of the ATP-binding pocket. Furthermore, bacterial toxicity assays suggest that crest mutations in both species severely impact kinase activity. We conclude that head crests are associated with different mutations in the same functional domain of the same gene in two different columbid species, thereby representing striking evolutionary convergence in morphology and molecules. (paywall) – Convergent evolution of head crests in two domesticated columbids is associated with different missense mutations in EphB2. Anna I. Vickrey, Eric T. Domyan, Martin P. Horvath, and Michael D. Shapiro. Mol Biol Evol, June 23, 2015 DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msv140

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Virgil Cain: what are the entailments of blind watchmaker evolution producing electric organs. "Blind watchmaker" is an analogy, not a scientific concept. But if you want details of how the electric organ evolved, try reading Gallant et al.Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
OK then, what are the entailments of blind watchmaker evolution producing electric organs. Please be specific and show your work.Virgil Cain
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain: No one has observed an electric organ evolve. No one has traveled to the interior of the Sun to directly observe the fusion reactions hypothesized to occur there. Rather, in science, one deduces empirical entailments from the hypothesis, then tests those entailments. If the entailments are confirmed, then the hypothesis is considered supported, though not proved.Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Empirical refers to scientific observation.
No one has observed an electric organ evolve. You lose.Virgil Cain
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain: By “empirical” you mean “it looks like it could be”, then yeah. Empirical refers to scientific observation. In this case, the observations support the hypothesis.Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Shockingly Fishy Conclusions: Evolutionary spin doctors try to explain how the electric eel, and five other groups of electric fish, evolved their electrifying characteristics independently.Virgil Cain
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
The paper provides empirical evidence consistent with the hypothesized evolution of the electric organ.
By "empirical" you mean "it looks like it could be", then yeah. However there still isn't any experimental data that confirms it.
You didn’t read the paper, obviously.
If they know the genes then an experiment would be easy to confirm the speculation.Virgil Cain
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Zach, "Convergent Evolution" is purposeful evolution. Scientific evidence is piling up in Bio Science. Modern Physics is adding evidence by the mountainfull. Design & Purpose: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdfDzGypFMppolish
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain: The paper does not demonstrate that such a transformation is possible. The paper provides empirical evidence consistent with the hypothesized evolution of the electric organ. Virgil Cain: The paper doesn’t tell us what genes were involved You didn't read the paper, obviously.Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
In fact, the paper includes considerable empirical research.
The paper does not demonstrate that such a transformation is possible. The paper doesn't tell us what genes were involved nor how many mutations it took.
Any idea why it was Darwin, based on evolutionary principles, who predicted results only just confirmed last year?
Your use of the word "confirmed" does not match that word's meaning.Virgil Cain
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
ppolish: orbit of Ceres is guided. Purposeful no. Thanks for the answer. We're still confused on your use of the term "guided" though. What do you mean by "guided"? ppolish: Evolution is purposeful. Is that a scientific claim? If so, what are the testable entailments of the claim?Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain: It is speculation In fact, the paper includes considerable empirical research. Any idea why it was Darwin, based on evolutionary principles, who predicted results only just confirmed last year?Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Yes Zach, orbit of Ceres is guided. Purposeful no. Evolution is guided (by gravity & a whole lot more. Lot more). And unlike the orbit of Ceres, Evolution is purposeful. Orbits lol.ppolish
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Just to clarify, is there scientific evidence that the orbit of the asteroid Ceres is “purposeful”?
There is scientific evidence that gravity was designed for a purpose.Virgil Cain
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Do you have evidence that an intelligence was involved in the evolution of the electric organ?
Yes. Do you have evidence that natural selection was involved in the evolution of the electric organ?
What about Gallant et al. did you find in error?
It is speculation, ie not based on experiment, as in there isn't any experiment that shows an electric organ can evolve from something that wasn't an electric organ.Virgil Cain
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
ppolish: I said “guided” and “purposeful”, Zachriel. “Intelligence” is different. Others on this forum use the term differently. Silver Asiatic: Guidance is a function of intelligence. ppolish: “Guided” and “purposeful” allow accurate prediction. Just to clarify, is there scientific evidence that the orbit of the asteroid Ceres is "purposeful"?Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
I said "guided" and "purposeful", Zachriel. "Intelligence" is different. "Guided" and "purposeful" allow accurate prediction. Made it easy for Dawrin to predict. No brainier.ppolish
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
ppolish: And there is a guided purposeful process underlying this “evolve”. Repeatable process. Do you have evidence that an intelligence was involved in the evolution of the electric organ? Any idea why it was Darwin, based on evolutionary principles, who predicted results only discovered last year? lifepsy: But the general community still argues that homoplasies are easily identifiable by unique genetic structure. You pointed to a "classic evolutionary argument". Is Darwin not classical enough? Phylogeny is determined from the overall pattern of traits, molecular and morphological, not from individual traits, molecular or morphological. "It is incredible that the descendants of two organisms, which had originally differed in a marked manner, should ever afterwards converge so closely as to lead to a near approach to identity throughout their whole organisation." — Darwin Perhaps you provide some specifics instead of just repeating your claim. lifepsy: Nothing was objectively confirmed. What about Gallant et al. did you find in error?Zachriel
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Darwin proposed the electric organ in fishes evolved from muscle tissue multiple times . The hypothesis was confirmed last year. See Gallant et al., Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs, Science 2014. What is your point? I know evolutionists are having to rationalize "convergence" this way now, see the subject of this posting. But the general community still argues that homoplasies are easily identifiable by unique genetic structure. And by the way, those electric organs could be changed to homology tomorrow if it was more favorable to a favored phylogenetic model. Traits can be flip-flopped from homology to homoplasy as needed. Nothing was objectively confirmed.lifepsy
July 6, 2015
July
07
Jul
6
06
2015
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
"Darwin proposed the electric organ in fishes evolved from muscle tissue multiple times ." And there is a guided purposeful process underlying this "evolve". Repeatable process. Arguing that electric organs "evolve" in a purposeless unguided accident is bad science. Bad math and bad philosophy to boot.ppolish
July 5, 2015
July
07
Jul
5
05
2015
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
lifepsy: A classic evolutionary argument is that convergence can be distinguished from homology because the similarities are only phenotype. Darwin proposed the electric organ in fishes evolved from muscle tissue multiple times . The hypothesis was confirmed last year. See Gallant et al., Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs, Science 2014.Zachriel
July 5, 2015
July
07
Jul
5
05
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Zachriel: They do? Yep they do. A classic evolutionary argument is that convergence can be distinguished from homology because the similarities are only phenotype. But as we can see, when phylogeny needs to be harmonized, evolutionists have no problem arguing that populations converged on the same mutations as well. It's just one more demonstration on the non-falsifiable and amorphous 'evolution did it' story-telling nature of your darwinian creation ideology.lifepsy
July 5, 2015
July
07
Jul
5
05
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
lifepsy: Meanwhile, evolutionists are currently arguing that “convergent evolution” does not occur at the genetic level. They do? Multiple studies have shown that phenotypic convergence can be related to changes in the same gene, e.g. toxin resistance in garter snakes, discussed in another thread.Zachriel
July 4, 2015
July
07
Jul
4
04
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Meanwhile, evolutionists are currently arguing that "convergent evolution" does not occur at the genetic level. Of course when their phylogenetic models are forced to accommodate such a story, presto-'I guess convergent evolution can do those sorts of things!' Proving yet again that natural selection is their non-falsifiable creator god.lifepsy
July 4, 2015
July
07
Jul
4
04
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Darwinian evolution should buy a lotto ticket. It sure is lucky.Andre
July 3, 2015
July
07
Jul
3
03
2015
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
There is Design in Nature. Some argue "design" as a noun, some argue "design" as a verb. Those who argue "it's just an APPEARANCE of design" are just wrong. Design as a noun, "Constructal Law": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdfDzGypFM Yes, there are Design Rules guiding shape of birds. Real genuine design.ppolish
July 3, 2015
July
07
Jul
3
03
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply