Backyard birdfeeders driving avian evolution

To: "'L&L Knight'" <>, "'Michael Tarburton'" <>
Subject: Backyard birdfeeders driving avian evolution
From: "Andrew Bell" <>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:43:41 +0930
So how many species of fruit fly can I tick in Australia? 

-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of L&L Knight
Sent: Tuesday, 8 December 2009 7:21 AM
To: Michael Tarburton
Cc: Birding Aus
Subject: Backyard birdfeeders driving avian evolution

This has the potential to head off topic, so here is a brief example:

Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophilaphylogeny

Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium

Nature 450, 203-218 (8 November 2007)


Comparative analysis of multiple genomes in a phylogenetic framework
dramatically improves the precision and sensitivity of evolutionary
inference, producing more robust results than single-genome analyses can
provide. The genomes of 12 Drosophila species, ten of which are presented
here for the first time (sechellia, simulans,yakuba, erecta, ananassae,
persimilis, willistoni, mojavensis, virilis andgrimshawi), illustrate how
rates and patterns of sequence divergence across taxa can illuminate
evolutionary processes on a genomic scale. These genome sequences augment
the formidable genetic tools that have made Drosophila melanogaster a
pre-eminent model for animal genetics, and will further catalyse fundamental
research on mechanisms of development, cell biology, genetics, disease,
neurobiology, behaviour, physiology and evolution. Despite remarkable
similarities among theseDrosophila species, we identified many putatively
non-neutral changes in protein-coding genes, non-coding RNA genes, and cis-
regulatory regions. These may prove to underlie differences in the ecology
and behaviour of these diverse species.

On 08/12/2009, at 7:42 AM, Michael Tarburton wrote:

> G'day All who are following this thread that Laurie so kindly brought 
> to our attention.
> Ok I said "almost always" because it is known in science (& hopefully 
> common sense) that it is very hard in practical terms to exclude every 
> possibility.  ie. to prove something all you have to do is show that 
> it is true in one or more cases.  To disprove something you have to 
> have investigated all cases - how do you know when you have achieved 
> that?  In many situations you cant so you have to look at 
> probabilities.
> So can you come up with an example of an "occasional advantageous 
> genetic mutation"?  If you cant then this aspect of evolutionary 
> theory is baseless.
> Going back to the original example of the Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla 
> we can use Darwinian or neo-Darwinian selective theory to explain that 
> those birds going to the UK instead of Spain would have an advantage 
> in that they are better fed in winter and have less distance to return 
> to their breeding grounds.  This means they arrive at the breeding 
> grounds in better condition and earlier than the birds wintering in 
> Spain. David Lack's research shows this probably gives them the choice 
> of the best breeding sites and greater success in producing more 
> offspring than those going to Spain.  In time they will (have?) 
> outnumbered the other portion of their population.
> I see no problem with that - and they probably can revert to the other 
> form if conditions change back (but that varies between
> characters) but they are still blackcaps no new genes have been 
> produced just an advantage to those whose genes allowed them to go to 
> the UK instead of Spain.  This is similar to Biston betularia the 
> Peppered Moth that was touted in Uni & high school text books ad 
> nauseam as examples of evolution.  Problem is they are still Peppered 
> Moths and they have started to revert to the lighter form and the 
> evidence is that they started to do so before the UK started their 
> clear air program.  Problem with that example is that much of the 
> research has been shown to be faulty & fraudulent. [see Evolutionary 
> Biology 30: 299-322. The Scientist 13(11):]  That has not stopped some 
> text books still using it.
> The examples of Darwin's finches is not too different. Now that good 
> times have returned to the Galapagos Islands (at least for the
> finches) the heavy-billed birds have lost their advantage and are 
> returning to the narrow-billed form.  This is not evidence for the 
> development of new genes.  is is evidence that Darwin's selection
> pressures can select for certain genes under certain circumstances.   
> Nothing new has been created.
> So there is good evidence that the environment can selectively favour 
> certain genes but I am still waiting for just one example of a new 
> gene having evolved.
> Cheers & happy thinking
> Mike
> ===================
> Michael Tarburton
> ===================


To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)


To unsubscribe from this mailing list, 
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU