Fish Evolve Immunity To Toxic Sludge 267
RedEaredSlider writes "Fish in the Hudson River and the harbor in New Bedford, Mass., have evolved resistance to PCBs. In the Hudson, a species of tomcod has evolved a way for a very specific protein to simply not bind to PCBs, nearly eliminating the toxicity. In New Bedford, the Atlantic killifish has proteins that bind to the toxin (just as they do in mammals) but the fish aren't affected despite high levels of PCBs in their cells. Why the killifish survive is a mystery."
Why would this be a surprise? (Score:5, Informative)
Ananda Chakrabarty developed a microorganism that actual feeds on PCBs by simple selection in his lab some 40 years ago.
We have weeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate in the wild. That is a much more impressive adaptation because glyphosate interferes with the production of key amino acids by plants.
Life on earth has been adapting and evolving to its environment for billions of years. Why would anyone think it would stop?
Re:Why would this be a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Single-celled organisms are generally a lot more flexible when it comes to environmental stress than multi-cellular organisms are, and among the latter, plants are generally more flexible than animals. Observing this kind of adaptation in animals is pretty impressive. Nobody expects life to stop adapting to the environment, but there are limits; e.g., humans aren't going to evolve resistance to being shot in the head, no matter how many times it happens.
Re:Why would this be a surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution doesn't take millions of years. (Although, admittedly, the longer the time span the more impressive the results - including those that are impressively resistant to change.)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have evolved a resistance to being shot in the head, it's just not a simple mechanical/physiological resistance.
It's called society.
And yes, I understand that's not what you meant - but my point is more to illustrate that coping strategies, patterns of behavior, and one might even suggest meta organizations like societies are just as clearly evolved (I very deliberately use that word) to reduce the likelihood of random violence, or at least an individual's susceptibility thereto.
I know that Social Co
Re: (Score:3)
People who think with their genitalias would have a strong advantage in that selection process.
Re: (Score:2)
People who think with their genitalias would have a strong advantage in that selection process.
Look around, I think the present dickhead percentage in my neighborhood proves your point. They certainly don't multiply because everybody loves having them around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
( Yeah, Hollywood got it wrong, but what do you expect from a group that shows nearly every car crash catching on fire and exploding, as well as guns firing about 10-20 times their full load without ever reloading or having a scene cut where you can imagine they reloaded...)
Along with that, few of the people shot are hit in the head in the first place, most shooters are lucky to hit the main body
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>Why would anyone think it would stop?
Because the American education system teaches that evolution is a fabrication of liberal anti-God scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Life on earth has been adapting and evolving to its environment for billions of years. Why would anyone think it would stop?
Most often, because evolution also says we are one of its byproduct, and while we can look at ourselves and say "Hell yeah! Evolution!", the moment we go outside we're like "what the sh** f*** happened to everybody else?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're evolving into your next generation water-proof iPhone, you ignorant clod!
Why do you think the fish survived? The PCBs don't affect them because they too have evolved their own version of the Jobsian Reality Distortion Field!
Because they're KILLfish, duh ... (Score:4, Funny)
That which kills other fish only makes them stronger!
Re: (Score:2)
Lemme guess, the joke sounded a lot better in your head?
Re: (Score:2)
"Kill" is Dutch for "creek", so they're basically "creek-fish". The northeastern US is also home to the town of Fishkill, NY and the Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania. (Yes, that's pronounced "school-kill". The locals, though, are more apt to refer to the Schuylkill Expressway as the "Sure-kill Distressway".)
related stupidity: (Score:2)
http://articles.cnn.com/1996-09-06/us/9609_06_fishy.name_1_mayor-george-carter-peta-animal-rights-group?_s=PM:US [cnn.com]
pretty funny actually
up the food chain (Score:3)
So what happens to the animals that eat them and that aren't immune to the PCB?
And you know who is at the top of the food chain ......
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like humanity's just desserts for polluting the food web in the first place.
I call it environmental karma.
Re: (Score:2)
You think the robber barons responsible for the pollution eat anything fished out of the Hudson? Fat chance. If the toxins do work their way up the food chain, it'll be the peasant class that suffers for it.
Re:up the food chain (Score:4, Funny)
Re:up the food chain (Score:4, Funny)
You think the robber barons responsible for the pollution eat anything fished out of the Hudson? Fat chance. If the toxins do work their way up the food chain, it'll be the peasant class that suffers for it.
Yes, but our Overlords will suffer when we perish and aren't around for them to exploit anymore.
We should eat these fish just to spite them. Quick, before they outlaw it!
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like humanity's just desserts for polluting the food web in the first place.
You eat fish for dessert?
Re: (Score:2)
Cthulu?
Re: (Score:2)
Well maybe among our 7 billion there are enough breeding pairs that are also resistant. The way we're running the world we might find out.
Re: (Score:3)
So what happens to the animals that eat them and that aren't immune to the PCB?
Much like how Sharks are resistant to cancer and eating their fins will "transfer the ability to you"; so will eating Killifish transfer PCB immunity to you.
Killifish will now become a high priced delicacy in China. Or as we like to call it, operation payback.
Re:up the food chain (Score:4, Interesting)
If we ignore humans for a second, the next link in the food chain will either develop PCB resistance or learn not to eat that species. And then, the fish may use this poison actively as a defense mechanism.
Oh evolution, you are cool!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh evolution, you are cool!
Yep it sure is - Now can some what explain to me why the F*ck 40% of a supposed advanced nation still deny it's existence ?
Or do we wait for a time were either their god sends them a sign that they should believe in it or there is some subtle change in the chance of their offspring surviving such that they eventually die off - though then we won't get the satisfaction of telling them they were wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Now can some what explain to me why the F*ck 40% of a supposed advanced nation still deny it's existence?
Religion offers an easy way to become immortal. Science promises nothing of the sort, and atheists must be comfortable knowing that their death is final and there is no afterlife. See Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Or the next link's numbers will be impacted depending on how much of their diet is from the fish.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose those animals would be fucked. Oh hey!
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens to the animals that eat them and that aren't immune to the PCB?
Depends - have you had the new PCB-binding protein spliced in yet?
Solved Problem (Score:2)
Douglas Adams was right (Score:2)
Soon totally new organisms will crawl out of that river and demand welfare and voting rights.
River? (Score:2)
Dumping on fish (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though a single evolutionary change can mean the difference between living and dying I would think it also effect everything else, especially when it has to do with metabolism. In this case the fishs' genes have found a local maxima, so to say, that makes them resistant to PCB; nobody knows what evolutionary possibilities they've sacrificed and what it does to them in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
A chilling fact (Score:2)
In a PCB-laden world... (Score:2)
...only they will be healthy. I, for one, welcome our new piscine masters.
cookoo canary (Score:5, Insightful)
It says a lot about PCB distribution and signal strength if multiple species have evolved responses over sub-century time frames.
It was convenient while it lasted for the fish who ingested our industrial waste stream to grow carbuncles and remove themselves from the human menu by simple visual inspection. But I guess we're heading back to the days where the host takes a brave first bite, and all the guests applaud if dinner proceeds. We'll all be double checking the Russian royal penumbra to ensure our host doesn't carry any midichlorians of Rasputin lineage.
Canaries in the coal mine all the way up the food chain. Tag, you're it.
Re:cookoo canary (Score:5, Informative)
I'll try a translation:
Up until now, it was easy to spot fish that was loaded to the gills with toxic chemicals, because they had weird growths. Now they have evolved resistances, you can't spot them by visual inspection anymore so it will be easier to insert toxic fish into the foodchain. We then return to the times were, if you had a dinner, the host was required to take a bite to show that nothing was poisonous. But for people who are genetically linked to people with a famous resistance to poison, like Rasputin, this may not even cause them to blink - so you also need to check whether your host is a descendant from Rasputin or other likely resistant folk (Borgia family would be candidates :)).
So basically, we had early warning signals from fish but now *we* have become the early warning signals (canaries in the coalmine) - and if we live, the food may be safe. Hurray for dumping chemicals in the water.
Ofcourse, the OP phrased this much nicer than my translation.
You make yourself look silly when... (Score:2)
...you refer to selection as evolution. Selection is well understood, and pretty much everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the most outspoken evolutionist will agree on the fact that when a species is faced with an unavoidable situation in which most of them will be killed off, only those that exhibit traits allowing them to survive will persist to pass on their genes. If it can be demonstrated that not a single one of them had that trait previously, then that would be interesting, to be sure,
So selection is accepted by creationists? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need at all to prove "mutations are good". All it takes is a single dominant mutation that benefits the species and causes members of that species to be more succesfull *in their habitat*. Even if 10000000000 mutations are bad, none of them matter if one is beneficial because *that* mutation will be the one that will carry forward. If you want to dispute this, *you* have to prove that *no* mutation can *ever* be good in *any* environment. And that hypothesis has been falsified for a long time no
Re: (Score:2)
Call me when you develop brains. Evolution isn't about fish getting up suddenly and deciding to move house.
Re: (Score:2)
...you refer to selection as evolution. Selection is well understood, and pretty much everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the most outspoken evolutionist will agree on the fact that when a species is faced with an unavoidable situation in which most of them will be killed off, only those that exhibit traits allowing them to survive will persist to pass on their genes
And everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the least fundamental creationist will continue to deny reality long after anyone who isn't a member of their cult accepts it.
Re:You make yourself look silly when... (Score:5, Interesting)
Repeat after me: "Evolution does not work that way".
Evolution isn't something that magically allows plants and animals to adapt to a specific set of circumstances, that is an entirely random process. This mutation probably happened decades or centuries ago (or possibly even *due* to the PCBs, which would be ironic but difficult to prove) and has now, as you've said, been brought to prominence because all the fish without it have died off due to the high levels of PCBs in the water.
The fish *have* evolved immunity to the toxic sludge, but it's not a causative statement and hopefully wasn't intended as such.
Distiction without a difference. (Score:3)
All genes have tons of variants, and these variants had to be introduced into the population at some time. Evolution doesn't need to for traits to be introduced due to environmental pressures in order to work; they are introduced at random by mutations. So whether the trait was introduced before or after the dumping of PCBs began really isn't that interesting as it is just a matter of chance, and doesn't prove anything about evolution. The interesting part is that it occurred at all.
These fish couldn't be s
Re: (Score:2)
Selection, operating on any given population (in the absence of a continuous source of fresh genetic diversity in the form of, say, random mutation), will tend to reduce the genetic diversity of the population in response to any given environmental stress. Given time and successive random environmental stresses, this will tend to drive the population to extinction.
Unless of course God sits in the background, manually fucking with his designs to make them work.
Actually, I can see that this might explain the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's referring to the idea of "microevolution", which they later define further down the page, and which is, itself, a bit of a misnomer since it merely refers to adaptation and selection. I'll repeat again: it's an overstatement to refer to selection as "evolution". It's a mechanic of it, but it is not it.
IOW, the others just died from the PCB (Score:2)
IOW, the others just died from the PCB and the ones that we have now are the survivors. As per Darwin prediction. Excellent, in a marauding way.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural selection was lucky to handle this situation. Most toxic agents are too quick to kill.
An 'other factor' may have been the the toxic sludge itself, increasing the mutation rate and by chance providing some fish with a much needed mutation.
Natural selection with an ironic touch, again. We, oxygen consumers, were better off than our cousins, those anaerobic bastards forced to live underground two billion years ago.
Refs? (Score:3)
"there are intentional mechanisms built into the DNA pathways that deliberately cause genetic mutations during stress events"
While that sounds very unorthodox I may be wrong.
Do you have any reference to support this? Or is it wishful thinking? ;)
It would really help to see some references.
Today they are "vitamins", 100K years ago...? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most creationists I know don't believe in speciation, but do believe individual species change and adapt.
They also believe in animals having sex to spread genes and adapt. It's simply an argument about the source of Bio diversity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah creationist ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that any argument (I hesitate to call it debate or even discussion) involving evolution vs creation is that it immediately degrades into an "us" vs "them" fight.
To the hardcore evolutionists, all creationists get lumped together. It doesn't matter if their stance is "I don't think the big bang was an accident" or "the Bible says the Earth is 4000 years old, so that's how old the Earth is". You're a superstitious and mentally deficient nutjob who is at best to be ignored and at worst should be sterilized and exiled.
The converse also occurs. To a fundamentalist creationist, anyone ranging from "I could see how evolution might account for certain things" to "evolution is the correct and only possible explanation" is a godless empty shell of a human who at best should be shunned and at worst should be burned at the stake.
Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.
It's been my experience that fights are not between scientists and zealots; they are between zealots and other zealots.
Nope. (Score:2)
Nope. Otherwise we wouldn't be seening all the attempts such as "teach the controversy" and "teach both" in schools.
Maybe on Internet sites it is zealots vs zealots. But in the real world it is zealots vs everyone-else.
And what, exactly, is a "hardcore evolutionist"? Since current medical/biological science is 100% based on evolution.
Re:Yeah creationist ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's just two problems with that one:
1. There's enough evidence for evolution that it must be mostly correct
2. If evolution is flawed, it won't result in concessions towards the creationist stance
For instance, take Newton. Yes, he wasn't entirely correct. But what he figured out, in the conditions he tested it in, worked. That Newton wasn't 100% correct didn't suddenly mean that the reality was any more aligned with the view of Aristotle.
The same way, the argument isn't about whether evolution exists. That got figured out long ago, even before scientists figured out how genetics work. The current arguments are all about the details of it. That the current understanding isn't 100% correct isn't going to suddenly mean that the creationist stance is right, it's just going to mean that some of the details weren't entirely correct, like exactly how some features evolved, how important different mechanisms are, and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused by this statement. How do you possibly know this, other than by assertion you're psychic as to the future determinations of science? You wouldn't consider a biological structure that -could not- come into existence apart from design, due to the probability of the aggregate mutations required while retaining survivability, to be a "concession"?
I'm not asserting such will be found, I'm wondering by what
Re: (Score:3)
Because as formulated, that's not scientific. It's not enough to just make a statement "X was designed", there must be some testable consequence of that,
RIP Karl Popper (Score:3)
Falsifying the Newtonian (implied) hypothesis that spacetime was flat merely added a correction term into the Newtonian laws of motion. Falsifying the theory of phlogiston was a major first step to modern chemistry. The GP is confused as to the difference. Nobody bothers to try to "disprove" Newtonian mechani
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, that's a strawman. You're essentially saying all those who believe in evolution are atheists, which is demonstrably false. If you went to an evolutionary biology conference and said "I believe God created the Big Bang, and once life arose, evolution kicked in" most would have no problem with that and would not qualify you as a "creationist."
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it would. You're still claiming that God was involved in creating the universe. I don't see how you can claim that and NOT be a creationist. And a theist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, creationists believe that any "big bang" was God's handiwork:
So, if you believe that some imaginary invisible and mathematically impossibl
Re: (Score:3)
You're implying a symmetry that isn't there.
Creation versus evolution is one of those cases of pseudoscience where the unscientific side (the creationists, if I must spell it out) claims that they want to "compromise" between the two sides by claiming that each side can account for some things, or that each side has a certain amount of faith, or "we have no way to be sure about creation, but we have no way to be sure about evolution either". Almost any time someone says this it's a case where the science a
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is that any argument (I hesitate to call it debate or even discussion) involving evolution vs creation is that it immediately degrades into an "us" vs "them" fight.
Well, yes, humans have an instinct to be tribal, and humans may act in a tribal way around any social disagreement that is large enough to partition society.
Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.
Here you seem to be adopting the standard anti-science argument - that since "science can't prove anything", then we should accept all hypothesis as equally valid. And that is the problem. All hypotheses are not equally valid. The entire fields of modern genetics and molecular biology is built around the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution i
Re: (Score:2)
Plan B already in motion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Minor point of conflict: you cannot have a universe that contains both:
1. at least one all-knowing entity and
2. at least one other entity which has free will.
The propositions conflict with one another.
By definition, the future actions of an entity with free will cannot be known. By definition, an all-knowing entity knows the future actions of all entities. Hence, a contradiction exists, and both propositions cannot be true. This is a fairly common form [wikipedia.org] of logical disproof.
It's like an immovable object and a
and the fish can be made into little lisa slurry! (Score:2)
to be made at the Little Lisa Recycling Plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let them ruffle your feathers. The reason they do this is because they lost a girl to a black guy and can't get over it.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hate your freedom of speech, you vicious vile repugnant soulless coward, I hate your speech. I really do hope your death is horrific by the standards of any culture in our species' history, and as you linger in mind-destroying agony, the only human being that comforts you as you beg for your life to end is black.
Re: (Score:3)
This is simply a case of fish that have a certain trait mating and passing on that trait to offspring, not a case of spontaneous evolution.
But thats what evolution is. A small fraction of those traits will have come from mutations, not from the previous generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Example 1 is evolution, and is probably far more frequent than Example 2 -- you're just missing the fact that evolution starts before Sol even increases its ouput.
In times of relative stability, a lot of mutations happen and they all survive because the species is still generally well-adapted to their environment, even if some adaptations have minor disadvantages. Then an environmental change happens, and suddenly the minor disadvantage is a major advantage and the adaptation spreads throughout the populat
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply a case of fish that have a certain trait mating and passing on that trait to offspring, not a case of spontaneous evolution.
That is evolution...
Re: (Score:2)
That is evolution...
I'm glad to see somebody was awake in Freshman biology class.
Re:Survival of the fittest, NOT evolution (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution is essentially the same thing as survival of the fittest followed by passing its traits on to the offspring because it enabled the fittest to reproduce more or live long enough to reproduce... and over time, the offspring with that trait will begin outnumber other members of its species without the trait because they have a better chance of survival. Also, spontaneous evolution is an oxymoron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Basically the fish are an example of mutations and natural selection. The damage genes in the fish make it better suited to it's environment but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish. But you dont get published without towing the line of Evolution. Notice how the mutations are limited to the Hudson area. The fish are less fit than the wild fish in the oceans.
How do you think evolution produces different species? You have the same species in 2 different areas. The conditions change in one area or favor certain traits over others. Eventually, the animals in that area evolve into a different species. You cannot say that one species is weaker that the other. What you claim to be the "stronger"fish would not survive in the Hudson, while these "weaker" ones can. Each one is stronger than the other in their respective environments.
Re: (Score:2)
"Kind" has no biological meaning at all. What is a "fish" kind? Is a shark a "fish" kind?
Evolution, simply put, is change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.
And as to your infantile attack on abiogenesis, well, that, I suppose is just thrown in there for good measure.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, there's no such thing as a "species".
It's purely a human concept that we use to make sense of things. Even Darwin already noted that the number of species drastically varies depending on who and how does the counting.
Say, does it count as species if they can interbreed if genetic material is exchanged, but:
A. Live separately? Eg, lions and tigers
B. Have incompatible courtship rituals?
C. Are interested in mating at incompatible times?
D. Consider each other too alien looking to try breeding in nor
Re: (Score:2)
These mutations dont show evolution (things breaking dont show "Goo to you via zoo" evolution)
Who are you to say it is broken? If anything, it would be the ones who don't change that are broken, because they die without the adaptation. It is letting them survive in an area that other things can't. By definition, that would be working, not breaking. If a mutation gives rise to a new population that is identifiably different from another species, that is evolution. The classic example is the finches. Different species of finches evolved with different beak structures that best fit their environm
Re: (Score:2)
So, loganberries (a cross between blackberries and raspberries) doesn't exist. Neither do peppermint, tangeloes (even though they've been around for thousands of years), grapefruits, triticale (wheat+rye), durum wheat (oh well, guess all that pasta is fake after all), grizzly+polar bear hybrids, sheep (54 chromosomes)+goat (60 chromosomes) hybrids, wild horse(66 chromosomes)+domestic horse(64 chromosomes) hybrids, beefalo, coydogs, coywolves, wolfdogs,
Re: (Score:2)
HTH
Re: (Score:2)
(I define evolution as change going up hill, or as to quote a catch parse, "goo to you via zoo". I do not defined it as "things changes", as Natural Selection & Mutations cover that area already.)
Too bad your definition isn't the same one as the rest of the world's. YOU don't get to create definitions that suite your limited understanding of the world.
Go do some reading and then come back and talk at the next thread.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly doesn't complexity have to do with this? And fitness is a measure within an environment. The environment in this case are these bodies of water with high levels of PCBs. Your post is so fucking muddled, as typical of Creationist bullshit, that you can't even keep the point straight. What does "weakness" have to do with complexity? What is complexity in this situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution doesn't work by producing ever-more complex examples. Case in point - cats. The domestic cat brain loses 2/3 of its brain cells during it's early growth - they simply aren't needed for its' environmental niche, and a waste of resources, so the cats that pruned back on brain cells were able to survive on less food, etc.
Adders Tongue has 1200 chromosomes. Guess that makes them more complex than humans.
Or if you
Re: (Score:2)
Fish Evolve Immunity To Toxic Sludge
If fish can do it, then it should be no problem for humans. You left wing environmentalists lose again. We Conservatives can pollute and know there is nothing wrong with it. Again, more evidence promoting the Conservative lifestyle.
Excellent. We're going to put all of you at the bottom of the Hudson river where you can munch on PCBs and other fun substances. In a couple of million years you might get back on land.
Re: (Score:2)
Fish Evolve Immunity To Toxic Sludge
If fish can do it, then it should be no problem for humans. You left wing environmentalists lose again. We Conservatives can pollute and know there is nothing wrong with it. Again, more evidence promoting the Conservative lifestyle.
But Hippies screw around a lot more [wikipedia.org], so we'll be the ones that evolve the immunity first.
Also, what with global warming and all that (GWAAT), we'll be running around nekkid all the time, and do even more breeding than we did back in the sixties.
Re:headlights (Score:5, Insightful)
How long until deer evolve to not walk in front of my car?
They already have. Those are in the woods, safe and sound. You're doing your part to help clean up the evolutionary dead ends.
Re: (Score:2)