Wow! New Meaning to 50/50 Huh?

[mickeyd]

Quote:

Nicholas E. Curtis and Ray Martinez This green slug, which is part animal and part plant, produces its own chlorophyll and so can carry out photosynthesis, turning sunlight into energy, scientists have found. A green sea slug appears to be part animal, part plant. It's the first critter discovered to produce the plant pigment chlorophyll. The sneaky slugs seem to have stolen the genes that enable this skill from algae that they've eaten. With their contraband genes, the slugs can carry out photosynthesis — the process plants use to convert sunlight into energy. "They can make their energy-containing molecules without having to eat anything," said Sidney Pierce, a biologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

Who says that evolution is not active?

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd Who says that evolution is not active?

I do. Nevertheless, this is amazing!

[audreyh1]

Wow how cool is that! That is really amazing.

A real missing link! Well, I guess rather it's a new link forged on the tree of life.

Lichens move on over, there is a new game in town.

Audrey

[Maurice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd Who says that evolution is not active?

I was going to say 'nobody', but after kyounge's post I guess I can't...


Anyway, this is fascinating. It seems like taxonomists are getting painted into a corner with this one. Thanks for posting.

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice I was going to say 'nobody', but after kyounge's post I guess I can't... Anyway, this is fascinating. It seems like taxonomists are getting painted into a corner with this one. Thanks for posting.

Even if I did hold a Darwinian perspective, I don't think I'd call this an example of evolution. Maybe closer to an unusual form of parasitism, since the slug takes the genes from algae it eats.

[Maurice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 Even if I did hold a Darwinian perspective, I don't think I'd call this an example of evolution.

I think if you held anything remotely resembling a Darwinian point of view, you would view all living creatures as products of evolution. Including this one.

[Goonie]

Woohoo! A new bizarre food! "Waiter, I'll have the escargot salad, please."

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice I think if you held anything remotely resembling a Darwinian point of view, you would view all living creatures as products of evolution. Including this one.

If I held a Darwinian point of view, I would view the slug itself as a product of evolution, and the algae from which the slug took the genes which enable it to make chloroform as products of evolution. But I wouldn't call the process by which the slug acquired the chlorophyll gene "evolution". The algae inherited the chlorophyll-forming gene from its ancestors. The slug got it by eating the algae. That seems qualitatively different to me.

[mickeyd]

Quote:

The slug got it by eating the algae.

I wonder if I could get that 50/50 look if I dined on algae too?

[Maurice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 If I held a Darwinian point of view, I would view the slug itself as a product of evolution, and the algae from which the slug took the genes which enable it to make chloroform as products of evolution. But I wouldn't call the process by which the slug acquired the chlorophyll gene "evolution". The algae inherited the chlorophyll-forming gene from its ancestors. The slug got it by eating the algae. That seems qualitatively different to me.

Yeah, that's an odd mix of Lamarckian and Darwinian.

[DougViages]

An aside from an old class; Evolution defined in three words: Descent with Modification (If the modification benefits survival & reproduction of the species, it tends to "stick".)

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd I wonder if I could get that 50/50 look if I dined on algae too?

I'll just eat a huge cucumber.

[LOL!]

Very interesting. So I googled this and read the report of the report. It is not quite clear from what I read whether these guys just use the chloroplasts from the algae they eat or if they synthesize the chloroplasts. The reporter of the presentation of the scientific meeting may not have gotten the facts right. The scientists themselves seem to have submitted their work to Symbiosis. I think their results will have to be looked at by other scientists before I believe this as reported.

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice Yeah, that's an odd mix of Lamarckian and Darwinian.

Indeed. After reading the article again more carefully, I noticed this:

Quote:

Even unhatched sea slugs, which have never encountered algae, carry “algal” photosynthetic genes.

I can't tell from the article whether the second-generation slugs have everything they need to make a chloroplast, or if they have to eat algae at least once to acquire the necessary organelles, but from then on can supply their own chlorophyll as needed. Whichever it is, it is truly strange! It's as if a person could acquire the ability to manufacture Vitamin C by eating a lemon, and then pass that ability to his or her descendants.

[audreyh1]

Yes, this is totally bizarre.

But then, our mitochondrial DNA and cell bits supposedly came from some bizarre organismal merging too.

Audrey

[FUEGO]

More strange than this hybrid is discovering a non-darwinian in the wild. I had heard rumors that they still existed and this is proof. Exciting!

This is almost as exciting as finding a non-boglehead!

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO More strange than this hybrid is discovering a non-darwinian in the wild. I had heard rumors that they still existed and this is proof. Exciting! This is almost as exciting as finding a non-boglehead!

Even amongst people who are convinced evolutionists, they do not all take a Darwinian (gradualist, naturalistic) view of the matter. There's the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis and various versions of Theistic Evolution, just for starters.

I can't help you in your quest for the non-boglehead, but you never know. Remember the coelocanth!

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 Even amongst people who are convinced evolutionists, they do not all take a Darwinian (gradualist, naturalistic) view of the matter. There's the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis and various versions of Theistic Evolution, just for starters. I can't help you in your quest for the non-boglehead, but you never know. Remember the coelocanth!

Punctuated equilibrium theorists fall under the neo-darwinian modern understanding of evolutionary biology.

I think the underlying premise of theistic evolution is on to something - don't try to explain science with religion. The origin of our physical laws is less important to our understanding of evolution than is the Origin of Species. Did God/Magic Turtle/Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc create the physical laws that govern evolution??