Evolution Since Human Intervention

[labelwench]

He is seeing a brand new world every time he opens his eyes, something simply is, he doesn't need to question anything, it wouldn't even occur to him, because he is not aware of his own awareness.

I'm not sure who is better off, he's a really happy little dude.

The above quote is taken from another thread and is in reference to cats.

The discussion around consciousness and awareness and how it differs between humans and other creatures is of ongoing interest to many, although perhaps not the intellectuals at this forum.

Personal experience and work with dogs and horses and observation of many other species in their natural habitat, I ponder if this inflated sense of our own awareness is not what is holding us back.

Yes, we have made much technological advancement, but at what price?

And so we laud ourselves and dismiss the intellect of other species. Way to go Homo Sapiens.

As we sow, we shall surely reap. I mean that in it's simplest aspect, as it pertains to Nature, of which we are surely part, no matter that we forget our place and our manners at her bounteous table.

Playtime is almost over. We had best put this "conscious awareness" to better application in the land of that persistent illusion which passes as reality.

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

Key Concepts

Unlike other domesticated creatures, the house cat contributes little to human survival. Researchers have therefore wondered how and why cats came to live among people.

Experts traditionally thought that the Egyptians were the first to domesticate the cat, some 3,600 years ago.

But recent genetic and archaeological discoveries indicate that cat domestication began in the Fertile Crescent, perhaps around 10,000 years ago, when agriculture was getting under way.

The findings suggest that cats started making themselves at home around people to take advantage of the mice and food scraps found in their settlements.

More from the Magazine

It is by turns aloof and affectionate, serene and savage, endearing and exasperating. Despite its mercurial nature, however, the house cat is the most popular pet in the world. A third of American households have feline members, and more than 600 million cats live among humans worldwide. Yet as familiar as these creatures are, a complete understanding of their origins has proved elusive. Whereas other once wild animals were domesticated for their milk, meat, wool or servile labor, cats contribute virtually nothing in the way of sustenance or work to human endeavor. How, then, did they become commonplace fixtures in our homes?

Scholars long believed that the ancient Egyptians were the first to keep cats as pets, starting around 3,600 years ago. But genetic and archaeological discoveries made over the past five years have revised this scenario—and have generated fresh insights into both the ancestry of the house cat and how its relationship with humans evolved.

Cat’s Cradle

The question of where house cats first arose has been challenging to resolve for several reasons. Although a number of investigators suspected that all varieties descend from just one cat species—Felis silvestris, the wildcat—they could not be certain. In addition, that species is not confined to a small corner of the globe. It is represented by populations living throughout the Old World—from Scotland to South Africa and from Spain to Mongolia—and until recently scientists had no way of determining unequivocally which of these wildcat populations gave rise to the tamer, so-called domestic kind. Indeed, as an alternative to the Egyptian origins hypothesis, some researchers had even proposed that cat domestication occurred in a number of different locations, with each domestication spawning a different breed.

Confounding the issue was the fact that members of these wildcat groups are hard to tell apart from one another and from feral domesticated cats with so-called mackerel-tabby coats because all of them have the same pelage pattern of curved stripes and they interbreed freely with one another, further blurring population boundaries.

In 2000 one of us (Driscoll) set out to tackle the question by assembling DNA samples from some 979 wildcats and domestic cats in southern Africa, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and the Middle East. Because wildcats typically defend a single territory for life, he expected that the genetic composition of wildcat groups would vary across geography but remain stable over time, as has occurred in many other cat species. If regional indigenous groups of these animals could be distinguished from one another on the basis of their DNA and if the DNA of domestic cats more closely resembled that of one of the wildcat populations, then he would have clear evidence for where domestication began.

In the genetic analysis, published in 2007, Driscoll, another of us (O’Brien) and their colleagues focused on two kinds of DNA that molecular biologists traditionally examine to differentiate subgroups of mammal species: DNA from mitochondria, which is inherited exclusively from the mother, and short, repetitive sequences of nuclear DNA known as microsatellites. Using established computer routines, they assessed the ancestry of each of the 979 individuals sampled based on their genetic signatures. Specifically, they measured how similar each cat’s DNA was to that of all the other cats and grouped the animals having similar DNA together. They then asked whether most of the animals in a group lived in the same region.

The results revealed five genetic clusters, or lineages, of wildcats. Four of these lineages corresponded neatly with four of the known subspecies of wildcat and dwelled in specific places: F. silvestris silvestris in Europe, F. s. bieti in China, F. s. ornata in Central Asia and F. s. cafra in southern Africa. The fifth lineage, however, included not only the fifth known subspecies of wildcat—F. s. lybica in the Middle East—but also the hundreds of domestic cats that were sampled, including purebred and mixed-breed felines from the U.S., the U.K. and Japan. In fact, genetically, F. s. lybica wildcats collected in remote deserts of Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia were virtually indistinguishable from domestic cats. That the domestic cats grouped with F. s. lybica alone among wildcats meant that domestic cats arose in a single locale, the Middle East, and not in other places where wildcats are common.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ing-of-the-cat

[labelwench]

It's my thread, so I figure we'll put a little spin on this, since many are taking advantage of the season to either chase a ball with a stick, or be an audience to same.

A news flash on the evolution of technology, made right here in Canada. CBC News tonight reported on the progress made in the development of the electric car for the consumer market and it's nearing launch date.

http://www.electrovaya.com/

For us to continue, we need to evolve the way we do business, one of the bastions of same being the automotive sector of our transportation industry.

This just may be the leading edge of something very tangible in our future. It's even getting some chat up here in the frozen north, the concern being how to mitigate the cold temperatures and it's adverse effect on electrical storage components.

Regards,

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

Learning Fat-Burning Secrets from Sled Dogs
Cracking the metabolic secrets of distance-racing canines
By Krista West

With tongue and tail wagging wildly, Larry the lead dog crossed the finish line in March in sunny Nome, Alaska—after running 1,131 miles to win the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race for the third year in a row. To most mortals, Larry looks like a happy but nondescript, scrawny mutt. To sled dog mushers, he is a mini legend that simply needs no introduction. To scientists, Larry may hold the key to a physiological mystery.
Specifically, sled dogs seem to flip an internal switch that acutely changes how they burn fat calories, allowing them to keep going and going and going with no obvious pain. Figuring out how that mechanism works may have implications for human diabetics and those battling obesity.

Researchers first discovered the metabolic switch in 2005, when a team headed by Oklahoma State University’s Michael Davis—who has been investigating the metabolic, gastrointestinal, respiratory and blood systems of sled dogs for 10 years—did a controlled study at a professional racing kennel in Alaska. Mushers ran the dogs in mock, 100-mile races for four to five days in a row. Every 100 miles the researchers took matchstick-size samples of leg muscle (about 60 milligrams apiece) from the dogs to test for protein levels, enzyme activity and glycogen, a starchlike compound that stores energy for quick release.

Glycogen turns out to be a crucial piece of the metabolic switch. During the first few days of racing, sled dogs draw energy from glycogen stored inside muscle cells. But instead of depleting glycogen stores and tiring the muscles, the animals suddenly switch to a glycogen-sparing metabolism. They start drawing energy from sources outside of the muscles.

Davis suggests that the muscle cells start extracting fat directly from the blood and somehow transport this fat across the cell membranes and into the cells, where it can be burned as fuel. During race times, fat builds up in a sled dog’s blood, most likely because of the high-fat racing diet. Each 50-pound canine consumes about 12,000 calories daily (typically 60 percent fat and 40 percent carbohydrate and protein).
According to Raymond Geor, an exercise physiologist at Michigan State University, sled dog muscle cells are well equipped to use this fat because they have a higher mitochondrial density—more cellular power plants—than other animals. The mystery is how the blood-borne fat gets into cells in the first place. Increasing evidence suggests that fat is transported into the cells along similar pathways as glucose, Davis says, with the hormone insulin playing a critical role. Researchers are exploring the sled dog’s sensitivity to insulin to better understand this pathway.
Breeding probably had much to do with the development of the metabolic switch. Larry is descended from a long line of racing dogs. “The bloodlines of my dogs date back 100 years,” says Lance Mackey, Larry’s owner and legendary racing musher, the only person to win the long-distance Iditarod and the Yukon Quest in the same year with the same dog team. “They are mixed breeds—mutts—but they’ve been bred to run.”

Selective breeding, though, may not be the whole story. The dogs may have learned to switch metabolic strategies on demand through intense training. If so, then researchers might have an easier time applying what they learn about the canines to humans training for an endurance event or those seeking treatment for diabetes or obesity. Such patients might benefit, for instance, if researchers could pinpoint the mechanisms that boost the body’s sensitivity to insulin or that better utilize fat that builds up in muscle tissue.
This year Mackey won the Iditarod by one of the widest margins ever, finishing a comfortable eight hours ahead of his closest competitor. That Iditarod, however, will be the last one for Larry, after participating for eight of his nine living years. He will officially retire from racing at the end of this year for a well-deserved, if unneeded, rest.

A Challenge to Canine Health

The rigors of the Iditarod sled dog race, in which a musher and a team of 12 to 16 dogs cover some 1,150 miles in 16 days, takes its toll on the health of its athletes. On average, three dogs die every year in the race; 2009 saw double that number. Some animal-rights groups have criticized the event as cruel. And in this age of juiced jocks, some observers also wonder if steroids are involved.

To monitor the dogs’ health and watch for performance-enhancing drugs, volunteer veterinarians keep watch during runs. At the Iditarod, for example, a dedicated plane follows the canines and samples urine of dog teams for drugs without warning. Mushers must carry sick or injured dogs to the next checkpoint for treatment and continue the race without that canine. They must finish with at least six running dogs.

[labelwench]

Thanks Austin, interesting article.

Western Pet Foods, based at that time out of Innisfail, Alberta, sponsored me in 1987-1988 to test their high fat and protein dog kibble while I was participating in the Yukon Quest.

Their product was very good. Purina bought them out soon after.

Regards,

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

Are Dog Breeds Actually Different Species?
A humorous take on using dog breeds to prove evolution
By Steve Mirsky

I have an idea. (No, it was not beginner’s luck.) The idea came to me while listening to University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry A. Coyne give a talk on a cruise ship in early March. If you remember last month’s column, you already know about the hardships of science lectures on the high seas, where “buffeted” refers not to the effects of winds and waves but to the feeling you get after one too many trips to the smorgasbord. But I digest. I mean, digress.

Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen. Here’s part of a December 31, 2008, posting by Jonathan Wells on the Web site of the antithetically named Discovery Institute: “Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again, to produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwin’s theory. And this sort of speciation has never been observed.”

The claim makes me think of the trial where a man was charged with biting off another man’s ear in a bar fight. (Incredibly, Mike Tyson was not involved.) An eyewitness to the fracas took the stand. The defense attorney asked, “Did you actually see with your own eyes my client bite off the ear in question?” The witness said, “No.” The attorney pounced: “So how can you be so sure that the defendant actually bit off the ear?” To which the witness replied, “I saw him spit it out.” We have the fossils, the intermediate forms, the comparative anatomy, the genomic homologies—we’ve seen what evolution spits out.

Back to the ship. Coyne’s address was on the vast amounts of incontrovertible scientific evidence available for evolution. (To recapitulate the cruise experience, you can simply read Coyne’s new book, Why Evolution Is True, while overeating.) As Darwin did before him, Coyne noted that the development of new breeds through artificial selection is a good model for the evo?lution of new species by natural selection. He then offered a comment about dog breeds, also found in his book: “If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, paleontol?ogists would consider them not one species but many—certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today.”

Even incredibly closely related populations of organisms are typically considered different species if there is some kind of reproductive barrier between them. And it doesn’t have to be mismatched chromosomes. Could be a mountain if you’re not a goat. Could be a molehill if you’re not a mole.

Duke University’s Mohamed Noor, who was also lecturing onboard the ship, studies such barriers. His accomplishments include winning the Linnean Society’s Darwin-Wallace Medal, given out every 50 years for evolutionary research. If Jonathan Wells studied the right 49-year period, he might argue that it’s impossible for anyone to win the award because that kind of recognition has never been observed.

Noor looked at the fruit flies Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. In the lab, he can get a female D. pseudoobscura to mate and produce some fertile offspring with a male D. persimilis. Out in the world, however, it doesn’t happen—she hates his smell, his song, his mating dance.

So here’s the idea you’ve been patiently waiting for: let’s simply say that dog breeds are different species. Take two that Coyne highlights for their differences—the 180-pound English Mastiff and the two-pound Chihuahua. They’re both considered members of Canis lupus familiaris, and in principle artificial insemination could produce some sort of mix or possibly an exploding Chihuahua. But face it, the only shot a male Chihuahua has with a female Mastiff involves rock climbing or spelunking equipment.

Biologists clearly continue to include the two types of dogs within the same species out of modesty. But with creationists fighting evolution education throughout the country, the time calls for bold action. Let’s reassign the trembling, bug-eyed Chihuahua to its own species. Voilà, humans have observed speciation. We could call the new dog C. nervosis. Or C. cantsee?theparadis. Or C. canyoupress?twelveformepleasis. Amazingly, right now Chihuahuas are still considered C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf. And calling a Chihuahua a wolf is like calling someone at the Discovery Institute a scientist.

[labelwench]

Rather an interesting article that suggests competition for resources and social pressure has been the cause of the increase in brain size in our species.

Perhaps it is all about "Staying Alive" after all.....

Social Competition May Be Reason For Bigger Brain
ScienceDaily (June 23, 2009) — For the past 2 million years, the size of the human brain has tripled, growing much faster than other mammals. Examining the reasons for human brain expansion, University of Missouri researchers studied three common hypotheses for brain growth: climate change, ecological demands and social competition. The team found that social competition is the major cause of increased cranial capacity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0622152041.htm

[labelwench]

Bugs on drugs, just what we need! A very interesting discovery. LW

It is one of nature's most radical transformations - the moment a crowd of harmless desert locusts begins to swarm into a devastating plague.

Now scientists from the UK and Australia say they have discovered the trigger - the brain chemical serotonin.

The molecule is best known in humans as a target of anti-depressant drugs.

"Serotonin profoundly influences how we humans behave and interact," said co-author Dr Swidbert Ott, from Cambridge University.

"So to find that the same chemical is what causes a normally shy, antisocial insect to gang up in huge groups is amazing."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7858996.stm

[austintorn@aol.com]

Spurious drops/raises too high or too low in serotonin in humans can cause them to perform primitive behavior that the Church might call 'sins'.

Keep it up by eating the right foods and getting the right amount of exercise; however, it is a genetic problem, then one might have to take a pill.

Serotonin is one of the brain's regulators of its traffic.

[Mikal]

I passed through one of the most difficult tragedies we can face in life. I did that without pills or drugs. There is this thing in life called the willingness to accept that there is and will be "messiness in life" which we have no control over. There is also the willingness to struggle and the willingness to suffer. Nobody measured my serotonin level, I survived and what didn't kill me just made me stronger!!
But what the hey eh...this world is so brainwashed to be wimps, we cannot even stand our nose to run so medicine is now creating a pill for that...go figure....


Mikal