"Scientists Turn Alligator Scales into Primitive ‘Feathers’"

[Skwim]

"Scientists plucked DNA from living birds and reptiles to learn how scales ultimately made way for feathers millions of years ago. The findings might teach us a thing or two about how flight evolved.

Although they might not look similar today, reptiles are the closest relatives of birds. The two vertebrate groups are both descendants of archosaurs, the “ruling reptiles” that once dominated the Earth 250 million years ago. Archosaurs include all extinct non-avian dinosaurs, extinct crocodilian relatives, and pterosaurs. Some of this rich history can still be accessed if you know where to look at the genomes of birds or reptiles.

A team led by Dr. Cheng-Ming Choung, a professor of pathology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, tapped into this molecular time capsule to pinpoint the evolutionary leaps that archosaurs took in their transition from scales to feathers. Their work has so far identified a number of new genes involved in scale and feather development. To demonstrate, they were even able to turn scales into feather precursors by switching key genes on and off in embryo alligator skin.

From clumsy experiments to sky-high architecture

“We now have a potential molecular explanation for these hypothesized missing links,” said Chuong in a statement.

“These results show that different perturbations cause different levels of scale to feather conversion, implying that scales have the capability to form feathers given the proper molecular signals,” he added.​

The complete RNA and DNA genomic analyses of developing chicks and alligators revealed five morpho-regulatory modules (Sox2, Zic1, Grem1, Spry2, Sox18) “that are essential for modern feather formation,” according to Chuong. Scientists propose that these genes appeared due to different adaptation strategies. After countless iterations, animals evolved the highly successful feather architecture we know today, allowing birds to claim the sky as their ecological niche.

Such modules can enlarge or elongate appendages and cause feather keratin differentiation. For instance, when the Sox2 gene is activated, feather budding is triggered and scale formation is inhibited. The Grem1 gene, on the other hand, induces barb-like branching, the authors reported in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution.

“These feather-like appendages display all five criteria defining feathers, suggesting that they act at a higher hierarchical level in this evolutionary pathway,” said Chuong.

“Intriguingly, some of these phenotypes are similar to the unusual filamentous appendages found in the fossils of feathered dinosaurs,” he added.​

source​

 

[Brickjectivity]

I bet those early feathers must have itched like crazy.

 

[Ingledsva]

Very interesting. Thanks.

*

 

[Twilight Hue]

This will drive the creationist's crazy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Scientists plucked DNA from living birds and reptiles to learn how scales ultimately made way for feathers millions of years ago. The findings might teach us a thing or two about how flight evolved.

Although they might not look similar today, reptiles are the closest relatives of birds. The two vertebrate groups are both descendants of archosaurs, the “ruling reptiles” that once dominated the Earth 250 million years ago. Archosaurs include all extinct non-avian dinosaurs, extinct crocodilian relatives, and pterosaurs. Some of this rich history can still be accessed if you know where to look at the genomes of birds or reptiles.

A team led by Dr. Cheng-Ming Choung, a professor of pathology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, tapped into this molecular time capsule to pinpoint the evolutionary leaps that archosaurs took in their transition from scales to feathers. Their work has so far identified a number of new genes involved in scale and feather development. To demonstrate, they were even able to turn scales into feather precursors by switching key genes on and off in embryo alligator skin.

From clumsy experiments to sky-high architecture

“We now have a potential molecular explanation for these hypothesized missing links,” said Chuong in a statement.

“These results show that different perturbations cause different levels of scale to feather conversion, implying that scales have the capability to form feathers given the proper molecular signals,” he added.​

The complete RNA and DNA genomic analyses of developing chicks and alligators revealed five morpho-regulatory modules (Sox2, Zic1, Grem1, Spry2, Sox18) “that are essential for modern feather formation,” according to Chuong. Scientists propose that these genes appeared due to different adaptation strategies. After countless iterations, animals evolved the highly successful feather architecture we know today, allowing birds to claim the sky as their ecological niche.

Such modules can enlarge or elongate appendages and cause feather keratin differentiation. For instance, when the Sox2 gene is activated, feather budding is triggered and scale formation is inhibited. The Grem1 gene, on the other hand, induces barb-like branching, the authors reported in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution.

“These feather-like appendages display all five criteria defining feathers, suggesting that they act at a higher hierarchical level in this evolutionary pathway,” said Chuong.

“Intriguingly, some of these phenotypes are similar to the unusual filamentous appendages found in the fossils of feathered dinosaurs,” he added.​

source​

My guess is that creationists are going to spin this by saying:

"Yeah, but scientists did that - so therefore its an example of intelligent design. This doesn't PROVE that feathers can arise naturally."

 

[Zosimus]

I can turn alligator scales into boots. I think that's proof positive that boots were not created but rather evolved.

 

[Sapiens]

I can turn alligator scales into boots. I think that's proof positive that boots were not created but rather evolved.

No, you clearly stated that you could do it, that's not evolution. Now ... if that could happen without your (or anyone else's) assistance, we might have something to talk about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can turn alligator scales into boots. I think that's proof positive that boots were not created but rather evolved.

If anything it definitely proves the level of education required for a number of creationists to actually believe that and use as a "valid" example.

 

[Zosimus]

No, you clearly stated that you could do it, that's not evolution. Now ... if that could happen without your (or anyone else's) assistance, we might have something to talk about.

Talk about moving the goalposts!

No, simply showing that some things can happen without human intervention in no way proves what you wrongly call "evolution" and what I will hereinafter call neo-Darwinism.

You see, neo-Darwinism postulates that birds with big beaks arrive on islands where big beaks are a disadvantage. However, because of genetic mutations, and generations of big-beaked birds starving to death, eventually small-beaked birds completely dominate the environment. This is because the genes that support big beaks are eliminated by something you call "natural selection" aka death of big-beaked birds without offspring.

In reality, what we see is that organisms come with multiple configurations pre-installed and that these new configurations can be activated as simply as you and I could flip a switch and turn on a light. This is commonly called epigenetic gene imprinting. Within a matter of months, fully adapted birds are at home in their new environment because the old configuration has been inactivated and the new configuration is active.

The weird thing is that you somehow think that the above example, in which we read "...they were even able to turn scales into feather precursors by switching key genes on and off in embryo alligator skin...." somehow supports neo-Darwinism(!)

 

[Jose Fly]

You see, neo-Darwinism postulates that birds with big beaks arrive on islands where big beaks are a disadvantage. However, because of genetic mutations, and generations of big-beaked birds starving to death, eventually small-beaked birds completely dominate the environment. This is because the genes that support big beaks are eliminated by something you call "natural selection" aka death of big-beaked birds without offspring.

Yes, natural selection is a fact that is both observable and quantifiable.

In reality, what we see is that organisms come with multiple configurations pre-installed

"Pre-installed"? Where in the world did you get that term? Can you point me to a published paper that makes such a reference?

and that these new configurations can be activated as simply as you and I could flip a switch and turn on a light. This is commonly called epigenetic gene imprinting. Within a matter of months, fully adapted birds are at home in their new environment because the old configuration has been inactivated and the new configuration is active.

You seem to be operating under a zero-sum mentality, where traits are a result of either mutation or epigenetic factors. Hopefully you realize that it's not an either/or situation, and that both have been documented and studied.

The weird thing is that you somehow think that the above example, in which we read "...they were even able to turn scales into feather precursors by switching key genes on and off in embryo alligator skin...." somehow supports neo-Darwinism(!)

I believe the point was that it supports reptile/bird common ancestry.

 

[Sapiens]

Talk about moving the goalposts!

No, simply showing that some things can happen without human intervention in no way proves what you wrongly call "evolution" and what I will hereinafter call neo-Darwinism.

I never said that. This sort of blatent dishonesty finds it way to my ignore list in a hurry.

You see, neo-Darwinism postulates that birds with big beaks arrive on islands where big beaks are a disadvantage. However, because of genetic mutations, and generations of big-beaked birds starving to death, eventually small-beaked birds completely dominate the environment. This is because the genes that support big beaks are eliminated by something you call "natural selection" aka death of big-beaked birds without offspring.

No, big beaked and small beaked will not be competing for food. Small beaked and big beaked have some non overlapping niche space.

In reality, what we see is that organisms come with multiple configurations pre-installed and that these new configurations can be activated as simply as you and I could flip a switch and turn on a light. This is commonly called epigenetic gene imprinting. Within a matter of months, fully adapted birds are at home in their new environment because the old configuration has been inactivated and the new configuration is active.

References please ... and hold the quacks.

The weird thing is that you somehow think that the above example, in which we read "...they were even able to turn scales into feather precursors by switching key genes on and off in embryo alligator skin...." somehow supports neo-Darwinism(!)

If you can make an alternative claim please do so. Competent references are required.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, natural selection is a fact that is both observable and quantifiable.

Yes, most tautologies are observable. However, since my point had nothing to do with your comment, I wonder why you bothered to include said comment.

"Pre-installed"? Where in the world did you get that term? Can you point me to a published paper that makes such a reference?

You can use any word you want. The concept is the point. Imagine that fruit flies come "pre-installed" or whatever word you want to use with three different eye colors: white, yellow, and red eyes. The question is whether this factor can be controlled through epigenetics and whether such controls would be inheritable. The answer is at Researchers discover new mechanism of epigenetic inheritance in fruit flies

You seem to be operating under a zero-sum mentality, where traits are a result of either mutation or epigenetic factors. Hopefully you realize that it's not an either/or situation, and that both have been documented and studied.

No, the point is that for neo-Darwinism to work out under any postulated scenario would take longer than the universe has been around.

I believe the point was that it supports reptile/bird common ancestry.

Do you really think so? Pathetic. Look at it this way: If Tyrese Gibon and I are brothers, we would have both been born in the same city. I was born in Los Angeles. He was born in Los Angeles. Would you say that this is evidence for the idea that we're brothers? What if I told you that he is black and I am white?

 

[Valjean]

so crocoduck is real!

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, most tautologies are observable. However, since my point had nothing to do with your comment, I wonder why you bothered to include said comment.

You seemed to be arguing against natural selection. If you acknowledge its reality, that's fine.

You can use any word you want. The concept is the point. Imagine that fruit flies come "pre-installed" or whatever word you want to use with three different eye colors: white, yellow, and red eyes. The question is whether this factor can be controlled through epigenetics and whether such controls would be inheritable. The answer is at Researchers discover new mechanism of epigenetic inheritance in fruit flies

I'm familiar with that work and have read it. But I don't see anything resembling "pre-installation" of traits. Can you show where you see that in this work?

No, the point is that for neo-Darwinism to work out under any postulated scenario would take longer than the universe has been around.

Um.....that's about the origin of the first life, not neo-Darwinism.

Do you really think so? Pathetic. Look at it this way: If Tyrese Gibon and I are brothers, we would have both been born in the same city. I was born in Los Angeles. He was born in Los Angeles. Would you say that this is evidence for the idea that we're brothers? What if I told you that he is black and I am white?

Looks to me like you don't understand the first thing about the work in the OP. Otherwise, I have no idea why you think your "born in the same city" analogy has any bearing on the genetic mechanisms behind the evolution of flight.

 

[Zosimus]

I never said that. This sort of blatent dishonesty finds it way to my ignore list in a hurry.

Would you like to ignore me? Fine. I'll call it a victory.

No, big beaked and small beaked will not be competing for food. Small beaked and big beaked have some non overlapping niche space.[\quote]
Answering your questions out of order, here you make an unsupported statement. Yet immediately below you demand references from me. Why do you hold others to standards that you do not hold yourself to?

However, I will indulge your capriciousness. Epigenetic variation between urban and rural populations of Darwin’s finches

 

[Zosimus]

You seemed to be arguing against natural selection. If you acknowledge its reality, that's fine.

Why would I argue against natural selection? You are saying that the species that produce offspring are the species that produce offspring. This is not disputable. It's also a worthless observation.

Looks to me like you don't understand the first thing about the work in the OP. Otherwise, I have no idea why you think your "born in the same city" analogy has any bearing on the genetic mechanisms behind the evolution of flight.

No, I think it is YOU who does not understand. You have committed a logical fallacy. You reason thus: If reptiles and birds share a common ancestor, then there will be genetic remnants of feathers in reptiles. There are (arguably) genetic remnants of features in reptiles, so they MUST share a common ancestor.

Ridiculous.

We might as well say that if Bill Gates owns a gold mine that he will be rich. He is rich, so he must own a gold mine.
Or we could say that if Richard Dawkins were the prime minister of England he would be English, well known, and controversial. He is English, well known, and controversial. So he must be the prime minister of England.
Or we could say that if humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, they would have similar DNA. They have similar DNA, so they must share a common ancestor.
Or we could say that if guinea pigs and humans were very closely related, they would both have an inability to synthesize vitamin C. They both have an inability to synthesize vitamin C. So they must be very closely related.

Ex falso quodlibet.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why would I argue against natural selection? You are saying that the species that produce offspring are the species that produce offspring. This is not disputable. It's also a worthless observation.

I'm a biologist and I can assure you that role of selective pressures in shaping populations is hardly "worthless". There's a reason we calculate fitness values and metrics of strengths of selection.

You reason thus: If reptiles and birds share a common ancestor, then there will be genetic remnants of feathers in reptiles. There are (arguably) genetic remnants of features in reptiles, so they MUST share a common ancestor.

I don't recall saying that. Can you show where I did?

Also, you ignored a question....

Where in the Cavilli et al. work on epigenetic inheritance is there any mention of the concept of "pre-installation" of traits?

 

[Zosimus]

I'm a biologist and I can assure you that role of selective pressures in shaping populations is hardly "worthless". There's a reason we calculate fitness values and metrics of strengths of selection.

Yes. And there's a reason astrologists calculate star charts.

I don't recall saying that. Can you show where I did?

You said "I believe the point was that it supports reptile/bird common ancestry." Praytell, how exactly do you think that the study supports reptile/bird common ancestry?

Also, you ignored a question....

I ignored no question. I have already answered your question.

Where in the Cavilli et al. work on epigenetic inheritance is there any mention of the concept of "pre-installation" of traits?

It does not. That was not my claim. As a matter of policy, I do not respond to straw man arguments. As for whether the word "installed" is used, I trust that you can use Google to find out. Perhaps, if you tried hard enough, you might find the sentence: "We now know that the changes [epigenetics] install can have consequences for patterns of long-term and even trans-generational health."

Of course, we know that epigenetics doesn't install anything. You come pre-installed with the programs that epigenetics merely turn on and off, as seems appropriate.

 

[columbus]

you wrongly call "evolution" and what I will hereinafter call neo-Darwinism.

This right here is enough for me to dismiss your opinions as uneducated.

Darwin's breakthrough got him name recognition. But the facts remain the same regardless of who compiles and publishes them. Your lack of basic understanding of how science works is showing.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

No, simply showing that some things can happen without human intervention in no way proves what you wrongly call "evolution" and what I will hereinafter call neo-Darwinism.

I have a sneaking feeling you also prefer to call astronomy, "astrology." Not sure of course, but I wouldn't be surprised.

You see, neo-Darwinism postulates that birds with big beaks arrive on islands where big beaks are a disadvantage. However, because of genetic mutations, and generations of big-beaked birds starving to death, eventually small-beaked birds completely dominate the environment. This is because the genes that support big beaks are eliminated by something you call "natural selection" aka death of big-beaked birds without offspring.

In reality, what we see is that organisms come with multiple configurations pre-installed and that these new configurations can be activated as simply as you and I could flip a switch and turn on a light. This is commonly called epigenetic gene imprinting. Within a matter of months, fully adapted birds are at home in their new environment because the old configuration has been inactivated and the new configuration is active.

Lamarckism Has Been Resurrected

​

.