More

HuffPost Social Reading

Lizard Evolution Study Strands Reptiles On Islands In Bahamas


First Posted: 02/ 3/2012 7:37 am Updated: 02/ 3/2012 11:44 am

By: Joseph Castro, LiveScience Staff Writer

Like something out of a reality-TV show, scientists released pairs of small lizards onto tiny uninhabited islands in the Bahamas and watched what happened. Rather than playing for money or fame, the reptiles played for survival, allowing the voyeuristic researchers to witness the interaction between evolutionary processes rarely observed in nature.

After several years and multiple generations of lizards, the researchers found that both natural selection — whereby traits that enhance survival get passed down from generation to generation — and random processes contributed to the animals' genetics and their physical characteristics.

"We were actually able to see these processes and document them happening in a natural environment," Jason Kolbe, a biologist at the University of Rhode Island who led the study, told LiveScience. "We know that islands are colonized by new species over time, but we are rarely there to see it happen."

When a few individuals of a species colonize a new area, their offspring undergo what is known as the founder effect, which is a change in genetics or physical characteristics. Because of the small number of founding individuals, the new population experiences a loss in genetic variability, often resulting in individuals that are physically and genetically different from their source population.

In addition to random processes like the founder effect, which has everything to do with the random genes that get passed down from the first individuals on the island, populations also experience natural selection, where they adapt to their environment and pass on beneficial traits to their offspring.

But just how much of the evolutionary divergence in separated populations is due to the founder effect and how much is from natural selection?

Founder effect versus natural selection

To find out, Kolbe and his colleagues randomly selected male-female pairs of brown anole (Anolis sagrei) lizards from Iron Cay, an island in the Bahamas, and released them on seven smaller islands in 2005. The smaller islands, whose lizard populations had been wiped out by a recent hurricane, are very similar to one another, populated by the same types of insects, birds and vegetation (short scrubs), but very different from Iron Cay, which is forested.

Previous research has shown that forest anoles have longer hind limbs than their scrub cousins — long limbs allow lizards to move quicker across thick branches, while short limbs give lizards the stability they need to walk along narrow perches.

The researchers predicted that over time, the lizards in their experiment would develop shorter hind limbs than those of the lizards on Iron Cay, but they didn't know what role the founder effect would play in the matter.

Over the next four years, Kolbe and his team measured the limb lengths and analyzed the genetic material of tissue samples from the brown anole lizards on Iron Cay, the seven experimental islands and 12 nearby islands (which served as controls to make sure that any changes they observed in the experimental-island lizards weren’t indicative of natural changes in the species).

After the first year of the study, the researchers immediately noticed a founder effect — the offspring of the original lizards plopped onto the islands in 2005 had less genetic variability than the Iron Cay lizards.

"There were also significant differences in hind-limb length among the islands, even though the lizards were all from same source population," Kolbe said. Since the founder effect is a random process independent of the environment, there was no pattern to the length of the lizards' hind limbs and apparently no relationship between limb length and perch diameter, he explained.

Over the next few years, however, a pattern did emerge for the lizards on the experimental islands. With each generation, their hind limbs got shorter, making them better suited for their environment. But the founder effect wasn't completely snuffed out: Lizard populations with the longest limbs in 2006 still had the longest limbs three years later.

“Both processes seem to be important here,” Kolbe said. "Original differences were created that were random, and then the environment decreased their mean hind-limb length."

Conservation implications

Andrew Hendry, an evolutionary biologist at McGill University in Quebec, who was not involved in the research, was impressed with the study and its findings. "There are very few experimental studies that have looked at these processes in nature," Hendry told LiveScience. "I would have done exactly the same study had I thought of it."

But, Hendry notes, "I'm not sure how much it informs us about real situations." The researchers set up an experiment where they would see the maximum effects of the evolutionary processes, which isn't always the case in real life, he said. Hendry is interested in seeing what would happen if more than two animals were used to create a founding population.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Riverside, was intrigued that all of the experimental populations survived throughout the course of the study (on average, the populations actually grew 13-fold over the first two years, before leveling off). When a population only starts with a few individuals, there is always the risk of inbreeding, which decreases the fitness of the population and their ability to survive and reproduce, he said.

If the lizard populations continue to grow, the study could have implications for conservation biology, which seeks to restore species on the brink of extinction.

"It would mean that a small number of founders is enough, so long as the populations grow well after they've been introduced," Reznick told LiveScience. "Restoring species and their habitats are important issues we are now confronting."

The study was published online today (Feb. 2) in the journal Science.

Album: Bizarre Frogs, Lizards, and Salamanders
The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
Why So Many Animals Evolved to Masturbate

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

By: Joseph Castro, LiveScience Staff Writer Like something out of a reality-TV show, scientists released pairs of small lizards onto tiny uninhabited islands in the Bahamas and watched what happen...
By: Joseph Castro, LiveScience Staff Writer Like something out of a reality-TV show, scientists released pairs of small lizards onto tiny uninhabited islands in the Bahamas and watched what happen...
By: Joseph Castro, LiveScience Staff Writer Like something out of a reality-TV show, scientists released pairs of small lizards onto tiny uninhabited islands in the Bahamas and watched what happen...
By: Joseph Castro, LiveScience Staff Writer Like something out of a reality-TV show, scientists released pairs of small lizards onto tiny uninhabited islands in the Bahamas and watched what happen...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,542
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
08:07 PM on 02/20/2012
You are all wrong. Xenu did it.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
11:33 AM on 02/09/2012
How did Darwin's Evolutionary Theory come to be accepted as true by science? Did they vote on it? Of course not. There was no single day consensus was reached. What happened, quite simply, was that all objections, questions and challenges were met and satisfied. One by one, over the decades, scientists began to realize that the evidence fit Darwin's model. This has continued to be the case. Are there outstanding questions about evolution? Of course!. New knowledge always leads to new questions, and that will continue to be the case for as long as 'curiosity' remains a human trait.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
06:00 PM on 02/07/2012
For the real deal on evolution:

Read:
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis
http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

It is a peer reviewed paper! By real scientist!

Evolution is on life support!
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
02:59 PM on 02/08/2012
Why are you lying about this paper?  This is put out by ID religion and uses a lot of creationist code words.  While the authors are confident that a new general theory and conceptual framework of evolution will be forthcoming, this is mere speculation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
03:33 PM on 02/08/2012
They cover a lot of evidence. Feel free to correct them on anything. Also I know you can find their info so you can write to them for clarification.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
03:52 PM on 02/08/2012
And claiming that evolution is fact because something "might" happen is NOT mere speculation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Louis Sipher
Support science and engineering
02:02 AM on 02/06/2012
For more evolution in action

http://www­.newscient­ist.com/ar­ticle/dn14­094-bacter­ia-make-ma­jor-evolut­ionary-shi­ft-in-the-­lab.html”
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/127.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Human evolution
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/.../0308_060308_evolution.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html

Here is a link to the faith based system. I'll let the rest of you shred it.

www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
11:15 AM on 02/06/2012
At first, I though the "Jesus is Savior" site was satire.   Wow - it isn't!   In any case, It's easy to quickly dismiss its content.  The author's anti-evolution premise rests on the argument that there is no recorded history before 4,000 B.C. ( that's when he believes the earth was created).   

Because the premise is dead wrong, none of what follows has any merit.  The earliest writing was  discovered in Pakistan and dates to 5500 B.C.  but even if it did not, we have abundant evidence of human activity predating writing that is much older.   In addition we have several independent means of testing the age of artifacts, objects like fossils, and even the earth's age.
photo
Angel1999
Microbiologist & Historian
07:47 PM on 02/06/2012
That was also a Daleri Rileda style argument, which always boiled down to how we must accept the Bible's version because it's a written account.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
06:09 PM on 02/07/2012
What a joke:

Neanderthal, Really.

Please list all the scientific reason for classifying neanderthal, cro-magnon or deisovian as a separate species from homo sapiens.

More stupid evolution proof destroyed.
The moths ALWAYS created both light and dark. The dark ones survived after the trees got darker. Afterwards there seem to be more dark moths. BUT there is still light moth that are being born. That is natural selection NOT evolution. It is still the same moth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Louis Sipher
Support science and engineering
08:26 PM on 02/07/2012
Here is a link to the Neanderthal genome project http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/neandertal/feature/index.html
You are correct about the moths. Evolution occurs as traits are selected against. Those that have or do not have some characteristic might not produce off-spring and pass along their genes. I think that you might not understand that these micro changes add up over thousands to millions of years to create new species. Often there are several species that stem from the original that just lived in different environments. Neaderthals were a different species of human and we even have their genome to prove they existed is evidence of a previous branch point for modern humans and Neaderthals. The really interesting part is that they had interspecies relations with the ancestors of Europeans and Asians, but their genes were not found in Africans (as reported in the journal Science).
11:25 AM on 02/05/2012
I can't even read any more of the creationist comments here, they're so ridiculous.
12:29 PM on 02/05/2012
Creatonist comments always are.

In the clear light of reason, they are laughably bad.

But for their flock, they only need to sound 'sciency' to get a pass.
09:40 AM on 02/05/2012
A very interesting study. It is cool to so clearly observe Evolution in action.
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
10:18 PM on 02/04/2012
The changing in the lizard's leg length is a new expression of genes already there brought on by environment. Just like dogs. We have little dogs with floppy ears in new breeds in the past two hundred years brought on by gene expression of genes aways present in the wolves of ten thousand years ago. This is micro-evolution by tweaking genes, by nature or man, latently existing into appearance. In other words...horizontal evolution. No vertical evolution of animals moving into new species by macroevolution is happening with these lizards. A rewrite of DNA nucleotide sequences are needed for the vertical, upward, evolution to happen. This is theoritical because it is not detected modernly or eyewitnessed. These lizards are not showing the 'magic' of evolution that moved mice-sized animals into 15,000 pound elephants or 100 pound wolf-like animals into 200 ton whales. Natural selection, microevolution, is the smoke and mirrors used to convince people of macroevolution. Only theoritical models of macroevolution exist. No microscope examples of it. Truth. It's fun to know. I'm having a blast. It's time for many of you to start having fun, too.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
10:44 PM on 02/04/2012
Do you know what causes changes of gene expression? Mutations. Which get selected for and against. This is evolution in action. That you discount it because it isn't in your own view a big enough change is your problem, not evolution's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
07:09 AM on 02/05/2012
I don't think you understand what you're talking about because it's making very little logical sense.
photo
meglon978
Beware of gifts bearing Greeks.
02:08 AM on 02/05/2012
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

Take your religion elsewhere.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CanadianSkeptic
Amazingly, thinking can solve most problems
02:27 PM on 02/04/2012
Want to see a real life example of Sísyphos? Creationists arguing against evolution. They could win every debate, overturn the laws preventing teaching creationism in school, storm every university and replace every scientist with someone from the Discovery Institute, ban every scientific journal, and re-write every textbook. They could erase every mention of evolution and Darwin. They could do all of this, and they will still be wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
02:56 PM on 02/04/2012
The problem is that they try to do all of those things.

Don't "misunderestimate" the power of ignorance people in large numbers and there is no denying we have a near limitless supply of them here. They are not only ignorant, they are so ignorant they have decided among themselves that ignorance is the source of wisdom and that being educated obscures the truth. If it weren't part of my life I'd think I was watching a sci-fi movie about a distopian civilization.
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
12:21 PM on 02/05/2012
Eh - America has always had its little revivalist hiccups but the result has always been a long period of more liberalized and secular advancement in thinking.   I tell creationists that if they want to live in a theocracy, we've been there, done that and so far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to get into a time machine and return to the Dark Ages.
photo
Drash
I'm kind of a big deal
07:16 PM on 02/04/2012
I've thought for a long time now that a study of the "motivated reasoning" of creationists would make a fascinating doctoral dissertation for some psychology student.
photo
meglon978
Beware of gifts bearing Greeks.
02:09 AM on 02/05/2012
Similar to the work on paranoid delusionals was, yes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Errant
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
01:24 PM on 02/04/2012
It's kind of fun to have an uninhabited island and do things like this JUST to see. Though consequences can be drastic or serious depending.
03:42 PM on 02/04/2012
When I started reading about this study, for just a moment I saw a great opening scene to the next Godzilla movie. "Look doctor, the hind legs on this one are a full three millimeters longer than the control population. And it's breathing atomic fire."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Errant
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
05:54 PM on 02/04/2012
Hahaha, yes!
photo
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
12:23 PM on 02/05/2012
Are we thinking of the Island of Dr. Moreau?  ;-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Errant
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
01:32 PM on 02/07/2012
Maybe just a little it.
photo
Jeremyewilliams
Reality is not the GOPs cup of tea!
10:10 AM on 02/04/2012
Religious people...get over it. Evolution is fact. It has presented itself in an unimaginable amount of evidence and data.. It never stops growing. It is taught in schools because it is a sound scientific theory (highest scientific acheivement), just like E=MC2. It is as evident as physics. We have so much information on so many genus and species, including their history, mutations, adaptions, lifelines, etc. Natural selection is magnificent, amazing and completely NOT MAGIC. How can you ignore all literature and the insane amount of evidence and say "My God did it"?

There is no debate on whether evolution occurs anymore. It does.
theaustralian
to the far left of right wing democrats
09:37 AM on 02/04/2012
so if we put republicans on an island, will they become lizards over time?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
etherialecho
Beware of absolutes.
10:47 AM on 02/04/2012
Newts are already members of the salamander family, being described as having a thin sensitive skin. Go figure.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
eyelashviper
In wilderness is the preservation of the world
11:42 AM on 02/04/2012
you read my mind, fanned.
09:21 AM on 02/04/2012
There was no evolving of the species...God caused it. Nah, just kidding! Here is real proof of life evolving. Want some more on a human level? Check out studies of earlier man. Wisdom teeth fully extended out of the gum. How many of us have had to get our wisdom teeth extracted since they never came outcorrectly/fully? I'm not denying a superior being created the world, or confirming it. It is possible to put the two together and come up with a hybrid explanation of how we got here. However, that requires some deep thought and research into science which the Bible thumpers seem to have the inclination to do neither.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BooBoo Bob
Fighter, activist, bon-vivant and lover.
10:15 AM on 02/05/2012
Want something else? The appendix. There are several theories as to why we still have it, but we no longer need it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Louis Sipher
Support science and engineering
01:45 AM on 02/06/2012
It was not selected against. It needs be something that kills those that have it before they can reproduce and pass along the genes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ragdolly
Consider the lilies of the field.
03:08 AM on 02/04/2012
Darwin' s theory was that not the strongest, nor the most intelligent, but the most adaptable would survive. and yet scientists believe that lizards which have been thought to be the most adaptable to environmental changes are disappearing due to climate change. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126797405
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
11:06 AM on 02/04/2012
Ignoring your gross misstatement of Darwin's theory for the moment, there is nothing in the theory that says the environment can't change faster than a species can accommodate or faster than any species can accommodate.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
eyelashviper
In wilderness is the preservation of the world
11:48 AM on 02/04/2012
Fanned for your knowledge, your clear attempts to educate, your humor, patience and understanding of science.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
02:34 PM on 02/04/2012
Your Darwin explanation seems better that what most people would offer.
Most people think its about survival of the smartest, strongest, or fittest.
I think (think) its technically about survival of those most adapted to the situation.
But of course, being the strongest, fastest, fittest, or most adaptable would help.
To me, too much hair splitting generates split ends.
We need to be friendly to one another to achieve shared ends.
Besides, you deserve bonus points for mentioning Climate Change. Thanks for posting!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julia Bailey
03:26 PM on 02/04/2012
The term 'fit' means how many offspring you leave behind, it has nothing to do with being fast or healthy. So you are correct, it is about survival of your offspring because they are most adapted in the situation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ragdolly
Consider the lilies of the field.
10:04 PM on 02/04/2012
Thank you for being a courteous human being.
01:22 AM on 02/04/2012
Imagine if Creationists used half as much effort doing real scientific research instead of twisted verbal denial.

Well, evidence scares them too much, I guess. It's also hard work to do the real lab research.

Next time one of them posts, ask for the citation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edwardandersons
The Lord is my Shepard
01:25 AM on 02/04/2012
Why don't you do some studying on religion so you understand a creationist position.
photo
Drash
I'm kind of a big deal
01:33 AM on 02/04/2012
Why would any sane person want to understand a non-scientific position in regards to a scientific concept or issue? Should astronomers study astrology to understand the movement of stars and planets?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ragdolly
Consider the lilies of the field.
02:49 AM on 02/04/2012
"Well, evidence scares them too much, I guess" lb's own words serve to answer this question quite well, in my humble opinion.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
01:37 AM on 02/04/2012
How about imaging that people actually understood the nonsense of evolution as much as they claim they do.

It would disappear.
photo
Drash
I'm kind of a big deal
01:43 AM on 02/04/2012
Why imagine it when reality says it's so?
09:49 AM on 02/04/2012
Eclipse, you don't even understand your own arguments. It's pretty sad.

You thought Genetic Drift disproves insect evolution, and then re-quoted a site I gave you that actually refuted your argument! And yet you clung to it...

You argued into a definition of evolution that directly and specifically contradicted your claim of the need for speciation two posts before! You ran away.

You challenged the concept of successful inbreeding and when destroyed with evidence about Inbreeding Tolerance, you ran away.

You NEVER produce an original cite to back up your posts.

You have no credibility whatsoever.
photo
Drash
I'm kind of a big deal
12:47 AM on 02/04/2012
Drash
515 Fans
37 minutes ago (12:01 AM)
Given that many of the species predating the Cambrian explosion are absent from the Cambrian record and the Cambrian species absent from the pre-Cambri­an record what mechanism do you attribute this to?

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
24 Fans
Become a fan
24 minutes ago (12:14 AM)
You see, the radiometri­c dating method for the strata most likely used zircons. They have this recently scientific­ally proven ability to be younger on the inside than they are on they outside. Nor do they have any fractures to suggest a later contaminat­ion. So they are not as old as people think. And they may not be much age difference in the layers. Science is proving evolution.

***************
This is where Eciplse33 is showing his ignorance. One doesn't need to rely on radiometric dating means to determine that pre-Cambrian deposits are older than Cambrian deposits. We can use the law of superposition for that, so the babble about radiometric dating and zircons is simply nonsense in the context of my original post above.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edwardandersons
The Lord is my Shepard
12:52 AM on 02/04/2012
So what dates the layers the fossils are found in?
photo
Drash
I'm kind of a big deal
12:59 AM on 02/04/2012
There are various radio-isotopes that can be used to date the rock layers. The most common ones are Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) and Argon-Argon (40Ar-39Ar).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
01:04 AM on 02/04/2012
Ultimately, what difference does it make to the argument for evolution? The point is that there were ONLY invertebrates, no fish, no amphibians, no reptiles or birds, no plants and certainly no mammals. If the hard parts confuse you look at the simple things. WHENEVER it was, nothing existed but invertebrates which CERTAINLY did not include Adam and Eve.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eclipse33
12:59 AM on 02/04/2012
Wow!
Ok, SShh, (whisper) people do not tell him that there is a Cambrian strata that Cambrian fossils are found in.
photo
Drash
I'm kind of a big deal
01:02 AM on 02/04/2012
Well duh! Were you expecting Cretaceous fossils in Cambrian strata?