The following are short notes from a lecture given by Dr. Alan Rogers, professor of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology at University of Utah's Department of Anthropology. The lecture was given on January 27, 2011 in the Gould Auditorium (Marriott Library) on the UofU campus.

EVOLUTION

Why skepticism?
- It is because of the concept of species changing?
- Or, changing into a new species?
- Can a species undergo significant changes?

Few people still doubt it based on micro-evolution examples such as resistance to penicillin and pesticides developed by bacteria and insects respectively.
However, what about new species?
- Doubling, tripling genomes (see the example with Primrose)
It is becoming harder and harder to argue that evolution is limited to only small changes.

Dr. Rogers used the example of the eye to discuss complex adaptation.
- lens vs. retina
- retina useless without lens
- how would selection favor a partial eye?

Charles Pritchard (1866)
- He was the first one to argue that the eye could not evolve.
Charles Darwin (1872)
- He was the first one to refuse Pritchard's argument. However this argument would last.
Weakness of Pritchard's argument:
- The claim is about plausibility. To refute such claim you need to invent a plausible story.
- There is no need for evidence. 
- There is no need for the story to be true.

Hypothetical steps in the evolution of the eye:
A. Eye spot - simple eye, but very sensitive to light from all directions
B. Eye cup - light prevented from extreme angles.
C1. Pin-hole camera eye - forms image, not much light, very dim.
C2. Primitive lens - secrete mucus (easy to produce), denser than H2O, will refract light, only sensitive to direct light found straight ahead of the eye.

Next: improvement of the eye --> Need a vertebrate eye.
Are the steps plausible?
- Yes, they are all found in living organisms today.
- Eye evolution is possible. Pritchard was incorrect.

How did the eye evolve?
- Darwin's prediction: retina evolved earlier then came the lenses --> we can test this hypothesis by looking at living animals.
- We all share common characteristics because we have inherited genes from common ancestors.
We need to start at the basis, the protein level. Opsins are light sensitive proteins. Every animal that sees does so because of the presence of opsins. Similar species have similar opsins.

When cells divide, DNA duplicates. Sometimes the machinery stutter and the DNA is duplicated twice. When you have two copies of the same gene, the new copy may provide new functionality. 

We need to observe what humans have in common with their closer relatives, the apes and old world monkeys. We have one opsin that adapted to dim light and three for color vision. Most mammals only have two for color and this is why they are colorblind. The reason humans, apes and monkeys have three for color is due to the fact that our common ancestor experienced a duplication in the DNA sequences thus resulting in one extra copy for that particularly opsin. 

Evidence of common descent in opsin: closely related species have similar opsin molecules. Humans have similar opsin proteins to insects and cephalopods

Crystallins: transparent proteins used in lens and cornea.
- If lenses evolved early, humans and insects should have similar crystallins. But they don't because the lens came later. Insects and cephalopods have very different crystallin proteins from humans.

What about eye morphology?
Vertebrates have eyes that work like cameras. All arthropods have compound eyes (including trilobites). Snails however have a great variety of eyes (they evolved in different varieties). Heteropod sea snail has eyes like slits, with a field vision of 180 degree wide, but just few degrees high. Eye scans are done with rapid movements up and down

 


Comments

01/14/2012 11:30

Hi Professor Rogers i have an idea that i would like you to look at first let me say that i have no real education in that to which i am about to suggest to you and i would love to have your opinion of it at the above Email address Is it possible to link human body hair loss ...walking upright ....and the development of a big brain all in the same evolution time ....I feel that body hair loss may have happened due to our primative ancestors taking advantage of natural fires started by lightning strike ect and the like,to gather up the cooked animals and that were caught in the fires this gave them a very high protein diet thus as i understand allowing their offspring to start to acquire a bigger brain this meant that the offspring having this bigger brain that was becoming us hundreds if not thousands of generations later would not be able to cling to its mother by holding on to the hair it seems to me that the only answer to this problem for the female would be to carry her young in one arm this would make it impossible for her to do anything else but to change to walking uptight i do realize the time span in evolution this would take this would make the body hair redundant and may have made the energy that was gained by not having to produce the hair usable by nature to make the changes in the female body as she adapts to this change like genital moving to a more internal mechanism and the many other evolutonary changes that must have have had to happened over thousands of generations to get to us today. Well thank you for at least looking at this for me if you would be kind enough to answer this i would be mots grateful Cheers Bob in South Africa

Reply
03/29/2012 12:28

Pardon this late reply: I only just discovered your post. There have been lots of speculations about when and why humans lost body hair. I don't have anything clever of my own to say, but you might want to do a web search on Marc Pagel. A few years ago, he published an idea not all that different than the one you are suggesting.

Reply
01/14/2012 13:47

Hello Bob. Please note that this entry was done by myself (owner of this website and blog) and not by Dr. Rogers. I just attended one of his lectures and reported my notes in my blog. If you are interested in contacting Dr. Rogers directly and share your ideas, you will need to go to the Anthropology Department page of the University of Utah website. Good luck!

Reply



Leave a Reply