PDA

View Full Version : How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans


Fade the Butcher
05-23-2006, 04:38 PM
Evolution? Hogwash! :p

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/uof-haw052206.php

When ancient whales finally parted company with the last remnants of their legs about 35 million years ago, a relatively sudden genetic event may have crowned an eons-long shrinking process.

An international group of scientists led by Hans Thewissen, Ph.D., a professor of anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, has used developmental data from contemporary spotted dolphins and fossils of ancient whales to try to pinpoint the genetic changes that could have caused whales, dolphins and porpoises to lose their hind limbs.

More than 50 million years ago the ancestors of whales and dolphins were four-footed land animals, not unlike large dogs. They became the sleek swimmers we recognize today during the next 15 million years, losing their hind limbs in a dramatic example of evolutionary change.

"We can see from fossils that whales clearly lived on land - they actually share a common ancestor with hippos, camels and deer," said team member Martin Cohn, Ph.D., a developmental biologist and associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute. "Their transition to an aquatic lifestyle occurred long before they eliminated their hind limbs. During the transition, their limbs became smaller, but they kept the same number and arrangement of hind limb bones as their terrestrial ancestors."

In findings to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists say the gradual shrinkage of the whales' hind limbs over 15 million years was the result of slowly accumulated genetic changes that influenced the size of the limbs and that these changes happened sometime late in development, during the fetal period.

However, the actual loss of the hind limb occurred much further along in the evolutionary process, when a drastic change occurred to inactivate a gene essential for limb development. This gene - called Sonic hedgehog - functions during the first quarter of gestation in the embryonic period of the animals' development, before the fetal period.

In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales' hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today's spotted dolphins, they didn't have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt.

"By integrating data from fossils with developmental data from embryonic dolphins, we were able to trace these genetic changes to the point in time when they happened," Thewissen said.

"Studies on swimming in mammals show that a sleek body is necessary for efficient swimming, because projecting organs such as rudimentary hind limbs cause a lot of drag, and slow a swimmer down," said Thewissen, who spends about a month every year in Pakistan and India collecting fossils that document the land-to-water transition of whales.

Researchers say the findings tend to support traditional evolutionary theory, a la Charles Darwin, that says minor changes over vast expanses of time add up to big changes. And while Sonic hedgehog's role in the evolution of hind limbs in ancient whales is becoming apparent, it is still not fully defined.

"It's clear when ancient whales lost all vestiges of the limb it was probably triggered by loss of Sonic hedgehog," said Clifford Tabin, Ph.D., a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the research. "But it's hard to say for certain because you're looking at events long after they occurred. As they suggest, there could have been a continual decrease in Sonic as the limbs reduced until the modern version of the animal arrived."

The study itself, combining fossil and developmental data, is notable, Tabin said.

"Whales went through this remarkable transformation to become more like the ancestral fish," Tabin said. "Convergence of evolutionary studies and developmental genetics give us another piece in this growing tapestry of how genetic changes lead to morphological change. It is a remarkable process that was achieved simply and led to profound consequences in how whales were able to survive. Only now in the last five years are we developing this understanding of how the world of evolution is controlled genetically."

WFHermans
05-23-2006, 10:29 PM
...the actual loss of the hind limb occurred much further along in the evolutionary process, when a drastic change occurred to inactivate a gene essential for limb development. This gene - called Sonic hedgehog - functions during the first quarter of gestation in the embryonic period of the animals' development, before the fetal period.

In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales' hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today's spotted dolphins, they didn't have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt.

The gene became inactive because it became inactive. Can't argue with that. :D

Jake Featherston
05-23-2006, 10:39 PM
"We can see from fossils that whales clearly lived on land - they actually share a common ancestor with hippos, camels and deer," said team member Martin Cohn, Ph.D., a developmental biologist and associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute."

Where does the manatee/dugong fit into this?

Felix the Cat
07-06-2006, 07:41 AM
Where does the manatee/dugong fit into this?
Completely different critters, more closely related to elephants than to whales

http://www.sirenian.org/sirenians.html

Although scientists often lump sirenians together with the order Cetacea (whales and dolphins) as totally aquatic marine mammals, manatees and the dugong are actually more closely related to elephants, hyraxes, and aardvarks! This group of animals, commonly called sub-ungulates, shares an ancient African ancestor. Which makes manatees and dugongs more closely related to elephants than to dolphins or whales. In fact, scientists often find behavioral, physiological, and genetic similarities between manatees, dugongs and elephants. One major difference between cetaceans and sirenians is their diets. Whales and dolphins eat fish and plankton; some species, like the killer whale, even eat other whales and dolphins. Manatees and dugongs, like elephants, are herbivores. In fact, they are the ONLY marine mammal herbivores alive today!

Kodos
07-06-2006, 07:45 AM
More than 50 million years ago the ancestors of whales and dolphins were four-footed land animals, not unlike large dogs. They became the sleek swimmers we recognize today during the next 15 million years, losing their hind limbs in a dramatic example of evolutionary change.

Here is why my view of evolution is that their must be some neo lamarckian mechanism involved... having your legs shrink from generation to generation doesn't confer any advantage survivalwise until you grow the fins and can survive in the water.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 07:50 AM
Here is why my view of evolution is that their must be some neo lamarckian mechanism involved... having your legs shrink from generation to generation doesn't confer any advantage survivalwise until you grow the fins and can survive in the water.

I don't even recall what "neo-lamarckian" means, but I suspect I take its general meaning from the context, and I must say its difficult not to at least partially agree. Take the eye, for example. How did that ever evolve? Creatures went around with these painfully sensitive, almost-useless patches of tissue of their faces for a few thousand generations? Curiouser and curiouser....

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 07:52 AM
Completely different critters, more closely related to elephants than to whales

http://www.sirenian.org/sirenians.html

Did the article mention anything about a possible relationship to hippopotami?

Kodos
07-06-2006, 07:57 AM
I don't even recall what "neo-lamarckian" means, but I suspect I take its general meaning from the context, and I must say its difficult not to at least partially agree. Take the eye, for example. How did that ever evolve? Creatures went around with these painfully sensitive, almost-useless patches of tissue of their faces for a few thousand generations? Curiouser and curiouser....


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html

He certainly wasn't entirely correct but natural selection isn't an adequate explanation for changes that take many generations but are counterproductive in the transition...

Helios Panoptes
07-06-2006, 08:07 AM
I don't even recall what "neo-lamarckian" means, but I suspect I take its general meaning from the context, and I must say its difficult not to at least partially agree. Take the eye, for example. How did that ever evolve? Creatures went around with these painfully sensitive, almost-useless patches of tissue of their faces for a few thousand generations? Curiouser and curiouser....

Is not an eye that detects light superior to no eye at all?

Here is why my view of evolution is that their must be some neo lamarckian mechanism involved... having your legs shrink from generation to generation doesn't confer any advantage survivalwise until you grow the fins and can survive in the water.

Couldn't it be that the limbs dissipated gradually in conjunction with the fins' growth?

Felix the Cat
07-06-2006, 08:22 AM
Did the article mention anything about a possible relationship to hippopotami?
It seems hippos are cousins of whales, as elephants are of manatees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotami

As indicated by the name, ancient Greeks considered the hippopotamus to be related to the horse. Until 1985, naturalists grouped hippos with pigs, based on molar patterns. However evidence, first from blood proteins, then from molecular systematics, and more recently from the fossil record, show that their closest living relatives are cetaceans – whales, porpoises and the like [1]. Hippopotami have more in common with whales than they do with other artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates), such as pigs. Thus, the common ancestor of hippos and whales existed after the branch-off from ruminants, which occurred after the divergence from the rest of the even-toed ungulates, including pigs. While the whale and hippo are each other's closest living relatives, their lineages split very soon after their divergence from the rest of the even-toed ungulates.

Jake Featherston
07-06-2006, 08:31 AM
Is not an eye that detects light superior to no eye at all?

Yes, but sufficiently so?

Helios Panoptes
07-06-2006, 08:37 AM
Sure. If it confers an advantage, it will eventually be proliferated. Such a rudimentary eye might also be able to detect movement. The advantage of that is clear.

WFHermans
07-06-2006, 12:39 PM
If you can find an organ where the little intermediate steps in its development didn't each give a small advantage, you will have disproven the theory of evolution.

Felix the Cat
07-06-2006, 09:31 PM
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2981/ambulocetus9qr.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4994/figure27cd.gif

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5463/63uv.jpg

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p65.htm

"In the same area that Pakicetus was found, but in sediments about 120 meters higher, Thewissen and colleagues (1994) discovered Ambulocetus natans, 'the walking whale that swims', in 1992. Dating from the early to middle Eocene, about 50 million years ago, Ambulocetus is a truly amazing fossil. It was clearly a cetacean, but it also had functional legs and a skeleton that still allowed some degree of terrestrial walking. The conclusion that Ambulocetus could walk by using the hind limbs is supported by its having a large, stout femur....It is obvious from the anatomy of the spinal column that Ambulocetus must have swum with its spine swaying up and down, propelled by its back feet, oriented to the rear. As with other aquatic mammals using this method of swimming, the back feet were quite large. Unusually, the toes of the back feet terminated in hooves, thus advertising the ungulate ancestry of the animal. The only tail vertebra found is long, making it likely that the tail was also long. The cervical vertebrae were relatively long, compared to those of modern whales; Ambulocetus must have had a flexible neck. Ambulocetus's skull was quite cetacean (Novacek 1994). It had a long muzzle, teeth that were very similar to later archaeocetes, a reduced zygomatic arch, and a tympanic bulla (which supports the eardrum) that was poorly attached to the skull. Although Ambulocetus apparently lacked a blowhole, the other skull features qualify Ambulocetus as a cetacean." (from The Origin of Whales below, by Raymond Sutera)

cream
07-07-2006, 06:28 PM
I work in a genetics lab and talk with friends who work in other labs. One, whose lab is concerned with cow genetics has designed some tools/resources used by the larger bovine genetics community. A guy contacted them about using one of the resources (one dependent on sequence similarity) in his research into dolphin genetics. He rationalizing it as, 'Well, Cow -> Hippo -> Dolphin!' Supposedly it works.

Felix the Cat
11-10-2006, 12:57 AM
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007F0DF-DD6D-1C67-B882809EC588ED9F

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0007F0DF-DD6D-1C67-B882809EC588ED9F_arch1.gif

A modern whale on the beach faces fairly grim prospects. There was a time, however, when whales moved freely between land and sea. Indeed, the earliest known whales, which date back as far as 50 million years ago, had well-developed hindlimbs and are believed by most paleontologists to have evolved from four-legged terrestrial mammals. Yet details of the transition from whales with large functional legs, such as Ambulocetus (right), to their streamlined descendants with only internal vestigial legs at most, have remained elusive, owing to a paucity of intermediate forms in the fossil record. New fossils described yesterday at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Mexico City, however, are providing insight into the timing of this extraordinary transformation.

Lawrence Barnes of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and his colleagues found in Washington State the bones of an as yet unnamed ancient baleen whale from the so-called Late Oligocene epoch. Included among the remains is part of a pelvis. The 27-million-year-old bone displays a deep, cuplike socket that once held the head of a thigh bone, or femur. This ancient whale, he says, appears to have had small, external legs. Barnes estimates that the legs were about one and a half feet long and might have enabled the 20-foot-long animal to shuffle around on the beach. Its close ancestors, he surmises, had larger legs. Only later, in the Middle Miocen epoch, did whales reach the modern condition of having no external vestigial hindlimbs. Barnes additionally points out that because such whales were long thought not to have legs, fossil whale limbs may well have been overlooked by collectors in the past.

Jake Featherston
11-11-2006, 04:33 AM
If its true oceanic whales used to be amphibious (by which I mean they came ashore and trod about, before re-entering the ocean) then instincts related to that phase of their evolution may well pertain to the phenomenon of whale beachings.

Felix the Cat
11-13-2006, 12:10 PM
Whale beaching is a strange affair

Either they're frightened of something in the deep, or they're attracted by something in the shallows

No matter how much you frighten a fish it won't try to escape by climbing up a beach...

Ambrosio Spinola
11-13-2006, 12:21 PM
Actually the other day millions of anchovies beached themselves on some north Spain beach. We also have fish that jumps out of the water trying to flee from predators. Most likely that might have been the reason. Flight and herd mentality all in one.

Felix the Cat
11-13-2006, 12:25 PM
Do whales sleep?

Perhaps sick whales who feel weak and fear drowning will deliberately seek out shallow waters

Ambrosio Spinola
11-13-2006, 12:31 PM
I read the other day that whales and dolphins adapted to that problem (Oh Horrors..evolution!) by being able to sleep by "turning off" one half of the brain while the other one keeps them going up to the surface to breathe. After two hours both sides exchange workload and rest.

Felix the Cat
11-13-2006, 12:52 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1974869.stm

The fossilised jawbone of the oldest whale yet discovered has confirmed the theory that the giant sea mammals' ancestors were amphibians. They rested and reproduced on land but dived into rivers and the ocean to fish for food.

The jawbone, complete with teeth, is 53.5m years old - 3.5m years older than previous record holder - and was found in the Simla Hills of northern India.

The rock layer which yielded the jawbone is littered with oyster shells and was deposited in a shallow ocean that once separated India and Asia. This is significant because the previous oldest-known whale fossil, unearthed in Pakistan, lay buried with the remains of only land mammals.

Scientists believed that whales evolved from land-living animals which were tempted to return to the ocean by the plentiful supply of fish in the now-disappeared Tethys ocean.

The researchers, from the University of Roorke, India and the University of Michigan, USA, analysed the newly discovered teeth and found the chemical composition was halfway between values expected for fresh and marine water.

This, they believe, shows that the first whales swam in rivers, estuaries and oceans in search of fish, as well as spending time on land. Modern whales have become entirely adapted to ocean life, but have retained the need to breathe.

The fossil belongs to a previously unknown genus and species. It has been named Himalayacetus subathuensis in a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The ocean it once inhabited was destroyed when the Indian continent collided with Asia, creating the Himalayan mountains.

Ambrosio Spinola
11-13-2006, 02:06 PM
This is all a lie as we all know. There never was any Tethys Ocean nor contient drift as these materialist scientists try to shove down our throat. I know so because Petr told me so :D