Thursday, April 05, 2007

The Power of One Gene



Scientists are reporting that the wide size variety in dogs is caused by variations in but one gene. From the story in the Telegraph:

Ranging from toy to giant, dogs have the biggest size variation of any mammal and the team of US and British experts believe it is due to variations in one gene.

After analysing DNA samples from 3,200 dogs, they pinpointed IGF-1, a gene that makes a hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1.Variants of the gene were very strongly associated with the different sizes of dogs and the scientists are now trying to determine the precise mutations occurring within the gene...The study is relevant to human medicine because a vast majority of the genes in the human genome can also be found in the dog genome.
And here's the human exceptionalism angle: Dogs did not evolve. They were intelligently designed by the only species in the known universe capable of literally transforming some members of a species (wolf) into something substantially different (dog). And contrary to the beliefs of animal liberationists, both we and "man's best friend" have benefited tremendously.

Post Script: Isn't this typical about how science reporting is often incorrect in the popular press? It turns out, dog size may not be based on one gene after all. From the LA Times story:

Eventually, they accumulated and analyzed genetic samples from 3,241 dogs from 143 breeds. All the small dogs had the same altered regulatory sequence.

So, too, did the occasional big dog, such as a Rottweiler and a mastiff.

"There is something funny going on with Rottweilers," Ostrander said. "That told us right away that that the whole story isn't IGF-1. There are other genes that interact, and we are going after them right now."

So, apparently the "one gene" story isn't really a story. But human exceptionalism remains.

Labels:

2 Comments:

At April 06, 2007 , Blogger mtraven said...

It's at best semi-accurate to say that dogs were "designed". They were evolved under the pressure of artificial (as opposed to natural) selection. You can consider that a form of design if you like, but it's pretty different from what we usually think of as upfront design.

Many other organisms co-evolve with each other (for example, ants and their various symbionts), and so transform each other, although not with the application of intelligence. So this is not a particularly good illustration of human exceptionalism, if you ask me.

 
At April 06, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

mtraven: But certain breeds have been intentionally bred to have specific attributes to suit specific human purposes. Seems like intelligently designed to me. And, as you pointed out, the evolutionary change of say aphids to ants, is not intelligently directed. Only humans have the capacities to intentionally and intelligently change natural species. Only humans have the capacity to determine whether doing so is moral or immoral. Seems pretty exceptional to me.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home