Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:20:54 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:33:33 -0700 Dave Land
>>On Sep 25, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Leonard Matusik wrote: >>> How about this question... How probable would it be to artificially > >>> INDUCE a small population of blind cave fish to start growing eyes > again >>> without breeding it back to the parent Mexican Tetra line? > Could it be >>> done in less than 100 generations? >>You read the Wikipedia article: it described an experiment in which the lens >>from a >>sighted Astyanax mexicanus was implanted into the blind cave form of >>the fish, >>and the fish developed a complete eye. That's not saying, of >>course, that the blind >>fish regained vision, and it certainly does not >>imply that its offspring would be >>sighted, but it suggests that the genetic >>information for building eyes is quite >>present. >This would make sense. It would be unlikely that an entire suite of genes >would >mutate but rather some tool box gene mutated. Maybe loss of site in >this case is >more than simply the result of genetic drift. Maybe being >sightless affords these fish >some selective advantage. As has been pointed >out at the very least they do not >have to build an expensive and adapatively >useless organ. But maybe on a >structural or biochemical level the loss of >sigth may have been accompanied by >some other enhancment. >>Not sure if this just confuses the topic, but that is, after all, my >>speciality. >>Dave "The Country of the Blind" Land Actually, last Sat. stumbled across Dr. Jefferys web sites. These contain some cool morphs of the procedure described. http://www.life.umd.edu/biology/faculty/jeffery/ http://www.life.umd.edu/labs/jeffery/index1.html Addition sites devoted to the raising of tropical fish, reveal that the fry hatch WITH eyes which somewhat develope if the animal is not kept in the dark. What the Astyanax transmits to it's offspring is the ability to selectively resorb it's eyes and devote the bulk of its proprioceptive/kinestethic function to the remaining inputs. (kinda like DareDevil) I think I'll get some to amuse my children. Prolific, easy to keep and only 1.99 plus shipping from the internet. JayZeus-Kronian! I love living in the 21st century! LeonardMatusik [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: Darwin himself knew nothing about genetics.... and I find his notion of "gemmules" to be charming in the extreme. The name "Darwin", like the name "Gould" has too often been usurped by rationalist/reductionist/athiests to thump their own tub. (and the Wikipedia article on Lamarck totally SUCKS-air) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
