Researchers Finally Solve Charles Darwin's Mystery

Posted: November 16, 2009


 

 

By Stuart Wolpert

When Charles Darwin visited the Falkland Islands during the voyage of the Beagle in 1835, he saw a wolf-like species, wrote about it in his diaries and correctly commented that it was being hunted in such large numbers that it would soon become extinct.

Darwin was baffled by how this animal got on the islands, and it figured heavily in the formation of his ideas on evolution by natural selection.

Now, UCLA biologists and colleagues have analyzed DNA from museum specimens, including one collected by Darwin, and have solved the puzzle. Their results surprised them.

"It was the only terrestrial mammal on the island," said Robert Wayne, UCLA professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and co-author of the research paper, published Nov. 3 in the journal Current Biology. "How can something the size of a Labrador retriever end up on an island in sufficient numbers that a new population emerges and evolves into a new species? The presence of this large canid, the Falkland Islands wolf, has always been a puzzle, since the early 1800s."

Was it brought to the Falklands, less than 300 miles from the mainland of South America, by humans or did it somehow get there by itself?

"Our analysis rules out humans," said Graham Slater, a postdoctoral scholar in the UCLA Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and lead author of the paper.

Slater, Wayne and colleagues analyzed DNA samples from five Falkland Islands wolves and calculated how long ago those five wolves shared a common ancestor.

"It was at least 70,000 years ago—well before humans came to the New World," Slater said. "The Falkland Islands wolf clearly precedes any possible human occupation of the New World, which dates back some 12,000 to 13,000 years."

Darwin hypothesized that the Falkland Islands wolf, which became extinct in 1876, may have come to the islands on icebergs. Wayne and Slater think Darwin may be right.

"A large, wolf-size animal could perhaps live on a large iceberg with penguins and sea birds and maybe seals—enough prey to survive the voyage—where a vegetarian could not do that very well," Wayne said. "There is a possibility that a pack of wolf-like animals (which are members of the biological family of mammals that includes wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and domestic dogs) could be marooned on an iceberg that would eventually land at the shores of the Falkland Islands, then live off the sea birds and marine mammals there and give rise to a new population that over time would turn into a dramatically different species."

"If you look at Darwin's notebooks, the first time he ever raised the idea that species are not fixed entities was after he considered birds from the Galapagos Islands," Slater said. "He is talking about how they are different from island to island, and he says, 'The only other example I can think of is the wolves of the Falkland Islands.' Then, the next sentence is the first time he ever said, 'This leads me to believe that species are not fixed entities and change over time.' When Darwin first was thinking that species evolve, he had the Falkland Islands wolf in mind."

The closest relative to the Falkland Islands wolf, the biologists report, is an odd South American dog species called the maned wolf, which looks nothing like the Falklands species.

"The closet living relative of the maned wolf is the bush dog, which is even more different," Slater said. "These three are a strange group."

"That was a shock to us," Wayne said. "You wouldn't have guessed by looking at them that that the maned wolf and the bush dog could give rise to something like a Falkland Islands wolf, but we have verified it."

Charlie

Only in America would the absurd idiocies demonstrated by Dawkins of PA receive attention. Our nation has truly become a nation of scientific illiteracy.

John Farrier of CA @ Nov 20, 2009 01:42:04 AM

Evolution is not science

The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies] (but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all of those things and most everything else evolved from populations of fish and worse over generations once upon a time.

But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer - just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint on either choice, the choice is obvious.

Dawkins of PA @ Nov 19, 2009 06:34:14 AM

Evolution is not science

The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short - the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations, hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science. Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or testable/verifiable.

Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to everyone else) that "supports" evolution. The beliefs themselves remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable!

Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science (that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists will then return to the actual truth of what science really is and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo.

Dawkins of PA @ Nov 19, 2009 06:07:10 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

National Science Foundation

NSF

Bugs Inspire Creation of Running Robots

Scientists hope to develop robots that can traverse tough terrains in dangerous situations.

Naked Mole Rats Provide Insights Into Oxygen Use

The mole rat is the only coldblooded mammal, and can survive long periods of oxygen deprivation.

Communicating Using Brain Waves and a Computer

New technology could allow the speech disabled to communicate with the outside world.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!