I doubt they developed a resistance this fast. Wouldn't it be more feasible to say that the one out of every million moths that already had natural immunity to it managed to take over from the normal ones just because they have a lot better food supply (one that isn't poisonous to them)?
Isn't that, after all, the main idea behind natural selection? When something in the environment changes, the one with the best resistance/adaptation to the change wins.

Mother Nature is a pro at tinkering with genetics. And you can't beat a pro.

On a relate dnote, I recently read The World Without Us and what struck me was how short a time it takes for nature to overrun human made things. What really hit this home was the chapter discussing how the engineers who maintain the Panama Canal have to check the Locks daily or else tree roots and water will undermine them. They lost one lock in a week and the only reason was because the engineer in charge retired and it took that long for his successor to get on the job.

The book goes on to describe how microorganisms could evolve to digest plastic and teflon and all those other things that are supposed to never biodegrade. it's really astonishing how well and how quickly animals can adapt.

What if you don't believe in evolution? Do you have to automatically reject that animals (in this case moths) can't adapt to something like insecticide-laced, gen-modified corn?

Everyone knew this would happen, why else are cockroaches even harder to kill, except with physical violence? All they had to do was unleash some predators of the moth, and all we have to deal with are those predators.

Awesome. I'm writing an article on natural selection at this very moment. Cool info!

Well, the teeny tiny bugs have been evolving in response to changes in antibiotics for quite a while now. It can't be that surprising that the bigger bugs exhibit similar adaptability.
@steven522: Natural selection is integral to evolution; it doesn't work without it. It doesn't really matter when the mutation happened, just that there was some portion of the population that had a decided advantage over others in the given environment due to that mutation.

Reminds me of the old movie Phase IV. Scientists observing Mega Intelligent, Hive Mind Ants use pesticides of different colors to test the Ants ability to adapt to the chemicals. A little war between the Scientists and the Ants begins.

"Give them 10 seconds of Yellow"

@steven522:
Evolution happens much faster at the genetic level.

In the past four years, geneticists have discovered something called micro RNA which is how individual bacterium share genetic code and is the mechanism as to how antibiotic resistance gets handed over to disparate bacteria.

Same thing happens to larger beings when they mate.

A typical bug generation is one day to one week. Assume these bugs are reach maturity in under one week. That means around 52 generations a year. Assume that Bt was available for 10 years. That is 520 generations. A human equivalent to this would be about 13000 years (assume 25 years = one human generation.) Not surprising.

@ManchuCandidate: 52 generations a year. Gross.

Evolution rocks.

@ManchuCandidate: Mother Nature has had a lot more practice than Mankind has. It's folly to believe we can simply eliminate a problem by engineering it away. The number of combinations of proteins is staggeringly high.

@NefariousNewt:
I didn't mean to confuse you. I actually agree with you. Modern day geneticists have about 2 1/2 billion years of catchup to do and mother nature can do it much faster. This is why I'm always leery of genetic mods at the micro/DNA level (unlike say broccoli and apricots which is at the macro level.) Yay fish genes in corn!

@steven522: And the difference between those two things is???? Natural Selection == Evolution

@ManchuCandidate: No confusion, just affirming. It's like anything that has to do with modern society -- we think that because we have some kind of technological advantage, we have the power. Nature shows us however, that given enough time, she can outdo us, and bury our failures in the sand.

@ManchuCandidate: I'm just saying that every time a new pesticide loses its effectiveness, the scientists all say "the bug developed an immunity to it." Maybe the bug didn't just suddenly develop an immunity. Maybe the minute number of that species of bug already had immunity and they slowly reproduce to fill in the spaces left by the massive numbers that initially get killed.
I'm not talking about long term evolution like a giraffe developing a long neck because the mutations born with longer necks ate better and reproduced more. I'm thinking more like a blight that runs through a plant population killing off 90% of their members leaving the 10% left alive that had some sort of natural immunity. We don't say "oh they quickly developed a resistance to the blight". We usually say "well we still have the blight resistant ones to replant."

bump

@steven522:
First off, there is no such thing as natural immunity.

No toxin/bacteria/virus has an instantaneous Pk (probability of a kill) of 100%. Often times, the survivors are just those who only lucky by only briefly coming into contact with the toxin. Even then there is no guarantee they'll survive a second hit. However, at the genetic level, the DNA of the bugs changes because of the contact with the toxin/bacteria/virus. microRNA turns on and off various genes in an attempt keep the body alive. Considering the number of amino acid combinations, it takes the bug a long time to find the right one.

As I said earlier, we are looking at it from our time perspective and should look at it from the insect's time perspective. For an insect, 10-20 years is long term evolution.

@steven522: I think the reason we say "X developed an immunity to X," is partially out of ignorance of what actually happens and partially as to not offend the creationsists out there. You're right, actually what happened is that they "evolved" so that the resistant species are becoming dominant whiles the non-resistant species dies. But with the political/scientific climate out there, its not a good idea to say a species "evolved." By the way, what do creationists say about this event? God has willed the the bugs become resistant? So by that logic, it makes more sense to pray to God for relief from these critters than to develop resistant strains. Is that the thinking? Seriously, its a question.

@cde: natural selection is a change in the survivability of existing traits within a species. evolution is the development of a previously impossible trait or a new species.

Yes, I can see the little moth generations now:
Gen 1 goes out and merely brushes against the toxin corn and the survivors go back and multiply.
Gen 2 goes out and actually licks the corn and the survivors go back and multiply.
Gen 3 goes out and takes one bite and the survivors go back and multiply.
Gen 4 goes out and takes two bites and the survivors go back and multiply.
...and by generation 500 we have a moth than can actually eat an entire ear of corn.

Those butterfly wannabees are to smart for their own good.

I'm going to go Cute Overload on your asses and assert simply that the bollworm moth is about the cutest, goofiest thing I have ever seen.

@Annalee Newitz: Yes, ma'am. Shutting up, now.

@volks73:
No. If you don't believe in evolution, then this is God's vengeance for interfering with His Will.

Just don't bother trying to use logic on that stuff.
-Kle.

@steven522: "I doubt they developed a resistance this fast. Wouldn't it be more feasible to say that the one out of every million moths that already had natural immunity to it managed to take over from the normal ones just because they have a lot better food supply (one that isn't poisonous to them)?"

That is how natural selection works. It's not that they randomly became immune, the population that was immune survived to reproduce, the ones that were not, did not.

bump again

In no way is that proof that natural selection works faster than GE. So the researchers "hasten to add that this is not due to resistance," right…how do they deduce this exactly?

Just as likely as naturally selecting for resistance, it's possible the genetically modified plants either did not produce the desired chemical in large enough quantities to kill the moths or did not produce the correct chemical compound. In either scenario, resistance in the moth population can be built up WITHOUT natural selection. Since the researchers admit that boll moth populations exposed to bt DO build resistances, the resistance theory seems equally likely.

I would attribute this report to malicious intent by someone with a motive rather than an example of heretofore unprecedentedly rapid natural selection.

""I doubt they developed a resistance this fast. Wouldn't it be more feasible to say that the one out of every million moths that already had natural immunity to it managed to take over from the normal ones just because they have a lot better food supply (one that isn't poisonous to them)?"

That is how natural selection works. It's not that they randomly became immune, the population that was immune survived to reproduce, the ones that were not, did not. "

EXACTLY. Evolution is really just what genetic population reproduces the fastest. DNA is never copied exactly between generations causing variation within populations. When you combine the natural rate of variation and natural selection pressures you get change in the overall population...hence evolution.

basically, STEVEN522 you're an idiot.

I love the idea that this insecticide was another "magic bullet" that made a ton of money for the owner of that no-doubt-patented cotton. Because that sort of thing always works so well.

I'll bet those moths once had a natural predator which had already been eliminated by yet another "magic bullet."

I am studying for my PhD in insecticide resistance. First, resistance is not immunity. Resistance is due to increased metabolism(P450s, GSTs, etc), target site insensitivity (kdr, etc) or sequesteration. Antibodies are not responsible for a single case of resistance. Second, resistance levels are determined by genotype, insecticide and route of exposure. Resistance levels are usually reproducible and defined. Third, the POPULATION develops resistance, not individuals.

Bt crops have an outstanding track record for not allowing resistance to develop in the target organism. While the pink boll worm has developed resistance in the lab, a survey of field populations showed no resistance alleles in 5571 individuals from 59 cotton fields in AZ. (Tabashnik et al, J. Econ. Ent. 99(5)1525). Bruce Tabashnik is an EXCELLENT scientist and his results are very reliable. One possible reason for low levels of resistance is due to the biochemical complexity of the mode of action of Bt toxins.

While resistance may cause the population to survive a dose of toxin, there are often fitness costs associated with resitance. For example, blowflies that are resistant to diazinon have a lower probability of success in overwintering survival (McKenzie, 1994 Heredity, 73(1)57). Pink boll worms resistant to Bt cotton do not survive well on non-Bt cotton (Carriere et al. 2001 J Econ Ent 94(6)1571). There are many other examples of reduced fitness in resistant populations. This sort of genetic "tug-of-war" (ie the benefits of resistance vs fitness costs) can influence the rate at which resistance evolves in field populations.

To say that evolution works faster than GE is misleading. GE is human mediated evolution that rapidly and ingeniously can "outsmart" evolution. Evolution however plays with a stacked deck with cards most people cannot possibly conceive. GE is a temporary fix to an instantaneous evolutionary situation. Evolution, like the house, always wins.

Evolution or selection of resistance is a fantastic opportunity to study evolution in short time periods (ie human life span). Resistance is an interesting field because it is proof that evolution is still functional and species are capable of adapting to environmental stresses, despite what almost every media outlet claims.

"This is the first-known example of bugs evolving resistance to an insecticide in the wild."
I think you meant to say the first-known example of bugs evolving a resistance to a self-insecticide-producing plant. There are many examples of insect adaptation to insecticides.

IT'S NOT EVOLUTION. IT'S THE WILL OF THE ALMIGHTY FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!!

I believe in adaptation and not necessarily evolution. The definitions are virtually the same, only it's almost that evolution takes adaptation a step further in an assumptive sense. Evolution is founded on the belief that all species must have evolved from other species to become what they are today. I think species adapt but do not cross thresholds that become determinable factors in becoming a new species. This is something that has not been proven, because it's an assumption. Adaptation is real. These bugs are the same species of bugs with a new adaptation, this story in not a case of evolution as it has not been proven by this or anything else. This is no different than a man born without arms learning to paint and eat with his feet.

@hortensio: "I think species adapt but do not cross thresholds that become determinable factors in becoming a new species."

Species is defined as a taxonomic group that can interbreed. It takes a lot of genetic "drift" for a population to deviate enough to not be able to breed. Even chihuahuas and German Shepards can breed. If you isolate groups of a species for long enough, they will eventually not be able to breed.

Think about it this way... You know how the jpg and mp3 format uses lossy compression? If you convert those files over and over they will degrade in quality. Genetics is similar. You never get a perfect copy. Traits are passed on randomly, environmental issues will cause mutations, etc... If a population interbreeds it's members constantly, they serve as a correcting factor and the changes spread themselves over the whole population. If you separate the population into two groups, they can no self-correct in sync. The become "unsynchronized" and eventually can not produce viable offspring. At first, they would just produce offspring that was sterile. A GOOD example of this is a mule. Donkeys and horses have not drifted so far from each other that they are incapable of breeding, but their offspring, the mule, is sterile.

Did Chance engineer legs for fish or did the fish just realize that they needed to grow legs?

ahaha, so much ranting, so little background knowledge. except for FrankP450, no-one seems to really know what they are talking about here. And even he overlooked a vital fact - why did the bugs already have resistance to Bt toxins (which they undoubtedly did)? Becuase Bt toxins are natural compounds that already attack insects! Therefore they have had more than 20-30 yrs to 'evolve' and this definitley isn't a new 'gain of function' mutant phenomena, which is the only thing that would be newsworthy (in my humble opinion).
Therefore, yes the population has had increased selective pressure for the already resistant individuals, but scientists are combating this fact by varying the specific toxins used.

oh and chance engineering something is an oxymoron!