Dodge Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Charles Darwin was wrong about evolution. Well, in chickens anyway. A study of the birds’ legs has revealed they are not descended from one species, as biologist thought. Yellow-skinned chickens have yellow legs because they lack a gene which breaks down pigment in cornfeed. But their white-skinned cousins do have the DNA, meaning the two do not share the same ancestor. The finding may also explain flamingos’ pink hue, Swedish scientists said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egluntyne Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Eh? I thought flamingo's legs were pink from the pigmentation in the crustacea that they eat. Zoo flamingos have artificial colouring added to their food to achieve the same effect to keep the public happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedusA Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Eh? I thought flamingo's legs were pink from the pigmentation in the crustacea that they eat. Zoo flamingos have artificial colouring added to their food to achieve the same effect to keep the public happy. Yep I read that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodge Posted March 4, 2008 Author Share Posted March 4, 2008 I think a bit of confusion in reading this article maybe Yellow-skinned chickens have yellow legs because they lack a gene which breaks down pigment in cornfeed. So if they eat cornfeed then because they don't have a gene which breaks down and gets rid of the colour in the feed, then it turns their legs yellow. So I presume that if yellow skinned chickens did not eat cornfeed, then their legs would not be yellow, but a natural colour instead. Hence the comparison with flamingos' I.E. Flamingos' could be pink because they do not have a gene to break down the pigment in the crustacea that they eat. Does this make sense, or am I going mad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Eh? I thought flamingo's legs were pink from the pigmentation in the crustacea that they eat. Zoo flamingos have artificial colouring added to their food to achieve the same effect to keep the public happy. I believe that it is only the colour of the flamingo's plummage that is affected by their diet, and their legs would be the same colour no matter what they ate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 That makes sense to me! If they had the gene then the food colour would be excreted with the rest of the waste products of digestion. So if their 'white skinned cousins' (whoever they may be) ate corn, they wouldn't get yellow legs. I'd like to know who the white skinned cousins are though! Just out of curiosity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyren Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Charles Darwin was wrong about evolution. Well, in chickens anyway.A study of the birds’ legs has revealed they are not descended from one species, as biologist thought. Yellow-skinned chickens have yellow legs because they lack a gene which breaks down pigment in cornfeed. But their white-skinned cousins do have the DNA, meaning the two do not share the same ancestor. The final sentence is slightly misleading - it gives the impression that yellow- and white-skinned breeds are unrelated. What the research actually shows is that all chickens are mostly descended from the red jungle fowl but that at least one of their genes was obtained by crossing red and grey jungle fowls. Chickens with yellow legs express the gene, while white-legged ones have an inactive version - a bit like hair or skin colour in humans. I have to admit that those sensationalist "Darwin got it wrong" headlines always rub me up the wrong way - they give ammunition to creationists who understand nothing of the biology. So Darwin thought dogs were a cross between two wild species and chickens were descended from only one, when it's the other way round - given that in his day Mendel's work on genetics was pretty much totally ignored, it's hardly a big deal! OK, rant over Thanks for the post - I found the original PLoS article and it was very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...