Urban fish differ from rural fish but is that really “evolution”?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 4, 2018

Ecology, Evolution, Genetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

https://news.ncsu.edu/2018/04/city-fish-different-than-country-fish/ — Less streamlined urban chub/Elizabeth Kern

From Brian Langerhans and Mick Kulikowski at NC State University:

A North Carolina State University study examining the effects of urbanization on the evolution of fish body shape produced both expected and surprising results: One fish species became more sleek in response to urbanization, while another species became deeper bodied in urban areas.

Generally, urbanization produces conditions that make water in streams flow more variably and more quickly during rain storms. So NC State biologists hypothesized that fish would quickly evolve a body shape that improves swimming efficiency in response to changes in stream water velocity caused by urbanization.

“We wanted to test rapid body shape evolution in western and central North Carolina stream fish in response to urbanization,” said Brian Langerhans, associate professor of biology at NC State and senior author of a paper describing the research. “While some species cannot handle the altered conditions and have disappeared or reduced in abundance, some remaining species may rapidly evolve adaptive trait changes to contend with the human-induced changes in their environment.” More.

Paper. (paywall)

But why should we suppose that the chub “evolved” over a few decades, as opposed to having the existing capacity to adapt their body shape? “Evolve” should mean “develop a new characteristic” rather than “display an existing, alternative characteristic,” to cope with changed circumstances. The latter seems more likely, given the short time frame.

Lee Spetner argues, in The Evolution Revolution, for a non-random evolutionary hypothesis according to which a mechanism of “built-in responses to environmental cues” means that some mutations happen just when they are needed. And some happen at just the right place to be effective. And still others, called transposons aka jumping genes, carry within the DNA coding sequence the coding for two of the enzymes required for it to be able to move around. Too bad it couldn’t be seriously studied. For ecology reasons, it would be good to know when that is happening.

See also: Spetner’s Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis

and

Life continues to ignore what evolution experts say

Comments

Allan:
One trick pony:
As opposed to Allan, a three trick phony- lie, bluffs and equivocationsET_{May 5, 2018
May
05
May
5
05
2018
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

aarceng @ 9 -
Actually it could be epigenetic, then it might not even be a change in allele frequencies.
Yes, although they did rear fish from different populations in a common environment, so any epigenetics would have to be inherited (which, of course, does happen). Hopefully they're doing some controlled crosses to look in more detail at this.Bob O'H_{May 5, 2018
May
05
May
5
05
2018
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

as to:
epigenetic phenotypic expressions are still open to selection pressures.
And exactly how is the supposed 'selection pressure' to be measured? Can you point me to the exact place this mythical selection pressure resides in the NIST database?
NIST pressure https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/pressure
Darwinism is a religion not a science!
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." William Provine – (The Late) Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University - The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 "Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Coyne Disses Shapiro, but Shapiro Inspires Koonin -- and Natural Selection Is the Main Issue Paul Nelson August 28, 2012 Excerpt: [Jim Shapiro's] contention that natural selection's importance for evolution has been hugely overstated represents a point of view that has a growing set of adherents. (A few months ago, I was amazed to hear it expressed, in the strongest terms, from another highly eminent microbiologist.) My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a "creative" and crucial role in evolution and, on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/coyne_disses_sh063541.html etc.. etc..
bornagain77_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Next they will discover metrosexual fish in urban areas.EDTA_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Aarcenq,
Actually it could be epigenetic, then it might not even be a change in allele frequencies.
True. But epigenetic phenotypic expressions are still open to selection pressures.Allan Keith_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Actually it could be epigenetic, then it might not even be a change in allele frequencies.aarceng_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

ET,
Please reference the scientific theory of evolution so we can read if it says that. Thank you.
One trick pony:
a person or thing with only one special feature, talent, or area of expertise.
Allan Keith_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith @ 1 A shift in allele frequency, which I am assuming this reflects, is a MICRO-evolutionary process. "Biologists who study evolution at this level [microevolution] define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population." https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_37 Similar comment by Endler, John A. (1986). Natural Selection in the Wild, but I don't have the exact quote handy.aarceng_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Allan:
Yet, this is exactly what evolution theory says.
Please reference the scientific theory of evolution so we can read if it says that. Thank you.ET_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

"Yet, this is exactly what evolution theory says." Ha! Evolutionary theory says whatever it needs to in order to avoid rigid falsification. It is a unfalsifiable pseudoscience!
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
Perhaps Bob (and weave) can be the first Darwinist in the world to ever discover the physical law of evolution so as to make it a mathematically testable science instead of the pseudoscience that it currently is! As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
The only thing that is a universal constant/law in Darwinian theory is all the ad hominem, bluff and bluster of all its proponents! It has " been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory." :)
Darwin vs. creationists is evolving debate By Terry Scambray - February 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them "creationists" -- meaning "crackpots." As one historian writes, the Darwinists' attacks "have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory." http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/02/22/3184701/terry-scambray-darwin-vs-creationists.html
bornagain77_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

News,
Allan Keith, if the shift is a result of changes of display in an existing genome and adds no information that results in permanent, long-term change it is certainly not what most people mean by “evolution.”
Yet, this is exactly what evolution theory says. If the genetics necessary for the stocky body type are not removed from the population then the average body type could shift back without the need for any new genetic information. If the genetic are eliminated, then new mutations would be necessary to regain a stocky body plan.Allan Keith_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith, if the shift is a result of changes of display in an existing genome and adds no information that results in permanent, long-term change it is certainly not what most people mean by "evolution."News_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

A shift in allele frequency is impotent when it comes to universal common descent. This OP describes what Dr. Spetner predicted in "Not By Chance" HT- NewsET_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

“Evolve” should mean “develop a new characteristic” rather than “display an existing, alternative characteristic,” to cope with changed circumstances.
A shift in allele frequency, which I am assuming this reflects, is an evolutionary process. Differential survival of the sleeker more streamlined fish. The fact that this body shape was amongst the variation in the original population doesn't matter.Allan Keith_{May 4, 2018
May
05
May
4
04
2018
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply