We are told: Some species are evolving far more quickly than Darwin ever imagined.

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 31, 2015

Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

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

For example, Discover:

Mosquitoes that colonized the London Underground in 1863 are now so different they can no longer mate with their above-ground relatives. Chinook salmon from Alaska to California needed just a human generation to become smaller and shorter-lived after an increase in commercial fishing in the 1920s. Adaptation is happening right under our noses, in our lifetimes.

But all of this can be accounted for within the genome of the species without any new information.

Put another way, if it is true that 1863 Tube mosquitos can no longer bred with above-ground mosquitoes, does that not signal a loss rather than a gain in information? Or are we not supposed to ask any more?

Comments

Descendants of fish ARE fish. Mountains and netfulls of evidence. Where are the thousands and thousands of gasping crawling transitional fish species that should be around today per Evo Theory. Cricketts. Leaping Cricket fish. Plenty of niches for leaping cricket fish have existed for a 50 million years and are still around today. Where are the thousands and thousands?ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

ppolish: you’re saying “Once a fish, always a fish” is now true. No. Fish is a paraphyletic designation. Some descendants of fish are not fish, including humans. However, once a gnathostome, always a gnathostome.Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

So Zachary, you're saying "Once a fish, always a fish" is now true. Not like the good old days when we had niches. Ahh, the good old days when Evo ruled the land and seas. Back then being a fish meant something special.ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

ppolish: there should be thousands and thousands and thousands of transitional species alive today. Why is that? Those niches are already filled with more derived organisms, leaving many extinct species in the wake.Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Zachary, there should be thousands and thousands and thousands of transitional species alive today. Not a few shoreline bottom feeding fish adaptions. What, is Evolution resting? Fish are our future, just our past.ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Zachriel is grasping- Tiktaalik wasn't a "grasping fishlike critter"- it was a fish. Lungfish aren't "grasping fishlike critters" either.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

ppolish: “Once a fish, always a fish” is false Piotr? Then it follows that we should see many many transitional forms crawling the earth today. Not necessarily, for instance, if "gasping fishlike critters" existed in the past. See Shubin et al., Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae, PNAS 2014. Then again, a lungfish is a "gasping fishlike critter".Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

"Once a fish, always a fish" is false Piotr? Then it follows that we should see many many transitional forms crawling the earth today. Modern beaches should be awash in gasping fishlike critters. There should also be a plethora of transitioning reptiles alive today. An obvious predictiction of Evo Theory is obviously wrong.ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Page 4, paragraph 3 of the theory of evolution. :) Conant, S. (1988) "Saving Species by Translocation". Bioscience 38:254-57 Pimm, S. L., (1988) "Rapid morphological change in an introduced bird". Trends in Evolution and Ecology 3: 290-91Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Joe: Identical finches, vel. The same species, the same markings, the same beak sizes, the same genes- and within 17 years that all changed- beak sizes with accompanying muscles, markings- all changed. Same genes? How was that determined in 1960's? I could find no info about this experiment, do you have a link?velikovskys_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Andre: Ever seen this last universal common ancestor? Ever seen your great-great-great-great-grandparents?Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
Let’s try and redefine reptiles and fish as clades
Why? Clades are manmade. Reptiles will never be and have never been anything but reptiles. Fish will never be and have never been anything but fish. Birds have always been birds... Your trying to change the subject is laughable and demonstrates desperation on your part.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Piotr Ever seen this last universal common ancestor?Andre_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary rates of a moment, as measured for guppies and lizards, are vastly too rapid to represent the general modes of change that build life's history through geological ages. -- The Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant, S J Gould This of course means that the usual proofs of `evolution in action', e.g. finch beaks on the Galapagos, while good for evolutionist propaganda, i.e. "to attract public attention", are "utterly invalid" as evidence for large-scale evolution, as revealed in the fossil record. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CreationEvolutionDesign/conversations/topics/8241
Silver Asiatic_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

#17 Whatev', Joe. Let's try and redefine reptiles and fish as clades. For example, you can define "Pisces" as the most recent common ancestor of the great white shark, the Atlantic herring, the coelacanth, and the Queensland lungfish, plus all descendants of that common ancestor. Lampreys and hagfish will not be included (which is OK), but every "true fish" will. A clade so defined, however, also has to include all tetrapods (land vertebrates), so in fact it's identical with the crown group of Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates). So "Pisces" can be discarded since we already have a well-defined taxon which matches the definition. So instead of saying "once a fish, always a fish" (which would require a fishy redefinition of fish), we say "once a jawed vetrebrate, always a jawed vertebrate", which is uncontroversially true. Sharks, frogs, humans, lizards, chickens and kangaroos all have jaws. Similarly with reptiles. If "Reptilia" = the most recent ancestor of the Nile crocodile, the Galapagos tortoise, the tuatara, and the sidewinder, plus all descendants of that proto-reptile, the clade will contain all bona fide modern reptiles, as well as many extinct ones, such as dinosaurs and pterosaurs (so far, so good) -- and birds. There is no way to define Reptilia as a natural, non-paraphyletic taxon, with the birds excluded. And, again, we already have well-defined taxa which include all modern "reptiles" as well as birds but exclude all mammals, making a redefined "Reptilia" superfluous: Sauria, Diapsida, Sauropsida (each included in the next)*. So "once a diapsid, always a diapsid"; and birds are diapsids. ------ *) I assume that turtles, like other extant reptiles, are part of Sauria, as seems increasingly likely. In any case, they belong to Sauropsida.Piotr_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Identical finches, vel. The same species, the same markings, the same beak sizes, the same genes- and within 17 years that all changed- beak sizes with accompanying muscles, markings- all changed.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Joe 100 identical finches Single sex clones?velikovskys_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

In the 1960s 100 identical finches were released an a pacific island that didn't have any finches. Within 17 years that group diversified, bringing about seemingly new species.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Piotr chimes in with:
Prokaryotes are a paraphyletic grouping, not a clade
So what?
so the same reasoning doesn’t apply.
That doesn't follow, Piotr. Actually that is about as lame as it gets.
Similarly, vertebrates and birds are clades, but reptiles and fish aren’t. So “once a vertebrate, always a vertebrate”, “once a bird, always a bird” (true), but not “once a reptile, always a reptile” or “once a fish, always a fish” (false).
Wrong. Reptiles will always be reptiles and fish will always be fish. You don't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond any of that. That was a pathetic attempt at trying to refute what I said. Typical but still pathetic. Thank you for proving that you don't have anything beyond bald assertion.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Once a prokaryote always a prokaryote. Whoops, there goes universal common descent.
Prokaryotes are a paraphyletic grouping, not a clade, so the same reasoning doesn't apply. Similarly, vertebrates and birds are clades, but reptiles and fish aren't. So "once a vertebrate, always a vertebrate", "once a bird, always a bird" (true), but not "once a reptile, always a reptile" or "once a fish, always a fish" (false). The last common ancestor of all prokayotes is the same as the most recent universal common ancestor of all living species, so all you can say is "once an organism, always an organism", which, I hope, you don't disagree with.Piotr_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

Ppolish London Underground Mosquitos are being discovered in many other cities worldwide. Always in the underground? Coincidence? Nope. NS & RM? So you are saying that it is not a coincidence the 1863 are sucessful in one particular environment . Please stop. Not enough kinds of mosquitoes in the world for the designer,I guess. Cool design? Bingo Maybe he will work on some new kind of parasite next. Founder Effect? Loss of info right there. It is true 1863 can't make new mosquitoes with its surface brethren,I can see how that may be viewed as a loss.However looking at from the other direction the surface mosquitoes don't have the new information necessary to mate with the 1863. Sounds like a draw.velikovskys_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

I thought Baramin was a character in Lord of the Rings.Seversky_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Earth to Seversky- Baraminology is all about adaptive evolution. Just sayin'...Joe_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

London Underground Mosquitos are being discovered in many other cities worldwide. Coincidence? Nope. NS & RM? Please stop. Hitchhiking? Maybe. Cool design? Bingo. Founder Effect? Loss of info right there.ppolish_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

So we have some neat evidence for adaptive evolution and even speciation but the concern is about loss of information? Darwin had no theory of genetic information so it isn't a part of Darwinism. And why should speciation in mosquitoes signal a loss of information? Why not an addition? And what information are we taking about?Seversky_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Once a deuterostome, always a deuterostome.
Once a prokaryote always a prokaryote. Whoops, there goes universal common descent.Joe_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

So much for objectivity, eh Piotr? "It just happened, man"- that is the extent of your position's "science".Joe_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

ppolish: Once a mosquito, always a mosquito. Once a deuterostome, always a deuterostome. http://classes.midlandstech.edu/carterp/Courses/bio225/chap25/25-01_Digestive_1.jpgZachriel_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

#6 JohnnyB, The initial mutation responsible for the formation of a caecal valve surely occurred in one individual, but its spread in the population must have taken several generations. The lizards can breed when they are one year old, so 36 years means about 30 generations of fast population growth (from 5 females and 5 males to many thousand lizards inhabiting the island today). Changes in feeding style have exposed the lizards to new adaptive pressures, accelerating their evolution. In a small but fast-growing population innovations can spread like a wildfire and undergo rapid fixation. As genetic studies show, the London Underground gnats also derive from a single, very small founder population, so any differences between them and the ancestral species were amplified quickly. Read up on founder mutations. The caecal valve, by the way, is not a particularly sophisticated "organ". It's basically a piece of muscle tissue which can contract, creating a constriction in the animal's intestine. Thus, it slows down the passage of food, turning the gut into a fermenting chamber where microorganisms (bacteria, nematodes) can flourish, converting cellulose into fatty acids and making plant material digestible for the lizard. The valve did not develop in response to the presence of bacteria and nematodes. It was the other way round. Ubiquitous microorganisms took advantage of an accidental opportunity that presented itself. The result was accidentally beneficial for the lizards (it could have been otherwise -- many known founder mutations are quite harmful). The same or very similar bacteria and nematodes can be found everywhere, including the nearby island from which the lizards were introduced. Other lizards take them in with their food, but don't multiply them in their guts simply because they poo too quickly. Tell me, Johnny, if it's a front-loaded response, why don't those other lizards "respond" to identical potential symbionts in their environment? Because we are dealing with a rare mutation which may also occur elsewhere from time to time but rarely has a chance to be driven to fixation, unless by sheer luck it happens in a tiny founder population.Piotr_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Denyse - here is a similar story from a while back. Basically, a lizard grew a new organ in, basically, a single generation. It seems to be responding to symbionts in the environment. http://www.bartlettpublishing.com/site/bartpub/blog/1/entry/11johnnyb_{March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply