LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Lizards Rapidly Evolving

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:32:55 pm PDT

A tiny island in the Adriatic Sea is the home of some rather amazing lizards.

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea. Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not by design, according to Duncan Irschick, a study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

After scientists transplanted the reptiles, the Croatian War of Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers couldn’t get back to island because of the war, Irschick said.

In 2004, however, tourism began to open back up, allowing researchers access to the island laboratory. “We didn’t know if we would find a lizard there. We had no idea if the original introductions were successful,” Irschick said.

What they found, however, was shocking.

(Hat tip: Infidels Are Cool.)

Advertisement

387 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:34:57pm
2 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:35:24pm

Noooooooo!

3 mikeinmd  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:35:33pm

CHANGE

4 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:36:28pm
5 mikeinmd  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:36:46pm

My BS detector just bleeped.

6 savage_nation[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:37:17pm
7 buster bunny  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:37:34pm

God did it ......

while you werent looking ....

8 EC Marm  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:37:39pm

A good software designer makes his code flexible, scalable, and adaptable, right? Who's to say the big coder in the sky didn't do the same.

9 jaunte  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:38:01pm

I hope the lizards' skins are getting thicker.

10 Salem  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:38:35pm

Ah, so God's kitchen is still open. I have a few dishes I'd like to suggest...

11 Buster Bunny  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:39:13pm

this isnt evolution ...

Its global warming/profiteering/anti-islamic influences !

12 lawhawk  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:39:27pm

Science!

13 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:39:30pm
Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.


Progressive!

14 jamgarr  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:39:35pm

You're just asking for it aren'tyou Charles?

15 OldLineTexan  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:39:38pm

So ten lizards produce mutations by inbreeding...

I dunno, sounds like the British Royal Family. What's the big whoop?

16 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:39:52pm

who needs to prove evolution in the laboratory then!

Charles, you'd really unleash the beast if you ever came out of the closet as a full fledged evolutionarist! Lizard heads would explode... ;)

17 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:40:29pm

re: #5 mikeinmd

My BS detector just bleeped.

Me too.

18 savage_nation[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:40:31pm
19 x-ray  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:40:49pm

re: #9 jaunte

I hope the lizards' skins are getting thicker.

If they don't they won't survive.(but they may reproduce puppets)

20 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:41:08pm

re: #16 medaura18586

Charles, you'd really unleash the beast if you ever came out of the closet as a full fledged evolutionarist! Lizard heads would explode... ;)


I'd like to see a poll on the topic. Any guesses on what the results would be?

21 jaunte  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:41:32pm

re: #15 OldLineTexan

So ten lizards produce mutations by inbreeding...

I dunno, sounds like the British Royal Family. What's the big whoop?

I hope they don't turn out with those ears.

22 Dianna  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:41:50pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I'd say it's none of my business.

23 lawhawk  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:41:54pm

So, which came first, the egg or the lizard.

I guess Charles believes the egg came first.

24 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:41:56pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I'd like to see a poll on the topic. Any guesses on what the results would be?

90% ID.

25 ypnxjkb  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:11pm

The story didn't blame global warming, guess it will need to be rewritten before it hits academia.

26 JammieWearingFool  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:18pm

I got some good lizard on a wall shots in San Diego. Now I just have to get them and hundreds of other photos off the camera.

27 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:20pm
28 Noam Sayin'  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:27pm

Well, seeing as we have 30 years of unobserved changes, it's still pretty much a theory, right?

*runs like hell*

29 Rain Patriot  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:32pm

Uh-oh.

Forgive me but I'm gonna go ahead and call it: "in before 1,500+ comments"

30 Yankee Division Son  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:32pm

an evolution thread? Uh oh...

/runs back to egg thread

31 Salem  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:36pm

re: #24 VegasRick

90% ID.

Sobering thought...

32 MandyManners  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:48pm

Watch out, MSM.

All your crotch is ours.

We're learning. We're growing.

33 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:42:51pm

re: #27 song_and_dance_man

97%

97.59%

34 OldLineTexan  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:43:01pm

re: #21 jaunte

I hope they don't turn out with those ears.

FLYING lizards!

/that can hear you coming a mile off

35 OldLineTexan  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:43:41pm

re: #28 Noam Sayin'

Well, seeing as we have 30 years of unobserved changes, it's still pretty much a theory, right?

*runs like hell*

Did I see Barack Obama go by?

36 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:43:58pm

re: #31 Salem

Sobering thought...

10% Drunk? I agree with that.

37 MandyManners  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:44:08pm

re: #32 MandyManners

Watch out, MSM.

All your crotch is ours.

We're learning. We're growing.

Shit.

All your crotch belong to us.

Whatever. Just watch the damn thing.

38 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:44:14pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I'd like to see a poll on the topic. Any guesses on what the results would be?

A poll on the likely psychological effects of finding out that the Lizard King has jumped the evolution shark?

there would be guts everywhere... I don't know about poll results, but I'm sure Charles would gain a lot of new readers (and likely not lose many old ones)

Charles has dropped clues along the way as it is anyway...

39 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:44:14pm
40 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:44:50pm

re: #37 MandyManners

Shit.

All your crotch belong to us.

Whatever. Just watch the damn thing.

LOLLOLLOL! Your comment!

41 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:44:51pm

re: #15 OldLineTexan

So ten lizards produce mutations by inbreeding...

I dunno, sounds like the British Royal Family. What's the big whoop?

LOL! Touché!

42 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:44:57pm

re: #24 VegasRick

I'd say 65% for ID/creationism.

43 rabidfox  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:45:02pm

I'd love to see whether these lizards can interbreed with the original species and produce fertile offspring. Something else I'd like to see is a more controlled experiment where these conditions are reproduced in the laboratory. So the changes can be documented.

44 MandyManners  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:45:20pm
45 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:45:30pm

re: #37 MandyManners

Shit.

All your crotch belong to us.

Whatever. Just watch the damn thing.

And the video!

46 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:45:48pm

re: #37 MandyManners

Shit.

All your crotch belong to us.

Whatever. Just watch the damn thing.

ROFL!

47 wanumba  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:45:54pm

Why is it called evolution when it's natural selection in a isolated population? They remain 100% lizards, not something else.

Take a bunch of dog mutts and after a bit of selecting here and there, one produces a Basset Hound, short legs, long ears - hardly the dramatic characteristics that were evident in the mutt pool, but everything there was available, just needed to be isolated. The very same mutt pool can also produce a Great Dane or a chihauhua, simply with the right selecting. Mate them back togather and get mutt pups again.
What one Earth is the difference here with the lizards? Breeding is not evolution.

48 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:46:14pm

re: #38 medaura18586

I liked your article Beyond Conservatism. I've been having similar thoughts lately.

49 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:47:05pm

Interesting story and it makes mores sense that evolution happens across a species simultaneously when that species is faced with a changing environment as opposed to the traditional notion of evolution that useful genetic mutations propagate through natural selection.

Because if evolution was actually driven by natural selection of species with genetic mutations that made them more viable, then 6 billion years would not be enough time to get to where we are now. Not even close really.

50 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:47:16pm

re: #42 Killgore Trout

I'd say 65% for ID/creationism.

That low?

51 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:47:57pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I'd like to see a poll on the topic. Any guesses on what the results would be?

Ron Paul 98%
Other 2%

52 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:48:07pm

re: #42 Killgore Trout

I'd say 65% for ID/creationism.

Oh,.. a poll on THAT!?

From what I learned reading that 2.5K+ thread last night,.. and seeing the ding-to-plus ratio, I'd say 70% and up ID/Creationist (assuming the readership last night was representative of LGF's demographics)

Not only that, but the God crowd seems to be bigger mouthed/more assertive.

53 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:49:12pm

re: #49 Mich-again

Interesting story and it makes mores sense that evolution happens across a species simultaneously when that species is faced with a changing environment as opposed to the traditional notion of evolution that useful genetic mutations propagate through natural selection.

Because if evolution was actually driven by natural selection of species with genetic mutations that made them more viable, then 6 billion years would not be enough time to get to where we are now. Not even close really.

I'd be convinced if they got back their and the lizards were smoking and drinking and posting on LGF.

54 Bloodnok  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:49:33pm

OT

John Kerry was on hand to pin a (wait for it) Purple Heart on the chest of Army PFC Sean Bannon prior to today's Rangers-Red Sox game.

The man (and apparently the Sox) have no shame.

Photo

Better photo on redsox.com (click on photo gallery -first one).

55 wolfie  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:49:39pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

56 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:49:47pm
57 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:50:30pm

re: #52 medaura18586

Oh,.. a poll on THAT!?

From what I learned reading that 2.5K+ thread last night,.. and seeing the ding-to-plus ratio, I'd say 70% and up ID/Creationist (assuming the readership last night was representative of LGF's demographics)

Not only that, but the God crowd seems to be bigger mouthed/more assertive.

Like the lizards with the bigger heads, we evolved.

58 Melchizedek  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:50:38pm

How do you falsify evolution? Everybody should know this one.

59 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:50:51pm

re: #48 Killgore Trout

I liked your article Beyond Conservatism. I've been having similar thoughts lately.

Thanks,

I am getting more thoughts to add to that article. Thing is, as I have stated it, I am preaching only to the converted. So,.. I have had plenty of interesting debates with intelligent religious people about it, and I think I know how to expand it to engage them in meaningful debate which will hopefully leave the parties open to agree to mutual position.

There's no point in arguing if everyone knows in advance they're not going to change their respective minds. There is a need for common grounds.

I'll pop out a new article in a couple of weeks or so,.. still brewing on the ideas

60 snowcrash  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:51:22pm

We are back to evolution? Ugh. Cute lizard anyway.

61 soulpile  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:51:38pm

"The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he said."

Interesting. I wonder if that original species would have wiped out had scientists not introduced the new species to the environment.

In any case, the adaptation of the lizards to the new environment is neat and intriguing. I do hope they release more in-depth studies on them eventually so we can see what went on.

62 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:53:23pm

Brigitte or evolution.
Evolution or Bridgitte.
hmmnnn.

63 Jinx McHue  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:54:36pm

And amazingly enough, they're still lizards! Who'd have thunk it!

64 LoFlyer  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:54:41pm

re: #37 MandyManners

Shit.

All your crotch belong to us.

Whatever. Just watch the damn thing.

That was pretty funny, The poor guy was nearly cursing on the air. Its hard to be professional in this situation.

65 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:55:33pm
66 Orbit Rain  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:56:22pm

"It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said."

If that's what we needed, that's what would happen.

67 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:56:29pm

Lizards growing gizzards. Weirod.

68 EC Marm  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:57:02pm

Hey, mama winger, you still around to represent the bigger mouthed/assertive God squad? :~)
Gettin' late here.

69 OldLineTexan  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:57:04pm

re: #62 VegasRick

Brigitte or evolution.
Evolution or Bridgitte.
hmmnnn.

See, Brigitte is the obvious product of evolution.

Millions of years ago, there were only proto-human ape-like ancestors. They were hairy and smelly, and scratched and picked insects off each other all day.

Naturally, this repulsiveness made mating almost impossible.

So they evolved to be relatively hairless, with large breasts, wide hips, and full, pouty lips to attract mates. Which mates were forced to develop large right rear pockets for over-sized wallets. And cleft chins.

Hence humans.

/simple, AND A JOKE.
//NO SEETHING

70 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:57:07pm

re: #53 VegasRick

I'd be convinced if they got back their and the lizards were smoking and drinking and posting on LGF.

A koala bear is sitting in a big tree, smoking a joint. Along comes a little lizard, who says, "What are you doin' up there?". The koala says, "I'm smoking a joint. Come join me." So the lizard climbs up the tree and shares the joint.

Soon, the lizard is thirsty. So he climbs back down the tree and goes the the edge of the river to drink. Along comes a crocodile, who says, "Hey, little guy! What are you doin' here?"

"I was smokin' a joint with Koala in the big tree, but I got thirsty." says the lizard. "Really?", says the crocodile, "I'd like to smoke a joint, too!" So he heads for the big tree.

Koala sees the croc at the base of the tree and says "DAMN, dude! How much did you drink?!"

/go ahead. Groan.

71 HelloDare  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:57:51pm

Here's an experiment. Stick Al Gore on an island for 30 years.

72 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:57:54pm

re: #48 Killgore Trout

oh and btw, that article has been dinged down rabidly in the spinoffs... which was almost flattering in a weird way...

73 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:59:22pm

re: #51 David IV of Georgia

Ha!

74 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:59:33pm

re: #70 Grammy Cracker

A koala bear is sitting in a big tree, smoking a joint. Along comes a little lizard, who says, "What are you doin' up there?". The koala says, "I'm smoking a joint. Come join me." So the lizard climbs up the tree and shares the joint.

Soon, the lizard is thirsty. So he climbs back down the tree and goes the the edge of the river to drink. Along comes a crocodile, who says, "Hey, little guy! What are you doin' here?"

"I was smokin' a joint with Koala in the big tree, but I got thirsty." says the lizard. "Really?", says the crocodile, "I'd like to smoke a joint, too!" So he heads for the big tree.

Koala sees the croc at the base of the tree and says "DAMN, dude! How much did you drink?!"

/go ahead. Groan.

I did.

75 EC Marm  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:59:33pm

re: #65 song_and_dance_man

Wouldn't it be something if a blogs code came out of nowhere.


I know that computer code can slowly evolve. But the spontaneous appearance of code? I wish. Coulda saved me many a sleepless night.

76 itellu3times  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 6:59:46pm

re: #8 EC Marm

A good software designer makes his code flexible, scalablescaley, and adaptable, right? Who's to say the big coder in the sky didn't do the same.

Fixed it.

77 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:00:25pm

re: #72 medaura18586

I posted this article about the lizards the other day. I assume the same thing happened. Accept scorn as a badge of honour.

78 dwb  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:00:43pm

Hell, I was all excited to see how they evolved into lizard people..... Tease.

79 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:00:56pm

re: #74 VegasRick

I did.

Did you see my post to you on the *egg* thread?

/NO COOKIES FOR YOU!? Horrors!

80 itellu3times  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:01:07pm

re: #75 EC Marm

I know that computer code can slowly evolve. But the spontaneous appearance of code? I wish. Coulda saved me many a sleepless night.

It's easy, just wait four billion years.

81 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:01:53pm

re: #56 song_and_dance_man


And now that these lizards have mutated to adapt is there a chance we will see them transit into another species. Not likely.


Very likely.

82 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:01:59pm

re: #79 Grammy Cracker

Did you see my post to you on the *egg* thread?

/NO COOKIES FOR YOU!? Horrors!

Missed that one I was checking out Megathread (ID/Darwin).

83 savage_nation[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:02:34pm
84 DownRightMeanAmerican  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:02:37pm

re: #42 Killgore Trout

certainly you jest?

85 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:02:44pm

re: #71 HelloDare

Here's an experiment. Stick Al Gore on an island for 30 years.

With 2 coconuts and a banana.

86 soulpile  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:03:15pm

re: #70 Grammy Cracker

Thanks for the laugh.

87 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:03:17pm

re: #83 savage_nation

How long is that thread now?

When I left it was 2271.

88 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:03:37pm

re: #82 VegasRick

Missed that one I was checking out Megathread (ID/Darwin).

Here you go:

Girl Scouts refuse to sell cookies

89 savage_nation[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:03:40pm
90 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:04:01pm
91 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:04:12pm

re: #86 soulpile

Thanks for the laugh.

You're welcome. I'm here all week.....

/LOL

92 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:04:40pm

re: #89 savage_nation

whoa!

Hey there, Savage! How's by you tonight?

93 savage_nation[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:05:14pm
94 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:05:58pm

re: #88 Grammy Cracker

Here you go:

Girl Scouts refuse to sell cookies

I'll have to settle for some brownies.

95 itellu3times  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:06:30pm

While this lizard business may be a nice study case, I wonder what it really shows. There was likely quite a genetic spread among the original ten lizards, and they were probably close genetically to other species with other characteristics. In a good environment they would generate a lot of variants. Of the 5,000 currently, there might have been 50,000 or so that were born and didn't make it, because they were less fit to the new environment, those are probably typical numbers for small animals like that.

Note that this gives them a much better chance at survival, than if the original ten had very close genetics, and would not have generated nearly the diversity (!) in characteristics.

So just what are these Italian fence lizards anyway, they look halfway between the SoCal fence lizards and the local "alligator lizards", but I guess these eat more prosciutto?

96 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:06:44pm
97 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:07:15pm

re: #96 song_and_dance_man

NO, not that one again.

I'll stop now.

98 savage_nation[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:08:09pm
99 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:08:53pm

re: #93 savage_nation

Me good. Life is getting better for me.

New job still treating you right, I hope! Plus, spring is, well, springing... so driving must be getting easier / more fun.

100 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:09:28pm

re: #96 song_and_dance_man

NO, not that one again.

LOL! You read my mind!

101 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:10:36pm

re: #90 song_and_dance_man

Speciation
. I'd guess it's pretty likely that they've become a separate species from the lizards that were dropped off 30 years ago.

102 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:10:44pm

re: #95 itellu3times

While this lizard business may be a nice study case, I wonder what it really shows. There was likely quite a genetic spread among the original ten lizards, and they were probably close genetically to other species with other characteristics. In a good environment they would generate a lot of variants. Of the 5,000 currently, there might have been 50,000 or so that were born and didn't make it, because they were less fit to the new environment, those are probably typical numbers for small animals like that.

Note that this gives them a much better chance at survival, than if the original ten had very close genetics, and would not have generated nearly the diversity (!) in characteristics.

So just what are these Italian fence lizards anyway, they look halfway between the SoCal fence lizards and the local "alligator lizards", but I guess these eat more prosciutto?

There aren't too many Lizards at LGF who are on the fence.....

103 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:11:31pm

Hrmm
Falsifying evolution --
well let's since some of it rests on fossil record, if you found a modern species skeleton in wrong strata with other ancient skeletons, but that's never happened to my knowledge.

If you took same species, put it into two separate distinct environments and zero difference developed between the two over a very extended period of time, that could do it as well - that hasn't happened to my knowledge either.

104 soulpile  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:12:02pm

re: #91 Grammy Cracker

Great! The world is in serious need of good jokes. :)

105 Palandine  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:12:18pm
106 itellu3times  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:12:26pm

re: #101 Killgore Trout

Speciation
. I'd guess it's pretty likely that they've become a separate species from the lizards that were dropped off 30 years ago.

Would think that would take a lot more time.

107 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:13:01pm

re: #104 soulpile

Great! The world is in serious need of good jokes. :)

Aww, geez, they have to be GOOD jokes? The pressure.....


/LOL

108 soulpile  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:14:21pm

re: #107 Grammy Cracker

Well, my sense of humour doesn't click with most people (don't ask me to tell a joke, I get blank stares)... so I might think bad jokes are really good. Who knows?!

109 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:14:38pm

re: #105 Palandine

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs. "Oh Shit," Says Humanity

That right there proves it! .......um .....no I have never heard of "the onion" what is it?

110 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:14:46pm
111 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:14:49pm

re: #106 itellu3times

Would think that would take a lot more time.


Surprise!

112 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:15:31pm

The inetersting thing about this story is it blows a hole in the science of evolution, at least the common understanding of it. A definition from Wiki..

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution.

But this example says that each individual member of that species adopts on their own. The mutation in the digestive tracts of the lizards was not an example of a genetic mutation that made the ones with the mutation more viable. It happened across the species over a very short period of time.

So while it does show that creatures adapt, maybe it doesn't happen quite the way that scientists have said it did slowly over thousands of generations. Maybe, the evolutionists don't know everything after all. Imagine that.

113 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:15:37pm

re: #105 Palandine

Ha!

114 zmdavid  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:15:55pm

The Theory of Evolution keeps evolving!

115 Palandine  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:16:18pm

re: #109 VegasRick

That right there proves it! .......um .....no I have never heard of "the onion" what is it?

It's a humor/satire magazine. :)

/Closest I'll ever come to an evolution thread.

116 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:16:29pm

re: #114 zmdavid

The Theory of Evolution keeps evolving!

...as it should

117 itellu3times  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:16:40pm

re: #103 Thanos

Hrmm
Falsifying evolution --
well let's since some of it rests on fossil record, if you found a modern species skeleton in wrong strata with other ancient skeletons, but that's never happened to my knowledge.

If you took same species, put it into two separate distinct environments and zero difference developed between the two over a very extended period of time, that could do it as well - that hasn't happened to my knowledge either.

Come on, just look at the DNA between generations, not even that, look at the DNA processes of duplication and the error rate, trying to falsify evolution is about as promising as falsifying that your car really has an engine.

Nobody denies that some evolution goes on, the question is whether it can make the big jumps to new species. And really, that's not much of a question, either.

You want a real question, provide the mapping of a few DNA bases to the physical features on complex animals. Why should these tiny molecular changes produce an arm or a leg or a wing? This is certainly going on, even if there were no evolution - but if we could answer these questions of ontogenetic differentiation, I suspect that the larger questions would be answered, too.

118 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:17:12pm

re: #115 Palandine

It's a humor/satire magazine. :)

/Closest I'll ever come to an evolution thread.

I forgot the/

119 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:17:54pm

re: #106 itellu3times

Would think that would take a lot more time.

Well not according to the environmentalists. The same spotted owl that nests everywhere in Socal and Mexico is species same as that which supposedly only nests in old growth forest in Oregon. While the markings are different, they haven't achieved distinct speciation between the varieties, even though the anti-logging crowd would like us all to believe that have within the last three decades...

Different organs, now that's something....

120 soulpile  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:17:56pm

re: #110 song_and_dance_man

"...then we should have monkey's that are almost hairless and are beginning to speak."

Don't you know? That's us!

121 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:19:49pm

re: #116 medaura18586

...as it should

So my great-great-great uncle Vito really did have gorillas working for him!

122 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:20:14pm

re: #112 Mich-again

The inetersting thing about this story is it blows a hole in the science of evolution, at least the common understanding of it. A definition from Wiki..


But this example says that each individual member of that species adopts on their own. The mutation in the digestive tracts of the lizards was not an example of a genetic mutation that made the ones with the mutation more viable. It happened across the species over a very short period of time.

So while it does show that creatures adapt, maybe it doesn't happen quite the way that scientists have said it did slowly over thousands of generations. Maybe, the evolutionists don't know everything after all. Imagine that.

You need to read up on punctuated equilibrium. That's only part of the theory you are quoting above. Hot topic of debate in science for awhile now.

123 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:20:22pm
124 Egfrow  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:20:32pm

The kicker to this whole article is the last paragraph

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—... and not a "plastic response to the environment..."

...All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

This last line leaves off no date or mention of when they will go about, or have already performed the genetic testing. They already alluded to genetic testing early on in the article. So what gives, why the cliff hanger?

Here's my theory, this species of lizard survived for millions of years and already had the DNA code to make this kind of environmental adaption. Dormant DNA is activated because of a lack or presence of certain proteins in the digestive track which triggers cellular activity in new borns in sperm or egg. It's like an on off switch of adaptability. DNA does not just change uless certain segments of the DNA are unstable and change from generation to generation naturally. Kinda like an HIV RNA strand keeps changing on every iteration.

125 wolfie  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:20:42pm

re: #110 song_and_dance_man

That's all fine and well and is well documented as fact. I want to see the transitional fossils or better yet a contemporary version of a fish turning into a bird. If evolution as it is taught is true, then we should have monkey's that are almost hairless and are beginning to speak.


Joe Biden?

126 VegasRick  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:20:51pm

Gotta run bbl.

127 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:22:15pm
128 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:22:24pm

re: #110 song_and_dance_man

That's all fine and well and is well documented as fact. I want to see the transitional fossils or better yet a contemporary version of a fish turning into a bird. If evolution as it is taught is true, then we should have monkey's that are almost hairless and are beginning to speak.

Oh God, do I have a comeback line for this, but I'll save Stinky the trouble and self-delete!

129 zmdavid  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:23:00pm

re: #125 wolfie

Joe Biden?

Joe Biden talks. Alot.

130 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:23:12pm
131 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:23:55pm

re: #130 song_and_dance_man

I think I just said it.

Pretty much! GMTA!

132 soulpile  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:27:18pm

re: #123 song_and_dance_man

Forgot the /sarc tag on my post. :)

(Oh, and to throw in a wrench - maybe we're the transitional species. Or Homo Erectus, the Neanderthals, etc... (I can't remember the other species names off the top of my head. It's been too long since I attended classes in that subject) someone just has to prove it satisfactorily.)

133 itellu3times  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:29:41pm

re: #119 Thanos

Well not according to the environmentalists. The same spotted owl that nests everywhere in Socal and Mexico is species same as that which supposedly only nests in old growth forest in Oregon. While the markings are different, they haven't achieved distinct speciation between the varieties, even though the anti-logging crowd would like us all to believe that have within the last three decades...

Different organs, now that's something....

I mean, you can have variation within a species pretty much overnight, but to develop a different species, defined as inability of two populations to interbreed, generally takes one of the macro processes in that Wiki article you pointed to, and a fair number of generations.

If the environmentalists want to be snooty about a particular population group of owls in a location, even if they are common somewhere else, well, whatever. In SoCal we have the big deal of the "El Segundo blue butterfly". If indeed it's a separate species at all, I suspect it's not nearly as rare as they make out, but it seems to give some college students and sensitive types a hobby, so good for them. I used to catch them as a kid at the southern end of their purported range, and I'm pretty sure I was batting some away from some flowers inland recently, but if I said where and it proved true, they'd probably bulldoze half of Santa Monica. Betcha the darned things are all over town. So it goes.

134 Grammy Cracker  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:29:57pm

re: #132 soulpile

Forgot the /sarc tag on my post. :)

(Oh, and to throw in a wrench - maybe we're the transitional species. Or Homo Erectus, the Neanderthals, etc... (I can't remember the other species names off the top of my head. It's been too long since I attended classes in that subject) someone just has to prove it satisfactorily.)

Homo Erectus - is that the gay thread?

/

135 Egfrow  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:30:00pm

The first part of the article starts with this declaration:

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

Then in the last paragraph section it goes on to say this.

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—... and not a "plastic response to the environment..."

...All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

If this was a true science article and not a politically motivated article they would have mentioned who, when, where these comparisons would come about. Case in point. Here is another article from 1997 that says the exact same thing in the same fashion as this article.

This is politically motivated to sway assumptions of the reader rather than general scientific interest.

136 song_and_dance_man[deleted]  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:37:29pm
137 faraway  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:38:12pm

re: #120 soulpile

"...then we should have monkey's that are almost hairless and are beginning to speak."

No, sounds like Liberals.

138 faraway  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:39:17pm

re: #123 song_and_dance_man

And where are the ones between us and the primates. One would think the transitional creatures would be abundant.

Actually, it seems there should be thousands or millions of these transitional fellas.

139 wanumba  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:42:40pm

The National Geographic is practically unreadable these days. It's hard core Global Warming/Climate Change, environmentalism, all PC Party Line. Recent issue made a big point of showing Black African Pharaohs - as if it was news to anyone who'd studied even a general overview of Egyptian history. Happened to curiously coincide with Obama's campaign. Too pat. Also, though to favor some Left progressive cherished idea.

NG's always been evolution, think the Leakys, so that's never been a surprise, nor even any bother at all. Just recently, as with everything else it has been doing, it's been trying too hard.

140 sammysdad  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:42:53pm

It sounds to me like a simple case of reptile dysfunction.

141 rockdad  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:44:47pm

re: #138 faraway

Actually, it seems there should be thousands or millions of these transitional fellas.

They are over at KOS I think:)

142 wanumba  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:48:56pm

No sob story for the species that were brutally overrrun and slaughtered by the alien invaders.

There would be one if somehow if it was a NAT GEO unsympathetic figure like a Republican who'd let some lizards loose in his backyard. Nat Geo has become that pathetic.

143 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:50:14pm

I think what happened is that the new lizard is a result of inbreeding between the natives and the introduced species. It created a superior lizard that replaced both original ones.

144 Zach_the_Lizard  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:50:40pm

This is fascinating. I am one of those theistic evolutionists, if such a thing can exist. Evolution is, I think, a consequence of the laws of the universe. It makes sense. God creates primitive life, it changes until it reaches extreme complexity.

It lets God throw curveballs for fun, I think. Otherwise, we'd all die off.

145 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:51:49pm

re: #48 Killgore Trout

I liked your article Beyond Conservatism. I've been having similar thoughts lately.

It's a good piece, isn't it?

146 combatwombat  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:52:09pm

re: #110 song_and_dance_man

If evolution as it is taught is true, then we should have monkey's that are almost hairless and are beginning to speak.

We do. I go to college at UW-Madison, and see them almost every day.

147 MrBlonde21  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 7:59:27pm

Evolution is the creation of new species driven by spontaneous mutations within the genome. Natural selection is adaptation of a species to the environment driven by favorable genetic recombination events during breeding.

Idiots.

I almost feel sorry for the pseudo-scientists flooding NG these days.

148 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:00:38pm

re: #117 itellu3times

Come on, just look at the DNA between generations, not even that, look at the DNA processes of duplication and the error rate, trying to falsify evolution is about as promising as falsifying that your car really has an engine.

Nobody denies that some evolution goes on, the question is whether it can make the big jumps to new species. And really, that's not much of a question, either.

You want a real question, provide the mapping of a few DNA bases to the physical features on complex animals. Why should these tiny molecular changes produce an arm or a leg or a wing? This is certainly going on, even if there were no evolution - but if we could answer these questions of ontogenetic differentiation, I suspect that the larger questions would be answered, too.

I was replying to someone upthread, and didn't want to go with the obvious answer since it's already been tested, and genetics supports evolutionary theory.

149 norar  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:01:39pm
What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

The only thing clear is that lizards changed. However, unless genetic basis question is resolved (slim chance), the question of whether these lizards evolved or retreated to some previous form will remain.

150 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:04:07pm

This story pointed out an example of how seemingly a million years of evolution happened in just a few decades, and I say that climate change works pretty much the same way. Not a slow drift, but more like falling off the table and the result of major geologic events that disrupt the Earth's climate engine. Same for the topographical features like the Grand Canyon. They say it formed over millions of years due to flooding of the Colorado River, but I look at it and think its more likely it happened real quickly when an ice dam broke free and released a huge elevated lake of water from melted glaciers.

Its all about the transients.

151 Cicero05  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:04:19pm

re: #123 song_and_dance_man

And where are the ones between us and the primates. One would think the transitional creatures would be abundant.

All species are transitional.

Since we're not here long enough to observe evolutionary changes, to us it seems that a chimp is always a chimp and a gorilla is always a gorilla. If we could hang around for 500,000 years, maybe we'd find that what we know as a chimp is actually a creature at a random point along a continuum that led from one animal to a distinctively different animal.

152 J.S.  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:04:24pm

re: #135 Egfrow

I believe that what the "problem" is -- is this -- first you get the DNA evidence to confirm that all the "new" lizards are descendents of those introduced to the island. That's the first test. The next DNA test has to do with what's termed "Neo-Lamarckism" -- remember Lamarck? There's what's called "epigenetic inheritance" which is considered neo-Lamarckian. The genetic changes are due to environmental features -- thus, you might get different phenotypic gene expressions (mice fur color changes, etc.) but no real genetic alteration...so the phenotype could change back, be reversed...See the Wiki article here...

153 Son of the Black Dog  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:07:00pm

re: #105 Palandine

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs. "Oh Shit," Says Humanity

Well, if raccoons ever invent gunpowder, we're really in deep doo doo.

154 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:09:15pm

re: #151 Cicero05

Since we're not here long enough to observe evolutionary changes,

Really? There are 6 billion plus humans. If we are ever going to evolve into flying creatures you'd think that every now and then some kid would be born with wings instead of arms. And eventually one of them would hook up with a female kid with wings and they would mate and their offspring would take over the world!

155 Cicero05  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:13:49pm

re: #154 Mich-again

Really? There are 6 billion plus humans. If we are ever going to evolve into flying creatures you'd think that every now and then some kid would be born with wings instead of arms. And eventually one of them would hook up with a female kid with wings and they would mate and their offspring would take over the world!

The kid would have to be born with a damn impressive set of wings to get a human-sized body airborne.

156 Geepers  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:13:51pm

Adaptation isn't evolution.

157 efuseakay  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:13:53pm

Someone better tell Ben Stein!

158 gearhead  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:15:18pm

OK. Bigger heads, able to digest plant matter, blah, blah, blah.

Are they still tasty?

159 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:15:58pm

re: #150 Mich-again


Same for the topographical features like the Grand Canyon. They say it formed over millions of years due to flooding of the Colorado River, but I look at it and think its more likely it happened real quickly when an ice dam broke free and released a huge elevated lake of water from melted glaciers.

But your theory doesn't account for the different lava flows at different times and heights in the canyon walls capped and deformed by water flows at different periods in the canyons history. Sudden formation just doesn't match the existing geology, or science.

160 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:17:48pm

re: #158 gearhead

OK. Bigger heads, able to digest plant matter, blah, blah, blah.

Are they still tasty?

Hey, we are lizards here, eating other lizards would be....

161 Geepers  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:18:04pm

wanumba (#142),

Nat Geo has become that pathetic.

We've had this discussion here before, and yes, yes they have.

162 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:20:05pm

re: #150 Mich-again

OK, if you think that, I have an experiment for you.

1. Buy a slab of marble, a slab of limestone, a slab of ganite, and a slab of basalt.

2. Set them up in the yard on top of each other.

3. Hit them with a high-powered pressure washer.

4. Come back with the results.

Makes a pretty good scientific experiment to test your hypothesis, I would think.

163 Naso Tang  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:20:34pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I'd like to see a poll on the topic. Any guesses on what the results would be?

Didn't you get polled enough last night?

164 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:21:31pm

re: #156 Geepers

Adaptation isn't evolution.

Bull. That's exactly what evolution is all about.

165 Geepers  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:23:55pm

Mich-again (#150),

The Badlands similarly impressive geology was formed that way, but not the Grand Canyon.

166 FoolsMate  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:24:07pm

re: #117 itellu3times


Nobody denies that some evolution goes on, the question is whether it can make the big jumps to new species. And really, that's not much of a question, either.

Dude you should read LGF more often, you'd be surprised. Actually by the end of this thread it will happen.

167 profitsbeard  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:24:26pm

The Great Lizard removed the original reptiles and cunning replaced them, while no one was looking, with these flukey suckers.

168 Naso Tang  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:24:36pm

re: #150 Mich-again

This story pointed out an example of how seemingly a million years of evolution happened in just a few decades, and I say that climate change works pretty much the same way. Not a slow drift, but more like falling off the table and the result of major geologic events that disrupt the Earth's climate engine. Same for the topographical features like the Grand Canyon. They say it formed over millions of years due to flooding of the Colorado River, but I look at it and think its more likely it happened real quickly when an ice dam broke free and released a huge elevated lake of water from melted glaciers.

Its all about the transients.

This one is supportable by your event

Misoula Floods

The Grand Canyon is not.

169 gearhead  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:25:03pm

re: #160 Thanos

Hey, we are lizards here, eating other lizards would be....

You're right. Lizard-on-lizard violence. Just what we don't need.

170 Salem  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:27:35pm

Survival of the Lizardest

171 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:29:11pm

re: #145 Sharmuta

It's very good but not fully formed. There are some kernels of very good ideas there.

172 formercorpsman  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:35:06pm

re: #123 song_and_dance_man

You summed up my argument from last night.

I accept evolutionary process, it happens.

What the theory has yet to produce, is proven fossilized records of the transition process.

It is evident in the theory, man became upright.

Spread this out over the amount of time the theory estimates it should have taken to occur, and we should have some semblance of a the species in transition.

Everything I've seen so far does not do a very good job of it.

173 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:38:25pm

re: #159 Thanos
re: #165 Geepers

Mich-again (#150),

The Badlands similarly impressive geology was formed that way, but not the Grand Canyon.

Good call and you are right about that. But the point I was trying to make was "Its all about the transients." or the major disruptions to the steady state, not the slow-acting effects tugging the steady state in one direction or another.

But I notice that no one questioned how I used that logic of the massive transient regarding climate change.

174 6pat6  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:39:07pm

From the Dead Thread, I repost:

Diesel at $4.15 is BULLSHIT!
Gasoline at $3.40 is BULLSHIT!

There. I'm saying it. I'm sick of the oil ticks, the government, the oil companies, the enviro-fucktards, the Lefties, the RINOs, and all of the other bastards that try to justify this BULLSHIT!

175 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:40:35pm

re: #174 6pat6

Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is ripping us off!

176 Naso Tang  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:40:43pm

re: #112 Mich-again

The inetersting thing about this story is it blows a hole in the science of evolution, at least the common understanding of it. A definition from Wiki..

But this example says that each individual member of that species adopts on their own. The mutation in the digestive tracts of the lizards was not an example of a genetic mutation that made the ones with the mutation more viable. It happened across the species over a very short period of time.

So while it does show that creatures adapt, maybe it doesn't happen quite the way that scientists have said it did slowly over thousands of generations. Maybe, the evolutionists don't know everything after all. Imagine that.

Evolutionists (aka scientists) never claim that they know everything. When you accept that fact, and understand that it is a fundamental principle of science to doubt and question, perhaps you too will be less dogmatic in your dismissal of science.

For a start, current understanding of evolution caters for rapid change in the right circumstances, but I will give you some comfort perhaps by saying that some of that change is also believed to be triggered by what are called modifier within genes that control how they, genes, are expressed. Those modifiers may be more readily mutated than the genes they control, and they may also exist in a dormant recessive state until evolutionary pressures allow their benefits to be expressed, rapidly, without significant mutation. In other words evolution may have already tried this experiment in the past, but put it on the shelf until needed.

Now I realize that is ammunition for interpretation as an anti evolutionary argument, if one glosses over the details, but from my perspective, it would be a vindication of evolutionary forces and the different ways they can be expressed. And so it goes.

177 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:43:21pm

re: #171 Killgore Trout

It's very good but not fully formed. There are some kernels of very good ideas there.

Couldn't fall asleep so I checked on the thread one last time. Sharmuta is my trusty editor/proofwriter...

I recognize that it's very incomplete. It's pointing out a problem, a philosophical void/misspecification, and it's pointing toward a general template of where the direction toward a possible solution could be.

But I have had the most insightful debates AFTER the presenting the piece to Conservative friends, and that has got me to better develop those kernels in my head. I will have something to better complete the piece in the upcoming weeks hopefully.

Sharmuta will have more proofreading/editing ahead ;)

178 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:43:21pm

re: #176 Naso Tang

Your love affair with big words is most amusing to me.

I believe in evolution BTW and never once have I posted otherwise.

179 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:43:44pm

re: #173 Mich-again

re: #165 Geepers


Good call and you are right about that. But the point I was trying to make was "Its all about the transients." or the major disruptions to the steady state, not the slow-acting effects tugging the steady state in one direction or another.

But I notice that no one questioned how I used that logic of the massive transient regarding climate change.


Why would we question that? The evidence of sudden transients exists. Like historical records of ice at one time on the Thames, and barley / wheat grown in Greenland.

180 Fat Jolly Penguin  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:47:36pm

re: #34 OldLineTexan

FLYING lizards!

/that can hear you coming a mile off

You called?

181 nyc redneck  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:52:12pm

lizards are adaptable creatures. many species can grow a whole new tail if they lose theirs. perhaps this species tended toward being an omnivore and was able to survive a shift in diet w/ the gut physiology already being in place but not extensively developed until the diet changed completely. it doesn't seem like a big deal.

182 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:52:17pm

re: #179 Thanos

Why would we question that?

It seems all of modern science says the current climate change unfolding before our eyes is the result of humans creating too many greenhouse gases, no? Thats not what I call a real "transient", I'm thinking more like meteors and volcanoes.

183 Eyes of Blue  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:55:10pm

re: #123 song_and_dance_man

And where are the ones between us and the primates. One would think the transitional creatures would be abundant.


They're running Iran I believe.

184 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:57:18pm

re: #182 Mich-again

It seems all of modern science says the current climate change unfolding before our eyes is the result of humans creating too many greenhouse gases, no? Thats not what I call a real "transient", I'm thinking more like meteors and volcanoes.


Well there seems to be a bit more vulcanism the past couple decades than normal, but that's intuitive, I haven't researched it. Remember the Larsen b shelf "dissappearing"? It was poster child one for global warming awhile. They don't mention it much anymore because the shelf's back but while it was gone they discovered newly active undersea volcanoes beneath it.

185 laxmatt1984  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:58:39pm

It doesn't matter. If you can ignore almost 150 years of scientific research, the millions of fossils, the correct predictions made of evolutionary theory, as well as the emergence of new diseases such as AIDS - while at the same time grossly misunderstanding the word "theory", the moral and religious implications of evolution, the pronouncements made by Pope John Paul II himself, and the motivations of the scientific community and the ID community, nothing will change your mind. Christ himself could tell you evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth and you would call him and "atheist darwinian" and proceed to explain at length how Hitler was a obscure but harmless artist until he stumbled across "The Origin of Species".

186 Thanos  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:58:48pm

time for me to get some sleeps

187 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 8:59:32pm

re: #176 Naso Tang


Evolutionists (aka scientists) never claim that they know everything.

Ha. Thats funny. You can't be a scientist unless you are an evolutionist even though its not clear to evolutionists what evolution means or even how it works. Double ha!

188 Naso Tang  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:01:11pm

re: #178 Mich-again

Your love affair with big words is most amusing to me.

I believe in evolution BTW and never once have I posted otherwise.

Sorry, I'll try to keep it simpler when taking to you in the future.

You discount obvious geology evidence, yet you claim to understand evolution?

Perhaps I misunderstood you a while back when you suggested that atheism was based on evolution. I don't recall your exact words. We haven't conversed that much, but I did take that as meaning you understood neither.

My apologies if I misinterpreted.

189 Naso Tang  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:02:18pm

re: #187 Mich-again

Ha. Thats funny. You can't be a scientist unless you are an evolutionist even though its not clear to evolutionists what evolution means or even how it works. Double ha!

I retract.

190 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:10:25pm

re: #185 laxmatt1984

I'm not sure who that rant was addressed to but wow.

I just think everyone needs to admit they don't really know how we all got here. Because nobody knows for sure although everyone has a "religion", or theory or whatever they call it. But nothing, nothing is more amusing to me than a fundamentalist atheist who scoffs at any notion of a creator while citing the theory that it all just happened randomly. They are always a hoot.

191 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:12:42pm

re: #188 Naso Tang

Perhaps I misunderstood you a while back when you suggested that atheism was based on evolution. I don't recall your exact words.

Then go find it. There is a search function here. I never said that.

192 laxmatt1984  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:13:11pm

re: #190 Mich-again

Explain to me evolution.

193 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:15:10pm

re: #112 Mich-again

The inetersting thing about this story is it blows a hole in the science of evolution, at least the common understanding of it.


Exactly. Despite what Ben Stein and the creationist tell you about science and it's dogmatic oppression of opposing opinions evolutionary science is turned on its head about every two or three weeks. Last week they discovered that the complex jellyfish is the earliest life form we know of not the simple sea sponge. If proff is provided science will stand on its head, without evidence they will ignore you. This isn't going to change no matter how many creationists cry "oppression". That's a fact.

194 gunjam  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:15:16pm

If they had morphed into birds or primates, I might be impressed.

Unfortunately, they are still .... lizards.

Doh!

195 gunjam  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:17:31pm

... and for evermore will be.....

lizards! :-)

196 Roger  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:17:38pm

re: #194 gunjam

The greater question is, did they have fun trying?

197 JWM  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:23:39pm
Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

Genetic testing? On all those lizards? Fugedaboudit.
The way they can tell the Italian lizards is that they still squeak with an accent.

JWM

198 gunjam  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:24:11pm

re: #196 Roger

The greater question is, did they have fun trying?

:-)

Good point!

Moreover, as minions of Charles Johnson, why would we even WANT these creatures to be ANYTHING OTHER than lizards?

Iridescent, Bionic, Ninja Lizards on steroids, perhaps, yes.... but....

Still LIZARDS just the same!

;-)

199 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:25:24pm

re: #192 laxmatt1984

Explain to me evolution.

I am not here to push any agenda except for the one that says a theory is a theory until proven. If you think a lightning strike caused some amino acids in the primordial soup to form into an amoeba and then after billions of years of genetic mutations that amoeba evolved into a human being then fine. Its a free country and you can think whatever you like.

Or if you think all dinosaur bones are really just rocks and the Earth is only a few thousand tears old and all the carbon dating and fossils are a big lie and the story of creation is told accurately in Genesis then thats fine too. I really don't care what other people believe.

So I can't explain evolution other than my own observations are that living creatures generally want to stay alive.

200 KalvinB  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:26:00pm

...or it doesn't actually take millions of years for things to change dramatically to adapt to their environment as has been assumed.

201 laxmatt1984  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:28:26pm

re: #199 Mich-again

You don't even understand the meaning of the word "theory".

So sad.

202 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:28:36pm

re: #193 Killgore Trout

If proof is provided science will stand on its head, without evidence they will ignore you. This isn't going to change no matter how many creationists cry "oppression". That's a fact.

I am fine with that. But proof is a big word. Find me proof of how life starts without a creator. Thats the great divide. No one on either side can prove anything.

203 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:32:09pm

re: #201 laxmatt1984

You don't even understand the meaning of the word "theory"

Yes I do. There are laws and there are theories. Something remains a theory until proven.

204 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:33:30pm

re: #202 Mich-again

Find me proof of how life starts without a creator.


I can't, No more than you can find me proof with a creator. The fact remians, if you want to change science, proof is required. In another two or three weeks there'll be another astounding discovery (with proof) that will turn evolutionary science on its head. Will the same be true of creationists?

205 Roger  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:38:15pm

Baby steps: we need to start with finding where the meaning of is is. It has been missing since August 17, 1998.

206 Mich-again  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:39:09pm

re: #204 Killgore Trout

I can't, No more than you can find me proof with a creator.

I never claimed I could find you proof of a creator. Just that you couldn't prove otherwise.

207 justgrowup  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:39:53pm

And after all those years of trying they are still,,,,,,,,,,Lizards big surprise. What did they expect some sort of monkey man would have emerged?

208 Roger  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:42:10pm

re: #207 justgrowup

There have been humans who've in less than a year morphed into a dog with two peckers.

209 LEGION  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:51:10pm

re: #54 Bloodnok

Throw it back!

210 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:52:03pm

re: #206 Mich-again

The we are in agreement.

211 TMK  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 9:52:38pm

"The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he said."

How odd that the indigenous lizards didn't "rapid-evolve" into lizards that could compete with the introduced species... I guess their evolvospleens were malformed or something.

212 LEGION  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:02:06pm

Dominant- big mouth, big gut- sounds like--ME!

213 CrowScape  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:05:06pm

re: #202 Mich-again

I am fine with that. But proof is a big word. Find me proof of how life starts without a creator. Thats the great divide. No one on either side can prove anything.

Find me proff that whaling causes meteor strikes. What's that? You're not arguing that whaling causes meteor strikes so you shouldn't be required to provide such an answer? Then why do you place similar demands on the theory of evolution?

Those who believe that evolution has any bearing on the existence of God (oh, sorry, "the designer"), whether they go by the name Dawkins or Stein, don't know what the hell they're talking about. Science doesn't address those questions. If you want to pursue this line of inquiry, I'm sure there's a philosophy class somewhere that would be happy to take you.

Just as you wouldn't talk about the exegesis of Huck Fin in a class on calculus, refrain from bringing up the existence of a higher being in biology.

214 Whammo  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:09:54pm

We all know species adapt to their surroundings. If they had evolved into monkeys that would be news.

215 neverpayretail  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:10:01pm

#124 Egfrow

I tend to agree with you, a far simpler process than macroevolution. Also, geneticists agree on the existence of genetic code which seems to have no function in the organism. This provides a location for your dormant code.

Since I am interested in this subject, I will be watching [Link: creationsafaris.com...] for more discussion on this lizard story.

216 pat  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:39:17pm

It is obvious that the lizards had recessive characteristics of all these traits. In fact I would conject the that the lizards are in fact cousins. I think the death of the indigenous species is reprehensible. But I would be interested in an honest appraisal of the genetics of this animal with the 'progenitor' species. As for sudden mutation, it has been noted in virtually all non-mammalian, non-amphibian species.

217 LeePro  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:42:33pm

re: #207 justgrowup

First of all, LOVE YOUR NIC!

Second, ABSOLUTELY LOVE YOUR AVATAR!

Third, Thaought you were a n00b, since I've never seen you before (you should comment more often!)

And fourth... ahhhhhh, finally!
A speculative point known to be true, but inadvertently omitted from the Lizard article:

It is a known fact that the primary reason for the astounding changes in the lizards' digestive tract is the frequent and voracious consumption of the gamy buttocks of certain trolls and mobys at an undisclosed location.
218 gunjam  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:46:01pm

re: #217 LeePro

It is a known fact that the primary reason for the astounding changes in the lizards' digestive tract is the frequent and voracious consumption of the gamy buttocks of certain trolls and mobys at an undisclosed location.

Indeed! ;-)

219 gunjam  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:46:52pm

re: #214 Whammo


We all know species adapt to their surroundings. If they had evolved into monkeys that would be news.

We are on the same wavelength! ;-)

220 gunjam  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:47:58pm

re: #208 Roger

There have been humans who've in less than a year morphed into a dog with two peckers.

Indeed! ;-)

221 kynna  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 10:58:00pm

LOL. Scientists shocked. One of my favorite phrases.

Like I said on the last explosive evolution thread. Scientists are always surprised. Unless they don't want to be.

222 CTUCandyVendor  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 11:04:53pm

Mich-again: The lizards a witch! Burn them! Burrrrrnnnn!

Naso Tang: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether the lizard is a witch. Tell me. What do you do with lizards?

Creationists: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...

Naso Tang: And what do you burn apart from lizards?

Mich-again: More lizards!

Kilgore: Wood!

Crowd: Oooooh.

Naso Tang: We must weigh the lizards, and if they are the same as a duck, then they are therefore made of wood!

"Quack quack quack!" (scale tip)

Mich-again: A witch! Burn them! Burn them! Buuuurrrrrrn !

Naso Tang: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

Kilgore: I am Kilgore, King of the Britons!

Naso Tang: My liege!

:-)

223 Kailen  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 11:05:24pm

Evolution wins again.

224 bosforus  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 11:14:49pm

So the other day some guy pulled over in his car to talk to me and asked me what I was studying (college town, and I just graduated). I told him Civil Engineering and he proceed to offer me 12 $/hr to do his son's "levers and pulley" science project due this Friday. I wanted to just walk away without responding to the dirtball but I'm too polite and told him I was too busy and to try the school of engineering on campus. Good luck with that though, it's finals week.

225 LeePro  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 11:19:34pm

re: #224 bosforus


clever...

double-posting to try to wake folks up...

heh

226 LeePro  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 11:32:08pm

They need incentive!



/double-posted

227 MigueldowninMexico  Mon, Apr 21, 2008 11:53:04pm

"LIZARDS RAPIDLY EVOLVING"

Thanks Charles! ! !
Yoooooooohoooooooooo!

....

Mmmmm.
Darn, I though it was an assesment on us, lizards.

228 LeePro  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:05:27am

re: #227 MigueldowninMexico

Hi, {Miguel}!

See my #217, then come on upstairs with the rest of us!

229 '  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:30:23am

re: #123 song_and_dance_man

And where are the ones between us and the primates. One would think the transitional creatures would be abundant.

I'm a primate, what are you?

230 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:56:53am

re: #9 jaunte

I hope the lizards' skins are getting thicker.

They're going to need it.

231 LeePro  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:07:46am

re: #230 Sharmuta

They're going to need it.

Upstairs, Sharmie!
We're all upstairs!
:)

232 USS Ben  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:07:40am

re: #47 wanumba

Evolution means change. Even within' the species it's still change (evolution).

Evolution itself isn't a bad word. In fact, it makes sense that God created us to change, or transcend what we are now, to reach our full potential.
Of course, we must choose to do so.

It's easier to accept if you look at the evolution of our souls, rather than get caught up in the physical evolution.

Random chance? No. No way.
Natural selection? Nada. Perhaps in a micro sense, but not the whole existentialada.
It's supernatural selection...better known as Grace. :^)

And I'm not talkin' new age crap here...no, I'm talkin' about true metaphysics...based on absolutes that we have the potential to realize and actualize in our lives.

For example: self evident Truths. Good vs. evil. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Where does this come from?

Gno what I mean vern? Heh!

233 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:32:02am
It's easier to accept if you look at the evolution of our souls, rather than get caught up in the physical evolution.

Hehe, that's pretty good. What is the origin of soul and how is it measured? Decibels perhaps.

Random chance? No. No way.
Natural selection? Nada. Perhaps in a micro sense, but not the whole existentialada.

Fortunately, the Existentialada is served with a nice Primordial Soup.

For example: self evident Truths. Good vs. evil. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Where does this come from?

Is Capitalist Imperialist construct!

234 USS Ben  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:35:37am

Physical/horizontal evolution/natural selection...can it explain music? Revelations? Love? Joy? Peace? Beauty? Art? Goodness? Nobility? Decency? Morality? Courage? Self sacrifice? Etc. Etc..

No, it can't. Which means there is something more...far more and above.
And below.

Yeah...okay, I read One Cosmos by Gagdad Bob. Because he has an incredible ability to explain this stuff.
But it means nothing if you limit yourself to mere evolution and natural selection.

And Truth means nothing if you choose not to pursue revelations, and meditate...contemplate the Truth and Wisdom passed down from wise men: Jews, Greek, Romans, Chinese, Indian, Christians, Hindu's, Buddhists...etc..
Mystics throughout the ages; C.S. Lewis, Thomas Merton, Origen,
Thomas Aquinas, Schuon, Meister Echart, John, Paul, David, Solomon, Moses, and many, many more.

Those mystics, wise men throughout history, make the journey easier and help us to go farther if we heed their words, and strive to understand and realize what they said. :^)

235 wanglese  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:56:02am

"And after all those years of trying they are still,,,,,,,,,,Lizards big surprise. What did they expect some sort of monkey man would have emerged?"

NO, it takes a few more years than the short time frame this change has had to operate one.

Now, a few BILLION years... and who knows what pressures would evolve what....


And the nonsense question as to why the other native lizards didn't evolve. MY guess is it's probably for the same reason that ANY species becomes extinct. Something takes advantage of the ecological niches, and population pressure works against them.

Or do you mean to say that only humman being have ever made anything extinct because we hunt them out of existence.

236 Mekan  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:19:33am

Ok, we have an alien lizard placed on an island with a bunch of other lizards. After 10 years the researchers go back to the island and find that all the other lizards are gone and only the 'changed' alien lizard remains. They know this is the alien lizard because they show that they are genetically descendant.

Now we have a thread of pro macro evolutionists crowing and I just don't get it.

How many generations of lizards are there in 10 years?

Does it make sense that the alien lizards ate/destroyed the competing lizards or does it make sense that they inter-bred?

Isn't this an issue of micro-evolution?

In the end this is an example of ID because the alien lizard was knowingly plced in the new environment. No new creatures were created. This is rather akin to breading for a white boxer instead of a brown boxer in my estimation.

Let the flames burn high.

237 SDC  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:35:26am

re: #202 Mich-again

I am fine with that. But proof is a big word. Find me proof of how life starts without a creator. Thats the great divide. No one on either side can prove anything.

The difference here is that science starts by saying "What do we know for sure?", and builds from there, while religionists say "This is what we say happened, but don't ask us to prove it, because that would be blasphemy". If new evidence becomes available, then science has to account for that new evidence by changing its hypothesis to explain it, while religionists either ignore the evidence or claim that "This is one of god's tricks to test our faith". If I were to say that the universe was created by a pink unicorn, I have no doubt that the religionists here would blow a spleen demanding proof of such, yet that is their very argument.

238 Clovis69  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:00:33am

I've always been interested in dinosaurs and in 1995 I bought my first lizard, a Green Iguana*, he is still with me and since then we've gotten three more, two of which are with us still, a Central Inland Bearded Dragon and a Mali Uromastyx. We are constantly amazed at the intelligence and adaptability of all our reptiles. The Iguana is easily as smart as a cat and has shown the ability to understand whole sentences and do what he has been told.

* - He is most likely a Venezuelan Iguana, but he doesn't like Chavez.

239 HBob  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:28:31am

re: #236 Mekan

Yep. I also like how scientists are so surprised by their findings when they don't match up with Darwinist group-think. Millions of years... meh.

All this shows me is that the Croatian bugs these lizards eat are tougher/more chewy than the bugs they were eating back home.

240 Speller  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:40:48am

So the original lizard population is gone, nobody knows what happened to them, and nobody wonders if these new "evolved" lizards are a hybrid which came about through cross breeding.

Yup, that's "scientific" curiosity all right.
No bias here.

241 Homer Sapiens  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:15:38am

Let me get this straight - some dudes drop off 5 pairs of lizards on an otherwise lizard infested island. 30 years later they pick up a bunch of lizards off the island that have: cecal valves the originals didn't have; an expanded gut; the ability to bite harder; a head that was longer and wider; different social and behavioral structure; and less territorial defenses. Genetic testing confirmed that the lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards.

Colour me skeptical, but I see several possible explanations:
1) proof of the power of evolution
2) proof of the magic of evolution - it only happens when no one can watch - it never happens in zoos, in labs, in breeder's stocks, in nature reserves, etc.
3) the hockey stick graph of evolution - the genetic tests are wrong and these are different lizards
4) a hoax to try and shore up evolution in the face of competing theories.

Rather than ' the logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes', I would have thought the next logical step would be to grab 5 more pairs of the original lizards, stick them in a lab with a similar environment, and record the evolutionary process in minute detail. A Nobel to made for sure.

My guess is, 3) the hockey stick graph of evolution.

242 James Goneaux  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:17:57am

Don't tell Harry Turtledove...he'll have to re-write parts of his "Worldwar" series...

243 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:29:52am

re: #232 USS Ben

Evolution means change. Even within' the species it's still change (evolution).


Let's use this to put out some general points for everyone.
Here's basically one of the big problems with the evolution and creation debates: The use of language.
Just as ID, a distinct concept that is meddled up with the common English usages of "intelligent" and "design" is also the proper name of a theoretical process, all usages which are being swapped around for "creation," the common term plus the proper term to describe an event, "evolve" as a verb and "evolution" as a defined process are not the same as "Evolution" the "theory."

When any discussion gets rolling, the swapping back and forth of these terms willy-nilly helps completely fog the debates.
What the Nat GEo writer has done is bandy about "evolution" when he correctly should have used the defined term known as 'natural selection." Words like "shocked" for a predictable result are ridiculous. Alien introduced species to a closed environment (island) are either going to dominate the indigenous species, interbreed with the indigenous species or get eaten by the indigenous species. For all we know, the alien lizards may have well drug in with them a disease that the indigenous lizards had no resistence against. Buh-bye! Bet that's never happened before ... ! Duh!
"Shocking?" Hardly. If those "scientists" are shocked, they need to go back to school because they don't know much about basic biology or go soak their heads. They are much too excitable. Or perhaps the writer is too excitable or perhaps he or his editor has an agenda he is trying to promote.

Hope those very same scientists have noted their collective guilt for wiping out an indigenous species in a worthless "experiment." Everyone else gets yelled at for less, why not them?

244 londontrader  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:33:00am

A little puzzling as the war didn't start until approx 1990. What happened during the first ninteen years? Why no observations then?

Also (and this might have been mentioned before) what about inter breeding between the new lizards and the original lizard population?

245 spacejesus  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:35:15am

The fact that there are people who still don't believe in science should be proof enough that evolution doesn't exist. People that dumb should have been bred out of the gene pool centuries ago.

246 offcenter  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:36:31am

They equivocate on the evolution point at the very end of the article.

247 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:36:57am

#236 Mekan:

No new creatures were created. This is rather akin to breading for a white boxer instead of a brown boxer in my estimation.

This is actually more akin to leaving your brown boxer in the Arctic Circle, coming back 20 generations later to find all the puppies are pure white, have huge paws and claws to handle the ice and snow, have packed on 200 pounds of blubber and have developed a bladder to digest seal oil, and you have trouble telling them apart from the Polar Bears, lol.

Man was the intelligent agent the placed the lizards there, but nature selected for traits that helped them be successful eating plants which they hadn't had to do before. Nature "bred" them to better fit their environment, and that's the whole point of evolution.

#240 Speller:

nobody wonders if these new "evolved" lizards are a hybrid which came about through cross breeding.


How do you conclude dismissively from a bare bones article that nobody is wondering? I would presume, though don't know, that the introduced lizards were a separate species like it says in the article and that they couldn't cross with the native lizards.

248 Mo86  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:43:19am

And even those cute little critters did not spring forth from some other type of creature.

I haven't seen the 'Expelled' movie yet, but it's been very disappointing to see the attitude toward the entire subject here. I thought LGF was a place that encourages freedom of thought. I thought it would stand against the bullying and silencing of scientists/professors who dare even mention it. I thought it would stand against the complete suppression that goes on toward scientists (and anyone, really) who dares bring up a discussion about ID and Darwinism - again, dismissing ID without bothering to take 10 minutes to even learn what it is and what it isn't.

249 Claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:52:56am

re: #248 Mo86

O.K., what is it? And what isn't it? Can you say?

Also, the puppies did "spring forth" over tens of millions of years of incremental changes from another creature, just like all mammals did. Here's a book for you: Your Inner Fish - A Journey into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body.

250 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:03:04am

re: #248 Mo86

And even those cute little critters did not spring forth from some other type of creature.

Right. Because while lizards can evolve, there's some inexplicable magical limit on how much they can evolve...

I haven't seen the 'Expelled' movie yet, but it's been very disappointing to see the attitude toward the entire subject here. I thought LGF was a place that encourages freedom of thought. I thought it would stand against the bullying and silencing of scientists/professors who dare even mention it.

Another one who didn't bother to look at the link that Charles provided. For starters, the claims of the film with respect to "the bullying and silencing of scientists/professors" are false.

The real point is that Intelligent Design is a mishmash of lousy science and incomptent mathematics, misinterpretations, misdirections, and outright lies. You won't find any competent biologist who subscribes to it, any more than you'll find a competent geologist who believes the Earth is flat.

It's that bad.

I thought it would stand against the complete suppression that goes on toward scientists (and anyone, really) who dares bring up a discussion about ID and Darwinism - again, dismissing ID without bothering to take 10 minutes to even learn what it is and what it isn't.

We know what Intelligent Design is. It's a deliberately deceptive attempt to push religion into schools and destroy science.

Don't believe me? Believe the Discovery Institute, the principle backers of Intelligent Design, and authors of the "Wedge Document".

251 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:10:45am

re: #241 Homer Sapiens

2) proof of the magic of evolution - it only happens when no one can watch - it never happens in zoos, in labs, in breeder's stocks, in nature reserves, etc.

It happens all the time.

The changes in these lizards are certainly unusually fast, and need to be verified and studied further. But we observe evolution in action all the time.

252 Pshawalaw  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:12:07am

#8 EC Marm wrote,


A good software designer makes his code flexible, scalable, and adaptable, right? Who's to say the big coder in the sky didn't do the same.

Exactly, the idea that we adapt and the idea that the universe was created by a "designer" are not mutually exclusive concepts, both can be true.

253 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:13:38am

re: #47 wanumba

Why is it called evolution when it's natural selection in a isolated population?

Because that's exactly what evolution is.

They remain 100% lizards, not something else.

Sure. But they're different lizards. They were on the island for 30 years, not 30 million.

254 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:20:07am

re: #103 Thanos

Hrmm
Falsifying evolution --
well let's since some of it rests on fossil record, if you found a modern species skeleton in wrong strata with other ancient skeletons, but that's never happened to my knowledge.

Yep. J. B. S. Haldane's famous "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" quote comes to mind. As you say, that's never happened.

Indeed, the opposite tends to happen: We can predict what sort of fossils we'll find in rocks of a given type and a given age, most famously with the discovery of Tiktaalik. We found Tiktaalik because the Theory of Evolution told us where to look.

If you took same species, put it into two separate distinct environments and zero difference developed between the two over a very extended period of time, that could do it as well - that hasn't happened to my knowledge either.

Sort of. You have to be careful with the statistics and understand the pre-existing genetic variability of the population and the effects of selective pressure. But the fact is, this sort of experiment has been done, and we have produced new species. So if we run the experiment fails one time, it doesn't tell us anything other than it failed that time.

255 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:20:47am

Correction: "if we run the experiment and it fails one time"

256 Speller  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:23:02am

#247 claire

They don't know what happened to the native species.
That the native species was able to live off of the island's food supply is known.
That the introduced Italian species didn't have their accustomed food supply is also known.

Now there is only one type of lizard, the original lizards which had the competitive advantage of being adapted to the native food supply is missing for unknown reasons.

There, apparently, is enough food for both types of lizards to co-exist.

The "scientists" jump to the conclusion that evolution has taken place in a mere 30 years.

It isn't stated in the article that they know these lizards couldn't possibly inter-breed.

This little "evolutionary observation" is missing too many control elements, for sure, and the article is missing too many facts.

Inter-breeding is a more reasonable conclusion than evolution, evolution is supposed to take many eons, and inter-breeding is also a simpler explanation which doesn't contradict known or stated facts and assumptions.

That the scientists were "shocked" establishes their bias in favour of evolution as an explanation.

257 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:30:52am

re: #147 MrBlonde21

Evolution is the creation of new species driven by spontaneous mutations within the genome. Natural selection is adaptation of a species to the environment driven by favorable genetic recombination events during breeding.

Close, but no cigar.

If you look at the statistics, all human beings (for example) are born with multiple mutations. The exact number varies from species to species, but mutations are very very common.

Existing genetic variability within a population matters too - but guess where that variability came from. Yep, you got it.

Evolution is not specifically the creation of new species - speciation - though it encompasses that. Nor is natural selection restricted to acting on genetic recombination. If there were not pre-existing genetic variability, genetic recomibination would not do anything. Furthermore, there is no genetic recombination in species that reproduce asexually, and yet they are still subject to natural selection.

Evolution is natural selection acting on genetic variability. You don't get to pick it apart like that.

Idiots.

I almost feel sorry for the pseudo-scientists flooding NG these days.

At least us "pseudo-scientists" are polite.

258 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:37:08am

re: #172 formercorpsman

You summed up my argument from last night.

I accept evolutionary process, it happens.

What the theory has yet to produce, is proven fossilized records of the transition process.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, though some are more striking than others. Seriously, what do you want? You don't like Tiktaalik? Archaeopteryx? Ambulocetus?

It is evident in the theory, man became upright.

Apes can walk upright.

Spread this out over the amount of time the theory estimates it should have taken to occur, and we should have some semblance of a the species in transition.

Yeah. We do.

Everything I've seen so far does not do a very good job of it.

You need to read some good books on evolution, then. I highly recommend Stephen Jay Gould's books of essays.

259 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:38:56am

re: #253 Lizardoid Minion #32603
Yeh, and Basset Hound is different from a Mexican hairless. And no 30 million years required either, with longer gestation periods than lizards.

That article is worthless. New species requires more than just a shuffling around of what's already found in the DNA. We do that all the time ourselves to get what we want for plants and animals, it happens all the time naturally when populations are isolated from each other. New means just that new DNA that wasn't there before. Cross-breeding of two compatible lizards isn't "Evolution." If lizards aren't already genetically compatible, they cannot breed together. Literally a dead end. "Evolution" as a technical term means a mutation that contains DNA not found in the breeding lines. A whole new critter. The statements being made in this article are not going to hold up, but there will be no corrections about it printed later.

I swear that a chunk of the problem with these articles getting more respect than they deserve is the loss of scientific rigor, insertion of politics into everything, and that hardly ANYONE grows up on a FARM anymore. Don't know NUTHIN' about crops, livestock, animal husbandry or breeding.
Anyone remember the attempt to start a new basketball team out of Kansas City, "The Steers?" What's amazing is how far that name got along the decision-making process without being challenged --- until the locals got wind of it.

260 bitsy  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:40:18am

I have worked in molecular biology labs for 6 years and have worked with numerous people who believe in intelligent design and were quite vocal about it. In my experience, I have never seen any of them discriminated against, bullied, or supressed. However, whether they 'believed' evolution or not, they had to have a firm grasp of the principles of evolution to sit at the bench and do the work. Most scientists can accept the fact that science will not give their lives spiritual meaning, but for some reason many theists have a hard time accepting that theology does not provide a sound basis for scientific inquiry.

God certainly does intervene in our world ... that is the only explination of why I was able to make it through calculus II and physical chemistry! Evolution is not meant as an assault on spirituality. It represents the desire to explain the relationships between the building blocks of life based solely on provable facts. However, trying to insert God into biology (or any other scientific discipline) is like trying to play soccer by picking up the ball and running off the field with it; no one says it is impossible to pick up the ball, but it's just not part of the game. Evolution and intelligent design are 2 different "sports" that just happen to be played with the same kind of ball. As new information comes to life, biologists will happily adapt their understanding of evolution to fit the facts (pardon the puns) -- that is the scientific method.

261 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:43:18am

re: #193 Killgore Trout

Exactly. Despite what Ben Stein and the creationist tell you about science and it's dogmatic oppression of opposing opinions evolutionary science is turned on its head about every two or three weeks. Last week they discovered that the complex jellyfish is the earliest life form we know of not the simple sea sponge. If proff is provided science will stand on its head, without evidence they will ignore you. This isn't going to change no matter how many creationists cry "oppression". That's a fact.

Yep. It's a very telling point. Every day we hear about astounding breakthroughs in this field of science or that, about conventional wisdom being overturned. How exactly does that happen if science dogmatically rejects new ideas?

262 FabioC.  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:49:57am

So here we go again... mention evolution and a large portion of the LGFers will go ballistic.

Someone has even brought up the ridiculous "tehory is not a fact" argument. Against that deeply-seated, deliberated unwilligness to learn even the meaning of a word in a precise context, there is nothing to do.

A lot of the rest is unreasonable expectations, like suggesting that it would be impressive if those lizards evolved into a different class of animals, like primates or birds - and no, saying it was just for laughs doesn't cut it. 30 years is a pretty short time in evolutive terms; it is already impressive that the changes documented in the paper occurred.

Oh yes, genetic testing would be not only nice but necessary at this point. Who's gonna fork out the money tho? The Discovery Institute perhaps?

263 Boston Patriot  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:54:39am

Impossible! God creates all creatures as static beings thrown into existence on his whims!

People who deny evolution are blinded by faith, i.e. the irrational. Wake up, people, the universe isn't haunted.

264 Lizardoid Minion #32603  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:56:50am

re: #259 wanumba

Yeh, and Basset Hound is different from a Mexican hairless. And no 30 million years required either, with longer gestation periods than lizards.

They're not different species, though.

That article is worthless.

It certainly doesn't contain enough detail.

New species requires more than just a shuffling around of what's already found in the DNA.

I don't think this is necessarily true; it does depend on pre-existing variability and isolation. And remember that you get mutations all the time.

We do that all the time ourselves to get what we want for plants and animals, it happens all the time naturally when populations are isolated from each other.

True enough.

New means just that new DNA that wasn't there before.

What do you mean? New genes? New combinations of genes?

Cross-breeding of two compatible lizards isn't "Evolution."

It certainly can be part of evolution. Natural selection acts on genetic variability in the population. It doesn't matter at all where that variability comes from.

If lizards aren't already genetically compatible, they cannot breed together.

Different species can often breed together, even produce fertile offspring. Even species with different numbers of chromosomes can sometimes interbreed; that was essential to the evolution of human chromosome 2. It couldn't have happened otherwise.

"Evolution" as a technical term means a mutation that contains DNA not found in the breeding lines.

No. That's just plain not true.

Evolution is natural selection acting on genetic variability. Mutations are part of that, but only part.

The statements being made in this article are not going to hold up, but there will be no corrections about it printed later.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, but we will find out.

265 FabioC.  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:07:10am

Most of the opposition to the evolutionary theory isn't based on it lack of scientifical soundness.

No, it's based on the fact that the Bible says otherwise. So reality must not be what it seems.

266 selectedpete  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:28:13am

The original article rapidly goes from "rapidly evolving" in the title to "might be evolution" in the last sentence. The problem here as with guppies from Trinidad is that we never see lizards turning into furry, plant eating rodents, or maybe losing their hair and developing gills so they can catch fish. *That* would be known as macro evolution. This article and most others like it conveniently brush by any nuance between the observed and measurable micro evolution, and the unobserved, and thus unmeasurable macro. Guppies stay guppies, finches remain finches, and voila - lizards remain lizards - all with minor, selected changes already present in their existing code. What this and similar articles fail every time to note is that in all cases, these animals go back to what they were before when the environment changes again, not forward into other animal forms.

267 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:42:09am

re: #257 Lizardoid Minion #32603

If you look at the statistics, all human beings (for example) are born with multiple mutations. The exact number varies from species to species, but mutations are very very common.

Existing genetic variability within a population matters too - but guess where that variability came from. Yep, you got it.

Evolution is not specifically the creation of new species - speciation - though it encompasses that. Nor is natural selection restricted to acting on genetic recombination. If there were not pre-existing genetic variability, genetic recomibination would not do anything. Furthermore, there is no genetic recombination in species that reproduce asexually, and yet they are still subject to natural selection.

Evolution is natural selection acting on genetic variability. You don't get to pick it apart like that..

These mutations that exist in humans are not conferring any selective advantage, they occurred in the 'junk' DNA and have consequently survived in the gene pool. There has not ever been an observed case where a mutation has conferred a selective advantage that is ALSO reproducible through generations. Ever.

Evolution is driven by spontaneous mutation and has never been observed. Natural selection is not and is easily seen in biology. There's a big difference. They are related terms but they are not inter-changeable.

The variability that exists in the genome exists. We can theorize how it got there. It cannot be proven.

268 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:44:12am

re: #266 selectedpete

is that we never see lizards turning into furry, plant eating rodents, or maybe losing their hair and developing gills so they can catch fish.

Yes, we do. We see creatures turning into other creatures in the fossil record. Tons of them.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution events piled on top of one another over a long enough time.

We don't see "macro" in the laboratory because we haven't had laboratories for millions of years. Duh.

269 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:50:08am

re: #264 Lizardoid Minion #32603
Look, to get from an ape to a human cannot be done by breeding. To evolve in the "Evolution" sense means somehow NEW DNA is constructed by some means. Fish to lizards, lizards to BIRDS, monkeys to apes, apes to humans. Selection within a species is breeding - it's still a fish or it's still a dog, no matter how foo-foo it looks.
It is a fallacy to muddle "Evolution" in its true definition of a developmental process for origins via a mechanism for a development of new species, that is new LIFE, as a synonym for a fundamentally different mechanism that produces a fundamentally different result called natural selection in any way.
This is just what I complained about up thread, muddling up words, swapping one for another with no regard for the definitions. If we can't stick to standard terminology for each of these concepts and keep them straight, any discussion is gobbly-goop.

I am open to a tested claim of genuine evolution, but THIS sloppy, larded article AIN'T it. Louis Pasteur made a habit of making VERY sure he had duplicable results before he breathed a word to the public, so as to not embarrass himself or wreck his credibility. Wish more of our contemporary scientists were so careful.

270 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:52:18am

re: #267 MrBlonde21

There has not ever been an observed case where a mutation has conferred a selective advantage that is ALSO reproducible through generations. Ever.

Sure there has. Who told you there hasn't?

Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).
271 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:02:10am

re: #270 claire
There has not ever been an observed case where a mutation has conferred a selective advantage that is ALSO reproducible through generations
Not once in your quote did it address the "selective advantage" or "reproducible" point of the comment.
We all all in 100% agreement that mutations of all kinds are common and observable. Don't even need a lab for that. We can go out to the back yard.
What is required for "Evolution" (in the dictionary definition of the theoretical process ) is the mutation that survives and can be passed on to successive generations.

272 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:07:07am

re: #269 wanumba

To evolve in the "Evolution" sense means somehow NEW DNA is constructed by some means.

Yes, those "some means" are listed in comment #270 above.

Tiktalikk- part fish, part amphibian- a fish with legs. Archeopteryx, part dinosaur, part bird. Australopithicus, part Ape, part human. All with different DNA from the earlier creatures and the later creatures.

273 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:15:16am

re: #271 wanumba

What do you think the term "heritably altered" means?

Bacteria mutate in order to survive the onslaught of antibiotics for one. Mutate or die off.

More from the link I gave you- you are not reading it, are you? You want me to spoon feed this to you in just the right way with no effort on your part? Fine.

Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982).

Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O'Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers.

274 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:18:18am

re: #272 claire

Yes, those "some means" are listed in comment #270 above.
Tiktalikk- part fish, part amphibian- a fish with legs. Archeopteryx, part dinosaur, part bird. Australopithicus, part Ape, part human. All with different DNA from the earlier creatures and the later creatures.


Last I heard, Acheopteryx was all bird, Australopithicus was it's own species of ape-like animal and it NEVER was nor ever will be possible to get DNA out of FOSSILS.

It's the sloppyness of all these things that's frying me. There is NO point in discussing anything about Creationism or ID or Evolution until basic ground rules are met - and clear/ precise usage of language, terminology and protocols MUST be part of them.

275 Just_A_Grunt  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:19:42am

A point being overlooked. This new breed of lizards wiped out the other lizards! This was a man made experiment that resulted in the total annilation of another species. Imagine if instead it was big oil, or a border fence being built that had caused this extinction, but because it was a bunch of scientists dabbling around it is fine.
Hypocrisy anybody. Ah hell they would probably blame it on global warming and ditch the old survival of the fitness crap.

276 DownRightMeanAmerican  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:20:16am

Darwin himself admitted the fossil record stands in direct contrast to his theory.

Contrary to evolutionist belief, that has not changed, a hand full of fossils with questionable interpretations do not trump the other 99%, unless you are an evolutionist, then facts don’t matter, evolution does.

277 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:27:55am

re: #275 Just_A_Grunt
Hehe
see my #142 upthread.

278 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:29:55am

re: #147 MrBlonde21

Evolution is the creation of new species driven by spontaneous mutations within the genome. Natural selection is adaptation of a species to the environment driven by favorable genetic recombination events during breeding.

Idiots.

I almost feel sorry for the pseudo-scientists flooding NG these days.


I wish I wrote as concise as that.

279 Mekan  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:00:32am

re: #247 claire

Not really. It is more like putting a black boxer in a setting with black mutts and 20 generations go by and you find that what you have is a mix breed that is predominantly black.

280 so.cal.swede  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:09:39am

re: #147 MrBlonde21

Evolution is the creation of new species driven by spontaneous mutations within the genome. Natural selection is adaptation of a species to the environment driven by favorable genetic recombination events during breeding.

Idiots.

I almost feel sorry for the pseudo-scientists flooding NG these days.


In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
-- Wikipedia

What?

281 so.cal.swede  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:11:10am

re: #275 Just_A_Grunt

A point being overlooked. This new breed of lizards wiped out the other lizards! This was a man made experiment that resulted in the total annilation of another species. Imagine if instead it was big oil, or a border fence being built that had caused this extinction, but because it was a bunch of scientists dabbling around it is fine.
Hypocrisy anybody. Ah hell they would probably blame it on global warming and ditch the old survival of the fitness crap.

no, it's because it's in Bosnia... if it occured in the US there would be mass demonstrations.

282 Homer Sapiens  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:15:02am

#251 Lizardoid Minion #32603
re: #241 Homer Sapiens
2) proof of the magic of evolution – it only happens when no one can watch – it never happens in zoos, in labs, in breeder’s stocks, in nature reserves, etc.

It happens all the time.
The changes in these lizards are certainly unusually fast, and need to be verified and studied further. But we observe evolution in action all the time.

Thanks for the link to the article on observed instances of speciation. Very comprehensive - lists every article he could find. And lots of observed speciation. But of course we are not discussing mere speciation - long hairs vs short hairs, or a preference for a mate. We are talking about an animal which has developed new biological features - cecal valves; and changed physiologically, including their digestive system.

In the extensive review of 'observed instances of speciation' of animals over the past 100 years, no new biological features were observed. Further, it is not clear what would happen if the populations continue to mate of their own choice over many generations (except for one instance where cross species do not survive at all). Clearly, the lizards mated freely and ended up physiologically different than they began. There is no mention of this happening in the cited article. Humans are living longer, and getting taller, which may be classed as 'evolution', but we have not been observed developing new digestive systems or new valves, and neither did the flies or insects cited, like the lizards did.

If the cited article is the complete list of experiments on 'evolution' in the lab, then no, we have never seen what happened to the lizards.

283 Claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:30:05am

re: #274 wanumba

Last I heard, Acheopteryx was all bird, Australopithicus was it's own species of ape-like animal and it NEVER was nor ever will be possible to get DNA out of FOSSILS.

I think you heard wrong- linky? You don't have to get DNA from fossils you just go to the creatures that are alive today that are still like the ones in the fossil records. (Yeah, they are still around.)

#276 Downrightmeanamerican:

Darwin himself admitted the fossil record stands in direct contrast to his theory.

Contrary to evolutionist belief, that has not changed, a hand full of fossils with questionable interpretations do not trump the other 99%, unless you are an evolutionist, then facts don’t matter, evolution does.

I do not think even in Darwin's time the fossil record at all contradicted the theory. It certainly supports the theory now absolutely. No question about it.

There are a hell of a lot more than a "handful" of fossils and they ALL fit the theory. Every single one of them to date.

284 chipbennett  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:43:40am

re: #63 Jinx McHue

And amazingly enough, they're still lizards! Who'd have thunk it!

Ding, ding, ding!

The article's reference to a "new" species is specious.

285 DownRightMeanAmerican  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:48:39am

re: #283 Claire

I do not think even in Darwin's time the fossil record at all contradicted the theory.

I question if you have read his book, where he admits such.

And Darwin’s theories did not exist before he did, so fossil evidence has only been collected since then to support that theory, and they are still looking, haven't found it yet.

Darwin statements:

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Very interesting, to say the least.

In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none -- not one true transitional specimen has ever been found.

286 chipbennett  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:53:22am

re: #283 Claire

I do not think even in Darwin's time the fossil record at all contradicted the theory. It certainly supports the theory now absolutely. No question about it.

There are a hell of a lot more than a "handful" of fossils and they ALL fit the theory. Every single one of them to date.

Riiiiiight. The theory of evolution still has no explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. That's just *one* example.

287 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:05:18pm

re: #283 Claire
re: #274 wanumba
Last I heard, Acheopteryx was all bird, Australopithicus was it's own species of ape-like animal and it NEVER was nor ever will be possible to get DNA out of FOSSILS.

You don't have to get DNA from fossils you just go to the creatures that are alive today that are still like the ones in the fossil records. (Yeah, they are still around.)


If you don't know what's wrong with that statement, what can I possibly say?

I don't need to "linky" - go look it up yourself - everyone else who reads this is perfectly capable of finding out the accepted status of these extinct animals.

If Australopithicus was as you said, "part ape, part human," then it'd be that "missing link" we're all waiting for wouldn't it be? This is serious business, not malarky. That "missing link" is critical proof. Australopithicus has been determined to not fulfill that proof. It's fascinating in its own right, but "part ape, part human" is not a factual statement, as determined by the results of study on the fossil remains.

And the issue really at question is not all this sideshow chatter, but the intellectual honesty of the National Georgaphic hyperventilating story about lizards on an island off Croatia. Jumping to conclusions that should have been run by Occam's Razor first.

288 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:19:02pm
re: #272 claire
Yes, those "some means" are listed in comment #270 above.
Tiktalikk- part fish, part amphibian- a fish with legs. Archeopteryx, part dinosaur, part bird. Australopithicus, part Ape, part human. All with different DNA from the earlier creatures and the later creatures.


Bottom line, if you do not have the actual DNA to back up that statement, it cannot be proven, and thus cannot be stated to be true. We are talking SCIENCE here. DNA is not available from FOSSILS, so we have no way to prove DNA-wise where any particular extinct animal came from or was an ancestor to. Just guesses.

And which modern bird is out there that is carrying Archeoteryx DNA? All of them? None of them? How the hell do we know? We don't have Archeoteryx DNA to compare with in the first place.

Scientific rigor! Pleeze!

289 cookielady  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:33:14pm

re: #223 Kailen

Evolution wins spins again.

290 Mats  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:37:38pm

This isn't evolution, goodness. Lizards turning into lizards is not evolution. loll
This is like saying that when a couple has 3 offspring, which in turn give rise to 8 grandchildren, that's "evolution".

Evolution is the change of a single celled life form into a multicelled life form WITHOUT ANY GUIDING inteligence.
Lizards that give rise to lizards is just recombination of already existing genetic information.

291 DownRightMeanAmerican  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 12:48:34pm

re: #288 wanumba

Scientific rigor! Please!

Do you mean like this?

Henrietta Lacks and her immortal cell line HeLa are a known contaminate in labs throughout the world, most established cell lines are not tested for impurities, which brings into question any and all experiments that took place when her cell line was in the building.

Her immortal cervical cancer cells is the most aggressive ever seen, they are still alive to this day. When she died back in 1951 her cells were cultivated without her our her families permission, then sold and shipped to labs throughout the world.

Shortly thereafter all kinds of new cell lines were being discovered throughout the world to the delight of sciencists everywhere, but upon farther scrutiny it was discovered these new cell lines, were really the immortal and aggressive HeLa cell line which had contaminated every other experiment that was in the same room.

And that immortal cell line is still a known lab contaminate to this day, yet scientists turn a blind eye.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, all in the name of good science.

292 J.S.  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:11:36pm

Let us return to the article, please. And, while I'm at it, I'll give a brief Biology 101 (Cliff Notes) version..

1) First (most importantly) the Lizards on this island evolved. That is not under dispute. The introduced lizards developed a "completely new gut structure, larger heads and a harder bite." And, they went from being insect-eaters to vegetation eaters...Their diet changed...and it was due to a new "gut structure" (a muscle in the lower intestine) which enabled the lizards to digest plant cellulose. So, to repeat -- the Lizards evolved and the evolution was rapid.
2) Next, (here's the Biology 101 segment) there are phenotypes and there are genotypes. To make this simple -- a phenotype is what a critter looks like...the external appearances. Inside the critter you have a genome...the genotype. There is NO one-to-one correspondence between the phenotype and the genotype. In other words, just because somebody notes the (apparently) identical appearance between two critters, it doesn't necessarily mean that the two critters are of the same genotype...And, vice versa, just because two critters look different, it does NOT mean that they are of different genotypes. Genotypes group organisms as a consequence of having the same set of genes. Phenotypes group organisms as a consequence of having a similar resemblance (morphology, behavior, etc). Genotype is fixed throughout the lifetime, phenotypes can change. A single genotype can produce a zillion different phenotypes -- contingent on the environment. For example, a short shrub growing at a high altitude -- transplant the same genotype to a valley, and the shrub becomes a tree. You've altered the phenotype, but you haven't changed the genotype. Back to the lizard story.
3) In the final paragraph of the lizard story, a researcher notes that the "next step is to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." In other words -- here is the crux of the article -- further research needs to be conducted so as to demonstrate that the DNA sequence (the genomes) of said reptiles has actually altered. The question here involves what's known as neo-Lamarckianism...(as I've noted in another post)...From the Wiki article -- on epigenetic changes --

Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene.[30] Whereas the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes.[30]

Epigenetic changes have also been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure—for example, mice given some dietary supplements have epigenetic changes affecting expression of the agouti gene, which affects their fur color, weight, and propensity to develop cancer.[31][32]


In other words, this kind of epigenetic phenomenon (for example, due to an environmental change certain genes are now being expressed which in a different environment would be suppressed -- but the DNA sequence remains unchanged) must be ruled out. So further research is needed so as to document that there has -- indeed -- been a change in the DNA sequence. So questions still remain -- but, rest assured, these questions will be addressed in the future...through Science...

293 Claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:24:09pm

re: #287 wanumba

First, you carry genes that your ancestors used to make themselves. For example, you have "fish" genes in you. Some of them still perfrom the same function in your body that they did for the fish, some of them are dormant. How do we know this? Because we have fish alive today and we have humans alive today to compare the two. And we are learning how to turn them on and off to test functionality.

2nd, there's no such thing as the "missing link".

This argument is going somewhat off tangent. Tell me why we need Archeopteryx DNA as the only way to show ( a high probability for, not to "prove") a lineage. With their morphology you can establish quite a nice chain through time:

PREDICTION: All fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms. Similarly, there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human. It directly follows that if there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms, both past and present, fit in that phylogeny uniquely. Since the standard phylogenetic tree is the best approximation of the true historical phylogeny, we expect that all fossilized animals should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree within the error of our scientific methods.

Every node shared between two branches in a phylogeny or cladogram represents a predicted common ancestor; thus there are ~29 common ancestors predicted from the tree shown in Figure 1. Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals.

It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy.

However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.

294 Claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:28:06pm

Cont'd:

Confirmation:

Example 1: bird-reptiles
In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323..........

Example 2: reptile-mammals
Figure 1.4.1. The jaws of three vertebrates—mammal, therapsid, and pelycosaur. A side view of three idealized skulls of mammals, therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), and pelycosaurs (early reptiles). The figure shows the differences between mammal and reptilian jaws and ear-bone structures. The jaw joint is shown as a large black dot, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. Note how, in the reptile, the jaw joint is formed between the blue quadrate and the yellow articular (with the pink angular close by), and how, in the mammal, the jaw joint is formed between the squamosal above and the dentary below. In the reptile, the squamosal is just above and contacting the quadrate. Advanced therapsids have two jaw joints: a reptile-like joint and a mammal-like joint (Figure based on Kardong 2002, pp. 275, reproduced with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).

Early in the 20th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function.

And there are a bunch more examples ) and illustrations I can't post here) in the article, Read it all, it's very interesting.

295 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:29:50pm

re: #280 so.cal.swede

Yes. Evolutionary theory is fundamentally based on the idea that random genetic mutations confer selective advantages within a given organism and are consequently passed along to future generations. I don't care what wikipedia says.

296 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:30:11pm
4) a hoax to try and shore up evolution in the face of competing theories.

LOL! The competing theory being that God did it. How nice...

297 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:46:36pm

re: #270 claire

Genetic change is NOT evolution in the sense we're talking about. In layman's term' yes, maybe that's 'evolution', but scientifically speaking, simple genetic or epigenetic changes is not evolution.

Bacteria and viruses 'mutate'. The machinery they use to preserve their genetic integrity is poor, they multiply on an incredibly large scale asexually, and when their finished mutating, THEY ARE STILL BACTERIA.

Lizards don't mutate. If mutation does occur, it must occur in the gametes. "Mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions " are NOT mutations. This is part of the process of NATURAL SELECTION. When mutations do occur, in a sexually reproducing organism like a lizard, it is only preserved in 'junk' DNA that doesn't effect the organism. When a real mutation occurs elsewhere, the organism is weakened. Further, a helpful mutation must occur during the earliest stages of embyrogenesis to be transmitted to future generations. This is the point in time where the genome in most robust, meaning even the slightest abberation in the DNA will activate a cascade of protective machinery to fix the mutation of the embryo will die.

Point: assuming this article is honest, factual, and disclosing all information, this is not evolution in the true sense of the word, it is natural selection.

298 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:48:55pm

Edit: lizards don't evolve...... (not mutate)

299 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:49:48pm

re: #245 spacejesus

The fact that there are people who still don't believe in science should be proof enough that evolution doesn't exist. People that dumb should have been bred out of the gene pool centuries ago.

I don't see anyone that doesn't believe in science, they just think it's overrated to one degree or another. Even if science was just simple, ordinary, everyday common sense, though, it would still have a considerable credibility edge over religion in my mind.

300 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:55:12pm

re: #248 Mo86

And even those cute little critters did not spring forth from some other type of creature.

I haven't seen the 'Expelled' movie yet, but it's been very disappointing to see the attitude toward the entire subject here. I thought LGF was a place that encourages freedom of thought. I thought it would stand against the bullying and silencing of scientists/professors who dare even mention it. I thought it would stand against the complete suppression that goes on toward scientists (and anyone, really) who dares bring up a discussion about ID and Darwinism - again, dismissing ID without bothering to take 10 minutes to even learn what it is and what it isn't.

So you're saying that Stein should be exempt from a fact-check? As for what Intelligent Design is and isn't, that's covered nicely in the provided link.

301 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:56:00pm

re: #292 J.S.


In other words, this kind of epigenetic phenomenon (for example, due to an environmental change certain genes are now being expressed which in a different environment would be suppressed -- but the DNA sequence remains unchanged) must be ruled out. So further research is needed so as to document that there has -- indeed -- been a change in the DNA sequence. So questions still remain -- but, rest assured, these questions will be addressed in the future...through Science...

Epigenetic changes, this sounds like a reasonable explanation.

302 mattThaHatter  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 1:58:44pm

Lucky for me the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me evolution is a hoax on the part of gay communists like ....

303 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:14:57pm

re: #299 Salem

If you want to get philosophical about it, science never PROVES anything. For example, gravity is only a theory. For all we know, it may only hold true in the defined system we are familiar with.

Don't get me wrong, science is great and all, but I would hesitate to throw all my chips into that basket. I believe science is useful, I don't believe it is absolute.

304 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:20:31pm

re: #293 Claire
Claire, by your methodology, we could determine that a fossil donkey is alike to a modern horse, therefore they probably share the same DNA, cause they look alike.
Yeh, you said so up thread:

You don't have to get DNA from fossils you just go to the creatures that are alive today that are still like the ones in the fossil records


Zebras look a lot like donkeys, too. Tigers look a lot like lions.

What do we chose for modern Australopithicus? Monkeys? Chimps? Gorillas? Monkeys and gorillas are very different from each other.

And where am I going with this? Having to do with passing on genes and (successful) mutations to the next generations ...?

That is a RHETORICAL question. Copying huge quotes that go off in another direction isn't the answer. This has to do with the acceptability of PROOFS in order to be valid (true) scientific statements. Look-alike is NOT sufficient - especially when one is forced to compare what has become a rock, to a living organism, and especially when we are talking about DNA. According to evolutionists, the guinea-pig-sized, bush-climbing Rock Hyrax is the closest living relation to the elephant. Just to LOOK at them ... who'd a guessed?

We are talking about a woeful lack of scientific discipline in the National Enquirer-Level quality of the National Geographic's claim that a bunch of lizards evolved, but a fair reading of the article finds nothing that will back that claim that will survive actual scientific scrutiny. I doubt any serious evolution-based researcher will be comfortable with how the Nat Geo came up with that headline.

305 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:22:05pm

re: #298 MrBlonde21
I dunno. I'm a lizardoid mutating into a grump. (;-p)

306 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:23:38pm

re: #303 MrBlonde21

If you want to get philosophical about it, science never PROVES anything. For example, gravity is only a theory. For all we know, it may only hold true in the defined system we are familiar with.

Don't get me wrong, science is great and all, but I would hesitate to throw all my chips into that basket. I believe science is useful, I don't believe it is absolute.

But religion is absolutely nothing. You're taking the word of some stranger 5,000 years ago, passed along by oral tradition for thousands of years (and we know how gossip and adventure stories evolve over a much shorter span), when you can't even believe what is written today! So modern scientific knowledge doesn't hold a flame to a wildly mutated version of 5,000 year old common-sense, gossip and adventure stories. That's scary.

307 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:27:20pm

re: #306 Salem

I'm not saying that about you, in particular, just the people who are so inclined to poo-poo science as it interferes with their mental conception of what the Christian Bible says.

308 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:29:50pm

re: #306 Salem

So modern scientific knowledge doesn't hold a flame to a wildly mutated version of 5,000 year old common-sense, gossip and adventure stories. That's scary.


Nooo. That's your opinion.
You'll have to prove it to show it to be correct or not correct.

That's what the scientific method demands.

309 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:34:22pm

re: #308 wanumba

Nooo. That's your opinion.
You'll have to prove it to show it to be correct or not correct.

That's what the scientific method demands.

Scientific method demands that I disprove what some clueless primitive dreamed up thousands of years ago? Or do I just have to prove the God didn't author it Himself?

310 DownRightMeanAmerican  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 2:34:55pm

re: #307 Salem

Scary science?

Tens of millions of Americans were given a polio vaccine that knowingly contained SV40 a monkey retro virus, possibly the cause of the rise in cancer rates.

311 chipbennett  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:10:20pm

re: #306 Salem

But religion is absolutely nothing. You're taking the word of some stranger 5,000 years ago, passed along by oral tradition for thousands of years (and we know how gossip and adventure stories evolve over a much shorter span), when you can't even believe what is written today! So modern scientific knowledge doesn't hold a flame to a wildly mutated version of 5,000 year old common-sense, gossip and adventure stories. That's scary.

5,000 years? Hmm, the Bible only goes back about 4,000 years. But, the OT and NT manuscript transcriptions have proven to be accurate in the upper 90% range, across a number of manuscripts orders of magnitude greater than what are considered to be the most accurate historical works.

With respect to "modern scientific knowledge" - insofar as that knowledge concerns evolutionary theory - it is not the accuracy of that knowledge that is questioned but rather the utter lack of supporting evidence for the theory. Rather like the evidence to support the theory that dietary fat causes obesity and that saturated fat causes heart disease: there is none.

There really isn't even a valid hypothesis. The process is not observable (by definition) or repeatable. Since the only alternative to random, natural-selection processes - that is, non-random, ergo, guided, processes - is deemed to be out of scope, the hypothesis also is not falsifiable.

All evolutionary theory is left with is "consensus" - and of that, the theory has a plethora.

312 chipbennett  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:12:57pm

re: #307 Salem

I'm not saying that about you, in particular, just the people who are so inclined to poo-poo science as it interferes with their mental conception of what the Christian Bible says.

Actually, the various scientific disciplines have never done anything other than to verify what is in the Christian Bible.

313 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:32:41pm

re: #309 Salem

So modern scientific knowledge doesn't hold a flame to a wildly mutated version of 5,000 year old common-sense, gossip and adventure stories. That's scary.


The scary fallacy is that the Judeo-Christian heritage is antagnonistic to science when the truth is, it birthed science as we know it today. It is fundamentally anti-superstitious, yet is being accused of that daily.
Western France produced the Christian chemist Louis Pasteur who is called the "Father of Modern Medicine," and his discoveries of microbes, development of vaccines to stimulate the immune systems to fight diseases, Pasturization, Germ Theory of Disease and The Law of Biogenesis, while the more modern communist Soviet Union produced Lysenko and his devastating "ago-biology." Pasteur's discoveries helped the world, and continue to help us today and will into the future. Lysenko destroyed lives, careers and Soviet agriculture. We are now faced with a direct descendent of it, "Global Warming," which is manifesting already the dangers of politics bullying science, but where are the warnings against that?

For a so called wildly mutated 5,000 story, it has produced an astonishing crop of brilliant scientific discoveries. What's going on now that denigrates this noble history and contribution to the physical betterment of mankind?

Not a culture in the world has done better, and not a one is even close in any way to the level of such achievement, but who would know that now the way it's being spat on by people who've benefited from it?

314 FabioC.  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:45:48pm

The meltdown of the IDders on this thread is just amusing to watch.

Provided with a comprehensive exposition of evidence - from the laboratory and the field - in support of evolution theory, they proceed to:

1) Simply ignore the provided material and keep asking for more evidence.

2) Move the goalposts, such as with "Of course we agree on this but what about that?"

3) Demand absurdly high standards of evidence, like a complete DNA mapping of every single fossil transitional form.

4) Redefine at will the meaning of words - "No that's not evolution, it's adaptation!"

5) Resort to the old good "The Bible gets it more right!"

With some variation in the details, this is the same approach manifested by 911 troofers and assorted moonbats. It is typical of those who have not adopted a worldview on a rational basis, but rather on an ideological basis and cannot admit their faith/ideology to be wrong even on minor points.

315 FabioC.  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:54:02pm

Maybe there was a time when Christianity was conductive to scientific enquiry (though I think that in fact the watershed moment arrived with the Englithment, when men were able to break free from the religious constraints on many of their endeavours), but just reading the comments here, it is clear that quite a number of Crhistians in America nowadays are irremediably opposed to evolution theory in itself - not for its merits or lack thereof, but only because it does not require the same type of god they believe in.

316 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 3:58:46pm

re: #297 MrBlonde21

When mutations do occur, in a sexually reproducing organism like a lizard, it is only preserved in 'junk' DNA that doesn't effect the organism.

That's not true.

When a real mutation occurs elsewhere, the organism is weakened.

Not necessarily. Why should it be? And what do you have the demonstrates this as a rule other than conjecture?

Further, a helpful mutation must occur during the earliest stages of embyrogenesis to be transmitted to future generations. This is the point in time where the genome in most robust, meaning even the slightest abberation in the DNA will activate a cascade of protective machinery to fix the mutation of the embryo will die.

No, all mutations aren't magically "fixed" by a cascade of protective machinery. Where do you get this? The embryo will only die if the mutation is detrimental to it's survival. You contradict yourself, BTW, when you say that mutations only happen in junk DNA and don't affect the animal. The example of the cardio-protective gene in #270 is a beneficial mutation that is passed down.

You CAN add information in the genetic code- when it duplicates itself it adds extra copies of parts by mistake. That is documented.

#304 Wanumba:

we could determine that a fossil donkey is alike to a modern horse, therefore they probably share the same DNA, cause they look alike.

Yep. They probably share similar DNA because they almost look alike. But on what branch of the horse family tree they fall also tells you alot about how closely related they are.

How do YOU explain the sequence of horse fossils? Why does this drive you nuts? What do YOU think happened?

317 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:02:24pm

re: #312 chipbennett

Okay. I smell troll big time. Nobody is that God-damn dumb.

318 Roger  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:06:21pm

re: #315 FabioC.

So how are you going to cure the irremediably impaired? Or are you thinking of another solution?

319 J.S.  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:21:52pm

I think that some of the difficulties here result (not just form definitional issues) from basic misunderstandings of key aspects of Evolutionary Theory...Take for example, "mutations" -- gene mutations do, indeed, take place. There can be spontaneous mutations -- the rate is very low, but it does exist. So, during meiosis (when cells are dividing) a mutation can arise. Why is mutation important or even of interest? It is because mutations are the source of variation...As Suzuki (An introduction to genetic analysis) writes: "mutations are the source of variation, but the process of mutation does not itself drive evolution." And there are other sources of genetic variation -- variation from Recombination, variation from Migration, etc. The whole theory of evolution depends on getting some gene variants into the system -- otherwise, the whole project would be self-defeating -- that is, without variation, you'd get carbon-copies with perfect replication, but eventually (depending on whoever has the fastest rate of reproduction) -- you'd whittle things down to a single, take-over genome. That's counter-productive to Evolutionary Theory.

320 psaturn  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:36:18pm

re: #185 laxmatt1984

Christ himself could tell you evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth and you would call him and "atheist darwinian" and proceed to explain at length how Hitler was a obscure but harmless artist until he stumbled across "The Origin of Species".

Dear Laxmatt,

Have you read the Gospels? Christ Himself said:

Mark 10: 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]

The Gospel of John begins with this:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

which poetically parallels with Genesis 1. John also said in Revelations 3: 14`And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God;

Paul said in Colossians 1:16
16because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created...

You will see that the Christian Bible specifically states that Christ was there at the Creation and they were all created in him....

321 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:41:21pm

re: #316 claire

Yep. They probably share similar DNA because they almost look alike. But on what branch of the horse family tree they fall also tells you alot about how closely related they are.

How do YOU explain the sequence of horse fossils? Why does this drive you nuts? What do YOU think happened?


re: #316 claire

That's not true.


Yes it is. Give me an example in a sexually reproducing organism where a REAL mutation occurred that benefited the organism and was also found in it’s progeny. We’re talking about a novel mutation, too. Not the creation of a protein or some function already endogenous to the organism.

re: #316 claire

Not necessarily. Why should it be? And what do you have the demonstrates this as a rule other than conjecture?


Literally thousands of mutations have been observed and engineered in a controlled setting with the same results. A mutation, (point, substitution, whatever) confers either compromised function or an elimination of that protein altogether. Mutations are used all the time to study the function of specific genes. In all instances, it is assumed that this mutation with negatively affect the downstream protein.

re: #316 claire

No, all mutations aren't magically "fixed" by a cascade of protective machinery. Where do you get this? The embryo will only die if the mutation is detrimental to it's survival. You contradict yourself, BTW, when you say that mutations only happen in junk DNA and don't affect the animal. The example of the cardio-protective gene in #270 is a beneficial mutation that is passed down.


(BTW, I meant to say least robust.) You’re right, I was a little misleading. To clarify, in embryonic development, a single gene often performs different functions during different periods of development. A mutation in one of these active regions is going to be amplified tremendously as the organism develops. During this period, DNA surveillance proteins are at their highest level, presumable for this reason. This machinery will either halt the developmental process until the DNA is repaired or the cell will undergo apoptosis. For a mutation to evade this surveillance, find it’s way into the gametes, allow the embryo to develop normally, and then suddenly reveal itself in the mature, reproducing animal just doesn’t happen. In the cases where mutation are found in the junk DNA, these are most likely due to transposable elements that have been active throughout the species existence. These mutations are not observed in the ‘useful’ DNA because, as I mentioned, this is never advantageous. A mutation in a non-coding transposable element will have marginal effects on the animal, so they could be perpetuated.

re: #316 claire

You CAN add information in the genetic code- when it duplicates itself it adds extra copies of parts by mistake. That is documented.


Yes, but this is not mutation nor is it creating some novel gene.

322 MrBlonde21  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:47:05pm

Claire, I could find nothing about cardio-protective gene in #270 on google or pubmed. Any links?

323 psaturn  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 4:49:33pm

re: #315 FabioC.

Maybe there was a time when Christianity was conductive to scientific enquiry (though I think that in fact the watershed moment arrived with the Englithment, when men were able to break free from the religious constraints on many of their endeavours), but just reading the comments here, it is clear that quite a number of Crhistians in America nowadays are irremediably opposed to evolution theory in itself - not for its merits or lack thereof, but only because it does not require the same type of god they believe in.


Not quite true...not against evolution itself but against the materialistic worldview that prevails in science with no assigned value to meaning of life.

I can think of an example of in the past thread, there was a discussion on sex change in children being made possible in a clinic. Zombie exclaimed it was wrong! It is like murder!

I grant you that philosophy and science is two totally different subject, but when you are dealing with an uproven idea of the origin of life and species, you get into the philosophical arena...

The implication is that if life arose on its own, an accidental bump in a cosmological existence, then morality is actually meaningless...there is no evil or good, there is no right or wrong...things are the way it is....

Because G-d is not involved in the process, then whatever happens or whatever I do, there should be no consequence as there is no eternity, no afterlife...nothing.

Ironically, if one is an atheist who is into the pursuit of hedonism as a way of life...living to the fullest and experiencing to the fullest, to what end would scientific research would do for a hedonist, except to just gratify its self ?

I am not saying that atheism would lead to all kinds of immorality or hedonism, as many atheists have pointed out to me that they live a moral lives and many believers, whether Christian, Jews or any other religion, have shown to have the immoral streak that they have preached against.

What I am talking about is the philosophical foundation of each thinking that would lead to its natural conclusion.

324 chipbennett  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 5:01:15pm

re: #317 claire

Okay. I smell troll big time. Nobody is that God-damn dumb.

Okay, so point out one thing - just one thing - in the Bible that has been dis-proven.

As for the matter of me being a troll and questioning my intelligence: I would ask why humanism goes hand-in-hand with ego and arrogance, but I suppose it makes perfect sense.

325 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 5:09:10pm

re: #311 chipbennett


With respect to "modern scientific knowledge" - insofar as that knowledge concerns evolutionary theory - it is not the accuracy of that knowledge that is questioned but rather the utter lack of supporting evidence for the theory.

This is either the most honest expression of utter ignorance, in this or the 2300 post the other day, or the most dishonest lie.

Not sure which, but it sounds like what we expect to hear out of Islam, not the US of A.

326 funkyfantom  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 5:37:30pm

I have just finished reading, coincidentally, The Edge of Evolution"The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe.

Unless you have carefully considered all the evidence and arguments presented in this book, and wrestled with some probability theory and molecular biology, then one's belief in Darwinism is not operationally different in kind from someone else's belief in religion.

327 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:19:40pm

re: #326 funkyfantom

Well that may very well be a rational conclusion if that tome is all you read. How about also checking out the comments made to Behe by the judge in the Dover trial, where he is clearly proven as a dishonest liar, and even not a very good one at that?

328 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:23:11pm

re: #326 funkyfantom

As to wresting with the technical issues, he has been proven wrong on every substantive issue he has presented along with his paymasters at the Discovery Institute. Are you one who thinks "peer review" only applies when the conclusion is what you want to hear?

329 Mo86  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:25:31pm

re: #249 Claire

Here's a quick, simple description:

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.
-- William A. Dembski

330 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:26:39pm

re: #317 claire

Okay. I smell troll big time. Nobody is that God-damn dumb.


Wanna bet?

331 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:29:40pm

re: #329 Mo86

Here's a quick, simple description:

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.
-- William A. Dembski

Is that presented as a statement of fact?

332 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:37:54pm

re: #329 Mo86

Here's a quick, simple description:

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.
-- William A. Dembski

And of course he recognizes those patterns when he sees them because he is as smart as God. Beyond absurd, not to mention breathtakingly vain.

333 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:39:31pm

Halfway to the devil

334 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 6:46:38pm

re: #333 Salem

:chuckle: think we can keep this one going another day? It's all Charle's fault. Anything to do with Lizards get top posting :)

335 Roger  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:16:59pm

re: #326 funkyfantom

I know.

336 eclectic infidel  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:21:32pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I'd like to see a poll on the topic. Any guesses on what the results would be?

Sadly, at least 75% for the id/creationist/god-did-it-omg-lol!1111 crowd, is my guess.

:)

337 Salem  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 7:39:25pm

re: #334 Naso Tang

:chuckle: think we can keep this one going another day? It's all Charle's fault. Anything to do with Lizards get top posting :)

Well, it's like lurid news stories--everyone complains about them but the ratings tell another story.

338 Mich-again  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:08:03pm

re: #213 CrowScape

But the problem of life being created from nothing is that everywhere in the physical world over time things get simpler not more complicated. Disorder increases over time. There are laws about entropy, not just theories.

Ha. I can always count on all sorts of vitriol for pointing out that being certain there is no G* is just as untenable a position as being certain there is one or many of them. We all have either faith, confusion or indifference. No one knows for sure. Its the great equalizer.

339 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:09:25pm

re: #316 claire
Are you a dunderhead or what?
You made a statement about DNA that is false. A big statement that NO evolutionist in his or her right mind is gonna defend for you, and if the evolutionists ain't going for it, don't think a creationist or an IDer are gonna suddenly give you an assist. How many posts have you put up with acres-long quotes that have NOTHING to do with the problem at hand?

Here's the problem that you created yourself by your statements:
a fossil donkey looks a lot like a living horse.
But to breed a donkey with a horse gives you a MULE. A MULE is STERILE. There are no mule foals running around. Dead END. Even though donkeys and horse look very similar, their DNA is INCOMPATIBLE.
THEREFORE: We cannot deduce ANYTHING reliable from an inspection of how a fossil APPEARS. We need DNA and it can't be gotten from any fossil. All we have is speculation.
A genuine scientific proof cannot use speculation. It MUST be provable.
If you have something else that satisfies that, FINE. Otherwise, it's junk.
Stick to the point.

Good night!

340 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:10:51pm

re: #322 MrBlonde21

I'm sorry- it's in #273, the last sentence.

341 wanumba  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:12:08pm

How many of the next generation even know where mules come from?


ARRGH!

342 eclectic infidel  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:12:32pm

re: #302 mattThaHatter

Lucky for me the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me evolution is a hoax on the part of gay communists like ....

Exactly. And who are you to question His Noodly Appendage anyway?

Know the Noodles!

343 claire  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 8:31:36pm

re: #339 wanumba

You actually haven't read a single quote, have you?
They cover exactly what we've been talking about.

But to breed a donkey with a horse gives you a MULE. A MULE is STERILE. There are no mule foals running around. Dead END. Even though donkeys and horse look very similar, their DNA is INCOMPATIBLE.

So? So what? What does that prove except that they are different species? It doesn't mean they are not related in the family of Equus, which they clearly are which we knew before we could do DNA analysis, lol.

What is your point exactly?

THEREFORE: We cannot deduce ANYTHING reliable from an inspection of how a fossil APPEARS.


Yes, yes we can. An awful lot which you'd get a small glimpse of if you actually read the horse link I gave you, or any of the others, actually.

We need DNA and it can't be gotten from any fossil.

No, we don't need it- but it's nice when we do get it, like from Neanderthal fossils.

344 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:05:08pm

re: #338 Mich-again

But the problem of life being created from nothing is that everywhere in the physical world over time things get simpler not more complicated. Disorder increases over time. There are laws about entropy, not just theories.

Yes there are laws about entropy, and one is that one cannot misuse them. It has already been pointed out by others that there is a clear and distinct difference between open and closed systems and we are all living examples of that.

345 Naso Tang  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 9:10:28pm

re: #339 wanumba

Are you a dunderhead or what?

Hmm. I'm tempted to ask that question myself....

THEREFORE: We cannot deduce ANYTHING reliable from an inspection of how a fossil APPEARS. We need DNA and it can't be gotten from any fossil. All we have is speculation.
A genuine scientific proof cannot use speculation. It MUST be provable.
If you have something else that satisfies that, FINE. Otherwise, it's junk.
Stick to the point.

Good night!

This reminds me of a related argument heard on TV from a money making creationist, which in a certain sense is even more precise. Specifically, it doesn't say that you can make sense by speculating and looking at "dead" evidence, you had to be there to see it in person, and since nobody was (talking of dinosaurs and the like) there is nothing more to say, that isn't in the bible. End of sentience.

346 Stogiechomper  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 10:44:09pm

If this is rapid evolution, then evolution can't possibly be a result of random selection. There appears to be an amazing elacticity to life forms, enabling them to adapt quickly to changing conditions, within limits, of course. The dinosaurs were unable to adapt and so disappeared.

In any case, this is a fascinating study. We have barely scratched the surface of what life is and how it works.

347 Stogiechomper  Tue, Apr 22, 2008 11:10:35pm

So lizards are rapidly "evolving" hey? Let me know when they turn into a new species. Lizards evolving into...lizards doesn't really impress me.

Ben Stein was right. The arrogance and ideological dogmatism of evolutionists is truly disturbing...talk about closed minds.

Just for the record, I once was a biology major and took college courses in zoology, chemistry, anthropology, botany and genetics. I probably have studied the theory of evolution more extensively than most of you.

I once believed dogmatically in evolution as "fact." Ann Coulter changed my mind. The biggest part of her argument for me was the revelation that a number of prominent scientists don't believe in the theory, citing mathematical probability and other scientific reasons. I then read some of their books. They made compelling arguments for why evolution, as explained by Darwin, is far fetched and improbable.

So am I a fundamentalist Christian who insists that the Book of Genesis be taken literally? No. I am not sure that I am even a Christian, though I do believe in a higher power that most people call God. I don't go to church. There are many things in the Bible that I do not take literally. I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, for example. I tend more towards Zen than any other philosophy.

So if life wasn't established through blind chance through evolution, what did create it? I don't know. I can live with ambiguity. I do not have to have all of the answers or demand certitude on great questions.

There are numerous good, strong arguments against evolution, some of which include:
1. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin admitted this fact, believing future scientists would discover them. They haven't.
2. Irreducible complexity. Many biological constructs, like the human eye, are so complex that no evolutionary path is discernible that could have produced them. The common cell, the simplest unit of life, is astoundingly complex. Science, in all of its arrogance and pride, has not demonstrated how random events created a cell or could have created one.
3. Vestigeal organs are not vestigeal. Many organs once thought to be vestigeal have been shown to have important functions in the body.

There are several more anti-evolution arguments, but that should suffice to poke a few holes in the certitude of Darwin fans herein. Not that facts have anything to do with belief, as they often do not.

Evolution has neither been proved nor disproved, but the nay-sayers arguments are substantially better than evolutionists like to admit.

348 Roger  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 7:07:51am

I believe if Darwin were alive today he would be best friends and collaborating with Behe; Darwin would be absolutely enjoying all the latest techniques and number crunching answering the questions that plagued him!

See BabbaZee's quotes; #777 BabbaZee 4/22/08 5:53:03 pm

349 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 7:24:42am

I believe Darwin is rolling over in his grave and tearing any remaining hair out, as he listens to the likes of Behe distorting his life's work.

350 BabbaZee  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 8:09:17am

The tongue always digs the grave


“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world”
~ Charles Darwin

“In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurring struggle for existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of selection.”
~ Charles Darwin


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
~ Charles Darwin


“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire.

People made a religion of them.”
~ Charles Darwin

Thanks for all the Dar-wa, all ye of the tribe of so-smarts, but no thanks .

351 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 8:40:42am

re: #350 BabbaZee

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
~ Charles Darwin

You are no doubt sincere in your presentation of these quotes, and in fact I have no problem with any of them, but what you omit (or rather those who present these quotes as a form of refutation of Darwin by himself) is ignore the context or time of the quotes.

The above quote is an example of dishonesty (I'm not saying you are) in argument, because the rest of what he said immediately afterwards was explain how that sentence was actually wrong. He was making a statement to the effect that evolution was a wonderful thing, in spite of the initial appearance of impossibility.

As to his statements on being agnostic, he was raised as a believer, like most, he started to think that he was agnostic, and he finished by considering himself an atheist, although that was not a word that was lightly used in those days, as it is not in many circles even today.

As to the "scientists heart as stone", that means simply that if one is to be a scientist and investigate anything, one must do so without allowing emotion to distort reality. It does not mean a scientist has no heart.

352 BabbaZee  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 8:50:44am

I dont omit or present anything but the mans own words

353 BabbaZee  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 8:58:57am

You have your religion,
I have my GOD
I have no compunction to convert you
It is not why I posted those quotes

I have said it all over these threads.
I think this whole argument is a divide and conquer strategy and a ludicrous waste of time

A mechanism is not a cause.

This is a RELIGIOUS debate.

and I am not religious.

354 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:02:35am

re: #352 BabbaZee

To keep it simple, why would you present the above, partial, quote, which actually sounds as if Darwin was contradicting everything else he said, when quite the opposite is true if you trouble to read the rest of it?

I see you here and think you are more sincere than many, and I don't wish to pick fights with you, but I will argue. In this case it seems clear that you have not read what Darwin actually said, but only those who try to misquote and misconstrue what he said.

355 mrblonde21  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:04:41am

re: #340 claire

I'm sorry- it's in #273, the last sentence.

I looked at some of these reports briefly and it appears that there are many single amino acid variants in this allele, each of which confers slightly different properties to the protein. This specific mutation results in a reduced ability to produce HDL, bad cholesterol. This is really not an 'advance' in evolution, you've reduced the organism complexity and the protein's function. The evolution proponents claim that this mutation does actually confer an positive function, namely, increased antioxidant properties and increases its ability to form dimers with itself. Better anti-oxidant properties are hardly a big deal, many compounds have anti-oxidant properties to some extent. This property isn't even novel to this mutant because the wild-type exhibits the same properties, only to a lesser degree. The only real positive change with this mutant is that it forms dimers with itself more readily than its wild-type counterpart. This is certainly nothing extraordinary. There are mutations in known tumor suppressor genes, p53 for example, that extend the longevity of the quadramers subsequently formed by the monomer p53 proteins. This would be a good thing, however these mutant quadramers have a total loss of function and actually bind with the good monomers and inhibit their activity as well. The same thing is happening here; dimers are more readily formed but the complex function is lost. Come to think of it, the increased incident of dimer formation due to this apolipoprotein mutation may explain it's increased anti-oxidant activity; large molecules are generally better anti-oxidants.

Basically, the mutation produces no new novel function and many single amino acid variants exist within the alleles already present in the population. All you have done is eliminate a complex function while coincidently conferring an improved passive function that already was being performed by the protein.

356 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:05:49am

re: #353 BabbaZee

You have your religion,
I have my GOD
I have no compunction to convert you
It is not why I posted those quotes

I have said it all over these threads.
I think this whole argument is a divide and conquer strategy and a ludicrous waste of time

A mechanism is not a cause.

This is a RELIGIOUS debate.

and I am not religious.

and I am not religious... ;)

It is never a waste of time to exchange views, it is only certain ways of doing so that may be.

357 Roger  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:15:19am

re: #354 Naso Tang

Stopping from quoting the rest of that paragraph is doing Darwin a favor. He really needed an editor but even after parsing into English it expects a person to have unreal difficulty with the unimaginable.

358 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:18:36am

re: #357 Roger

Surely you can do better than that?

359 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:19:54am

re: #357 Roger

And in this case I have to agree with BabbaZee

360 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:37:20am

re: #355 mrblonde21


Basically, the mutation produces no new novel function and many single amino acid variants exist within the alleles already present in the population. All you have done is eliminate a complex function while coincidently conferring an improved passive function that already was being performed by the protein.

You sound like you know what you are talking about, and on that basis I would tend to agree with you, while saying that a "change" that "coincidentally confers an improved function" is largely what evolution says happens.

However such change can obviously be given degrees of significance, and I know that this argument for or against evolution will not end until those lizards can no longer breed with their origins, and then it will not end because that change will just be described as a small incompatibility in, say, immune systems.

Personally, I would take a wild guess that these "evolutionary changes" have already been performed at some time in the past millions of years, and existed dormant in these lizards, but coming from an ID I don't buy.

361 Roger  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 9:37:25am
the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real" -- Darwin

hardly be considered real -- difficulty of believing
mean no difficulty in having faith = unreal difficulty
insuperable[inhuman or impossible by humans] by our imagination = unimaginable by humans

Hence
unreal difficulty with the unimaginable [by humans]

Darwin's words; not mine.

362 psaturn  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 10:56:09am

Stogie,

I really do appreciate your comments coming from a non Christian who is not too sure about the Bible...(by the way, the Bible does not say specifically the Earth was 6,000 years old...and note

You have an honest intellectual assessment of what is going on in science, particularly in Biology.

It was quite refreshing to hear your viewpoint!

Interesting how Ann Coulter influenced you in this regards...

I think what boils down is the the worldview...the paradigm...

What worldview you have influences how you think and interpret.

For example you have have a specific set of datas and you show it to different people, you will get quite a few different interpretations.

That is the challenge we have in science. It is not the fact themselves the problem, it is the INTERPRETATION of data.

Interpretation is colored by your worldview.

Repeatedly it was mentioned ad nauseam that science does not prove or disprove God or the existence of God.

But I found it quite interesting how many atheists credit the theory of evolution as the nail to the coffin on their belief in God.

re: #347 Stogiechomper

So lizards are rapidly "evolving" hey? Let me know when they turn into a new species. Lizards evolving into...lizards doesn't really impress me.

Ben Stein was right. The arrogance and ideological dogmatism of evolutionists is truly disturbing...talk about closed minds.

Just for the record, I once was a biology major and took college courses in zoology, chemistry, anthropology, botany and genetics. I probably have studied the theory of evolution more extensively than most of you.

I once believed dogmatically in evolution as "fact." Ann Coulter changed my mind. The biggest part of her argument for me was the revelation that a number of prominent scientists don't believe in the theory, citing mathematical probability and other scientific reasons. I then read some of their books. They made compelling arguments for why evolution, as explained by Darwin, is far fetched and improbable.

So am I a fundamentalist Christian who insists that the Book of Genesis be taken literally? No. I am not sure that I am even a Christian, though I do believe in a higher power that most people call God. I don't go to church. There are many things in the Bible that I do not take literally. I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, for example. I tend more towards Zen than any other philosophy.

So if life wasn't established through blind chance through evolution, what did create it? I don't know. I can live with ambiguity. I do not have to have all of the answers or demand certitude on great questions.

There are numerous good, strong arguments against evolution, some of which include:
1. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin admitted this fact, believing future scientists would discover them. They haven't.
2. Irreducible complexity. Many biological constructs, like the human eye, are so complex that no evolutionary path is discernible that could have produced them. The common cell, the simplest unit of life, is astoundingly complex. Science, in all of its arrogance and pride, has not demonstrated how random events created a cell or could have created one.
3. Vestigeal organs are not vestigeal. Many organs once thought to be vestigeal have been shown to have important functions in the body.

There are several more anti-evolution arguments, but that should suffice to poke a few holes in the certitude of Darwin fans herein. Not that facts have anything to do with belief, as they often do not.

Evolution has neither been proved nor disproved, but the nay-sayers arguments are substantially better than evolutionists like to admit.

363 psaturn  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 10:57:53am

re: #346 Stogiechomper

If this is rapid evolution, then evolution can't possibly be a result of random selection. There appears to be an amazing elacticity to life forms, enabling them to adapt quickly to changing conditions, within limits, of course. The dinosaurs were unable to adapt and so disappeared.

In any case, this is a fascinating study. We have barely scratched the surface of what life is and how it works.

I agree !

The scientists were shocked that this occurred within 3 decades on what is thought it took million of years...

364 psaturn  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 11:02:22am

re: #314 FabioC.

Fabio...I don't think the creationists have ignored this one...

365 psaturn  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 11:03:50am

re: #313 wanumba


Great point!

366 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 12:24:29pm

re: #361 Roger

hardly be considered real -- difficulty of believing
mean no difficulty in having faith = unreal difficulty
insuperable[inhuman or impossible by humans] by our imagination = unimaginable by humans

Hence
unreal difficulty with the unimaginable [by humans]

Darwin's words; not mine.

Your attempts to reduce the issue to one of semantics and differing interpretations of words is dishonest.

Those who take the above mentioned example of Darwin's words and then present that alone as if it were his opinion know exactly what they are doing (at least those who do more than link to it) and are dishonest, deceitful and, dare I say, un Christian liars.

I am sorry to see that you take that kind of intellectual dishonesty so lightly, even as we here all agree that similarly Islams laws that call for lying to the infidels in the name of Allah, are deceitful and immoral.

367 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 12:28:21pm

re: #362 psaturn


Interesting how Ann Coulter influenced you in this regards...

Anyone who uses Ann Coulter as a source for scientific information, while simultaneously claiming to "have taken" some courses in biology is making up something somewhere. Could it be that those courses taken were never passed?

368 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 12:35:46pm

re: #362 psaturn

But I found it quite interesting how many atheists credit the theory of evolution as the nail to the coffin on their belief in God.

That may be true for some, but it is more true for creationists since it is they who are fixated on this issue as if it actually would be a nail in the coffin" if they were ever to allow themselves to believe it.

The real truth is that it is no more that nail than anything else fundamental that once used to be the sole territory of God. None of them are nails in that coffin, because there is nothing preventing any rational believer to think that what we learn is how God did it.

There have been famous atheists long before Darwin. Those arguments are far less trivial than trying to ignore reality, as creationists do.

369 J.S.  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 1:22:06pm

Ok. Another Biology 101 lesson. A poster (who shall remain nameless) above mentioned something about "random selection" and why he/she can no longer believe in Evolutionary Theory...Here's a heads up...Evolutionary Theory is not based on "random selection" -- it's Natural Selection. Repeat after me -- Natural Selection. It's Natural Selection and it has nothing to do with randomness. Natural Selection is how some organisms are better suited for surviving in a particular environment (and hence become able to replicate -- that's reproduce, have offspring), and thus are biologically "successful" (their genes are passed on). Natural selection (Darwin used this term) is contrasted with artificial selection (artificial -- that's what a human plant breeder, for example, takes and hand-pollinates certain plants to obtain, say, an improved hybrid...that's artificial -- but "natural selection" occurs without human interference, when, say, a flood occurs, and only certain adapted organisms survive, others perish, etc.)

Darwin's theory of Evolution through Natural Selection can be summarized (from Suzuki, "Introduction to Genetic Analysis") in three principles:
1) The principle of Variation. "Among individuals within any population there is variation in morphology, physiology, and behavior."
2) The principle of Heredity. "Offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble unrelated individuals."
3) The principle of Selection. "Some forms are more successful at surviving and reproducing than other forms in a given environment."

Where random forces come into play is with respect to gene mutations (random genetic drift) -- where variability comes into play. Random drift can counteract the forces of selection -- but random drift can also enhance selection. So, the interplay of random drift with selection forces results in what's called "Adaptive Peaks." etc., etc.

Also, about Darwin and the Human Eye. Darwin regarded the eye as a test of his theory. And although on the surface it sounds improbable, nonetheless, an organism which possesses eyes is better able to locate food, defend itself, and reproduce. (Other evolutionary biologists have given detailed accounts of how eyes evolved -- see Dawkins writings.)

370 Roger  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 1:54:40pm

re: #366 Naso Tang

Analysis of 'scientific' statements is not allowed? Who knew.

371 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 2:13:10pm

re: #370 Roger

Come on, please. If you want to analyze something, please address the entire statement, not just the preamble, spoken to get ones attention to what follows.

Not doing that amounts to lying.

372 DWalla  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 2:35:12pm

Once they turn into fish, birds or something else... give me a call... otherwise this is merely adaptation or micro-evolution.

373 MrBlonde21  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 2:59:21pm

re: #360 Naso Tang

You sound like you know what you are talking about, and on that basis I would tend to agree with you, while saying that a "change" that "coincidentally confers an improved function" is largely what evolution says happens.

Ok, however, I said passive change. Lets say a guitar looses it's strings so it no longer acts as an instrument, however, without strings, it is better for firewood because the strings don't get in the way when you chop it up. It's a sloppy example but the point is no new function is added to the guitar by this 'mutation', however, a passive function, or property, of the guitar is improved. I guess you could call this de-evolution or retarded-evolution. That's a far cry from what evolutionists need to lend credible support to the heart of their theory of evolution of species.

I looked at some of the primary literature a bit more closely and the anti-oxidant claims are quite a stretch. If I were a reviewer I would tear this paper apart simply based on their data presentation.

374 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 3:19:11pm

re: #373 MrBlonde21

Well, I'm not a genetic biologist, so I'm going to simply rely on my "faith" (oops?) that peer review and the scientific process that has served well so far will sort this one out. The truth is that the better we get at understanding, the more we tend to see that which we do understand as commonplace. Characteristics of these lizards, or the dark moths of industrial England will never satisfy those who don't want to believe in evolution, let alone try to understand it, yet it clearly appears to be part of the process. It's just that some people need wings to sprout where they weren't before they will concede a point, and then they will still find a reason to ignore the evidence.

As I said earlier, my guess in this case would not be that a genetic mutation, several actually, occurred in 30 years but that these lizards had developed these characteristics long ago, under similar conditions, and they now have, through selective presures described by evolution, re manifested themselves because they are beneficial. That is classic evolution, the only difference is that one doesn't have to imagine the gene mutations suddenly happening more quickly than research suggest that they do.

That too can be resolved by research to identify the operative genes and find the triggers that activate them, in bot the original and the new populations.

This story ain't over yet.

375 J.S.  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 5:15:35pm

I think it has been long recognized that there is a rapid evolution of organisms living on islands...It's not "unusual." Here is an article...

376 J.S.  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 5:42:34pm

And, rapid evolution on islands occurs not just with mammalian species, but with plants also. Thus, from the text "Biology of Plants" (Raven, Evert, Eichhorn; 1992; p. 160), the authors write: "Differentiation on islands is particularly striking because, in the absence of competition, organisms seem more likely to produce forms that are highly unusual in comparison with those of related species that occur on the continents. In island localities, the characteristics of plants and animals may change more rapidly than on the mainland, and features that are never encountered elsewhere may arise." [emphasis added, J.S.]

377 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 5:49:47pm

re: #376 J.S.

Certainly, a most obvious commonality of rapid evolution is either dramatic change in environment, or extreme isolation of small groups (both situations cause similar environmental pressures) so that variations have no chance of being diluted out by the greater "average" characteristics.

378 J.S.  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 6:11:46pm

re: #377 Naso Tang

And there's the in-breeding...as the critters on an island grow increasingly homogeneous (more and more similar to one another -- within the population), they simultaneously become increasingly differentiated/unrecognizable from their mainland relatives (greater differentiation between the populations on island vs mainland)...(there's a formula out there -- comparing with-in population vs between population differentiation).

379 MrBlonde21  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 6:47:28pm

re: #374 Naso Tang

Well, I'm not a genetic biologist, so I'm going to simply rely on my "faith" (oops?) that peer review and the scientific process that has served well so far will sort this one out. The truth is that the better we get at understanding, the more we tend to see that which we do understand as commonplace. Characteristics of these lizards, or the dark moths of industrial England will never satisfy those who don't want to believe in evolution, let alone try to understand it, yet it clearly appears to be part of the process. It's just that some people need wings to sprout where they weren't before they will concede a point, and then they will still find a reason to ignore the evidence.

I consider myself to have a pretty good understanding of evolutionary theory, biology, etc... The ironic thing is, the more I delve into the field, the more I find this knowledge sets itself at odds with evolution, in the sense of origin of species type thinking. In fact, a developmental biology professor of mine, who has a clear bias for evolution, has freely admitted that the study of developmental biology has created many more problems for evolutionists than it has solved. I have no doubt the same can be said about genetics and neurobiology. In my opinion, it is only going to get worse as GOOD science uncovers the real biological principles behind the scenes.

380 Claire  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 7:10:31pm

re: #326 funkyfantom

Since Behe's new book is fresh in your mind, you should read the first 3 reviews of it at Amazon and tell us what you think. It appears that he still does not understand probablity theory or biology that well. Can I ask you what you found most convincing in his argument? It's interesting that as the most known ID'er that he has evolved to the state now that he accepts descent with modification and common ancestry. He's boxing himself and God into a tinier box with every book, now it all hinges on whether gene mutations are "random" or not.

re: #350 BabbaZee

Yes, those quotes and lots of others like them have been used for years to make it look like Darwin doubted his own work.

Here's the whole paragraph which should illustrate the lying by omission this represents.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

In fact, here's a whole page (The quote mining project) of selectively quoted evolutionists with the complete passages. Whole 'lotta lying goin' on. They shouldn't have to lie to convince people of their argument, but I suppose to them the ends justify the means, no?

381 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 8:16:30pm

re: #379 MrBlonde21

I don't really understand what you mean. I presume you don't mean "origin of life" when you say "origin of species"? Evolution says nothing about origin of life and doesn't try to. Only Creationists do that.

The rest of what you say seems to suggest that you don't think we can claim to understand anything until there are no aspects or questions left to investigate. That is not what science is about.

382 Naso Tang  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 8:21:59pm

re: #380 Claire

Since Behe's new book is fresh in your mind, you should read the first 3 reviews of it at Amazon and tell us what you think. It appears that he still does not understand probablity theory or biology that well.

I'm pretty sure that Behe understands more than most of us, even if he might flunk a graduate course exam. I certainly would, but one picks up a bit over the years.

At Dover he was labeled a blatant liar by the judge, and that was after extensive presentations and questioning. We see what they do with out of context quotations at every opportunity, and the truth is that they have an agenda and the ends justify the means. After all, itall for a good cause, right?

383 Claire  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 10:24:38pm

re: #382 Naso Tang

Yes. The weird thing is, don't they feel any shame over this? How can they sleep at night knowingly bamboozling the credulous? So ridiculous.

384 MrBlonde21  Wed, Apr 23, 2008 10:35:20pm

re: #381 Naso Tang

I don't really understand what you mean. I presume you don't mean "origin of life" when you say "origin of species"? Evolution says nothing about origin of life and doesn't try to. Only Creationists do that.

The rest of what you say seems to suggest that you don't think we can claim to understand anything until there are no aspects or questions left to investigate. That is not what science is about.

No, I mean evolutionary theory and how it attempts to explain how all species were derived from a single common ancestor. This is distinguished from a general understanding of 'evolution,' concerning how things change over time. It's convenient to evolution proponents who lack a firm understand of science to group the two together. Then they produce evidence for the later as if they are proving the former.

The rest of why I'm saying suggests that the more knowledge we gain via certain disciplines, such as developmental biology and neuroscience, the more difficult it becomes to support the theory of evolution.

385 claire  Thu, Apr 24, 2008 8:55:25am

re: #384 MrBlonde21

I've read your post 3 times and still can't gel what you are trying to say.

So you think that life "changes over time" but that is NOT because of evolution? And you are saying that more and more evidence comes in to support the fact that life changes over time (which it does) but that somehow developmental biology and neuroscience are proving that each change was directed (by an ID entity) and not by selection of variance. Or are you saying that there is more and more developmental biology, etc. that says that we are all NOT related to each other in the great chain of life? Are you saying you are aware of data that somehow puts up an insurmountable roadblock as to why the genes in humans (or any other animal) are NOT the same as the genes in fish that perform the same function in each body? Because every spec of data that is coming in, as far as I can see is additively supporting the idea that we are all a chain of related DNA.

Or is it just Human Beings that are exempted from the "mere" animalia. That we are the exception that breaks the link to all other life on earth? I actually think that would be a very tragic viewpoint that we are special and apart from the great flow of life in the universe.

Could you give me specifics of why you think that for each field or is it just a general feeling you have?

What do you consider the deal-breaker for evolution?

I really would like to know.

386 Naso Tang  Thu, Apr 24, 2008 1:40:32pm

re: #384 MrBlonde21

The rest of why I'm saying suggests that the more knowledge we gain via certain disciplines, such as developmental biology and neuroscience, the more difficult it becomes to support the theory of evolution.

You will have to do better than that, if you want to make that point, aside from not having a missing link back here ;)

I'm not sure to what extent Darwin tried to describe "the common ancestor", but I do know that on top of what preceded it, DNA analysis confirms that concept in greater detail every day.

What is your alternative? You don't sound like a creationist, but I'm beginning to suspect ID for sure.

387 Naso Tang  Thu, Apr 24, 2008 1:42:03pm

And I wrote my post before reading Claire's, just in case you think we are in cahoots.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Mystery Sale - Buy 1 Mystery Paperback, Get a 2nd 50% Off!
Barnes & Noble Gift Cards 125x125
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Disrespectful displayers of no upbringing.


All-New BN Kids Store! Inspiring curious minds everyday.
Fast & Free Delivery 160x600