And then suddenly, Magically... Evolution was proven.[Edit2]

[Katherine1]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

Since the fish don't seem to be enough: How 'bout some lizards, instead?

[Mightier Than You]

George Kapland Jr

Brandan Cromartie 3

You:

A) Did not provide prior to pollution evidence.

B) The reports are not quantative; if the population was different then the ratio will be different, and perhaps drastically.

C) No, you are wrong, and it is okay. You may either try again and give a comprehensive report, or just not bother because an article does not mean they are correct nor does it prove that micro occured in 30 years as there needn't be a change in genes for one section of a population to overcome another.

It seems you got Natural Selection and Evolution mixed up guy.

Look, read the article..


Natural Selection leads to Evolution.. It's like the pregame..

You seem to have made a mistake. Natural Selection does not LEAD TO evolution; they are connected, but not inherently. If the fish without scales were eaten, that doesn't mean the fish with scales "evolved" it simply means they "survived" and then procreated. Something going extinct may have nothing to do with genetics as a precedent therefore you either need to study up on Logic, Connections, and Biological Process or stop making strawmen and false dichotomies.

Quote:

Personally, I'm going to agree with the guy with the degree saying it's evolution than some random guy on a forum nit-picking.

There have been a lot of guys with degrees who have made a lot of mistakes. The question then comes in if in fact this is Micro-evolution what Genetic Changes were there? Accomodating the toxin is a chemical / biological change, if the fish without scales ( w ) was killed off and the fish with scales ( W ) wasn't then the idea behind finding a mate with scales and creating a new punnet's (sp) Square is not only commonly accepted, but sensible. It is however not sensible to assume that the fish actually accomodated genetically to the situation.

To put it bluntly it is not a mutation unless you've got that article telling me which gene CHANGED. It basic adaptation, randomization, and Natural Selection.

[Old Pouncey]

Brandan Cromartie 3

You:

A) Did not provide prior to pollution evidence.

B) The reports are not quantative; if the population was different then the ratio will be different, and perhaps drastically.

C) No, you are wrong, and it is okay. You may either try again and give a comprehensive report, or just not bother because an article does not mean they are correct nor does it prove that micro occured in 30 years as there needn't be a change in genes for one section of a population to overcome another.

It seems you got Natural Selection and Evolution mixed up guy.

A) Does not matter. Evolution, even if it does return a species to a previous state, is still evolution.

B) Evolution is defined as any change in allele frequency within a population. If a population, in this case a population of fish, has a change in the prevalence of genetic information amongst the members of the population, this is evolution.

C) If the difference between the populations is genetic... it absolutely is evolution.

Oh, and the difference between natural selection and evolution is this. Evolution is a phenomena, and natural selection is a possible drive behind that phenomena.

Evolution need not make use of new mutations; it may make use of existing genetic information by spreading it to a larger portion of the population through natural selection or other means.

[George Kapland Jr]

Brandan Cromartie 3

George Kapland Jr

Brandan Cromartie 3

You:

A) Did not provide prior to pollution evidence.

B) The reports are not quantative; if the population was different then the ratio will be different, and perhaps drastically.

C) No, you are wrong, and it is okay. You may either try again and give a comprehensive report, or just not bother because an article does not mean they are correct nor does it prove that micro occured in 30 years as there needn't be a change in genes for one section of a population to overcome another.

It seems you got Natural Selection and Evolution mixed up guy.

Look, read the article..


Natural Selection leads to Evolution.. It's like the pregame..

You seem to have made a mistake. Natural Selection does not LEAD TO evolution; they are connected, but not inherently. If the fish without scales were eaten, that doesn't mean the fish with scales "evolved" it simply means they "survived" and then procreated. Something going extinct may have nothing to do with genetics as a precedent therefore you either need to study up on Logic, Connections, and Biological Process or stop making strawmen and false dichotomies.

Quote:

Personally, I'm going to agree with the guy with the degree saying it's evolution than some random guy on a forum nit-picking.

There have been a lot of guys with degrees who have made a lot of mistakes. The question then comes in if in fact this is Micro-evolution what Genetic Changes were there? Accomodating the toxin is a chemical / biological change, if the fish without scales ( w ) was killed off and the fish with scales ( W ) wasn't then the idea behind finding a mate with scales and creating a new punnet's (sp) Square is not only commonly accepted, but sensible. It is however not sensible to assume that the fish actually accomodated genetically to the situation.

To put it bluntly it is not a mutation unless you've got that article telling me which gene CHANGED. It basic adaptation, randomization, and Natural Selection.

Explain, pray tell, how over the course of the study.. how it went from 6 percent of sticklebacks collected in Lake Washington in 1968 and 1969 being fully plated, with 78 percent being "low-plated," with fewer than 12 plates

to... 49 percent of the fish were completely plated, 35 percent were partially plated, and only 16 percent fell into the low-plated category.

That implies that not only did the fish with out scales not survive, they changed and adapted.


Marine-dwelling versions of these fish are covered in bony plates, but as sticklebacks migrated into freshwater, a strong selection pressure caused them to lose their armor... Except this lake, and only this lake.

[Mightier Than You]

Note:

W - Dominant "Plated Gene"
w - Recessive "Unplated" Gene"

George Kapland Jr

Explain, pray tell, how over the course of the study.. how it went from 6 percent of sticklebacks collected in Lake Washington in 1968 and 1969 being fully plated, with 78 percent being "low-plated," with fewer than 12 plates

We call the process "Extinction". You do know about the Genetic "Square" right? WW > ww therefore ww dies out and Ww, wW, WW prosper. It has nothing to do with an actual genetic change. If WW, or at least W, is prominent it will be shown in most cases. This is why "ratios" are important, but... unfortunately it's incomplete. You can't tell. You don't know.

Quote:

to... 49 percent of the fish were completely plated, 35 percent were partially plated, and only 16 percent fell into the low-plated category.

That implies that not only did the fish with out scales not survive, they changed and adapted.

No. That's the key. The fish without scales mated but they themselves did not change. wW came into existence, and then WW from two wW's. I hope you get it. Maybe you do. Maybe not.

Quote:

Marine-dwelling versions of these fish are covered in bony plates, but as sticklebacks migrated into freshwater, a strong selection pressure caused them to lose their armor... Except this lake, and only this lake.

You are mixing Macro and Micro. I am getting for your mistakes now; the fish did not probably evolve over 30 years; it's not sensible to assume as I've never heard of anything so complex doing so, so quickly, in only one manner which sounds way too much like a Natural Selection. It proves micro, which I am sure the article said, but it's no micro!

[George Kapland Jr]

Brandan Cromartie 3

Note:

W - Dominant "Plated Gene"
w - Recessive "Unplated" Gene"

Brandan Cromartie 3

George Kapland Jr

Explain, pray tell, how over the course of the study.. how it went from 6 percent of sticklebacks collected in Lake Washington in 1968 and 1969 being fully plated, with 78 percent being "low-plated," with fewer than 12 plates

We call the process "Extinction". You do know about the Genetic "Square" right? WW > ww therefore ww dies out and Ww, wW, WW prosper. It has nothing to do with an actual genetic change. If WW, or at least W, is prominent it will be shown in most cases. This is why "ratios" are important, but... unfortunately it's incomplete. You can't tell. You don't know.

And you can't prove that the fish actually, went extinct. We can how ever prove that the plate mutation in the other fish helped them survive.

Brandan Cromartie 3

Quote:

to... 49 percent of the fish were completely plated, 35 percent were partially plated, and only 16 percent fell into the low-plated category.

That implies that not only did the fish with out scales not survive, they changed and adapted.

No. That's the key. The fish without scales mated but they themselves did not change. wW came into existence, and then WW from two wW's. I hope you get it. Maybe you do. Maybe not

Unless you make the square, I won't get it. I'm sure you've realized now how hard it is to explain the "Genetic Square"

Brandan Cromartie 3

Quote:

Marine-dwelling versions of these fish are covered in bony plates, but as sticklebacks migrated into freshwater, a strong selection pressure caused them to lose their armor... Except this lake, and only this lake.

You are mixing Macro and Micro. I am getting for your mistakes now; the fish did not probably evolve over 30 years; it's not sensible to assume as I've never heard of anything so complex doing so, so quickly, in only one manner which sounds way too much like a Natural Selection. It proves micro, which I am sure the article said, but it's no micro!

Than look at the article Katherine1 posted.. and actually read this time.. That evolution.. the Lizards actually changed completely in relative to diet, leg size, and movement speed. Which happened in oh.. about 34 years.

[Mightier Than You]

Pouncey

Brandan Cromartie 3

You:

A) Did not provide prior to pollution evidence.

B) The reports are not quantative; if the population was different then the ratio will be different, and perhaps drastically.

C) No, you are wrong, and it is okay. You may either try again and give a comprehensive report, or just not bother because an article does not mean they are correct nor does it prove that micro occured in 30 years as there needn't be a change in genes for one section of a population to overcome another.

It seems you got Natural Selection and Evolution mixed up guy.

A) Does not matter. Evolution, even if it does return a species to a previous state, is still evolution.

Actually the term is "De-evolution". No, it's not. Also, it does matter, because that would show a physical genetic change versus a biological adaptation ( which is what this sounds like ) to a new enviroment over a short period of time.

Quote:

B) Evolution is defined as any change in allele frequency within a population. If a population, in this case a population of fish, has a change in the prevalence of genetic information amongst the members of the population, this is evolution.

There is a difference between allele frequency in a population and the extinction of a population causing an influx of a certain allele.

Quote:

C) If the difference between the populations is genetic... it absolutely is evolution.

Thank you for restating the contrapositive. Would you like a cookie?

Quote:

Oh, and the difference between natural selection and evolution is this. Evolution is a phenomena, and natural selection is a possible drive behind that phenomena.

Close enough to let slide.

Quote:

Evolution need not make use of new mutations; it may make use of existing genetic information by spreading it to a larger portion of the population through natural selection or other means.

Actually Evolution needs to encode some kind of mutation into a system in order for it to be genuinely evolution. For instance, if we had twelve flamingos, six pink, and six white, and we killed "P" leaving "W" to mate, that is not evolution, or it could be defined as "Artificial Evolution". Now I know that flamingos change color based on what they eat, but that's beyond the point. Gregor is my hero.


I have to go. Toodles.

[The_Muffin_Puppy]

30 years is not to fast to evolve. If this certain first has a very short lifespan then each generation will be slightly different leading to a fast evolution.

[Naoshi_1337]

I believe in God and yet it still amazes me how many people refuse to believe in evolution despite the TROVES of evidence before them.

Evolution is ******** TRUE. Could the ENTIRE scientific community be wrong? Yeah, but it's highly unlikely as the evidence continues to compound. If at this point you refuse to believe in evolution, I may as well dismiss you as an unsalvageable fundamentalist, because refusing to believe evolution in the face of this much evidence is like refusing to believe that sex causes babies.

This is proof of pandemic ignorance if we ever needed it.

[Red Fire Stone]

Yakunan-Jordan

God did it.

Yes, it IS possible to believe that God created evolution.

[Old Pouncey]

Yes I would like a cookie. Most certainly I would. : D

Thanks for the cookie, Mister person-type thing.

[I-AM-A-FISHER-OF-MEN]

It actually proves more to the Creationist ideas. See, if evolution was right, then the adaptation would have take 'millions of years,' where in this case it took a matter of a decade. Also, it is not evolution when the DNA of the fish was changed due to the mutagens in the water from the pollution, and the protein information (armor plates on the fish) was disrupted by an outside allele.

[Apollinaeus]

Dogs are the greatest example of evolution. Animals that in a couple of generations that can change almost into a different species based on the selection and encouragement of particular traits wanted for that animal

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

JKP1521

It actually proves more to the Creationist ideas. See, if evolution was right, then the adaptation would have take 'millions of years,' where in this case it took a matter of a decade. Also, it is not evolution when the DNA of the fish was changed due to the mutagens in the water from the pollution, and the protein information (armor plates on the fish) was disrupted by an outside allele.

Evolution doesn't state anywhere in it that it takes millions of years. It can happen rapidly, geologically speaking. Case in point: baceria can evolve into new strains impressively fast.

[Naoshi_1337]

EsgarBlackpoxs

JKP1521

It actually proves more to the Creationist ideas. See, if evolution was right, then the adaptation would have take 'millions of years,' where in this case it took a matter of a decade. Also, it is not evolution when the DNA of the fish was changed due to the mutagens in the water from the pollution, and the protein information (armor plates on the fish) was disrupted by an outside allele.

Evolution doesn't state anywhere in it that it takes millions of years. It can happen rapidly, geologically speaking. Case in point: baceria can evolve into new strains impressively fast.

This is true. Nowhere in Darwin's theory does anything state that a certain amount of time is required for each species to evolve.