Lizards Rapidly Evolve On Island In Only Decades
Steven L.
Kimberly Johnson
for National Geographic News
April 21, 2008
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 just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have
developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder
bite, researchers say.
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.
Lizard Swarm
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.
"The island was swarming with lizards," he said.
The findings were published in March in the journal Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Fast-Track Evolution
The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which
were less aggressive than the new implants, Irschick said.
The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although
how it happened is unknown, he said.
The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that
expedited their evolution physically, Irschick explained.
Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily
insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were
not built to digest a vegetarian diet.
Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles
between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in
fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the
vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.
"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves,"
Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented
before. "This was a brand-new structure."
Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder,
powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.
(Related news: "Komodo Dragon's Bite Is 'Weaker Than a House Cat's'"
[April 18, 2008].)
The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizard's social
and behavioral structure, he said. For one, the plentiful food sources
allowed for easier reproduction and a denser population.
The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors
concluded.
Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes
evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said.
It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in
several hundred years, he said.
"That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is," he said.
While researchers do know the invader's impact on its reptile brethren,
they do not know how the species impacts local vegetation or insects, a
subject of future study, Irschick said.
Dramatic Changes
The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island
environments, said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's
McGill University.
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.
There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract
occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.
"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step
would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
© 1996-2008 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/49841077.html
[
In the sci-fi novel "When Worlds Collide," published in 1933, scientists
frantically prepare to leave Earth for another planet when Earth is
facing collision with another planet. Their spaceship only has room to
take a few select species of plants and animals with them to another
world. But they hope that, once those Earthly life forms are released
on the new world, differentiation and evolution will quickly set in and
a diverse biota will form there in time for human colonization, rather
than taking millions of years.
Not bad thinking for 1933.
]
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
coaster
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Lizards Evolving? Pshaw! God is merely working very diligently and
cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
time.
coaster
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
What is meant by "plastic response to the environment"? I know what
he means by "plastic response", that's not my question. But is there
any evidence currently in biology that inheritable macroscopic
morphologies are not always genetic? I've heard of such features at
the cellular level (I think there's even a word for it) but not for
whole organs. I'm very curious.
mimus
> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
> Kimberly Johnson
> for National Geographic News
> April 21, 2008
>
> 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 just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have
> developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder
> bite, researchers say.
The white mice are messing with us again, I see.
--
You want a job and a lizard to ride?
< _The Einstein Intersection_
Robert Carnegie
crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
Something else perhaps?
John Wilkins
It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
KlausH
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:49:46 -0400, Steven L. wrote:
>
>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>> Kimberly Johnson
>> for National Geographic News
>> April 21, 2008
>>
>> 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 just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have
>> developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder
>> bite, researchers say.
>
> The white mice are messing with us again, I see.
>
Any unusual dolphin behavior?
KlausH
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
>> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
>> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
>> Something else perhaps?
>
> It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
> it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
Yes, the lizards could well have a built in vegetarian mode. This would
be easy to test: take some of the "new" lizards and put them in an
environment similar to the original, the see what happens after a few
generations.
Klaus
John Wilkins
dhacat
>
>KlausH <badgerbad...@badger.net> wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:49:46 -0400, Steven L. wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>> >> Kimberly Johnson
>> >> for National Geographic News
>> >> April 21, 2008
>> >>
>> >> 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 just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have
>> >> developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder
>> >> bite, researchers say.
>> >
>> > The white mice are messing with us again, I see.
>> >
>>
>> Any unusual dolphin behavior?
>
>Haven't seen any for a while.
Had a whale and a bowl of petunias go by the window a bit ago, though.
John Wilkins
Patriot Games
news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
> time.
Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of time."
They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
hersheyh
> > between the large and small intestine�that slowed down food digestion in
> > response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with
> > the study.
>
> > There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract
> > occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.
>
> > "All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step
> > would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
>
>
> >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/49841077.html
>
> > [
> > In the sci-fi novel "When Worlds Collide," published in 1933, scientists
> > frantically prepare to leave Earth for another planet when Earth is
> > facing collision with another planet. Their spaceship only has room to
> > take a few select species of plants and animals with them to another
> > world. But they hope that, once those Earthly life forms are released
> > on the new world, differentiation and evolution will quickly set in and
> > a diverse biota will form there in time for human colonization, rather
> > than taking millions of years.
>
> > Not bad thinking for 1933.
> > ]
>
> > --
> > Steven L.
> > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>
> What is meant by "plastic response to the environment"? I know what
> he means by "plastic response", that's not my question. But is there
> any evidence currently in biology that inheritable macroscopic
> morphologies are not always genetic? I've heard of such features at
> the cellular level (I think there's even a word for it) but not for
> whole organs. I'm very curious.
You have a genetic range of heights, for example, that you could have
been. The actual height you achieve is function of both the
environment (amount and types of food available) and genes. Japanese
who moved to the U.S. are distinctly taller than their parents.
In this particular example, the shape of the mouth and head may be
affected by the type of diet. So might the diet affect the shape of
the musculature in the digestive tract. That is why one must actually
determine that the change has been due to a change in the frequency of
different alleles. Probably not, of course, changes in *coding*
sequences, but changes in the frequency of changes in regulatory
sequences.
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
>> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
>> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
>> Something else perhaps?
>
>It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
>it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
Don't people actually check references? It certainly is legit: the
publication is
A. Herrel, et al.
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in
morphology and performance associated with
exploitation of a different dietary resource
PNAS 105(12):4792-4795(2008)
The phenotypic plasticity is covered in the original with the
statement: "Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in
hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these
differences, further studies investigating the potential role of
phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence
between populations are needed."
Why would you say "it looks like" when the original authors suggest
the reverse? Merely because of the speed of the response? The
current Scientific American has an article by Carrol, Prud'homme, and
Gompel about evolutionary changes being mediated primarily by changes
in gene enhancers, the regulatory sites controlling gene activation.
You don't need to mutate or create new genes to produce the changes
described; you only need to modify a couple of enhancers for already
existing genes.
Besides, the major thrust of the actual publication is less that there
is rapid evolution but that the changes result in significant
behavioral and ecological changes in the population. For example, the
paper opens: "Recent reviews have illustrated how rapid adaptive
evolution is common and may be considered the rule rather than the
exception in some cases...However, little is known about the degree to
which the observed changes in morphology may affect the population
structure and behavioral ecology of organisms through the mediating
effects of whole-organism performance. Consequently, our understanding
of how rapid phenotypic changes affect ecological processes at the
population level is limited."
Nobody in particular
*Who* insisted? Surely not the "punctuated equilibrium" school of thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
(Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
rja.ca...@excite.com
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
> > crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
> > is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
> > Something else perhaps?
>
> It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
> it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
And yet -
(Quote)
Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles
between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion
in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the
vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.
"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves,"
Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented
before. "This was a brand-new structure."
(End quote)
This /looks/ like a strong statement that the lizards went out and got
themselves intelligently designed to digest plants. There wasn't time
for anything else - however fast the little wall-crawlers breed. Or
was there?
Alternatively, could be the lizards already had genes that interact
with a vegetable diet to produce that kind of development in the
digestive system. Say, if the insect food supply isn't reliable from
year to year. You could try raising some from the previous habitat
from eggs.
Or, as I intended to suggest, it may turn out to be significant
exaggeration of the story.
Lars Eighner
and talented Patriot Games broadcast on alt.politics:
> "coaster" <coast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>> Lizards Evolving? Pshaw! God is merely working very diligently and
>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>> time.
> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of time."
> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
No.
> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
No.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 272 days to go.
r norman
>> > Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles
>> > between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in
>> > 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.
>>
>> > There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract
>> > occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.
>>
>> > "All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step
>> > would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
>>
>> > © 1996-2008 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved.
In the actual publication, the authors write: "These valves are
similar in overall appearance and structure to those found in
herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards and are not found in
other populations of P. sicula or in P. melisellensis." That strongly
suggests that existing coding sequences are expressed through changes
in regulatory sequences, just as you say. That they found cecal
valves and large heads in juveniles suggests the changes are genetic
and not environmentally induced, although that still doesn't rule out
maternal epigenetic inheritance of induced characters.
coaster
> > > between the large and small intestine�that slowed down food digestion in
> > > response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with
> > > the study.
>
> > > There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract
> > > occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.
>
> > > "All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step
> > > would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
>
Thanks for the explanation. Makes perfect sense now as something
entirely normal that I already knew about. I just didn't recognize
the terminology.
JXStern
Wilkins) wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
>> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
>> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
>> Something else perhaps?
>
>It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
>it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
Yep, and a mighty fine example of it, too, should be good for another
half-dozen papers.
J.
JXStern
Wilkins) wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
>> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
>> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
>> Something else perhaps?
>
>It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
>it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
Yep, and a mighty fine example of it, too, should be good for another
half-dozen papers.
J.
JXStern
Wilkins) wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
>> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
>> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
>> Something else perhaps?
>
>It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
>it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
Yep, and a mighty fine example of it, too, should be good for another
half-dozen papers.
J.
JXStern
<use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of time."
>
>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>
>No.
>
>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
>
>No.
What he said.
J.
JXStern
Wilkins) wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
>> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
>> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
>> Something else perhaps?
>
>It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
>it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
Yep, and a mighty fine example of it, too, should be good for another
half-dozen papers.
J.
JXStern
JXStern
Wilkins) wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
>> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
>> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
>> Something else perhaps?
>
>It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
>it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
Yep, and a mighty fine example of it, too, should be good for another
half-dozen papers.
J.
rja.ca...@excite.com
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:53:24 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
> Don't people actually check references?
I thought _National Geographic_ /was/ the reference. (Give or take
the, y'know, science-fiction angle, also the do-you-trust-Democrats-to-
save-America-from-the-lizards angle.)
noshellswill
>> > Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles
>> > between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in
>> > 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.
>>
>> > There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract
>> > occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.
>>
>> > "All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step
>> > would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
>>
I won't say "I told you so ...", but .... what marvelously interesting
data from which -- lacking even a "toy" REAL TOE -- one can tell
nothing quantitative. Surely though the blab will be never-ending.
nss
******
> sequences.
r norman
wrote:
National Geographic is a peer reviewed primary research journal?
C'mon, now, you know better. And you know what a press release is,
don't you? The National Geographic article gave the name of one of
the researchers and the month the real research was published in a
specific journal. It doesn't take an awful lot of work to find the
actual publication.
r norman
wrote:
Do you have any reason to doubt the credibility or accuracy of the
actual research publication beyond imagining what it actually says on
the basis of a press release?
Patriot Games
news:jocs04h33c1a3bvfi...@4ax.com...
He said, "I'm a frightened fool."
Patriot Games
news:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
> <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>> "coaster" <coast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>> Lizards Evolving? Pshaw! God is merely working very diligently and
>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>> time.
>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>> time."
>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
> *Who* insisted? Surely not the "punctuated equilibrium" school of
> thought.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
<oops, we found an exception...>
This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!!
Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any way
religious!
Bwahahahahahahaha!!
> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
day...
Bwahahahahahahha!!!
Wayne Throop
: This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
: <oops, we found an exception...>
: This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
: <oops, we found an exception...>
: Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any way
: religious!
What, religions you're familiar with regularly change their dogma based
on new facts? And this similarity is what leads you to think science
is like religion?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
coaster
> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No to both of those claims.
My comment simply would not have been as humorous if I had said, "God
is working step-by-step gradually over a long period of time but on
occasion geographically divides a population placing some of them in a
new environment so that he can better focus on rapidly changing the
divergent population and create whole new species based on its
variation."
But since you replied to my post with your idiotic nonsense,
necessitating an explanation, it does in fact make the longer duller
version humorous. So for that I thank you.
coaster
> "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in messagenews:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
> >> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The new Theory of Gravity just came out in the 1930's. Another Theory
of Gravity is waiting to be tested. The Theory of Gravity is changing
all the time. Is the Theory of Gravity religious?
William December Starr
Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> said:
> Patriot Games broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently
>> and cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long
>> period of time."
>>
>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>
> No.
>
>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works,
>> right?
>
> No.
Remember the rules:
1. Some scientists say something about evolution.
2. A lying liar says that the scientists said something else.
3. The 'something else' isn't true.
Therefore;
4. EVOLUTION IS WRONG!!!! (QED)
-- William December "It works for global warming too!" Starr
<wds...@panix.com>
Nobody in particular
Of course it's changing every other day. Science is based on fallible human
understanding, not on some sort of Divine Received TRVTH. Medicine and
physics also change every other day, if not even more often, yet somehow
I doubt you're equally eager to reject the results of those.
Nobody in particular
>: "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com>
> : This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> : <oops, we found an exception...>
> : This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> : <oops, we found an exception...>
> : [.. repeat N times ..]
> : Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any way
> : religious!
>
> What, religions you're familiar with regularly change their dogma based
> on new facts? And this similarity is what leads you to think science
> is like religion?
The Catholic Church, Christianity in general, and other religions have,
but alas the rate of change is on the order of evolutionary time. :D
For example, lighting strikes are generally no longer believed to be
Divine Wrath.
William December Starr
"Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> said:
> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
> <news:480e64c9$0$4075$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>
>> You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System
>> you like, or that currently likes you, or that is currently
>> popular.
>>
>> We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly
>> every other day...
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahha!!!
>
> Of course it's changing every other day. Science is based on
> fallible human understanding, not on some sort of Divine Received
> TRVTH. Medicine and physics also change every other day, if not
> even more often, yet somehow I doubt you're equally eager to
> reject the results of those.
I dunno -- he _does_ sound like someone who isn't taking his meds...
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Wayne Throop
:: based on new facts? And this similarity is what leads you to think
:: science is like religion?
: "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID>
: The Catholic Church, Christianity in general, and other religions have,
: but alas the rate of change is on the order of evolutionary time. :D
What new information are these changes based upon?
As opposed to changing social mores? Further, what specific
changes in dogma were involved (as opposed to changes in social norms)?
I suppose you might have a case for Galileo. Maybe.
: For example, lighting strikes are generally no longer believed to be
: Divine Wrath.
True, but that's generally a matter of folk wisdom, not religious dogma.
Bill Snyder
[blah, blah]
Oh, yeah, heaven forbid that scientists should be open to changing
their minds when new evidence comes along. If they'd been doing
their jobs right, they'd be as insanely stubborn as religious
nutbars, and still insist that the Sun goes around the Earth.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
coaster
> "JXStern" <JXSternChange...@gte.net> wrote in message
PG, I won't even repeat what they called you, but I'll say that all
remnants of my innocence has now been lost.
coaster
Wayne Throop
: Zeus was a matter of folk wisdom?
When did the dogma of zeus-worship change, then?
I mean, as opposed to having adherents decline in numbers,
and those of other religions (or none-of-the-above) increase in numbers.
The case I had in mind was the "don't put lightning rods on
churches since it demonstrates a lack of faith" meme/urbanlegend/whatnot,
which was never (aiui) a matter of accepted doctrine.
Vernon Balbert
and produced this interesting bit of text:
> This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> <oops, we found an exception...>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
> Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!!
>
> Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any way
> religious!
Are you kidding? This is how science is SUPPOSED to work! You speak
about this process like it's a bad thing. But science is highly
flexible and deals with new data appropriately. It doesn't say, "No
matter what we see, we have to go by the words that were originally
written." Who in their right mind would do that? Oh yeah, the
creationists, those who say, "It's written this way in the Bible, so no
matter what you show me I'll believe that the universe was created in
six 24 hour days."
--
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
Vernon Balbert
> : Zeus was a matter of folk wisdom?
>
> When did the dogma of zeus-worship change, then?
> I mean, as opposed to having adherents decline in numbers,
> and those of other religions (or none-of-the-above) increase in numbers.
> The case I had in mind was the "don't put lightning rods on
> churches since it demonstrates a lack of faith" meme/urbanlegend/whatnot,
> which was never (aiui) a matter of accepted doctrine.
Just curious, did the Greeks (and by extension the Romans) ever have any
writings related to worship of their gods? All I really had any contact
with were the myths associated with them. (Ya gotta wonder about those
women Zeus had sex with what with all that bestiality that went on.)
--
Rule of Acquisition number 189: Let others keep their reputation. You
keep their latinum.
Shane
How does that make it religious. That is the exact opposite
to how most religions operate.
Here is our doctrine.
<oops, this situation is not covered by it--stone the
heretic>
Here is our unchanged doctrine and a dead heretic.
<oops, this new situation is not covered by it--stone the
heretic>
Here is our unchanged doctrine and two dead heretics.
<oops, this new situation is not covered by it--stone the
heretic>
Here is our unchanged doctrine and three dead heretics.
...
And you think the two situations are the same. Indeed
fundamentalism rots the brain.
>> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
>> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>
> You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
> that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>
> We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
> day...
>
> Bwahahahahahahha!!!
How many witches have you stoned today? How many disobedient
children have you personally killed? How many of your
posessions have you sold to give money to the poor? Have you
ever eaten the flesh of a pig or a shellfish? How many doves
have you given to the priests for sin offerings? Or don't
those rules apply anymore? Now what was that you were saying
about unchanging religion?
Paul J Gans
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
><hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 22, 1:48 am, coaster <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>sequences.
>In the actual publication, the authors write: "These valves are
>similar in overall appearance and structure to those found in
>herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards and are not found in
>other populations of P. sicula or in P. melisellensis." That strongly
>suggests that existing coding sequences are expressed through changes
>in regulatory sequences, just as you say. That they found cecal
>valves and large heads in juveniles suggests the changes are genetic
>and not environmentally induced, although that still doesn't rule out
>maternal epigenetic inheritance of induced characters.
Isn't it now accepted that regulatory controls cause more change
than any other single thing?
I think the current Scientfic American has an article about that.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Gene Ward Smith
news:66ss04pvhsa5su9bj...@4ax.com:
> If they'd been doing
> their jobs right, they'd be as insanely stubborn as religious
> nutbars, and still insist that the Sun goes around the Earth.
I will happily insist that it does. If the Sea Wasp can refer everything to
his own tastes and desires, it seems to me I'm entitled to a coordinate
system where the Sun does exactly that. But should it be in a year, or a day?
r norman
wrote:
>In talk.origins r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
>><hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>In this particular example, the shape of the mouth and head may be
>>>affected by the type of diet. So might the diet affect the shape of
>>>the musculature in the digestive tract. That is why one must actually
>>>determine that the change has been due to a change in the frequency of
>>>different alleles. Probably not, of course, changes in *coding*
>>>sequences, but changes in the frequency of changes in regulatory
>>>sequences.
>
>>In the actual publication, the authors write: "These valves are
>>similar in overall appearance and structure to those found in
>>herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards and are not found in
>>other populations of P. sicula or in P. melisellensis." That strongly
>>suggests that existing coding sequences are expressed through changes
>>in regulatory sequences, just as you say. That they found cecal
>>valves and large heads in juveniles suggests the changes are genetic
>>and not environmentally induced, although that still doesn't rule out
>>maternal epigenetic inheritance of induced characters.
>
>Isn't it now accepted that regulatory controls cause more change
>than any other single thing?
>
>I think the current Scientfic American has an article about that.
Exactly. Carrol et al. in the May 2008 issue, as I mentioned in a
different line on this thread. It is not available free on-line.
What I really don't understand is why all those others posting here
think that this result in any way represents any startling new
material that either is a challenge to evolution or forces evolution
to re-evaluate and regroup. The changes are remarkably fast but other
changes are also fast. And there are ample known mechanisms to
explain it, both evolutionary and adaptive.
Friar Broccoli
What quantitative predictions arise out of creationism?
What observations of ANY KIND justify your beliefs?
Wayne Throop
:::: what he means by "plastic response", that's not my question. But
:::: is there any evidence currently in biology that inheritable
:::: macroscopic morphologies are not always genetic? I've heard of
:::: such features at the cellular level (I think there's even a word
:::: for it) but not for whole organs. I'm very curious.
Interestingly, genes are known to switch on and off based on what
environments your *grandparents* were exposed to. Statistics about
the height you reach are correlated to how well your grandparents ate
even controlling for how you eat, and the mechanisms for at least some
of these kinds of things have been explored by experimentally measuring
which genes are turned on and off in 2nd generation offspring
(um... in rats, I think).
No, i don't have a reference. But it was either in Science News
or in Scientific American, a cover story about recent results in
gene regulation, and untangling the function of the non-protein-encoding
parts of the genome (yes, it turns out it does have functional impact,
and isn't just "junk"; the human genome project was only the beginning).
So ANYways... lizards relocate, are exposed to a plentiful supply
of plant foods but very few insect food sources, and hey presto, their
coupla-generation-offpsring switch over to fermenting stomachs.
Or at least... so it would seem, and wouldn't the mechanism for
*that* be interesting to uncover...
As you say, similar mechanisms at the cellular level are fairly well known
for some time now, even at the cellular level of multi-celled organisms.
Switching intracellular metabolic pathways based on foods available,
playing with immune response, and lots of others. But heritable
meta-genetic switches (or whachacallem) are only recently coming to
adequately documented light. Nifty new field of research.
Oh... and consider locusts/grasshoppers. You'd think they were
different species, if you just looked at the phenotypes. An example
known for a long time, but we're just now getting the tools to study
it well enough to maybe figure it out.
ObSfXrefYASID: the one about humans and homo-habilis being analogous
to locusts/grasshoppers, and the switch gets set back to "grasshopper"
by some unknown environmental cue. Possibly entitled "Locusts"?
Also consider "Mirabile" by Janet Kagen, though that preceeded
knowledge of any plausible mechanism... but is interesting in retrospect.
r norman
wrote:
The effect you refer to is "transgenerational epigenetics". It is
well known in mice, especially the effect of the endocrine disrupter,
vinclozolin. Google the phrase for a lot of information. Wikipedia's
entry on "epigenetics" has a little bit on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
including the Swedish grandfather story that you garbled a little. It
is that grandfathers who suffered from the famine of the 19th century
had grandchildren (on the paternal side only) had lower cardiovascular
mortality. On the other hand, grandfathers who had an abundance of
food had grandchildren with increased diabetes mortality.
The most likely "environmental plasticity" type of effect for this
study would be chewing on very tough plant material strengthens the
jaw muscles and the strain on the skull bones produces increases
growth of the skull and head. As a result, the new population has
larger head and greater bite force. It is difficult to explain the
development of cecal valves, a structure not seen in the parent
population, in that way. That could be explained by the expression of
genes already present but which are normally suppressed in that
species. There are other lizards, although not that closely related,
that do have such cecal valves. Producing valves that hold the
intestinal contents for a longer time is sufficient to produce the
"switch" to bacterial fermentation. No new metabolic pathways need be
invoked. As I indicated in other posts, modifying the control regions
to allow the expression in new places is not a very big deal,
mutationally speaking. Many examples are known as described in the
current Scientific American.
The locust/grasshopper business is a complete puzzle to me. Locusts
_are_ grasshoppers, plain and simple. That is, the locusts that cause
plagues in Africa (and presumably ancient Egypt at the presumed time
of Moses) are grasshoppers. In the United States, we tend to call
cicadas 'locusts' but that is a complete mistake in word usage. The
migratory locust does have a solitary and a gregarious stage, but it
is exactly the same insect and only the behavior changes. Thinking
otherwise would be like thinking that robins or Canada Geese that stay
around all winter are somehow different from the same birds that
migrate or that army ants "on the march" or bees during a swarm are
fundamentally different from army ants and bees doing other things.
Cory Albrecht
> "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
>> <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>>> "coaster" <coast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>>> Lizards Evolving? Pshaw! God is merely working very diligently and
>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>> time.
>>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>> time."
>>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
>> *Who* insisted? Surely not the "punctuated equilibrium" school of
>> thought.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
>
> This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
> <oops, we found an exception...>
>
> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
> <oops, we found an exception...>
[... snipping repetition ...]
> Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!!
>
> Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any way
> religious!
That what science is all about, laughing boy. Scientists admit when
their theories have been proven wrong and they either adapt them to the
new evidence or they come up with a new theory.
Say somebody has been occasionally stealing your donut from your desk
every day when you go to the bathroom after coming back from the donut
shop at break time. Your theory is that it's guy in the cubicle next to
you 'cause he's always trying to borrow change for the vending machines
in the cafeteria. You begin to rather dislike the guy for always
stealing your donut.
Later, you find out that the mail boy usually does your floor around the
time you're coming back from the donut shop and that your cubicle
neighbour almost always out for a smoke on break and is only just
getting back at the same time you are.
What do you do with this new evidence? Do you keep accusing your cubicle
neighbour? Or do you adjust your theory to accommodate the new evidence?
>
> Bwahahahahahahaha!!
>
>> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
>> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>
> You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
> that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>
> We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
> day...
>
> Bwahahahahahahha!!!
Since scientific theories only change on the basis of new evidence, how
is that a religious belief?
Bill Snyder
Your visualization of the Cosmic All is clearly flawed if you
consider either of these orbital periods to be appropriate or
likely. The coruscating solar orb's stupendous hyperdrive,
powered by the humanly-inconceivable [1] energy output of an
oscillating fourth-order negasphere of galactic, nay, cosmic,
proportions, bids fair to rend the very continuum asunder. So
vastly does it outpace laggard light that its actual trajectory is
undetectable by any merely physical instrumentation. As Kinnison
would doubtless put it, "Spacehound, Old Sol is such a stepper
that it's back to where it started before you know it's gone."
What you perceive as its velocity simply reflects the fact that
its orbital period is infinitesimally less than one chronon,
producing an effect that might (for the benefit of the younger
races of limited comprehension) be crudely likened to that seen
when a rotating wheel completes very slightly more than a full
revolution between flashes of the strobe light.
1. It does too mean what I think it does. So there.
grasshopper
> KlausH <badgerbad...@badger.net> wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:49:46 -0400, Steven L. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>>> for National Geographic News
>>>> April 21, 2008
>>>>
>>>> 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 just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have
>>>> developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder
>>>> bite, researchers say.
>>>
>> Any unusual dolphin behavior?
>
> Haven't seen any for a while.
does it have a porpoise?
Bill Snyder
No, it's all at sea, actually.
Mike Schilling
Not entirely true. When lightning rods were introduced (in the 19th
century), many American churches refused to mount one, on the grounds
that it would display a lack of faith in God. It took rather a lot of
churches burning to the ground while nearby lightning-rod equipped
saloons and houses of ill-repute stood happily unharmed before it was
grudgingly acknowledged that lightning was a natural process obeying
physical laws.
Mike Schilling
> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
> Kimberly Johnson
> for National Geographic News
> April 21, 2008
>
> 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 just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards
> have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a
> harder bite, researchers say.
As well as wings, feathers, and beaks. While some scientists insist
on calling these creatures "seagulls", insisting that they were
attracted from neighboring islands by the new reptilian food source,
Dr. Nick Riviera has concluded that they are the product of vastly
accelerated evolution.
Walter Bushell
"Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote:
> The Catholic Church, Christianity in general, and other religions have,
> but alas the rate of change is on the order of evolutionary time. :D
> For example, lighting strikes are generally no longer believed to be
> Divine Wrath.
After Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod their was considerable
opposition to adopting it by clergy. In most towns the church spire was
the tallest building in town, with predictable results.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:53:24 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This seems very unlikely. What's really going on here? Ah... we are
> >> crossposted to alt.politics, talk.origins, rec.arts.sf.written . It
> >> is a hoax publicity release for a new science fiction film. No?
> >> Something else perhaps?
> >
> >It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
> >it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
>
> Don't people actually check references? It certainly is legit: the
> publication is
> A. Herrel, et al.
> Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in
> morphology and performance associated with
> exploitation of a different dietary resource
> PNAS 105(12):4792-4795(2008)
As I have said to another poster just now, Usenet is the last thing I do
in my day, and the lowest priority. So a NatGeog reference is enough.
>
> The phenotypic plasticity is covered in the original with the statement:
> "Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and
> juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies
> investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal
> effects in the divergence between populations are needed."
>
> Why would you say "it looks like" when the original authors suggest the
> reverse? Merely because of the speed of the response? The current
> Scientific American has an article by Carrol, Prud'homme, and Gompel about
> evolutionary changes being mediated primarily by changes in gene
> enhancers, the regulatory sites controlling gene activation. You don't
> need to mutate or create new genes to produce the changes described; you
> only need to modify a couple of enhancers for already existing genes.
>
> Besides, the major thrust of the actual publication is less that there is
> rapid evolution but that the changes result in significant behavioral and
> ecological changes in the population. For example, the paper opens:
> "Recent reviews have illustrated how rapid adaptive evolution is common
> and may be considered the rule rather than the exception in some
> cases...However, little is known about the degree to which the observed
> changes in morphology may affect the population structure and behavioral
> ecology of organisms through the mediating effects of whole-organism
> performance. Consequently, our understanding of how rapid phenotypic
> changes affect ecological processes at the population level is limited."
Even so, I find the assumption that it might be genetic because of the
degree of change unnecessary. It looks to me that there is a high
desgree of plasticity. Yes, a few upstream mutations can cause a lot of
downstream modification, but not, I think, if it is to be adaptive to
the same degree.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ernest Major
<r_s_norman@_comcast.net> writes
>>ObSfXrefYASID: the one about humans and homo-habilis being analogous
>>to locusts/grasshoppers, and the switch gets set back to "grasshopper"
>>by some unknown environmental cue. Possibly entitled "Locusts"?
>>
>
>_are_ grasshoppers, plain and simple. That is, the locusts that cause
>plagues in Africa (and presumably ancient Egypt at the presumed time of
>Moses) are grasshoppers. In the United States, we tend to call cicadas
>'locusts' but that is a complete mistake in word usage. The migratory
>locust does have a solitary and a gregarious stage, but it is exactly
>the same insect and only the behavior changes. Thinking otherwise
>would be like thinking that robins or Canada Geese that stay around all
>winter are somehow different from the same birds that migrate or that
>army ants "on the march" or bees during a swarm are fundamentally
>different from army ants and bees doing other things.
The locusts/grasshoppers business is a reference to a story by Larry
Niven. While Niven was never one to let plausibility get in the way of a
neat idea, I am of the opinion that in this case the neatness was
insufficient to justify the implausibility. (I'm not sure that Homo
habilis was involved in this story, or whether there's been some
conflation with the Pak in Known Space.)
[In the story, IIRC, settlers on another planet, find themselves, in the
absence of the environmental cues caused by overcrowding, giving birth
to what we would identify as members of an earlier human species. Apart
from the problems with this, if I recall correctly the population of
Earth, in an effectively unchanged environment, found itself doing
exactly the same thing. If I do recall correctly, he should have stopped
the story a few paragraphs earlier.]
There is a vernacular usage in which locust is restricted to the
gregarious phase of the species, and the solitary phase is just another
type of grasshopper; that presumably is what was meant in the quoted
material above.
--
alias Ernest Major
Wayne Throop
: "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com>
: Not entirely true. When lightning rods were introduced (in the 19th
: century), many American churches refused to mount one, on the grounds
: that it would display a lack of faith in God. It took rather a lot of
: churches burning to the ground while nearby lightning-rod equipped
: saloons and houses of ill-repute stood happily unharmed before it was
: grudgingly acknowledged that lightning was a natural process obeying
: physical laws.
Yes, but "lightning rods show lack of faith" was never church dogma.
Nor even that lightning isn't a natural phenomenon, aiui. I couple of
silly american churches, whether meaning clergy or not, deciding to
tough it out doesn't mean it's a religious tenet. Indeed, almost the
reverse, since isn't there a verse that says you shouldn't depend on
God saving you if you jump off a cliff, or whatever? Or was that God
is always on the side witht he larger artillery? God helps those that
help themselves? Well, soemthing like that. Those paraphrases aren't
dogma, but there's a bible verse on-topic I'm too lazy to look up.
Wayne Throop
: After Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod their was considerable
: the tallest building in town, with predictable results.
The churches got Darwin awards?
Wayne Throop
: As I indicated in other posts, modifying the control regions
: to allow the expression in new places is not a very big deal,
: mutationally speaking.
It doesn't even necessarily involve a "mutation" in the normal sense,
does it? There may be no change in DNA sequence involved, just an
extragenetic tag on the genes in question, the exact mechanism of which
I don't remember, but not a change in DNA sequences.
Wayne Throop
:: The locust/grasshopper business is a complete puzzle to me. Locusts
:: _are_ grasshoppers, plain and simple.
Of coruse they are, but they take quite different forms both in appearance
and behaviors, which could easily be thought separate species, depending
on environmental cues. And they swap back and forth. The notion would
be, these lizards do the same thing.
: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
: [In the story, IIRC, settlers on another planet, find themselves, in the
: absence of the environmental cues caused by overcrowding, giving birth
: to what we would identify as members of an earlier human species. Apart
: from the problems with this, if I recall correctly the population of
: Earth, in an effectively unchanged environment, found itself doing
: exactly the same thing. If I do recall correctly, he should have stopped
: the story a few paragraphs earlier.]
Right. The notion is, the characters' guess that the environmental cue
was crowding was wrong; the environmental cue was that civilization had
advanced to the point where interstellar travel was possible, or that
farflung colonies had been started (via some unknown indicator). I think
"stopping the story a few paragraphs earlier" sort of blunts the point
of it, which is that the adaptation is to disperse populations widely,
and that "intelligence" isn't an adaptive end in iself; which of course
raises more questions than it answers, while slapping the "rationality
is all" crowd in the face with a humbling pie. If he wanted it all
tied up in a neat little bow, sure, then either stop sooner, or have
the message home have an innocuous result. But it's not really clear
it's better for him to have wanted that. Seems to me it'd be a lesser
story, despie being more plausible.
Xref the yasid about humans devolving because the planet they'd landed
on was a trap designed to "compress" the essence of humanity back to
a nice simple precursor, which could then be collected by Whomever set
the environment up (and it had been done to other spacefaring species,
the simplified precursors to which had been puzzling the original human
scientists before they lost their capabilities in the next generation).
Xref Bruce Sterling's "Swarm".
JTEM
> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
Hmmm... "Repidly."
Just sort of implying that a different speed would be
more normal or common, huh?
Why?
What is the normal speed, and how did you determine
it?
> In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long)
> lizards have developed a completely new gut structure,
> larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.
Some researchers etimate that it took about 70 years -- 7
decades -- for the last Ice Age to grip Europe. What that
would mean is that every species there had LESS THAN
seven decades to adapt.... to evolve.
Not that they had to. Extinction is a common enough alternative.
The point is, evolution occurs in as much time as you give
it. Always. See, it has to. If it needs more time than is
available -- which is often the case -- it goes extinct (which is
often the case).
Katie Schwarz
>
>Xref the yasid about humans devolving because the planet they'd landed
>on was a trap designed to "compress" the essence of humanity back to
>a nice simple precursor, which could then be collected by Whomever set
>the environment up (and it had been done to other spacefaring species,
>the simplified precursors to which had been puzzling the original human
>scientists before they lost their capabilities in the next generation).
Theodore Sturgeon "The Golden Helix"
rja.ca...@excite.com
Not to me, never did, I'm not Jewish.
(Anyway, where do you find witches? Or stones for that matter...
You're not supposed to kill your child yourself, it is if they are too
big for you to whup into obedience then you get the whole town
together, and everyone kills the kid.)
rja.ca...@excite.com
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:22:26 -0700 (PDT), rja.carne...@excite.com
> wrote:
>
> >r norman wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:53:24 +1000, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John
> >> Wilkins) wrote:
> >> Don't people actually check references?
>
> >the, y'know, science-fiction angle, also the do-you-trust-Democrats-to-
> >save-America-from-the-lizards angle.)
>
> National Geographic is a peer reviewed primary research journal?
> C'mon, now, you know better. And you know what a press release is,
> don't you? The National Geographic article gave the name of one of
> the researchers and the month the real research was published in a
> specific journal. It doesn't take an awful lot of work to find the
> actual publication.
But, gee, it's still work.
Why /are/ we crossposted into alt.politics, and rec.arts.sf.written,
as well as the group I picked up, talk.origins (Evolution versus
creationism, sometimes hot! Bring beer!)
The White House. 3 a.m. The phone rings. The handset is picked up.
A voice screams down the line: "The lizards! The lizards!" And the
caller says, "Uh, Mr. President, did I wake you?"
I don't think that the theory of evolution was overturned last month
and I missed it. And I think this interesting story still could be a
case of scientific misinterpretation. Peer-reviewed articles can
still be flat wrong.
The Enigmatic One
says...
>> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
>> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>
>You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
>that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>
>We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
>day...
Holy fuck!
You're amazingly stupid!
-Tim
VoiceOfReason
> > (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
> > incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>
> You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
> that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>
> We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
> day...
>
> Bwahahahahahahha!!!
Have you never taken a science class? Science is not static. As new
discoveries are made, they add to our body of knowledge. Sometimes
that means that existing theories are updated, or that new theories
are proposed that augment existing theories.
What alternative do you propose? That science ignore new discoveries
that don't fit existing models?
VoiceOfReason
Under the category Church Support for Evolution
VoiceOfReason
> On Apr 22, 5:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in messagenews:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > > <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
> > >> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Which theory do you mean? Something based on Einstein's work, I
presume?
> Another Theory
> of Gravity is waiting to be tested.
Ditto previous question.
> The Theory of Gravity is changing
> all the time. Is the Theory of Gravity religious?
Gravity is based on faith, to wit: All people who believe in gravity
are planted firmly on Earth. Heretics who do not believe in gravity,
and are not affected by it, float away into space. (This is why it is
so difficult to conduct an in-depth study of the phenomenon.)
QED. Ipso facto ergo spacewalko
What the mailing address for the Nobel Prize committee? I'm gonna
need that...
VoiceOfReason
> On Apr 22, 5:22 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JXStern" <JXSternChange...@gte.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:jocs04h33c1a3bvfi...@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:29:12 -0500, Lars Eighner
> > > <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> > >>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
> > >>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
> > >>> time."
> > >>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
> > >>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
> > > What he said.
>
> > He said, "I'm a frightened fool."
>
> PG, I won't even repeat what they called you, but I'll say that all
> remnants of my innocence has now been lost.
It's not necessary to call him anything. Just reading his posts does
the trick.
r norman
wrote:
>: r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net>
>: As I indicated in other posts, modifying the control regions
>: to allow the expression in new places is not a very big deal,
>: mutationally speaking.
>
>It doesn't even necessarily involve a "mutation" in the normal sense,
>does it? There may be no change in DNA sequence involved, just an
>extragenetic tag on the genes in question, the exact mechanism of which
>I don't remember, but not a change in DNA sequences.
>
That would be unlikely given the distribution of cecal valves among
different lizard groups. They are not present in any closely related
species and that is an awful long time for epigenetic effects to get
passed down.
Patriot Games
news:12089...@sheol.org...
>: "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com>
> : This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> : <oops, we found an exception...>
> : This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
> : <oops, we found an exception...>
> : Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any
> way
> : religious!
> What, religions you're familiar with regularly change their dogma based
> on new facts?
No, based on new ANYTHING. Usually NOT facts. Usually rumors, anecdotal
observations, irreproducible events, etc.
> And this similarity is what leads you to think science
> is like religion?
Hahahahahahahaha!!!
Your weakness is showing.
Patriot Games
> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
>> "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in message
>> news:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>>>> "coaster" <coast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>>> time.
>>>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>> time."
>>>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>>> thought.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any
>> way
>> religious!
>>> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
>>> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>> You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like,
>> or
>> that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>> We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every
>> other
>> day...
>> Bwahahahahahahha!!!
> human
> understanding
No it isn't.
> not on some sort of Divine Received TRVTH. Medicine and
> physics also change every other day, if not even more often, yet somehow
> I doubt you're equally eager to reject the results of those.
Nor would I "Believe" them.
Patriot Games
> On Apr 22, 5:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in
>> > "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote in message
>> > <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>> >> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> of Gravity is waiting to be tested. The Theory of Gravity is changing
> all the time. Is the Theory of Gravity religious?
You weren't paying attention.
Re-read, then try again.
Patriot Games
news:iavPj.8371$GE1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> On 4/22/2008 3:20 PM, Patriot Games went clickity clack on the keyboard
> and produced this interesting bit of text:
>> This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!!
>> Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any
>> way religious!
You weren't paying attention.
> You speak about this process like it's a bad thing.
No I didn't. You weren't paying attention.
Patriot Games
news:93fkagyj4178.1q...@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:20:57 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in message
>> news:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>>>>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>>>> Lizards Evolving? Pshaw! God is merely working very diligently and
>>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>>> time.
>>>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>> time."
>>>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>>>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
>>> *Who* insisted? Surely not the "punctuated equilibrium" school of
>>> thought.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!!
>> Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any
>> way
>> religious!
> How does that make it religious.
You weren't paying attention. Re-read and try again.
> That is the exact opposite
> to how most religions operate.
> Here is our doctrine.
> <oops, this situation is not covered by it--stone the
> heretic>
Poor example. Some religious belief systems work that way, like Islam.
Some don't, like Roman Catholicism.
More to the point: You weren't paying attention. Its not about the
"system."
Re-read and try again.
>>> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
>>> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>> You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like,
>> or
>> that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>> We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every
>> other
>> day...
>> Bwahahahahahahha!!!
> How many witches have you stoned today? How many disobedient
> children have you personally killed?
0, 0.
> How many of your
> posessions have you sold to give money to the poor?
Screw the poor, if they want money they can get jobs.
> Have you
> ever eaten the flesh of a pig or a shellfish?
Every week.
> How many doves
> have you given to the priests for sin offerings? Or don't
> those rules apply anymore?
I have no idea.
> Now what was that you were saying
> about unchanging religion?
Nothing. You weren't paying attention. Re-read and try again.
Patriot Games
news:t8j2e5x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in message
>> news:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
>>> <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>>>> "coaster" <coast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>>>> Lizards Evolving? Pshaw! God is merely working very diligently and
>>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>>> time.
>>>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>> time."
>>>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>>>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
>>> *Who* insisted? Surely not the "punctuated equilibrium" school of
>>> thought.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
>> This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>> <oops, we found an exception...>
>> Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!!
>> Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any
>> way religious!
No it isn't.
> Scientists admit when their theories have been proven wrong and they
> either adapt them to the new evidence or they come up with a new theory.
Scientists AVOID the use of BELIEF as a knowlege acquisition method except
when it comes to their Religion Of Evolution.
> Say somebody has been occasionally stealing your donut from your desk
> every day when you go to the bathroom after coming back from the donut
> shop at break time. Your theory is that it's guy in the cubicle next to
> you 'cause he's always trying to borrow change for the vending machines in
> the cafeteria. You begin to rather dislike the guy for always stealing
> your donut.
That's an excellent example of how science gets on its knees to worship
their Religion Of Evolution. In your example we see no relevant facts,
emotional suspicion leading to religious belief in the assumed evildoer!
> Later, you find out that the mail boy usually does your floor around the
> time you're coming back from the donut shop and that your cubicle
> neighbour almost always out for a smoke on break and is only just getting
> back at the same time you are.
> What do you do with this new evidence? Do you keep accusing your cubicle
> neighbour? Or do you adjust your theory to accommodate the new evidence?
What do I do? I eat my donut before I go take a piss. While the smoker is
out smoking I leave a dogturd in his cubicle so he too can understand the
true nature of stench. And finally, I tell the mailboy's boss he was hitting
on me even after I told him repeatedly I'm not a fag thus getting him fired
or removed - why take chances, right?
>> Bwahahahahahahaha!!
>>> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
>>> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>> You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like,
>> or that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>> We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every
>> other day...
>> Bwahahahahahahha!!!
> Since scientific theories only change on the basis of new evidence, how is
> that a religious belief?
You weren't paying attention.
Its not about theories, its about BELIEF in them.
Bob T.
> In article <480e64c9$0$4075$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Patr...@America.com
> says...
>
> >> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
> >> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>
> >You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
> >that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>
> >We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
> >day...
>
> Holy fuck!
>
> You're amazingly stupid!
>
> -Tim
Tim, I just want you to know that I would miss you if you stopped
posting. Your comments are brief, but almost invariably accurate.
- Bob T.
Patriot Games
news:4bqdnSlztN3...@giganews.com...
Ask your mommy to explain this to you...
rebuttal - the speech act of refuting by offering a contrary contention or
argument.
rja.ca...@excite.com
I dunno why the motherworld devolves too, but maybe the biological
trigger is exposure to deep space or hyperspace or interstellar-
duration cold sleep. Then we start producing the pheromone that
triggers the hormone that causes our offspring to revert to
Neanderthal.
Really it's not so much realistic as more a horror story about living
inside an unsuspected human life cycle that eliminates our
intelligence and everything we've built with it. In particular it's
not realistic because it's gotten much more difficult during Niven's
career - if it really wasn't too difficult before - to write a story
where humans didn't originate on Earth. There are fossil finds, DNA
evidence - another development not predicted by Niven, who had "tissue
rejection spectrum" as the identity test in a future of organ
transplants and organlegger murder gangs. In the real modern world,
we have occasional reports and rumours of small-scale organlegging,
and the "DNA fingerprint". Still, a lot of his stuff is still pretty
convincing, or at least engaging - especially the vigorous youthful
short story production.
> Xref the yasid about humans devolving because the planet they'd landed
> on was a trap designed to "compress" the essence of humanity back to
> a nice simple precursor, which could then be collected by Whomever set
> the environment up (and it had been done to other spacefaring species,
> the simplified precursors to which had been puzzling the original human
> scientists before they lost their capabilities in the next generation).
>
> Xref Bruce Sterling's "Swarm".
Devolution also shows up in _The Patterns of Chaos_ - not ours, but
ancient aliens whose take-care-of-you machines ultimately allowed them
to survive without sapience - and in _Manalone_, I think it was, where
mental deficiency seems to be expressed as juvenile delinquency.
One other problem with a lot of these stories where biology becomes
our enemy - I didn't get far into _The Children of Men_ (book) but I
got the impression it had the same fault - is that no reason is given
for why our science of reproduction and development, which as of 2008
actually is pretty smart, /can't/ figure out what's changing, or
deliver a cure or an immunity. People just stop having children and
no one notices? Or no one investigates? Or no one can get any
traction whatsoever on the matter? Unlikely.
I also haven't read _The Handmaid's Tale_ but do I correctly guess
that it has the in-story excuse of strict religious control of
research on reproduction, so no one was /allowed/ to investigate the
cause of pandemic infertility? Or did I just prove beyond doubt my
ignorance of the text?
Patriot Games
> On Apr 22, 5:22 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "JXStern" <JXSternChange...@gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:jocs04h33c1a3bvfi...@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:29:12 -0500, Lars Eighner
>> > <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> >>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>> >>> time."
>> >>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>> >>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
>> > What he said.
>> He said, "I'm a frightened fool."
> PG, I won't even repeat what they called you, but I'll say that all
> remnants of my innocence has now been lost.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA!!!
Patriot Games
> On Apr 22, 10:30 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "coaster" <coaster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>> > cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>> > time.
>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>> time."
>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> My comment simply would not have been as humorous if I had said, "God
> is working step-by-step gradually over a long period of time but on
> occasion geographically divides a population placing some of them in a
> new environment so that he can better focus on rapidly changing the
> divergent population and create whole new species based on its
> variation."
> But since you replied to my post with your idiotic nonsense,
> necessitating an explanation, it does in fact make the longer duller
> version humorous. So for that I thank you.
Translation: Evolution is anything we say it is. Fast, slow, or not at all.
Its ALL Evolution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!
You can get up off you knees now...
Woland
Actually its just a change in the frequencies of alleles in
populations over time.
Harry K
> :: What, religions you're familiar with regularly change their dogma
> :: based on new facts? And this similarity is what leads you to think
> :: science is like religion?
>
> : "Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID>
> : The Catholic Church, Christianity in general, and other religions have,
> : but alas the rate of change is on the order of evolutionary time. :D
>
> What new information are these changes based upon?
> As opposed to changing social mores? Further, what specific
> changes in dogma were involved (as opposed to changes in social norms)?
> I suppose you might have a case for Galileo. Maybe.
>
> : For example, lighting strikes are generally no longer believed to be
> : Divine Wrath.
>
> True, but that's generally a matter of folk wisdom, not religious dogma.
>
> Wayne Throop thro...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Good. Yes the Catholic Church in particular has changed some dogma but
only while being dragged kicking and screaming to do so. Even then,
they did it long after the social mores had changed so much that the
old dogma wasn't given much more than lip service.
Harry K
TomS
<480e64c9$0$4075$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games stated..."
>
>"Nobody in particular" <nob...@nowhere.INVALID> wrote in message
>news:2foPj.10373$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
>> <news:480e048f$0$7720$4c36...@roadrunner.com>...
>>> news:13a38402-1066-42f7...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Apr 21, 10:49 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
>>>> Lizards Evolving? Pshaw! God is merely working very diligently and
>>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>>> time.
>>> Well, we DO see that Evolution is NOT "working very diligently and
>>> cautiously step-by-microscopic-step gradually over a long period of
>>> time."
>>> They DID tell us that's how Evolution works DIDN'T THEY?
>>> In fact, THEY INSISTED that's the ONLY WAY Evolution works, right?
>> thought.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
>
>This is the Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
><oops, we found an exception...>
>
>This is the NEW Theory of Evolution, dammit!
>
>
>Now I suppose you'll SWEAR that your BELIEF in this Theory is not in any way
>religious!
>
>
>> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
>> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>
>You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
>that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>
>We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
>day...
>
>
<http://www.re-discovery.org/per_table.gif>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Vernon Balbert
>> human
>> understanding
>
> No it isn't.
Care to elaborate?
--
Every day I get up and look through the Forbes list of the richest
people in America. If I'm not there, I go to work. - Robert Orben
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> In article <480e64c9$0$4075$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Patr...@America.com
>
> >> (Yeah, yeah, Darwin's understanding of certain particulars may have been
> >> incomplete, therefore, God Dunnit In Six Days, etc. etc. etc. ...)
>
> >You are welcome to pollute yourself with whatever Belief System you like, or
> >that currently likes you, or that is currently popular.
>
> >We'll ALL look the other way and pretend its not changing nearly every other
> >day...
>
> Holy fuck!
>
> You're amazingly stupid!
>
> -Tim
What's more he is apparently very proud of his stupidity. I've always
been amazed that so many people consider idiocy to be a moral virtue,
but they are definitely out there (and actively posting to t.o.)
Vernon Balbert
You're a lousy teacher. If all you can say is that I wasn't paying
attention and leave it at that, you show that you really don't know much
about what you're saying.
How about explaining what you meant? Otherwise it's just worthy of
being ignored.
>> You speak about this process like it's a bad thing.
>
> No I didn't. You weren't paying attention.
Let's see, you describe a process and then laugh derisively. Sounds
like you were saying the process was laughable and I disagreed. Again,
you fail as a debater because you fail to explain your position. And
again, it's worth ignoring unless you do otherwise.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain. Just make sure we don't swallow each other's bubbles!"
Vernon Balbert
Everything is about belief. I believe in the evidence that is before my
eyes, the testability of that evidence and the logical outcome of that
evidence. But belief does not equate to a religion. I don't bow down
and worship time, my computer monitor or the earth. I don't worship
science, I *USE* it. I see it, I work with it, I benefit from it and it
requires no prayer, no god, no need to supplicate anybody with burnt
offerings. There is nothing in science that tells me that if I'm a good
boy I'll go to this magical place when I die where I'll be happy forever
and ever. It doesn't tell me that I have to do things which are
distasteful to me simply because I have to do it. It does tell me how
what I see works, or at least gives me a description of the behavior of
things.
No matter how much you pray, you'll never keep the apple from falling to
the ground when you let it go. You'll never make other people behave
differently nor will you keep that corporation from raising the price of
gasoline at the pump.
There's a big difference between religion and science.
--
If you find extra pieces after assembling or reassembling an object, you
have not made a mistake. You have just made that object more efficient.
lal_truckee
>
> Just curious, did the Greeks (and by extension the Romans) ever have any
> writings related to worship of their gods? All I really had any contact
> with were the myths associated with them. (Ya gotta wonder about those
> women Zeus had sex with what with all that bestiality that went on.)
Different strokes for different, uh, folks?"
Paul J Gans
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:29:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>In talk.origins r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
>>><hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>>>In this particular example, the shape of the mouth and head may be
>>>>affected by the type of diet. So might the diet affect the shape of
>>>>the musculature in the digestive tract. That is why one must actually
>>>>determine that the change has been due to a change in the frequency of
>>>>different alleles. Probably not, of course, changes in *coding*
>>>>sequences, but changes in the frequency of changes in regulatory
>>>>sequences.
>>
>>>In the actual publication, the authors write: "These valves are
>>>similar in overall appearance and structure to those found in
>>>herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards and are not found in
>>>other populations of P. sicula or in P. melisellensis." That strongly
>>>suggests that existing coding sequences are expressed through changes
>>>in regulatory sequences, just as you say. That they found cecal
>>>valves and large heads in juveniles suggests the changes are genetic
>>>and not environmentally induced, although that still doesn't rule out
>>>maternal epigenetic inheritance of induced characters.
>>
>>Isn't it now accepted that regulatory controls cause more change
>>than any other single thing?
>>
>>I think the current Scientfic American has an article about that.
>Exactly. Carrol et al. in the May 2008 issue, as I mentioned in a
>different line on this thread. It is not available free on-line.
>What I really don't understand is why all those others posting here
>think that this result in any way represents any startling new
>material that either is a challenge to evolution or forces evolution
>to re-evaluate and regroup. The changes are remarkably fast but other
>changes are also fast. And there are ample known mechanisms to
>explain it, both evolutionary and adaptive.
My family grew up in the "old country". Most of them were short,
averaging (the men) about 5' 2" The men born in the US runs
close to 6' tall, with a number over that. That's continued ever
since (another generation or so).
Boy is THAT ever rapid evolution!!!
Of course the drastic change in diet had NOTHING to do with this
at all...
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in
>news:66ss04pvhsa5su9bj...@4ax.com:
>> If they'd been doing
>> their jobs right, they'd be as insanely stubborn as religious
>> nutbars, and still insist that the Sun goes around the Earth.
>I will happily insist that it does. If the Sea Wasp can refer everything to
>his own tastes and desires, it seems to me I'm entitled to a coordinate
>system where the Sun does exactly that. But should it be in a year, or a day?
The choice of which object, if any, to place at the center of
the solar system is purely arbitrary. As you note it only
involves a change in coordinate system.
The choice of the sun as center[1] results in the equations of
motion of the system being more "simple" in some ill-defined sense
of the word.
[1] Actually with the center of mass of the solar system as center.
That point is located inside the surface of the sun but not at its
center.
Wayne Throop
: No, based on new ANYTHING. Usually NOT facts. Usually rumors, anecdotal
: observations, irreproducible events, etc.
Name ten such rumors/observations/events.
If it's "usually" the case, should be easy to come up with dozens;
ten should be easy for you. Be specific. Show your work.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
coaster
No, PG, it's you who is not paying attention.
Physicists admit questions remain about how super conductivity works.
The Theory of Super Conductivity has HOLES. Is the existence of Super
Conductivity in question? No. Will physicists need an entirely new
theory to explain it? No.
Geologists believe the Earth has a molten core, yet no Geologist has
ever BEEN to the center of the Earth. Do we therefore not trust the
pervasive and uncontested evidence that the Earth's core is indeed
molten? No. Does the fact that there is no competing theory to the
molten core mean that scientific doctrine amounts to "Dogma"? No.
This year Engineers will produce the fastest computer chip ever
created. Does that mean Engineers have been holding back? No. Does
it mean technology has finally reached its pinnacle? No.
I could go on.
JXStern
wrote:
>>>It's legit (or at least it's reported in National Geographic). However,
>>>it looks like it's phenotypic plasticity rather than genetic evolution.
>>
>>Yep, and a mighty fine example of it, too, should be good for another
>>half-dozen papers.
>
>Do you have any reason to doubt the credibility or accuracy of the
>actual research publication beyond imagining what it actually says on
>the basis of a press release?
I meant that in a good way, not sure I follow the question. I suspect
the press release is a bit garbled, is all. Sounds like good science
down there somewhere.
J.