Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 3:50 AM
344 online now:
DrJones*, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,511 Year: 21,117/21,208 Month: 1,550/2,326 Week: 5/881 Day: 5/119 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   “Rapid Evolution” Method Found in Eyeless Fish
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 16 of 27 (736219)
09-05-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Bojan
09-04-2014 12:30 PM


Well, the article doesn't say, but it seems like it's within few generations, or less.

A few or less?

Hmm, if I remember my approximate math, few - less = not very many, and certainly < quite a lot.

This is not as quantitative as I'd like.

It seems hard to analyze the situation when the numbers are so vague.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Bojan, posted 09-04-2014 12:30 PM Bojan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Bojan, posted 09-08-2014 6:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Bojan
Junior Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 9
From: Croatia, Europe
Joined: 07-13-2011


Message 17 of 27 (736236)
09-05-2014 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
09-05-2014 11:58 AM


Looking at "some" examples seems to be the problem here. If some species can switch back to an earlier phenotype (or switch back and forth), we still can't conclude that all evolution works that way. It isn't enough evidence to suggest that the general blueprint is preserved in perpetuity.

There is this remarkable experiment with mouse eye genes inserted into genome of a fly and that caused additonal eyes growing on the tip of the antennas. Since the genes from a mouse produced eyes of a fly, that shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species. Last common ancestor between flies and mice was probably in cambrian.
Why did mouse genes produce fly eyes? Because there is this additional layer of gene control with some parts of DNA promoting and suppressing genes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 09-05-2014 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 09-06-2014 12:24 PM Bojan has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 8:56 PM Bojan has responded
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2014 6:10 AM Bojan has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13450
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 18 of 27 (736294)
09-06-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Bojan
09-05-2014 6:24 PM


Bojan writes:

Since the genes from a mouse produced eyes of a fly, that shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species.


I don't see how it shows any such thing. It shows that mouse genes will work in a fly - i.e. the basic mechanism of DNA is universal.

Using your blueprint analogy, the blueprint for a fly is made up of the same kinds of lines as the blueprint for a mouse - you can cut out a section of the mouse blueprint and paste it into the fly blueprint to make a Franken-fly.

You could use the same cut-and-paste technique with a fish blueprint but that says nothing about the natural evolution of a fish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Bojan, posted 09-05-2014 6:24 PM Bojan has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 19 of 27 (736330)
09-06-2014 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Bojan
09-05-2014 6:24 PM


Are you talking about this: Master Eye Gene Identified

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Bojan, posted 09-05-2014 6:24 PM Bojan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Bojan, posted 09-08-2014 6:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Bojan
Junior Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 9
From: Croatia, Europe
Joined: 07-13-2011


Message 20 of 27 (736365)
09-08-2014 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by 1.61803
09-04-2014 3:49 PM


I think that the OP title "Rapid Evolution" is possibly
a misnomer insofar as what constitutes rapid in evolutionary time spans.

I agree, "rapid evolution" is taken from the title of the article. These changes are obviously not evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 1.61803, posted 09-04-2014 3:49 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Bojan
Junior Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 9
From: Croatia, Europe
Joined: 07-13-2011


(1)
Message 21 of 27 (736368)
09-08-2014 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
09-05-2014 8:03 AM


Note that humans exhibit neotony as well ... that is one of the reasons humans appear hairless compared to apes, the vellus hair (short, light\blond) is retained (especially in women) rather than being replaced by mature hair (longer, darker), and also why the human skull is 'frozen' in a juvenile form compared to other apes.

Certainly eyes are part of the development in a mature fish, but are not fully formed in early fetal development.

This is interesting, and changes in that fish sure looks like neoteny. No pigments and suppressed eye development. Otherwise it would be fatal, except in caves where it becames useful mutation.

Now, I'm curious, are all animals able to switch to cave-like appearence quickly, or most of them evolved slowly?

There is this rare and curious creature, endemic amphibian from a cave in Slovenia. His genome might be really interesting, perhaps it could be possible to somehow stop this development and maybe produce some salamander with color and eyes? However it's endagered and protected so I doubt breeding and experimenting is allowed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2014 8:03 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Bojan
Junior Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 9
From: Croatia, Europe
Joined: 07-13-2011


Message 22 of 27 (736369)
09-08-2014 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
09-05-2014 12:15 PM


A few or less?
Hmm, if I remember my approximate math, few - less = not very many, and certainly < quite a lot.
This is not as quantitative as I'd like.
It seems hard to analyze the situation when the numbers are so vague.

Whatever the number is, 1 or 5, it doesn't really matter. It's way to short to call it evolution. The transformation itself happens quickly, so the question is not if the fish is evolving from normal to cave-like. It's not. Question is how the whole mechanism of beeing able to switch evolved.

Some examples here are really interesting, like neoteny.
So, could this be one of possible models for evolution of such mechanism: some fish or salamanders could have some mutations which suppreses development in early stages. This could be beneficial for populations who live near caves and occasionaly end deeper inside.

Then natural selection could favor those who can be easily triggered with enviromental factors related with cave conditions (cold, dark, certain chemicals).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2014 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2014 7:56 AM Bojan has not yet responded

  
Bojan
Junior Member (Idle past 803 days)
Posts: 9
From: Croatia, Europe
Joined: 07-13-2011


Message 23 of 27 (736370)
09-08-2014 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
09-06-2014 8:56 PM


Are you talking about this: Master Eye Gene Identified

Yes, thank you very much. I was reading about it in various books, but this is much more detailed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 8:56 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 24 of 27 (736373)
09-08-2014 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Bojan
09-08-2014 6:04 AM


quote:

Whatever the number is, 1 or 5, it doesn't really matter. It's way to short to call it evolution. The transformation itself happens quickly, so the question is not if the fish is evolving from normal to cave-like. It's not. Question is how the whole mechanism of beeing able to switch evolved.

The only part which isn't evolution is the unmasking of the hidden ("cryptic") traits. If you disagree, I'd like to see some more details and argument. What takes only a few generations? Under what conditions? By what mechanism? And where does the article or any linked article say so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Bojan, posted 09-08-2014 6:04 AM Bojan has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 27 (736785)
09-13-2014 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bojan
09-04-2014 8:47 AM


So this proves you can lose eyes, not evolve them?
I thought for a moment you were proposing that an eyeless-fish evolved eyes, and it had been shown to be an example of convergent-evolution, in the positive (information-increasing).

But typically examples of, "evolution" never involve real-life proof of novel morphology, in a positive manner except if the examples are moot in regards to new anatomy, such as our anti-freeze fish or a resistant bacteria.

So I was ready to say that actually, if fish re-gained eyes, it would be because of gene-flow back into the split population, fish with eyes being reintroduced to the group without them.

If one day it is shown that a simple eye can come about by evolution, which would match the extraordinary claims of what evolution supposedly done by creating every organism on earth, then I would certainly accept evolution as scientific fact. If, however it is shown that information is removed, alternated somehow or changed superficially then I remain highly unimpressed, because the claim of Goo-To-You-Via-The-Zoo incorporates that every eye evolved, so the removal of eyes is like proving that there is a human-superman, by showing a photograph of a man walking. ROFL!

Attenborough, on his program, mentioned how some Lizards had turned pinkish in 5 million years. Seed-plants have also remained seed plants since diverging. Is it also reasonable, to suppose that in just 5 million years, apes became men? Somehow I don't think so, any more than if you shown me your large toe being extremely large, would I believe you were on your way to becoming an elephant. Attenborough was also very impressed with Finch-beaks becoming Finch beaks and them then reverting to their original archetype finch-beak, he opined how Darwin would have been delighted, ......one has to laugh.

So when you said, "rapid evolution" I expected something that would impress me, and convince me that an eye can convergently evolve, which it clearly can't. But deep inside I knew that when I clicked on the topic, I really deep down new that there would be nothing, "new" to read, pertaining to the evolution-myth.

Mikey out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bojan, posted 09-04-2014 8:47 AM Bojan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 09-13-2014 2:14 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 27 (736786)
09-13-2014 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Bojan
09-05-2014 6:24 PM


Since the genes from a mouse produced eyes of a fly, that shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species.

That is an ABYSMAL non-sequitur. taken from one percent of one percent of one percent of the total experiments of such examples, that would be required for your induction. Here is an EQUAL example:

We find that Ted Bundy had milk in his fridge, and that mike also had milk in his fridge, so then mike is the same as Ted Bundy.

What it actually shows is that information namely coded-instructions, are what is KEY in the design of all animals. So then the word, "eyes" might be expected to be used if the author talks about things that see.

Now looking at that photograph and not marveling at the truth of the incredible Designer's imagination, now that is crazy, and beyond acceptable!

Last common ancestor between flies and mice was probably in cambrian

Can I see the evidence please. The evidence I collect only shows flies preserved in amber, that unfortunately, don't look very mouse-like. But they do look exactly the same as their extant counter-parts! Indeed, all the way back, flies they are and flies they remain.

Why did mouse genes produce fly eyes?

That's a misleading thing to say, the gene told the eyes to start to develop.

Why did I use the same words, "why did" in this sentence, as you did in your sentence? Does it now follow that this "shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species"?

Or are you saying that the same author should use different words/language, for each book s/he writes?

I'm not even sure of your example because of what I read here:

the Pax-6 developmental gene is part of a genetic switch that induces eye development.

This would indicate that the gene "told" the fly's eye to start to develop, the example would actually be very unremarkable, even though the outcome seems remarkable.

I think the terms, "mouse" and "flies" are misleading to our human-imagination, what we are really dealing with is the same type of gene that is common and shared and unremarkable, in many species, so effectively, it is like me giving
you my pen and paper so you can write the words, "Why did". Is this really remarkable if we can both write those words?

in the same way, is it really remarkable, that creatures with eyes, can develop eyes given the same instruction to "start to build"? Not really!

http://creation.com/improbable-evo-devo

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Bojan, posted 09-05-2014 6:24 PM Bojan has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13450
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 27 of 27 (736811)
09-13-2014 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
09-13-2014 5:41 AM


Re: So this proves you can lose eyes, not evolve them?
mike the wiz writes:

So when you said, "rapid evolution" I expected something that would impress me....


No you didn't. You work very hard at being unimpressed by what impresses every biologist in the world.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2014 5:41 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017