Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rapid Evolution in Lizards
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 16 of 57 (464341)
04-24-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
04-24-2008 7:23 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
Read this summary, which molbiogirl provided in the OP: it's title is "Still just a lizard," and it addresses your very concern. It's pretty much written just for you.
I did read it and about 250 posts to it.
Bluejay writes:
The lizards changed a lot, ICANT:
They didn't change too much because: Here
DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.
They were still genetically the same as the ones they had left in 1971.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 04-24-2008 7:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by molbiogirl, posted 04-24-2008 11:03 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 18 by teen4christ, posted 04-25-2008 12:30 PM ICANT has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 17 of 57 (464348)
04-24-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
04-24-2008 10:07 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
They were still genetically the same as the ones they had left in 1971.
First. A mitochondrial analysis was identical. Mitochondrial.
Nothing has been said yet re: nuclear mutations.
That is yet to come.
Second. Are you under the impression that evolution can occur ONLY thru mutations?
You didn't read those comments too closely then.
ABE:
PZ's comment, # 193.
No one claimed it was the result of a novel mutation -- I'd actually be very surprised if it were (although new mutations may well have contributed to the phenoytpe). I expect this is the result of selection for novel combinations of alleles in the founder population, plus developmental plasticity.
So what? THAT'S EVOLUTION, TOO.
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2008 10:07 PM ICANT has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 18 of 57 (464404)
04-25-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
04-24-2008 10:07 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
ICANT writes
quote:
They were still genetically the same as the ones they had left in 1971.
ICANT, despite our discussion about this for months now, you still don't know what evolution actually says. Somehow, you keep going back to the same misconceptions you had earlier.
Evolution is the change in allele frequency. Suppose that tomorrow a virus wipes out everybody who's got blue and green eyes. After a couple generation, the genotype is extinct. That's still evolution. The allele frequency of the population has changed.
Or suppose that tomorrow a virus kills off everyone who doesn't have blue eyes. After a couple generations, we're left with only blue eyes. That's still evolution simply because the allele frequency has changed.
Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2008 10:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 12:48 PM teen4christ has not replied
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 1:06 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 57 (464408)
04-25-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by teen4christ
04-25-2008 12:30 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
ICANT writes
quote:
They were still genetically the same as the ones they had left in 1971.
ICANT, despite our discussion about this for months now, you still don't know what evolution actually says. Somehow, you keep going back to the same misconceptions you had earlier.
Evolution is the change in allele frequency. Suppose that tomorrow a virus wipes out everybody who's got blue and green eyes. After a couple generation, the genotype is extinct. That's still evolution. The allele frequency of the population has changed.
Or suppose that tomorrow a virus kills off everyone who doesn't have blue eyes. After a couple generations, we're left with only blue eyes. That's still evolution simply because the allele frequency has changed.
He's just gonna say that that is micro- not macro-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by teen4christ, posted 04-25-2008 12:30 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 1:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 20 of 57 (464414)
04-25-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by teen4christ
04-25-2008 12:30 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi t4c
teen4christ writes:
ICANT, despite our discussion about this for months now, you still don't know what evolution actually says. Somehow, you keep going back to the same misconceptions you had earlier.
Would you please explain my misconception about what I commented on.
I said the lizard had changed quite a bit. (Evolution)
I put forth evidence presented by a scientist that DNA had been tested on the lizards on both islands 6 times in three years and that they were both genetically the same.
So the lizard was genetically the same as his ancestor but his diet had caused some changes in his physical makeup. (Evolution)
It had not caused any changes in his being a lizard.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by teen4christ, posted 04-25-2008 12:30 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 1:34 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 24 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 2:27 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 21 of 57 (464417)
04-25-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2008 12:48 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
He's just gonna say that that is micro- not macro-
I don't have to say anything the articles have already said it.
The DNA was the same, the diet had brought about a change.
The title of the article said he was still a lizard.
So what do I have to say.
Did the lizard evolve to survive in his new home? Yes.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 2:35 PM ICANT has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 22 of 57 (464422)
04-25-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
04-25-2008 1:06 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
ICANT writes:
It had not caused any changes in his being a lizard.
I doesn't have to, ICANT! It's a novel feature, an increase in information, to use one of Dembski's and Ken Ham's favorite bylines. The lizard grew a cecal valve where there wasn't one before. How is that different from evolving fins, legs, a tongue, feathers, scales, teeth, or anything else, where there wasn't one before?
Admittedly, I'm jumping the gun: there is no genetic evidence yet that this is an example of "de novo" evolution. But, we'll have to wait and see. If it turns out that this is de novo, though, Dembski and Ham will need a new mantra. If it isn't, the debate continues just as before.
And, the lizards are not genetically identical. The researchers did not compare the entire genome, they only compared the mitochondrial genome. By the way, a mitochondrion is an organelle inside the cell that uses a genome that is separate from the "main" genome in the nucleus of the cell. And mitochondrial genes change much slower than nuclear genes, which is why they can be used to unite an entire species under a "single" genome and exclude others. Nuclear genes, on the other hand, change quite regularly, thanks to all sorts of reshuffling and recombining mechanisms that work on them (and don't work on mitochondrial genes).

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 1:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 2:00 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 23 of 57 (464425)
04-25-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 1:34 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
And, the lizards are not genetically identical.
I am not giving my opinion.
quote:
DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.
You can find the article Here.
The article says they are identical genetically.
It also says they are different as one has bigger heads and stronger jaws and has some help in the digestive system.
That means they are physically different.
Or am I not understanding what is written?
If you have found different evidence I would appreciate being able to read it.
Bluejay writes:
The researchers did not compare the entire genome,
I can't find this statement. Could you be so kind as to point it out.
Take into consideration all I know about this is what I am able to read.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 1:34 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 2:29 PM ICANT has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 24 of 57 (464431)
04-25-2008 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
04-25-2008 1:06 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
I put forth evidence presented by a scientist that DNA had been tested on the lizards on both islands 6 times in three years and that they were both genetically the same.
No. You didn't.
You made a bare assertion.
This is evidence:
Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrcaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population.
Fig. 5. Neighbor-Joining tree of Jukes-Cantor distances derived from a concatenated alignment of partial mitochondrial 12S rDNA and 16S rDNA sequences, showing phylogenetic relationships among a selected number of populations of P. sicula and P. melisellensis including individuals from the two populations studied here. The tree includes previously published data (13, 14) retrieved from genbank. Lizards cluster according to species and the populations from Pod Kopi[icirc]ste and Pod Mr[icirc]caru are identical and P. sicula. This suggests that the original species inhabiting Pod Mr[icirc]caru (P. melisellensis) has gone extinct on this island. Newly sequenced P. melisellensis specimens were from Pasadur on Lastovo Island. Only bootstrap values [mt]70% are shown. Populations sampled in this study are indicated in bold.
Mitochondrial DNA is completely different than nuclear DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA is completely separate from nuclear DNA.
Do you understand the difference between mitochondrial and nuclear DNA?
Do you understand why it makes a difference whether they tested the mitochondrial v. the nuclear DNA?
Do you understand that the only creatures on this planet that have identical genomes are twins/clones?
So the lizard was genetically the same as his ancestor but his diet had caused some changes in his physical makeup. (Evolution)
We know nothing of the nuclear genome of this population. Therefore, we cannot say that the lizards are "genetically the same". Because we don't know that and we won't know that until their nuclear genomes are sequenced.
It had not caused any changes in his being a lizard.
Let's take this one step at a time.
Here are two lizards.
Do you agree that speciation is "macroevolution"?
Do you agree that, although they are both lizards, they are two species?
Do you agree that these two species have significant differences in their NUCLEAR genomes?
Do you agree that these two species have many obvious morphological differences?
Do you agree that these many obvious morphological differences are "body parts"?
Do you agree that these two species have evolved these differing body parts?
Do you agree that these two species evolved these different body parts gradually, over a very long time?
Do you agree that these two species evolved one new body part at a time?
Do you agree that a cecal valve is a new body part?
No cecal valves have ever been observed before in this species or genus, and are in fact very rare in the entire family Lacertidae (only known in the specialized herbivore Galliota).
This population of lizards evolved a new body part.
This population of lizards evolved a new body part that no other lizard in its genus or family has.
This population, given enough time, will accumulate more and more specialized body parts that no other member of its genus or family has.
It's like you believe in inches, but not in miles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 1:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:39 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 57 (464432)
04-25-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
04-25-2008 2:00 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
ICANT writes:
I am not giving my opinion.
But, you are giving the opinion of somebody else who is not a biologist and didn't write this particular paper. I did a study for a class a few months ago on the news media's representation of biological sciences. I compared what the scientists said to what the reporters said, and, though there weren't any major (i.e. fatal) inconsistencies, there were plenty of small ones, like the use of the word "identical" where is was inappropriate.
Here's what the scientists said in their research paper (PNAS vol. 105, no. 12, pages 4792-4795):
quote:
Two mitochondrial DNA fragments (12S rDNA and 16S rDNA) were amplified by PCR by using the primer pairs...
They identified these lizards using two fragments of mitochondrial DNA. Now, they said they extracted whole-genome DNA, but haven't yet analyzed or sequenced it--that means they probably plan to have it sequenced and analyzed sometime soon.
Personal Note: I'm maybe a little too excited about this, and I'm sorry if I went at you too strong without supporting my claims better. Thanks for pushing me for it and keeping me honest.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 2:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:51 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 35 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 6:21 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 57 (464434)
04-25-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
04-25-2008 1:14 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Catholic Scientist writes:
He's just gonna say that that is micro- not macro-
I don't have to say anything the articles have already said it.
The DNA was the same, the diet had brought about a change.
The title of the article said he was still a lizard.
So what do I have to say.
Did the lizard evolve to survive in his new home? Yes.
Yup, it certainly is a great example of macroevolution!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 1:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 27 of 57 (464452)
04-25-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by molbiogirl
04-25-2008 2:27 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes:
You made a bare assertion.
Until you give the reference for your information you are the one making the bare assertion.
In message #16 which t4c was responding I said:
They didn't change too much because: Here
DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.
Would you please explain how my statement to t4c was a bare assertion when he was replying to the above message. Message 16
I know this is your field of study and you may have access to information I don't but I do not find where mitochondrial DNA analyses was mentioned. Please explain.
What does the picture of the two lizards you have to do with the two lizard populations under discussion have? Please explain.
molbiogirl writes:
Do you agree that speciation is "macroevolution"?
Speciation within a species is not macroevolution as RAZD pointed out to me that they are the same thing. If they are the same thing then there is no macroevolution.
Creos look at macroevolution as transmutation or when one critter becomes a totaly different critter. That would be the point that the lizard ceases to be a lizard and becomes something totaly different. To my knowledge this has never been documented, and no evidence presented in favor of such an event. It must be accepted by faith that all the little changes over a long period of time can accumulate to the point that it has to take place.
Quote from Here says there is no firsthand accounts.
quote:
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.
molbiogirl writes:
This population, given enough time, will accumulate more and more specialized body parts that no other member of its genus or family has.
Do you know this for a fact? Then could you give evidence for such as these lizards only adapted to their environment.
But since they have adapted so well what would cause them to need to accumulate more body parts as there is no need for them?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 2:27 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 6:11 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 50 by Flatland, posted 02-16-2010 1:42 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 9:57 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 28 of 57 (464453)
04-25-2008 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2008 2:35 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yup, it certainly is a great example of macroevolution!
Would you please give a definition for macroevolution?
Then I will see if I could agree that your definition said this change was macroevolution.
According to my definition of macroevolution = one critter becoming another totaly different critter. It is not macroevolution.
I am not even sure if it is evolution rather than adaptation to the environment.
I am sure it will be discussed much in the coming weeks and months and eventually we will have an answer to all our questions.
God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 2:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 4:57 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 29 of 57 (464454)
04-25-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 2:29 PM


Re-Lizard
Thanks jay,
Is there somewhere I can read the paper?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 2:29 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 6:18 PM ICANT has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 57 (464455)
04-25-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
04-25-2008 4:49 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
According to my definition of macroevolution = one critter becoming another totaly different critter.
How does one critter become another? (as in by what process)
And where did you get that definition? Did you just make it up?
Why don't we discuss what the ToE considers macroevolution to be instead of your (personal) definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 6:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024