Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 1:42 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, edge, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq (11 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,019 Year: 9,055/19,786 Month: 1,477/2,119 Week: 237/576 Day: 40/98 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Rapid Evolution in Lizards
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 31 of 57 (464461)
04-25-2008 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2008 4:57 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi CS,

Catholic Scientist writes:

Why don't we discuss what the ToE considers macroevolution to be instead of your (personal) definition?

That has already been tried on a couple of threads and it did not work.

Give me your definition and I will see if I can agree that is what happened to the lizards.

BTW you can give what you think the ToE version is.

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 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 4:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 6:15 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 6:34 PM ICANT has responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 32 of 57 (464464)
04-25-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
04-25-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
In Message 23 (your response to Bluejay) you wrote:

If you have found different evidence I would appreciate being able to read it.

I provided not one but two quotes from the paper itself that shows it was mitochondrial DNA that was sequenced.

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.

In fact, this is the third time I have mentioned it.

Message 8.
Message 16.
Message 24.

In the future, please take the time to carefully read the thread before responding.

Until you give the reference for your information you are the one making the bare assertion.

I provided 3 links in the OP.

I provided 2 quotes from the paper.

Here are the last 2 lines from the first link:

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."

Please take the time to answer the questions I posed re: mitochondrial v. nuclear DNA.

What does the picture of the two lizards you have to do with the two lizard populations under discussion have? Please explain.

Please take the time to answer each of the questions I posted re: species and body parts, not just the last one.

Then we can move on to a discussion of what speciation means.

Quote from Here says there is no firsthand accounts.

This study was published two weeks ago.
This website is no longer current.

Creos look at macroevolution as transmutation or when one critter becomes a totaly different critter.

It makes no difference whatsoever what creos think.
What matters is the scientific consensus.
And the scientific consensus is:

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

To repeat:

No cecal valves have ever been observed before in this species or genus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 33 of 57 (464465)
04-25-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
04-25-2008 6:08 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
BTW you can give what you think the ToE version is.

The first LINE of the Berkeley website you linked in Message 27!

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

For the umpteenth time, read the relevant links/thread before you post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 6:08 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 34 of 57 (464466)
04-25-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ICANT
04-25-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Is there somewhere I can read the paper?

I provided the link in the OP.

If you pay the $10 fee, yes, you can read it.

Purchase Short-Term Access

Purchase this Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 2 days for US$10.00.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 7:49 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 35 of 57 (464467)
04-25-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 2:29 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Thank you, Bluejay.

This ...

Two mitochondrial DNA fragments (12S rDNA and 16S rDNA) were amplified by PCR by using the primer pairs...

... is identical to the quote I provided this morning:

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.

It seems ICANT only listens to you, however.


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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 57 (464470)
04-25-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
04-25-2008 6:08 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Catholic Scientist writes:

Why don't we discuss what the ToE considers macroevolution to be instead of your (personal) definition?

That has already been tried on a couple of threads and it did not work.

Was it your fault? ;)

Give me your definition and I will see if I can agree that is what happened to the lizards.

I don't distinguish between micro and macro. Evolutions is evolution.

What happened to the lizards is an 'increase in information', the development of a new body part, what have you.

One critter will never turn into another because it is impossible. It has to happen gradually. What we see in this case, is one of those gradual changes. If you can accept this as one of those gradual changes, then there is nothing to stop these changes from piling up until we have some critter that is no longer the critter it was a long time ago. But this is not one critter turning into another. It is large populations of critters gradual evolving into another.

The lizards that these evolved from do not have this body part while these do. They are not the "same" lizard anymore so if you want to go by the 'turn into another critter' definition, then we have a new critter. Hooray!

Sure its still a lizard. But the ToE doesn't say that it will be anything else but a lizard. The changes are so gradual that you will never really notice the difference in kinds until it has been sooooo long, that you practically forgot what the original kind even looked like.

It doesn't go:

DOG ----> CAT

It goes:

DOG ----> COG ----> CAG ----> CAT

(as an oversimplified example)

DOGs and COGs will be barely distinguishable as will COGs and CAGs, and CAGs and CATs. But after many, many, generations, we will see that CATs are different than DOGs.

Please just once, try to understand what I'm saying instead of reading me out of context and doing everything you can to not have to admit that you could be wrong about all of this.

I know, I know,..... you CANT

And I think this was the problem in those couple of other threads....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 6:08 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 7:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 37 of 57 (464479)
04-25-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2008 6:34 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi CS,

Catholic Scientist writes:

I don't distinguish between micro and macro. Evolutions is evolution.

I can agree with that.

Catholic Scientist writes:

And I think this was the problem in those couple of other threads....

The one that was most intersting was between two evolutionist, Elmer and RAZD. I got in and exchanged a few messages with RAZD in it at the end, you can find the thread Here


"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 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2008 6:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2008 12:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 38 of 57 (464480)
04-25-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by molbiogirl
04-25-2008 6:18 PM


Re-Lizard
Hi molbiogirl,

Thank you.

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 34 by molbiogirl, posted 04-25-2008 6:18 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 57 (464522)
04-26-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
04-25-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
Care to respond to my explanations of your misunderstandings?

Catholic Scientist writes:

I don't distinguish between micro and macro. Evolutions is evolution.

I can agree with that.

Then why all the nonsense about this lizard not "turning into another critter"? Are you trolling?

Catholic Scientist writes:

And I think this was the problem in those couple of other threads....

The one that was most intersting was between two evolutionist, Elmer and RAZD. I got in and exchanged a few messages with RAZD in it at the end, you can find the thread Here

I'll read it later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 7:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dr T
Junior Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 04-26-2008


Message 40 of 57 (464540)
04-26-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by molbiogirl
04-24-2008 7:35 PM


This is my 1st post and my 1st time participating in any forum like this (internet chat). I like what I've read thus far and the creation Vs evolution format.
Amazing the discovery of an ileocecal valve in a carnivorous lizzard! What about the the required changes to the upper digestive system. What about new enzymes. What about the required changes to the pancreas. All this in some 30 odd years. How do we know these adaptations didn't occur in 20 years or 10 years or 5 years. Wow! Now That would be some amazing evolution.
What this looks like is the stimulation of recessive survival traits (at first glance). To leap to the conclusion that there was new genetic data added at this early stage is unfounded and unreasonable.

Sincerely Dr T

Edited by Dr T, : Typing errors


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 04-24-2008 7:35 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by molbiogirl, posted 04-27-2008 12:27 AM Dr T has not yet responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 41 of 57 (464543)
04-27-2008 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr T
04-26-2008 11:18 PM


To leap to the conclusion that there was new genetic data added at this early stage is unfounded and unreasonable.

Would you like to support that bare assertion?

Remember.

This is a feature not found in any other members of this lizard's genus.

Your argument seems to be based on personal incredulity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr T, posted 04-26-2008 11:18 PM Dr T has not yet responded

  
Dr T
Junior Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 04-26-2008


Message 42 of 57 (464544)
04-27-2008 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by molbiogirl
04-24-2008 7:35 PM


NO need to get excited. You asserted earlier in the discussion that genetic testing was necessary to prove genetic change. Inherant in that assertion is that an unfounded or at least premature assumption has been made. Re; The species not showing the colonic separation ever before, it was stated that this species was almost entirely on an insect diet, therefore there would not be the environmental stimulous for a phenotype change.

The change in the skull structure is likely the result of the observed increased strength of the muscles of mastication(wolf's law muscular stress on bone causes bone to hypertrophy).

Take this lizard and put it back on its insect diet and monitor its physiology annually. After 5 years take another look at its digestive tract. If the intestinal separation is still there then shout evolution. I would venture that it will not be therein the same specimens. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me!

Edited by Dr T, : I did not address molbiogirl's question to support the reasoning for my statement.

Edited by Dr T, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr T, : Punctuation point delineation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 04-24-2008 7:35 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 04-27-2008 1:52 AM Dr T has responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 43 of 57 (464547)
04-27-2008 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr T
04-27-2008 12:53 AM


You asserted earlier in the discussion that genetic testing was necessary to prove genetic change.

I wasn't the one insisting that evolution required nuclear genomic change. ICANT was.

Evolution does not require genomic change. It can, and does, happen that way -- but it is not required.

Inherant (sic) in that assertion is that an unfounded or at least premature assumption has been made. Re the species not showing the colonic separation ever before it was stated that this species was almost entirely on an insect diet therefore there would not be the environmental stimulous (sic) for a phenotype change. the change in the skull structure is likely the result of the increased muscular strength of the muscles of mastication(wolf's law muscular stress on bone causes bone to hypertrophy).

Have you ever heard of LaMarck?

Your ideas are LaMarckian.

LaMarckism was discarded over 130 years ago.

If the intestinal separation is still there then shout evolution.

You are under the mistaken impression that this is "a tiny little change".

Growing an entirely new digestive organ is not such a little thing, dear sir.

Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me!

Believe me.

A discovery of this magnitude is going to be examined from every possible angle.

Interbreeding with the original population, backbreeding on the original diet, genomic sequencing, ad nauseum.

The fact remains, however, that this lizard grew a whole new body part.

This is not something one can simply brush off as an "adaptation".

No other member of this lizard's GENUS has a cecal valve.

Are you aware of the significance of this statement?

Homo sapiens. Genus = Homo. Species = sapiens.

Members of the genus Homo:

Homo habilis (Handy Man)
Homo rudolfensis (Rudolf Man)
Homo ergaster (Working Man)
Homo erectus (Upright Man)
Homo floresiensis (Flores Man)
Homo antecessor (Predecessor Man)
Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man)
Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man)
Homo rhodesiensis (Rhodesia Man)
Homo cepranensis (Ceprano Man)
Homo georgicus (Georgia Man)
Homo sapiens (us)

For this lizard to have developed an entirely new body part is the equivalent of (to quote one of the paper's authors):

... humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years.

Do you think that growing an appendix is "an adaptive change" that can be reversed with a different diet?

Edited by molbiogirl, : sp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr T, posted 04-27-2008 12:53 AM Dr T has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr T, posted 04-27-2008 6:26 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
Dr T
Junior Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 04-26-2008


Message 44 of 57 (464638)
04-27-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by molbiogirl
04-27-2008 1:52 AM


“Evolution does not require genomic change. It can, and does, happen that way -- but it is not required. “

What!!! Is this some new (ignoring the laws of genetics) evolution science? Please explain to me and everyone else paying attention how (the mechanism) you get multiple generations without a gene to carry the information .

"Your ideas are LaMarckian.
LaMarckism was discarded over 130 years ago."

Sounds like name calling? I just wish I knew what this has to do with what we’re talking about!! Not really, It seems like investigating what this fellow thought is an attempt to distract, deride and catagorize my point of view (a prejudicial statement).

"You are under the mistaken impression that this is "a tiny little change".
Growing an entirely new digestive organ is not such a little thing, dear sir."

Well thank you for the dear sir, that almost sounds like respect, almost but not quite. I am under the impression that there is no change in the genome of this lizard and that this animal has always had an ileum and a cecum, and the ability to digest vegetation, if it would eat such food. I think (as stated in the referenced research article) that this species prior to isolation on this island had a diet rich in insects and limited in vegetation and that its digestive system having no need to segregate its meals for extended digestive processes had an ileocecal region celularly differentiated
but completely patent. This valve is a muscular organ and as is the case with all muscles if there is no stimulous to the muscle you have disuse atrophy. Hence no muscular fold you get a smooth transition from ilium to cecum and the appearance that no ileocecal valve exists ( and by the assumption of the investigators no plans in this lizards genome to make one ). The same type of thing happened in this lizards jaw and skull, I purport, that it used its jaw more and the muscles got bigger therefore requiring the stronger bigger bones.
Pseudo scientists call parts of anatomy that they do not know the function of useless vestigial organs, I think that tag, minus the useless, would apply however in this case.

"The fact remains, however, that this lizard grew a whole new body part."

Not a fact yet! Gosh, there is a lot of confusion on your side of the fence regarding what is fact and what is theory!

"This is not something one can simply brush off as an "adaptation".
No other member of this lizard's GENUS has a cecal valve."

Maybe someone should look a little harder and deeper in this lizards genus, I think they'll find one.

We’ll see, you just watch, sometime in the not to distant future there will be a follow up article on this lizard on page 62 of the paper in the bottom left corner retracting this ridiculous claim. Thats how it always is with these evolution scientist's earth shattering discoveries; Nebraska man and his cute family of four-from an extinct pigs tooth, piltdown man-man's and ape's skull and jaw hoax, lucy's bones found hundreds of feet apart and in different strattum, neandertal man now known to be completely human, coelacanth a 70 million year old fish that walked out of the water thought to be a missing link between fish and amphibians found in Madagascar fish markets and swimming at great depths in the Indian Ocean. The list goes on!

I've tried to catch the spelling errors so you won't be distracted.
If I've Missed any forgive me, wait forgiving is my side of the fence yours is crushing the weak and destroying those unfit to procreate.
Never mind.
Sincerely Dr T


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 04-27-2008 1:52 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-27-2008 6:49 PM Dr T has not yet responded
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 04-27-2008 7:29 PM Dr T has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 57 (464649)
04-27-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr T
04-27-2008 6:26 PM


We’ll see, you just watch, sometime in the not to distant future there will be a follow up article on this lizard on page 62 of the paper in the bottom left corner retracting this ridiculous claim. Thats how it always is with these evolution scientist's earth shattering discoveries; Nebraska man and his cute family of four-from an extinct pigs tooth, piltdown man-man's and ape's skull and jaw hoax, lucy's bones found hundreds of feet apart and in different strattum, neandertal man now known to be completely human, coelacanth a 70 million year old fish that walked out of the water thought to be a missing link between fish and amphibians found in Madagascar fish markets and swimming at great depths in the Indian Ocean. The list goes on!

Have you ever heard of PRATT?

Points Refuted A Thousand Times....

You've been fed falsehoods and your gobbling them up!

Lucy and coelacanth are solid....

Start a thread on your claim for one of them and we'll get you cleared up :)

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr T, posted 04-27-2008 6:26 PM Dr T has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019