G.G.:Rost, I'm not even trying to argue here but explain how you can test or falsify the Big Bang Theory. I mean, ok, the universe is expanding so it has a start date. And this means...?
Rost, I'm not even trying to argue here but explain how you can test or falsify the Big Bang Theory. I mean, ok, the universe is expanding so it has a start date.
And this means...?
Nah, we are going in circles here. I already provided you with the links for this twice. If you don't want to learn for yourself, I don't have the time to spoonfeed it to you. You're a big boy and you are clearly at least somewhat interested in this. Go read about it a little. I promise, it's interesting stuff.
As far as a start date goes, I see where you are going with this and let me just stop you right now. No claims are being made beyond speculation as to what caused it. Could it be god? Sure. But it could also be clown farts. There's no reason to pick one over the other.
G.G.: Rost, I'm not even trying to argue here but explain how you can test or falsify the Big Bang Theory. I mean, ok, the universe is expanding so it has a start date. And this means...?
From http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/scientists-disc.html#more
Ultra fast evolution witnessed in lizards:
Think it takes thousands or even millions of years for animals to evolve significantly new traits? Think again. New research lends just a touch of credibility to the idea behind the popular sci-fi TV series Heroes, which portrays certain humans as having quickly evolved new astounding traits in response to increasingly tumultuous environmental pressures.
easingly tumultuous environmental pressures.
In 1971 biologists moved 5 adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their island home of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, and introduced them to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has discovered that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo shockingly fast and large-scale evolutionary changes.
Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste. In other words, there is no doubt that these lizards are the offspring of the 1971 transplant. The results of the study were recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The lizards evolved entirely new digestive system features to cope with dietary changes, evolved bigger heads and also ceased to defend territories—an instinct once very integral to the species behavior back on their original home territory.
“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” remarks Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source explains Irschick. The lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.
“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”
Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.
“These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,” says Irschick. “Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”
Change in diet also affected the population density and social structure of the Pod Mrcaru population. Because plants provide a larger and more predictable food supply, there were more lizards in a given area on Pod Mrcaru. Food was obtained through browsing rather than the active pursuit of prey, and the lizards had given up defending territories.
“What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history,” says Irschick.
So next time you see Hayden Panettiere on TV running around in her cheer skirt regenerating her limbs, just think how the premise may be just slightly less crazy that you previously suspected.
Posted by Rebecca Sato.
If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on Digg, Reddit, or StumbleUpon.Thanks!
Related Galaxy posts:
Is the Human Species in Evolution's Fast Lane? -A Galaxy ClassicBringing Ancient Human Viruses Back to Life: A Jurassic Park or Salvation? Loren Eiseley on Evolution: Transcending the Cosmos -A Galaxy Insight
Study Source: University of Massachusetts Amherst
That was an interesting read Rost. Thanks!
On a side note...it reminded me of a point on evolution. You know how it is frustrating when people mix the ideas of evolution and life origins? I think just as often...people mix the concepts of evolution with adaptation.
They are very related of course....but the difference is the reason why evolution still and will most likely always be a theory and not a law.
The article you post...is about adaption. That is...one species adapting to it's environment/food source....but still remaining the same actual species. This is common...and evidence of which is abundant.
The idea of Darwinian evolution is that these adaptions can actually result in one species becoming another completely different species. This is not the same as inter-species adaptation.
All too often people look at factual data of adaptation and point to it as proof of Darwinian evoltuion.....it is wrong to do so.
BTW...as stated before........I do not say this as a person who has any problems with evolutionary theory. Like I said....I believe that there is no need for science (including that of evolution) to clash with religion. No need at all.
Scobbs,
First of all, the idea of "species" is just a classification imposed by biologists for classification of animals. In this particular case, the adaptations result in a different species of lizard. Just saying.
Second of all, the very basis of evolution is adaptation. In fact, it's the first half. The second half is reproduction and passing of these features to offspring. Those that survive long enough to breed, pass those features on. Those that don't, don't.
The key is that adaptation takes place over several generations. Initial ability to eat the wierd food or whatever is usually already there in some form but not fully developed. For example, Longer nose for eating ants. You can eat ants without it but creatures with a longer nose will get more food than those who do not, thereby increasing their chance of survival and reproduction. If they reproduce and their shorter nose competitors don't, the offspring will have longer noses than the previous generations.
As far as adaptation as proof of evolution (you can drop the word "Darwinian", as most of his ideas have been heavily modified or extended), it's not. However, adaptation does not disprove it, and in science that's all that matters.
Actually, hasn't Modern Medicine stumpted any type of evolutionary processes form further affecting the human race?
Diseases that are inherited and shouldn't be bred, are bred because they are now treatable. Another way to say this is to look at diesease that kill most children, now we have treatments and these children grow up to be adults and also are given the chance to reproduce and pass on their "less than desirable*" traits onto another genereations.
This happens in Great Danes. Great Danes are highly affected by Bloat and stomach torsion, in fact it's a large killer of the breed. Studies have found that the risk of this may just be inherited. There is a preventitive surgery where they tie the stomach to the rib cage or tack it thus lessening the threat.
We had this done because we have no intentions of breeding our dog and in fact he's fixed. However, if you are a breeder you are recommended to never have this done because then there is no way to tell if that dog carries the gene and you can unknowing pass this "less than desirable" trait on through the gene pool.
Todzilla:Actually, hasn't Modern Medicine stumpted any type of evolutionary processes form further affecting the human race?
That was the position for a long time but scientists are reconsidering it. There's too much evidence to the contrary.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18925421.300-are-we-still-evolving.html
Cool thanks. you are just an extreme wealth of knowledge lately, did you sleep in a Holiday Inn Express
Todzilla:Cool thanks. you are just an extreme wealth of knowledge lately, did you sleep in a Holiday Inn Express
Well played, well played.
rost0031: Scobbs, First of all, the idea of "species" is just a classification imposed by biologists for classification of animals. In this particular case, the adaptations result in a different species of lizard. Just saying.
I hear ya....but I don't know if I would call those lizards different species. Can the new mate with the old? I don't think it said.
I was just pointing out that the idea of "evolution as explanation of all of life's progression" needs to include the idea of evolving into an entirely different species. And you are right...maybe I am using my classification terms wrong.
eehhh....this kinda makes me tired anyway. I can't keep up with you uberintellectual libruls. I need to go get a nap and smell my balls.
I just wanted to give Rost a big thumbs up for keeping the science flag waving. I don't have a whole lot to add, but if you want a really good book that puts contemporary ideas about the big bang into "layman's terms", read "A Brief History of Time". When I say "layman's terms", I mean "it stays away from jargon as much as a book written by one of the greatest physicists of all time can". Not that I actually expect anyone to read it, but there it is.
I'm glad at least one person on this site actually understands the scientific method and can communicate it effectively.
Nick:I just wanted to give Rost a big thumbs up for keeping the science flag waving. I don't have a whole lot to add, but if you want a really good book that puts contemporary ideas about the big bang into "layman's terms", read "A Brief History of Time". When I say "layman's terms", I mean "it stays away from jargon as much as a book written by one of the greatest physicists of all time can". Not that I actually expect anyone to read it, but there it is. I'm glad at least one person on this site actually understands the scientific method and can communicate it effectively.
Thanks.
But just to clarify on "Brief History of Time", it's an awesome book but keep in mind it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. As Nick said, it's mostly about physics of the universe but it's a fairly easy read. Stephen Hawking is a surprisingly good writer for a scientist. If you like that book, you should check out "Universe in a Nutshell". Both books are a little dated but most of the information is still relevant.
Wow, you are just the cats meow today.
Now if you could get yourself one more compliment you could jump up and scream HAT TRICK!!!
I would
Yeah, I brought up this book simply because the question of the big bang gets dealt with pretty well there, I felt. God, I need to go read that one again. I'll check out "Universe". The "too-read" stack never seems to get any shorter.
This is primarily for those who keep claiming that ID is being rejected by the scientific community just because it questions the status quo:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenging
That's a list of a few scientists who challenged the status quo and were right (it happens rarely). Even though their ideas were not widely accepted they were still respected because they made falsifiable claims.
Reverse evolution noticed in fish:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080520-fish-evolution.html
Also, a fossil of a link between frogs and salamander: the frogamander has been found.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080521-frog-fossil.html
I dont like either one of you guys gg or rost But i have to side with rost , Evolution makes more sense than creationism ( check out any Carl sagan Documentary)and in the next 100 to 500 years humans (if we are still a living species on this earth ) will look back and wonder why so many people were fooled by religion for so long...
A 20 year long experiment in evolution of E. Coli yeilds interesting results: bacteria develop a whole new way to feed. Mind you that how bacteria eat defines them as a species so developing a new way to eat is basically development of a new species.
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php