It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida Lizards Evolve Rapidly, Within 15 Years and 20 Generations

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Sounds like KOREA...lots of SMALLER animals only.




posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
removed
edit on 25-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

makes sense. natural selection. specimens with short, slippery toes fell to their death and were removed from the breeding cycle.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Gully

Just not seeing it as evolution. It doesn't work that way. Look at us 20 generations ago. That would be what? 500 years? Still the same species. We're taller, live longer, etc but really still the same. The buggers I'm really worried about are the cats. In about 2 million years that dew claw will become a thumb and they will take over. Not a big whoop as we will be LONG gone.




You clearly don't understand what is meant by evolution. Evolution is change over time through mutation. Period. This is evolution.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Natural selection in action!



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
After reading the replies, I don't get why some people ask "is this adaptation or evolution?"

I thought it was known that evolution happens through adaptation, natural selection and so on.

Maybe when they hear the word 'evolution' they imagine "from cow to whale", I don't know.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gully

originally posted by: intrepid
I was just discussing this on FB. Is it micro-evolution? Is it adaptation? I personally lean towards the latter.

I would say it's evolution - survival of the fittest. Random mutations led to larger toe-pads so the anole's that could get higher survived and the others did not. The genes of larger toe-pad anole's became dominant...that is evolution.

That is actually not what is occurring. What is happening is that those with larger pads had a greater chance for survival and passing on their genes. So subsequent generations are more and more comprised of those with larger pads and those with shorter pads are mating less and less. There are no random mutations happening here. It's survival of the "fittest" though.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Gully

Just not seeing it as evolution. It doesn't work that way. Look at us 20 generations ago. That would be what? 500 years? Still the same species. We're taller, live longer, etc but really still the same. The buggers I'm really worried about are the cats. In about 2 million years that dew claw will become a thumb and they will take over. Not a big whoop as we will be LONG gone.




You clearly don't understand what is meant by evolution. Evolution is change over time through mutation. Period. This is evolution.

That is actually not the definition of evolution, and evolution does not require any genetic mutation.

This is evolution, absolutely.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

i think he was saying that the mutation that led to the initial increase in pad size was random (not saying the specific trait leading to increased survivability was random)
which for our intents and purposes was pretty much random



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

i think he was saying that the mutation that led to the initial increase in pad size was random (not saying the specific trait leading to increased survivability was random)
which for our intents and purposes was pretty much random

Except there was no mutation. I know what he was saying. Not all evolution is mutation driven.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

I'm no expert but I disagree. We, as a species, at this moment, don't need to evolve as we have minds which can figure out a way to kill things that get in our way. We do that pretty well as a matter of fact. IOW, there's no need for us to be evolving, in the physical sense.

Just wait, we will evolve as transhumanism effect takes effect. Gods only know what we will become. Is that even considered evolving or is that forced evolution - if that's the right term?

Then again, we have minds with concepts such as logic and reason and clearly don't use them most of the time, so I could be wrong.


@Occams, I think you are both right you are just focusing on semantics. Seems to me you are saying the same thing.

edit on 10/26/2014 by TheSpanishArcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
i've always believed if you put humans in a water environment, in 100 years you will create a Man who can swim faster than a Barracuda.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
So the lizards who are being eaten have started going higher in the trees to survive.
It's simply survival of the fittest.
The ones who can climb and live higher survive and pass on genes.
The ones who cannot become dinner for the invaders.

Adaptation,natural selection, darwinism....maybe another description would be more applicable.

This situation is more like selective breeding, since the other species is the factor that decides who breeds and who dies.
The predator lizards remove slower climbing and lower perching lizards from the breeding pool. The survivors aren't necessarily adapting, simply being genetically selected.

Like humans breeding cats and dogs.
Chihuahuas and Great Danes are products of selective breeding.
Not natural at all.

If this were a situation where one species was adapting to a new food source or environmental change then the physical changes would likely take a lot longer to occur.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

Selective breeding. Interesting choice of words. So does that mean they were choosing their mating partners based on what they needed to survive?

Just a idea to throw out there. And, what exactly, does that mean? How, if that's what is happening, how do they choose partners to mate with? how would they know?



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

OK, good point.
Maybe it's more like take-what's-left-to-choose-from-after-the-invasive-lizards-eat-all-the-low-lying-lizards breeding.

I was really just trying to make the point that the invasive species is removing lizards with specific traits or behaviors.
The lizards that are left must therefore breed with a selected group.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

Well I agreed it was evolution, I was clarifying, so yes, partly semantics. Semantics are not always trivial.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
@Badgerprints & Occams, so we agree. What about the rest of what I wrote?




I'm no expert but I disagree. We, as a species, at this moment, don't need to evolve as we have minds which can figure out a way to kill things that get in our way. We do that pretty well as a matter of fact. IOW, there's no need for us to be evolving, in the physical sense.

Just wait, we will evolve as transhumanism effect takes effect. Gods only know what we will become. Is that even considered evolving or is that forced evolution - if that's the right term?


Should we be evolving? I have the video of the 1991 World Series. Clearly the players look like ants compared to the modern athlete. Now that could be because of weightlifting(training) and steroids, but it's definitely there. Or, could we be evolving into a bigger species?

I'm not serious, but it's something that is verifiable and obviously there, there IS a reason for it, but what is that reason?

What I'm saying is that is something I have on tape that is real. There's a thousand or more explanations but it is there. There must be some reasonable explanation, right?

We may be right and wrong at the same time.

But of course, I know nothing(I'm reminded of that every day).



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
@Badgerprints & Occams, so we agree. What about the rest of what I wrote?



We will evolve because we are a threat to ourselves and we cannot control our environment.
Some part of humanity will come out on top...or perish.
They won't do it by acting the way we all act right now.
There will be a point where some group makes a major change which will remove a major portion of the present population from it's present state.

Or nature will do it for us.

Asteroid, nuclear war, flubola, global warming/cooling, solar flare, massive discharge of energy from the center of the galaxy, alien invasion...

The dinosaurs were around for millions of years and then poof, all gone except crocodiles and birds.

Our time will come.
Probably before we evolve into something better than we are.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

LOL @ Flubola.

Exactly. Or....

Check out the book City from Clifford D. Simak. If you don't have a copy, I'll send you one. Or maybe the ants and dogs will take over. I'll start a thread on the book but if you need the book U2U me.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
i've always believed if you put humans in a water environment, in 100 years you will create a Man who can swim faster than a Barracuda.


Only if the fast swimmers are the ones that pass down their genes. I don't agree with 100 years though, that's about 2 generations for humans.




top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join