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: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

You have to change the way we are acting now, not later, and nothing good is going on at the moment. We cannot get our of the way of our corporations, our egos, our governments, our propaganda and brainwashing - now, so how do we do this?

I agree that nature will do this for us if we don't. But how do we do this now, before nature takes us away, when we are so divided in so many ways?

We still have people thinking they HAVE to be either Republican or Democrat, and their is NO other option, while both corrupt parties run the show into the ground. Yet people still vote R or D.

I truly don't know and don't trust anyone to have even a shred of a clue. I have lots of questions and thoughts with no answers.




posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

We are definitely evolving. If we live a million years we will be completely different. If we move to other planets with different gravity or atmosphere the people living there will also adapt to the new environment.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   


IF this is accurate,then REPTILES should have evolved BEFORE mammals as a sentient race


Not if there isn't a need for them to do so. Reptiles are a very successful group of animals that fit very well into their environment.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
This is a reminder that evolution is real, and we can see it happen. It's not "just a theory", but an established core scientific fact. The YECs can stick their heads in the sand all they want to, but they are deluded. It's like covering your ears and going, "la,la,la" when your hear something you don't like. You can have a religion and believe in evolution, like many people do, or you can cling to a fundamentalist belief which you know in your heart isn't reality. Because you believe in a world of the spirit, is no reason to reject the knowledge gained in thousands of years, or to think that, as the materialists do, that the sum of reality is a collection of atoms, molecules, and energy, without purpose or meaning. Do not despair that the most ancient legends of pre-history are a poor guide to the expanded logical progression of man's knowledge. That which is, is, and that which shall always be, remains, from the beginning of days until the end of the world. a reply to: Elton



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Parthin

This is evidence that the portions of evolution religious people agree happens is happening. It's not evidence at all for what they disagree with.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
But I agree with all of it and I don't understand how you expect to have half a loaf, when it is all one concept. I am a dualist, and if you would kindly google materialism vs dualism you would understand what my basic position means. a reply to: OccamsRazor04



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Parthin
But I agree with all of it and I don't understand how you expect to have half a loaf, when it is all one concept. I am a dualist, and if you would kindly google materialism vs dualism you would understand what my basic position means. a reply to: OccamsRazor04


I am not here to debate anything, only point out it's erroneous to label this as evidence for evolution religious people do not accept. Religious people do accept this. They accept fish becoming different fish, birds becoming different birds. What they do not accept is algae becoming an elephant. This is not evidence for anything along those lines occurring. What side is right and what is wrong doesn't matter as far as my post is concerned, I am only addressing this being evidence.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 08:07 AM
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.


We have the ability to make our environment adapt to us, so we don't have the need--at least physically--to evolve at a rapid pace (assuming evolution is what it is...I buy into the theory, but still have yet to be convinced fully that it works the way the theory says).



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

I have to call a big BS on this one. These so called invasive brown lizards have been in Florida since i was a child 30+ years and have always been here in central Florida in massive numbers. You rarely see a green one! Then or now. They are green cause they live in the trees the brown ones live everywhere. The browns can climb anything but a gutter lol. The green ones can never climb higher than the brown ones, that is a lie!

I can bet these so called scientist caught a green gecko at first that are here as well and took pictures of its feet 15-20 years ago when they were stoned like most uni students at the time lol.

edit on 28-10-2014 by Patriotsrevenge because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


Is it micro-evolution? Is it adaptation?

The distinction is invalid, intrepid. This is adaptation through natural selection; that is, the evolutionary mechanism at work.

At present, the long-toed lizards can probably interbreed with their short-toed cousins. Separate the populations (as may already be happening if one lot perches higher in trees than the other — it would depend on their mating behaviour) and in a few generations you'll start seeing genetic drift. A few more generations after that, members of the two populations will be unable to interbreed, and you will have two different species instead of two different populations.


edit on 28/10/14 by Astyanax because: I wanted to add a quote.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Except there was no mutation.

I wouldn't bet on that. You'd need to do a genetic study on the lizards to know for sure, but in my opinion, there must have been.

If higher-dwelling lizards consistently produce this adaptation in their offspring, it must be heritable. Unless it is the product of an already-existing gene that expresses itself differently based on the how high the parent lizard lives in the tree (which sounds rather unlikely, though Nature regularly surprises us) the heritable adaptation must be the product of a genetic mutation.

Even if the change were epigenetic and based on the altitude of the parent's habitat, what causes some lizards consistently to climb higher than others (consistency would be required in order to produce heritable changes in the phenotype)?

Changes in instinctive behaviour are also the product of mutations. Peacocks didn't just evolve huge tails; they also evolved a preference for huge tails on the part of peahens. It's unlikely that both are expressions of the same gene or gene complex.

*


a reply to: badgerprints


This situation is more like selective breeding.

It is selective breeding. Nature does the selecting.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But, as CB328 says, there isn't a need to evolve. We are evolving the mind but not the body, maybe, but I don't see anything in the last few hundred years or so that says we are evolving in the physical form.

Hey, I'm most likely completely wrong I'm just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing if it sticks.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

a reply to: badgerprints


This situation is more like selective breeding.

It is selective breeding. Nature does the selecting.


No argument there.
But there are different ways that nature selects.
In this case there is an intrusion into the environment of a predatory species which is rapidly advancing the changes by predation as opposed to slow adaptation.
Just trying to keep to the point that scientists shouldn't be that surprised at the rapidity of change in this particular case.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

There is always a need. Do you think the same skills that were perfect for survival even 1,000 years ago are the same today?

What about when we move to other planets with different atmospheres and gravity?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think of evolution as physical, not mental. Maybe I'm wrong in that respect but I only see us getting bigger, physically. I don't know if that's just steroids and weightlifting or natural selection.

So does that mean that we evolve mentally, as we have reasoning and logic and thought processes and all that crap?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think of evolution as physical, not mental. Maybe I'm wrong in that respect but I only see us getting bigger, physically. I don't know if that's just steroids and weightlifting or natural selection.

So does that mean that we evolve mentally, as we have reasoning and logic and thought processes and all that crap?

Physical is mental. We have the intellect we have because of the physical way our brain works.

We are bigger now because of nutrition etc ... genetically we are not "bigger" than we used to be really.

The way humanity works now, where the weakest members are allowed to thrive and procreate MORE than the strongest members of society may have interesting long term consequences.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

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.


Right, except that's not what the article is saying, now is it. It certainly doesn't sound all that random when they say:


On small islands in Florida, we found that the lizard Anolis carolinensis moved to higher perches following invasion by Anolis sagrei and, in response, adaptively evolved larger toepads after only 20 generations.

This is what strikes me about attempts to explain evolution as just so stories.
First natural selection could only occur over painstakingly slow and long time horizons. That was the rule under Darwin. Now the rules have changed, it would seem.

But more importantly here, is the article/study is stating this new behavior found in the lizards (perching higher up in the trees) developed first, followed by the physical adaptation to suit that behavior. How does this happen?

The adaptation is supposed to allow for the higher perching, not the other way around, right? Wouldn't larger toe pads be required before the behavior?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

It's microevolution. The lizards are the same species, but have clearly evolved a new mutation that is beneficial for them.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect




The adaptation is supposed to allow for the higher perching, not the other way around, right? Wouldn't larger toe pads be required before the behavior?



No and no.

It is very simple. Those that couldn't hang on to higher perching died removing them from the gene pool where the traits from those that could hang on remained and passed those traits on which resulted in the species all having larger toe pads.

Watch video for short explanation.





top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join