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.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
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?
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.
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.
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.
They certainly have. Science updates and changes its position all the time as new evidence comes to light. Science certainly doesn't care about what Darwin has to say on the matter anymore, maybe you shouldn't either. Punctuated Equilibrium
Well, if the lizard had a mutation that was benign, and didn't get bred out. The mutation would likely be unused in its current environment, but then when the invasive species arrived, the mutation went from being benign to beneficial. Always remember mutations are beneficial, benign, or harmful based on the organism's environment. If the environment changes, the mutation could change status.
Evolution doesn't work in a logical sequence. It is a very haphazard process. Stop trying to rationalize why a certain trait evolved before another trait. It doesn't work that way. I could just as easily ask why humans still have wisdom teeth despite not needing them anymore (and our jaws now being too small to hold that many teeth in our heads).
Anyway evolution has been achieved.
I have my issues with natural selection which I won't get into right now.
But since you believe in it, why don't you explain how the larger toe pads were selected for
this time with verifiable proof, or at least without having to resort to guesses.
Or, you could address what the study is saying- which is that the larger toe pads evolved in response to the lizards change in behavior - i.e. climbing higher up the tree. Forget the stupid video.
After contact with the invasive species, the native lizards began perching higher in trees, and, generation after generation, their feet evolved to become better at gripping the thinner, smoother branches found higher up.
over the course of 15 years and 20 generations, their toe pads had become larger, with more sticky scales on their feet.
The offspring of the two variants will still be Altocomps, but won't be either Maswa Yellowfin or Chaitika Red anymore. Just as I suspect that if you breed a long-toed lizard to a short-toed lizard, the offspring will still be the same anole, just not exactly perfectly long or short-toed.
I have already explained why should I explain again just go back and read.
Well you could start by reading the study in the OP or book a trip down here to the College of Natural Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin or even visiting Florida to verify the findings yourself.
Which came first: higher perching or larger feet? I would guess that the larger feet already existed to some degree in the breeding individuals, so basically the article is poorly written. I would have dinged it as an editor. The way it's worded makes it sound like the lizards perched higher and thus their offspring were magically born with large feet. No, they already had larger feet and bred with other lizards that had large feet thus enhancing the desirable trait making for offspring with even bigger feet ...
This latest study is one of only a few well-documented examples of what evolutionary biologists call "character displacement," in which similar species competing with each other evolve differences to take advantage of different ecological niches. A classic example comes from the finches studied by Charles Darwin. Two species of finch in the Galápagos Islands diverged in beak shape as they adapted to different food sources.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Isn't it grand! The problem is they (the scientific community) chastise those who go against the original position as if it's the standard rule that can't be broken. Anyone who would've suggested that evolution can occur in less than 20 generations would have been mocked not too long ago.
And yeah, I don't care much about what Darwin had to say either, except people keep holding him up on a pedestal.
Most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. But you are ignoring what the study is saying, which I quoted. Care to address it directly? Behavior before adaptation? Or Adaptation before behavior?
Is that your best explanation for understanding evolution?
Stop trying to rationalize it?
It's not a logical sequence?
Wow, just wow.
It's a very important question to ask, I think: what comes first- the adaptation or the behavior? The study is saying that in this case it was the behavior yet I'm not sure they have proof of that. But maybe I missed it.
The good thing about science is that eventually the truth gets out despite ingrained beliefs.
The only people who bring up Darwin are the Creationists. Everyone else just recognizes him as the first scientist to write about evolution (not even the first to theorize about it).
It doesn't matter. Either could happen first. I already told you that.
You missed the point of that paragraph.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
That's a statement of in-grained belief in itself.
And truth? What "truth" are you referring to? Scientific "truth" is a consensus; becomes the established rule; only to be changed, then re- established, etc etc, rinse and repeat. The so called "truth" is elusive my friend.
We should mean to say that science is an approximation of this truth thereof. It's an attempt to get closer to "it", whatever "it" is. But "it" will never be attained, so let's put down the pom poms and get back to reality here.
How does a behavior to utilize a particular adaptation (for survival) appear before the adaptation itself? What do you mean it doesn't matter? Of course it does. Maybe not to you, perhaps because you're unable to explain it. But I would like to understand. It's an important evolutionary question.
Either could happen first you say? Great, would you mind citing examples, with supporting evidence, of adaptations that occurred after the behavior, just like the OP study is saying.
So because the real truth is ever elusive we should never narrow down our view of the truth to make it closer align to the real truth?
Finding the truth is a process, it isn't accomplished through a one and done method. You keep whittling away at falsehoods and assumptions as much as possible. Just because the real truth may never be attained, doesn't mean we can't seek it.
Because the behavior could happen then a mutation could occur that makes it easier, OR the mutation could happen and the behavior occurs to utilize the mutation. Is it really that hard to conceptualize?
Fish crawling out of the water then mutating to have limbs. Land animals swimming out to sea and evolving fins (whales). Obviously to make that jump the behavior would have to come before the mutation. A fish mutating limbs underwater would just die.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I never said that nor implied it, so not sure why you're asking this question. But you're right about it being just "our view" of the truth.
Again who said anything about not trying to seek it out? Certainly not me. I admire your tenacity defending all things science, but these "falsehoods" or "assumptions" are often times what science propagates as "truths" until new and better theories gain acceptance. The truth is all around us but we can't ever know it. If there's anything that science has shown, it's that.
It's not hard to conceptualize it unless within the rigid evolutionary framework that we're told is the "truth". Your response is a typical, "eh, it's just the way it is", sweep it under the rug, and move on, type of attitude. You seem okay to accept without question what is being told to you by the scientific community. I'm not that way, if you couldn't tell. But to each his own.
Physical adaptations, in many cases, require complex [innate] behaviors to utilize them properly. Otherwise the organism can face certain extinction. We're told that both innate behaviors and phenotypic adaptations will result from different mutations. So two chance mutations must occur at right around the same time for this to all work out for the species. I'm intrigued by the coincidences, but not very satisfied with the 'just so' explanations.
I'd be curious if the researchers of this study noticed any other useful mutations on the anoles, or if it was just the larger toepads.
It's unfortunate we couldn't test this first hand just to be sure.
The only one who is making it rigid, is you. You are trying to argue that the mutation must come first, then the behavior. The article disagrees, I disagree, and The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis Theory disagrees. Sounds like you are the one who needs to expand their definition of what evolution says and does.