Stickleback fish extreme evolution

a reply to: Jonjonj

I can't see how this is relevant to a discussion about evolution then. If evolution were simply physical change then I would understand, but it isn't.

Evolution as fish eventually becoming people would have been physical change over unobserved periods of time.
I say physical change is observable and duplicated, but I don't personally have the experience of a species turning into another species.

Therefore your post awoke a certain curiosity: do species bifurcate?

But what happens when one species of fish becomes two different species? What is the criteria for different species as far as you are concerned? I think this is the important issue, isn't it?

That's the big question! Never seen one species of anything become two different species, and the criteria given isn't mine, it's the University of Brussels' which is also Berkeley's.
I use this criteria because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

a reply to: wisvol

Evolution as fish eventually becoming people would have been physical change over unobserved periods of time.

Surely even the most ardent believer of science and modern biology wouldn't think such a thing possible without the corresponding links, have you met anybody who thinks evolution works like that?

Therefore your post awoke a certain curiosity: do species bifurcate?

Well I don't know technically, but if they don't then how can we explain what is happening right now, in this species and others?

I am not sure what you are asking, is evolution for you some kind of radical change from fish to mammal?

a reply to: Jonjonj

Surely even the most ardent believer of science and modern biology wouldn't think such a thing possible without the corresponding links, have you met anybody who thinks evolution works like that?

Where "such a thing" refers to fish becoming people: yes I've met them, and disagreed.

Well I don't know technically, but if they don't then how can we explain what is happening right now, in this species and others?

Many explanations are readily available, and some are even pushed. In order to emphasize my original point I say : admitting to not knowing how stuff works is much better than bull#ting.

I am not sure what you are asking, is evolution for you some kind of radical change from fish to mammal?

I asked "do species bifurcate", meaning "do dogs breed cats" because I suppose they don't. Dogs with weird shaped ears yes, not another species.
Your favourite Biologist's definition of a species would clarify.
Evolution isn't for me some kind of radical change, no.

But IF all there was after an explosion made the world was primordial soup, then soup became fish, that became monkeys, that became people. That's just logic. Not the best proposition I've seen, but the implication is flawless.

a reply to: wisvol

Many explanations are readily available, and some are even pushed. In order to emphasize my original point I say : admitting to not knowing how stuff works is much better than bull#ting.

As I said this is all pretty new to me, not in concept of course, I consider myself of reasonable intelligence, but in detail.

Could you clarify a bit what you mean by many explanations, perhaps giving an outline of what you think are the more probable ones? Or just what you think, I don't want to try to steer the conversation.

a reply to: Jonjonj

There are differences, but what in evolutionary theory describes that adaptation rate?

Basically, if it doesn't fit the mechanisms of Evolution, it is obviously something else.

I'd suggest that it could be epigenetic. We have seen similar rapid changes occur in stickleback that seems to imply that they had genes to deal with overcrowding and that overcrowding does seem to switch over 100 clear genetic changes on.

Perhaps the smaller 'stream' fishes are pre-adapted to accommodate the shallower waters of a stream and the larger 'lake' fish are utilizing switchable genes optimized for deeper waters? This could have been selected for over millennia in environments of variable stream depth and be an epigenetic feature of both 'types'.

How such epigenetic features could arise and be selected for is somewhat fuzzy using the reductionist methods of evolution as currently defined. In truth, nature is complicated and turbulent and fish that didn't have the epigenetic triggers would be selected against in hard times.

a reply to: chr0naut

I had to google epigenetic lol. I am not sure if I understand completely but are you saying that perhaps this species has a genetic disposition that will only trigger given certain circumstances? Like a gun that starts a new race but is only set in motion if certain circumstances come to pass?

That is interesting in and of itself if that is what you meant.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Gladly

Could you clarify a bit what you mean by many explanations, perhaps giving an outline of what you think are the more probable ones?

I have not the will to conduct probabilistic study on this or any subject mostly because probability is to science what margarine is to butter.

Many explanations for the origin of species include all those made prior to bifurcation theory, and the current ones that aren't. They're hard to come by unaltered and that alone tells us something.

One I have, in a nutshell:

Timespace is a thing, so "a long time ago" is no excuse for soup turning into monkeys.
That's not how time works.
Species originate from grammation, like ATS originates from programmation.
Species procreate, and do not create, their numbers. Every child differs from its parents in some ways, which do not include the species of the child.


I'd go further or even develop, but it goes beyond the scope of Stickleback fish extreme evolution.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Jonjonj

Gladly

Could you clarify a bit what you mean by many explanations, perhaps giving an outline of what you think are the more probable ones?

I have not the will to conduct probabilistic study on this or any subject mostly because probability is to science what margarine is to butter.

Many explanations for the origin of species include all those made prior to bifurcation theory, and the current ones that aren't. They're hard to come by unaltered and that alone tells us something.

One I have, in a nutshell:

Timespace is a thing, so "a long time ago" is no excuse for soup turning into monkeys.
That's not how time works.
Species originate from grammation, like ATS originates from programmation.
Species procreate, and do not create, their numbers. Every child differs from its parents in some ways, which do not include the species of the child.


I'd go further or even develop, but it goes beyond the scope of Stickleback fish extreme evolution.

Well i thought we were speaking to each other with mutual respect, but this answer clearly demonstrates that this is not the case.
I would thank you for the time spent talking about the issue, but that would be a waste of time, wouldn't it?

None of the above makes any sense in the context of the thread, I will go further, it sounds like you either:
A. Couldn't answer.
B. Couldn't answer.
C. See A or B.

a reply to: Jonjonj

But what happens when one species of fish becomes two different species? What is the criteria for different species as far as you are concerned? I think this is the important issue, isn't it?

No it isn't very important.

The basic definition is when two populations "cannot or will not interbreed AND PRODUCE FERTILE OFFSPRING" then they are considered to be different species. The fact that there are so many exceptions (mostly plants, but a few animals) to that rough definition means that biologists don't tend to use it much anymore, except in a casual NON-PRECISE way.

All populations evolve, when populations split they evolve differently. Little by little, generation after generation they become different from each other. Each generation breeds its successor in a continuous line, there is no sudden break, but eventually you recognize that the two populations are different from each other. Two populations need to be quite separated and have a very obvious species break to be fully classified as separate species.

Perhaps this video can help explain it better than I...

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: chr0naut

I had to google epigenetic lol. I am not sure if I understand completely but are you saying that perhaps this species has a genetic disposition that will only trigger given certain circumstances? Like a gun that starts a new race but is only set in motion if certain circumstances come to pass?

That is interesting in and of itself if that is what you meant.

Sounds like you understand things quite well.

One of the things that modern genetics has thrown up is that there are genes that can sit dormant and get switched on or off.

At first they thought that they were looking at developmental changes due to environment, kind of nurture issues, but when they realized that the second generation had inherited those traits without the same environmental pressures, it had to be coded in the genes.

Since those early days we have identified several of these sequences and the issue is not simply having the genes, it is one of expression of the gene.

originally posted by: wisvol
Fish clearly didn't evolve into monkeys, why start with "negative"? Ever heard of the power of suggestion?

I was saying "Negative" to this statement:

"Now evolution as fish becoming monkeys over unobserved periods of time, although widely taught, isn't scientific because it is neither observed nor reproduced."

Actually numerous transitions between fish and monkey have been observed via the fossil record. Obviously, we will never know 100% of every detail of every transition to ever happen because of the rareness of fossilization. My point was that you made a broad generalization about something that sounds unrealistic in order to give credence to the idea that evolution is unscientific when that is the furthest thing from the truth.

Ah, your "that's not true". Well # you, get understanding of what science and scientific method mean.
If you can't observe and duplicate it, it's not science. You can believe what ever, but science isn't with you on anything not observed and duplicated.

No reason to curse at me. It sounds like you are the one that doesn't get the scientific method. An observation in science does not have to be watching something in real time. This is a common misconception. You can make observations off of fossils and studying common features. You can observe the past via technology, and there is SO MUCH evidence in favor of evolution from a common ancestor at this point, that denial holds no basis in reality. But yeah, F me, I know nothing.

"Would not" in all caps? # you again, and last response to you: if someone considers DNA to be the basis of life, as their public schools tell them, then just play evolution in the lab! Easy, that's how they made the mutant corn your cheerios are made of, and it is indeed the exact definition of intelligent design, man made, and some people do cut and paste wings on pigs just to see if it works. It does.

Negative. Intelligent design is a belief system that entails that life was CREATED by an intelligent being. Humans rearranging DNA into new species is not intelligent design, it is intelligent modification to what already exists. You can't just play evolution in a high school biology lab. Stuff like that takes years, usually decades. But maybe you have not heard of Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment or the ecoli speciation experiment that has been ongoing for nearly 50 years. I wouldn't be surprised.

And the fossil thing is just #ing great. I found snails in my yard, they're proof of # I don't observe or duplicate, science!

You insult my intelligent and tell me to go F myself multiple times, yet the best comparison you can come up with to explain the fossil record is "I find snails in my backyard". Sorry, but you are nothing more than the typical evolution denier. Basically you have no idea about the science itself and just post numerous assumptions and other nonsense hoping you will fool somebody into thinking you made a point.

Never seen one species of anything become two different species,

Nobody cares what you have personally seen or not seen. The real work is done in a lab and speciation has been observed more than once in a lab. Hopefully you won't try to play semantics and change the meaning of species.

admitting to not knowing how stuff works is much better than bull#ting.

Perhaps you can take your own advice.

But IF all there was after an explosion made the world was primordial soup, then soup became fish, that became monkeys, that became people. That's just logic. Not the best proposition I've seen, but the implication is flawless.

Sorry but primordial soup has nothing to do with the evolution of fish, or evolution in general. Care to try again?

a reply to: rnaa

Thanks for the video, I will watch it as soon as I finish this reply. In effect though, are you not agreeing with the article? It seems to be saying that this species is in fact splitting into two separate species at this very moment, although the split hasn't fully happened yet.

a reply to: chr0naut

Fascinating stuff indeed. The thing that gets me though is that it seems to be a pretty clear indicator that life does indeed evolve and by extension, has always evolved, yet we still seem to get this negative reaction to it from certain quarters. It isn't like the theory kills these people's god lol.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: chr0naut

Fascinating stuff indeed. The thing that gets me though is that it seems to be a pretty clear indicator that life does indeed evolve and by extension, has always evolved, yet we still seem to get this negative reaction to it from certain quarters. It isn't like the theory kills these people's god lol.

I would argue that the speed and complexity of genetic change that we have on record, argues for something other than random chance and vast swathes of time.

The fact that we can see what appears to be the results of evolutionary change, taken alongside the scientific inexplicability of it all in the time frame, would actually be supportive of a God directed macro-biome.

a reply to: chr0naut

The fact that we can see what appears to be the results of evolutionary change, taken alongside the scientific inexplicability of it all in the time frame, would actually be supportive of a God directed macro-biome.

I am not sure that I see the need for a god, but I would be interested to know how you get to that conclusion. Are you saying that there hasn't been enough time, or that too much time has passed? If you are saying not enough time, and this OP is about change on a literally measurable scale, does that in some way impact on your idea?

Fascinating stuff.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Thanks for the video, I will watch it as soon as I finish this reply. In effect though, are you not agreeing with the article? It seems to be saying that this species is in fact splitting into two separate species at this very moment, although the split hasn't fully happened yet.

I don't understand what there is to agree or disagree with? The article is not offering an opinion or even speculation; it is reporting an observation and describing the state of play in an interesting area of biology.

The article describes an observation of a POSSIBLE SYMPATRY speciation event (the video I linked mentions symtapry, IIRC) in the two populations of stickleback fish. Sympatry has been hypothesised but according to the article it was deemed "extremely unlikely". So far it has not been observed but evidence for it seems to be mounting.

The article also says that "We cannot know for sure that the Lake Constance sticklebacks will continue evolving until they become two non-interbreeding species". If and when that occurs, or is demonstrated in some other organism, then sympatric speciation is still a hypothetical evolutionary pathway.

What is there to possibly agree or disagree with ?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: chr0naut

The fact that we can see what appears to be the results of evolutionary change, taken alongside the scientific inexplicability of it all in the time frame, would actually be supportive of a God directed macro-biome.

I am not sure that I see the need for a god, but I would be interested to know how you get to that conclusion. Are you saying that there hasn't been enough time, or that too much time has passed? If you are saying not enough time, and this OP is about change on a literally measurable scale, does that in some way impact on your idea?

Fascinating stuff.

The possibility of a Creator God is not made mandatory by the observations, it merely adds weight to that argument.

I think belief in a Creator God is always likely to require a leap of faith (as is the proposition that there is no God).

There simply hasn't been enough time for the defined mechanisms of evolution to work in the way they are supposed to. This happens in most cases where someone sees genetic change in the process of occurring. Of course those that opine a scientific atheism say it is an example of evolution, but that is the filter that they view the world through.

Personally, I see a world that changes in such a complex and rapid way that the 'rules' evolution applies cannot be the only mechanisms at play.

I do not disbelieve in evolution. I do believe in a Creator God, but unlike the Creationists, I don't think He ever stopped creating. His nature revealed in scripture is creative and as He is still there, He still creates. Evolution, then, becomes another method of action.

Nor do I see any discrepancy between observations explained by science and my religious belief. Things are not simple and clear cut, the universe God put here reflects His supreme intellect, not one better suited to teaching at school.

a reply to: rnaa

Yes, having reread what I posted to you I am not quite sure what it was I was asking of you really. I am sure at the time that it made sense to me, but I can't for the life of me remember why I wrote it in that way. Apologies for causing you to write the long response which was, in any case, very informative.

Thanks.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hello again, thanks for responding in such detail to my rather uninformed queries, some of the things you said have raised even more questions for me.

You state that a belief in god is a leap of faith and I completely understand that, nor is it something that I hold in disregard, every person must choose that which feels right for them.

However, you then also state that a lack of faith also requires such a leap, and I am curious how you come to that assumption given that I personally feel that no such leap is required. I don't believe in god but that doesn't require me to make a leap of faith as I simply don't see any evidence of such a being. I get the idea that the universe is so mind-bogglingly complex as to play into that belief but that isn't evidence of god, in my opinion.

The next point is what I read as a contradiction, but that could simply be me, misunderstanding as I often do.

It is stated that there hasn't been enough time for the required changes by the mechanisms that evolution proposes and yet your next point states that the rapidity and complexity of the changes exclude evolution as the only driving force.

I appreciate your taking the time to address my previous questions and hope that you find interest in answering those I have asked now.

Thank you for your time.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: chr0naut

Hello again, thanks for responding in such detail to my rather uninformed queries, some of the things you said have raised even more questions for me.

You state that a belief in god is a leap of faith and I completely understand that, nor is it something that I hold in disregard, every person must choose that which feels right for them.

However, you then also state that a lack of faith also requires such a leap, and I am curious how you come to that assumption given that I personally feel that no such leap is required. I don't believe in god but that doesn't require me to make a leap of faith as I simply don't see any evidence of such a being. I get the idea that the universe is so mind-bogglingly complex as to play into that belief but that isn't evidence of god, in my opinion.

The next point is what I read as a contradiction, but that could simply be me, misunderstanding as I often do.

It is stated that there hasn't been enough time for the required changes by the mechanisms that evolution proposes and yet your next point states that the rapidity and complexity of the changes exclude evolution as the only driving force.

I appreciate your taking the time to address my previous questions and hope that you find interest in answering those I have asked now.

Thank you for your time.

I apologize for the delay in response.

The "leap of faith" bit refers to our incomplete knowledge. The statements that "God does not exist" or that "there is no God" are fairly absolute and assumes that we know this to be a fact (in every possible situation where God may possibly be hidden from our view).

So, in the light of the limitation of our knowledge the most honest response is to admit to opinion. Any "assurance" we have (on either side of the argument) is therefore a leap of faith.

In regard to time scales, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis describes gradualism in overall change, and this over extended periods of time. Definitely not in terms of a few generations as per the OP article.

In truth, we continually see exceptions where little happens for extended periods, then rapid change occurs in jumps or steps. It is for this reason that Punctuated Equilibrium becomes such a hot topic.

We know that natural processes are chaotic and turbulent and so theories of development (such as the MES) that assume a gradualism or stable environmental conditions cannot hope to adequately describe reality.

This is not to say that the MES is not descriptive of nature, just that it is not the ONLY process happening.