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.

 

butterfly evolves over 6 year time period

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a species of tropical butterfly, the blue moon butterfly, has evolved a gene over the period of six years and is the first time that evolution in an animal has actually been witnessed (as evolution occurs over drastically longer periods of time).

6 years ago, only 1% of the species were male due to a parasitic bacteria which was wiping them out. somehow they managed over the period of six years to evolve a gene to fight it and the male count is now 40%.

full story

its nice to see the animal kingdom fighting back against possible extinction.




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I really do not understand why people still deny evolution. It IS real, and does NOT in any way cause harm to religion. God said he created all things, point me out where it's said he created all things in the form we observe them today?

People can take things too literally.



OnTopic;

Obviously an excellent example of the tenacity of life.


apc

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
This is another example of the widespread misconception of just what evolution is.

Evolution is the process of one species becoming a different, new species.

If this butterfly became a dragonfly or something, that would be evolution. For example Homo Erectus progressing into Homo Sapien is evolution. Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid are examples of adaptation, not evolution.

This response to a parasite is simple adaptation. While being a step in the process, it is not evolution.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
...


Misconception? No.


The misconception is yours my friend.




In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Evolution is much more than just reproduction.

It just needs to be accepted that the answer is within harmony between the scientific idea of "evolution", and the spiritual side of "creation". The biochemical aspect of evolution is just one portion of evolution itself, which is infact a much grander process, working on many levels.. and not just on the cellular one.

Also, butterflys are really kool



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
I really do not understand why people still deny evolution. It IS real

Yes


and does NOT in any way cause harm to religion.

No.

All truth is the enemy of religion.

(Apologies, inadvertent double post. God doesn't like me today.)
mod edit, deleted double post
[edit on 13-7-2007 by Astyanax]

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Astyanax]

[edit on 14-7-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Both definitions of evolution are correct, but they can be broken down into smaller parts.

Macro and Micro from Wiki

Creationists and intelligent design people agree that adaptations, even on a genetic level, do occur. It can be seen, just as in this example of the butterfly.

They do not, however, believe that a clump of amoebas can evolve into a mammal, for instance, no matter how many millions of years it takes.


apc

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
The misconception is yours my friend.


Wikipedia is a garbage scow. It is advisable to never cite it as a formal source if you wish to be taken seriously.

Despite the fact that many people including many scientists believe that evolution is something as simple as a group of people gradually growing taller or shorter, this is still wrong in the Darwinian sense. The differentiating of macro and micro evolution is more an act of Creationist appeasement than actual science. In this case, macro evolution is true evolution. Micro evolution is simply adaptation.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Wikipedia is a garbage scow. It is advisable to never cite it as a formal source if you wish to be taken seriously.


wikipedia was found to have no more mistakes than the encyclopedia britannica so you can't use that flawed argument to support your case.

from the huge site on evolution at berkley university i found this page for you - evolution 101 ( but what would they know about it
). if you would like to learn more about what evolution is then the index is here

i'm interested to know why you seem to think that no species whatsoever can evolve though. you only have to look at the life cycle of the butterfly from start to finish to see what am amazing creature it is so it's not suprising that it can change its own dna.



[edit on 14-7-2007 by justyc]


apc

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Sigh... Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

But anyway...

I never said no species can evolve. We are evolving all the time. But until speciation, we have not completed the full process of evolution.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
With all due respect, apc, as you said, evolution is a process. It is never complete; it is always ongoing. The butterflies making new genes is part of the never-ending process. It is truly evolution in action, before our very eyes. It's the sort of evidence ID apologists are always saying they need.

Well, here it is. Evolution! It's not just for science geeks anymore!



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
There seems to be some confusion here..

A couple of posters have said "the butterfly made new genes"..

The butterfly did no such thing and this is probably why some people find evolution a hard pill to swallow. They cannot imagine an organism changing itself consciously.

This gene was more than likely already in a tiny fraction of the population anyway as a mutation. When it appeared is anyones guess (it could have been around for 100 years or even a 1000 years for all you know), but chances are that for some reason or another, this particular gene made the butterflies that carried it less "sexy", so they were less numerous due to lack of sex. Who knows, maybe it makes them smell funny or something to the ladies...

Now, some will say "Well, they tested the butterflies 6 years ago and the gene wasn't there". Did they test ALL the butterflies? I doubt it, so you don't know if a tiny population of "mutants" existed.

Now, the disease that wiped out 99% of the make population left the other 1% with the mutation free to get jiggy with all the single lady butterflies, who, despite not finding the remaining men that sexy, thought "when needs must" and got down to business.

This resulted in the resurgence of the males and a resistance to the disease amongst the greater population, as only the males with the "immunity" gene were around to get their end away...

I am willing to bet that there are still butterflies of this type out there without the gene, but they are more than likely going to fall victim to the disease.

This is exactly how evolution works. There is no conscious decision by the animal to evolve, it is partly luck (for the mutation to appear) and partly environmental (to bring out the mutation in the population).

A mutation could as easily disappear because it does not benefit the organism. But if a situation arises where that mutation gives it an edge, it is more likely to breed and pass on the gene.

[edit on 14/7/07 by stumason]


apc

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
With all due respect, apc, as you said, evolution is a process. It is never complete; it is always ongoing.


Indeed it is ongoing. But like my previous example, it's like Homo Erectus evolving into Homo Sapien. The birth of a new species is evolution. Homo Sapien diverging into multiple variants adapted to their respective environments is not.

I suppose it is subjective. In my mind (which is of course 100% correct 100% of the time) and the minds of others who share the same perspective (how brilliant they are) a good metaphor would be an automobile.

An engine (natural selection) does not make a car. The wheels (mutation) do not make a car. The seats (adaptation) do not make a car. But without any off these, you don't really have a car (evolution).

[edit on 14-7-2007 by apc]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I don't think this is the first time that evolution has been witnessed. I'm sure I read years ago that finches on the Glalapagos islands had definitely evolved to suit their new environment. Perhaps that was over a longer period. I'm not sure.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I think Aliens did it.....they abducted the butterflies an implanted the new gene. That's my theory and I am sticking to it.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Wikipedia ain't that bad


Originally posted by apc
Sigh... Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

Went to the URL. Read the article.

I think the author is making a mountain out of a molehill. His authorities and sources are mostly people with opinions. The quote from the Wikipedia founder on which the article's title is based is really no big deal.

This poor fellow has obviously got a bit of an attitutde problem anyway -- check out the links to his other work: he seems to make a career bitching about things. A highly kickable sort, in my opinion. And even he has to admit that the 'factual articles' (ie the 'real encyclopaedia' stuff) in Wikipedia are up to the mark.

I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is the ne plus ultra. But what, in this imperfect world, is?



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
how can ID proponents say adaption happens? would god not make all creatures perfect in the first place


[edit on 15-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
how can ID proponents say adaption happens? would god not make all creatures perfect in the first place

Nah, too boring. If you were creating animals wouldn't you create them with a few imperfections, just for a laugh?

I would.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
how can ID proponents say adaption happens? would god not make all creatures perfect in the first place


[edit on 15-7-2007 by yeti101]



In a word. No.


Look at us? We sure as HELL aren't perfect, and what good is the promise of a perfect afterlife if life in the first place is perfect?



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
how can ID proponents say adaption happens? would god not make all creatures perfect in the first place


Well according to the Bible, when creating the 'universe' he said it was good, later on another day he said it was very good. Now in ancient Hebrew I am not sure if there is a difference but I assume there is.


Plus, when he was sad that he created mankind....

6:5 But the Lord saw18 that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination19 of the thoughts20 of their minds21 was only evil22 all the time.23 6:6 The Lord regretted24 that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended.25 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals,26 including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”


When sin entered the world, perfection was changed.

Also not sure about this one but was Satan created perfect? I mean he switched sides at some point but what about before that event?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join