Study Of Flower Color Shows Evolution In Action - More proof for Evolution!

ScienceDaily (June 30, 2009) — Scientists at UC Santa Barbara have zeroed in on the genes responsible for changing flower color, an area of research that began with Gregor Mendel's studies of the garden pea in the 1850's.

In an article published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, two researchers document their studies of the evolution of columbine flowers in North America. They studied red columbines pollinated by hummingbirds, and white or yellow columbines pollinated by hawkmoths. They believe that a color shift from red to white or yellow has happened five times in North America.

"What is important in this research is that hawkmoths mostly visit –– and pollinate –– white or pale flowers," said senior author Scott A. Hodges, professor of ecology, evolution and marine biology at UCSB. "We have shown experimentally that hawkmoths prefer these paler colors."

When a plant population shifts from being predominantly hummingbird-pollinated where flowers are red, to hawkmoth-pollinated, natural selection works to change the flower color to white or yellow, he explained.

Study Of Flower Color Shows Evolution In Action

This doesn't sound very exciting but it is. It actually shows Natural Selection occuring in our lifetime.

A little like the Darwin's Moth story:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Darwin's 'evolution moth' changes back from black to white thanks to soot free skies.

Here we go with the arguments, 'that doens't prove a thing'. But it does. Natural selection is alive and kicking, this is the key to evolution.





[edit on 1-7-2009 by kiwifoot]

Give me a break!
This does NOT prove evolution. It only proves adaptation.
Show me a cow evolving into a horse and then you might have something.

It is already established that species can have minor changes. The problem with evolution is that there is NO proof of one species evolving into another species. This must have happened since the whole point of evolution is that we humans came from monkeys which initially came from sludge in a pool of water right?

reply to post by WhatTheory


uh...transitional fossils. and adaptation is part of evolution. get enough adaptations to one thing, it will be something else.


the cow to horse argument is completely ridiculous. and no scientist (except for ID and creation "scientists" claim humans came from monkeys.)



[edit on 1-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

uh...transitional fossils. and adaptation is part of evolution. get enough adaptations to one thing, it will be something else.

Ok, then show me the adaptations of one species changing into another.

the cow to horse argument is completely ridiculous.

That was said in jest to make a point.
Again, show me the evidence of one species evolving into another one.
BTW, show me the transistions and adaptations of the horse and cow. Show me the fossiles of the species from which they evolved.

reply to post by WhatTheory


It all depends on how you view evolution.

I think that a species, changing its characteristics, so as to be more successful is evolution. It has evolved through natural selection to a different colour.

Now you want it to sprout legs, start walking and take up basketball, but it doesn't have to be this way.

Natural selction is the method by which species evolve, it doesn't have to be a huge change. The study identified the genes respnsible for this change.

I find it very odd that creationist (I have no idea if you are one friend) will beleive in a God, creating the universe in six days, but when somethng as simple as natural selection comes along, they cannot open their minds for a second.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by kiwifoot]

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Now you want it to sprout legs, start walking and take up basketball, but it doesn't have to be this way.

Umm.....yes it does! That is evolution. Do you think all the current plants and animals just appeared? If not, then at some time they must have evolved from a lower life form to their current form.

You cannot show this evolution because there are no transitional fossils of one species changing into another species because evolution is a hoax or at the least a lame theory.

[edit on 7/1/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by WhatTheory


you are pretty demanding considering hod difficult it is to make a fossil


some horse transition.
www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
www.flmnh.ufl.edu...

there the ancestor to the current type of cow
en.wikipedia.org...

sorry i couldnt find much on cow evolution. its not that interesting.


added more horse info

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by WhatTheory


It's amazing that somebody can be so disagreeable while contributing nothing to any thread ever, and still be a member.

***

reply to post by kiwifoot


Thanks for the post. I enjoyed it, at least

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
some horse transition.
www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

Come on now, you cannot be serious.

Look, that shows a sketch of some horses hind foot. That is like a flower changing color. The author of that still called it a horses foot and NOT some other species foot. It still only shows an adaptation within a specific species and NOT a transition from one species to another. Nice try though.

Keep googling and you might find something better but I doubt it.

[edit on 7/1/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by WhatTheory




do your own research and stop being so dense.
its still a "horse" because its in the same family of "horses"


google the species mentioned youll get more information about them.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by Kaytagg


And what did you contribute to the content of this thread?

At least my comments have to do with topic at hand. I did not realize that you must agree with every post in order to reply. You are sad.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
do your own research and stop being so dense.
its still a "horse" because its in the same family of "horses"

You keep contradicting yourself. You yourself just said that it's from the same family of horses.
The same family of horses is not evolving from one species into another species. Good grief!

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
do your own research and stop being so dense.
its still a "horse" because its in the same family of "horses"

You keep contradicting yourself. You yourself just said that it's from the same family of horses.

The same family of horses is not evolving from one species into another species. Good grief!

so youre asking for something that cant possibly exist

you want something that was a type of horse, then you want the thing that came before it that wasnt a horse at all.
do you realize how asinine that is? shouldve just stuck to your
"horse from a cow" thing. its the same argument. you asked for transitional fossils, and i gave them to you.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
so youre asking for something that cant possibly exist

Exactly, because evolution is a fraud.
Now you get it.

you want something that was a type of horse, then you want the thing that came before it that wasnt a horse at all.
do you realize how asinine that is?

Now you are going in circles in a lame attempt to secure your argument.
Just show me the creature from which the horse evolved. Make that any major land animal for that matter. It's so simple yet you cannot provide this evidence.

you asked for transitional fossils, and i gave them to you.

That is not a transitional fossil.
But if it helps you sleep better at night then you keep believing that nonsense.

reply to post by WhatTheory


how are they not transitional fossils?

it was one thing, then another, then another, then another.


keep denying reality if that makes you sleep better at night.


www.talkorigins.org...

there read it. it has the transition from one species to another described in there. most specifically the part labeled
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
that is where the change is outlined.

enjoy. im going to bed. this is senseless to argue

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Give me a break ..
This evo thing is ludacris, ofcource plants are changing, we are changing every thing change ..

Gwaaa !! But when a flower becomes Bird, I will start thinking of the Ape-Man Religion....

Horse gives birth to a horse, nothing more.... Not a Lion or Turtle...

Edit: Oh I forgot, nice find , S&F ...

Edit again: I cant help my self: In sweeden 2 months a go a 'scientist' had found proof that Monkey an humans are related, and he based ALL that on the fact that the monkey had gather stones to throw at the public..

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ChemBreather]

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ChemBreather]

proof of evolution?
adaptation perhaps but are you insinuating that evolution of plants is the same as that for humans?

Now to answer that pesky question of how did life start on Earth. Adaptation definitely doesn't answer that.

A population of flowers changing color to accommodate one species over another is actually remarkable. I don't know why so many of you don't get that.

reply to post by WhatTheory


You are ignorant. Adaptation like this is evolution. We have many transitional fossils which show a progression of one type of animal into another, yet similar type. Archaeopteryx shows us that raptors evolved into birds. The "rolling eyes" and "laughing" smilies are extremely inappropriate for intelligent conversation, and gives the impression that you are a huge ass.


reply to post by ChemBreather


The way the plants are changing is evolution. As for the ape-man religion, Man is grouped in the Taxonomic family of Great Apes.


reply to post by warrenb


Adaptation is evolution.


reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


That's not the subject of this thread. Find somewhere else to start an out-of-the-blue argument.


Thread is flagged! Science Daily is a really great site. Whenever you hear about a new medicine or a lab experiment on the news, 99% of the time it was on Science Daily months or even more than a year before.

1) Organisms DO NOT change from one species to another. They do not shapeshift and - BAM! Rabbits have become humans! Like magic!

...

You have got EVOLUTION WRONG, if you think that we came from plants, or that we came from dogs.

WRONG.

The theory of evolution states that living things transition from one form to another WITHIN their own genus and family, but this transition occurs due to environmental pressures to force the changes.

In other words, NOT EVERYTHING on EARTH came from the SAME type of organism! Multiple bacteria and primitive organisms must have existed EONS ago, not just ONE.

Don't know much about horss and cows, but humans and orang utans have IMMENSE scientific/behavioral similarities there must be a midpoint transition somewhere that indicated we EVOLVED from them, through ADAPTATION and NATURAL SELECTION, after being induced by environmental pressures, which refer to things like food shortages.

Let's use the example of the giraffe, the most common piece of evidence, which many scientists believe came from zebras, or another type of EXTINCT striped equestrian animal (I forgot its name, but it looks like a red zebra with a lot of redundant fur).

Four processes:

1 - Environmental pressure - Plants get taller, resulting in animals unable to reach their food, because most of the shrubs are being picked off by the shorter animals.

2 - Adaptation - These animals have to stretch out farther to eat at the taller trees which the smaller animals cannot touch.

3 - Generic Mutation - Little baby equestrian animals come out with deformed necks and slightly elongated upper bodies.

4 - Natural Selection - The babies which do not have such mutations DIE because they cannot reach the tall trees, so the ones which DID mutate survive and pass on their genetics through more offspring, and over THOUSANDS of YEARS this becomes the GIRAFFE WE SEE NOW.

Understand?

it's not saying a giraffe BECAME a human. Or a dog became a human.

2) Monkeys --> Humans. IS WRONG.

Nope. Monkeys --> Transitional creatures --> Homo erectus --> Homo sapien

Same thing with the giraffe-zebra-equestrian EVIDENCE, but it's with humans this time.

I've used this example before, in previous threads.

Orang utan found no need to hang around from trees using their feet. Why? The pressure that their favorite fruit is now being grown on LOWER branches of trees, or they can be easily accessed without going through all that Tarzan crud.

So, they learn to walk (lope, really, if you've seen orang-utans). And generic mutation occurs, and natural selection, and over time the feet flatten out and stop being curved.

Homo erectus/Transitional primate has been derived.

Homo erectus / Transitional primate found that STRAIGHTENING up, and being able to swing arms wildly helps to WARD OFF PREDATORS and ENEMIES. Same thing happens.
No more hunched-over, though now you can still see evidences of that occurring in old people or people who have "regressed" mentally. Being curled keeps us SAFE, which is the FLIGHT part of the Fight-flight response.

The climate got hotter - as we all know, it IS STILL getting hotter. The end of the Ice Age, so homo erectus didn't need that thick coat of fur anymore. Same thing happens. Fur disappears, becoming hair. Though some men I've seen - you could mistake their hair for full-grown fur.

This is how it works, folks. Above all, IT MAKES SENSE.

3) Creationists believe in so much more far-fetched things.

God created the Universe in SEVEN DAYS? Do you know how big the Universe is? Heck, does GOD, should he exist, know how big his own universe is BY NOW? (The universe has always been expanding, by the way)

God created Sin? Who even knew what the word "sin" was, before homo sapiens came along? Homo erectus had sex and got into fights for the sakes of survival and to increase reproduction chance.

God created Man and all the other animals? Without Man, there wouldn't even BE the notion of God.

Without Man, if we weren't LUCKY enough to have had all the circumstances go right for us, all the animals would still be living free, unhunted, undomesticated, wild and uninhibited. Man comes along and buildings come along. The idea of ONE SINGULAR POWER RULING OVER ALL comes along. Cooking food with forest fires comes along. Fashion comes along. Everything comes as a result of MAN, not as a result of GOD.

Man evolved.

Creationists don't believe in some thing that actually MAKES SENSE logically through evaluative process.

What does that say?

4) This flower showing changes in color provides evidence for primitive evolution. It does not FULLY prove it, but it provides some evidence.

It in fact proves solely the processes of GENERIC MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION, but NOT ADAPTATION. In order for the process to be evolution, adaptation is needed.

There are some environmental pressures - hummingbirds choosing only a certain kind of flower, perhaps due to pollution, etc.

Natural Selection 1 - All the flowers that did NOT get pollinated will die off.

Generic Mutation - All the flowers that did get pollinated will carry with them the genes coding for that same color, leading to a mutation across the entire species, at least within that region, whereby all the flowers have that color due to mass pollination, over the course of time.

Natural Selection 2 - All the flowers that did not receive the mutation will die.

Though, clearly, NS 2 doesn't fully occur because this is a REGIONAL observation, and also because the environmental pressures are shifting constantly, causing flowers to die off and new mutations to appear, back and forth.

Everyone's good?

[edit on 2-7-2009 by KarlG]