It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proof ? Observable macro evolution happening now.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:12 PM
I just read an article what provides empirical evidence on evolution.
A fish species called Midas cichlid fishes (Amphilophus cf. citrinellus) Link to fish species.

Short video of the fish.

Has been studied and a change of the species has happened. Not only is this amazing to finally have some real evidence. It's amazing that it has happened so fast we can actually see it and identify what,how and when.

This study provides empirical evidence of eco-morphological differentiation occurring very quickly after the colonization of a new and vacant habitat. Exceptionally low levels of neutral genetic diversity and inference from coalescence indicates that the Midas cichlid population in Apoyeque is much younger (ca. 100 years or generations old) than the crater itself (ca. 1 800 years old). This suggests either that the crater remained empty for many hundreds of years after its formation or that remnant volcanic activity prevented the establishment of a stable fish population during the early life of the crater lake. Based on our findings of eco-morphological variation in the Apoyeque Midas cichlids, and known patterns of adaptation in Midas cichlids in general, we suggest that this population may be in a very early stage of speciation (incipient species), promoted by disruptive selection and ecological diversification.

All within a century ladies and gentlemen.

I will suggest to read the article for yourself and please share your thoughts on it.
Rapid sympatric ecological differentiation of crater lake cichlid fishes within historic times

Is this it ? Are creationist going to find a weak spot what they can use to deny it's evolution taking place ?

I'm excited and I hope there are some members that are more comfortable with this science then I am.

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

Edit. BB code failed me...

What a day. Enjoy !

~ SK

[edit on 5/17/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:19 PM
Thanks for this! Evolution is always taking place, either it's animals, the planet, or Us. We're always evolving in one way or another.

I pity the ones who claim humans are the final stage in evolution.


posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:29 PM
Like a study in England that showed birds who had been fed by humans throughout the winter (thus staying instead of moving south for the winter) went through human-effected evolution in less than 30-60 years where their body shape changed to a degree

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Wow, that's amazing. There was JUST a new thread started, titled: Surgeons cut open girl, five, to fix failing kidneys only to find two new ones growing in their place.

Perhaps there is something to this 2012 theory involving sudden and rapid genetic changes to all the life on Earth...perhaps this is just the beginning of it...

[edit on 17/5/10 by CHA0S]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by star in a jar

That's cool. But I'd bet those birds still mate with other members of their species that do fly south.

This big lips won't even do that anymore.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

That's just stupid. I can understand someone does not believe evolution happens, but someone who does that thinks evolution stops... just like that.

You're welcome.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Is this it ? Are creationist going to find a weak spot what they can use to deny it's evolution taking place ?

No need to find a weak spot. The case cited is just another example of what creationists believe, while the OP simply describes what evolutionists mistakenly think creationists believe: that variation is a problem for creation.

The simplest way to illustrate the point is to state the creationist viewpoint.

Every creature was created according to its kind. Each kind was made such that its genetic code carried all that was needed for the startling variety seen in subsequent generations. When given populations subsequently became isolated they were able to adapt to their given habitats via natural selection, e.g. those with better camouflage or other advantageous characteristics survived in greater numbers, etc.

Genetic mutations only cause degradation of the pre-existant code, leading to weakness and/or disease, and thus the great likelihood that creatures with mutations will not survive. (This is what is observed in the real world, as opposed to books.)

New genetic code providing new features that would be advantageous simply does not appear. It would require design input from a mind that understands the requirements of living in given environment(s). Hence the observation in the real world that the myriads of living creatures in existence are overwhelmingly well-adapted to their environment (e.g. they have differing breathing mechanisms or adaptations of the senses, etc.)

Natural selection is just stating the obvious; where Darwin made his big mistake was in failing to recognise that all the information needed for variety within species was present in the first generation. He also failed to appreciate that one type of creature cannot become another type of creature. All offspring of a given type of creature are simply copies of that species. Frogs give birth to frogs to all generations. Frogs do not become princes, no matter what evolutionists say.

So the fish gave birth to fish, which gave birth to fish, which gave birth to fish. No surprises that a particular variant within a species might prove better adapted to a given situation (as in the example quoted in the OP). I note with interest that the fish in question is not showing signs of morphing into a crocodile, for instance.

(Some may laugh, but the point is simple: this is not one creature turning into another, as required by the theory of evolution — that never has and never can happen, as the genetic code that prescribes the design of a creature only allows for repetition of the design, or a deterioration of the same should mutation occur.)

In conclusion: every kind is inviolate. From an original cat kind we have the huge variety of cats visible today (—though it is conceivable more than one original kind was made within the category we would call 'cats'.) All finches have come from birds, nothing else, and all their generations to come will be birds, contra Darwin.

And just as a fish is a fish is a fish, a cichlid is a cichlid is a cichlid.

The potential for variety built into the genetic system is wonderful evidence of the ingenuity of the designer. They were made to last despite changing environments.

Anyone who doubts the incredible variety that can be packed into a single species should consider what has come from the humble wolf — everything from the greyhound to the poodle. And perhaps also ask themselves why it is that lions can successfully mate with tigers, or widely hugely differing members of the horse family can breed successfully.

No, this fish is not evidence of evolution. It fits the creation model perfectly.

[edit on 17/5/10 by pause4thought]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by pause4thought

Well... it looks like you practiced your explanation. I added that specific little part for some sensation.

Cause evolution does not have anything to do with creation ( unless it happened in 6 days or 6000 years of course. Then there is.)and your explanation just showed me that you don't understand the theory of evolution at all.

How do you come up with it. A fish into a crocodile.

You do not seriously use that as good example I hope.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

That's very interesting. I don't want to turn this into the typical, dirty, religious debate, but I gotta chime in since you said something about creationists. Why is it that evolutionists always gotta think that we Christians deny the very things we see before our eyes? I'm a Christian, and I completely believe that species evolve to adapt to their environments. Anyone who would say otherwise hasn't been outside, nor do they recognize how their ancient ancestors survived, and the purpose of many of our actions and feelings.

There is well-known scientific evidence that shows that we as species adapt to our environment, or evolve to survive. However, then I must ask you, how does this conflict with religion? I don't see anywhere in the bible where it states that species don't do this. Surely if you are going to stereotype us "religious" types, then you are doing exactly that. Your stereotyping the people, not the religious text.

Anyways, cool article!

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Hi. It's not really a practiced explanation as I don't think I've posted in such threads for about 2 years. But I appreciate the compliment.

I was simply outlining the perspective of those who believe all creatures were created according to their kind and only reproduce according to their kind. When misconceptions are removed, examples such as this fish, far from contradicting it, illustrate it.

Apologies for being a little facetious with the fish to crocodile quip. Yet in one sense it's not that far from what many textbooks would have people believe in terms of fins becoming legs. And if I'd wanted to be really naughty I might have asked why the cichlid hasn't developed primitive rotor blades that might enable it to take to the skies.

At the end of the day claims of ultimate 'proof' never get anywhere. Nice sensationalist title, though.

Can you at least now appreciate that adaptation through natural selection is totally in line with the creationist perspective, even if the perspective is itself alien to your beliefs?

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:34 PM
You're expecting major changes in speciation over the course of a century in order to validate the theory of evolution as opposed to some benevolent creator being? Even over the course of thousands of years, it is unlikely that we'll see creatures adapting to new environments (sea to land, land to air, etc etc) or changing their biological functions, although that has most certainly occured many, many times in the past. Perhaps the best example of this, and probably the most observable, is with micro-organisms. From one comes many, and generations of organisms come to pass in a relatively short time frame. Eventually, one will come about which will survive better by devouring others, making it a predator, and thus a different species via biological function.

Sea life gave rise to amphibious creatures to escape predation of the sea and to better take advantage of safer sources of food. Predators soon followed in a similar suit. Amphibians turned to reptiles to be better able to escape further inland, reptiles turned to mammals for better regulation of body heat to survive the cold.

I know this may seem a tired argument to some, but look at the platypus - venomous egg-laying mammal. That's pretty damn convincing evidence to me regarding the gradual transformation from reptile to mammal.

Or does the platypus somehow fit your creationist theory as well?

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by For(Home)Country

Stereo typing

I mentioned also because I'm no expert. An expert can tell me if this case is watertight.
And just to stir the in pot a little. Sue me

You do the same tho... Who told you you have to be a Cristian to be a creationist ?

Explanations like the one before are just... just. Well... He doesn't get it.
The typical religious debate is the reason why I did not post this in origins and creations.

Cause people give explanations like well... you know.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

I'm sorry, I'm honestly not trying to be rude or snide or anything, but I don't really get what you are saying with this post?

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:51 PM
theres lots of good excamples of fish that are half way to becomeing totaly land animals at that point they are no linger fish.
walking cat fish of texas can go miles inbetween pounds druing a drought of if one is over croweded they use there air sack as a lung not needing water '
give it a 100k more years legs working on that (walking cat fish) lungs working on that( air bladder now can get o2 from the air)
mud pupys (africa same as the cat fish but even more adavance closer yet to dry land living as they leaved the pound every day just to hang out on the mud flats .(is it a fish or a land animal you decide .
the other fish in aferica borrows into the mud and the pound drys Hard as a brike even two years later when rain finly comes .
shall i go on? theres many many things taht show inbetweens flying squarls is it a animal taht can fly or

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by 25cents

Hi. Interesting that microbes remain microbes, isn't it?

As to the platypus, it's the creationist example par excellence:

...Of particular interest has been the creature’s origin. Encyclopaedia Britannica says that ‘little is known of their ancestry’ and: ‘Most authorities believe the order Monotremata originated from a line of mammal-like reptiles different from that which gave rise to the other mammals. Nonetheless monotremes may well represent features of anatomy and development that characterized the earliest mainstream mammals.’

Scientists initially considered the platypus to be ‘primitive’, but then they discovered the incredibly complex electrolocation techniques the animal uses to find food. To evolutionists this made it a ‘highly evolved animal and not a primitive transition between reptiles and mammals.’

The platypus, along with its fellow monotreme, the echidna, was believed to have evolved in isolation when the land mass that would become Australia (Gondwana) broke away from the other continents supposedly 225 million years ago. This idea of evolution in isolation followed the theory of Darwin, whose affinity for evolution may also have been influenced by his early studies of the platypus during his time on The Beagle.

However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia—threw that theory upside down. (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive.

In reality, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that the platypus was ever anything other than a platypus. It is not a living ‘transitional’ form. It is a truly unique creature, and one that continues to baffle those who insist on making it fit into an evolutionary tree.

Full article: The platypus

Think about it: evolutionary theory suggests birds and a mammal both developed beaks and webbed feet, not to mention egg-based reproduction via chance mutation!

The platypus even has the following incredible ability: "...Its duck-like bill is actually a sensitive muzzle that allows the platypus to find tiny food morsels at the bottom of murky lakes and rivers and under rocks using highly developed electro-receptors..." (source: above article).

No wonder some believe that even if evolution happened it must have been directed by a designer. (I once took that view myself.) The sonar used by dolphins and the radar-like detection system of bats also come to mind. By chance mutation?!

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by xxcalbier

Lungfish and catfish are perfectly adapted to their environments. Whether tidal regions or areas where lake-beds dry up, their design fits them perfectly for survival.

Naturally the fossil record shows all such creatures to have been what they are today throughout the past. Think coelacanth

For those not familiar, the coelacanth was once only known from the fossil record. Paleontologists confidently pronounced that it went extinct some 65 million years ago, since no trace of it was found in more “recent” fossil layers. Imagine their surprise when, in 1938, a living coelacanth was found off the coast of Madagascar!..

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:16 PM
I'm a bit new to ATS, but I think it's amazing how polarized such "scientific" issues can become. Perhaps it's because much of the science gets pushed aside by the various factions? Or could it be even worse than that, namely that there is a large portion of the debate that isn't scientific at all to begin with, since it involves a priori assumptions that may indeed prove unprovable, at least in the ordinary sense.

As far as I know, science still considers this kind of "speciation" (sympatric) as fairly controversial, whether you are on one side or the other. That being said, we might go further and talk about the fact that "speciation" is something that has seemingly been defined in such narrow terms, that one might end up wondering if the semantics needed adjusting. In fact, each "side" seems to mean different things when using the very same term.

Certainly, some feel strongly that incipient "speciation" is not speciation at all, and there is lots of "evidence" in support of course. Do genomes have built-in areas that are especially sensitive to environmental stressors? Obviously, they do, but just because they are this way, does not "prove" evolution (especially macro-evolution) is occurring at all. Not to go as far as the Creationist camps, but it "could be" that the coding that "seems to" lead to apparent speciation was there you might say from "the beginning".

The fact is, we don't know. One thing that does seem at least plausible though is that any apparent observed speciation (whether in a fish or a Hawthorne fly), these changes have not been shown to be "improvements" in any real sense, from the earlier parent populations. And perhaps that's key, since the very term "evolution" suggests improvement. Yes, improving the chances of mere survival, given the change in the environment the organism was subjected to, could be seen as an "improvement", but this hardly helps the cause, because it represents such a seemingly tiny increment. The only way to get past it, is to "interpret" the change, i.e., "may be in a very early stage of speciation". Hardly good science on it's face, and way too much "hope" their belief will (finally) pan out.

As an alternative to hard-core Darwinian-style macro-evolutionism, as well as to basic Creationism, I think that John Davison's work should be at least considered. His Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) doesn't appear to trivialize the evidence, as do the two major camps, with their agendas. Of course, his idea is controversial, and can easily be ridiculed as virtually anything can. But consider it is no more outlandish than the notion of panspermia, which is quite seriously considered by even big-name evolutionists. Yes, life, just as it is, presents us with an enigma, but as such, it is not an answer, and yet, this is exactly where one ends up, if you happen to already be in one of the two big camps on the issue.

It's easy to just "believe" all evolves. It's just as easy to believe God did it, and leave it at that. But what about the evidence, and more importantly, what about the quest for what the real truth may be? If we already "know", then you aren't going to learn much else. Sort of like the folks who go to church. They aren't "seeking" anything, they already have their answer. I think that if we were honest with the evidence, we would see that we still aren't that close to real answers. This is why the subject is so hotly debated. The issue is still in it's infancy, which probably explains the almost "religious" emotion on each side.

Too early to make up my mind on this issue, but frankly, I see little convincing evidence coming in, from any quarter. Of course, while I'm a bit of a skeptic, I do continue to hope for scientific breakthroughs that will shed light on our origins, in spite of the fact that the issue seems to be primarily philosophical, after all is said and done.

JR MacBeth

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:21 PM
yes. mutation.

I find it interesting as well that you'd use a religious source in a discussion regarding the validity of mystical mumbo-jumbo vs. hard science.

Regarding the finding of platypus teeth on another continent isn't significant. The species may have developed shortly before the continental divide, or perhaps even quite some time before that and simply survived better on the piece of land that constituted present day australia. The fact that the species was unable to survive on other landmasses indicates that it was simply not suited for the environment. Losing the teeth indicates that adapting to the isolated environment of Australia didn't require them, whereas the existence prior to isolation may have benefitted them.

Also, "no evidence stating that the platypus was ever anything but a platypus" is false as well. Goign back to the cretaceous period, there we several other species of monotreme, all closely related. The evidence shows that echidnas and platupii are the only surviving members of what are quite possibly the earliest mammals. The fact that they remain similar to their ancestors for so long indicates simply that they are suited to their environment sufficiently that they can survive without fear of over-predation. Just because a species does not mutate in million of years does not mean that it will not someday do so. Perhaps any mutations that have occured have simply not benefitted the mutant to the point of having any particular advantage over the regular members of the species, and so was not propogated. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case - just because we have not found the 'missing link' does not indicate taht there never was one. In fact, rapid evolution is sometimes theorized to have occured many times in the past, which would account for lack of a 'smoking gun' in the example of monotremes.

For the record, what little information I did gather was from Wikipedia, a secular and unbiased source.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by pause4thought

Nice sensationalist title, though.

That was the idea. Sometimes I spend hours on a thread and it doesn't even have one reply. Apparently because the title didn't attract enough. This one does .

I understand where you coming from. I'm a creationist myself.

This article shows you what can happen in only a century. With bacteria and viruses even faster.

Imagine this little fish comes in another situation and it adapts again. just a little thing. and again and again and again. At the speed this little fish changed something a thousand years from now changing something every century it would be another species. But there wouldn't be 1 century where this fish would be an in between animal.

It's exactly these small adaptations what over millions of years add up.

Nothing will ever change in to a new species ever. But a million years of tiny adaptations will cause the original is no longer recognizable and a new species. But that same fish could just as easily survived without a change of environment and without adaptations and still be what it was millions of years ago.

All the examples you gave are therefore meaningless as an argument against evolution.

Thanks for responding like you did. I really respect it.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by JR MacBeth

There comes a time where both science as religion have to admit they are both wrong.

I believe one can not be without the other

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in