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.

 

Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth


news.nationalgeographic. com

Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is abandoning egg-laying in favor of live birth.

Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young.

Only two other modern reptiles—another skink species and a European lizard—use both types of reproduction. (Related: "Virgin Birth Expected at Christmas—By Komodo Dragon.")

Ev
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
i had never heard of this before evidently its not even the first time they have witnessed it its kinda crazy thinking that this skink can go from laying eggs to decideing to just keep them in side and do live birth is fascinateing and i had no idea climate was a factor i guess it all depends on how comfortable the mother skink feels with its territory

news.nationalgeographic. com
(visit the link for the full news article)

news.nationalgeographic.com...

news about a komodo virgin birth

[edit on 3-9-2010 by KilrathiLG]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
This is interesting but honestly if it can be shown to have been a latent ability of the species it wouldn't really do anything to prove evolution. And since another species of skink enjoys both methods of reproduction already, it really seems more logical to me that it's always been a latent ability of this species too, and is just now only being observed.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I like to use the term adaption rather then evolution "A lone female shark has produced a pup without ever having come into contact with a male shark." www.dailygalaxy.com... Nature always surprises us .Just when we think we have it pegged down ,along comes some new news .Good post S&Fpeace



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
its not so much evolution as it is adaptation to its enviroment
amazing all the same



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure that adaptations to an environment fall under evolution.

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. This change results from interactions between processes which introduce variation into a population, and other processes which remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic, anatomical, biochemical or behavioral, that is the result of gene–environment interaction. The main source of variation is mutation, which changes the base pair sequences of genes. These altered genes can be passed on through reproduction, and give rise to alternative varieties, or alleles, of traits in organisms. Another source of variation is genetic recombination which shuffles the genes into new combination's that can result in organisms exhibiting different traits. Under certain circumstances, variation can also be increased by the transfer of genes between species, and by the extremely rare, but significant, wholesale incorporation of genomes through endosymbiosis.
Here's the link en.wikipedia.org... So why try to say it's something more logical then whats stated above? It almost seems some people are afraid of the word evolution.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I never will understand why humans are so egotistical that religious people can't think that maybe evolution was something put in place by "god" also. You already know the books you read from are not 100% literally accurate.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
I never will understand why humans are so egotistical that religious people can't think that maybe evolution was something put in place by "god" also. You already know the books you read from are not 100% literally accurate.


Well that's a good question. However, the books we read may be more accurate than we think. We may just not be reading them right. If we go back to Genesis and actually read it what do we find? We find this.

Genesis 1-11 Then God said, "Let the LAND produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

12 The LAND produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Sounds like God let the LAND do most of the work. Sounds like evolution to me. It wasn't God creating the plants here. It was the LAND.

And evolution starts with no seeds, but with the basic chemicals of the earth and ocean and then later gives birth to plants that have seeds. Just like it says in the Bible. God planted no seeds. The LAND brought forth plants first and then those plants had the seeds.

But the religious people that are against evolution, have they ever pointed this out to anyone?

Genesis 1-20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures". Sounds like it could be referring to a primordial soup to me.

Genesis 1-24 And God said, "Let the LAND produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Again it's not God that creates the animals. God let the LAND bring forth the animals. Again it sounds like evolution. To me I think the word land actually means the planet. Let the planet bring forth all the living creatures.

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

24 and 25 may seem to contradict but I don't think they do. The people at the time it was written wouldn't have understood evolution at the time. To them there would be no distinction between God creating the plants and animals or God creating a planet that would evolve plants and animals. To them it was the same. God created it.

But if there is a God, then perhaps God had them write the text down that way anyway so that maybe later we would understand the distinction between the two and maybe that's why they put so much emphasis on saying the LAND brought forth the plants and animals.

Now of course the events are out of order to match up with evolution, but maybe we just don't understand why they're out of order yet. Maybe they were written down in that order for a reason too. Who knows?

Saying the LAND brought forth the plants and animals is something the people at the time wouldn't really have understood enough to make the distinction, but now we have the knowledge to see WHY it was written that way. Maybe God has been trying to tell us the plants and animals were actually created by the earth and evolved the WHOLE TIME, but we've been too busy arguing with each other to actually open the book and see what it ACTUALLY says instead of what we all THOUGHT it said.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by tinfoilman]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
what if the climate changes trigger egg laying in humans.... how creepy.

would certainly be interesting....



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join