Explain this Creationists

The Skink, pictured here:




Has started to evolve from laying eggs to giving live birth. Explain that.

Originally posted by Nosred

Explain what?

*Patiently waits*

Sorry, hit the "post" button before I'd written anything.

I'd love some sources. Explaining and providing a fact, before taunting a lack of explanation, works better. I'd be more interested in this evolutionary phenomena, than hearing someone else try to pass this off as 'micro' evolution.

reply to post by Nosred
Hmmm. Before trying to explain anything, I would ask if there's any evidence this species hasn't always had varying reproductive processes depending on the climate and environmental factors they're subjected to?

The NATGEO article I found on this says:

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.

To me, it simply sounds like this skink has merely adapted to birth its young in the most beneficial fashion for their survival. Have we sequenced the genetic code to see if this was already an in-built option depending on environmental stresses or not? I'm not aware of many who challenge genetic variation depending on external influence one way or the other, and as yet haven't seen anything suggesting this possibility was not always inherent to this creature. I can try to dig more into it later.

Anyone have any input?

FYI -
National Geographic article.

reply to post by Nosred


Thats only one branch of them


"Approximately 45% of skink species are viviparous. Many are ovoviviparous (hatching eggs internally and giving birth to live offspring). Some, such as the genera Tiliqua and Corucia, give birth to live young through a mammal-like placenta attached to the female – viviparous matrotrophy. The approximately 55% of skink species that are oviparous (egg-laying) give birth in small clutches"


en.wikipedia.org...


Now unless they all suddenly gave live birth i would say there is something to it . But its only one branch ?

reply to post by Praetorius

To me, it simply sounds like this skink has merely adapted to birth its young in the most beneficial fashion for their survival.

Isn't adaptation a form of evolution?

Probably a leaking nuclear power plant nearby. A little too much sun, or a new vaccine the gov. has not told us about yet. Too much mercury. If God wants to change something far be it from me to get in the way, after all, mankind has done a great job changing things. Mutations of virus and bacteria through overuse of vaccines and antibiotics? We did it. We caused it, and we must accept the blame.

reply to post by Akragon
Many differences between natural selection/microevolution/genetic variation as compared to macroevolution/theory of common descent.

Genetic code allows for quite a lot of variance, one example being all breeds of dog being same species despite very noticable differences. This just may be a more extreme example of the same and have nothing to do with the species eventually yielding a more-advanced or "evolved" form of life, an ability the species has always exhibited and was built into their genetic code from the beginning.

Devil's advocate as always, of course, but there are different types of evolution, and varied implications from each.

Hi Akragon, btw.

reply to post by Praetorius


Hey man hows it goin? Good to "see" ya... so to speak

I seem to feel the motivation for this thread was this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If this is the case, the OP of this ^^ thread completely dismisses evolution in all forms. Now is this not in some small degree, proof that evolution may exist?

reply to post by Nosred


Is the skink still a skink?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Hey man hows it goin? Good to "see" ya... so to speak

I seem to feel the motivation for this thread was this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If this is the case, the OP of this ^^ thread completely dismisses evolution in all forms. Now is this not in some small degree, proof that evolution may exist?

edit on 16-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Well met, friend. Things go about as well as expected on this end - take that as you will.

As far as the motivation itself for the thread...eh, makes no nevermind to me. As far as proof that evolution may exist, well, we're right back to playing semantics again.

I've not no personal issue with proven and observable forms, but when it comes to macro/common descent, I've got serious qualms. Now, as far as this being proof that evolution may exist - microevolution, definitely. Macroevolution - possibly, but I can see, as mentioned previously, an easy out for that if this is merely an option these critters have had built into their code from the beginning.

So as always, only time will (hopefully) tell and until I receive all knowledge, anything is possible. But it doesn't do a great deal for me unless a good deal more info comes to light. I'll get back to reading the whole thread soon and keep an eye out for updates.

Take care.

EDIT -
And replied before looking at the thread again...no further updates here, hah...I'll check independently in the news, then.

reply to post by Nosred


That seems like a good example to answer the question a certain poster asked in a recent "Evil-u-tionist" thread that went crazy here.

You could u2u mr. evil-u-tion, but he won't accept this example either.

Not being the sharpest biologist around, I can from my own experiences in the parallel creationism vs standard science on cosmological ground make some comments of a general nature.

I regularly see such bizarre statements as: "Science changes all the time, while the bible (or whatever) is constant"

a/ From individuals who.... seemingly haven't been in much contact with material manifesting scientific expansion.

b/ Having no idea of the procedures of scientific systematic methodology.

c/ Considering logic as unnecessary.

d/ Believing that science is an all-or-nothing method.

e/ Consequently believing, that science stands or fall with the scientific cutting edge.

f/ Shadowboxing against a home-cooked phantom-version of 'science'.

Based on the theist mindset of black/white 'absolutes' without any shades of grey and with an obsession for ultimate 'answers' at any cost. And when the the scientific cutting edge can't or won't give such ultimate 'absolutes' the common creationist brushes off ALL science and fill the imagined vacuum with a 'god of the gap'.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nosred

 

Is the skink still a skink?

Probably not anymore. If it has taken this kind of drastic leap in evolution, you would have to classify it as something else. I think if you started laying eggs instead of giving birth, we'd probably classify you as a different species as well.

Originally posted by DoctorHouseMD

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nosred

 

Is the skink still a skink?

Probably not anymore. If it has taken this kind of drastic leap in evolution, you would have to classify it as something else. I think if you started laying eggs instead of giving birth, we'd probably classify you as a different species as well.

"Probably", "I think", "probably"

Sorry, do you have verification beyond personal arbitrary conjectures? Something Scientific?

Is the skink still a skink? No Creationist denies variations within species.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Probably", "I think", "probably"

Sorry, do you have verification beyond personal arbitrary conjectures? Something Scientific?

Is the skink still a skink? No Creationist denies variations within species.

Actually yeah, the word "Skink" describes dozens of separate species that have diverged from each other.

About 45% of Skink species have evolved to giving live birth.