It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some thought it was impossible. But a population of stickleback fish that breed in the same streams is splitting into two separate species before our eyes, and at rapid speeds.
Marques’ team found that the genetic differences between the two fish types are concentrated on the parts of chromosomes that are less likely to undergo recombination. As a result, the sets of gene variants that give the two types their distinct characteristics are less likely to get split up.
This kind of speciation, known as sympatry, was once thought to be extremely unlikely, says Chris Bird of Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, who studies how organisms are evolving by analysing their genomes. The conventional view is that speciation almost always requires two populations to be physically separated to prevent interbreeding, for example, living on different sides of a mountain, or on different islands in an archipelago.
originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Jonjonj
It is new variety, not a new species, it is still quite clearly a stickleback.
The article itself said the fish was splitting into two separate species not me. I am not sure because it is all very technical, but are you saying the article is wrong? Can you provide something that shows the article to be wrong because that is the point of a discussion.
originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Barcs
The main lake dwellers are bigger, with longer spines and tougher armour
its just color and size change
like hey most black people are taller than asian people
no, thats not how it works
originally posted by: wisvol
Now evolution as fish becoming monkeys over unobserved periods of time, although widely taught, isn't scientific because it is neither observed nor reproduced. Taking ATCG from fish and building a monkey would scientifically demonstrate the possibility of intelligent design, but that's it.
What makes this finding extraordinary is that both types of fish breed in the same streams at the same time of year. They have been interbreeding all along, and still do, yet they are splitting into two genetically and physically different types.
Negative. Fish didn't evolve into monkeys. There were millions of in between steps. You are using broad generalizations to describe something and call it unscientific, but that's not true. When you find a fossil the conflicts with the evolutionary picture, by all means let us know, but until it does you have nothing to claim it is unscientific, when there are thousands of fossils that clearly demonstrate numerous transitions in evolutionary history. And no, if what you said happened it WOULD NOT be evidence of intelligent design and would be near impossible to create.
The fact that they are becoming two different species of fish whilst they are interbreeding seems important. Isn't that an important point here? The scientists seem to think it is.
Growth and evolution are indeed different, not challenging that.
I used the tadpole or caterpillar example to illustrate the fact that, while living beings are indeed subject to changing form, they can do so even within one lifetime.
If new stickleback and classic stickleback breed more fertile stickleback, they're not two different species, according to current state sponsored biology.