pantheory

A small fish provides insight into the basis of evolution

Recommended Posts

This fish seems to be a great model into showing how evolution via natural selection works.

Probably a good example to show to creationists, the few that would be bright enough to read about it.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-01/uob-asf013019.php

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Participation in the Ex-C forums is no longer free of charge.

Please become a regular subscriber. Subscription options appear under the "Subscriptions" link above and may be accessed by clicking here.

37 minutes ago, pantheory said:

This fish seems to be a great model into showing how evolution via natural selection works.

Probably a good example to show to creationists, the few that would be bright enough to read about it.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-01/uob-asf013019.php

 

Yes but that's "micro" evolution. No one has seen a stickleback turn into a lion. Therefore evolution false.

 

That would be your answer - even from smart creationists.

 

Good article though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes but that's "micro" evolution. No one has seen a stickleback turn into a lion. Therefore evolution false.

 

That would be your answer - even from smart creationists.

 

Good article though.

The only real difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is time.  They are the same thing, the same process.  We can often observe "micro" within a few generations; that doesnt separate it from the "macro" that takes place over millenia.  "Micro" is just a really small part of the really big picture.

 

To use the analogy of a picture, imagine you had a photograph of yourself, down on one knee, proposing to your girl in front of the Eiffel tower in Paris.  A christian focusing only on you in the photo can deny that you were ever in Paris, question if you even have a girl, and even claim that you still believe in jesus because you're obviously on one knee because you're praying.  Yet, the christian can also still claim to have examined the evidence and drawn an evidence-based conclusion.

 

This is what creationists are doing when they try to draw a distinction between "micro-" and "macro-".  They are only looking at a small part of the picture and denying that the rest of the picture even exists. 

 

In reality, there is only evolution, speciation through natural selection.  It is not about creating a crocoduck, or a monktopus, or a platypillar.  It is about distinct, yet gradual, changes within a population to generate new species.  Over time, gradual changes within species within communities can lead to entirely "new" types of life, such that reptiles are distinct from mammals.  But, we do not, can not, see that, if we only consider one part of the photograph without zooming out to see the rest of it.

 

Image result for bird with fox head

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of a story...

Many years ago, in the Arctic, the landscape was populated by brown bears. All brown bears, no white ones. Through an accident of birth, a pregnant brown bear gives birth to a bear with white fur. That white cub grows to become an avid arctic predator, primarily because of its ability to camouflage itself against the white ice and snow in the far north. As it happens, the gene responsible for its white fur was a dominant gene...in other words, the white cub passed it's white fur on to its offspring. Over the course of several generations, the white bears grew in number, and forced the brown bears further south. Today, there are no brown bears in the high arctic--only the white ones which we now call polar bears.

True story. And a prime example of how a genetic "aberration" contributes to evolution. Yet, try to convince a bible thumper that it's true lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Derek said:

Reminds me of a story...

Many years ago, in the Arctic, the landscape was populated by brown bears. All brown bears, no white ones. Through an accident of birth, a pregnant brown bear gives birth to a bear with white fur. That white cub grows to become an avid arctic predator, primarily because of its ability to camouflage itself against the white ice and snow in the far north. As it happens, the gene responsible for its white fur was a dominant gene...in other words, the white cub passed it's white fur on to its offspring. Over the course of several generations, the white bears grew in number, and forced the brown bears further south. Today, there are no brown bears in the high arctic--only the white ones which we now call polar bears.

True story. And a prime example of how a genetic "aberration" contributes to evolution. Yet, try to convince a bible thumper that it's true lol

The bear was white because jesus had washed it clean with his precious blood; genetics had nothing to do with it.  🙄

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes but that's "micro" evolution. No one has seen a stickleback turn into a lion. Therefore evolution false.

 

That would be your answer - even from smart creationists.

 

Good article though.

 

Yes, I agree. This would be the primary creationist argument against such examples as the sticklebacks above. For the argument of changing genera and species we more easily find examples in the fossil records. Here is a pretty good link showing some probable examples:

 

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The only real difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is time.  They are the same thing, the same process.  We can often observe "micro" within a few generations; that doesnt separate it from the "macro" that takes place over millenia.  "Micro" is just a really small part of the really big picture.

 

To use the analogy of a picture, imagine you had a photograph of yourself, down on one knee, proposing to your girl in front of the Eiffel tower in Paris.  A christian focusing only on you in the photo can deny that you were ever in Paris, question if you even have a girl, and even claim that you still believe in jesus because you're obviously on one knee because you're praying.  Yet, the christian can also still claim to have examined the evidence and drawn an evidence-based conclusion.

 

This is what creationists are doing when they try to draw a distinction between "micro-" and "macro-".  They are only looking at a small part of the picture and denying that the rest of the picture even exists. 

 

In reality, there is only evolution, speciation through natural selection.  It is not about creating a crocoduck, or a monktopus, or a platypillar.  It is about distinct, yet gradual, changes within a population to generate new species.  Over time, gradual changes within species within communities can lead to entirely "new" types of life, such that reptiles are distinct from mammals.  But, we do not, can not, see that, if we only consider one part of the photograph without zooming out to see the rest of it.

 

Image result for bird with fox head

 

Yes, I have heard of the flying fox; so finally I get to see what they really look like. So pretty! I love its red coloring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, I have heard of the flying fox; so finally I get to see what it really look like. So pretty! I love its red coloring.

Another example of gradual change.  The expression used to be "I don't give a flying fox!"  But it evolved over time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pantheory said:

This fish seems to be a great model into showing how evolution via natural selection works.

Probably a good example to show to creationists, the few that would be bright enough to read about it.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-01/uob-asf013019.php

 

Fascinating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...