[_ Old Earth _] Will you believe it now?

[reznwerks]

Here is evidence of evolution in action and not only that it has occurred in in just a few short generations.

Snakes bite back at poison toads

Cane toads were introduced to Australia in 1935
Snakes in Australia have evolved to counter the threat of invasive, poisonous cane toads, scientists have found.
The toads (Bufo marinus) were only introduced in the 1930s but have already overwhelmed the local wildlife in Queensland with their rapid reproduction and toxic flesh, which kills many predators foolish enough to make them a meal.

But for two species of snake, at least, natural selection has produced a defence: the snakes have developed relatively smaller heads and longer bodies.

In essence, the reduced gape of the animals ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm

 

[mh13]

so we start with a snake and after "natural selection" we still have--guess what, A SNAKE. Wow, what earth shattering evidence

 

[PDoug]

The article doesn't make any sense. How did the snakes supposedly evolve? Did they undergo some kind of mutations? If the snakes underwent a series of mutations to adapt so well, shouldn't the changes they underwent have taken place very slowly - like several thousand or million years?

It seems more likely that among the different types of snakes present in the environment where the frogs were, one was found that was resistant to the frogs by virtue of a design it had originally. In other words, the snake that was discovered did not adapt to the threat of the frogs. The snake was the way it had always been. The scientists merely discovered the snake, and noticed it was resistant to the frogs.

 

[ThinkerMan]

The article doesn't make any sense. How did the snakes supposedly evolve? Did they undergo some kind of mutations? If the snakes underwent a series of mutations to adapt so well, shouldn't the changes they underwent have taken place very slowly - like several thousand or million years?

It seems more likely that among the different types of snakes present in the environment where the frogs were, one was found that was resistant to the frogs by virtue of a design it had originally. In other words, the snake that was discovered did not adapt to the threat of the frogs. The snake was the way it had always been. The scientists merely discovered the snake, and noticed it was resistant to the frogs.

Not necessarily. There are two likely scenarios.

1. Variety in head sizes existed in the species population. (like humans, at a size 7 hat I'm considered to have a smaller head). All the "big-headed" snakes died off by eating the toads, leaving only smaller-headed snakes around, since they had a higher propensity to live.

After a few generations, those with bad traits (big heads) died off quickly, while those with smaller thrived with less competition from the bigheads.

After 70 years, viola, a small headed population.

2. A mutation occured at some generation point in the past since the introduction of the toad that gave a snake an abnorminally small head, unusual in the normal population.

As the old bigheads continued to die, the one small head lived and mated with a bighead, making many baby littleheads. .

Anyway, same thing happens and the mutation become advantageous to survival, and the fittest wins. Big heads die out, little heads take their place.

BTW, mutations, by definition, are immediate to the birth of the "abnormal" organism. Whether or not it becomes prevelant in the species population has to do with natural selection, which would indeed likely take a long time.

 

[ThinkerMan]

pdoug:

It should also be noted that the scenerios I described above are completely consistant with the beliefs of almost all creationists.

They would refer to it as "microevolution".

The main difference between evolution and creationism is that evolutionists believe that if you stack enough of these mutations on over the years, then you will eventually arrive at a distinct species.

Creationists believe that to be impossible.

So this story really doesn't have much to say about the issue at hand, mainly "macroevolution".

 

[Asimov]

Creationists believe that to be impossible.

No, but they somehow believe you can get the entire range of the cat family from two cats, the entire range of the dog family from two dogs, the entire range of the horse family from two horses, and all the bovids from two cows....oh, and don't forget all the humans and their distinct cultures also came from 8 people.

 

[Asimov]

so we start with a snake and after "natural selection" we still have--guess what, A SNAKE. Wow, what earth shattering evidence

Yes....earth shattering evidence for evolution.

 

[PDoug]

Not necessarily. There are two likely scenarios.

1. Variety in head sizes existed in the species population. (like humans, at a size 7 hat I'm considered to have a smaller head). All the "big-headed" snakes died off by eating the toads, leaving only smaller-headed snakes around, since they had a higher propensity to live.

After a few generations, those with bad traits (big heads) died off quickly, while those with smaller thrived with less competition from the bigheads.

After 70 years, viola, a small headed population.

The situation you described is not evolution at all. It is merely members of a specie having certain traits, rising in dominance over other members of the same specie.

2. A mutation occured at some generation point in the past since the introduction of the toad that gave a snake an abnorminally small head, unusual in the normal population.

As the old bigheads continued to die, the one small head lived and mated with a bighead, making many baby littleheads. .

Anyway, same thing happens and the mutation become advantageous to survival, and the fittest wins. Big heads die out, little heads take their place.

BTW, mutations, by definition, are immediate to the birth of the "abnormal" organism. Whether or not it becomes prevelant in the species population has to do with natural selection, which would indeed likely take a long time.

The problem with your hypothesis, is that mutations are very rare (let alone beneficial ones), and it seems likely that a series of mutations would have to occur (very likely taking at least thousands of years - vs. 20 years) to make possible the physiological changes you are talking about. Also it is not likely that a single mutation would be sufficient to cause a snake to reduce the size of its head, and also adjust other parts to its body to compensate.

Evolutionists appear as if they would like to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they say evolution takes place slowly over thousands or millions of years, and on the other, when it is convenient, they say it can take place in only a couple of years.

 

[PDoug]

Creationists believe that to be impossible.

No, but they somehow believe you can get the entire range of the cat family from two cats, the entire range of the dog family from two dogs, the entire range of the horse family from two horses, and all the bovids from two cows....oh, and don't forget all the humans and their distinct cultures also came from 8 people.

Though this may sound like a cop out, God can do anything. God could very well have used the animals in the ark as seed for all the diverse forms of life we now see.

 

[keebs]

The situation you described is not evolution at all. It is merely members of a specie having certain traits, rising in dominance over other members of the same species.

Ah, so you don't understand evolution. The most fundamental definition of evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population over time.

The problem with your hypothesis, is that mutations are very rare (let alone beneficial ones), and it seems likely that a series of mutations would have to occur (very likely taking at least thousands of years - vs. 20 years) to make possible the physiological changes you are talking about.

Mutations aren't that rare. A mutation occurs around every 100,000 gene replications. Now, take into account the large population of snakes and the relatively small life span. That's alot of gene replications. And around every 1 out of a 1000 mutations is beneficial. So, 70 years isn't that long of a time.

Also it is not likely that a single mutation would be sufficient to cause a snake to reduce the size of its head, and also adjust other parts to its body to compensate.

Once again, not really. A single gene often affects many different related physical attributes. You wouldn't have to have a different mutation for every single physiological change, but rather a single mutation will affect most of the changes. And, you are also forgetting about the adaptability of complex organisms. The skin and bones of an organism form around physiological changes, the skin and bones are not all genetically predetermined to fit perfectly with the rest of the body.

On the one hand they say evolution takes place slowly over thousands or millions of years, and other, when it is convenient, they say it can take place in only a couple of years.

No, they are describing evolution on different levels. For short periods of time (which vary depending on the species) they are describing evolution within a species. Other times they are describing the split of a genus or a family, which takes alot longer. There is a difference between evolution within a species and into a different species and evolving into a new genus.

 

[keebs]

Though this may sound like a cop out, God can do anything. God could have very well have used the animals in the ark as seed for all the diverse forms of life we now see.

God could have also given humans 7 fingers, but he didn't. That's why creationism isn't a science, because it cannot explain why this happened, and that didn't.

 

[ThinkerMan]

The situation you described is not evolution at all. It is merely members of a specie having certain traits, rising in dominance over other members of the same specie.

Yes, it is. Most creationists would agree (though, like I said, they would call it microevolution).

If you are using idea that "evolution creates new species" then no, it is not that in the purest sense of the term. However, it is indicative of a first step a subset of a population takes to begin speciation.

Regardless of the semantics, it is certainly what is defined as a process of evolution.

The problem with your hypothesis, is that mutations are very rare (let alone beneficial ones), and it seems likely that a series of mutations would have to occur (very likely taking at least thousands of years - vs. 20 years) to make possible the physiological changes you are talking about. Also it is not likely that a single mutation would be sufficient to cause a snake to reduce the size of its head, and also adjust other parts to its body to compensate.

Could you please cite some sources for that? Mutations occur often(you likely have quite a few of them, though most are likely neutral).

I am not sure how many gene mutations it takes to get a smaller head, but these "abnormal" mutations happen often in a large population. For example, my friend has a mutation that gave him only three fingers (plus a thumb) on his left hand. His parents have complete hands.

Simple fact is, the snakes got smaller heads. At some point, a mutation occured either before or after the arrival of the toads that created small-headed snakes. Even creationists will agree to this without compromising their base beliefs.

Evolutionists appear as if they would like to have their cake and eat it too.

No my friend, this following quote is an example of that...

Though this may sound like a cop out, God can do anything.

If it fits with your definition of science, so be it. If it doesn't, well "God can do anything". That is having and eating the cake.

On the one hand they say evolution takes place slowly over thousands or millions of years, and on the other, when it is convenient, they say it can take place in only a couple of years.

Evolution takes place slowly, one generation at a time. When you step back and look after a very long time, you simply have more evolution.

So, yes, evolution can be witnessed in small changes and also obversed over long periods of time. That has been the ToE since it's genesis.

Just because you can see an acorn turn into a root, it doesn't mean that acorn doesn't also turn into a giant oak tree. They are both completely accurate observations.

 

[PDoug]

The situation you described is not evolution at all. It is merely members of a specie having certain traits, rising in dominance over other members of the same species.

Ah, so you don't understand evolution. The most fundamental definition of evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population over time.

Okay, I'll speak more precisely. I'll agree that what Thinkerman said was in fact evolution. I will also stipulate however, that evolutionists are wrong in believing that mutation and natural selection can lead to the generation of new complex species, and hence is the reason for the diverse forms of life we now see. It is incredible to see evolutionists pointing to isolated cases of mutation being beneficial in some limited sense (e.g. sickle cell anemia), then performing this gigantic extrapolation of the mechanism (along with natural selection), claiming it to be largely responsible for the diverse forms of life we now see. Don't these evolutionists remember from their science/math classes about the dangers of extrapolating? About just how inherently suspect the answers are? Yet virtually all of these guys (many of whom hold PhD's) conveniently forget it, and worse, take it to incredible lengths.

The problem with your hypothesis, is that mutations are very rare (let alone beneficial ones), and it seems likely that a series of mutations would have to occur (very likely taking at least thousands of years - vs. 20 years) to make possible the physiological changes you are talking about.

Mutations aren't that rare. A mutation occurs around every 100,000 gene replications. Now, take into account the large population of snakes and the relatively small life span. That's a lot of gene replications. And around every 1 out of a 1000 mutations is beneficial. So, 70 years isn't that long of a time.

The article was talking about a mutation that supposedly took place within 20 years.

 

[keebs]

Okay, I'll speak more precisely. I'll agree that what Thinkerman said was in fact evolution.

Really? That's not what you said here:

The situation you described is not evolution at all.

Don't these evolutionists remember from their science/math classes about the dangers of extrapolating?

It's not extrapolation. Extrapolation is when you take known data and infer or estimate beyond the knowledge of the data. We HAVE fossil records to show common descent.

The article was talking about a mutation that supposedly took place within 20 years.

No, the article said 70 years. The seventh paragraph from the bottom of the page specifically says:

What seems remarkable is that this adaptation has occurred in just 70 years. But Dr Phillips says it should not be too surprising since snakes breed comparatively quickly.

 

[ThinkerMan]

The article was talking about a mutation that supposedly took place within 20 years.

It could have taken place immediately.

Let's say there are 1,000,000 snakes in the area.

1 of them has a small head (or a small subset of 25).

Over seventy years -- or twenty--, the 9,999,975 that have big heads decrease in population, while the 25 (who have a much better chance of survival) increase in population.

After quite a few generations, bam, you have the majority of small headed snakes (mind you, the article did not say that big-headed snakes no longer exist, only that there is a growing population of small-headed snakes.).

Basically, it was a neutral mutation that preexisted or emerged. Once the environment changed, it became beneficial.

For example, my four-fingered friend has a neutral mutation. Now, if some calamedy ensues that makes him more likely to survive (not sure what that is, maybe they start only making four-fingered gloves...haha) he will get all the girls and I'll be dead from frost-bite.

After a few generations, bam, a four-fingered population.

The mutation did not have to "occur in just 20 years". They occur all the time, and the environment and natural selection sorts it all out. The introduction of the toad made the small heads king.

 

[PDoug]

Also it is not likely that a single mutation would be sufficient to cause a snake to reduce the size of its head, and also adjust other parts to its body to compensate.

Once again, not really. A single gene often affects many different related physical attributes. You wouldn't have to have a different mutation for every single physiological change, but rather a single mutation will affect most of the changes. And, you are also forgetting about the adaptability of complex organisms. The skin and bones of an organism form around physiological changes, the skin and bones are not all genetically predetermined to fit perfectly with the rest of the body.

You are stretching things. If the size of the snake's head was reduced by a single mutation, wouldn't other compensatory actions also need to take place to the snake? Wouldn't the snake have to adapt to the reduced amount of food it can take in? Maybe other physiological adjustments (e.g. camouflage) would have to be made to the snake as a result of the fact it is going after a different set of prey. It seems like on oversimplification to say that a single mutation can cause a large, complex organism to change one feature satisfactorily, when very probably, other features of the organism would have to be adjusted to compensate for the change.

On the one hand they say evolution takes place slowly over thousands or millions of years, and other, when it is convenient, they say it can take place in only a couple of years.

No, they are describing evolution on different levels. For short periods of time (which vary depending on the species) they are describing evolution within a species. Other times they are describing the split of a genus or a family, which takes alot longer. There is a difference between evolution within a species and into a different species and evolving into a new genus.

That may be so, but you like many evolution proponents, oversimplify the mechanism of mutation - not taking a rich view of things that need to happen for it to credibly work. You cannot look at obscure mutation events, then extrapolate from them (along with natural selection) that they are largely (if not solely) responsible for the diverse forms of life we now see. Also you cannot propose a mutation giving rise to a particular feature, and not recognize that other changes have to take place within complex organisms, to support that feature. The fact of the matter is that when the evolution model is looked at carefully, it is found to be terribly wanting.

 

[keebs]

If the size of the snake's head was reduced by a single mutation, wouldn't other compensatory actions also need to take place to the snake? Wouldn't the snake have to adapt to the reduced amount of food it can take in?

Yes, but the compensatory actions are quite often linked genetically to other physical aspects of the creature. And, once again, a body has a high degree of plasticity, and as long as it the snake isn't being malnurished by the smaller amount of food, it will adapt.

Maybe other physiological adjustments (e.g. camouflage) would have to be made to the snake as a result of the fact it is going after a different set of prey.

Not usually, because the snake isn't changing it's enviroment.

It seems like on oversimplification to say that a single mutation can cause a large, complex organism to change one feature satisfactorily, when very probably, other features of the organism would have to be adjusted to compensate for the change.

No, it's not an oversimplification. We can observe body and brain plasticity. An example: I'm 6 feet tall, however there are other people out there much shorter than me. There isn't a specific gene out there for people 6 feet tall, and people 5 feet tall, as things such as height, weight, and mass distribution are also heavily influenced by enviromental factors (non-genetic factors). Our body compensates for these variations.

That may be so, but you like many evolution proponents, oversimplify the mechanism of mutation - not taking a rich view of things that need to happen for it to credibly work.

I'm not oversimplifying in the least. From your posts it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution, and you to call the accepted and time tested mechanisms oversimplifications is a joke. There is a firm mathematical foundation to evolution, and that allows for a stable interpretation and application without having to worry about things such as oversimplification of mechanisms, because the mechanisms are rigorously definied.

You cannot look at obscure mutation events, then extrapolate from them (along with natural selection) that they are largely (if not solely) responsible for the diverse forms of life we now see.

You obviously didn't read my last post that dealt with your false claims of extrapolation.

Also you cannot propose a mutation giving rise to a particular feature, and not recognize that other changes have to take place within complex organisms, to support that feature.

Answered above.

The fact of the matter is that when the evolution model is looked at carefully, it is found to be terribly wanting.

The fact of the matter is that your knowledge of the evolutionary model is found to be terribly wanting.

 

[PDoug]

The article was talking about a mutation that supposedly took place within 20 years.

It could have taken place immediately.

Let's say there are 1,000,000 snakes in the area.

1 of them has a small head (or a small subset of 25).

Over seventy years -- or twenty--, the 9,999,975 that have big heads decrease in population, while the 25 (who have a much better chance of survival) increase in population.

After quite a few generations, bam, you have the majority of small headed snakes (mind you, the article did not say that big-headed snakes no longer exist, only that there is a growing population of small-headed snakes.).

Basically, it was a neutral mutation that preexisted or emerged. Once the environment changed, it became beneficial.

For example, my four-fingered friend has a neutral mutation. Now, if some calamedy ensues that makes him more likely to survive (not sure what that is, maybe they start only making four-fingered gloves...haha) he will get all the girls and I'll be dead from frost-bite.

After a few generations, bam, a four-fingered population.

The mutation did not have to "occur in just 20 years". They occur all the time, and the environment and natural selection sorts it all out. The introduction of the toad made the small heads king.

Okay, I looked at the article and it did in fact say 70 years. But what you said above is an oversimplification of what would normally have to happen for evolution to change a complex specie's feature, and also support the feature with other physiological changes throughout the specie's body. I do not buy keebs' suggestion that creatures' bodies are generally tolerant enough, so that no other physiological changes are needed as a result of a new feature. It is one thing for a body to be able to support size variations of systems throughout the body (when these variations are usually proportional), it is another thing for a body to be able to tolerate an unusual physiological change while trying to maintain the creature's overall fitness.

One other thing: given the fact that mutations are random, the chances that a beneficial mutation that just so happens to prove helpful to the snakes in this situation, is very, very small. It seems as if there would have to be many, many beneficial mutations before one was discovered, that was useful to the snake in this situation. When you consider this, and the above point that it is very likely other mutations would have to take place to give rise to other compensatory physiological changes in the snake's body, you see that the odds of evolution giving rise to this newly discovered snake is very low. As I indicated before, it is much more likely that scientists from the article discovered a snake, with a design that gave it an advantage over other snakes in the frog's environment. However this snake's design did not change: this snake was the way that it was, from the point it was created.

 

[PDoug]

Don't these evolutionists remember from their science/math classes about the dangers of extrapolating?

It's not extrapolation. Extrapolation is when you take known data and infer or estimate beyond the knowledge of the data. We HAVE fossil records to show common descent.

What fossil records? Fossil records do not support evolution at all! Where are the fossils of transitional creatures left behind as one specie supposedly evolved into another? There should be massive amounts of these fossils, yet none has conclusively been found. (Also as we look around, there should be massive amounts of transitional creatures in our landscape showing e.g. part fish and part reptile traits. However none of these creatures can be found.) Then there is the highly questionable practice of taking fossil fragments, and conjecturing from them, supposed human ancestors. These fossil fragments provide no conclusive proof whatsoever, that they belonged to the ancestors of man. Then there is the fact that hundreds of millions of years old fossils of creatures such as the honeybee, dragon fly, and ant, show these creatures to be virtually the same as their contemporaries. Add to this: the oldest stratum of earth having fossils, show a sudden appearance of diverse forms of life. According to this link, 'The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature. '

Therefore contrary to what you assert, fossils do not support evolution, instead, they support creation.

 

[Barbarian]

What fossil records?

The transitions from fish to tetrapod, reptile to mammal, Hyracotherium to modern horse, ungulate to whale, etc.

Fossil records do not support evolution at all! Where are the fossils of transitional creatures left behind as one specie supposedly evolved into another?

We have quite a large number of them. Which of the above would you like to see first?

There should be massive amounts of these fossils, yet none has conclusively been found.

You've been misled.

(Also as we look around, there should be massive amounts of transitional creatures in our landscape showing e.g. part fish and part reptile traits.

Well, not fish to reptile. Reptiles evolved from other tetrapods. But we do have examples of transitional organisms like lungfish. And the fossil record has numerous examples of transitionals between fish and tetrapods. Would you like to see those first?

Then there is the highly questionable practice of taking fossil fragments, and conjecturing from them, supposed human ancestors. These fossil fragments provide no conclusive proof whatsoever, that they belonged to the ancestors of man.

We have a large number of fossils that clearly show our evolution. Would you like to learn about that first?

Then there is the fact that hundreds of millions of years old fossils of creatures such as the honeybee, dragon fly, and ant, show these creatures to be virtually the same as their contemporaries.

You've been misled about that, too. For example, the earliest ant known shows exactly the transitional characteristics that show it's hymenopteran ancestry.

Add to this: the oldest stratum of earth having fossils, show a sudden appearance of diverse forms of life. According to this link, 'The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature. '

You've been misled about that, too. Complex multicellular life is much older than the Cambrian.

This one is from the Ediacaran, millions of years before the Cambrian. We also have tracks made by multi-legged creatures, burrows, and remains of organisms with partial exoskeletons, all before the Cambrian. The Cambrian explosion coincides with the evolution of fully-armored organisms.

Therefore contrary to what you assert, fossils do not support evolution, instead, they support creation.

You've got a lot of homework to do. Suffice to say the people who told you this stuff were not being honest with you. Where would you like to start?