Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in Africa’s Greatest Lake
In what could be a first in the world, a fish species known as cichlids has been observed by scientists in the act of splitting into two distinct species in Lake Victoria, Africa’s largest lake and one of the world’s biggest fresh water bodies.
This may be remarkable because what is causing them to diverge are adaptations to their vision as animals and plants try to cope with increased pollution and the effects of climate change. The change is also happening without geographical isolation, which was thought to be a precursor for evolution.
The Pundamilia nyererei is a haplochromine type cichlid native to areas in the Mwanza Gulf region of Lake Victoria. This region consists of many islands where each island region has its own color variant of the fish.
In a report published in the journal Nature, researchers from Tokyo’s Institute of Technology and the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology have observed the cichlid evolve into a new species better adapted in sighting its prey and predator.
But the scientists have also tabled evidence indicating that it is not pollution and over-fishing alone that are responsible for the disappearance of some fish species in Lake Victoria and the evolving of others like the cichlid into new species.
The report summarizes that new species may be born because of vision differences and what fish see at least in one African lake could be the driving force that causes them to evolve into new species.
It is good to know we have people smart enough to detect these little changes in species.
I don’t think anyone has ever seriously argued that evolution does not occur. That is fact and is indisputable.
The entire debate is whether evolution is the source of Humanity or not(and proving it).
When you find evidence of that, let us know.
Once my wife evolved from right-handed to left-handed after she broke her right elbow. Later, she evolved back to right-handed. Luckily I was there to observe both or I never would have known.
Yes, I also believe that a mythical space creature created Humanity.
I’ll wait. Is this evolution (Macro) or speciation??? I’ve heard this before, and it never stands up in the end, after time.
#2
BobDobbs — It’s amazing you can say that with a straight face.
*All* of the creationist nonsense-arguments are based on the idea that evolution itself is a flawed concept.
Not one of the creationists has ever said “Yes, of course it’s true that life forms are guided by evolution — all of them except human beings!”
Unfortunately for the creationists, human beings are biological organisms like everything else. If you find one fundamental biological principle that’s true of one species, it will be true of all others.
According to your argument, we could not reasonably conclude that you will die, despite the fact that death appears to be a fundamental biological principle. After all, nobody has ever seen *you* die!
#3 – I also sometimes do that if the porn has too much dialogue.
Evolution is a concept that’s blown way out of proportion. No one denies genetic mutations. No one denies that some species will thrive in one environment and perish in others.
Why is the concept of bringing together those two thoughts so threatening?
The creationist bunch will respond that species themselves can change. This is the so called microevolution argument used by young earth creationists.
Yes, I know. That doesn’t make any sense to me either. This argument grew out of actual proposals and writings but was dumped in the 1940-1950’s since the “single process” hypothesis showed better research results. The creationists picked it up in the 70’s and ran with it.
Evolutionary biology research isn’t allowed to be funded by the US government. In this case, the Japanese and the Swiss have taken leadership.
Show me a fish that produces a dog, then we will talk.
#10
Higghawker — You don’t know much about evolution actually proposes, do you?
Evolution is not a matter of a “fish producing a dog”. What happened is that *modern* fish and *modern* dogs ultimately shared a common ancestor that was neither the modern fish nor the modern dog.
If you don’t understand that difference, you have no clue what you’re talking about. You should stop talking, educate yourself, then start talking again.
This is Evolution 101 — and yet most creationists simply don’t understand it. They think it’s saying that human beings “came from apes”.
#5 I think it is parapatric speciation as they aren’t really geographically separated.
Macro is dicey as there seems to be a strange lack of fossil record.
For instance it is held that whales evolved from land mammals. However there are no fossil records that show what would be a gradual change from land to ocean dwelling.
i have no problem with people who want to believe that, because on particular work of religious scripture says so, that the world is only a few thousand years old.
i do mind when these people wish to enforce their religious beliefs on me and my family who do not subscribe to their radical point of view.
if you’re only proof of your theory is supposed holes in a competing theory, then your theory, is without foundation.
give it a rest, if your faith is so strong, you don’t need science to prove it. just believe it and leave the rest of us alone.
It seems like it’s just as easy to argue against evolution as it ever was… after all, ignorance knows no bounds.
But these days, most creationists won’t argue against what they call microevolution. Instead they argue that macroevolution — the evolution of entirely new “types” of species from other species — is still scientifically unfounded. I still find it curiously funny how many supporters of this belief system still do not understand even the basic tenets of evolutionary science, ie. the “fish produces a dog” argument above.
using science to prove religious beliefs belittles the religious beliefs.
by expressing the need to prove your religion, you are clearly stating that you have doubts, that you are weak, that your religion is not strong enough to stand on its own.
you fail!
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
#6, #11, (gnu)
Let me know how far you want to carry the debate.
To answer your posts, it doesn’t appear that you’re countering the assertions of #2 (no one is arguing that evolutionary changes don’t occur). You say “*All* of the creationist nonsense-arguments are based on the idea that evolution itself is a flawed concept.”
First, you deride creationists by calling their arguments “nonsense”. A compelling argument doesn’t need to start with minimizing the people who are arguing another point of view.
Second, you tell the other side what they think. That is simply another technique of minimizing the other person instead of presenting your own argument.
You are using the “technique” of framing. You frame the people who make the opposing argument and you frame what they think. The idea is to make the opposing idea more extreme that it actually is. Note that it has nothing to do with your argument and it’s a poor substitute.
Anyway, continuing “If you find one fundamental biological principle that’s true of one species, it will be true of all others.” Can you support this assertion? Are you implying that if fish can change then so can (or will) all other species?
Finally, you’re using a false comparison in you last paragraph. What does dying have to do with evolutionary changes in animals.
Your second post doesn’t add anything to your argument because you spend all your time minimizing creationists as dunderheads who have no business arguing this subject.
I have to ask, though, do you actually have a compelling argument to prove your point?
#17
(if i may interject)
the creationist belief hinges 100% on the bible.
proof by negation:
take away the bible and you take away the need for everything that has occurred to have occurred in 7,000 years.
this allows speciation take place over many millions of years
on those enormous time scales, the descendant of a dog could in fact one day be a fish.
however, those time scales do not square with … wait for it … the bible.
ergo, young earth creationisms is a strictly religious tenet.
qed.
It’s not a specias change unless there is an actual change in the genetic code. Not change in expression, mind you, but an actual insertion/change/deletion of the fundamental DNA encoding of the fisg.
This is likely an external change brought on by changes in gene expression or a destructive mutation.
#13 grog
I’ve had many debates with Christians about old earth/new earth theology and my opinion is that old earth is a much more compelling argument. For some reason, though, I would agree that the new earth folks tend to be a little more adamant that their position is right.
You’re correct that if a position can only be defended by pointing out the problems in the other position then by definition it’s either a weak position or the defender doesn’t completely understand it.
You’re also right that these things shouldn’t be presented quite so dogmatically.
Do you think that evolution theory can really be confirmed completely? Or can we really only say that the process appears to be happening today on some detectable level.
Also you predicate this all on the fact that most people who have faith, all believe that bible is taken literally. However, you would be wrong. Most who believe the bible is true in some of the stories, look at the creation story as a way for God to describe to man that he created the world not how He did it. He leave that to us, by using science.
#19
“This is likely an external change brought on by changes in gene expression or a destructive mutation.”
evolution by mutation is part of evolution
chance genetic mutation resulting in a new trait that improves the survival rates of that mutant and its offspring.
over enormous time scales, this isn’t all that weird.
it’s called evolution.
welcome, friend.
#12 There you have the crux of the issue.
I agree that the fossil record is bereft of such evidence. If there were fossils to demonstrate the Macro theory then this would be all a moot point.
Yet every time I’ve heard that fossil evidence has been found, it seems like there is more than enough room to shoot holes through it. Never the iron clad like you’d think we could find.
#23
let’s just say that you disprove evolution outright.
that doesn’t prove intelligent design, nor does it prove the existence of God.
it just proves that evolution was wrong.
Please don’t attribute young earth theories to being in the bible. The young earth theory (that the earth is 10,000 or 7,000 or whatever) comes from one man’s interpretation of the time lines in the bible, it is not cannon, it is not stated in the bible, and is not part of the core christian belief.
#23 “Yet every time I’ve heard that fossil evidence has been found, it seems like there is more than enough room to shoot holes through it. Never the iron clad like you’d think we could find.”
I have a gut feeling that the age of the Earth, and indeed the universe, has been underestimated on scale similar to the difference “biblical” data and current scientific held belief.
Let me know when the fish starts to grow wool on its back and goes ‘baaaa’. I promise, when it does that, I’ll be impressed.
So, does this mean Wall St. CEOs will now evolve into human beings??
#12:
*Many* intermediate stages between land mammals and whales have been described. Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus, for example, were transitional creatures with legs that were somewhat fin-shaped, and with pelvises that were intermediate, in shape and weight-bearing characteristics, between terrestrial and aquatic mammals.
Creationists often make the argument that transitional forms didn’t exist, but that claim is based on ignorance. Transitional forms are well known, not just for whales, but, for example, for horses, molluscs, and birds (beginning with Archaeopteryx, which had feathers but also had many dinosaur-like features). And let’s not forget humans; there are something like 20 known intermediate forms between the earliest hominids (Australopithecus) and modern humans.
Sure there are gaps. Fossilization only happens under certain geological circumstances, and then the fossils have to be found and identified. Chances are pretty slim. But a negative result just doesn’t tell us anything, while a positive result tells a powerful story. As a result, the overall story is tremendously compelling, for many different organisms. “But look, there are gaps in EVOL TI N, so it must be spelling CREATION!”
“Evolution” is a nice catch-all phrase. It is the warp and weave of science itself. Start with the singularity 15 Billion years ago and it expands and cools. For billions of years there were no stars, then stars formed. Some large enough to super nova and eject carbon into the universal soup. More billions of years later and earth forms from a hot ball of molten elements. Then life formed. Evolution. Believe in it or you don’t believe in science.
That makes you religious.