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.
#29 I remember studying the Ambulocetus. One problem is that in the fossil found, the pelvic area was not preserved and thus a direct connection cannot be made and the mode of locomotion cannot be ascertained.
It is best if you actually study the fossil records…
#22
“evolution by mutation is part of evolution”
What are the other parts?
What are these genetic mutations that have been observed occuring in nature that resulted in a benefit to the species?
If you focus just on the science, history shows that scientists do not agree and history also shows that scientists will lie or stretch the truth. Lucy’s famous bones will be on display in Seattle and her most famous knee are not her bones. Why would Johanson connect knee bones a year earlier from 3km away to her bones? Apparently he has a lot more faith than most Christians.
Just because you don’t believe the guy spreading the gospel doesn’t mean you should automatically believe the guy selling Darwin.
#30 ““Evolution” is a nice catch-all phrase. It is the warp and weave of science itself. ”
You think that inanimate matter is subject to the Theory of Evolution?
And you think religious people are nuts?
ROFL
#30 – Bobbolina
>>That makes you religious.
You’re a kook.
#33–Paddy==yes. What else do you call the decay of uranium or hydrogen combining to form helium. Yes, the inanimate universe evolves. Given time and space, self aware life is essentially impossible not to form, except perhaps in your case. But even in your case, given enough time, you too could evolve. Or do it over the weekend by reading an 8th grade science text from 40 years ago?
#34–Mustard==how so? What conclusions do you think the current state of scientific knowlege should lead one to?
#31:
Gee, I must have missed your published paper, but I did find this quote, from a little further down on the web page you scanned a little too superficially while plagiarizing, um, preparing your post:
“…the bones found in 1996 include much of the spine and the pelvis. The web site for an exhibit of a reconstructed skeleton of this fossil notes that it is “missing only the tip of the snout, scapula, humerus, distal part of the tibia and some ankle bones.” In other words it is remarkably complete.”
#30:
““Evolution” is a nice catch-all phrase.”
No, bobbo, it isn’t. It just isn’t that at all, unless you just completely don’t understand it.
“It is the warp and weave of science itself.”
That, it is.
“Evolution. Believe in it or you don’t believe in science.”
Yes, Socrates! You were doing so well, until…
“That makes you religious.”
…your brain made a creationist leap.
#31 “Gee, I must have missed your published paper,”
Why would I publish a paper? That’s just what I remember from the book. Sorry, no web page, so very well may be more up to date than the book. I’ll look it up online though and check it out.
Thanks.
#36–Cherax==everything proceeds by definitions. Everything fails without.
Even if we shared the definitions of the words, loose sentence structure and switching contexts leaves a lot of room for miscommunication before real disagreement is reached.
But why quibble?
#21:
How do you choose what to cherry-pick to believe literally, and what to treat as myth? If you can just pick and choose to roll your own belief system, doesn’t that invalidate pretty much the whole thing?
Where do you draw the line? Why not just treat the whole thing as myth? And how can you argue that someone is wrong who does exactly that?
#32
“What are these genetic mutations that have been observed occuring in nature that resulted in a benefit to the species?”
Let’s see… See that TB bacteria resistant to antibiotics? The few that survived the next super antibiotic evolved and developed immunity towards it.The same applies to other bacteria. And don’t forget that if it weren’t for evolution the HIV virus would be a thing of the past.
Want something more evolved? Well, the same applies to mice, rats, cockroaches and all sorts of pests attacking the crops. Go and ask any farmer why they have to chance pesticides on a regular basis.
#39 – that’s the way it’s done, today. You shop for a religion, then you decide which parts of it fit your personal lifestyle. The rest is swept under the rug.
I call it “Open Source Religion”.
#39, #41:
That’s why I’m a Unitarian Universalist. I was talking about it to a Mormon friend who couldn’t believe that my minister is an atheist. The “Universalist” part of the name is universal salvation: we’re all going to heaven. Now define “heaven” and you’re all set.
The principles of U-U fit nicely with how I want to live. Too bad we’re also creedless–I can choose to live or ignore the principles since we’re not required to individually live by them (though collectively, my congregation is expected to live the principles in covenant with other churches).
Darwin was a Unitarian. Figures.
This is not science, much less a story. This is straight genetics. Animals and plants vary within their own species. THAT IS THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS. These changes are the very same kind of things that farmers have done to refine and change some characteristics of livestock.
The story says “observed by scientists in the act of splitting into two distinct species.” Excuse me but cichlid and cichlid is not two different species, but two different subcategories within the same “cichlid” species. What a lie this story is!
The story says “observed the cichlid evolve into a new species better adapted in sighting its prey and predator.” I do not understand how you can first say there are a wide variety within the cichlid population of the lake, and now proclaim this as a “new species”. I raised cichlids as a kid, and they change very much. The same fish can change colors widely depending on its mood. That is not evolution. The new fish is still cichlid, so it is not a new species. Please. get a real scientist.
Now if you want to be dead headed and against what science actually proves (i.e. you are an evolutionist), then the point is that for evolution to work you need trillions of years right? Well you also would need at any one time trillions of variations that represent evolution between species because only a few of these trillions will result in something useful. This should be seen so abundantly that it could be easily and widely studied (i.e. seen or at least one single clear undisputed same evidence of it). Genetics clearly tell us that when you mix the genes of one species with the genes of another their is a “natural” (i.e. built in) rejection causing death, birth defects, or other bad stuff. Just that point should tell you that evolution is way off in left field. If evolution was true, then the exact opposition should be true.
The case is we are still waiting for the famous “missing link”. Why do they call it a missing “link” (singular, just show us one please)? Because it has to be a clear bleed of two distinct species in one animal that is not steril and has a normal useful life (i.e. not mentally retarded or something similar).
That single example doesn’t exist, and these fish are still within a species, cichlids. You can breed big dogs with small dogs and it is called genetics, not evolution. When you can breed a turkey with monkey and get a monkey with wings and feathers, that is an evolutionist, oh, sorry, evolution. (Excuse my typo)
Again I restate my observation, absolutely positively we must insist that if evolutions need trillions of years to make this workable, then there should be trillions of examples of evolution present today where there are blending and cross over of two or more species. This kind of evidence doesn’t exist now, and the fossil record should likewise be robustly overflowing with these half one species half another species, and yet we see everything clearly identificable as one or another species. The fossil record is abundant, but the evidence is absolutely and unilaterally against evolution.
What a loser of a supposedly news story. You have to be desperate to even consider this news, much less a proof of evolution. It is laughable if it wasn’t for the pitiful idiots that actually think this proves something.
The last time Wall St crashed we all ran outside and killed a shed load of Jews
God was pleased and gave us the Fonz & cars with Jet(TM) style wings on them whilst we screwed underaged girls high on booze
So obviously this time Hitler will be replaced by a fat lesbian peaceprotester & all men will have their willys cut off.
Ah the mystery of time
I really hope that some of these posts are sarcastic or just plain trolls…
The best argument I use against creationist idiots is to ask them why they aren’t identical clones of their siblings. There is all the proof they need that nature does insert changes.
et tu, symbol of faith?
>^,)
#46 – Mr. Larson
>>The best argument I use against creationist
>>idiots is to ask them why they aren’t
>>identical clones of their siblings. There is
>>all the proof they need that nature does
>>insert changes.
wtf?
#20
> 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.
Congratulations, you win the most comically obvious statement of the year award. You know, I also find the theory of gravity to be a compelling argument. Certainly more compelling than the idea that evil invisible monkeys grab objects and pull them to the ground.
Comedy aside, you sir need to learn more about how science finds truth. The current theories used to explain the observable fact that species evolve are based on solid evidence. The fish in the current article is yet another example.
> 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.
In a nut shell, you have explained all creationist arguments against evolution.
> Do you think that
> evolution theory can
> really be confirmed completely?
Your statement is a tautology. By definition, a scientific theory is already proven. In other words, your statement amounts to “Do you think that a theory which has already been proven can really be confirmed completely?” Unless you can show a competing theory which better explains the observable facts, alternate theories will generally serve to simply refine the accuracy of prediction.
#23
There are. Look up the fossil record on the horse.
#43
> Well you also would need
> at any one time trillions
> of variations that represent
> evolution between species because
> only a few of these trillions
> will result in something useful.
> This should be seen so abundantly
> that it could be easily and widely
> studied (i.e. seen or at least
> one single clear undisputed
> same evidence of it).
First, you are falsely assuming that evidence of all or even a majority of failed species would survive. Second, there is some evidence of failed species including more than a few decedents of humans.
RE: Mixing genes
When your parents bred, they too were mixing genes and yet you survived. Plant species are combined every day. It used to be done by grafting and now is done at the molecular level. By definition, if two classifications of animals cannot breed with one another, they are of different species.
> You can breed big
> dogs with small dogs
> and it is called
> genetics, not evolution
Actually, you can. Example: toy poodles. Whether the animals are physically able to breed is not the issue. If you inseminate a chihuahua with sperm from a Great Dane, you will get something (in addition to a unhappy chihuahua).
My recommendation would be to go to http://www.talkorigins.org and learn more about how science and the theories that explain the observable fact of evolution work. Every creationist argument including those posed here can be answered at TalkOrigins with supporting material.
A Basic Science Question===very much along the lines of “Do you “Believe” in Gravity:” Where does CARBON come from?
The answer is from stars that collapsed and then exploded.
Another basic Science/gravity type question: How did our solar system (ie, including EARTH) begin?==solar dust coming together thru gravity billions of years ago.
Now==somewhat obviously==there was no life on earth at these early times. Organic compounds joined and became self-replicating.
If you deny those simple gravity type facts, you have turned your back on science. Probably, you have isolated this uncomfortable reality in some compartimentalized box in your mind along with How can God be Mono and still be the Trinity, and a host of other completely ridiculous stuff, but there you have it.
Do you believe in Gravity, basic FACTS of science, or do you stubbornly believe what you were taught as a child?
It is funny to watch people try to argue that evolution is bad science. If I were going to pick some area of science and say it was wrong it wouldn’t be evolution. Even though I’ve read about it, the way electricity works seems a whole lot more mysterious and magical to me than evolution. I would have an easier time believing that electricity was magical fairies than I would the basic notion that living things change over time.
# 45 jccalhoun said:
“I really hope that some of these posts are sarcastic or just plain trolls…”
Aww, this whole article is a troll, placed here to keep the idiots off the streets for a while.
Interesting fact:
from
http://www.geotimes.org/apr03/WebExtra042503.html
“More than 500 species of brightly colored fish called cichlids live in east Africa’s Lake Victoria. Most of these fish cannot be found in any other lakes in the world. They have evolved a dizzying variety of roles: insect eaters, leaf choppers, snail crushers and scale scrapers, to name a few.
In 1996, geologist Tom Johnson from the University of Minnesota, Duluth, and colleagues reported in Science that Lake Victoria and its satellite lakes dried out completely during the late Pleistocene, about 12,400 years ago. They concluded that the vast array of cichlids must have evolved from a few ancestors in the time since the desiccation — making cichlid evolution the fastest on record for any vertebrate, by many fold.”
Another interesting fact: Tilapia is a kind of cichlid fish, and they are _delicious!_
Email this over to FOX news.
#32 for the record, i do believe in the message of the gospel.
but as i have stated many, many times before, i believe that the bible was never intended to be a science text, nor a history book, nor a legal document. it is meant to document the teachings of jesus christ who spent most of his time explaining how to be a better person.
jesus was not born unto the world to settle whether or not any particular scientific phenomenon was with or without merit, to suggest that he was is just plain silly.
it was the pharisees who tried to trick jesus into debating the scripture as though it were a reference manual and jesus clearly showed how they missed the point. the people who take the bible literally today are simply modern pharisees.
Evidence of evolution existing similar to this have been found for decades. Only fools now believe there is no evolution.
Mostly, what non-thinkers object to is Man evolving from Apes, which they say is against the word of God which says that God created man (and specifies how in some translations of that ancient text). Of course, this isn’t quite what Darwin proposed but they never let facts get in the way. Anything Darwin said that is different from the biblical version will always be attacked. What Darwin said was that Man and Apes likely evolved from a common ancestor.
I just hope that these idiots are out-evolved by the rest of the humans.
#49 thomas
You must not have seen my earlier post about the poor debating technique of deriding the person who posted instead of actually entering into an exchange of opinion.
First, I can see how my comments about old earth/new earth could be taken like you did so let me make it more clear. Within the context of the internal christian debate (not taking into account any other theories) of the two, old seems more likely to me. The truth is that I was, in a sense apologizing to grog that some are so dogmatic about things that really cannot be proven, hence my comment “I would agree that the new earth folks tend to be a little more adamant that their position is right”.
So, my comment was not to minimize evolution or provide a commentary on scientific process as you took it.
Since you made me look up tautology I had to look up theory as well.
tautology – needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”
theory – a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
I’m just asking the question to get debate going but I don’t think that it’s correct to characterize my question as a tautology. I think that you’re suggesting that evolution is proven, right? So, then to suggest that the theory can be confirmed is silly because it’s already confirmed; is that what you’re saying?
#51 bobo
You pose an interesting question worth answering from a christian point of view (Do you believe in Gravity, basic FACTS of science, or do you stubbornly believe what you were taught as a child?).
For me, there’s no problem with scientific process. Making observations, putting forth some general propositions that could explain those observations and then conducting repeatable experiments to confirm the propositions. Some experiments to confirm gravity can be conducted by anyone, I think that its pretty well established that it exists. How it works is where it gets really interesting. For instance I’ve heard it proposed that we need to alter the view of atoms slightly, that they need to be viewed as a kind of football shape and not round. Isn’t science great.
Unfortunately for me, I didn’t learn anything about religion as a child, only as an adult so no stubbornly held beliefs.
Back to the question at hand. Knowing scientific process is useful how do I see evolution. I’m totally with you on all the things that we can see and measure. Perhaps even the big bang (but it’s a little hard to confirm). Evolution might explain the existence of some things but not all. For instance, how do you explain the concept of the number zero? I mean, the concept of zero doesn’t need me to exist. It doesn’t need you either. It doesn’t need any of us. It always existed and will always exist into the future. Evolution doesn’t explain this kind of existence.
#58
hang on my good man.
evolution in fact, as its very stated purpose, does explain the existence of the biodiversity on planet earth as currently observed.
gravity is fundamental force of nature, as is zero. they exist, as you posit, with or without life.
by contrast, evolution is a property of life, specifically, living matter — life exhibits the ability to adapt its own physical structure over the course of multiple generations.
no one seriously believes a dog will beget a fish in a single generation, but if the dog’s environment slowly becomes more watery, each generation of dog is going to favor dogs that can swim better, and so with each generation the best swimmers will survive, exaggerating those features that make the dogs better swimmers.
over long periods of time, things like natural radiation and other ordinary factors will spawn mutations in the dog population. most will be what we consider “birth defects.” however, some mutations will put a dog with that mutation at a greater advantage, and those mutations will survive at a greater rate than those without.
when you let this play out over hundreds of thousands or millions of generations eventually, yes, you could wind up with a fish, being the great(^10^100) grandson of a golden retriever.
some species are more adaptable than others (e.g. bacteria, insects). those with lower adaptability face extinction when climates change, with ice ages, etc.
the human species is by far the most adaptable and that’s why we have flourished so.
we grow darker skin in sunnier climes, higher metabolisms in colder climes, but over much larger periods of time than the average opponents of evolution theory is willing to accept even happened.
so yes, evolution makes sense. it maps to the currently collected data in all but few fleeting instances, and has shown to be predictable.
unfortunately, until we get time travel, that’s as good a proof as is possible.
which, as an aside, is actually better proof that what we have that jesus even existed, or noah, or abraham or moses, etc.
in a court of law, the bible’s content would be mainly be ruled as hearsay and the rest could best be considered circumstantial. (to wit, there have yet to be found any egyptian records of hebrew enslavement or of the plagues.)
just sayin.
whoops, i meant great (10^10) grandson
not a google.