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.
#57
My apologies if my post belittle your ideas. However, from my perspective it is as if you stated that the idea that light bulbs make things brighter is a compelling argument. However, for the moment, I’ll step back a moment and try to explain.
RE: “Within the context of the internal Christian debate”
When Christians debate about what their faith states about the history of the earth, they are no longer discussing science or what can be proven as truth. Such a discussion is obviously nothing more than philosophical discourse. However, nothing within the context of that discussion has any bearing on how the natural world can be established to function. I.e., nothing in a philosophical discussion has any bearing on what is provable in science.
RE: Definition of theory
The single greatest source of confusion amongst people that discuss the “theory of evolution” is the misuse of the word “theory”. In the vernacular, “theory” means nothing more than a postulation. However, to a scientist it means something quite different. In order for a hypothesis to qualify as a theory, evidence must be presented that substantiates that hypothesis. Beyond the hypothesis being falsifiable, it must provide predictive power. In other words, a scientific theory must provide the ability for us to predict how similar phenomena will act within definable error rates. Thus, in science, a hypothesis cannot be called a theory unless there is evidence to establish its validity.
In addition, you appear to lack information about how science finds truth. Scientists start by observing some phenomena in nature and then move to devise hypotheses that might explain the behavior of that phenomena. They then seek evidence that establishes or rejects those hypotheses. That species evolve is an observable fact. The observable evidence that past and present species did or are evolving is so overwhelming as to be incontrovertible. *How* those species evolve and under what circumstances and how fast etc is highly debated and there are many scientific theories which explain some of the observable data but not all or have high error rates.
Thus, when creationists discuss “the” “theory” of evolution they are misusing vocabulary to protect their beliefs. There is no single scientific theory used to explain how species evolve and “theory” in the case of the creationist argument does not mean the same thing as “theory” to a scientist.
#58–gooddebate==its not helpful when discussing the recipe for chocolate cookies to say it doesn’t help cure cancer. Cookie recipes don’t explain everything. Evolution doesn’t explain everything.
Religion however explains nothing.
I think I’m missing your point, but I may only be remaining relevant to the subject proposed.
#58 (gooddebate)
Your thoughts on “the concept of zero” only underscores the difficulty that creationists have with the most basic understanding of How Things Work.
As anybody who thinks about the subject for more than 2 seconds can tell you, “the concept of zero” does *not* exist outside conceptualization — that is, outside the known conceivers, i.e., humans. “The concept of zero” is precisely that: a concept.
Does that mean the universe does not act according to mathematical principles (assuming for a moment that we even know and can conceive of such mathematical principles)? Of course not. But the only beings who could possibly put a name to any systematic division that would *describe* that universe — i.e., numbers — are human beings (or unknown aliens).
This is true for the same reason that the concept of “left” or “right” does not exist outside of a being capable of conceiving. Does that mean that rock over there on your left doesn’t exist without human beings? No. It just means the relational concept doesn’t exist without humans.
This conceptual error on your part really is endemic to several of the basic errors clung to by creationists — especially their mistaken notion of the “origins” of time… But that’s OT…
Wow, I didn’t realize this was still up in the air.
People often tend to argue from the literary side of the bible, saying things that a man’s rib produced a woman is simply impossible. But people have to understand better, which they will if they annotate and decifer the bible.
The bible is a complex book unlike the myths and legends that came out of human drama and entertainment. Science and religion go together, they are not things opposing each other but facts complementing together.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
Described is is PART of evolution theory. OK, you have this new cichlid species. What does this prove? There is another fish – one that probably looks a whole lot like any of the others. Great! That species change a little is not much disputed. Give that fish a hand, now THAT’s what evolution theorizes. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the way of evidence that does not require the same suppositions as creationism. Proving part of evolution does not prove all of it by any means. Science simply has not explained how life began and how nervous systems and eyes and other complex components came about. Theories, yes. Evidence. Nada!
#30
Hook line and sinker or nothing. You seem to suggest that you either believe in science completely or in religion completely. If so, how can an open mind be prepared to accept alternate scientific theories? Are scientific theories simply accepted and all religious (as determined by who?) rejected? Science has proven over the centuries to be wrong many times. Are all scientific theories accurate now?
How is your explanation that we “just happened” really much different than a religious explanation that we were just created?
The unproven parts of Darwin’s evolution, for anyone open minded enough and distinguish between theory and proven science, still leave the door open for a designer. For those who say extraterrestrials planted life here, how does that differ so much from a creator and where did they come from?
Far too many logical thinking people who believe in naturalism simply believe in science so much that all the sketchy parts must be taken on faith that science will some day prove it. That faith without evidence departs from science and gives naturalism a religious context.
Amazing! After all those changes and after all these years and it differences, fact remains it is still a fish! Thanks for proving creation! The author shoots down his own article right off the bat! He says “imagine what changes could occur over millions or billions of years” The keyword here folks is imagine. Translation, “I have faith that billions of years ago even though we couldn’t see it happen even though after all this time what we still get is a fish. Now IMAGINE that!
You folks keep talking about proof of evolution. So let’s all go down to the swamp and you show me one clear case of evolution (I am talking about the entire animal not pieces that you theorize what the other parts should look like) living or fossilised. As soon as I see one you will have a convert to evolution. Until then I will be happy to agree that God does things in mysterious ways and sometimes not so mysterious. So he could have created genes first then used this creation as a basis for all his other creations.