So I may not post a whole lot or really get into a whole lot about stuff related to my major, but I came across an article today from National Geographic about a bunch of lizards transplanted from one island to a neighboring island. The lizards managed to evolve in a 30 year period. The experiment was never meant to last that long, but because the island is part of Croatia and there was a war in the mid-90’s, the scientists couldn’t get back there when they had originally planned.
Now, I have a degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. I happen to be a science junkie and love this kind of stuff, especially when it basically proves everything I had learned about evolution. Evolution does not normally happen in such a short period of time. The article said it would be the equivalent of humans gaining a new appendix with a new purpose in a few hundred years (that may not mean much to some, but humans haven’t changed so drastically in many thousands of years).
I’m really curious what the creationists will have to say about this…
I found it on Boing Boing.
I thought one of the responses to the Boin Boing article was sufficient, and therefore I’ll quote it:
“What do you mean by evolution?
Micro evolution, which is change within the species or aka adaptability. Like already having guts, a head and the knowledge of how to bite. No new information just variations with the information already there. This is viewed all the time and is a sign of good design. Like heat and air conditioning in my car I am prepared to adjust to where I am.
While macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. This has never been seen and belongs in the faith not science category.”
I agree wholeheartedly, and so does real science. There is a vast difference between adapting to an evironment and chaning into something else altogether. The lizards didn’t develope wings, or feathers, or fur; didn’t begin giving birth to live young (that is, if they previously laid eggs like most reptiles), they didn’t grow nipples and start suckling their young, etc.
The very existence of dependent species (such as that of the Madagascar Star Orchid — sometimes ridiculously referred to as the Darwin orchid — and the Hawk Moth) should be enough to hammer the last nail in the dead theory of evolution, but people who love to reject the truth and hang on to faerie tales simply won’t let go. Even Darwin didn’t get the point that a totally dependent specie of orchid must already be established in it’s size in order to accomodate pollination by the only creature that actually can pollenate it (the Hawk Moth with a 10-inch tongue) in order for it to exist (and survive to ever be pollenated) in the first place. The orchid has no time inbetween to “figure” it out, that it’s not going to get pollenated unless it changes an attribute. If it doesn’t get pollenated, it ceases to exist. Period.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get at. New species can come from established species. It might be because of micro-evolution, it might be because of other factors, such as geography.
Adaptation, specialization, etc. is evolution. It’s a theory because it can’t be proven fact, but it is fairly universally held by the vast majority of scientists in the field. You failed to post about the numerous BB comments that refute your quoted comment.
I suppose you also believe that the world was created in exactly 7 days? Have you read the same posters other comments? He doesn’t do anything but spout creationist beliefs, which have been proven scientifically inaccurate. And BB doesn’t allow anonymous posting, so it’s definitely the same dude posting all that stuff.
Seriously, pick up a book on evolution that doesn’t involve religion. You’ll learn something. Until then, you’re wrong.
There is evidence in live animals today that shows they evolved from something else. Whales and dolphins have extra bones that do nothing, though those bones happen to be exactly where legs would go had they been land animals.