Scientists raise fish on land. Evolution stronger than ever. Sorry YEC's, you just lost.

[lewisnotmiller]

Again...it does show adaptive change to environment.
The fact that the environment is an artificial construct is granted. Science commonly involves the use of controlled environments to test hypothesis.

Is your take that evidence of adaptive change is only possible in a natural environment? Why?

 

[Desert Snake]

Again...it does show adaptive change to environment.
The fact that the environment is an artificial construct is granted. Science commonly involves the use of controlled environments to test hypothesis.

Is your take that evidence of adaptive change is only possible in a natural environment? Why?

It's the only reliable 'evidence'. I don't just accept controlled environment experiments as proving what happens in the natural world. It indicates possibilities only.

 

[Parsimony]

Unless I misread something in the link, I don't think this amounts to evolution. Evolution does not describe changes during an individual's life, but rather changes in populations over the generations. These fish got better at walking on land over time, but that's akin to a person who gets better at lifting weights over time. The changes need to be passed down from one generation to the next to work as evolution.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The link is not the end all of this debate, that happened over 100 years ago.

Ok, but what the link shows is an adaptable species, the result of evolution. Evolution requires genetic variability in a population. This variability is produced at meiosis. When the environment chafes, which it always does, and in this case that change was precipitated by the researchers, evolution predicts that individuals within the population will adapt to varying degrees, based on their genetic variability.

Some individuals will have the genetic makeup that leads to success in the current environment, some will not be as good. Evolution DOES speak to adaptability within the lifetime of an individual. But this adaptability is a result of the genetic variability within the population.

If the environmental changes are long-term, or even directional, then the genetic variability at the population level will shift towards fitness in the new environment. If the changes are short-term, shifting back and forth, then the gene pool will remain relatively unchanged over several generations.

The results of this experiment are remarkably exactly what evolution theory predicts.

 

[Alceste]

Unless I misread something in the link, I don't think this amounts to evolution. Evolution does not describe changes during an individual's life, but rather changes in populations over the generations. These fish got better at walking on land over time, but that's akin to a person who gets better at lifting weights over time. The changes need to be passed down from one generation to the next to work as evolution.

You're right, but they found significant physiological differences in one generation that selection pressures can now act upon. Now they are planning to observe the results over many generations.

Not exactly a check mate, but evolution doesn't need one, since 100% of the biology studies we've ever performed are consistent with it. Anyone who doesn't already accept the truth of it probably never will.

 

[Parsimony]

You're right, but they found significant physiological differences in one generation that selection pressures can now act upon.

If those changes are heritable, that is. Given epigenetics, I suppose we might actually expect for there to be some degree of inheritance of these new traits.

Now they are planning to observe the results over many generations.

I'd be quite interested in seeing that. I'm curious if they can reproduce under such conditions. Still, the first fish to walk on land probably still returned to water to reproduce, given that amphibians often do the same.

Not exactly a check mate, but evolution doesn't need one, since 100% of the biology studies we've ever performed are consistent with it. Anyone who doesn't already accept the truth of it probably never will.

Right. Though I would say that "checkmates" can be found throughout evolutionary theory. Creationists just have a habit of using strawmen and outdated/misquoted references to make the evidence seem less compelling that it really is.

 

[Delta-9]

Unless I misread something in the link, I don't think this amounts to evolution. Evolution does not describe changes during an individual's life, but rather changes in populations over the generations. These fish got better at walking on land over time, but that's akin to a person who gets better at lifting weights over time. The changes need to be passed down from one generation to the next to work as evolution.

True. I don't know but I'd be interested to know if any epigenetic changes are taking place from continually being on land. If so these changes can be passed on to the next generation, maybe even poise permanent DNA changes, perhaps the environment plays a more active role in evolution than we realize. Interesting stuff to ponder.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What does this have to do with humans coming from monkeys?

Nothing.

 

[Alceste]

If those changes are heritable, that is. Given epigenetics, I suppose we might actually expect for there to be some degree of inheritance of these new traits.


I'd be quite interested in seeing that. I'm curious if they can reproduce under such conditions. Still, the first fish to walk on land probably still returned to water to reproduce, given that amphibians often do the same.

I'm interested as well. The theory would predict that the critters whose morphological changes are more developed will live longer and have further opportunities to reproduce, but I don't know how you could emulate the impact of predation or food scarcity in lab conditions.

OTOH, they can just separate the test population from the control population, raise the test population in increasingly dry conditions and see what transpires. That will be the observable impact of genetic drift, inevitably, but I'm curious to see what it is, specifically.

Heck, the test population might just die off, like 90 % of the creatures that ever lived. That's part of it.

Right. Though I would say that "checkmates" can be found throughout evolutionary theory. Creationists just have a habit of using strawmen and outdated/misquoted references to make the evidence seem less compelling that it really is.

They do. Cognitive bias is a powerful master.

 

[Parsimony]

True. I don't know but I'd be interested to know if any epigenetic changes are taking place from continually being on land. If so these changes can be passed on to the next generation, maybe even poise permanent DNA changes, perhaps the environment plays a more active role in evolution than we realize. Interesting stuff to ponder.

I imagine that we are in for a lot of surprises when it comes to the field of epigenetics. There is already evidence, for example, that fear can be inherited epigenetically.

 

[outhouse]

To be fair, it's a tough forum to get a good discussion going in.
There's just not enough common ground for the more stringent YEC and a 'evolutionist' (for want of a better word) to talk about.

If you're a YEC, you're pretty brave to put your thoughts up here, rely on scriptual evidence that 'evolutionists' would immediately discount as not meeting evidentiary requirements, and then hope to actually gain anything from the ensuing discussion.

YEC pretty much avoid these debates.

The ones here have all tried and all failed to the point of embarrassment.


Its a position that is laughable, and having nothing to back up any aspect of said interpretation, there is nothing to debate.

 

[Alceste]

I must say this is the most interesting thread we've seen in this DIR for a while. Maybe the absence of creationists is a blessing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's the only reliable 'evidence'. I don't just accept controlled environment experiments as proving what happens in the natural world. It indicates possibilities only.

Backtracking and goalpoast moving. Nothing more. A few decades ago there was a huge argument that adaptation would never cause speciation. Now we have proved speciation with small organisms with short life cycles. Suddenly thats not good enough. The definition of "kind" now means anything remotely similar and no matter if its a different species its still of the same "kind".

We show how a fish could make its first steps on land. Nah gotta move the goalposts again.

In a few decades when we are able to provide further proof for evolution the goalposts for creationists will be moved yet again.

 

[Delta-9]

Backtracking and goalpoast moving. Nothing more. A few decades ago there was a huge argument that adaptation would never cause speciation. Now we have proved speciation with small organisms with short life cycles. Suddenly thats not good enough. The definition of "kind" now means anything remotely similar and no matter if its a different species its still of the same "kind".

We show how a fish could make its first steps on land. Nah gotta move the goalposts again.

In a few decades when we are able to provide further proof for evolution the goalposts for creationists will be moved yet again.

The crazy part is that all these new-found evidences are just icing on the cake and in no way necessary to demonstrate evolution empirically. The fundamental problem, of course, is a lack of understanding regarding the theory in the first place and a dogmatic belief requiring it to be false irrespective of evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

What does this have to do with humans coming from monkeys?

Humans didn't come from monkeys.

Nothing.

It discusses evolution. You know that thing humans once did?

 

[Mycroft]

It's the only reliable 'evidence'. I don't just accept controlled environment experiments as proving what happens in the natural world. It indicates possibilities only.

Since you'll never accept anything as evidence, why are you even here? Those who have such steadfast conviction have no need of debate forums.

 

[Desert Snake]

What does this have to do with humans coming from monkeys?

Nothing.

Bingo.

 

[Desert Snake]

Backtracking and goalpoast moving. Nothing more. A few decades ago there was a huge argument that adaptation would never cause speciation. Now we have proved speciation with small organisms with short life cycles. Suddenly thats not good enough. The definition of "kind" now means anything remotely similar and no matter if its a different species its still of the same "kind".

We show how a fish could make its first steps on land. Nah gotta move the goalposts again.

In a few decades when we are able to provide further proof for evolution the goalposts for creationists will be moved yet again.

Yawn. It isn't 'moving the goalposts', there never were goalposts, just the need for evidence. Wishful thinking on your part that it's been provided.

 

[freethinker44]

Absolutely amazing experiment. Details here....

Scientists raised these fish to walk on land | The Verge

Checkmate evolutionists!!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yawn. It isn't 'moving the goalposts', there never were goalposts, just the need for evidence. Wishful thinking on your part that it's been provided.

You want evidence of 'evolution' as if it is a single thing? You want it to occur in a natural environment, rather than a contrived one, and you want it to be convincing.

Easy done...I've set up a camera in my backyard. It's gonna take a little while for the results to come in though...



The rest of us are making do with contrived scientific experiments meant to test various aspects of evolutionary theories in manners which provide results in a somewhat timely fashion.

But regardless, what sort of evidence are you looking for? Evidence of speciation that occurred naturally and was not subject to human interference, but only observation?