God made more crickets!

[halik]

linkie

Interesting, on one side we have species adapting to new tread and on the other we have an all-powerfull supreme being coming up with new bugs. We probably should teach both in biology...

 

[dexvx]

So what happens when all the crickets have silent wings? Seems like they cannot reproduce, as it is still needed.

 

[dahunan]

Crickets look similar to cockroaches --

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: halik
Interesting, on one side we have species adapting to new tread and on the other we have an all-powerfull supreme being coming up with new bugs. We probably should teach both in biology...

Now that's a crock! Unless you intended your statement as sarcasm, I don't see how it goes with the last quote from those doing the research:

"While we were surprised by the extraordinary speed at which the mutation spread, what is more interesting is that, ordinarily, you would expect such a change in wing morphology to quickly disappear, because males couldn't attract mates," Zuk said. "Instead, the behavior of the flatwings allows them to capitalize on the few callers that remain, and thus escape the fly and still reproduce. This is seeing evolution at work."

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: dexvx
So what happens when all the crickets have silent wings? Seems like they cannot reproduce, as it is still needed.

I'm sure they still bump into each other one way or another.

 

[DrPizza]

Very interesting!

 

[BrownTown]

yes, add this to the 1000 other similar occurances and you start to have a pretty good body of evidence for evolution. Now it seems even creationists have conceded microevolution though, but only God can create new species. I guess well just have to wait a few hundred more generations till the crickets that use sound wont mate withthe ones that dotn andd then we have 2 species and the creationsits say, maybe you can make new species, but no way you can make a whole new genus. Then the same argument will procede up to families, order, classes, phlum, etc... Of course since humans will likely be extinct before we see new kingdoms of animals comming about the creationists will eventually never be proven wrong .

 

[ProfJohn]

A radio talk show host made a good wise crack about the anti-evolution people when talking about the bird flu scare.

As he said, right now bird flu can not pass from person to person, for that to happen it has to mutate i.e. evolve. He then went through a list of things you can do to protect yourself if an outbreak happens.

And ended it with the comment, ?of course if you don?t believe in evolution then you can ignore all of this because the flu will never evolve into a state that can hurt you.?

creationism=social studies, evolution=science

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: halik
Interesting, on one side we have species adapting to new tread and on the other we have an all-powerfull supreme being coming up with new bugs. We probably should teach both in biology...

Now that's a crock! Unless you intended your statement as sarcasm, I don't see how it goes with the last quote from those doing the research:

"While we were surprised by the extraordinary speed at which the mutation spread, what is more interesting is that, ordinarily, you would expect such a change in wing morphology to quickly disappear, because males couldn't attract mates," Zuk said. "Instead, the behavior of the flatwings allows them to capitalize on the few callers that remain, and thus escape the fly and still reproduce. This is seeing evolution at work."

check your sarcasm meter, man...

 

[MadRat]

How do they know that crickets don't inevitably extend these traits naturally? I mean, these changes are just as probable as evolution to be pre-programmed into them just because of the right natural variables are now in place. We really have no clue what makes people so uniquely different from one another let alone why clones are often just mere clones genetically but not identical in exact looks. I've always wondered if they put birds into primordial conditions if they don't suddenly produce offspring that resemble dinosaurs due to some inherent locked in environmental trigger.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: MadRat
How do they know that crickets don't inevitably extend these traits naturally?

Evolution is "natural."

I mean, these changes are just as probable as evolution to be pre-programmed into them just because of the right natural variables are now in place.

Natural variables now in place = selection from a pool of variables = evolution

We really have no clue what makes people so uniquely different from one another

different genes.

let alone why clones are often just mere clones genetically but not identical in exact looks.

Non linear processes (such as formation of fingerprints) will lead to differences, even with near identical starting conditions, such as identical twins.

I've always wondered if they put birds into primordial conditions if they don't suddenly produce offspring that resemble dinosaurs due to some inherent locked in environmental trigger.

There's no reason to think so.

 

[MadRat]

Evolution assumes a change in potential, the changes are not inherent but inherited. Minor quibble of terms because your interpretation changes the meaning.

No reason to not think birds under primordial conditions (atmospheric, radiation, daylight length, gravity, etc.) wouldn't change the birds gradually let alone in a single generation. Plants can undergo drastic formulative changes in a single growing season, so why not higher forms of life?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Evolution assumes a change in potential, the changes are not inherent but inherited. Minor quibble of terms because your interpretation changes the meaning.

This isn't really correct as mutations can and do occur in germline cells. You can find traits in offspring that didn't exist in the parent(s).

Also, I don't know what you mean by "assumes a change in potential." What potential?

No reason to not think birds under primordial conditions (atmospheric, radiation, daylight length, gravity, etc.) wouldn't change the birds gradually let alone in a single generation. Plants can undergo drastic formulative changes in a single growing season, so why not higher forms of life?

You'd expect the birds to eventually adapt to new conditions, but that doesn't imply reversions to dinosaurs. Perhaps acquiring some traits similar to those of dinosaurs (parallel evolution, basically). i.e. similar solutions to filling similar ecological niches... but without a doubt you'd still have separate species, distinguishable from dinosaurs.

Large phenotypic changes can occur over single generations (even in animals, it's been observed), but I don't see how this can be construed as any sort of argument against evolution.

 

[Trevelyan]

Here is my position on the matter. I apologize for the length.


The key to understanding exactly what has been proven by this experiment is this statement:

"...underwent a mutation, a sudden heritable change in its genetic material, that rendered it incapable of using song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets..."

This is an important point. Note, this mutation did not lead to an increase in information-content in the genome. The organism gained no new form or function. The mutation merely corrupted an already-existing gene, causing loss of expression in the phenotype, meaning the crickets did not produce their sexual signal (song).

This loss of expression turned out to be beneficial, so the trait spread throughout the genome of the population, due to pressures of natural selection.

Creationists recognize and agree that natural selection takes place, such as what has been shown here. In fact, this sort of thing happens all the time, and there are many recorded observations in scientific literature.

Most people don't seem to realize that creationists agree with natural selection. They even study things such as speciation, and agree that they are in fact reliable scientific observations.

But consider this quote:

"The problem with the NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory] is not natural selection ? this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information. The real issue concerns mutations, the alleged source of all the new information needed for evolution."
Source: http://www.trueorigin.org/chance.asp

This kind of mutation, what has been shown in the experiment, is not what is to be required for evidence of evolution.

For instance, consider a recent observation of beetles on a windy island. On this windy island, beetles were often blown out to the sea when they tried to fly. By chance, a mutation caused certain beetles to be born without fully developed wings. An effect of not being able to fly was not being blown out to sea, an obvious selective advantage. So eventually, natural selection caused the gene for non-functional wings to spread throughout the population.

That is similar to what we are seeing here, and you can see how this is a loss, or corruption of genetic information. In fact, this shows us how mutations actually cause genetic information to deteriorate. What has been shown is a mutation resulting in the corruption of genetic information, a deterioration of the same genetic information that is supposed to have been built by mutations in the first place.

While people are touting this around as evidence of evolution, what we are really seeing is an obvious case of information-corrupting mutations having the side effect of a selective advantage. Only by confusing the issue can this be paraded as evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

The truth is, there are no known studies where mutations are shown to create new genetic information. And yet, the belief that mutations can somehow account for the origin of all genetic information is still repeatedly affirmed.




Please feel free to respond with comments. I will try to answer everyone back tomorrow.

 

[Kadarin]

The answer is that clearly, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, the son of God, who is the Creator of the heavens and the universe, specifically wanted these crickets to shut the hell up.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Here is my position on the matter. I apologize for the length.


The key to understanding exactly what has been proven by this experiment is this statement:

"...underwent a mutation, a sudden heritable change in its genetic material, that rendered it incapable of using song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets..."

This is an important point. Note, this mutation did not lead to an increase in information-content in the genome. The organism gained no new form or function. The mutation merely corrupted an already-existing gene, causing loss of expression in the phenotype, meaning the crickets did not produce their sexual signal (song).

This loss of expression turned out to be beneficial, so the trait spread throughout the genome of the population, due to pressures of natural selection.

Creationists recognize and agree that natural selection takes place, such as what has been shown here. In fact, this sort of thing happens all the time, and there are many recorded observations in scientific literature.

Most people don't seem to realize that creationists agree with natural selection. They even study things such as speciation, and agree that they are in fact reliable scientific observations.

But consider this quote:

"The problem with the NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory] is not natural selection ? this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information. The real issue concerns mutations, the alleged source of all the new information needed for evolution."
Source: http://www.trueorigin.org/chance.asp

This kind of mutation, what has been shown in the experiment, is not what is to be required for evidence of evolution.

For instance, consider a recent observation of beetles on a windy island. On this windy island, beetles were often blown out to the sea when they tried to fly. By chance, a mutation caused certain beetles to be born without fully developed wings. An effect of not being able to fly was not being blown out to sea, an obvious selective advantage. So eventually, natural selection caused the gene for non-functional wings to spread throughout the population.

That is similar to what we are seeing here, and you can see how this is a loss, or corruption of genetic information. In fact, this shows us how mutations actually cause genetic information to deteriorate. What has been shown is a mutation resulting in the corruption of genetic information, a deterioration of the same genetic information that is supposed to have been built by mutations in the first place.

While people are touting this around as evidence of evolution, what we are really seeing is an obvious case of information-corrupting mutations having the side effect of a selective advantage. Only by confusing the issue can this be paraded as evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

The truth is, there are no known studies where mutations are shown to create new genetic information. And yet, the belief that mutations can somehow account for the origin of all genetic information is still repeatedly affirmed.




Please feel free to respond with comments. I will try to answer everyone back tomorrow.

A duplication followed by any change in one of the duplicates is an increase in information. The human genome is absolutely loaded with examples of such.

 

[MadRat]

Damn, the non-flying beetle analogy draws parrallels to the dodo bird. Think of all the poor dodoes that could fly wandering out there and drowning, too.

 

[Puwaha]

Originally posted by: TrevelyanThat is similar to what we are seeing here, and you can see how this is a loss, or corruption of genetic information. In fact, this shows us how mutations actually cause genetic information to deteriorate. What has been shown is a mutation resulting in the corruption of genetic information, a deterioration of the same genetic information that is supposed to have been built by mutations in the first place.

The problem with this position is that you are viewing it through the scope of a single alteration. In otherwords, microevolution. Macroevolution, takes into account hundreds, and thousands, and even millions or billions of these alterations over time. There is no such thing as a "loss" of information, only a different expression of what is there.

For instance, the beetles did not "lose" the ability to express wings. In fact, the genetic code for wings are still embedded, and with a single reverse mutation can be expressed again. This "reverse mutation" can give the appearance of a species spontaneously growing wings, when it's ancestors didn't seem to have the ability to have wings in the first place.

Now, take into account, that the beetles can change the shape, and size, and color of the wings over millions of generations, until a totally new species arrives that is radically different from it's genetic-ancestor.


Take a look at vestigial appendages or organs in humans and other animals. Are the remnants of our ancestors being portrayed when a baby is born with a "tail"? Are the remnants of a snake's ancestors being portrayed when it has a hind limb bud?


So, in fact, there is no such thing as a "loss", or a deteriorization of genetic material. Because that would mean that with every single mutation, the species gets closer and closer to extinction, to the point that offspring wouldn't be able to survive. That's just silly.

The truth is, there are no known studies where mutations are shown to create new genetic information. And yet, the belief that mutations can somehow account for the origin of all genetic information is still repeatedly affirmed.

That's not the point. If you are tring to state that we haven't observed an increase (or decrease) in a species chromosomes, then you are correct, and that is a difficult one to reconcile.

But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss evolution completely because of that quandry, as the alternative makes just as much sense.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Puwaha

--big snip--

That's not the point. If you are tring to state that we haven't observed an increase (or decrease) in a species chromosomes, then you are correct, and that is a difficult one to reconcile.

But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss evolution completely because of that quandry, as the alternative makes just as much sense.

Changes in numbers of chromosomes has been observed in plants, and there's extremely strong evidence of it in the human (and other) genome(s).

In any case, the number of chromosomes (or even the total amount of DNA in a cell) is not a valid way to measure information content of a genome.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
For instance, consider a recent observation of beetles on a windy island. On this windy island, beetles were often blown out to the sea when they tried to fly. By chance, a mutation caused certain beetles to be born without fully developed wings. An effect of not being able to fly was not being blown out to sea, an obvious selective advantage. So eventually, natural selection caused the gene for non-functional wings to spread throughout the population.

Because now, in this new environment, flightless beetles are surviving and reproducing at a higher rate than their flighted comrades.

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
That is similar to what we are seeing here, and you can see how this is a loss, or corruption of genetic information.

This is neither a loss nor a corruption of genetic information. It's simply an alteration. I'm not sure why you're using subjectively loaded terms like 'corruption' - this isn't some morality issue.

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
In fact, this shows us how mutations actually cause genetic information to deteriorate.

What kind of nonsense is this? Mutations don't cause genetic deterioration, they cause genetic change. Most of the time those changes result in bad things happening to the mutant, but not always.

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
What has been shown is a mutation resulting in the corruption of genetic information, a deterioration of the same genetic information that is supposed to have been built by mutations in the first place.

Dude, did you sleep through Genetics 101?

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
While people are touting this around as evidence of evolution, what we are really seeing is an obvious case of information-corrupting mutations having the side effect of a selective advantage. Only by confusing the issue can this be paraded as evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

The truth is, there are no known studies where mutations are shown to create new genetic information. And yet, the belief that mutations can somehow account for the origin of all genetic information is still repeatedly affirmed.

More like more disinformation, disingenuity, & flat out ignorance from people who'd rather be told what's True than understand facts.

Go google "SNP forensics" - mutations cause new genetic information so often we use them to figure out whodunit.

 

[Puwaha]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Changes in numbers of chromosomes has been observed in plants, and there's extremely strong evidence of it in the human (and other) genome(s).

I can see where a plant can change the number of chromosomes, if the plant was reproduced as a "clone", rather than sexually. But I don't see it happening to any plant or animal that reproduces sexually, as there would be no other "mate" to match up chromosomes.

Though, I suppose, it's possible that two sexually reproduced offspring with the exact same mutation could further reproduce. But only if the extra chromosome wasn't fatal to the reproduction process. The odds of this happening to insects or animals that produce a large number of offspring in a single generation would obviously have a greater chance to express this change. Which is why the large number of variation exists in "lower" forms (insects and other invertibrates) compared to say... humans?

I guess I'm rambling now.

In any case, the number of chromosomes (or even the total amount of DNA in a cell) is not a valid way to measure information content of a genome.

Agreed.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: dexvx
So what happens when all the crickets have silent wings? Seems like they cannot reproduce, as it is still needed.

Then those who don't figure out that a silent mate is good will die. If the species doesn't have a way or reproducing, it dies. Simple as that. I'm sure that plenty of species have come and gone because of various problems over time. We don't see them because they've died out. Or perhaps they are currently in the process of dying out, but it happens so slowly that our tiny lifespans are nowhere near enough to see it through to completion.

Plenty of animals and insects have ways of finding mates that do not rely on noise. Color and pheremones come to mind. And sometimes, sure, color can make you a very visible target for predators. For example, the monarch butterfly. Big, slow-moving, colorful bug. Solution? Some of them from a certain egg patch might have tasted lousy. Insect-eaters in that area soon realized that these big orange flying things taste like crap, so the foul-tasting butterflies are more likely to reproduce and make more foul-tasting offspring.
Maybe there will come a day when the monarchs will begin to mutate to new color patterns, and perhaps turn black. Suddenly the viceroy butterfly, also orange, will find itself being wiped out because its handy lookalike doesn't look very much alike anymore. Meanwhile, the Eastern Black Swallowtail will happen to find itself under the protective shield of the foul-tasting black monarchs.

 

[MadRat]

Since we don't really have those pesky RNA strips figured out yet then we'l largely have to take for granted DNA is doing all the selective work. What if RNA was the key to expressing genes under a variation of environmental factors?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Since we don't really have those pesky RNA strips figured out yet then we'l largely have to take for granted DNA is doing all the selective work. What if RNA was the key to expressing genes under a variation of environmental factors?

Who said it wasn't? DNA is the predominant carrier of genetic information, but there are lots of things RNA does, including playing a prominent role in some evolutionary events. Gene conversion, retroviral insertions, ribozymes, RNA interference, introns and splicing... aminoacyl tRNA synthetases are really interesting from an evolutionary perspective.

Let me know if you'd like more information about any of the above.