Religious Ceremony Leads To Evolution of Cave Fish 233
An anonymous reader writes "A centuries-old religious ceremony of an indigenous people in southern Mexico has led to evolutionary changes in a local species of fish, say researchers at Texas A&M University. Apparently since before Columbus arrived, the Zoque people would venture each spring into the sulfuric cave Cueva del Azufre to beg the gods for bountiful rain. As part of the ritual, they released into the cave's waters a leaf-bound paste made of lime and the ground-up root of the barbasco plant, a natural fish toxin. The rest is worth reading, but the upshot is that the fish living in the cave waters eventually got wise, genetically speaking."
I predict (Score:5, Funny)
that this thread will be characterized by civil discussion and insightful exchange of ideas, with little or no flamage
Correlation does imply causation? (Score:4, Funny)
this thread will be characterized by civil discussion and insightful exchange of ideas
Sure, let's debate whether it's the religious ceremonies that cause evolution or vice versa
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy.
That was a quick debate!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed quite a few people here on /. who quietly support young Earth ideas.
How do you know people support those ideas when they're quiet about it?
Could you name a few of those ideas?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At the risk of opening the proverbial can of worms, some of the basic ideas often associated with young Earth creationism that I've seen on /. would be; the idea that God created, the role of assumptions (worldview) in interpretation of evidence, unprovable assumptions in the application of some radiation dating methods and of course the idea that the Earth itself could be much younger that theorised. These are some basic ideas that I've read in comments on /.
Personally I don't have a problem with proper de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the idea that God created
This is hardly an idea unique to young-earth creationism. Indeed, nearly all religions who recognise gods believe (at least one of them) created the earth/universe.
the role of assumptions (worldview) in interpretation of evidence
Confirmation bias is a well-known effect, particularly in scientific circles, and pretty much by definition not something that only the "opposite" site can be guilty of. Hence my sig :P
unprovable assumptions in the application of some radiation dating methods
Which are those? The ones I know of (like the differing amounts of atmospheric C14 throughout history) are calibrated against, and shouldn't give an error of more
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And actually it's not hard to believe in God creating the universe while being in line with science: After all, the big bang theory is scientific consensus at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Debates are great for YECs but pretty pointless for their opponents. The subject is complex - encompassing theology and all the sciences, so uninformed audiences are more likely to decide a "winner" based on ignorance and personal beliefs. It happens on both sides of the argument. People claim to "believe" in evolution, yet can offer few good reasons for their stance, and some YEC advocates respond in by grabbin
Re: (Score:2)
Uninformed criticism of both science and Christianity is annoying.
I agree. But by an large criticism of evolution as a science is uninformed. On the other hand most of the critics of Christianity that I'm am familiar with are more familiar with the tenets of Christianity and the text of the Christian Bible(s) than the supporters of Christianity are. They are usually more aware of where we get specific dogma (such as literal interpretation of the creation myths, where the YEC estimate for the age of the earth comes from, how old the concept of the Rapture is.) Most c
Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a hard time deciding between replying to you or using my mod points to mod you Toll.
You see, I also believe in evolution, science and all the other things you said. I also do not believe in God and believe Creationalism is stupid. But, I, apparently, have one thing you do not: Manners.
The parent wrote his beliefs in a polite, respecting manner. He did not say: "Stupid evolutionalists! Can't you see that GOD is with me?" He was stating his beliefs while respecting ours. The least you could do was respond in kind and not use words like: "idiots", "scum", "i truely wish you were all dead", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Relax a little. Some people simply cannot build themselves up without tearing someone else down. It's a race to the lowest common denominator with them. It's how they evolved or failed to evolve when the world changed around them.
Re: (Score:2)
So you propose a crusade against religion in the name of science? I will refrain from answering you as it does not become me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, no, I am not advocating a violent crusade against religion. I am advocating HONESTY. Are you a rational human being? Then stop pretending that religion is ok. Stop supporting them. Stop saying that it's just a matter of opinion, or a personal right, or that we must defend religious tolerance. We must advocate peace, and we must advocate human rights. Nobody should ever be murdered or assaulted for any reason, period. That doesn't mean that we should allow any kind of behavior just because it gets tax ex
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that religion was the source of much killing and suffering throughout history. OTOH, you have to differentiate between two kinds of religion.
1) The personal belief of someone - This I do not object to. If someone wants to believe in God (or whatever he may call it), so be it. Some people derive security in the belief of a higher power watching over them. As long as it is their personal belief and they do not try to coerce anyone else, may they have fun eating Kosher all their life.
2) The religious i
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you do understand we are both on the same side? What you said is just semantics (in this context - in discussions with Creationalists, you have a point).
I agree that accepting scientific notions has no relation with belief. OTOH, it was just the most straightforward way to write the sentence. No reference to blind-faith intended.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't all the sudden. You simply started paying attention to more then your own preconceived notions and realized that not everyone agreed with you. It's nothing new, it's not a conspiracy, it's just life outside your bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps what you have seen isn't so much a resurgence of republicans, but a downfall of agenda oriented democrats?
I don't particularly identify with any party either. I tend to be more conservative then liberal politically speaking though.
Maybe it's more of something where people didn't like X and now they decided they don't like Y even more and X is actually tolerable.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that adaptation on the genetic level isn't evolution?
Re:I predict (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is adaption. You just admitted that evolution is true. Cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think he was talking about adaptation as evolution and not speciation as in what religion would be in conflict with as the op suggested by calling on the young earthers?
I mean seriously, you can legitimately divide evolution and evolutionary theory into two distinct groups. One being adaptation and the other being speciation. One might lead to the other but has never been observed unless someone plays with the definition of species in order to point it out. Now most every religion that I know
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Species adapt. If a population splits for any reason then the two subpopulations adapt differently. Over time the different adaptions obviously pile in the two populations, and obviously the populations become increasingly different over time. Humans like to label things, and when differences pile up they like to make up a new species-label for one or both populations. "Let's call these lions and let's call those tigers".
Evolution Q.E.D.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you one of those denialists who's understa
Re: (Score:2)
"When faced with undeniable facts and undeniable evidence"
Not evolution, buddy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dude, I feel your pain. Evolution is so obvious, so evident, so undeniable. We experience it every day, even within our own families. And yet, you find people that tell you that there is "no proof of evolution", but he insists that there is more proof of the existence of an invisible man in the sky. Even when all evidence goes against it, he insists that there is only evidence for it. And does the opposite with evolution. Stupidity hurts because we try to understand them.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is so obvious, so evident, so undeniable. We experience it every day, even within our own families.
Huh?
Maybe if you're living in Chernobyl .... otherwise, I call bullshit. I don't think you know what evolution actually is.
Religion causing evolution.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading the TFA, I'd say it mostly speculation.
The conclusion about the differences in reaction to the toxin is kind of speculative, as the research was done on fish, which was extracted from natural habitat, placed in stressful conditions, etc. Pinning this squarely on "evolution" and human influence is an interesting proposition, but that's it.
This is even more true of the "evolution" part of the article. The paper presents some statistical evidence that fish from different parts of the water body respond
Maybe you'll believe this guy... (Score:3, Informative)
but saying "ceremony leads to evolution" is certainly over-stretching it.
Here is a similar story of humans pushing the natural selection of aquatic species in certain direction through religious ceremony. [youtube.com]
To paraphrase the conclusion in the video above - all this has nothing to do with what the fish might want, selection is imposed from the outside.
Re:Maybe you'll believe this guy... (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently, the story in the video isn't true.
http://crustacea.nhm.org/people/martin/publications/pdf/103.pdf [nhm.org]
So, maybe I'll stick to my disbelief until I see clear evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what that article is trying to point out.
Of course crabs already have such structures, and of course there is a biological purpose to them.
And pointing out that there are other species that have similar appearance - and then saying the following...
This is not
to say that these structures are unaffected by select
i o n . ~ h aer~e a s subject to evolutionary pressures
as any other feature of a crab. The point here is that
these ridges and grooves occur in nearly all members
of the crab family Dorippidae, whether they
live near Japan or not. As pointed out by the great
Japanese carcinologist Tune Sakai, there are at least
17 different species of crabs in two families in the
Indo-West Pacific that are similar enough to be
called Heikegani by local residents, and there are
many related species from other far off waters that
bear a likeness to a human face. Many Asian countries
have vernacular names to account for the similarity
of such crabs to a human face, such as the
Chinese name Kuei Lien Hsieh (Ghost or Demon
faced crab), and in several countries the crabs play a
prominent role in local folklore, sometimes being
considered sacred, with the face representing that
of a deceased relative.
What is the point of the article?
"I don't agree with your theory but here's some more evidence to support it."
And the "coupe-de-gras" argument only makes you suspect that the author went to Imperial Stormtrooper school of logic - he's missing the point en
Re: (Score:2)
And then there are these crabs we put back in the water if we happen to catch them accidentally - based on their looks.
TFA points out that NONE of the crabs of that type are eaten: they are all too small too eat, so they're all thrown back, regardless of their resemblance to a face. So their is no evolutionary pressure based on their looks.
Re: (Score:2)
There's evolutionary advantage of not being turned into cattle fodder, fishing bait, fertilizer or killed just for fun.
Not like we humans really need a REASON to kill something.
Now on the other hand, if we are given some kind of a deterrent...
Like possible damnation, curse, bad luck...
You know, there is a reason every religion has those "Thou shall not kill, steal, covet your neighbor's wife etc." rules.
We tend to act like assholes toward other creatures. Human and otherwise.
Particularly otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can rant about the sick humanity, or you can just accept that you were proven wrong on a minor point in a slashdot thread, and learn that looking for evidence and reason behind a phenomenon is better than "belief" in something, even if it comes from a luminary of Sagan's caliber. I don't recall him ever implying he's error-free ;)
While I'd doubt him a lot less on topics in physics or astronomy, I'd still check any point I don't understand and care about, even if it is only for self-education.
Re:Religion causing evolution.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not necessary to understand the biochemistry or the underlying mechanisms in order to deduce an evolutionary response, it's sufficient to note that the fish are more resistant to the leaf-throwing than those upstream.
Really? Even (unlike the Darwin's case) if there are other feasible explanations? Have you heard of, for instance, mithridization -- the ability of plants and animals to acquire partial immunity from acute poisoning if a low dosage is administered for a long time beforehand?
It is an acquired trait (not passed genetically) that can quite nicely explain this phenomenon and dispense with the need for evolution.
I didn't see anything in the article that would discount this possibility. Without understanding the biochemistry, claiming evolutionary response is just a hypothesis, especially in a small population like the one, discussed in the article.
Also, while you have modpoints, you obviously don't know what is a "strawman argument", go look it up ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do have modpoints, but am resisting using them to point out two things.
Firstly, you are of course correct that without some understanding of the mechanism, any explanation based on Darwinian evolution is premature. For a start, it is a very short timescale, but who knows - we could speculate that some mutation in the active site of the enzyme that was targeted by this poison has rendered it ineffective.
Secondly, 'mithridization' refers to dosing yourself with small amounts of a poison until you build up a
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the support on logic fallacies, it isn't even amusing anymore when people throw in labels they've read in another thread instead of arguments.
'mithridization' refers to dosing yourself with small amounts of a poison until you build up an immunity. It has nothing to do with acquired characteristics (or epigenetics).
From what little biology I remember from school, the immunization that would result from mithridization would be precisely an acquired trait.
I could be wrong though.
Re:Religion causing evolution.... (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the support on logic fallacies, it isn't even amusing anymore when people throw in labels they've read in another thread instead of arguments
No problem. It annoys me as well. Especially "ad hominem".
From what little biology I remember from school, the immunization that would result from mithridization would be precisely an acquired trait.
I could be wrong though.
Ah, well it is acquired for the individual, but not for its children. As wikipedia says, drinking alcohol is a good example - the more you drink, the more of the detoxification machinery is made by the body, so the more drinks it takes to get you drunk. Your children won't benefit from this immunity, however.
Re: (Score:2)
it is acquired for the individual, but not for its children.
My point exactly - there could be other explanations to the ability of fish to resist than evolutionary response - or alongside an evolutionary response. It need not be simple, one-factor thing; and just like the TFA is saying "religious ceremony is the cause" I was oversimplifying.
The original paper puts it best -- there is statistical evidence, let's see if we can find the real reason, which we suspect is evolutionary response. The linked popular article inflates this to a level that was never implied by
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard of, for instance, mithridization -- the ability of plants and animals to acquire partial immunity from acute poisoning if a low dosage is administered for a long time beforehand?
It is an acquired trait (not passed genetically) that can quite nicely explain this phenomenon and dispense with the need for evolution.
I didn't see anything in the article that would discount this possibility.
Apparently you didn't read until the third paragraph : "[...] has discovered that some of these fish have managed not only to develop a resistance to the plant’s powerful toxin, but also to pass on their tolerant genes to their offspring, enabling them to survive in the face of otherwise certain death for their non-evolved brethren." and then further on: "[...] Mollies able to tolerate the poisonous conditions survived and passed those traits to their offspring."
Re:Religion causing evolution.... (Score:5, Informative)
Allow me to refer you to the REAL research paper, which says no such thing:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/09/06/rsbl.2010.0663.full?sid=b26a2194-7a63-4bfc-acdd-b62460fffa9a [royalsocie...ishing.org]
Re:Religion causing evolution.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed the paper talks about a "potential effect on gene flow" ("Our findings reveal potential effects of an indigenous cultural practice on three distinct processes: (i) dynamics within affected populations, (ii) gene flow among populations, and (iii) adaptive trait divergence between affected and unaffected populations.") Scientists are nothing if not careful.
Still the fact that this is an annual event with a high dose poisening instead of gradual long term exposure makes mithridization unlikely (IMHO, not a biologist.) The paper says : "barbasco is deposited inside the cave about 100 m from the cave entrance, from where it is distributed downstream and outside of the cave." so the poison would be washed out.
I see the guy has some of these fish in his tanks [sulfide-life.info] so hopefully he'll do a follow-up with specimens from the different populations bred in captivity under controlled conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe my own hypothesis is likely either, I just made the point that you can't tell the nature of the response simply from the statistical evidence presented.
You're right that the fish in the tank will eventually produce a clearer result, so let's wait and see - and feel illuminated if it is, indeed, an evolutionary response.
Still, I won't despair even if it isn't, as the argument here is not fundamental to the evolution theory in any way - although some people in the discussion seem to have infer
Re: (Score:2)
Good show. You upended all challengers.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be fairly trivial to prove whether mithridatization (not mithridization) played any role. The lifespan of a molly is quite short and they stopped the ritual a few years ago. Any mollies that still show resistance could only have obtained it genetically.
In any event I somewhat doubt mithridatization plays a part since the ritual occurred once a year. Typically that would result in 2 to 3 dosings per molly. Mithridatization takes many more applications and appears to work with venoms, not all p
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note, I personally have little trouble believing this is an evolutionary response, on the other hand it's extremely important to consider alternative causes like mithridatization.
Science is not intended to prove theories, it's intended to find underlying truth. It doesn't do anyone any good to get it wrong. This works both ways, disproving theories requires similar rigor.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is not intended to prove theories, it's intended to find underlying truth
Exactly. That's why it is important to make qualified statements, like the one the original research makes, and not jump to conclusions, like the linked article and the headline do.
Besides, this research, while interesting, is not fundamental in any way -- and proving or disproving evolutionary response in this case has no bearing on the validity of evolution theory at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't tell me that 'evolution is just a theory'. In science a theory describes a large number of observations with a simple, predictive model. Theories are falsifiable but not provable. Despite many attempts, evolution has not yet been scientifically falsified and it explains a multitude of observations really, really well - including this one.
That was interesting how you explained the concept of a theory, I had not thought of it that way. From the other side of this seemingly endless argument, has the theory God (or some other Intelligent design concept) created the world we live in been scientifically falsified? I am not trying to be a troll, just asking the question in the terms you used.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those examples don't pass the test of being predictive models, their predictions can't be disproved because they make none, except maybe end of times or after death which are distinctly difficult to measure.
I've yet to find the atomic weight of hydrogen in any religious text or a reasonable explanation for the existence of the Alps, Australia, how a diode works or even why the sky is blue. Barring central African mythos with which I'm not familiar I don't think any religion even attempts to explain why Gi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally Irony applies to (but is not limited to) a cause-and-effect sequence while an Oxymoron applies to a single noun-clause.
Easter is a pagan ritual (Score:2)
Easter is the spring ceremony in many Northern hemisphere pagan religions.
Unuseful Definition (Score:4, Insightful)
So, this isn't considered to be "selective breeding" why now?
Re:Unuseful Definition (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is the method of selection: In one case, humans are altering the environment of a species, resulting in evolutionary changes.
Selective breeding involves just that, selecting the traits you want in the animal and then breeding only animals with those traits. Selecting what you breed.
The environmental alteration version doesn't involve any conscious desire for selection; any meddling that alters survival and breeding rates is good enough. These people aren't purposefully poisoning the water to select the fish in the river that are hardest to poison.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm confused... how is selective breeding not evolution?
Hell, I'd even call it is Darwinian evolution where human selection is part of the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are part of nature, are they not?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this isn't artificial selection.
Artificial selection is the process of intentionally breeding for specific traits - such as dog owners breeding for longer ears. This is natural selection at work - even if the agent doing the selecting is of human origin.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Natural selection is half of the evolution. The other half is mutation creating new traits.
It's all there is to it. Create new traits randomly, retain desired/remove undesired ones by natural selection, repeat.
Re:Unuseful Definition (Score:5, Funny)
So, this isn't considered to be "selective breeding" why now?
If you've been hoping to breed fish by throwing fish toxin in the water, trust me... you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
hoping to breed fish by throwing fish toxin in the water, trust me... you're doing it wrong.
I hear he's also been trying to get a girlfriend. I'm afraid to ask what technique he's been using.
-
Re:Unuseful Definition (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, there's no difference in mechanism between selective breeding and evolution. It's just a difference in intent. The idea is that the people weren't specifically breeding the fish in the same way that people specifically bred cows and wheat and whatnot. In any case, the organisms most suited to their (human influenced) environment reproduced most successfully.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that the people weren't specifically breeding the fish in the same way that people specifically bred cows and wheat and whatnot.
So, you are saying that instead of selective breeding, this was indiscriminate breeding...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you don't know what the word "breeding" means?
Well, this is /. after all...
Already known (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Peppered Moth is a famous example, but a dreadful one. There are several problems with Kettlewell's experiment [wikipedia.org], many of which are pointed out here: Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths [arn.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a simulation of the moth thing in middle school as one of those cut-and-dried science-class activities, and not getting the usual answer. Teacher was OK with that, gave an "it happens; doesn't *always* work" response, but +1 Interesting on your link.
Tomorrow's Sarah Palin Tweet Today! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Todd just told me R taxes paid 4 "scientists" 2 poison/torture fishes!
Yeah. I heard Bush even authorized waterboarding them.
-
Now we know the true reason for global warming (Score:5, Funny)
From the article:
"Since before the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the New World, the Zoque people of southern Mexico would venture each year during the Easter season deep into the sulfuric cave Cueva del Azufre to implore their deities for a bountiful rain season."
And later:
"Ironically, it was the last ceremony ever held, as the Zoques ended the practice that year due to political pressure from the government, which sought to preserve the cave as a hotbed for tourism and potential revenue."
So they stopped doing ceremonies for the weather gods. This is surely not the only case. So people stop worshipping weather gods, and the climate goes wild. Coincidence? Unlikely! So now we have proof: Global warming is man-made, by neglecting weather ceremonies!
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, we have averted disaster, by poisoning almost all the fish outside the cave...
See my username for punchline (Score:3, Funny)
So they stopped doing ceremonies for the weather gods. This is surely not the only case. So people stop worshipping weather gods, and the climate goes wild. Coincidence? Unlikely! So now we have proof: Global warming is man-made, by neglecting weather ceremonies!
Yes, absolutely. Now bring me more poison-tainted leaves, or suffer an inconvenient winter storm!
What? (Score:2)
Why do science journals insist that they somehow can't be taken seriously if they use pictures? Would it kill them to show us the fish, the cave, or the people doing this? Anything but a TL;DR block of text.
At least the story was interesting....this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any style book used in natural science has very clear provisions on how you would include such a thing. Most authors are so intimidated by the process of getting published, that they do not want to risk including content that may get it rejected (it is hard to argue the scientific merit of a photograph, it usually involves a lot of metadata that wouldn't be available to a field biologist post-hoc). I often drop some of my best sentences in an article, simply because they have a slight chance of being misinterpreted as off-topic or unscientific. Unfortunately journals are not in any way meant to be entertaining, which makes research boring but easier to carry out because of the distilled nature of the information.
So, what you're saying is that journals take the fun out of science.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically they take the icles out of articles.
Intelligent Design (Score:2)
Someone please explain to me... (Score:2)
...why Christians deny evolution? Does God command us to turn off our brains? (you would hope not...) Does this concept, if proven true, contradict something in the bible so directly that it would prove Christianity is false? What's the deal? Why are they so scared of this?
Re: (Score:2)
Because some fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is absolute word-of-God literal truth, and anything that might contradict that is a direct attack on their personal faith. It's a relatively insecure faith structure based on a very simplistic understanding of the Judeo-Christian God and the Bible.
On the other hand, most Christians look to the Bible as an important resource in bettering themselves, and believe that much of it, especially Genesis, is meant to be allegorical, not a literal history
Re: (Score:2)
...why Christians deny evolution?
Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, written by men in their own voices but essentially writing what God wanted them to write. The Bible says that God created all life on earth, including the two original humans, which were created directly by God and did not evolve from lower animals. Although the Bible doesn't provide a precise timeline, there are genealogies you can piece together to put the time of creation at somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000 BC.
Does God command us to turn off our brains? (you would hope not...)
Absolutely
Re: (Score:2)
...why Christians deny evolution?
Because the evidence fits much better when viewed from what the Bible records as history. I don't know how much evolution you've studied but if you've studied any, study the alternatives, as well. I wouldn't consider myself well informed, as a Christian, if I hadn't been reading up on alternatives.
For further reading on what I meant about evidence fitting the bible better: http://creation.com/an-awesome-mind-creation-magazine-jonathan-sarfati-interview [creation.com]
I'm confused, I can't find anywhere in the bible where they even mention the existence of molly fish in Mexico let alone any scripture that suggests how they might go about adapting to increased toxicity levels.
Looking at the link you provided I don't see how evidence of weakness in current theory is to be taken as proof of Biblical correctness, particularly considering the Bible makes no claims in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read your own links and the passages mentioned. Jesus does not quote the Adam and Eve story as literal history, in contradiction to the argument you are repeating. He makes reference to Adam and Eve, but does not call them out specifically, and essentially says "Haven't you read your creation story? God made two genders with the intent of them joining together as one."
The arguments you are repeating are stretches relying on individual interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
I've probably read it more than you have. The Bible is self contradictory is many places. I won't dig them up now because you've read it, and know them, and ignore them. They aren't hard to find. The Bible says God is impotent against an army with iron chariots. If a man has sex with a menstruating woman they both must be banished. And you must believe that is all of the bible is true. Jesus himself says you must continue to obediently follow the law. But Jesus and Paul get into a lot of fights about
... All else is butterfly collecting (Score:2)
The only real science is physics, all the rest ... well, look at this.
a) collect some fish and systematically poison them. Observe time to death;
b) conclude any resistance must be due to evolutionary adaptation; and
c) make pithy remarks about catering to the native culture by making process sustainable.
Uh guys ... it was sustainable before you got there since they've been doing it for a very very long time and only stopped when they were made to ie. NOT because the fish all died.
And if it was evolutinary l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But they're still the same species fish, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that the new fish were indeed unable to breed with the fish without the adaptation, as those fish were dead
Re: (Score:2)
Not with that attitude, anyways.
Re:But they're still the same species fish, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The point (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, it's labelled "evolution" when something succeeds in adapting to the change but "extinction" when it doesn't. Often, it's the pace of change which makes the difference.
If, for example, the now-extinct North American camels developed random mutations (or had a latent genetic ability) that allowed one of them to, say, start climbing giant redwoods and breeding before being eaten by their human predators, then you'd possibly have American Tree Camels today.
Random chance + selective pressure + sufficient time = evolution. The article indicates that it wasn't a continuous pressure either, which probably helped speed things up. e.g.
Year one: 99% of fish die, 1% survive & spend the next 364 days breeding resistant offspring...
Year 500 or so: 50% die, 50% survive & spend the next 364 days breeding more resistant offspring...
Current times: 10% die, 90% survive & spend the next 364 days breeding very resistant offspring...
It's not so uncommon really; the 'religious' aspect is merely a teaser giving the atheist fundies something to tease the creationist fundies with. For instance, I'm involved with researching pest insects that have developed high-level resistance to fumigants that have only been in use since WWII. In some cases, visible morphological and behavioural changes have resulted. If that ain't evolution I don't know what is, and I'm sure that if people had ritual rather than practical reasons for gassing silos we could be having the same discussion about bugs...
Re: (Score:2)
If, for example, the now-extinct North American camels developed random mutations (or had a latent genetic ability) that allowed one of them to, say, start climbing giant redwoods and breeding before being eaten by their human predators, then you'd possibly have American Tree Camels today.
Well thank God that didn't happen. Can you imagine getting hit in the head with 100 mph camel shit?
-
Re:Article's stupid conclusion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore climate change alarmists and other environmental loudmouths moaning about species loss and soil degradation should just shut the fuck up.
Seriously? You need to think it through a little more. This is not a rational position.
The main flaw of your argument is scale. You bet we can screw with nature and it will repair itself - to a certain critical mass of damage. Certainly, the scale of our activity dwarfs anything past even 100 years ago. Remember, in 1800 there were only 1B people on earth. All of that time just to get to 1B? Within 200 years we're at 2B. What people are talking about now is the concern of the scale. A system only has so muc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever.
Now I am off to make some religious offerings to my Roach killer.
Big mistake if those roaches were made in God's image.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah... Creationists have never disputed that this kind of thing happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution does not require the development of new traits. The most basic definition of evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from generation to generation. When this occurs because of natural selection, the evolution is non-random and adaptive. Some fish possessed traits that made them resistant to the toxin; some fish did not. The presence of the toxin served as a selective pressure for the fish that were resistant to the toxin. In subsequent generations, the allele for