|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3327 days) Posts: 9 From: Croatia, Europe Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: “Rapid Evolution” Method Found in Eyeless Fish | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, the article doesn't say, but it seems like it's within few generations, or less. A few or less? Hmm, if I remember my approximate math, few - less = not very many, and certainly < quite a lot. This is not as quantitative as I'd like. It seems hard to analyze the situation when the numbers are so vague.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bojan Junior Member (Idle past 3327 days) Posts: 9 From: Croatia, Europe Joined: |
Looking at "some" examples seems to be the problem here. If some species can switch back to an earlier phenotype (or switch back and forth), we still can't conclude that all evolution works that way. It isn't enough evidence to suggest that the general blueprint is preserved in perpetuity. There is this remarkable experiment with mouse eye genes inserted into genome of a fly and that caused additonal eyes growing on the tip of the antennas. Since the genes from a mouse produced eyes of a fly, that shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species. Last common ancestor between flies and mice was probably in cambrian.Why did mouse genes produce fly eyes? Because there is this additional layer of gene control with some parts of DNA promoting and suppressing genes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bojan writes:
I don't see how it shows any such thing. It shows that mouse genes will work in a fly - i.e. the basic mechanism of DNA is universal. Since the genes from a mouse produced eyes of a fly, that shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species. Using your blueprint analogy, the blueprint for a fly is made up of the same kinds of lines as the blueprint for a mouse - you can cut out a section of the mouse blueprint and paste it into the fly blueprint to make a Franken-fly. You could use the same cut-and-paste technique with a fish blueprint but that says nothing about the natural evolution of a fish.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Are you talking about this: Master Eye Gene Identified
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bojan Junior Member (Idle past 3327 days) Posts: 9 From: Croatia, Europe Joined: |
I think that the OP title "Rapid Evolution" is possibly a misnomer insofar as what constitutes rapid in evolutionary time spans. I agree, "rapid evolution" is taken from the title of the article. These changes are obviously not evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bojan Junior Member (Idle past 3327 days) Posts: 9 From: Croatia, Europe Joined:
|
Note that humans exhibit neotony as well ... that is one of the reasons humans appear hairless compared to apes, the vellus hair (short, light\blond) is retained (especially in women) rather than being replaced by mature hair (longer, darker), and also why the human skull is 'frozen' in a juvenile form compared to other apes. Certainly eyes are part of the development in a mature fish, but are not fully formed in early fetal development. This is interesting, and changes in that fish sure looks like neoteny. No pigments and suppressed eye development. Otherwise it would be fatal, except in caves where it becames useful mutation. Now, I'm curious, are all animals able to switch to cave-like appearence quickly, or most of them evolved slowly? There is this rare and curious creature, endemic amphibian from a cave in Slovenia. His genome might be really interesting, perhaps it could be possible to somehow stop this development and maybe produce some salamander with color and eyes? However it's endagered and protected so I doubt breeding and experimenting is allowed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bojan Junior Member (Idle past 3327 days) Posts: 9 From: Croatia, Europe Joined: |
A few or less? Hmm, if I remember my approximate math, few - less = not very many, and certainly < quite a lot. This is not as quantitative as I'd like. It seems hard to analyze the situation when the numbers are so vague. Whatever the number is, 1 or 5, it doesn't really matter. It's way to short to call it evolution. The transformation itself happens quickly, so the question is not if the fish is evolving from normal to cave-like. It's not. Question is how the whole mechanism of beeing able to switch evolved. Some examples here are really interesting, like neoteny.So, could this be one of possible models for evolution of such mechanism: some fish or salamanders could have some mutations which suppreses development in early stages. This could be beneficial for populations who live near caves and occasionaly end deeper inside. Then natural selection could favor those who can be easily triggered with enviromental factors related with cave conditions (cold, dark, certain chemicals).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bojan Junior Member (Idle past 3327 days) Posts: 9 From: Croatia, Europe Joined: |
Are you talking about this: Master Eye Gene Identified Yes, thank you very much. I was reading about it in various books, but this is much more detailed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The only part which isn't evolution is the unmasking of the hidden ("cryptic") traits. If you disagree, I'd like to see some more details and argument. What takes only a few generations? Under what conditions? By what mechanism? And where does the article or any linked article say so?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I thought for a moment you were proposing that an eyeless-fish evolved eyes, and it had been shown to be an example of convergent-evolution, in the positive (information-increasing).
But typically examples of, "evolution" never involve real-life proof of novel morphology, in a positive manner except if the examples are moot in regards to new anatomy, such as our anti-freeze fish or a resistant bacteria. So I was ready to say that actually, if fish re-gained eyes, it would be because of gene-flow back into the split population, fish with eyes being reintroduced to the group without them. If one day it is shown that a simple eye can come about by evolution, which would match the extraordinary claims of what evolution supposedly done by creating every organism on earth, then I would certainly accept evolution as scientific fact. If, however it is shown that information is removed, alternated somehow or changed superficially then I remain highly unimpressed, because the claim of Goo-To-You-Via-The-Zoo incorporates that every eye evolved, so the removal of eyes is like proving that there is a human-superman, by showing a photograph of a man walking. ROFL! Attenborough, on his program, mentioned how some Lizards had turned pinkish in 5 million years. Seed-plants have also remained seed plants since diverging. Is it also reasonable, to suppose that in just 5 million years, apes became men? Somehow I don't think so, any more than if you shown me your large toe being extremely large, would I believe you were on your way to becoming an elephant. Attenborough was also very impressed with Finch-beaks becoming Finch beaks and them then reverting to their original archetype finch-beak, he opined how Darwin would have been delighted, ......one has to laugh. So when you said, "rapid evolution" I expected something that would impress me, and convince me that an eye can convergently evolve, which it clearly can't. But deep inside I knew that when I clicked on the topic, I really deep down new that there would be nothing, "new" to read, pertaining to the evolution-myth. Mikey out.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Since the genes from a mouse produced eyes of a fly, that shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species. That is an ABYSMAL non-sequitur. taken from one percent of one percent of one percent of the total experiments of such examples, that would be required for your induction. Here is an EQUAL example:
We find that Ted Bundy had milk in his fridge, and that mike also had milk in his fridge, so then mike is the same as Ted Bundy. What it actually shows is that information namely coded-instructions, are what is KEY in the design of all animals. So then the word, "eyes" might be expected to be used if the author talks about things that see. Now looking at that photograph and not marveling at the truth of the incredible Designer's imagination, now that is crazy, and beyond acceptable!
Last common ancestor between flies and mice was probably in cambrian Can I see the evidence please. The evidence I collect only shows flies preserved in amber, that unfortunately, don't look very mouse-like. But they do look exactly the same as their extant counter-parts! Indeed, all the way back, flies they are and flies they remain.
Why did mouse genes produce fly eyes? That's a misleading thing to say, the gene told the eyes to start to develop. Why did I use the same words, "why did" in this sentence, as you did in your sentence? Does it now follow that this "shows that some basic general blueprint is preserved through vast time and many species"? Or are you saying that the same author should use different words/language, for each book s/he writes? I'm not even sure of your example because of what I read here:
the Pax-6 developmental gene is part of a genetic switch that induces eye development. This would indicate that the gene "told" the fly's eye to start to develop, the example would actually be very unremarkable, even though the outcome seems remarkable. I think the terms, "mouse" and "flies" are misleading to our human-imagination, what we are really dealing with is the same type of gene that is common and shared and unremarkable, in many species, so effectively, it is like me givingyou my pen and paper so you can write the words, "Why did". Is this really remarkable if we can both write those words? in the same way, is it really remarkable, that creatures with eyes, can develop eyes given the same instruction to "start to build"? Not really! Improbable evo devo - creation.com Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
No you didn't. You work very hard at being unimpressed by what impresses every biologist in the world.
So when you said, "rapid evolution" I expected something that would impress me....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024