Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

AvalonXQ
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby AvalonXQ » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:22 am UTC

22/7 wins the internet. By necessity, then, the rest of us lose.
These thoughts can be continued elsewhere, or not at all.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Green9090 » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:30 am UTC

AvalonXQ wrote:
Green9090 wrote:It doesn't matter what caused the change; it's a species undergoing a dramatic physical change in response to a change in environment. How would it dispute ID any less effectively if this is a new representation of an existing gene, rather than a new gene? What's the difference, in terms of ID beliefs?


Because the ID theory that I was putting forward doesn't have a problem with animals CHANGING. It has a problem with animals changing into OTHER KINDS OF ANIMALS. A lizard that has some extra sets of genes it can express under certain circumstances is still a lizard. Unless you're saying that common ancestery can occur without any new genes developing and being added? It's true that this would provide SOME evidence for common ancestry (if there's reason to believe the existing genes were ancestral), but it's not as damning as a whole new set of genes.
Besides, you're forgetting the possibility that the change isn't genetic at all, just physiological in response to the environment. Just like the tanning example I mentioned earlier. This wouldn't upset ID theory one little bit.


It has an organ with an entirely new function. The argument "it's still a lizard" is similar to saying "it's still a primate" if somebody were to prove somehow that humans evolved from apes. Sure, it's still a lizard, but it's clearly a different lizard. This isn't getting a tan, this is like if a group of people were stranded in a forest for hundreds of years (human generations take longer than these lizards), and ended up having a mouth and digestive system designed for raw meat.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

AvalonXQ
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby AvalonXQ » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:32 am UTC

I guess the choice is not at all.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Garm » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:53 am UTC

AvalonXQ, Intelligent Design is an argument for God no matter how you slice it. Even if you think that we and all life on Earth were created by an ancient race of super powerful aliens that still begs the question, who created those beings? You get into a situation of infinite regress that can only logically end in God. Even if we remove God's creation from Earth by inserting intermediaries that affect some form of intelligent design the argument is still for divine creation.

As for the topic... I'm interested to see direct genetic comparison between the two species. This is very exciting. Too bad about the native lizards.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Belial » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 am UTC

AvalonXQ, Intelligent Design is an argument for God no matter how you slice it. Even if you think that we and all life on Earth were created by an ancient race of super powerful aliens that still begs the question, who created those beings? You get into a situation of infinite regress that can only logically end in God. Even if we remove God's creation from Earth by inserting intermediaries that affect some form of intelligent design the argument is still for divine creation.


Not technically true. If the only assertion is that life on earth doesn't display the traits that would indicate they evolved from common ancestors, there's nothing to say that life on the home planet wouldn't display those traits. Meaning there's a possibility of "Life evolved from common ancestors on some other planet which then came here and made some more"

I've never heard anyone particularly non-religious advance the theory, though, which indicates to me at least that no one is really considering the "Made by Aliens" version of the theory.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby lorenith » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:59 am UTC

I hope they do a follow up on the lizard thing. It's pretty neat, how not only did they biologically change, but they had a behavorial shift too, I'd like to learn more of it.

They seem to impy that they did genetic testing, but I guess haven't studied it thoroughly enough to know how deep the biological changes are linked to their genetics. I can imagine a shift in behavor without a genetic shift just on environment alone.

I think it's believable that over the 30 years, the reptiles with guts better suited to digesting plant matter are the ones that got breeding superiority.

I'm not sure if that warrants them being a different species yet though, they said at the begining of the article that they are genetically related to the original breeding pairs, despite physically being different, they'd probably be considered a subspecies at most. I think though in the next thousand...million years though they will have become their own species. (examples of this happening, the red and grey wolf, they are seperate species but they have a common ancestor).

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Garm » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:04 am UTC

Belial wrote:
AvalonXQ, Intelligent Design is an argument for God no matter how you slice it. Even if you think that we and all life on Earth were created by an ancient race of super powerful aliens that still begs the question, who created those beings? You get into a situation of infinite regress that can only logically end in God. Even if we remove God's creation from Earth by inserting intermediaries that affect some form of intelligent design the argument is still for divine creation.


Not technically true. If the only assertion is that life on earth doesn't display the traits that would indicate they evolved from common ancestors, there's nothing to say that life on the home planet wouldn't display those traits. Meaning there's a possibility of "Life evolved from common ancestors on some other planet which then came here and made some more"

I've never heard anyone particularly non-religious advance the theory, though, which indicates to me at least that no one is really considering the "Made by Aliens" version of the theory.


Okay, that's a totally fair criticism that I had totally not considered. Seems to me that by arguing that way you're just delaying the inevitable. By which I mean by saying that life evolved randomly elsewhere and then 'seeded' our planet you're accepting evolution elsewhere and denying it here on Earth.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby zenten » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:13 am UTC

lorenith wrote:I'm not sure if that warrants them being a different species yet though, they said at the begining of the article that they are genetically related to the original breeding pairs, despite physically being different, they'd probably be considered a subspecies at most. I think though in the next thousand...million years though they will have become their own species. (examples of this happening, the red and grey wolf, they are seperate species but they have a common ancestor).


Lets not bring canines into this, red and grey wolves can produce fully viable offspring, that distinction is based on other factors.

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby lorenith » Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:19 am UTC

zenten wrote:Lets not bring canines into this, red and grey wolves can produce fully viable offspring, that distinction is based on other factors.


They're in the same genus, that's not entirely unexpected (Yes, I know there's a theory that red wolves are just the decendents of wolves+coyotes since they don't have any really unique genetic markers, but they are still considered a completely seperate species).

You can get viable offspring from animals in completely different genuses too, (Such as Wolphins, Bottlenose Dolphin+False Killer Whale mix).

If you want to stick with lizards though fine, Caribean iguanas, there's 3 seperate species, they have a common ancestor, they're also in the same genus. Can they interbreed viable young? I don't know, do they have the same number of chromosomes? Dunno, but there are even occasionally naturally occuring female mules so meh.

You might as well tell me not to make any comparisons between any animals in the same order much less family or genus, and I think that's silly.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby zenten » Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:40 am UTC

lorenith wrote:
zenten wrote:Lets not bring canines into this, red and grey wolves can produce fully viable offspring, that distinction is based on other factors.


They're in the same genus, that's not entirely unexpected (Yes, I know there's a theory that red wolves are just the decendents of wolves+coyotes since they don't have any really unique genetic markers, but they are still considered a completely seperate species).

You can get viable offspring from animals in completely different genuses too, (Such as Wolphins, Bottlenose Dolphin+False Killer Whale mix).

If you want to stick with lizards though fine, Caribean iguanas, there's 3 seperate species, they have a common ancestor, they're also in the same genus. Can they interbreed viable young? I don't know, do they have the same number of chromosomes? Dunno, but there are even occasionally naturally occuring female mules so meh.

You might as well tell me not to make any comparisons between any animals in the same order much less family or genus, and I think that's silly.


People were saying that the new type of lizard is only a new species if it can't breed with the original species.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby The Reaper » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:28 am UTC

I think the lizards prove God is smarter than his followers, and therefor capable of knowing how to make evolution work. That omniscience and omnipotence tend to do that for ya.

Yay for Evolution!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby mosc » Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:54 pm UTC

I've always thought "Traditional Intelligent Design" professors have totally missed the boat. You don't need an active creator to still believe in god. Accepting evolution does not mean accepting atheism. I think the entire movement mostly grew out of an irrational fear of a slippery slope between evolution and atheism. Perhaps this goes back to an inherent dislike of Darwin the person on behalf of evangelical Christians but if they can't get over the individual to look at the science objectively, they're only hurting their own position.

You know, pope John Paul blatantly accepted evolution and decreed that it does not conflict with the Cristian concept of a creator. It's not like ALL Christians even AGREE with this absurdity of a position. In fact the vast majority DO NOT.

Why does design by a creator have to rule out changes in species? I have never understood that transition form IDers. If we all evolved from the same bacteria than fine. If god is as you describe, than god planned it that way all along anyway. You are selling God short in a way to imply that god is ONLY capable in making fixed species and NOT capable of orchestrating a more complex process in which they change. As the pope put it, whatever we as humans observe in this world cannot contradict god by it's very inception. If you put a restriction on observation, it's not out of belief in god IMHO.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby JoshuaZ » Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

AvalonXQ wrote:
Green9090 wrote:It doesn't matter what caused the change; it's a species undergoing a dramatic physical change in response to a change in environment. How would it dispute ID any less effectively if this is a new representation of an existing gene, rather than a new gene? What's the difference, in terms of ID beliefs?


Because the ID theory that I was putting forward doesn't have a problem with animals CHANGING. It has a problem with animals changing into OTHER KINDS OF ANIMALS. A lizard that has some extra sets of genes it can express under certain circumstances is still a lizard. Unless you're saying that common ancestry can occur without any new genes developing and being added? It's true that this would provide SOME evidence for common ancestry (if there's reason to believe the existing genes were ancestral), but it's not as damning as a whole new set of genes.
Besides, you're forgetting the possibility that the change isn't genetic at all, just physiological in response to the environment. Just like the tanning example I mentioned earlier. This wouldn't upset ID theory one little bit.


I'm not sure where to begin here. For one, "kind" isn't a scientifically meaningful term. It comes straight from Genesis where God has each living thing reproduce according to its kind. The relevant Hebrew word is מינ.

Furthermore, this is a good example of how ID means almost whatever someone wants it to mean depending on how their personal worldview and how much biology they accept. So for example, Michael Behe, one of the most prominent ID proponents, accepts common descent and finds the evidence for common descent. For example on page 12 of the "The Edge of Evolution" Behe says "Evolution from a common ancestor, via changes in DNA, is very well supported." Behe apparently believes that some entity, somehow through some unspecified mechanism at some point in the past occasionally tinkered with life as we know it(I'm not going to discuss right now the unfalsifiability of that statement) but accepts common descent.

Frankly it is a bit annoying when one can talk to two people arguing in favor of some variant of ID on the same day and one of them insists that ID is fine with common descent and the other insists that it isn't in a language almost identical to that used by Ken Ham.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby mosc » Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:08 pm UTC

I don't think we want to bring young-earth creationists into this. To me, they have a lot more problems explaining away astrophysics than they do evolution. There ain't too much in the sky that's within 6000 light years of us.

It's a valid point though that ID has become a shield with little meaning for all manor of evangelical Christian rejections of science. It's vague, misleading, and unquantifiable so talking about supporting or condemning evidence becomes rather moot. Short of the almighty herself coming down, I don't think Ken Ham gives a shit what you prove.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby 22/7 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:08 pm UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:Frankly it is a bit annoying when one can talk to two people arguing in favor of some variant of ID on the same day and one of them insists that ID is fine with common descent and the other insists that it isn't in a language almost identical to that used by Ken Ham.

Frankly it's a little bit annoying when we're in a discussion about Christianity and someone brings up Catholicism. Sorry, man. People make their beliefs their own. I've talked to atheists before who have different versions of atheism. This is not a problem with ID, this is a problem with people having individual thoughts, ideas, interpretations, and opinions.
mosc wrote:It's a valid point though that ID has become a shield with little meaning for all manor of evangelical Christian rejections of science. It's vague, misleading, and unquantifiable so talking about supporting or condemning evidence becomes rather moot. Short of the almighty herself coming down, I don't think Ken Ham gives a shit what you prove.
I could say the same thing about two different people's thoughts about plate tectonics and the implications therein, with the exception of the "unquantifiable" comment, which of course is at best a poorly chosen wording meaning "it's religiously based". Yes, ID is something that some people hide behind. But it is not poorly-defined for everyone, it is not misleading for everyone, and yes, you will have trouble proving something which, by its very nature, is unprovable.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby mosc » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

They call ID a scientific theory, not me. That means it is something concrete and relatively definable. It should not differ FUNDAMENTALLY in meaning from person to person. Course, you're talking about ID like it's some kind of religious belief which is fine and all but it's not the same thing I was talking about. Sure we all believe different things but the theory of relativity (as an example) is a pretty defined thing.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby JoshuaZ » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:27 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
JoshuaZ wrote:Frankly it is a bit annoying when one can talk to two people arguing in favor of some variant of ID on the same day and one of them insists that ID is fine with common descent and the other insists that it isn't in a language almost identical to that used by Ken Ham.

Frankly it's a little bit annoying when we're in a discussion about Christianity and someone brings up Catholicism. Sorry, man. People make their beliefs their own. I've talked to atheists before who have different versions of atheism. This is not a problem with ID, this is a problem with people having individual thoughts, ideas, interpretations, and opinions.


Bad analogy. In those cases you would be arguing against the form of atheism as believed by that individual. It would be misleading for such an individual to for example assert that "oh atheists don't believe that. We believe X" where X is whatever that atheist personally believes it would be just as annoying. This is all the more vexing in this particular case because ID has been designed to be vague so that it can include as many views as possible. Thus, Paul Nelson is a YEC and Behe accepts an old earth and common descent.

22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:It's a valid point though that ID has become a shield with little meaning for all manor of evangelical Christian rejections of science. It's vague, misleading, and unquantifiable so talking about supporting or condemning evidence becomes rather moot. Short of the almighty herself coming down, I don't think Ken Ham gives a shit what you prove.
I could say the same thing about two different people's thoughts about plate tectonics and the implications therein, with the exception of the "unquantifiable" comment, which of course is at best a poorly chosen wording meaning "it's religiously based". Yes, ID is something that some people hide behind. But it is not poorly-defined for everyone, it is not misleading for everyone, and yes, you will have trouble proving something which, by its very nature, is unprovable.


Except again ID is deliberately hard to falsify. Contrast that to say YECism or even many forms of OECism where the beliefs are testable (they are wrong, but testable which makes them much closer to being actual science).

In any event, if one insists that one is specifically talking about some of ID that does in fact deny common descent than that's easy to refute. The existence of endogenours retroviruses alone give you almost irrefutable evidence for common descent of mammals. And I doubt that anyone who insists that there are separate "kinds" thinks that all mammals are one kind. The key is that many mammals share ERVs with related species. For example, humans share a variety of our ERVs with primates. ERVs aren't generally doing much; they are the remains of retroviruses that infected germ line cells and thus left their markers on all future generations. The only plausible explanations for seeing shared ERVs are 1) common ancestry and 2) a very powerful, deliberately deceptive designer. Most people will agree that the first is more likely than the second.

And this is just one of many pieces of evidence for common descent. For example, life forms a nested hierachy. That's not something you would expect from a designer; trying to make nested hierarchy for example using almost any human product, say cars and it won't work. You won't get a hierarchy where the older defunct cars correspond morphologically to splits in the newer ones.

These are just two examples of many of the pieces of evidence for common descent.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby 22/7 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:55 pm UTC

mosc wrote:They call ID a scientific theory, not me. That means it is something concrete and relatively definable. It should not differ FUNDAMENTALLY in meaning from person to person. Course, you're talking about ID like it's some kind of religious belief which is fine and all but it's not the same thing I was talking about. Sure we all believe different things but the theory of relativity (as an example) is a pretty defined thing.

Except that you're dealing with a "theory" that includes religion, which varies from person to person. This will make the "theory" vary from person to person. As was said before, ID requires a belief in some kind of God or previous beings or something which, to this point, is pretty unfalsifiable. You can't really put the same restrictions on definition as you would on, say, relativity, because relativity requires no such belief.
JoshuaZ wrote:Bad analogy. In those cases you would be arguing against the form of atheism as believed by that individual. It would be misleading for such an individual to for example assert that "oh atheists don't believe that. We believe X" where X is whatever that atheist personally believes it would be just as annoying. This is all the more vexing in this particular case because ID has been designed to be vague so that it can include as many views as possible. Thus, Paul Nelson is a YEC and Behe accepts an old earth and common descent.
Or it has been adapted by many people since its inception to fit their beliefs. Again, the "theory" of ID is not really comparable to a theory like relativity because ID requires the belief in something unfalsifiable. With that belief comes the ability for each person to throw their own twist on it to make it congruent with their religious beliefs. Trying to argue that ID is "vague" because different people believe different things and it all falls under ID is like arguing that religion is "vague" because, well, the same as above.
JoshuaZ wrote:Except again ID is deliberately hard to falsify. Contrast that to say YECism or even many forms of OECism where the beliefs are testable (they are wrong, but testable which makes them much closer to being actual science).
And again I say, of course it's hard to falsify, its very core is a belief in some unfalsifiable entity. I honestly don't understand where the difficulty is coming from here.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby JoshuaZ » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:06 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
JoshuaZ wrote:Bad analogy. In those cases you would be arguing against the form of atheism as believed by that individual. It would be misleading for such an individual to for example assert that "oh atheists don't believe that. We believe X" where X is whatever that atheist personally believes it would be just as annoying. This is all the more vexing in this particular case because ID has been designed to be vague so that it can include as many views as possible. Thus, Paul Nelson is a YEC and Behe accepts an old earth and common descent.
Or it has been adapted by many people since its inception to fit their beliefs. Again, the "theory" of ID is not really comparable to a theory like relativity because ID requires the belief in something unfalsifiable. With that belief comes the ability for each person to throw their own twist on it to make it congruent with their religious beliefs. Trying to argue that ID is "vague" because different people believe different things and it all falls under ID is like arguing that religion is "vague" because, well, the same as above.
JoshuaZ wrote:Except again ID is deliberately hard to falsify. Contrast that to say YECism or even many forms of OECism where the beliefs are testable (they are wrong, but testable which makes them much closer to being actual science).
And again I say, of course it's hard to falsify, its very core is a belief in some unfalsifiable entity. I honestly don't understand where the difficulty is coming from here.


Ok, so the bottom line then is that ID isn't a scientific theory. But the whole problem is that the proponents want ID treated as such. If it is just another theological or philosophical claim then I don't have any issue with it. But the bottom line is that we can't have it both ways. Either its a religious idea or it is a falsifiable scientific idea. One of those categories is taught in our public schools. The other is not.

User avatar
crazyjimbo
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:45 pm UTC
Location: Durham, England
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby crazyjimbo » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:09 pm UTC

Sidestepping the whole intelligent design/evolution thing for now, I notice that only 5 breeding pairs of the lizard were introduced to the second island. From my understanding of things this isn't a terribly large genetic pool and it seems reasonable that rather than this being a case of rapid evolution they just happened to choose 10 lizards with heads and jaws larger than the average for the population. Thus naturally the population which descended from these 10 would have larger features - still by genetics, but not by evolution as such.

Similarly, the small initial population screams of recessive genes and mutations* which could bring out traits such as the cecal valves quickly, and with their advantageousness they would stick around. Ok so now I'm speculating, but it seems like there are a lot of unknown factors that needs looked at before we go around noting how remarkable this rapid evolution is.

As often with these things I fear I have drawn what seems like a valid conclusion only because I am ill informed!

* Maybe? Do I recall my biology correctly in that inbreeding leads to mutations, or merely expression of recessive genes?

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby 22/7 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:Ok, so the bottom line then is that ID isn't a scientific theory. But the whole problem is that the proponents want ID treated as such. If it is just another theological or philosophical claim then I don't have any issue with it. But the bottom line is that we can't have it both ways. Either its a religious idea or it is a falsifiable scientific idea. One of those categories is taught in our public schools. The other is not.
And of course there's not much I can tell you about the first part. I don't view it as a scientific theory, more of an adaptation of a scientific theory to a religious viewpoint. It is, by its very nature, unscientific because of the premise that is required (again, imo). However, I strongly disagree with the second part (assuming you meant exactly what you said). We teach religion and religious creation stories in public schools, why not ID? Of course, it's possible that you meant "we teach falsifiable scientific ideas as facts in our science classes in public school", to which I agree with you, though I don't find it particularly relavent.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby mosc » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:35 pm UTC

we do teach it, we just teach it in religion class, not science class. Also it comes up in pop culture but I wouldn't want it in a biology class. You get the point.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby 22/7 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:44 pm UTC

So, the last sentence of my post.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby JoshuaZ » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:31 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
JoshuaZ wrote:Ok, so the bottom line then is that ID isn't a scientific theory. But the whole problem is that the proponents want ID treated as such. If it is just another theological or philosophical claim then I don't have any issue with it. But the bottom line is that we can't have it both ways. Either its a religious idea or it is a falsifiable scientific idea. One of those categories is taught in our public schools. The other is not.
And of course there's not much I can tell you about the first part. I don't view it as a scientific theory, more of an adaptation of a scientific theory to a religious viewpoint. It is, by its very nature, unscientific because of the premise that is required (again, imo). However, I strongly disagree with the second part (assuming you meant exactly what you said). We teach religion and religious creation stories in public schools, why not ID? Of course, it's possible that you meant "we teach falsifiable scientific ideas as facts in our science classes in public school", to which I agree with you, though I don't find it particularly relavent.


Well it is relevant in that ID was made to be taught in public school science classrooms and the proponents continue to claim it is science. If we agree it isn't science and is simply a variant of the teleological argument then there isn't much actual disagreement here. However, that's a not so subtle distinction that is very important in practice.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby mosc » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:58 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:So, the last sentence of my post.

sigh... the entire purpose of ID was to create a version of creationism that could be taught in the science classroom. If you want to mutate it into some strictly religious position it of course changes the context drastically, don't you think?
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Robin S » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:14 pm UTC

I'm not trying to say that one thread should have priority over the other, but there's a highly similar thread on this subject over in Science.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Green9090 » Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC

crazyjimbo wrote:Sidestepping the whole intelligent design/evolution thing for now, I notice that only 5 breeding pairs of the lizard were introduced to the second island. From my understanding of things this isn't a terribly large genetic pool and it seems reasonable that rather than this being a case of rapid evolution they just happened to choose 10 lizards with heads and jaws larger than the average for the population. Thus naturally the population which descended from these 10 would have larger features - still by genetics, but not by evolution as such.

Similarly, the small initial population screams of recessive genes and mutations* which could bring out traits such as the cecal valves quickly, and with their advantageousness they would stick around. Ok so now I'm speculating, but it seems like there are a lot of unknown factors that needs looked at before we go around noting how remarkable this rapid evolution is.

As often with these things I fear I have drawn what seems like a valid conclusion only because I am ill informed!

* Maybe? Do I recall my biology correctly in that inbreeding leads to mutations, or merely expression of recessive genes?

Even so, this sort of strange circumstance could very well be what causes major evolutionary changes in the natural world. Rather than scientists moving these lizards over here, these lizards are trapped in a piece of wood or similar which drifts to another island. In so many millions of years, I'm sure less likely things have happened, and the lizards would have a lot more than 30 years to become a different species.
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby 22/7 » Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:37 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
22/7 wrote:So, the last sentence of my post.

sigh... the entire purpose of ID was to create a version of creationism that could be taught in the science classroom. If you want to mutate it into some strictly religious position it of course changes the context drastically, don't you think?

I'm not particularly interested in the context, but yes, it does change it. ID should never be taught as "science" since it requires a belief in something that is quite nonfalsifiable. However, it should certainly be taught if the discussion is of alternate theories.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby JoshuaZ » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:28 am UTC

22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:
22/7 wrote:So, the last sentence of my post.

sigh... the entire purpose of ID was to create a version of creationism that could be taught in the science classroom. If you want to mutate it into some strictly religious position it of course changes the context drastically, don't you think?

I'm not particularly interested in the context, but yes, it does change it. ID should never be taught as "science" since it requires a belief in something that is quite nonfalsifiable. However, it should certainly be taught if the discussion is of alternate theories.


If it isn't falsifiable it isn't a theory it is a theological or philosophical idea. So the only reason it should be taught is "here are some other ideas. This is why we don't care about them in science class".

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:33 am UTC

I'm not particularly interested in the context


So your goal is to be correct but irrelevant?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Cooley
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:53 am UTC
Location: Hemet, California
Contact:

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby Cooley » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:13 am UTC

Kinda like a pastafarian?

Sorry, but I have to mention them in just about any ID/Evolution conflict. They're just too funny.

Sidestepping all that debate, did anyone think that Godzilla would be mentioned in the article? I sure did. I'm kinda sad it wasn't. Maybe another couple of generations with radiation, and closer to Japan were needed.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island

Postby 22/7 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:38 am UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:If it isn't falsifiable it isn't a theory it is a theological or philosophical idea. So the only reason it should be taught is "here are some other ideas. This is why we don't care about them in science class".

Correct, in the scientific definition of theory. I was using the laymen's term "theory" there. Probably shouldn't be mixing the two. Sorry.
Belial wrote:
I'm not particularly interested in the context


So your goal is to be correct but irrelevant?
Sorry, I thought this was the internet for a second. That's not completely what I meant. What I meant (and didn't really take the time to expand on) was that, in this case, I don't particularly care what the original intent of ID was for much the same reason that I don't care what the original intent of religion was. So it makes no difference to me what the context is, since my views on ID being taught in public schools are fairly independent of context (i.e., it's a "theory" in laymen's terms, it is not in scientific terms, period).
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests