Author Topic: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands  (Read 308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1239
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« on: May 30, 2014, 07:11:27 AM »
2 sets of bugs develop the same mutation independently in what  "appears to be the blink of an eye in evolutionary time"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27592656

microevolution right? ;)

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2014, 02:17:09 PM »
It's "microevolution" if there's an actual physical change the fundie can't deny. Or "adaptation". But never just evolution.

Interesting article; thanks for posting.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2014, 05:49:19 PM »
2 sets of bugs develop the same mutation independently in what  "appears to be the blink of an eye in evolutionary time"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27592656

microevolution right? ;)
I don't really see how it wouldn't be micro-evolution. They aren't a new species after losing their singing ability are they? Isn't that what micro-evolution is? Changes occurring within a species?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10954
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 05:57:58 PM »
I don't really see how it wouldn't be micro-evolution. They aren't a new species after losing their singing ability are they? Isn't that what micro-evolution is? Changes occurring within a species?

How should we know what "micro-evolution" is? We're not the ones who made up the term. If I asked you to tell me what "bloog" was, would you be able to tell me? No, you would not.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2014, 07:15:57 PM »
I don't really see how it wouldn't be micro-evolution. They aren't a new species after losing their singing ability are they? Isn't that what micro-evolution is? Changes occurring within a species?

How should we know what "micro-evolution" is? We're not the ones who made up the term. If I asked you to tell me what "bloog" was, would you be able to tell me? No, you would not.

Like I said, it doesn't matter who made up the term as long as the definition of said term is understood.

Micro - evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

Macro - major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

Both of these definitions from Dictionary.com.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10954
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2014, 07:17:35 PM »
Micro - evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

How do you define "variety within a species"?

Macro - major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

How do you define "species"?

After you define these terms, assuming you can, I'll show you why the distinction is irrelevant.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2014, 07:24:47 PM »
How do you define "variety within a species"?

Any difference between a single organism of a species and another single organism of the same species, I guess.

How do you define "species"?

After you define these terms, assuming you can, I'll show you why the distinction is irrelevant.

Science is not about semantics, nor can a theory be proven by sheer semantics.

But as dictionary.com states, it is apparently "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. "

Of course, exceptions exist. I remember one time about some bird that could breed with another very similar bird, and that the latter bird could also breed with another similar bird, but that the former bird could not. So like:

A was compatible with B.
B was compatible with C.
A was not compatible with C.

It was something like that. However, the birds very much resembled one another, and since a species must be able to 'breed among themselves' as well as 'not be able to breed with members of another species' then that causes that situation to be a paradox. Certainly there are limits in said definition, and the world should not be interpreted through definitions alone.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10954
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2014, 07:32:29 PM »
<snip>
Science is not about semantics, nor can a theory be proven by sheer semantics.

Where did I say the theory would be proven with semantics? Nowhere, that's where.

Of course, exceptions exist. I remember one time about some bird that could breed with another very similar bird, and that the latter bird could also breed with another similar bird, but that the former bird could not. So like:

A was compatible with B.
B was compatible with C.
A was not compatible with C.

It was something like that. However, the birds very much resembled one another, and since a species must be able to 'breed among themselves' as well as 'not be able to breed with members of another species' then that causes that situation to be a paradox. Certainly there are limits in said definition, and the world should not be interpreted through definitions alone.

I'm not sure you understand just how bad that definition is. What about beings that reproduce asexually? Or plants, which can breed with virtually any other plant in existence? Are you going to tell me that oranges and bananas and tomatoes are actually the same species? I sure hope not.

Anyway, here's why "species" and "variety within a species" are irrelevant terms. Check out this image:

Read it and answer the questions in that text. If you can, you will have successfully proven that "species", as humans defined them, and "variety within a species" are things nature gives a shit about.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2014, 07:50:34 PM »
<snip>

Did I snip it right?
I don't see why asexual reproduction is not an example of a species "Breeding among themselves".

Concerning that very intelligent block of red, blue and all colors in between text. All it does it ask questions about the block of text and when one color become another. Perhaps it can be used to answer some of the more mystifying questions of natural selection:

If a red beetle turns into a blue beetle over the course of evolution, at what point was it a purple beetle?

The block of text is a good example of micro-evolution, and a change in degree. However, the kind of evolution that is required for fundamentally new structures and processes to come into existence is... well... fundamentally new.

It would be like starting the block of text with red letters, and slowly causing the text to change from English to Chinese. How would one go about that? English and Chinese uses different types of letters and symbols. Perhaps at some point the words would start alternating, 1 English then 1 Chinese, but there could be no single character that is 50% English and 50% Chinese that would make sense (especially since a single letter in English has less meaning than a single character in Chinese, whereas the letter L is a part of a word, while ? is an entire word by itself when translated into English). It would no longer be English nor Chinese, so it would not be relatable to the original letters nor the final letters in terms of how we understand it. It would not be a letter, as it would not be legible and would not mean anything.

In order to go from English to Chinese, a sudden change must occur, where at one point is it completely English and then at the next point it is completely Chinese. It cannot go from English to Chinese gradually, because the change that is ultimately occurring is causing the original text to change fundamentally, instead of just changing in degree such as the change in color shading.

Words going from red to blue is a good example of micro-evolution, like a red beetle experiencing micro-evolution and changing into a blue beetle by simply changing the shading of its husk. Words going from English to Chinese though is a good example of macro-evolution, whereas gradual changes over time (in the same form as your example exhibits) are simply not able to cause such a change.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 07:52:26 PM by Spinner198 »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10954
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2014, 08:01:10 PM »
I don't see why asexual reproduction is not an example of a species "Breeding among themselves".

Because they're not breeding. They're dividing. Huge difference (really).

Concerning that very intelligent block of red, blue and all colors in between text. All it does it ask questions about the block of text and when one color become another.
<snip>

So you can't answer the questions. Good to know. You have proven, like your creationist brethren, that you and your ilk don't care about honesty. You just want your views reinforced and protected.

Words going from English to Chinese though is a good example of macro-evolution, whereas gradual changes over time (in the same form as your example exhibits) are simply not able to cause such a change.

Showing your ignorance of evolution again. You can't go from species A and end up in species B that exists concurrently with species A. However, if you were to start at the Cumaean alphabetWiki, then the Etruscan alphabetWiki, then moved on to Old Latin, then Classical Latin, then Vulgar Latin, then Medieval Latin, and so on, you'd eventually reach English and all other languages that were derived from Latin. They have widely different alphabets. For example, do you even know what "ç" is? Do you know the name of the character? No, you do not (most likely). Yet it exists in my language, as well as others. What about "ª" (note: not º)? What about "k"? That letter, along with "w" and "y", don't exist in my language, but they do in English. There is not a single character in my language that resembles a "k" or "y". "W" is a different story, since it's just two "v"'s put together.

This will be my last post on this thread. You have repeatedly shown you don't understand evolution, but are still trying to argue against it somehow, like a blind man arguing against the existence of light or a "perfectly colorblind" person (someone who only sees black, white, and grey) arguing against the existence of colors aside from black, white, and grey.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2014, 08:01:33 PM »
In order to go from English to Chinese, a sudden change must occur, where at one point is it completely English and then at the next point it is completely Chinese. It cannot go from English to Chinese gradually, because the change that is ultimately occurring is causing the original text to change fundamentally, instead of just changing in degree such as the change in color shading.

A proper analogy in evolution would be, say, these equivalences:

Chinese = Insects
English = Mammals
French = Birds
Italian = Dinosaurs
Latin = A common ancestor of English, French, and Italian (and analogous to a common ancestor of mammals, birds, and dinosaurs, but not of insects)

The co-existing languages don't turn into each other.  But they do share common roots.  Characterizing evolution as a change from one currently-existing species into another currently-existing species is a mistake most creationists make when they've either not read anything about what evolution actually means yet, or have been faithfully resisting such education.

When did Latin turn into French?  When did it turn into Italian?  When did it turn into Spanish?  Oh wait, it couldn't, because micro-changes in language cannot possibly cause them to diverge into different ones...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2014, 08:17:02 PM »
Because they're not breeding. They're dividing. Huge difference (really).

Wasn't it you who said "Or plants, which can breed with virtually any other plant in existence?"?

So you can't answer the questions. Good to know. You have proven, like your creationist brethren, that you and your ilk don't care about honesty. You just want your views reinforced and protected.

I don't think the point was ever really about answering the question as to the precise moment when the letters became purple and when they became blue. It is nigh impossible to tell, unless you spend a lot of time analyzing the pixels and what not.

Showing your ignorance of evolution again. You can't go from species A and end up in species B that exists concurrently with species A. <snip>

First of all, since red and blue both exist, you would be making the same 'ignorant claim'. Second, that wasn't the point I was making. The point is that you are implying that gradual changes in degree is the exact same thing as changing one distinct structure/process into a completely new and distinct structure/process. You cannot change an English character into a Chinese character with gradual changes in the same way that you can change a red letter into a blue letter through gradual changes. It doesn't matter whether you want to go through 'other' languages or not. A character belongs to one language, and if two languages share the same exact character then it still wouldn't matter because no change would be occurring (as it would still have a specific meaning to you depending on your interpretation, but the letter itself would not have changed). Eventually there would come a point where one character would have to change into completely different characters, and that could not be accomplished through gradual change without the letter/character losings it meaning. (losings its meaning being similar to a color being unable to be determined by itself)

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2014, 08:29:17 PM »
In order to go from English to Chinese, a sudden change must occur, where at one point is it completely English and then at the next point it is completely Chinese. It cannot go from English to Chinese gradually, because the change that is ultimately occurring is causing the original text to change fundamentally, instead of just changing in degree such as the change in color shading.

A proper analogy in evolution would be, say, these equivalences:

Chinese = Insects
English = Mammals
French = Birds
Italian = Dinosaurs
Latin = A common ancestor of English, French, and Italian (and analogous to a common ancestor of mammals, birds, and dinosaurs, but not of insects)

The co-existing languages don't turn into each other.  But they do share common roots.  Characterizing evolution as a change from one currently-existing species into another currently-existing species is a mistake most creationists make when they've either not read anything about what evolution actually means yet, or have been faithfully resisting such education.

When did Latin turn into French?  When did it turn into Italian?  When did it turn into Spanish?  Oh wait, it couldn't, because micro-changes in language cannot possibly cause them to diverge into different ones...
But even original languages involve different characters. If the characters are the same or similar, then they might as well appear as the same character depending on which language you are attempting to interpret them with. The original intent of my post was to show that mere analogies such as this are insufficient/unable to prove evolution or natural history.

Also, like I said, red is a currently existing color as well as blue and purple. If the nitpick is able to be applied to mine legitimately, it should also be able to be applied to the original red/blue paragraph as well.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2014, 09:02:05 PM »
But even original languages involve different characters. If the characters are the same or similar, then they might as well appear as the same character depending on which language you are attempting to interpret them with.

What original languages (I only indicated one)?  What characters?  What does any of this have to do with what I said?

The original intent of my post was to show that mere analogies such as this are insufficient/unable to prove evolution or natural history.

That is not what the analogy is doing in the first place.  It was being used to explain how generational divergence works, such that micro changes

Also, like I said, red is a currently existing color as well as blue and purple. If the nitpick is able to be applied to mine legitimately, it should also be able to be applied to the original red/blue paragraph as well.

The blue is not currently existing at the start of the paragraph.  Nor is red currently existing at the end of it.  The analogy is being used to explain how to understand miniscule changes along a continuum in which no sharp dividing lines are warranted.  Did it fail?

I'm sure you can find ways to avoid understanding it, but try to let a little understanding of what others are saying seep through, will ya?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 09:03:38 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2014, 10:36:13 AM »

I'm sure you can find ways to avoid understanding it, but try to let a little understanding of what others are saying seep through, will ya?

I would love to hear at least a hint of understanding on the analogies provided. But alas, it won't happen. The whole micro versus macro nonsense from creationists will never go away I'm afraid.

Bottom line is that they are purposely refusing to accept that small changes in ANYTHING can accumulate to a point where the starting point no longer resembles the ending point.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: rapid convergent evolution spotted in Hawaiian islands
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2014, 10:41:10 AM »
I just saw that my sentence got cut off for some reason.  I'll finish it now:

Quote
That is not what the analogy is doing in the first place.  It was being used to explain how generational divergence works, such that micro changes

...between nearly indistinguishable units can accumulate into a macro-level change.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.