Replies

The stock creationist/intelligent design response is that the information for those structures was present in the lizards' genes and just got expressed in the new environment--i.e., adaptation not evolution.

That really seems to be the case here, however. At the very least, you (and others) are jumping the gun by calling it evidence for evolution.

Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html>

I'm not sure which of the articles best describes the genetic situation, but if the genetic information was already there and just triggered by diet and environment (and my guess is that is almost certainly the case), then it's more in line with the creation model than evolution.

The NatGeo article starts off with "Italian wall lizards ... are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out." I would translate that "our theory says this should take millions of years, but it only took 36." The most common question creationists get is "How did noah get all of the animals on the ark?" How many animals needed to be on the ark to produce the diversity we see today? Fewer than you'd think.

I didn't mean to ignore the flu shots, but it's bed time. Quick answer - The flu shots are basically selecting between known strains and forcasting which ones will be predominant in a given year. There's no help from evolutionary theory in that.

Are viruses living? That's debatable, but on their own the answer seems to be no. Do they tend to swap genetic code? Yes. Does that make them more complex? No, they just become harder for the host to recognize and attack. Does mutation of viruses resemble the type of mutation that would be required for creating complex life forms from simple ones? No.

That really seems to be the case here, however.

On what basis do you say that?

if the genetic information was already there and just triggered by diet and environment (and my guess is that is almost certainly the case)

We've got a structure that occurs in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles and never before in this species. Evolution would say that the information for the structure was newly generated. If creationist/intelligent design researchers want to dispute that, it's easy: just investigate the genetics of the source population and identify and locate the information that was already there that generated the new structures.

Somehow, they never take up that challenge.