Could this be -- gasp! -- macro-evolution? O the horror! Everyone be nice.
|
> Could this be -- gasp! -- macro-evolution?
No, it can't. If it was macro-evolution, the stickleback would have evolved legs, rack and pinion steering and warp drive. Anything less is *micro* evolution, and is wholly irrelevant to everything. Look away.
Did it turn into something other than a fish?
Yeah....but a fish is still a fish as time goes by.
Seriously, they may have demonstrated how one type of fish turned into another type of fish, but I don't see a fish turning into a dog or a giraffe. If this process is actually true, why isn't it still happening, or why haven't we found any real examples of intermediate species anywhere in the fossil record (that I'm aware of). Something that truly appears to be a cross between one species and another. Like the Creature from the Black Lagoon.....
If a fish doesn't give birth to a petunia, it isn't macroevolution.
Ditches to be defended:
It's still a Sticlkeback.
It's still a fish.
It's still an animal.
It's still material.
Stalin became a Communist due to Darwin.
If sticklebacks taken from one locale can still interbreed with the others, what does this prove?
Seen some pretty goofy looking families -- especially those with too much inbreeding -- but they are just "normal" variants within the human species. Or consider our friend canis familiaris, with the chihuahua and the Great Dane. No one would seriously argue that either has become "less dog."
Of course genes drive morphology!
This does nothing to verify macro-evolution. It does more to ridicule the claims of macro-evolutionists.
This explains then why so-called scientists turn into dumbos.
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what survival benefit body armor would convey to a 3 inch fish that would normally be swallowed whole by its predators.
No! No! No! No! We all know that all mutations are killers. It's in the talking points. These scientists must be lying. </creo_mode>
Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
So, he said, “the marine fish actually carry the genes for this alternative state, but at such a low level it is never seen;” all the ocean fish remain well-armored. “But they do have this silent gene that allows this alternative form to emerge if the fish colonize a new freshwater location.”
Species made to easily adapt to multiple conditions. Isn't that evidence for creation? Were the marine fish carrying around this gene "just-in-case" they happen to bump into some fresh water? How, exactly, does evolution account for ready-to-go premade genes for other environments?
That would be Micro-evolution as Macro-evolution does not exist as far as anyone knows.
Very interesting article. Thanks.
It's evolution from one species to another, leading to a large and obvious change in appearance. That used to be 'macroevolution', before the fundies decided they better move the goalposts. Nowadays unless you see a red-leaf lettuce transform into a wide-screen, hi-def TV before your very eyes, it isn't macroevolution, because macroevolution doesn't happen, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
How is less of an "armor plating" on these fish an enhancement?
Does a fish becoming less insulated constitute an advancement? Does it help reduce drag and make them faster in the water?
Do the researchers explain why it helped these fish in their new environments other than the one speculative comment?
If the Eda gene is considered a harbinger of a disorder in humans, why are they considering it as an example of evolution in fish?
Not busting stones, I just wonder about these things sometimes. It is certainly easy to understand why scientists accept evolution as more fact than theory, as it is the most unifying notion which attempts to define the commonality of life on Earth.