Posted on 10/23/2009 8:18:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Shallow water light ranges from the ultraviolet to red (wavelengths 360 nm - 650 nm). Going deeper, the extremes disappear and the spectrum narrows to a blue (approx 480 nm). Of the fish species whose colour vision has been tested to date, all except one can see in the ultraviolet (UV). The exception is the scabbardfish, which is the subject of a new research paper. The authors find that the fish that are sensitive to UV have a pigment that absorbs UV light, but the scabbardfish lacks this pigment and has, instead, a pigment that is violet-sensitive.
The scabbardfish (Lepidopus fitchi) is now the only fish known to have switched from ultraviolet to violet vision, or the ability to see blue light.
The researchers have looked at the molecular structure of the relevant pigments and their absorption spectra...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
Evolution.
Next question?
Ping!
"What if" is not scientific evidence. One needs to adopt hypotheses and collect data to evaluate them.
For some reason, ID advocates want their position accepted without carrying out the necessary step of experimentation. It's an approach that will never succeed in convincing large numbers of scientists.
It according to the article, this isn’t “evolution” but “adaptive change involving the change of a single amino acid in the opsin protein.”.
Don’t you know anything, evolution and adaptive change aren’t the same thing.
:->
Design from inception, then evolution.
The premise of this and similar “creationist” articles is that belief in god and evolution are incompatible. We know this is incorrect.
The barrage of articles continues so that the quality of FR will be degraded. I have no other explanation.
I know this isn't the OP's intent, but, just like that poll someone posted the other week, it shows that the diversity of thinking on the right is much greater than the left stereotypes. In these articles that are posted, you have a wide range of debate on the issue, from the OP's 5k year old earth theory, to traditional science, to old earth ID'rs and TE'rs.
To paraphrase Shakespeare...that is indeed the question!
I agree completely.
There’s a difference. Darwin collected reams of information.
But even more important IMO is that science has come a long way since then. The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is not dependent on Origins alone; that it is so widely accepted is a consequence of an enormous amount of experimentation consistent with the scientific method.
It’s incumbent on ID advocates to test their ideas and publish the data. They will never succeed in their goals if they continue to conduct their efforts as if they are exempt from the process that everyone else in science is expected to follow.
DING DING DING......EVOLUTION HAS A WINNER!!!! There's a freakin' amino acid missing. Now how does an amino acid go missing? Long ago, before there was this specific scabbardfish, there was a similar fish that had a "deletion" that was passed on to its offspring......who ended up missing one amino acid in the peptide chain of a specific protein causing the fish to see differently.
That proves that Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs.
Please re-read my post. I pointed out that the widespread acceptance of modern evolutionary theory is not the result of a single book, but of an enormous body of scientific work that followed.
ID advocates need to provide a similar body of experimental data in support of their position. A list of complaints about evolutionary biology is not a scientific theory.
according to the article...
You mean "according to an ID theorists perversion of the original research"???
Mayhaps you should read the PRIMARY SOURCE instead of listening to a biased writer twisting the primary source to fit his theology.
I assume we’ll be eating them next like the trash fish Talapia?
“Evolutionary biology is filled with arguments that are misleading, at best,” Yokoyama says.”
But I also appreciate the work of the researchers bringing to light more examples of our Creator's works.
“What if” is not scientific evidence.”
It is when a scientist uses it, along with other proofs like, “possibly, somehow, and if, not clear, details missing”.
And my favorite, “further study is needed”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
