The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart

NY Times ^ | 6-17-03 | CAROL KAESUK YOON

[Pharmboy]

H. E. Hoekstra
Evolution has allowed some rock pocket mice,
pictured on light and dark rocks, to produce
distinct fur that helps disguise them.

In the deserts of the Southwest, among the towering saguaros and the spiny cholla cactuses, rock pocket mice hop and dash in search of a meal of seeds. But while these mice may seem to scamper haphazardly across the desert floor, their arrangement in nature is strikingly orderly.

Nearly everywhere these mice are sandy-colored, well camouflaged as they scurry across beige-colored outcrops. But in some areas, ancient lava flows have left behind swaths of blackened rock. There the same species of rock pocket mouse has only dark coats, having evolved an entirely distinct and, for their surroundings, equally well-disguised pelage.

Now, in a recent study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report identifying the gene responsible for the evolution of dark coat coloration in these mice, pinpointing the DNA sequence changes that underlie this classic story of evolutionary change, the cute and furry counterpart to the famous case of the peppered moth.

Researchers say the study is the first documentation of the genetic changes underlying an adaptive change where the evolutionary forces were natural. Scientists point out that other well-known cases involve evolution caused by humans; some have suggested that those changes may be atypical of natural evolutionary change, since they have typically involved intense, directed pressures destroying most of a population, like the spraying of pesticides or the application of antibiotics.

"This work is very important," said Dr. Mike Majerus, an evolutionary geneticist at Cambridge University, who was not part of the study. "Here man is just not involved. The sandy and lava flow substrates are entirely natural phenomena."

Other well-studied examples of human-driven adaptive change include the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects after widespread spraying and the increase in the numbers of dark-winged forms compared with light-winged forms of the peppered moth in the United States and England after industrialization turned air sooty and polluted.

Dr. Michael W. Nachman, a population geneticist, along with colleagues at the University of Arizona, Dr. Hopi E. Hoekstra and Susan L. D'Agostino, studied mice living on Arizona's Pinacate lava flow in Arizona and on light-colored rocks nearby. The researchers were able to take advantage of decades of meticulous work in which other scientists identified some 80 genes that affected coat color in laboratory mice.

On close examination, the light-colored rock pocket mice could be seen to have a type of hair coloration similar to standard, sandy-colored laboratory mice. In this pattern, known as agouti, the hair is black at the base, yellow in the middle and black again at the tip. The dark-colored rock pocket mice had completely dark hairs.

Researchers knew that mutations in a few well-known coat coloration genes in laboratory mice could cause such complete darkening of the hair, and they began by looking at two genes known as agouti and Mc1r. When they looked at DNA sequences in light and dark mice, changes in the agouti gene did not appear to be associated with light-colored fur versus dark-colored. Still, the researchers found that a certain cluster of mutations at Mc1r could be found in every dark-colored mouse.

"It's a textbook story," Dr. Nachman said. "Now we have all the pieces of the puzzle together in a natural setting."

Dr. Nachman noted that while the new study points to the Mc1r gene as the key to turning mice dark on the Pinacate lava flow, the team also found that dark mice on another lava flow in New Mexico did not share those mutations.

"So the same dark color has evolved independently in the two different populations," he said, "through different genetic solutions to the same evolutionary problem." Dr. Nachman said changes in another gene, perhaps the agouti gene, could be responsible for dark coloration in the New Mexico's Pedro Armendaris lava flow.

One could easily imagine that coloration would be of no consequence to the rock pocket mice, as they are nocturnal, darting about under the desert night sky. But researchers, working early in the last century, released light and dark mice on light and dark backgrounds in an enclosure at night and found that owls, a major predator of mice, could easily spot a mouse on a mismatched background.

Dr. Nachman noted, however, that these early researchers did not use rock pocket mice in their study, but instead used a species in which the dark and light forms were actually much less distinct.

As a result, he said, "we think the owls are discriminating even more strongly in our species." He said tiny bits of rock pocket mouse were often found in pellets at owl roosts.

Dr. Majerus said many kinds of animals showed light and dark forms, from deer mice to squirrels and chipmunks. There are even black ladybugs.

"A lot of the dark forms show an association with a particular type of substrate they're on, or the frequency of burning and charring of the trees in the woodlands," he said, noting that it would be interesting to do genetic studies in other animals, to see how many genetic solutions these other animals have come up with to turn dark.

But while many dark forms are abundant and can be studied at scientists' leisure, Dr. Majerus said that of the peppered moth was slowly disappearing.

So while there is nearly unanimous praise for the increasingly clean air in industrialized regions of the United States and Britain, there may be, at least for some scientists, a downside. "We've got about 15 or 16 years," Dr. Majerus said, "before those black forms, if they continue to disappear at the current rate, disappear completely."

[razorbak]

So brilliant:

Spontaneous generation, inheritance of acquired characteristics,...

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. [Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, expunged from later editions to keep Darwin from being perceived as the imbecile he was]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]

"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." [T.H. Huxley, Darwin's most ardent and outspoken disciple, earned the nickname "Darwin's Bulldog"]

"Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. ... But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel's greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University]

Charles Darwin, stupidist white man [and racist] of all time.

[Dimensio]

A response to the bears-to-whales story. Of course, I'm sure that it will be attacked and considered 'discredited' either because of the author's alleged political affiliations or simply because it runs contrary to what creationists want to believe.

[Aric2000]

I love this quote from your link Ichneumon.

"One paleontologist’s critique of Gish (1978) is: “On 67 of the 97 text pages I found at least one error of fact, logical error, or quota tion out of context, all chosen carefully to mislead the reader. On checking a standard college logic text with a list of logical fallacies, I found that Gish did not manage to miss a single one! Their works have the appearance of scholarship, but not the substance” (Sloan, 1983, p. 263). "

Ain't it the truth.

You have to feel sorry for these guys, they are holding on to their myth with such tenacity, it's like a lifeline or something, but if they HAVE to take the bible literally, this is what they get.

When that last little bit of rope gets cut, I am almost afraid of what these fanatics will do.

Burn the books, kill the scientists, who knows, but it is a frightening thought.

[longshadow]

raging blue flatulent trolls placemarker

[razorbak]

Darwin's Source of Inspiration: Malthus's Theory of Ruthlessness


Darwin was influenced by the social theories of Malthus, who defined ruthlessness as a law of nature.
Darwin's source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean 'permanent war.'

In the 19th century, Malthus's ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In an article titled 'The Nazis' Secret Scientific Agenda', the importance 19th century attached Europe attached to Malthus's views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations," and so forth and so on. [3]

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called 'oppression of the poor' policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The 'struggle for survival' demanded by Malthus's theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified an unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying creation, and thus aimed at all ethical values that could prove an obstacle to the ruthlessness of the 'struggle for survival.'

The dissemination of these untrue ideas that led individuals to ruthlessness and cruelty, cost humanity a heavy price in the 20th century. ...

The Fruit of 'The Law of the Jungle': Fascism

As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20thcentury: Nazism.


Both the race theory and the war hysteria of the Nazis were inspired from Darwinism.
A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as 'natural selection', 'selected mating', and 'the struggle for survival between the races', which are repeated dozens of time in The Origin of Species. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:

'History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.'[7]

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right."

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that many historians accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. [8]

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the 'struggle for survival'.



The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism


The dialectical materialism of Marx defined violence as a constructive force that helped human progress.
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these 'isms.' Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as 'containing the basis in natural history for communism'. In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter 'The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man.'

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to social science'. [9]

Trotsky said, 'Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.' [10]

'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist because of Darwin's books. [11]

Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that 'Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.' [12]

The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism's effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin. [13]

In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of blind chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words 'the struggle for survival') and supports the concept of 'dialectics' which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of 'dialectical conflict', which killed some 120 million people throughout the 20thcentury, as a 'killing machine' then we can better understand the dimension of the disaster that Darwinism visited on our planet. [HARUN YAHYA]

"In the sense that an omnipotent and omniscient Deity must order and know everything, this must be admitted; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly admit it." ("The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Francis Darwin, Charles Darwin to C. Lyell, D. Appleton and Co., 1896, Down, April [1860].)

Charles Darwin, stupidest white man of all time.

[Aric2000]

Good article Dimensio, excellent read, thank you!!

[Aric2000]

Oh puhlease stop before you make a total and absolute fool of yourself.

Whoops, too late, but you are making yourself into an even bigger one. So Stop while you're ahead...

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well... Gee, whillikers.

FIRST you say this:

What a disgusting misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

And THEN you go on to say this:

Through random mutations some of the offspring of these primordial freshwater fish were able to tolerate water of a slightly higher salinity.... In order to evolve to some hostile new environment, the organism must have the genes to survive in that kind of environment to some capacity.

Which is exactly what I already stated... "In order to evolve to some hostile new environment, the organism must have the genes to survive in that kind of environment to some capacity". Random Mutations are "necessary" to evolutionary theory (whether Neo-Darwinian or Punctuated Equilibriumist), in the sense that they are the only Mechanism which evolutionists have proposed to overcome the "Genetic Survivability -- Hostile Biome" Road-Block.

If you're just going to REPEAT WHAT I SAY, what is the point of arguing with me?

Care to explain?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Nice post, OP, I'm impressed. You sherr do sound you did some real book learnin'. However, I must ask what this means: "Secondly, if at all possible, let's see some examples other than Viruses and Bacteria... Can we have some higher animal examples, please? If you have any to offer?" I would have thought in your church's "how to sound smart to a scientist" class they'd have drummed it into your head not to use phrases such as, "Higher animals." Those tiny little viruses you cite have certainly vexed us "higher animals" quite a bit. And I'm sure you, as the "highest animal," wouldn't fare quite so well if I pushed you overboard in the Pacific somewhere. You get the point. You also wrote: "Remember, the "Fall in Eden" Model predicts that Diseases are with you always, so (alleged) adaptability on the part of Viral Plagues is not a huge surprise to the Genesis Creationist." Wow, OP, I'd love to learn more about this loving god of yours. Sounds like a bowl of cherries.

Somewhere, nestled deep inside your Post, you had a Point to make. At least I hope so.

But you failed badly. You managed only Sarcasm -- and I do Sarcasm much better than do you, Neophyte.

C'mon. You had a Pont you were trying to make. I'm certain of it.

Why don't you try again -- this time, with gusto.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Nice post, OP, I'm impressed. You sherr do sound you did some real book learnin'. However, I must ask what this means: "Secondly, if at all possible, let's see some examples other than Viruses and Bacteria... Can we have some higher animal examples, please? If you have any to offer?" I would have thought in your church's "how to sound smart to a scientist" class they'd have drummed it into your head not to use phrases such as, "Higher animals." Those tiny little viruses you cite have certainly vexed us "higher animals" quite a bit. And I'm sure you, as the "highest animal," wouldn't fare quite so well if I pushed you overboard in the Pacific somewhere. You get the point. You also wrote: "Remember, the "Fall in Eden" Model predicts that Diseases are with you always, so (alleged) adaptability on the part of Viral Plagues is not a huge surprise to the Genesis Creationist." Wow, OP, I'd love to learn more about this loving god of yours. Sounds like a bowl of cherries.

Somewhere, nestled deep inside your Post, you had a Point to make. At least I hope so.

But you failed badly. You managed only Sarcasm -- and I do Sarcasm much better than do you, Neophyte.

C'mon. You had a Point you were trying to make. I'm certain of it.

Why don't you try again -- this time, with gusto.

(Typos corrected for the sake of anal-retentiveness)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, speciation springs to mind. And your repeated invocation of "Biomes A, B, C, D, and E" suggests that you have drawn some rather bright (and non-existent) lines between environments. While the middle of the ocean and Death Valley are polar opposites, there's alot of territory in between. Ever heard of a salt marsh? Where does it begin and where does it end? If you can identify the bright lines there, I know a number of marine biologists who would like to hear from you.

I think you're missing the point. Regardless of the exact delineation of a "Salt Marsh" in geographic terms, a Species can tolerate what it can tolerate (within its existent Genetic Code). Certain levels of salinity, in our hypothetical "salt marsh", are survivable for at least certain members of the Species in question, provided that they have inherited the requisite Genes in question from their ancestors.

But if the Genetic Code of the Species does not possess the requisite Genes for survival in a certain environment of salinity, then it doesn't really matter whether "more-robust" or "more-deficient" members of the Species are being considered -- they're all going to Die, regardless.

In such a situation, the Species requires New Genetic Information, hence the evolutionist appeal to Random Mutation.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, at least you understood my Post. I appreciate that, at least.

No, you've increased the survivability. If the mutants are a new subspecies, then the species as a whole has now gone from 4 to 5 different environments. If they're a new species altogether, then you went from 1 species in 4 environments to 2 species in 5 environments. But in another sense you've actually gone from 4 to 7! You've gone from (1 species in 4 environments) to (1 species in 4 environments plus 1 new species in 3 environments). No matter how you measure it, the end result for the original population's offspring as a whole is increased biodiversity.

However, you've changed the terms of my argument somewhat, from Vertical Evolution (A into B) to Horizontal Evolution (A coexisting with B). That's not actually what I was talking about, but I can dig it.

Let us say that you continually sub-divide the Species into less-survivable sub-groups of the Core Species.

What you end up with is a bunch of Genetic Variants which are relatively more vulnerable to Local Extinction Events (since their overall range of Adaptation is absolutely reduced) and a Genetic Core Species which is as vulnerable as ever to a Mass Extinction Event (leaving, in the Best Case, a Genetic Variant which is still relatively more vulnerable to Local Extinction Events -- since their overall range of Adaptation is absolutely reduced).

Any way you slice it, sub-division into relatively less-survivable Genetic Variants simply cannot be a recipe for Species Survival and Genetic Success... because as long as the Species is subdividing into LESS-Survivable Variants with no Subspecies enjoying an ABSOLUTE expansion of its genetic adaptability in the presence of Local and Mass Extinction Events, you still end up with an Agatha Christie novel... "And Then There Were None."

[jennyp]

However, you've changed the terms of my argument somewhat, from Vertical Evolution (A into B) to Horizontal Evolution (A coexisting with B). That's not actually what I was talking about, but I can dig it.

Ah, well that is the standard model for speciation.

Let us say that you continually sub-divide the Species into less-survivable sub-groups of the Core Species.

What you end up with is a bunch of Genetic Variants which are relatively more vulnerable to Local Extinction Events (since their overall range of Adaptation is absolutely reduced) and a Genetic Core Species which is as vulnerable as ever to a Mass Extinction Event...

That's an interesting way of looking at it! But the problem is, we're talking about your hypothetical scenario: One species originally suited to "biomes" A, B, C, & D, splits into the original plus the second suited for C, D, & E. Why not postulate the offshoot being suited for B, C, D, & E? Or indeed why not A, B, C, D, & E? I've never heard of any evidence or biological/ecological principle that says that a breakaway subspecies or species has to be adapted to fewer environments than the original population was. It could just as easily be more.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

As an adult human who likes her milk, cheese, & ice cream, I really appreciate my lactose-tolerance gene - a beneficial mutation that was probably first enjoyed by my European ancestors. And though I have lost weight, I am still resolutely multicellular. :-)

I'm not much interested in "probably". If I want to hear "Just-So" stories, I'll listen to the latest Government Propaganda.

Besides, as I said before, this particular Link is more argumentative than informative.

At any rate, I thought that your article on the Apolipoprotein Mutations was a lot more interesting.

Also see this T.O. article that examines the Apo-AIM mutation in humans. This mutation gives the person more-efficient HDL cholesterol particles so they scavenge arterial plaques better than the standard type, and it also helps suppress arterial inflammations. The article explains how this mutation represents an increase in information (by all the popular creationist measures).

The TalkOrigins article cites the AIG (that is, Answers In Genesis) response, in a pre-emptive Rebuttal to the counter-argument that AIG is attempting to construct. I respect this on their parts -- It is proficient Debate Tactics on the part of TalkOrigins to intercept AIG in advance, and dis-arm their objections.

That said, I am not particularly surprised that TalkOrigins is able to pre-emptively disarm "Answers In Genesis". Meaning no offense whatsoever to Backwoods Southern Fundamentalists (of whom I am myself a brethren), "Answers In Genesis" has always struck me as a very Backwoods Southern Fundamentalist sort of website.

When I want scientifically rigorous Creationism, I don't go to "Answers In Genesis" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/). I personally prefer "True Origins" (http://www.trueorigin.org/), which typically enjoys a much higher participation rate among M.D.s and Ph.D.s than does AIG.

I'm not trying to pull a "bait and switch" on you, but since you brought up AIG, I'll give my own Creationist opinion -- I personally think that TrueOrigins is the place you're gonna find the genuine scientific monographs, whereas AnswersInGenesis is the place you're gonna find the glorified Chick Tracts (or perhaps, the "Ernst Haeckel" version of Creationism, though not quite so fraudulent as Haeckel's evolutionism).

JMHO.

That said, "True Origins" has only recently begun to discuss the Apolipoprotein Mutation issue -- their first reference to the subject is as of June 2003 (which, after all, is probably fair -- the TalkOrigins article which you cited only dates from April 2003. The Scientific Method wasn't built in a day). I look forward to their full examination of the Argument.

My own friend "the_doc" is, at any rate, infinitely more qualified to speak to the genetic-adaptation issues than am I.

I shall, instead, advance a rather more subversive line of Argumentation -- if we adopt, for the sake of argument, the (theoretical) affirmation that the Apo-AIM mutation which (theoretically) increases the average life-span of elderly Humans who would otherwise die of Heart Disease -- what kind of Insanity causes you to imagine that this has increased the Overall Survivability of the Human Race?

Even if we ASSUME every good thing that is claimed therefore, the Apo-AIM Mutation is associated with a decreased risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke -- diseases generally associated with the Elderly, at least 90%+ of the time, if not more.

This is not a Biologically GOOD thing. It is a Biologically BAD thing. Harmful Mutations come in a variety of baskets -- including the Demographic harm of over-populating the Species with an excessive weight of biologically non-contributing members. Such as the weight of biologically non-contributing members who no longer Work, and no longer Bear Children. And least you think I am advocating Euthanasia, Eugenics, or any such abominations -- I remind you in advance: My Christian Ethics breed an abhorrence to any such atrocities. I am simply making a demographic observation -- the Human Race (or any Bioligical Species) cannot long survive if over 50% of its Population is composed of biologically non-contributing members who no longer Work, and no longer Bear Children.

This is not a Biologically GOOD thing. It is a Biologically BAD thing. Harmful Mutations come in a variety of baskets -- including the Demographic harm of over-populating the Species with an excessive weight of biologically non-contributing members. As such -- even if the Apo-AIM mutation extends the life-span of biologically non-contributing members of the Species, how on Earth could you consider this a "beneficial" mutation in a Darwinist sense?

It might make sense to Christians, who are taught to "respect their Father and their Mother" even when the Patriarch is soaking up life-support in an Iron-Lung. I'll let my friend "the_doc" deal with the genetic biology; I am speaking only of the socio-biology: how can it possibly be construed as a "beneficial" Mutation in the Darwinian sense?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Why not postulate the offshoot being suited for B, C, D, & E? Or indeed why not A, B, C, D, & E? I've never heard of any evidence or biological/ecological principle that says that a breakaway subspecies or species has to be adapted to fewer environments than the original population was. It could just as easily be more.

Well, that's sorta what I am asking. If you have evidence of either a horizontally-evolved sub-species, or a vertically-evolved successor-species, enjoying inherent genetic adaptability to more "environments than the original population was" (that is, an ABSOLUTE increase in genetic survivability), that's what I would be interested in seeing.

Because otherwise, given Local and Mass Extinction Events, Relative increases in Genetic Survivability won't cut it... we ultimately end up reading an Agatha Christie novel. "And Then There Were None."

[Pharmboy]

Understanding the atom brought awful destruction with its knowledge. Evolution brought with its insights a biologic underpinning for racialism; we do not throw out nuclear physics nor do we throw out evolution.

To judge Darwin's 19th century attitudes towards blacks is as ridiculous as judging today's Americans by 19th century slavery (and I'm not just speaking of the south, since slavery was legal in NY State until 1821).

Biology is real and evolution is the foundation of our understanding of biology, from molecular biology to anthropology to medicinal chemistry. Get with the program; it does not deny the existence of God any more than our understanding of nuclear physics or chemistry does.

Best,
PB

[PatrickHenry]

Endless festival of lunacy placemarker.

[gore3000]

I noticed that you made no direct statements for Ichneumon to tear to pieces, what? Are you scared there G3K?

Actually I did, after a long rhetorical tirade against Camp, Ichmeunon admitted that the evidence in 29 Evidences could itself be used against evolution. Since regardless of the title, the article is used as 'proof' of evolution it seems to me that Ichmeunon himself debunked the article. I therefore just needed to show some salient points where the article and evolutionary 'evidence' have been disproven.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Don't let any facts get in your way, doc! The above is a Confuciusornis sanctus forelimb. ~~ 126 posted on 06/19/2003 7:54 PM PDT by VadeRetro

LOL! ~~ 143 posted on 06/19/2003 11:26 PM PDT by the_doc

You know what the funniest thing of all is, Vade? You don't even realize why "the_doc" is laughing at you. Perhaps he doesn't "suffer Fools gladly". Or perhaps he is just too Charitable a Christian to blatantly make sport of you.

I, however, am not. I am more-or-less an insufferable Cad... I am a Boor. A Lout. An incarnate superabundance of caustic solipsism (Well, unlike so many "sensitive 90's Men", at least I don't cower at being called "egotistical" and "arrogant" -- I freely admit the charge).

So howzabout I let you "in" on the Joke?

Here's the scoop:

---

The_Doc asked for one... ONE (1)... biological explanation which could possibly account for a "rat with wings" (and more importantly, marginally-developed flaps of skin which could provide any Survival Advantages, since the Bat appears fully-formed in the Fossil record) --

If we look at the bat's wing, it has the simplistic appearance of a flap of skin on a long, thin bone which reaches out from an upper body appendage somewhat like a rat's foreleg. But the question is, How did the "thumb" of the rat's foreleg develop this elongation and skin covering?

Or maybe I should say that this is the typical evolutionists' question. A better scientist would have asked, Did the "thumb" of the rat's foreleg develop this elongation and skin covering?

Anyway, if we assume that it did happen, and if we go on to ask ourselves how it did, we should notice that it didn't. But the diehard evolutionists don't notice this. They just invoke the presuppositional notion that a macroevolutionary change (i.e., yielding wing formation) took place through a summation of microevolutionary changes. This is their answer to the "How did it happen?" question. But it's no answer, really, because it is not at all scientific. It's just presuppositional. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't work. Their presupposition is demonstrably false.

I could add, out of my own amateur observations, that the Hollow Bones enjoyed by Bats (alone among Mammals) would also be helpful... it's not much use to a Rat to be structurally-fragile while living on the Ground; but as a Flying critter, you need those Hollow Bones to stay airborne... if you can get airborne in the first place. Please be sure to develop them at the same time as Wings, otherwise you're kinda screwed...

---

In response.... you offered him a non-transitional BIRD.

Here is one "competent" (by which I mean, "evolutionist", just to salve your biases) artist's rendition of the Confuciusornis...

...Courtesy of the Basel Museum of Natural History.
Oh, look at that! It's a BIRD!!

Why, it's not a Bat at all!! In fact, you've somehow managed to hopelessly FUBAR the entire Phylogenetic Column, endeavoring to confuse Class Mammalia of Phylum Chordata with Class Aves of Phylum Chordata.

And not only that, you've somehow managed to hopelessly FUBAR the entire Evolutionary Chronological-Fossil Column, confusing a non-transitional, feather-winged BIRD which allegedly dates from 150 Million Years BC, with a skin-winged MAMMAL which appeared (fully-formed) in the Fossil Record allegedly at least 100 MILLION YEARS later?

Let's not even discuss the Bat's (apparently functionally-perfect, from the inception of the species) Sonar, it's just too embarassing. After all, what's a little matter of f*cking up the entire phylogenetic and chronological evolutionary "record", between friends?

Heck, I'm prepared to be charitable. In fact, I shall (in this one case) even be more Charitable than "The_Doc".

He just Laughed at you. But I shall offer you a fair choice:

Do you want to put on the Ronald McDonald Clown Make-Up First, or should we just laugh at you Already??

Please advise.

Best, OP

[VadeRetro]

Wondered where you've been, Uriel!

... perhaps [doc] is just too Charitable a Christian to blatantly make sport of you. I, however, am not. I am more-or-less an insufferable Cad... I am a Boor.

Actually, the shock of discovery I felt a few years ago came from realizing that all creationists argue and reason as you do.

I could add, out of my own amateur observations, that the Hollow Bones enjoyed by Bats (alone among Mammals) would also be helpful...

All mammals have hollow bones. Appalling ignorance even for a knuckle-dragging YEC. Your bones and mine contain hollows full of marrow, where the blood cells and various lymphocytes are formed. I can imagine that the bat, as the only flying mammal, has the lightest structure of all mammals, but the difference would be one of degree and easily accountable as part of the evolution toward flight.

Confuciusornis is a perfectly good answer to doc's dumb-dumbing on the impossibility of a thing having half a wing. Confuciusornis had a wing-claw thing which is exactly what doc says makes evolution impossible.

Note also that in this case, it is the creationist (you) arguing from a particular favorite reconstruction (among several), whereas I directly cited fossil evidence which unambiguously shows my point.

In fact, you can find just about every manner of feathered foreclaw or wing in the fossil record of dinosaurs and birds. That of Confuciusornis just happens to be about perfectly halfway.

To the extent that the foam about your mouth allows some message to escape, you seem to be claiming that anything which seems adapted, non-malformed, whatever, is not transitional. That only further undermines doc's point, if you concede that C. sanctus was perfectly well adapted for some place and time. If your escape from facing transitionals lies in such a claim--"That creature is integrated and functional, thus not a transitional!"--you don't understand evolution. (But we knew that, didn't we? You don't want to understand.) Populations evolve by staying adapted under changing pressures, not by becoming maladapted under unchanging ones.

Also, unchanged from a few years ago, you're playing the "bin" game. (Every bird is just "A bird!") However, the bin game breaks down as you go back in time. From Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record:

Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.

As the preceding link shows, similar statements can be made for transitions all over the tree of life. Birds and dinosaurs are just another case in point. There's no problem telling any modern bird from any modern reptile, so why does Caudipteryx zoui get argued over and reclassified? Why does a fish get reclassified as a tetrapod?

I've started canning my answers to people who claim that there are no transitionals. A sample of what you're LOL-ing away.

Do you want to put on the Ronald McDonald Clown Make-Up First, or should we just laugh at you Already??

You seem to have dropped all scientific pretension in favor of the ALS school of japing and mocking for the Lord as currently practiced on FR. I approve, as there's a certain unintentional honesty in the approach.