Evolution in action? African fish could be providing rare example of forming two separate species

Cornell University ^ | 01 June 2006 | Sara Ball

[PatrickHenry]

Avoiding quicksand along the banks of the Ivindo River in Gabon, Cornell neurobiologists armed with oscilloscopes search for shapes and patterns of electricity created by fish in the water.

They know from their previous research that the various groups of local electric fish have different DNA, different communication patterns and won't mate with each other. However, they now have found a case where two types of electric signals come from fish that have the same DNA.

The researchers' conclusion: The fish appear to be on the verge of forming two separate species.

"We think we are seeing evolution in action," said Matt Arnegard, a neurobiology postdoctoral researcher in the laboratory of Carl Hopkins, Cornell professor of neurobiology and behavior, who has been recording electric fish in Gabon since the 1970s.

The research, published in the June issue of the Journal of Experimental Biology, describes how some of these fish violate an otherwise regular pattern of mating behavior, and so could be living examples of a species of fish diverging into separate species.

Although these fish look alike and have the same DNA genetic makeup, they have very different electrical signals and will only mate with fish that produce the same signals. Cornell researchers believe that these different electrical signals are the fishes' first step in diverging into separate species.

The electric fish -- known as mormyrids -- emit weak electric fields from a batterylike organ in their tails to sense their surroundings and communicate with other fish. Each species of mormyrid gives off a single characteristic electric impulse resulting in the flash of signals, indicating, for example, aggression, courtship and fear. While the fish may be able to understand other species' impulses, said Arnegard, "They seem to only choose to mate with other fish having the same signature waveform as their own."

Except for some, Arnegard has discovered.

When he joined Hopkins' lab, the team was about to publish descriptions of two separate species. But when Arnegard decided to take a genetic look at these particular fish, he couldn't find any differences in their DNA sequences.

"These fish have different signals and different appearances, so we were surprised to find no detectable variation in the genetic markers we studied," Arnegard said.

Because all of the 20 or so species of mormyrid have distinct electric signals, Arnegard believes the different impulses of the fish he studies might be their first step in diverging into different species.

"This might be a snapshot of evolution," Arnegard said.

Understanding how animals become different species, a process known as speciation, is a major concern in understanding evolution. Arnegard's fish may allow researchers to test if a specific type of speciation is possible.

One common type of speciation is geographically dependent. Animals diverge into separate species because they become physically isolated from each other. Eventually, genes within each group mutate so that the groups can no longer be considered to be of the same species.

Another type of speciation, which many scientists have found harder to imagine, involves animals that live in the same geographic location but, for some reason, begin to mate selectively and form distinct groups and, ultimately, separate species. This so-called sympatric speciation is more controversial because there have been few accepted examples of it to date.

"Many scientists claim it's not feasible," Arnegard said. "But it could be a detection problem because speciation occurs over so many generations." These Gabon fishes' impulses, however, can change very quickly in comparison. So Arnegard suspects that the different shapes of the electric impulses from these mormyrids might be a first step in sympatric speciation.

One the other hand, the fish could be a single species. "This could be just a polymorphism, like eye color in humans, that violates the fishes' general evolutionary pattern but doesn't give rise to separate species," said Arnegard, who will return to Gabon in June to conduct further tests, funded by the National Geographic Society.

[RunningWolf]

This appears to be a "poisoning the well" fallacy, where you use an attack upon my character as a substitute for providing evidence for your claim

Apparently the 'poisoning the well' is a tactic you employ very effectively, but somehow you get under the radar screen. Is that a personal attack? I can only guess.

Wolf

[tgambill]

"I do not understand the intent behind your demand, given that I have made no absolute statement on the subject."

**** In other words, you can't answer the question as it is a very clear and direct question. You don't have to make any statements, it was a new subject manner related to the issues discussed requiring an answer. So, instead of avoiding the question, answer it using ToE or respond that you don't know, but an interesting point of contention. I thought I would make it easy for you to understand since you stated that you didn't understand the intent. The intent was also to gather knowledge to someone that is trying to discern how oxygen came into being without intelligent design. You could say maybe....Oxygen evolved from other gases with the orgin being from Methane gas and CO2....hmmmmm? intesting....:))

[tgambill]

"This appears to be a "poisoning the well" fallacy, where you use an attack upon my character as a substitute for providing evidence for your claim."

***The statement has absolutely no bearing on your...."character" as it is, as you are assuming this or making a feeble attempt to provoke the writer to a more aggressive use of words in the next post. It also, would be used to get the mods to believe that the statement, although valid was a personal attack when it was nothing of the sort.

[tgambill]

"Your reply does not logically follow. That scientific theories are incomplete does not mean that they cannot be validated. Validation does not mean completion."

**** In software theory, you are correct. But you are incorrect when speaking about this theory. Let's take a look at the definition of validation:

validation- Proof, confirmation, or evidence to confirm or legally support a claim or contract.

---

How can an incomplete theory be validated?

"Observing events fully consistent with and/or predicted by the theory. Attempting and failing to observe events that the theory predicts can never occur."

*****This does not explain what I'm asking. You disappoint me and at the same time you validated my original question that presupposed you would answer in a very ambigious manner. If you observe events that are fully consistent with or that was predicted by the theory would indicate the theory may be validated but you could not validate a theory using the initial events as a model because they appeared to validate the theory. However, you are very ambigous, and incorrect in asserting that if the theorist attempts and then fails to observe the events would occur if the addition events did not support the theory, then the theorist would therefore conclude that the theory was not accurate and needed more experimentation or validation to be called a "mechanism". In other words to simplify so that it is clear to you...."Back to the drawing board".....:) Which, by the way is exactly describing the ToE.......

So, in your statement that says....

"Attempting and failing to observe events that the theory predicts can never occur."

**** this statement is incorrect and disappointing as it shows a lack of understanding in the scientific processes. It is actually a very absurb statement, in that when one attempts to observe events and fails, then this person is not paying attention, or planned the experiment poorly, or was incompetent as a theorist and therefore lacks credibilty. Now, can it occur? Yes, this event can occur as in the case of Darwin and other failed theorist throughout history.

Now according to your link for the scientific method: I found this portion of the theory....

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers opportunity to verify results as well as to establish statistical measures of reliability. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge."
_______________________________________________________

Relative to the above quote and explanation, specifically concerning the sentence that contains the word "bias", I found the following text:

Charles Darwin Evolution of a Scientist

He had planned to enter the ministry, but his discoveries on a fateful voyage 170 years ago shook his faith and changed our conception of the origins of life.

By Jerry Adler
Newsweek


"So it was apparent to many even in 1860—when the Anglican Bishop Samuel Wilberforce debated Darwin's defender Thomas Huxley at Oxford—that Darwin wasn't merely contradicting the literal Biblical account of a six-day creation, which many educated Englishmen of his time were willing to treat as allegory. His ideas, carried to their logical conclusion, appeared to undercut the very basis of Christianity, if not indeed all theistic religion. Was the entire panoply of life stretching back millions of years to its single-celled origins, with its innumerable extinctions and branchings, really just a prelude and backdrop to the events of the Bible? When did Homo sapiens, descended by a series of tiny changes in an unbroken line from earlier species of apes, develop a soul?
The British biologist Richard Dawkins, an outspoken defender of Darwin and a nonbeliever, famously wrote that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Although Darwin struggled with questions of faith his whole life, he ultimately described himself as an "Agnostic." But he reached that conclusion through a different, although well-traveled, route. William Howarth, an environmental historian who teaches a course at Princeton called "Darwin in Our Time," dates Darwin's doubts about Christianity to his encounters with slave-owning Christians—some of them no doubt citing Scripture as justification—which deeply offended Darwin, an ardent abolitionist. More generally, Darwin was troubled by theodicy, the problem of evil: how could a benevolent and omnipotent God permit so much suffering in the world he created? Believers argue that human suffering is ennobling, an agent of "moral improvement," Darwin acknowledged. But with his intimate knowledge of beetles, frogs, snakes and the rest of an omnivorous, amoral creation, Darwin wasn't buying it. Was God indifferent to "the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time"? In any case, it all changed for him after 1851. In that year Darwin's beloved eldest daughter, Annie, died at the age of 10—probably from tuberculosis—an instance of suffering that only led him down darker paths of despair.

A legend has grown up that Darwin experienced a deathbed conversion and repentance for his life's work, but his family has always denied it. He did, however, manage to pass through the needle's eye of Westminster Abbey, where he was entombed with honor in 1882.

So it's not surprising that, down to the present day, fundamentalist Christians have been suspicious of Darwin and his works—or that in the United States, where 80 percent of the population believe God created the universe, less than half believe in evolution. Some believers have managed to square the circle by mapping out separate realms for science and religion."

---

In case, you don't see the obvious, this quotation from the article is presented as a basis for my "theory" that Darwin might have been biased due to his personal situation. The theory inself may have come from observation study, granted, but he wanted to absolve himself from the Bibical beliefs which drove him to answer this nagging question to his own satisfaction. Thus, much of the theory in my opinion is the example of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole...by shaping the edges with a knife.....but's its still a square peg...meaning, I don't believe or trust in the theory of Evolution.......simple, right? of course.

[tgambill]

Pong....:)

[taxesareforever]

I do not understand the intent behind your demand,

All life is supported by oxygen. Do you think that any life could come into being without oxygen? If not, then explain the randomness that caused oxygen to come into being.

[taxesareforever]

Your statement implies that a process or object that is not "intelligently designed" is "random".

No, you turn the whole thing around. My statement implies that snowflakes are a matter of intelligent design. How else could there be billions upon billions of snowflakes without two being the same. I do not believe anything in creation is random. It is all from Intelligent Design. One can state that things are random but that is only because the real answer to the cause undermines their idea of how things came into being in the first place.

[Dimensio]

In other words, you can't answer the question as it is a very clear and direct question.

It is a question that presumes a position that I do not espouse. It would be like asking why I believe Hillary Clinton would make a good US President; since I do not believe that Hillary would make a good US President, I have no answer to the question.

You don't have to make any statements, it was a new subject manner related to the issues discussed requiring an answer.

Then you acknowledge that it was only tangentially related? Was it an attempt to subtly change the subject?

So, instead of avoiding the question, answer it using ToE or respond that you don't know, but an interesting point of contention.

I cannot answer the question because it is a position that I do not espouse. I do not claim that it is proven that intelligent deisgn is not responsible for the existence of oxygen. The theory of evolution makes no such statement either, and as such it cannot be employed to answer the question. You are attacking me for refusing to defend a position that I have not taken. Such an attack is not logical.

I thought I would make it easy for you to understand since you stated that you didn't understand the intent. The intent was also to gather knowledge to someone that is trying to discern how oxygen came into being without intelligent design.

While I could explain how oxygen molecules form through chemistry, it would not in any way demonstrate that no intelligent design is behind the forces that cause oxygen molecules to form. As such, I do not claim to know for certain that there is no as-yet undetected intelligent process at work behind the formation of oxygen. As such, the question asked of me is founded upon a faulty premise.

Oxygen evolved from other gases with the orgin being from Methane gas and CO2....hmmmmm?

I am reluctant to use the term "evolve" when speaking of events that are not part of the theory of evolution when the theory is at least one subject of reference in the discussion. Usage of such a term could easily allow a creationist to incorrectly claim that the process of gas formation is covered by the theory of evolution.

[Dimensio]

The statement has absolutely no bearing on your...."character" as it is, as you are assuming this or making a feeble attempt to provoke the writer to a more aggressive use of words in the next post. It also, would be used to get the mods to believe that the statement, although valid was a personal attack when it was nothing of the sort.

Taxesareforever claimed that I would not accept any evidence that supports intelligent design. Such a claim requires a presumption of my character.

[Dimensio]

In software theory, you are correct. But you are incorrect when speaking about this theory. Let's take a look at the definition of validation:

validation- Proof, confirmation, or evidence to confirm or legally support a claim or contract.

The defition that you provide does not correspond to any definition that I have found. Moreover, you are attempting to argue by definition; you are taking one definition out of various possible for a word because that one definition suits your argument, regardless of the definition of the word applied in general cases. When speaking of scientific theories, to "validate" an explanation means "To establish the soundness of; corroborate."

You cannot support your claim by changing the used definition of an involved word.

This does not explain what I'm asking. You disappoint me and at the same time you validated my original question that presupposed you would answer in a very ambigious manner.

I do not believe that my response was ambiguous.

If you observe events that are fully consistent with or that was predicted by the theory would indicate the theory may be validated but you could not validate a theory using the initial events as a model because they appeared to validate the theory.

I made no claim that initial events could be used to validate a hypothesis. Observations that validate a hypothesis are made after the formulation of the hypothesis. I did not, at any point, suggest that the observations leading to the formulation of a hypothesis would be the same observations used to validate the hypothesis. I do not understand how you have arrived at this incorrect conclusion.

However, you are very ambigous, and incorrect in asserting that if the theorist attempts and then fails to observe the events would occur if the addition events did not support the theory, then the theorist would therefore conclude that the theory was not accurate and needed more experimentation or validation to be called a "mechanism".

You are again responding to statements that I have not made. I do not understand the basis for your statements, as they do not correspond to anything that I have claimed.

In other words to simplify so that it is clear to you...."Back to the drawing board".....:) Which, by the way is exactly describing the ToE.......

Please explain how the theory of evolution has been sent "back to the drawing board". Please cite specific examples.

this statement is incorrect and disappointing as it shows a lack of understanding in the scientific processes.

What is the basis for your claim?

It is actually a very absurb statement, in that when one attempts to observe events and fails, then this person is not paying attention, or planned the experiment poorly, or was incompetent as a theorist and therefore lacks credibilty.

You have clearly misunderstood my statement. I was not speaking of an event where a researcher does not observe events that occur. I was speaking of an event where a researcher observes -- as far as can be detected -- that certain events do not occur.

Now, can it occur? Yes, this event can occur as in the case of Darwin and other failed theorist throughout history.

Your statement follows from a misunderstanding of my previous statement, and thus has no logical basis. You have also made an unsupported claim about Darwin.

In case, you don't see the obvious, this quotation from the article is presented as a basis for my "theory" that Darwin might have been biased due to his personal situation. The theory inself may have come from observation study, granted, but he wanted to absolve himself from the Bibical beliefs which drove him to answer this nagging question to his own satisfaction. Thus, much of the theory in my opinion is the example of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole...by shaping the edges with a knife.....but's its still a square peg...meaning, I don't believe or trust in the theory of Evolution.......simple, right? of course.

You are speculating that the theory of evolution is a result of anti-Christian motives, and not observations based in reality. That does not mean that your speculation amounts to a theory. You have offered no experiments to validate your theory, and provide no falsification criteria. Moreover, Darwin's personal motivations can not alter the observations made by different scientists with different possible biases. Scientific theories are a result of independent research by multiple individuals. You cannot show that a scientific theory is false simply because on of the researchers may have posessed a bias.

[Dimensio]

No, you turn the whole thing around. My statement implies that snowflakes are a matter of intelligent design. How else could there be billions upon billions of snowflakes without two being the same.

You are invoking a logical fallacy by suggesting that your personal incredulity is evidence against an event.

[Dimensio]

All life is supported by oxygen. Do you think that any life could come into being without oxygen? If not, then explain the randomness that caused oxygen to come into being.

At what point did I say that "randomness" caused oxygen to come into being? Please cite a specific posting.

[Dimensio]

All life is supported by oxygen. Do you think that any life could come into being without oxygen? If not, then explain the randomness that caused oxygen to come into being.

At what point did I say that "randomness" caused oxygen to come into being? Please cite a specific posting.

[Hoplite]

"Anaerobes!"     .

[taxesareforever]

You are invoking a logical fallacy

Logical fallacey? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[taxesareforever]

At what point did I say that "randomness" caused oxygen to come into being?

You didn't and I didn't say you did. I presented you with a case against randomness and it appears you have no answer for it.

[taxesareforever]

The defition that you provide does not correspond to any definition that I have found.

And as usual, since it doesn't agree with you, it is false.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I acknowledge that I stated the meaning of "random" as it applies to mutations poorly and ambiguously.

Good, good. Now, your statement contains another notion, that is, configurations resulting from mutations are all equally likely. That too is mistaken.

[tgambill]

"Taxesareforever claimed that I would not accept any evidence that supports intelligent design. Such a claim requires a presumption of my character."


****"Are you suggesting that I am making a personal "stab" -- or attack -- to individuals when I point out that their claims are in error? Should I refrain from correcting individuals who make statements that are not true? Do you believe that I was attacking you personally when I explained that your claim of there being "six kinds" of evolution was false and based upon a lie by Kent Hovind?

*** remember that statement you made...maybe he was also pointing out that you were in error, and was not making a personal stab.

YOU wrote:

"If, as you admit, you have not actually studied and researched the theory of evolution, then how can you know that it is a "waste of time"? Moreover, how can you make any authoritative claims regarding the theory, including that it violates the second law of thermodynamics or that there are "six kinds" that include elements of cosmology? Please correct me if I have misunderstood you, but it would appear as though you have just acknowledged that none of the information that you provide regarding the theory of evolution can be trusted as accurate."


"It was not intended as an insult. It was intended as an observation based upon your statement that you required the consumption of alcohol as a means of comprehending a dynamic biological system."

*****These comments clearly show that you turn the statements around. The others counter you and you take it as a personal attack on your character....he didn't attack your character. Clearly.

[Dimensio]

remember that statement you made...maybe he was also pointing out that you were in error, and was not making a personal stab.

He did not make a statement referencing any claims that I had made. He made a statement specifically claiming that I will refuse to accept evidence that supports a particular position. Your suggest does not correspond with his statement.

These comments clearly show that you turn the statements around.

It is not my intent to "turn statements around". You made a statement that appeared -- to me -- to suggest that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution. If you have not studied the theory, then you cannot claim to be credible when speaking on the subject. If I misinterpreted your statement, I ask only that you clarify them so that I will no longer have an incorrect impression of you.