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.

[Dimensio]

I presented you with a case against randomness and it appears you have no answer for it.

If -- as you acknowledge -- I never made a claim of "randomness", why do you expect that I would have an answer for it?

[Dimensio]

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

You are making an erroneous presumption regarding my statement. I did not say that the definition is false. I said that the definition does not correspond to any definition of the word "validation" that I have encountered, and I provided a reference to definitions for the word "validation". If tgambill has a source for a definition of "validation" that corresponds to the definition that he has provided, then I will accept it. However, that will not mean that the application of that definition -- even if it is a correct usage of the word -- is the definition applied when speaking of scientific validation.

[metmom]

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

Taxesareforever is correct and it is not an issue of character at all. Refusal to accept evidence is an act of will, an intellectual decision but certainly not a character issue. Such a claim, however, only requires a reading of the post in this thread to back it up. Evidence of intelligent design has been presented repeatedly and is repeatedly being discounted for one reason or another.

[Dimensio]

Taxesareforever is correct and it is not an issue of character at all. Refusal to accept evidence is an act of will, an intellectual decision but certainly not a character issue. Such a claim, however, only requires a reading of the post in this thread to back it up. Evidence of intelligent design has been presented repeatedly and is repeatedly being discounted for one reason or another.

I am discounting what you present as evidence because by your own admission the evidence is meaningless, and can offer no actual assurance of reliability. You are using selected examples of intelligent interaction in some cases to assert that intelligent interaction is present in all cases, without providing any reason to accept that it must be the case.

Your argument is that in cases where it is known whether or not intelligent intervention is involved in "order" from "non-order", it is always the case that intelligent intervention is involved. The problem with this reasoning is that you have established criteria whereby it is impossible to establish that no intelligent intervention has been involved. As such, you have defined a scenario where it is only possible to know that intelligent intervention has been involved, and never possible to know when it has not been involved, no matter how many such cases there may be. You are attempting to use this filtered result as part of an argument, but you cannot, because it is impossible to know whether the "unknown" is a zero-value.

I have explained this problem with your reasoning numerous times, and I have even offered analogies to try and further explain the failing of your reasoning. Your refusal to respond to my explanations of why your logic is not valid does not mean that I will reject valid arguments in favor of intelligent design.

[metmom]

I am discounting what you present as evidence because by your own admission the evidence is meaningless,...

It is not meaningless and I never admitted such a thing. Where did I say my evidence is meaningless? If I thought it was meaningless, I wouldn't have presented it.

So, then what goes on in science labs is meaningless, too, because then all that order and complexity of a scientific experiment is just the result of random electrical impulses firing between synapses in a scientists brain complied with the random actions of said scientist. If order and complexity are not evidence of intelligence, than nothing in this world is and it is all meaninglessness and none of it can be trusted.

You are using selected examples of intelligent interaction in some cases to assert that intelligent interaction is present in all cases, without providing any reason to accept that it must be the case.

Again, not true. The reasons to accept that intelligent action is behind ALL order is because it's logical to presume so from precedent set by what we do know. It doesn't make sense to presume that there is none when there is no basis at all for coming to that conclusion.

[Dimensio]

So, then what goes on in science labs is meaningless, too, because then all that order and complexity of a scientific experiment is just the result of random electrical impulses firing between synapses in a scientists brain complied with the random actions of said scientist.

Your statement is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that mental functions are "random electrical impulses".

Again, not true. The reasons to accept that intelligent action is behind ALL order is because it's logical to presume so from precedent set by what we do know.

But, as you have stated previously, there is no means of "knowing" otherwise. You yourself have stated that it is impossible to know that there is no undetected design involved in a process where no detectable design is involved.

If you believe that your explanation is scientific and valid, then please provide a hypothetical observation that, if made, would show that your claim is false.

[taxesareforever]

If -- as you acknowledge -- I never made a claim of "randomness", why do you expect that I would have an answer for it?

I never said you didn't make a claim of randomness. Matter of fact everything you espouse is randomness.

[taxesareforever]

You yourself have stated that it is impossible to know that there is no undetected design involved in a process where no detectable design is involved.

All processes are of Intelligent Design.

[tgambill]

"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."

**** Well, you are incorrect in your observation and assertion. It is in my personal opinion that it does correspond. Therefore, you are incorrect or you share a different opinion which does not make it true.

---

"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."

**** Interesting response. It is in my opinion that your in fact turn statements around as you employ the principle of the willow tree. In the face of a hard wind, the willow tree just flows with the wind, the oak is blown down by standing firm against the wind. In other words, you take the retort and instead of standing firm, you break the response down, into it's smallest workable parts and then attempt to discredit using Strawmen and straw women....:)) making the response long and volumous.

You design responses very well, as a disinformation artist would do, whether it is by intent or not. The principle that you employ is widely used by taking topics of discussion which are attempts by "disinformationist", to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time.

Another tactic used is by demanding that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid or is very cleverly put down without a direct confrontation.

Although you don't overtly claim for yourself or exert yourself with authority, you do present your arguments with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

When, convenient I have noticed that you at times ignore the proof presented and then demand impossible proofs. I'm not going to research the exact posts, but this has been the trend. It's a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.
Basically, regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in this forum, you claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal.

One other very good technique that is used, whether on purpose or by "accident"....it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, maybe denying that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Very good technique.......I applaud you. Mostly, the posts seem to be designed to cause the responder to have to "investigate" and ponder the response thus the slightest chance of the responder gaining an Epiphany or, become frustrated and not respond, thus giving you the last word.

Very intesting..

Tom

[tgambill]

The definition of validation that I am referencing.... Try this one which has several meangings depending on the subject matter Now, what you must do true to form is dissect the previous statement and show that this definition does not apply and therefore is invalid as an argument....:)) lolol....

[tgambill]

"Your statement is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that mental functions are "random electrical impulses".

****The above is Metmom's statement. It is clear that the statement is sequitur to the discussion. This was her example whether you made claim or not, is unimportant. This was her example as you have used examples, although they are in fact, non-sequitur by being evasive and distracting. But, clever nonetheless and in my opinion, works to fulfill an effort of disinformation. Being this is my stated opinion, it is correct unless proven otherwise. So, it is my opinion vs yours. Show me different and we both win......I win because you taught me something, if you can't I "win" (for lack of a better word), because we come to a stallmate......a win by default.

[metmom]

Are we now into the secret little boys club of definitions? Definitions that are not dictionary definitions but *definitions as scientists use them* that are not found in the dictionaries I've checked online. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Make up a special definition for a word and carry on a discussion with someone knowing that they are using the word in common usage; and then when they use the dictionary definition of a word as virtually everybody else does and understands it to be, tell them they are wrong and sneer at them with phrases like: *Learn what you're talking about first. Go back and get a real education then we can have a real discussion*. This is almost as bad as sending people to Wikipedia to back up your statements. It smacks of elitism and intellectual snobbery.

[metmom]

You yourself have stated that it is impossible to know that there is no undetected design involved in a process where no detectable design is involved.

Please provide reference. That statement doesn't make sense. The cases where we know there is intelligence behind the design, support the contention that in cases where order and complexity occur and it's indeterminate if there was a designer or not, it's reasonable to conclude there was because cases we know of where intelligence was behind the design support the conclusion. There is no basis by which to conclude that there is no designer behind the order and complexity we see in nature because there is nothing in our experience to support that.

Looking at *nature* (the physical world) and declaring that order and complexity can exist without intelligent design because the universe exists and there is order and complexity in it (as the minuscule examples of something as simple as crystal formation) is starting with the idea that the universe came into existence without intelligent design. So one is, in effect, trying to prove the conclusion using the conclusion one wants to arrive at as the basis to support the argument. That is illogical. The universe can't give us an example of something that is orderly and complex without ID by the fact that it simply exists because that argument is based on a premise that cannot be supported in any way.

The way that ID is supported is that it is at least the logical conclusion that order and complexity in the man-made world indicate intelligence behind it, so order and complexity in the natural world indicate intelligence behind it. The only difference is a matter of scale. We create according to our knowledge and abilities; he does to his. We make cars and computers; he makes a universe.

[tgambill]

no, we fight fire with fire......do unto others, etc.....the non-seecuter word is a trademark of his. I am also being a snob in that this is the way to deal....

He is a genuine disinformation tech. He follows about 4 of the 25 main techniques used by disinformation tech....

Non sequitur may refer to:

Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy
Non sequitur (absurdism), a comment which is humorously absurd or has no relation to the comment it follows
Non Sequitur (comic strip), the comic strip
Non Sequitur (ensemble), the musical ensemble at The Walden School

Quote:

"This article does not do justice to the humorous sense of the meaning of non sequitur. We need to split it into two articles, say, "Non sequitur (logic)" and "Non sequitur (absurdist humor)". The two meanings are apples and oranges, really, and share only marginal attributes.

I must admit it was an education to me to read about this term's association with formal logic; it reminded me of a meaning I had long forgotten. However, many links to this page are from articles where the link implies you'll be reading about humor. For example, when Zippy the Pinhead -- one of whose defining characteristics is his use of non sequiturs -- says "Are we having fun yet?", any reader hoping to understand this will gain absolutely nothing from reading about logical fallacies. Zippy is hard enough to understand. Besides, I still have a package of refrigerated cookie dough in my freezer.

I'll split this page into two tonight and do a bit of work cleaning up links and redirects; I hope others with interest in both aspects of this term will appreciate it and give some attention to both articles.

And if there are additional senses of meaning I'm missing (except for the usual use as proper names), please bring them to my attention."

[tgambill]

I told him that your post was logical and was in context. he said it was non-secuiter or non-cuter, whatever, therefore, I figured that it was opposite of what he said, so it must be "secuiter"....the opposite of non-secuiter...:)) lolol...

[Dimensio]

The cases where we know there is intelligence behind the design, support the contention that in cases where order and complexity occur and it's indeterminate if there was a designer or not, it's reasonable to conclude there was because cases we know of where intelligence was behind the design support the conclusion

I cannot understand how you continue to advocate this as a logical position. Are you saying that it is hypothetically possible to observe an event of order coming from non-order and determine that no intelligence is involved, and if so, how would this determination be made?

[Dimensio]

The definition of validation that I am referencing.... Try this one which has several meangings depending on the subject matter Now, what you must do true to form is dissect the previous statement and show that this definition does not apply and therefore is invalid as an argument....:)) lol

From the link that you have provided, the first definition would be the one applied when speaking of scientific validation. The second definition would not. You are attempting "argue by dictionary" by claiming that you are allowed to select one of multiple definitions of a term as a means of disproving a claim. This is not logical; when a word is used in a context, you cannot redefine the word in that context to change the meaning as a valid counterargument.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

If you believe that your explanation is scientific and valid, then please provide a hypothetical observation that, if made, would show that your claim is false.

Consistent as this odd request may be with various postmodern intellectual disorders, I must ask why you don't consider the obvious alternative. That is, to ask him to supply an observation that shows his claim is true.

[Dimensio]

Well, you are incorrect in your observation and assertion. It is in my personal opinion that it does correspond.

While you are entitled to your opinion, your opinions regarding my character do not define reality. As such, it is possible for your opinions regarding my character to be wrong.

Therefore, you are incorrect or you share a different opinion which does not make it true.

Why am I incorrect? Please provide evidence to support your claim.

Interesting response. It is in my opinion that your in fact turn statements around as you employ the principle of the willow tree. In the face of a hard wind, the willow tree just flows with the wind, the oak is blown down by standing firm against the wind. In other words, you take the retort and instead of standing firm, you break the response down, into it's smallest workable parts and then attempt to discredit using Strawmen and straw women....:)) making the response long and volumous.

Your analogy does not actually support your claim. You are elaborating on your previous claim regarding my character; elaboration is not evidence.

You design responses very well, as a disinformation artist would do, whether it is by intent or not. The principle that you employ is widely used by taking topics of discussion which are attempts by "disinformationist", to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time.

Again, you are elaborating on your previous claim. You have thus far not provided evidence to show that your claims regarding the nature of my responses are accurate.

Another tactic used is by demanding that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer.

Incorrect. I only ask that arguments be backed up with logically consistent supporting evidence. I do not believe such a request to be unreasonable. You have again provided no evidence to support your claims regarding my responses. Asserting that my responses fit a certain pattern does not demonstrate that my responses actually fit said pattern.

Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid or is very cleverly put down without a direct confrontation.

Again, you provide no evidence to support your claim. Thus far I have concluded that you are not qualified to speak on the subject of evolution only because of your admission that you believe study of the theory is a "waste of time" and that as such your knowledge of the subject is deficient. It is on that basis -- your admission that you know little of the theory -- that I have derived my conclusion that you are not credible. I do not expect that an individual have the experience or knowledge of a professor of the subject on which they speak, but I do not believe it unreasonable to expect them to have some knowledge on the subject before they claim to make credible, authoritative statements.



If I use terminology that you do not understand, then point out any words with which you are unfamiliar and I will explain them. It is not logical to complain that an individual uses terminology relevant to a subject when speaking on that subject.

and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

I provide an explanation when I disagree with a given point, and I have cited sources on more than one occasion. If you feel that I have inadequately justified any statement, then identify that statement or statements and I will provide further detail and relevant references. Merely asserting that I engage in such behavior is not evidence that I engage in such behavior.

When, convenient I have noticed that you at times ignore the proof presented

What proofs have I ignored? Please be specific.

and then demand impossible proofs.

Please reference the "impossible proofs" that I have demanded.

I'm not going to research the exact posts, but this has been the trend.

You are admitting, then, that you are making statements regarding my behavior that you are unwilling to support with evidence. You are acknowledging that you will refuse to substantiate your claims against me.

It's a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.

You make this claim, yet you have already admitted that you will not support it.

Basically, regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in this forum, you claim the material irrelevant

When I dismiss material as irrelevant, I do so with a justification. In some cases, information provided is not relevant to the theory of evolution; for example, claims regarding the Big Bang are not a part of the theory of evolution and as such are not relevant in a discussion regarding the theory. In other cases, I note that information provided is incorrect; for example, claims that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics are false, and it is not illogical for me to explain as such.

and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal.

You make this claim, but you do not reference any such "demands" that you claim that I have made. That you assert that I demand "impossible proofs" is not evidence that I have made any such demands.

One other very good technique that is used, whether on purpose or by "accident"....it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, maybe denying that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Please provide a specific example wherein I have done such a thing.

Very good technique.......I applaud you. Mostly, the posts seem to be designed to cause the responder to have to "investigate" and ponder the response thus the slightest chance of the responder gaining an Epiphany or, become frustrated and not respond, thus giving you the last word.

Again, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever regarding your accusations against my character or about my behavior. You have made a long list of claims regarding my postings, but you have not substantiated any one of them with relevant references. I do not believe it unreasonable to request that you reference specific postings where I have made claims that conform to your accusations; as my postings are readily accessable, my request is certainly not a demand for an "impossible proof".

[Dimensio]

Consistent as this odd request may be with various postmodern intellectual disorders,

My request is consistent with the requirements of the scientific method; in that respect, it is certainly not "odd".

I must ask why you don't consider the obvious alternative. That is, to ask him to supply an observation that shows his claim is true.

metmom has already claimed that any observation of "order from non-order" where intelligence is known to be involved supports the claim as true. I am asking metmom to show that the claim is meaningful by presenting a hypothetical example that, if observed, would show the claim to be false.