Posted on 04/09/2011 9:00:02 AM PDT by balls
It appears to be a case of high-speed evolution.
Many arthropods — the large group of invertebrates that includes insects and crustaceans — are hosts of symbiotic bacteria inherited through the maternal line. The sweet potato whitefly, an agricultural pest, has acquired a new one.
Over a six-year period, a bacterium from the genus Rickettsia swept through the whitefly population, assuring survival advantages for the whiteflies and for itself. The new research appears in the April 8 issue of Science.
“Whiteflies that have this infection have greater fitness, at least in the laboratory,” said the senior author of the study, Martha S. Hunter, a professor of entomology at the University of Arizona. “We’ll be testing whether this fitness benefit exists in the field as well.”
Compared with uninfected whiteflies, infected insects develop faster, are more likely to survive to adulthood and lay more eggs. Moreover, the bacterium induces the insects to produce a larger number of daughters, advantageous for a bacterium that is passed to the next generation only by the females.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Aviator-Americans?
I don’t understand the resistance some conservatives have toward evolution. After all, we humans evolved from primitive cave dewllers into the advanced civilization we have today. Human history is a story of evolution.
Adaptation is not Evolution. Adaptation includes the loss of genetic information which just happens to include some aspect that yields greater survivability in a given environment. Sickle-Cell Anemia is an adaptation, it is not Evolution. Ditto frogs in the cave losing eyes and pigmentation.
If you start at a certain place on the evolutionary scale and for a half billion years keep subtracting genetic information, that is not Evolution (more accurate to call it. Evolution requires the amassing of new and advantageous information. Shredding a book is not the same thing as writing a book, whatever its short-term advantageous "adaptation" may be (chinking holes in the cabin or paper-mache making).
Thought Question: "Do you believe in Devolution? Or are 'evolution' and 'devolution' synonyms in your vocabulary?"
As to why conservatives are often "Evolution-o-phobic", it's because Evolution claims to be all-encompassing, yet it begins by postulating that anything outside nature could not possibly occur. It's a philosophical and theological problem. I am aware that there are smart people who somehow believe in evolution and in the existence of God, but frankly I have never heard a compelling argument for that inherently contradictory viewpoint. Please direct me to a couple of your favorite arguments on this score.
'An Insect on the Evolutionary Fast Track'
Great. Just what we need.
More democrats.
Isn't this a bit like suggesting that Hitler assured survival advantages for the Jews?
ML/NJ
“The bacterium evolved.”
How do you figure? The bacterium found a host, and infected it, killing off those in the host population who could not tolerate the infection. How exactly does this change the bacteria into something fundamentally different?
Adaptation is NOT what causes organisms to evolve. A new genetic change occurs which allows an organism to survive in a different environment. For example the WHITE GENE that occurred in african origen humans perhaps 40 thousand years ago allowed them to move north in Europe and compete successfully with the Neanderthal. The sickle-cell GENE confers some protection from malaria. These were not adaptations. Cave frogs probably have had loss of genes for eyes and pigmentation as such defects would quickly kill in the lighted world. I have made a conscious choice to adapt to eating yogurt which I initially disliked because I knew it was good for me. Certain groups eat mostly yogurt which is a cultural adaptation which also confers greater survivability. One has to make a clear distinction between cultural adaptation and genetic change which confers adaptability.
Regarding the conflict between beliefs in God and in Evolution. Scientists base their “beliefs” on testable, verifiable, reproducible information. True belief, is simply belief because one chooses to believe, not because anything has been proven in a reproducible way. Scientists also tend to have an open mind willing to see things in a new way if the evidence is there. Believers tend to have a closed mind which often can protect them from disturbing real world realities. I realize there are also plenty of people who do not fit in either of these descriptions.
I have interesting arguments with an athiest friend who does not believe certain things I have experienced are real. These include transmission of fear and visual images to someone close to me, and wishing very hard (prayer?) for me to find someone/something important that I need. I do not ascribe these experiences to a God, but rather tell my friend that they may be due to some transfer of energy that has not yet been identified or studied. There is a lot about subatomic physics that yet needs to be learned. It is only recently that we have discovered things like black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. With or without God it is a wonderous and awe inspiring world out there. And there is so much more to learn and know. If God is ever found through science, as opposed to belief, it will probably be unlike the God of current believers.
“Speciation occurs when populations or sub-populations are isolated (genetically) from their sisters and brothers over a long period of time.”
Yes, nobody disputes that, but the problem is that evolutionists extrapolate this speciation beyond what can be observed, and beyond the observable mechanisms of heredity and natural selection. For example, it’s not controversial to say that Chimps and Bonobos speciated from a common “proto-chimp” ancestor when they became geographically isolated. We can observe the same type of speciation starting to occur anytime we selectively breed animals. However, evolutionists extrapolate that to think that somehow, over a long period of time, the same mechanism could change a primate into a human, disregarding the fact that there is no real evidence that humans and primates ever had a common ancestor to speciate from.
In evolution, the common ancestry is just assumed a priori, and it’s just a matter of them figuring out with some hocus pocus speculation, how far back the common ancestor would have to be to account for the divergent genetics and morphology. Nevermind that they cannot prove common ancestry or even agree on the exact mechanisms of how an organism could gain or lose chromosomes, among other problems with such speculation.
It has been suggested based on fossil findings that a species exists on average for 5 million years. In that time enough mutations and environment changes can occur to lead to an organism being defined as a different species of the same family.
“Scientists base their “beliefs” on testable, verifiable, reproducible information.”
Do you believe there is testable, verifiable, and reproducable information that demonstrates descent of all species from a common ancestor? Would that be, under your criteria, a “scientific belief” or a “true belief”?
And please remember: before "seeing" electrons or photons, our friends in physics could make all sorts of predictions, and many of them turned out to be true.
But, ultimately you are correct: much a priori assumptions.
Yes, I agree that words exist, and that different letters can make different words.
I know words can be strung together to make sentences, different words make different sentences, and sometimes the same words in different order make other sentences with different meanings.
I know that sentences can be strung together to make paragraphs.
And I know that paragraphs can be strung together to make stories,
But I refuse to believe that stories can evolve.
That would be silly, and it contradicts a story my mommy told me...
“European-American flies”
Actually, I'm not sure whether either evolved (as depicted in this scenario), but the bacterium has exploited or manipulated the birth ratios of the insect. Could be mutual adaptation.
Democrats demand more research, “For the Children.”.
I’m responding via cell phone, so can’t easily address all the people you did, but this is meant for all addressed by you. Adaptation in this context is, indeed, evolution. It’s an age-old chicken-and-egg question. Which came first, an environmental change that triggered a genetic mutation, or a genetic mutation that made it possible for an animal to take advantage of a different environment?
The answer appears to be both. There are numerous instances in which creatures became isolated in various locales and evolved both behaviors and genetic variations while adapting to their new situation. Species that don’t adapt — evolve — become extinct. One humanoid example is Neanderthal.
Would like to expand more but difficult on cell phone.
As for devolution, I believe there is circumstantial evidence that humans are currently in the process of devolving in several ways. In some respects, we seem to be reverting to very primitive behavior. (This last is meant in jest in case You don’t realize it.)
It takes a village is devolution to stone age tribalism of the urban gang banger
Hahahaha, so true, Bert. Also, how can anyone look at Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Rosie O’Donnell, and assorted other nuts, and not come to the conclusion we’re devolving. :)
“evidence does exist for, say, chimp-human shared ancestor in the closeness of the DNA compared with gorilla or orangutan-human DNA.”
Yes, there are similarities, and that can be considered evidence, but ultimately, if it were a court of law, it would be circumstantial evidence. Logically, similarities can arise in different ways, even evolutionists admit this with their theory of convergent evolution.
I think there would be much less conflict between the scientists and the skeptical public if they would admit that certain aspects of evolutionary theory are a very speculative science, rather than trying to paint the entire field as true practical science. Parts of it are practical, but I think tying them together with the speculative parts is a just a result of defensiveness.
Take, for example, higher physics. Some of it is very practical, and well established, and some is purely speculative at this point, like String Theory. The physicists make a clear distinction, and nobody really cares if they make outlandish and possibly wrong postulations in the speculative areas, even if those ideas, were they proven, might shake up someone’s worldview.
“Actually, I’m not sure whether either evolved (as depicted in this scenario), but the bacterium has exploited or manipulated the birth ratios of the insect. Could be mutual adaptation.”
It could be that the insects who carry the trait to resist the bacteria also happen to carry the other traits observed. Or, the bacteria could have found some way to affect the insect’s biochemistry, but it’s only observable in insects that could survive the infection.
It does remind me of Lynn Margulis’ theories about bacteria being much more of a factor in evolution than random mutations.
You, sir, are reasonable, well-mannered and knowledgeable. Congratulations to you and your parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.