Stickleback fish extreme evolution

So I know there is a lot of debate about evolution on these here boards and I thought that this article may be a good starting point for all of you people to have a friendly discussion.

Evolution is generally understood to be a slow, gradual process, at least what little I understand of it, but it seems that nobody bothered to tell this bloody fish.

Some thought it was impossible. But a population of stickleback fish that breed in the same streams is splitting into two separate species before our eyes, and at rapid speeds.

So what is this rebel without a cause up to? Why is it evolutin' willy nilly all over the shop?

Marques’ team found that the genetic differences between the two fish types are concentrated on the parts of chromosomes that are less likely to undergo recombination. As a result, the sets of gene variants that give the two types their distinct characteristics are less likely to get split up.

It hasn't been proven 100% apparently, and it never will be for some , but I found it interesting, and I hope you all do too.

Rebel fish article

a reply to: Jonjonj

It is new variety, not a new species, it is still quite clearly a stickleback.

a reply to: GaryN
OP was just quoting the article.

Splitting apart
This kind of speciation, known as sympatry, was once thought to be extremely unlikely, says Chris Bird of Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, who studies how organisms are evolving by analysing their genomes. The conventional view is that speciation almost always requires two populations to be physically separated to prevent interbreeding, for example, living on different sides of a mountain, or on different islands in an archipelago.

Furthermore, are all beetles the same species? There are many species of Scarab beetle for example but by your logic, all Scarab beetles are the same...

a reply to: GaryN

thats the point. change over time across generations. thats evolution.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Jonjonj

It is new variety, not a new species, it is still quite clearly a stickleback.

It never fails to surprise me how some people don't understand the basic meaning of evolution.

*facepalm*

a reply to: GaryN

The article itself said the fish was splitting into two separate species not me. I am not sure because it is all very technical, but are you saying the article is wrong? Can you provide something that shows the article to be wrong because that is the point of a discussion.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Jonjonj

It is new variety, not a new species, it is still quite clearly a stickleback.

Variety? Last I checked there was no scientific classification called "variety".

Good ol' armchair scientists. Claiming science is wrong, and doing no research whatsoever to show why, simply to cling desperately to an archaic outdated worldview with no evidence in its favor at all.

Thanks to people like you there are more atheists and skeptics than ever before.

Man I love reading about stickleback evolution. We have several of those lake species pairs and subspecies where I live. I've gotten to see and compare the deep and shallow living species in person and had to identify between the two of them.
A bit more info:
www.env.gov.bc.ca...

African Cichlids are another good example of visible adaptive evolution.

news.stanford.edu...

a reply to: dug88

Wow thanks for those links! I am a complete novice regarding the whole science thing but I used to keep keyhole? cichlids, I think from South America, in a tropical tank. They were aggressive little buggers, more than a few of my other fishies met their end through my misguided attempt at getting closer to nature.

I never knew stickleback were so fascinating, because in the UK at least they are pretty common fish, now it seems there is much more to them than meets the eye.

a reply to: Jonjonj

LMK when that stickleback becomes a bass or something other than a stickleback...

They have been interbreeding all along, and still do,

yeah ...

originally posted by: Another_Nut
LMK when that stickleback becomes a bass or something other than a stickleback...

LMK when you understand anything at all about science or evolution.

a reply to: Barcs

The main lake dwellers are bigger, with longer spines and tougher armour

its just color and size change

like hey most black people are taller than asian people

EVOLUTION!

no, thats not how it works

a reply to: Jonjonj

Hi

The article itself said the fish was splitting into two separate species not me. I am not sure because it is all very technical, but are you saying the article is wrong? Can you provide something that shows the article to be wrong because that is the point of a discussion.

Evolution as organisms changing forms occurs even faster than the article describes: just look at a tadpole becoming a frog, without even procreation, chromosome mix or anything. Larvae & c. do the same.

Now evolution as fish becoming monkeys over unobserved periods of time, although widely taught, isn't scientific because it is neither observed nor reproduced. Taking ATCG from fish and building a monkey would scientifically demonstrate the possibility of intelligent design, but that's it.

So if a fish has offspring that is a slightly different fish, sure it's interesting but how is this extreme evolution, and how is it two different species?

To be a special bifurcation , the new stickleback species have to be able to reproduce with new stickleback and not with classic stickleback. Is that so? If not, it's more like when someone has a weird looking kid.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Barcs

The main lake dwellers are bigger, with longer spines and tougher armour

its just color and size change

like hey most black people are taller than asian people

EVOLUTION!

no, thats not how it works

Yawn. Same ol' creationist nonsense. A stickleback suddenly turning into a bass would be evidence AGAINST evolution, so yeah. Let me know when you have actually read about evolution and how it works, rather than posting drivel that has nothing to do with it in the least.

originally posted by: wisvol
Now evolution as fish becoming monkeys over unobserved periods of time, although widely taught, isn't scientific because it is neither observed nor reproduced. Taking ATCG from fish and building a monkey would scientifically demonstrate the possibility of intelligent design, but that's it.

Negative. Fish didn't evolve into monkeys. There were millions of in between steps. You are using broad generalizations to describe something and call it unscientific, but that's not true. When you find a fossil the conflicts with the evolutionary picture, by all means let us know, but until it does you have nothing to claim it is unscientific, when there are thousands of fossils that clearly demonstrate numerous transitions in evolutionary history.

And no, if what you said happened it WOULD NOT be evidence of intelligent design and would be near impossible to create.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Is your point that the criteria for new species is not met in the article? Can you provide some scientific validation for that? This thread proposed some information that can be refuted, if you can provide such evidence I implore you to do that.

From what I understand, and let me stress I am a beginner in this whole thing, these particular fish are actually changing not only physically but genetically at a speed that is not common at all.

So perhaps you could give some ideas to explain how or why this is happening? Is it due to necessity of environment, is it because they have faulty genes, are they the wrong type of fish to qualify for change in your opinion or are they simply not evolving? What is it that makes you just dismiss this?

a reply to: wisvol

I think that growth is different to evolution as far as the idea of species is concerned. Human babies after all live in a liquid medium whilst they are foetuses.

The fact that they are becoming two different species of fish whilst they are interbreeding seems important. Isn't that an important point here? The scientists seem to think it is.

What makes this finding extraordinary is that both types of fish breed in the same streams at the same time of year. They have been interbreeding all along, and still do, yet they are splitting into two genetically and physically different types.

I may be missing the point, and I will readily admit it if so.

a reply to: Barcs

He does barc. ok

Negative. Fish didn't evolve into monkeys. There were millions of in between steps. You are using broad generalizations to describe something and call it unscientific, but that's not true. When you find a fossil the conflicts with the evolutionary picture, by all means let us know, but until it does you have nothing to claim it is unscientific, when there are thousands of fossils that clearly demonstrate numerous transitions in evolutionary history. And no, if what you said happened it WOULD NOT be evidence of intelligent design and would be near impossible to create.

Fish clearly didn't evolve into monkeys, why start with "negative"? Ever heard of the power of suggestion?

Ah, your "that's not true". Well # you, get understanding of what science and scientific method mean.
If you can't observe and duplicate it, it's not science. You can believe what ever, but science isn't with you on anything not observed and duplicated.

"Would not" in all caps? # you again, and last response to you: if someone considers DNA to be the basis of life, as their public schools tell them, then just play evolution in the lab! Easy, that's how they made the mutant corn your cheerios are made of, and it is indeed the exact definition of intelligent design, man made, and some people do cut and paste wings on pigs just to see if it works. It does.

And the fossil thing is just #ing great. I found snails in my yard, they're proof of # I don't observe or duplicate, science!

You quote Max Planck in your sig and you write this stuff? Shame on you.


They make these kids into state sponsored doctors.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Growth and evolution are indeed different, not challenging that.
I used the tadpole or caterpillar example to illustrate the fact that, while living beings are indeed subject to changing form, they can do so even within one lifetime.

As for species bifurcation: a horse and a donkey will have barren offspring, a fish and a monkey will have none, and dogs will breed other dogs. If new stickleback and classic stickleback breed more fertile stickleback, they're not two different species, according to current state sponsored biology.

The fact that they are becoming two different species of fish whilst they are interbreeding seems important. Isn't that an important point here? The scientists seem to think it is.

It would be quite interesting, the question I ask is how are these fish different species and not "races" or "breeds"?

a reply to: wisvol

Growth and evolution are indeed different, not challenging that.
I used the tadpole or caterpillar example to illustrate the fact that, while living beings are indeed subject to changing form, they can do so even within one lifetime.

I can't see how this is relevant to a discussion about evolution then. If evolution were simply physical change then I would understand, but it isn't.

If new stickleback and classic stickleback breed more fertile stickleback, they're not two different species, according to current state sponsored biology.

But what happens when one species of fish becomes two different species? What is the criteria for different species as far as you are concerned? I think this is the important issue, isn't it?

Is a zebra a different species to a horse? I would like to know how you define them, or rather how you think they should be defined.