Hudson River Fish Evolve Toxic PCB Immunity

National Geographic:

A genetic variant allows the fish to live in waters notoriously polluted by the now-banned industrial chemicals, and distinguishes the fish—Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod)—as one of the world’s fastest evolving populations.

"This is very, very ra­­­­­­­­­­­­pid evolutionary change," said Isaac Wirgin, an environmental toxicologist at New York University’s School of Medicine, and the study's lead investigator. "Normally you think of evolution occurring in thousands to millions of years. You’re talking about all this occurring in 20 to 50 generations maybe.”

The study appears in the Feb. 18 online issue of Science.

Direct Science link for those who have access.

I just think this is quite a nice example of progressive evolution happening due to altered external conditions.

The article made me smile

Wonderful to see some signs of hope. Great to see an animal with such a determination to survive our [mankind] destruction of nature. Incredible how the DNA rewrites itself (mutates) in order to enable a genetic protection to our pollution.

Thanks for sharing. May Peace be with you

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch


Was going to post this myself, but it's good to see that I'm not the only one that reads science news. Hooray for another example of evolution.

In before "That's just micro, not macro"

*Ahem*
What is the barrier that prevents accumulated microevolutionary changes from developing into macroevolutionary changes?

Illogical thinking I guess.

This also destroys the creationist assertion that there are no beneficial mutations.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
What is the barrier that prevents accumulated microevolutionary changes from developing into macroevolutionary changes?

That would be the barrier of ignorance that exists in the minds of people who can't seem to believe in evolution in spite of the evidence that it exists.

reply to post by iterationzero


Nothing to see here. Just everyday microevolution. When there is evidence of a fish macroevolving into goat or the like within the fossil record because we all know it is not observable science, come find me, cuz that would be a miracle.

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.

It's nice to see the acknowledgment that you need a good amount of faith for your religion.

Originally posted by six67seven
Nothing to see here. Just everyday microevolution. When there is evidence of a fish macroevolving into goat or the like within the fossil record because we all know it is not observable science, come find me, cuz that would be a miracle.

There's an abundance of transitional forms present in the fossil record that support the concept that you're referring to as "macroevolution". Further, macroevolution and microevolution are the exact same process viewed on different scales and time periods. Only creationsists/ID'ers still try to separate the two.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by six67seven
Nothing to see here. Just everyday microevolution. When there is evidence of a fish macroevolving into goat or the like within the fossil record because we all know it is not observable science, come find me, cuz that would be a miracle.

There's an abundance of transitional forms present in the fossil record that support the concept that you're referring to as "macroevolution". Further, macroevolution and microevolution are the exact same process viewed on different scales and time periods. Only creationsists/ID'ers still try to separate the two.

Evolutionists often make the mistake of confusing or grouping the two. Microevolution is observable, like the fish adapting. Macroevolution has never been observed using science today.... EVER. You do understand that dont you? I dont know how you will ever prove we all came from something that was never alive (a rock).

It's funny because all you really have to go on is faith in your atheist scientists that they are looking at the fossils objectively. Which they aren't, because they are going out trying to prove evolution and nothing else. Their minds are made up before they even get the grant. You can take a skull to 20 different artists and get 20 different depictions. In the case of evolution, which is still a theory, truth is in the eye of the beholder. You *choose* to *believe* in this theory. It's ok.... you can say it.... it starts with an "F" and ends in "aith". Take the leap.

Here is a line from Talk.Origins:
"There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can."

So because there is no reason to *think* that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, then of course we must *believe* they can.

Yeah, that's called faith.

Faith - 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Originally posted by six67seven
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Nothing to see here. Just everyday microevolution. When there is evidence of a fish macroevolving into goat or the like within the fossil record because we all know it is not observable science, come find me, cuz that would be a miracle.

It's no wonder you don't accept the reality of macroevolution when you think it should involve fish observably turning into goats.

Evolution is small changes over time adding up to large changes. Both micro and macro evolution are the same thing. Only the time scale is different.

Originally posted by six67seven
Evolutionists ...

No such thing. It's a buzzword created by proponents of creationism/intelligent design so they would have something negative to call people who support the theory of evolution. It's as fallacious and willfully ignorant as calling people who support the theory of gravity "gravitationists". They're both scientific theories with equal weight and any attempt to separate the theory of evolution as somehow having less evidentiary weight as the theory of gravity, germ theory, circuit theory, etc. is simply hypocritical.

... often make the mistake of confusing or grouping the two.

The biologists who have the job of studying the systems in question are mistakenly conflating the two things and it's the inherently anti-scientific creationist movement that's the beacon of truth on micro- and macroevolution? Yeah... no. Try again.

Microevolution is observable, like the fish adapting. Macroevolution has never been observed using science today.... EVER. You do understand that dont you?

Are you asserting that we've never observed speciation? This is another reason why creationists insist on the fairy-tale of micro- and macroevolution being separate processes - it allows them to move the goalposts of the argument at will. And you're showing your ignorance of how science works. We have scads of fossil evidence showing what you claim as macroevolution. Just because that evidence isn't from last week doesn't mean it's scientifically invalid.

I dont know how you will ever prove we all came from something that was never alive (a rock).

You're erroneously conflating abiogenesis with evolution.

It's funny because all you really have to go on is faith in your atheist scientists that they are looking at the fossils objectively.

Atheist scientists like Ken Miller? You do realize that there's no inherent conflict between a creator and evolution, right? One describes how life came to be, the other describes how life changes once it exists. Plenty of people, including most scientists in the United States, have reconciled their faith and the scientific fact of evolution.

Which they aren't, because they are going out trying to prove evolution and nothing else. Their minds are made up before they even get the grant. You can take a skull to 20 different artists and get 20 different depictions.

Ah, yes. The old "scientists are bad people" chestnut. There's nothing to be gained from what you're describing. In science, the truth will always be known as theories based on fallacy can't stand over time. Eventually, the burden of contradicting evidence will overwhelm them and the theory will fall. The theory of evolution has been going strong for about a century and a half and has been strengthened by the evidence. Not weakened.

In the case of evolution, which is still a theory, truth is in the eye of the beholder. You *choose* to *believe* in this theory. It's ok.... you can say it.... it starts with an "F" and ends in "aith". Take the leap.

This just shows your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. For the third time this week, I'll post this for the edification of someone who had an inadequate science education growing up:

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Here is a line from Talk.Origins:
"There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can."

So because there is no reason to *think* that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, then of course we must *believe* they can.

Yeah, that's called faith.

Faith - 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Speciation or, as you would have it, macroevolution via accumulated microevolutionary changes is a fact. It has been observed. It has been verified. If this does not meet your personal burden of proof, nothing will and we are at an impasse. Your argument is simply one from personal incredulity.

"When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind." - Heinlein