Natwerk Designs - Those who believe evolution, intelligent design, what are your thoughts on this?

Those who believe evolution, intelligent design, what are your thoughts on this?

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say. In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea. Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s. While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not by design, according to Duncan Irschick, a study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. After scientists transplanted the reptiles, the Croatian War of Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers couldn't get back to island because of the war, Irschick said. In 2004, however, tourism began to open back up, allowing researchers access to the island laboratory. "We didn't know if we would find a lizard there. We had no idea if the original introductions were successful," Irschick said. What they found, however, was shocking. "The island was swarming with lizards," he said. The findings were published in March in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which were less aggressive than the new implants, Irschick said. The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he said. The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically, Irschick explained. Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet. Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids. "They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure." Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider. The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizard's social and behavioral structure, he said. For one, the plentiful food sources allowed for easier reproduction and a denser population. The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors concluded. Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. "That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is," he said. While researchers do know the invader's impact on its reptile brethren, they do not know how the species impacts local vegetation or insects, a subject of future study, Irschick said. The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments, said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University. What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study. There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added. "All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." This seems to fly in the face of both (classic) evolution theory, requiring small changes over several generations, as well as intelligent design. What are your thoughts? Sorry it wont let me post the link, but you can just google "italian wall lizards" and its the 4th link, from national geographic. Mongolia - are you suggesting that a species can undergo the radical changes described in this article in only a handful of generation? Keeping in mind that such a low number of generations leaves almost no room for natural selection or even statistical probability for such useful mutations? Samsa - I know they usually apply this quote to global warming, but I think it fits here well: "Any theory that explains everything, explains nothing." Spazzy - no, read it again: Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. Samsa - (sigh....) I am not here to argue. If you don't understand my question, you don't have to answer. The point was, evolution advocates point to the large numbers of generations to explain how beneficial mutations can arise from natural selection. This is a case where there were no large number of generations. The article indicates 30, my personal research actually indicates that wall lizards have about 2-3 years for sexual maturity, hence only 10 to 15 generations (not sure where they got the 30). Either way, not enough for evolution as it is classically understood/explained and defended. Obviously my point was not I.D. propeganda, as I also discredited my own theory in the original question. The idea is, does the theory of evolution need to be revised, or are these scientists wrong, or is this a special situation?

Public Comments

Sorry wall of text in the way. Edit: Got over the wall. What you posted is an example of evolution, yes its true. As you posted natural selection does occur as the native species of lizards did not evolve in time and became extinct. Natural selection does not require any specific amount of time, only the proper conditions. If the conditions allow humans to evolve a new appendix then we will, it is still evolution. Depending on the species it can take 10 generations to billions to evolve, evolution itself does not have a specific time-table.
Unlike creationism, evolution is adjusted as newer information is discovered.
Why it sounds just like CHANGE! Or evolution, if you will! Time and time again we see it! Amazing. It doesn't matter. Christians can believe in evolution AND creationism!
TREMBLE BEFORE THE MIGHTY WALL OF TEXT! Evolution is damn well supported so I'll go with that. *edit* "Are you suggesting that a species can undergo the radical changes described in this article in only a handful of generation?" Yes, it can very well happen quickly, especially when the creature in question reproduces quickly. This "handful" of generations is probably many many generations. Hundreds of generations could pass over the course of decades. If anyone given trait makes that individual MUCH more likely to survive than all others then it propagates very quickly. If I let a group of finches onto an island where the nuts are unusually hard the finches will suffer. They will struggle against extinction, the popluation will dwindle, inbreeding will rise, and mutation rates will increase. If one of those mutations happens to be a stronger beak then it will quickly propagate through the finch population. Get it? *edit* I'm not reading that monstrosity you call a question. This site is for YOU to ask questions not for you to grill others. I just told you that when natural selection changes drastically through, for example, a species being relocated to another environment traits can alter quickly. You can take that answer or ignore it. It's your question not mine so it is up to you. *edit* "The idea is, does the theory of evolution need to be revised." It is revised all the time! Imagine modern day evoluiton is a novel. Darwin's theory is only the first sentence. Paragraphs in this novel are put in and taken out to make it a better representation of how evolution works that is to say some minute changes to evolution are made to evolution all the time to better represent the evidence. As your article points out, evolution is a very real process. As you suggest, evolution via natural selection can indeed happen quickly. Evolution is only taught at its bases as changes over very large periods of time, but there are plenty of examples of it happening quickly. It is only said to happen over long periods of time when taught to laymen because that is how evolution USUALLY works. For the most part environments only change gradually. If an environment changes VERY suddenly evolution follows suit. This is expected in the theory of evolution, not evidence against.
You know us Americans, we prefer instant gratification. So I'm sorry, but it would just be too much work to actually read all of that. You need to make it into a nice, compact, witty statement. Thanks so much.
very interesting, although i stopped reading fairly quickly
Interesting: I'll have to check this out. EDIT: am I the only one who read the whole thing? Sheesh.
It's because of....NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION PROLIF BAD! ahhh, debate but really, I'm pretty sure there is something in the food there that is making them respond like that, such as hormones or steroids (not little vitamins laying around, but the stuff that's naturally occurring) but either way, those people are dumb as hell to just put those lizards there, it will end up killing the ecosystem
I don't see how this contradicts evolutionary theory. In fact, it only seems to confirm that the theory is correct, in light of the generally accepted principle that evolution does not occur at a static pace, but rather speeds up or slows down depending on environmental conditions. EDIT: Okay, sure. But nobody ever said that the theory of evolution "explains everything." In fact, it only explains changes that occur in species of organisms between successive generations. This study examines precisely that, and demonstrates that evolution can occur rapidly between fewer generations under certain environmental conditions. What is so significant or unique about these observed facts that should be considered to contradict the theory of evolution?
kind of like eventually if homosexuality keeps increasing there will most likely be male/male rectum babies
"This seems to fly in the face of both (classic) evolution theory," No, it doesn't. The last three paragraphs make it clear that it is unknown if the changes seen were at the genetic level or not.
The article states, "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." So for now, it is unclear if these changes ARE genetically based or not. Further genotyping research is most likely needed. This is a preliminary disclosure of phenotypic observations. I would like to know what the lifespan of these lizards is, as well as how often they reproduce. 30 generations, while not significant for humans, is VERY significant for bacteria or viruses.
It doesn't "fly in the face" of (classic) evolution theory. Classic evolution by natural selection theory doesn't specify how long changes can or should take. It documents that some changes have indeed taken a long time, but it also points out others that may have or are documented to have occurred much more rapidly. And the finding is very much in line with the kinds of timelines proposed by Gould within his ideas about punctuated equilibrium (which is still evolution by natural selection, it's simply an hypothesis stating that most evolutionary change happens quickly followed by long periods of stasis). More information is needed. For example, it could very well be that these lizards had fairly recent ancestors that had all of the "new" abilities they now have, and that in their previous environment the genes to express them had been turned off by natural selection. In that case they wouldn't need to wait for random mutation to give them new capabilities, the genes could just have been switched back on in response to the environmental conditions (many precedents exist, such as certain species that can self-reproduce during periods of drought, and in periods of heavy rain switch back to normal sexual reproduction). So I think I'll let the folks who are studying this do some more research and see what the evidence shows us. We could speculate all day long, but without evidence it's just groundless speculation :) By the way, don't put too much stock in characterizations from reporters. When a reporter says the scientists were "shocked," for example...they may have been simply surprised rather than shocked. Journalists write to sell stories :) Peace.
I'm familiar with this event, and I think that more research has to be done. Clearly, this supports some models of evolution over other models of evolution, but I think we need to see the changes to the total environment before we jump to any conclusions. For example, the lizards were insectivores. Obviously, when the insect populatio died out, many lizards would (presumably) die of hunger. Those that could digest enough plant matter to live long enough to reproduce would do so. As a result, you would expect lizards better-suited to a diet that was at least partly herbivorous. Repeat the process repeatedly over a few generations, and you'll eventually end up with lizards that are well-adapted. This support catastrophic changes leading to rapid evolution, which has been speculated about for quite a long time; for example, the Cambrian explosion is sometimes believed to be partially fueled by quickly-increasing visual capabilities (and their implications for hunting, hiding, and escaping) among both predators and prey, leading to a rapid-fire birth of new life forms. Also, consider the bigger issue: are these new lizards a genetically different species from the parent population? I would be curious if the parent species and the herbivorous lizards could have viable, fertile offspring. Understand that I treat evolution as an undeniable fact. I'm just not sure that we (the "home audience" who aren't part of the research group) have enough information about this particular event to decide how we should modify what we think. I doubt that evolution needs a particularly drastic revision, but some will defintely be persuaded to "speed up the clock," so to speak.
Doesn't Darwin say that evolution is the adaptation of species to it's environment in order to survive? Whether that takes eons or a few years doesn't matter, does it, especially when there are environmental factors that fit into the equation that nobody knows about as in the case with the lizards? Whatever happened, just because it doesn't fit classical Darwinism doesn't mean it's not evolution. You know Darwin could be wrong, and whole societies and all their agreements of what Truth is could be wrong as well. So, don't depend on authority who says they know, but find out yourself. This lizard scenario doesn't disprove intelligent design either. Evolution creates centers of consciousness or centralized awareness units of matter for some reason which can't be by happenstance or mere coincidence. Darwin didn't give a reason for this, why matter would evolve an increasingly complex organism that results into a very complex nervous system controlled by an even more complex organ of the brain that make up a human form. The notion that evolution doesn't have a purpose or an intelligence working behind it for a specific reason is just ludicrous.
Consider this Mysteries In Science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOoe0 The Young Age of the Earth http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1272542059740401469 The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Fingerprints of Creation http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5725394906886443944 Gish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZKFQ The Origins of Life http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3181822797567477581 Creation In The 21st Century From Where did these Layers Come (From) 1 of 3 (Global Flood) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyoXQJ5Al0 Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o226umqLdsU Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897kM Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o Our Solar System: Evidence For Creation http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2535369046252590943&ei=_aqlSOe3MYOm4QLPkeki&q=creation+evidence&hl=en
Your ideas of evolution, developmental biology, and biological diversity seems a bit simplified. If you got your information about this study from the recent National Geographic, you're only getting part of the story. Here's the journal article: Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full Some relevant quotes from the paper: “Recent reviews have illustrated how rapid adaptive evolution is common and may be considered the rule rather than the exception in some cases.” See: *Hendry AP, Kinnison MT (1999) The pace of modern life: Measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution (Lawrence, Kans) 53:1637-1653. *Carroll SP, Hendry AP, Reznick DN, Fox CW (2007) Evolution on ecological time scales. Funct Ecol 21:387-393. “Experimental introductions of populations in novel environments have provided some of the strongest evidence for natural selection and adaptive divergence on ecological time scales.” See: Losos JB, Warheit KI, Schoener TW (1997) Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. Nature 387:70-73. *Phillips BL, Brown GP, Webb JK, Shine R (2006) Invasion and the evolution of speed in toads. Nature 439:803. *Reznick DN, Bryga H, Endler JA (1990) Experimentally induced life-history evolution in a natural population. Nature 346:357-359. *Losos JB, Schoener TW, Spiller DA (2004) Predator-induced behaviour shifts and natural selection in field-experimental lizard populations. Nature 432:505-508. “However, little is known about the degree to which the observed changes in morphology may affect the population structure and behavioral ecology of organisms through the mediating effects of whole-organism performance. Consequently, our understanding of how rapid phenotypic changes affect ecological processes at the population level is limited. Moreover, despite the fact that microevolutionary responses to environmental changes have been well documented, the unpredictability and reversibility of changes of morphological traits in fluctuating environments have raised questions regarding how these microscale changes can lead to the emergence of novel structures as seen on macroevolutionary scales.” "...our data show not only rapid, directional changes in quantitative phenotypic traits related to the inclusion of plant matter into the diet, but also the evolution of novel morphological structures on extremely short time scales. Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed." The authors are making a distinction between phenotypic expression and the genetic change that leads to an evolved population (in the classic sense). This research paper may end up being more about phenotype than genotype but the authors’ work and the work that they reference makes it clear that this is not some radical departure for evolution.