in the cold freshwater lakes of northern Europe, northern Asia,
Canada, and Alaska is challenging for unprepared lifeforms.
Fortunately marine sticklebacks came equipped with a power tool
-- evolution --
which allowed them to adapt and colonize this chilly
environment.Researchers at the University of British
Columbia, along with colleagues from Switzerland and Sweden,
"recreated history" by transplanting marine
sticklebacks to freshwater ponds. Within only three generations
-- or roughly three year's time -- the little fish had evolved
mechanism to cope with the 2.5 °C colder water. The resultant
population was roughly equivalent to the naturally evolved freshwater
sticklebacks in terms of temperature tolerance.A similar
process is thought to have given rise to the first freshwater
sticklebacks, which are thought to have diverged from marine
sticklebacks 10,000 years ago. At the end of the last ice age
melting glaciers produced lakes and streams in the northern
landmasses. Sticklebacks slowly colonized these new bodies of
water, adjusting to the colder temperature of their new home.Rowan
Barrett, a researcher with the UBC Department of Zoology and lead
author of the work,states,
"By testing the temperature tolerance of wild and lab-raised
sticklebacks, we were able to determine that freshwater sticklebacks
can tolerate lower temperatures than their marine counterparts.
This made sense from an evolutionary perspective because their
ancestors were able to adapt to freshwater lakes, which typically
reach colder temperatures than the ocean."Barret, a new
Ph.D, adds, "Scientific models have suggested that climate
change could result in both a general, gradual increase of average
temperatures and an increase in extreme temperatures. Our study
is the first to experimentally show that certain species in the wild
could adapt to climate change very rapidly – in this case, colder
water temperature. However, this rapid adaptation is not achieved
without a cost. Only rare individuals that possess the ability to
tolerate rapid changes in temperature survive, and the number of
survivors may not be large enough to sustain the population. It is
crucial that knowledge of evolutionary processes is incorporated into
conservation and management policy."Climate change is a
popular topic right now, as the research community widely leans
towards the hypothesis that the world is warming right now.
Thus the UBC study seems particularly interesting and pertinent as it
shows that animals will likely evolve to adjust to the Earth's warmer
conditions, if the Earth is indeed warming.While some believe
that the case for evolution is weak, there is ia vast
body of evidence including field biology (direct
observation), genetics, botany, morphology, paleontology, and
biochemistry that indicates it's a virtual certainty that nature has
employed and will continue to employ this essential
asset.Sticklebacks were among the first examples of creatures
directly observed to have evolved significantly. E.
another such model organism that has showed the ability to evolve
significant new abilities in a brief amount of time.The
new work is reported in
the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings
of the Royal Society B.
quote: BTW, what exactly do Jason (and others) think caused the "climate change" thousands of years ago?
quote: Astrophysicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler calculate that the probability for the emergence of humans from a suite of bacterial species in 10 billion years or less to be 10^-24,000,000. (In other words, a decimal point 24 million places to the left of the 1.)
quote: I presume changes in the levels of green house gases in the athmosphere due to, e.g., changes in flora/fauna and volcanic activity, and some chaotic features in the climate system.
quote: That number has nothing to do with reality. It tells us what is the "probability" of randomly ending up from bacteria to humans. In real life it's not random but driven by natural selection. Only the winners win.
quote: Also, calculating the odds for something that already HAS happened often makes no sense.
quote: Yes but natural selection only deals with what currently exists. It doesn't know that organism A has to evolve certain features so that millions of years later organism B will be able to have a major morphological change.
quote: So basically you say that in order for the evolution to meet a goal, to create the humans, it has to know where to aim.It does not make any sense. You still fail to see that you make a presumption: things happened for a reason (aimed at creating the humans). Then you use this presumption to 'prove' there must be intelligent design behind the evolution because that's the only way to explain you presumption.
quote: In other words you logic looks like this: I claim X exists so it proves that X exists.Don't worry, it's been used before: God is a perfect being and nothing's perfect unless it exists - so god must exist.
quote: Many, many, many executions are taking place today and just by luck you happen to be the one in which they all miss. That's the rational explanation. The other explanation, is, of course, that the sharp shooters are on your side and they missed by choice. In other words there was a purpose at work of which you were unaware...
quote: This analogy sucks - and also is very revealing. The sharp shooters are human, thus capable of feeling compassion and pity, having ethics and goals and making moral choices.
quote: That's not how the universe or nature works. There're no goals in nature, it just evolves how ever and where ever it can. There're no moral choices in the universe, it just follows the laws of physics (still partially unknown to us).
quote: What you keep trying to do is force some sort of awareness into natural processes
quote: You still fail to see that you presume "there is a reason for things, therefore there must be someone behind the reasoning".
quote: If you think that way, you end up cooking up some sort of a story about God or whatever being behind the processes in nature and universe because you first force yourself into a corner
quote: So your statement "Christian theism provides the best explaination for why I am here and why the world works the way it does." actually should be "Christian theism provides the best explaination for my believes of why I am here and why the world works the way it does."
quote: You talk faith, not science.
quote: quote: What you keep trying to do is force some sort of awareness into natural processes I'm not trying to force any awareness into natural processes. I'm saying that these processes have no awareness and it is insane to think that the blind, random forces of nature in the Universe and on Earth can create intelligent lifeforms like us or life supporting planets like Earth.
quote: You're quite the trolling tool, are you?
quote: Please read the article and realize it has nothing to do with macro evolution and its application in discerning the origin of humans. Trolling.
quote: Nice - trump the red herring with a strawman, and a poor analogy.
quote: Oh yeah - that's a good one. A bit like the Drake equation. So many unknowns and so wide the margins of error that the end result is meaningless.
quote: Still, congrats on being a troll; for so subtly reviving the 'origin of humans' and the 'global warming' debates in an article that has nothing to do with them. Reading comprehension FTW.
quote: While some believe that the case for evolution is weak, there is ia vast body of evidence including field biology (direct observation), genetics, botany, morphology, paleontology, and biochemistry that indicates it's a virtual certainty that nature has employed and will continue to employ this essential asset.
quote: Is there really any need on a tech-oriented website to pander to the blinkered religious nutjobs out there who think the Old Testament is the literal truth?
quote: Micro evolution is the removal of information that allows for changes within a species. Macro evolution is the addition of information that allows for new species emerge.
quote: Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.
quote: Macro evolution is the addition of information that allows for new species emerge. The problem is, you can not get more information by removing information, no matter how long you give the process.
quote: Ancient genome duplications probably occurred in the evolutionary history of all life, All eukaryotes probably have experienced a polyploidy event at some point in their evolutionary history.
quote: How about you provide any evidence, at all, that supports creationism (i.e. "Intelligent Design" - which is creationism).
quote: If two nuclear fragments collide with a resulting energy that just matches a resonance level, they will tend to stick and form a stable nucleus. Behold! Cosmic alchemy will occur! In the carbon atom, the resonance just happens to match the combined energy of the beryllium atom and a colliding helium nucleus. Without it, there would be relatively few carbon atoms.
quote: If America invades Iraq and Afghanistan (I'm shooting myself in the foot using an Iraq analogy against an ID believer, I know), people of the Middle East will hate Americans more than ever. Behold!: God did tell Bush to invade!!!
quote: So I read the first link and didn't bother with the 2nd because the first is utter garbage.
quote: Did he go back in time all the way to when the universe started/whatever and take samples at intervals of time from then until now? No. He is guessing based on what are, at best, a couple hundred years worth of scientific data but more likely far shorter of a time period.
quote: Or are we bringing into question how long the universe has existed also? 4,000yrs..?
quote: None of that is evidence. And all has been debunked. Voluminously.You're like a "moon hoaxer" or "anti-vaxxer." Facts are of no importance to you.
quote: If you calculate the odds of all that happening, all those unique sperm finding all those unique eggs down through the ages, my presence here on this planet at this exact moment in time writing this reply is so infinitely improbable that my very existence indicates that God himself must have had a hand in my creation.Behold the blessed 3monkies and tremble!
quote: The Anthrocentric/Anthropocentric Viewpoint simply says that no matter how unlikely the occurrence, if it did not occur in that manner we would not be viewing it.Since our existence requires a Universe with rules of physics that make our lifeform possible, deviation from those rules would result in our not viewing it.Result all Universes where a lifeform exists to observe the Universe are "right" for the lifeform making the observations no matter how unlikely or absurd those physical rules are.Just as a tree falling in the forest does make a noise even if it is unheard. Inhospitable Universes can exist, but are unobserved if they do not allow intelligent life to exist.
quote: Christian theism explains why we are here and is consistent with all of the scientific evidence. I am completely comfortable with the fact that our Universe had a definite beginning and is finely tuned to allow us to exist. This is completely consistent with what the scriptures have been saying for thousands of years.I don't need to appeal to metaphysical concepts like multiverses (that there is no evidence for) to justify my worldview. So it is the atheist, rather than the theist, who has to appeal to metaphysics and blind faith to validate their worldview. And there's nothing wrong with that, but then they shouldn't start calling theists stupid and unscientific for disagreeing with them.
quote: However, I must point out that other religions are also compatible with the scientific evidence to the extent that they are untestable and therefore of no concern to science. I could invent, on the spot, any number of new religions that are compatible with science in the same why that Christian theism is.
quote: That same is true of Christian theology, but in being immune from the possibility of contradiction or verification, it is also quite empty; it neither adds to nor subtracts from our knowledge of the universe, but merely satisfies the emotional need to understand the seemingly inexplicable.
quote: one being that that is simply the kind of universe we live in, and when our scientific understanding has sufficiently progressed, we will answer the why of it.
quote: There is plenty of evidence out there that supports the idea that an Intelligent Designer (which is God, of course) created the Universe and life.
quote: Question evolution and you're automatically a religious nutcase.
quote: Whereas with ID am I wrong in thinking the only piece of evidence for it's existence are the souls who were indoctrinated into it such as yourself, and most likely from a young and impressionable age?
quote: I said you were indoctrinated from a young age
quote: I am not the person who started this thread
quote: The person who started this thread could just as easily accuse you of being indoctrinated (by your parents, your teachers, the news media, the culture, etc) with equal logical force.
quote: I saw that argument coming. I guess I'm just going mainstream on this one. My biggest problem with religion is that it seems to be the most used, and effective, tool to promote hatred and violence in all of history.
quote: If anything, you are letting your personal feelings against religion cloud your ability to interpret the scientific data in an unbiased way.
quote: The existence of God is not properly a scientific question, it is a philosophical one.