Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in Africa’s Greatest Lake

[jayfish]

Source: ecoworldly.com

In what could be a first in the world, a fish species known as cichlids has been observed by scientists in the act of splitting into two distinct species in Lake Victoria, Africa’s largest lake and one of the world’s biggest fresh water bodies.

This may be remarkable because what is causing them to diverge are adaptations to their vision as animals and plants try to cope with increased pollution and the effects of climate change. The change is also happening without geographical isolation, which was thought to be a precursor for evolution.

Read more: http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/07/scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake/

---

What was that anti-evolution meme again? No currently observable proof of evolution? I guess we can toss that argument aside. I wonder what they will come up with next.

Jay

[mainegreen]

1. Their argument: it's still a fish so it doesn't count.

Can't stand that 'no increase in types' argument.

[jberryhill]

26. "kinds".... Science is just a word game to them

I knew a "Christian biologist" who spent years trying to figure out whether all turtles were one created "kind" or different "kinds".

Tortoises - oh no, completely unrelated.

Waste of a good mind that was.

[slackmaster]

42. They want to see a horse hatching from a fish egg

Or a hippo giving birth to a giraffe.

[paparush]

2. Don't tell Bible Spice. Nanookie of the North would shoot them from a helicopter.

[angstlessk]

3. that's just a devil trick..he does that to fool us into not believing the bible

dam, your dum!

[Schema Thing]

4. When a fish can turn itself into food for 5000, I'll be impressed

until then, it's just an atheistic aquatic pervert mating outside it's own kind.

[WillParkinson]

5. Gawd put it there...

To make evolutionists look foolish and to prove that his hand guides all to the believers.

[Lerkfish]

6. not to rain on your parade, but is this merely adaption within the same species?

not a biologist, but this sounds similar to an advantageous mutation that is favored by environment.

I should point out I firmly believe in evolution, but this sounds like a gray area to me.

[thereismore]

10. Exactly. To prove they are different species would mean to prove they cannot interbreed,

which is unlikely. The definition of a species is not universally agreed on anyway.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. That's a very old definition of species, with many problems.

[thereismore]

24. I am aware of that, as I said. Species is a murky term. nt

[harmonicon]

14. that isn't always the case

I've heard of cases of species such as leopards and cougars having fertile offspring, and they are separated by at least tens of thousands, but I think more like hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution.

Dogs, Wolves, Dingos, Coyotes, and Jackals can all interbreed, for instance. They're different species, but are similar enough physically, and share the same number of chromosomes to make it possible, though unlikely to take pace in the wild due to social differences (and of course not living on the same continent in some cases).

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. Lions and tigers can interbreed. So can horses and mules.

Speciation occurs when two populations stop breeding in the wild. That does not mean they cannot interbreed at all, even after thousands of years of genetic isolation.

[antigone382]

20. No, mules generally can't breed.

When horses and donkeys breed they produce mules which are not fertile offspring (except in rare cases, I believe).

That's just one example, however. It hardly negates your larger point.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. Donkeys, I meant to say.

:blush:

Thanks for the catch. And actually, a mule is the result of breeding a male donkey with a female horse. Reverse the genders and you get a hinny.

[antigone382]

23. I didn't know that!

I hesitated to respond because I didn't want to be nitpicky, but I figured you just got your terms confused...we all do!

I love your sig line, btw.

[jberryhill]

25. Not to mention the unspeakable experiments with pitbulls and lipstick /nt

[yardwork]

27. The article says the fish are splitting into two distinct species.

[Anticon]

16. Any adaptation is evolution...

That is what it is. I've always believed isolation is not necessary for evolution in that living things 'purposely' (along with emergent properties) adapt themselves. Isolation of diverging organisms is what brings about different species. We have witnessed evolution previously - every time a strain bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic it does so through evolution.

[Lerkfish]

17. ok, thanks.

[redqueen]

21. Exactly... and welcome to DU. (nt)

[fed_up_mother]

32. Haha I think you did rain on that parade

Fundies accept micro-evolution, but they don't accept macro-evolution. The vast majority don't, anyway.

[Zhade]

38. "merely adaption within the same species" IS evolution.

NT!

[geomon666]

7. Satan's fish! n/t

[Ian David]

8. And the commie Lysenkoism crowd will have their own take on it too.

No amount of evidence will convince the willfully ignorant.

[Taverner]

12. Do people still beleive in Lysenkoism???

I thought the idea that "there is no gene - no DNA" was discredited in 1964?

[Submariner]

9. We'll talk evolution when the Lutefisk stops tasting like shit

[Seldona]

13. But, but, there is a cave painting in France roped off!

At least that is what my ONE christian friend said. He does mumble and dissappear alot. lol

My favorite question is how can you PROVE something that requires FAITH to believe in? ANY of the Bronze Age throwbacks attempt to hoist that bs on me, gets the same question and refusal to budge until it's answered. Shuts them up EVERY TIME.

[cobalt1999]

15. Technically, all species are in the "act of evolution" all the time.

Evolution is a process that all species are ruled by all the time.

[yardwork]

29. I thought about that but was going to skip commenting on it - I'm glad that you did!

[Winterblues]

19. I wonder what it taste like?

:silly:

[Greyskye]

28. I'm so going to hell for this...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

30. I don't think so!

That is fucking hilarious!

:rofl: :rofl:

[Greyskye]

31. OMG - I got CaliforniaPeggy to drop the F-Bomb!

My Dear CaliforniaPeggy, now I'm really going to hell!

:rofl:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

33. No. You. Are. Not!

:rofl: :rofl:

[mike_c]

34. that meme has been preposterous for a long time now....

This is not a "first" by any means, except possibly in the mind of the journalist who wrote the article. Evolution is commonly observed.

Speciation is less commonly observed-- at least unambiguously-- for a variety of reasons, but it too is VERY well documented. This story represents something that's relatively rare: rapid sympatric speciation in animals *that occurs while someone is looking*.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

35. I'm hoping this means that fundies will soon be extinct.

Evolve or perish.

[chknltl]

41. Now that you mention it...John McCain has been evolving into a slug...

and Ann Coulter morphed into a slug a few years back... is it evolution or is it something else? I think that what we are witnessing is more than evolution, I think it is the rapture and it is occurring before our very eyes but at a rate so slowly we just don't notice it! God, in his infinite wisdom is turnin' 'em all into slugs! Puh-raise The Lord!!! :7

(Do slugs speak English-Do freepers speak English? I rest my case!)

[GoddessOfGuinness]

43. For most of us, that would be a regression...

but in their cases, it's definitely evolution! :D

[progressoid]

36. it's not evolution. Jeebus did it.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

37. Although this is not the first time evolution has been observed, this is awesome!

Take that, anti-knowledge fundie fools!

[NoodleyAppendage]

39. Those aren't fishes, godless fool. Those are loaves of bread!

See they aren't evolving, they are just going through the leavening process.

J

[Dogmudgeon]

40. Shades of *Darwin's Radio*

A recommended read, too.

--p!

[harun]

44. You are obviously not a scientist

The report summarizes that new species may be born because of vision differences and what fish see at least in one African lake could be the driving force that causes them to evolve into new species.

See those words "may be", they are rather important. Like most topics dealing with pro-evolution or pro-creation the problem isn't from the scientist it is from people like you who take what you want out of the story instead of the facts. Fact is, it is another theory. A very interesting one, but still just another theory.