Nebraskan deer mice have had a — gasp! — beneficial mutation that lets them live longer in the Sand Hills:
Within just a few thousand years, generations of the mice have evolved a sandy-coloured coat camouflaging themselves from predators.
Most striking is that these mice acquired the mutation for pale fur naturally, then rapidly passed it on.
That makes the fast-evolving deer mouse one of the best examples yet studied of “true” natural selection in action….
Usually the mice have a dark coat, which enables them to blend in with dark soils and avoid being seen by predators such as owls and hawks.
But at Sand Hills in Nebraska, pale-coated mice abound.
I must point out, however, that the deer mice did not evolve into crocoducks, so this probably won’t mean much to fundies…
There are also bacteria that evolved to be able to eat nylon. This had to be a recent evolution, since nylon wasn’t around until he 20th century.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4089/296/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Don’t be silly. they were sitting around eating nothing until we came up with nylon.
And the creationists already brushed aside that little tidbit. Like it says in the ICR article there, it’s all evidence of their preconceived notions.
LOL, its amusing how they brush it off. It didn’t evolve, it broke!
I was always more of a humanities guy in school and I lost interest in science in jr high school. But I recall that this sort of evolution was called adaptation, where even with the change it was still considered the same species.
I don’t like speaking for the fundies, but I don’t think they (as a body) would have any problems with this observation.
I expect I’ll get an educaton from the learned readers out there.
In the circles I was in, it was said that there were no beneficial mutations at all.
On the other hand, if pressed, some would admit “mirco-evolution” (aka adaptation), but not “macro-evolution”.
But all evolution is microevolution, so that’s always stuck me as an odd thing to admit.
Yup. “Macro” evolution = micro evolution x a helluva long time.
@DF: I remember a Christian university where the science faculty came under fire for teaching about evolution. Many believed in evolution within a species, but when they said so, got in hot water by wealthy contributors.
“Christian university”? Does it mean in the US anybody can run a school/university and teach whatever they want, without any quality standard, and hand out degrees? That explains many things.
Many universities are private companies, and private companies can do whatever they want.
Whatever? really? Can a US student of biology not to know anything about evolution? There is not something like a minimum standard for a degree?
Uh, no, there are standards to be accredited, you generally can’t invent degrees (at least not with the same name). But I meant, you can run a pirate-themed university, if you want. There are Christian universities in other countries.
Yes, but can private universities offer courses such as biology and pick and choose whatever the hell they teach within it?
Because in Brazil private universities have to pass through federal approval. They’re ranked according to quality and whatever, and if they don’t meet certain criteria, so very sorry, you can’t operate (or rather, you can, but the degrees issued will be worth diddly squat).
So your pirate-themed university can teach whatever but if it’s gonna teach biology, and it’s gonna have any credibility, evolution is a requirement, period.
Accreditation in the US is handled by (quasi-) private entities. Accreditation by certain ones carries with it the prestige of being accepted in the academic community, and thus there is a very strong incentive on behalf of legitimate institutions, public or private, to meet those accreditation entities’ standards. I was on one of the standards compliance committees at my university while I was a student; it is a very involved and fascinating, though harrowing, process to renew an institution’s accreditation.
There is very little risk of a person mistaking an accredited institution for a non-accredited one.
@ Elemenope: ah, gotcha. Makes sense to me now – something similar to ours, but decentralized?
Decentralized and privatized. Yep. The state influence comes from the fact that the government controls which institutions qualify for receiving public financial aid for students (as well as things like federal grants for research), and they invariably take the accreditation status of the university as basically the only criteria.
Micro-evolution =/= adaptation.
SOME microevolution can be said to be adaptive, but lots of microevolution is due to chance effects. Microevolution is the change in gene frequencies in a population, which over time leads to changes in the phenotype of the population and potentially speciation.
Adaptation is the evolution of features that makes an organism better suited to it’s habitat/niche and is driven by natural selection (of which sexual selection is a sub-section).
An avalanche killing all the original brown mice would ALSO produce lots of pale coloured mice, just by chance. This is micro-evolution, but not adaptation.
Cool story regardless. We have boring mice here in NZ, and we’re not allowed to like them on the basis that they’re helping eradicate our native wildlife.
Oh, quite true – I forgot the “natural disaster” hypothesis :)
And I suppose there’s also the possibility of genetic variations that lead to changes in phenotype, but not necessarily influence the survival of the individual?
Genetic variation in the population is the raw material that natural selection work on. Some mice are born lighter or darker then the rest, as long as hair color doesn’t give you an advantage the ratio of light and dark will remain stable (depends on the chance to get each genetic combination) however if the enviroment changes (or the animal migrate and colonize a new enviroment) where like this example having a specific color become advetageous then the balance of the population will shift (The shift toward dark moths in England during the industrial revolution, known as Industrial melanism is one of the most famous) and if the new population become isolated from the original then it will continue to diverge so if you come back in 20,000,000 years you will not recognize them as a single species any more.
@ClergyGuy:
They are the same species, but the sand mice are now a different population that don’t interact with regular mice. Since they don’t exchange DNA, the two populations will continue diverging, eventually resulting in different species.
Interesting.
Yeah, the only thing anti-evolutionists will accept as proof of evolution is something that would make biologists completely reject it and turn to special creation. Something like a cow giving birth to a monkey…
I think I would pay an exorbitant amount of money to see that PT Barnum-esque side-show.
Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys??!?!?!
ZOMG!
And how do you explain PYGMIES + DWARFS????!!11/
One of my favorite creationist canards. My reply is “If Americans came from England why are there still Englismen?”
Talking of ducks, how about this:
javascript:void((function(){var%20e=document.createElement(‘script’);e.setAttribute(‘type’,'text/javascript’);e.setAttribute(‘src’,’http://www.duckmylife.com/bookmarklet‘);document.body.appendChild(e)})())
Click on the duck to shoot it.
pass
In sociological terms, micro evolution seems to be passing over into the common sense category. Creationist leaders are thus forced to incorporate the idea somehow since they are really not so much about substantiating biology claims as they are defending Christianity. They are, after all, attempting to buttress and convince those with little biology education and lots of ‘common sense’.
If it were about finding the facts, then creationists have a great opportunity to scientifically falsify evolutionary theory. The creationist hypothesis (the one that accepts micro evolution) necessitates a biological mechanism for stopping micro evo before it differentiates into a new species. All they have to do is discover that stopper mechanism in biology. Good luck with that one!
On the other hand, those of us who accept TOE look at this genetic mutation to the hair color of mice and see something that fits neatly and mundanely into an already robust and rich Theory. Micro evolution is macro evolution writ tiny.
I thought the fossils of Archeopteryx would effectively be their crocoduck, right?
Dammit Jim, I’m a preacher, not a scientist!
I couldn’t follow all of that–words started swimming in front of me. But I appreciate the thinking.
As a theologean, my primary concern is not science–it’s a different field as far as I’m concerned. Science focuses on emperical evidence whereas theology focuses on subjective thought in trying to understand God–two different disciplines.
It is incredibly stupid to use theology as a tool for teaching or evevn challenging science.
As an astrologer, my primary concern is not astronomy–it’s a different field as far as I’m concerned. Astronomy focuses on empirical evidence whereas astronomy focuses on magic in trying to understand the heavens–two different disciplines.
*whereas astrology
I think you were making a point, but I couldn’t follow it.
It is incredibly stupid to use alchemy as a tool for teaching or even challenging chemistry.
If you’re saying that my field of study is not valid, I understand where you’re coming from. I obviously disagree.
And geez, didn’t you like my Star Trek reference?
Theology =! Astrology
Also,
Theology : Science :: Astrology : Astronomy
is not an accurate analogy.
If you mean that theology shouldn’t be applied to biology, then you get absolutely no argument here.
Uh, yeah, if the analogy were about the subjects.
Fiction:Fact::Fiction:Fact
Theology, like alchemy and astrology, is imaginary.
Whether God is real or not, Theology is definitely real. I swear, I’ve even met a theologian or two, and I certainly can’t un-remember reading all that tripe that C.S. Lewis kept pumping out.
The Hobbit is a real book about an imaginary civilization. A student of literature might know where and when it was written. A theologian studies how to commune with Gandalf.
Analogies don’t prove anything so why don’t you just skip them? You’re position is that theology is not a valid field of study. Got it. You want to make some other criticism of theology or if you want to back your assertion up, then do it.
That is, of course I mean that it is a real discipline, but it studies a fictional topic. (There is some fact mixed in, but that doesn’t help it any more than the existence of planets helps astrology.)
The name of the discipline that looks at religion from the outside is “religious studies”. Theology explicitly wears an Abrahamic lens and studies religion from the inside.
Of course.
Actually, the term theology is not specific at all. It refers literally to the study of deity.
Oh, I just got that you don’t think that religion (and theology) attempt to describe reality. Certainly they do. If the “immaterial” affects the material in any way, it is not immaterial.
Religion and science are not non-overlapping magisteria. They are not different fields that can coexist harmoniously. Religion and science are incompatible.
Is information material?
I think so, yes.
A message has no existence separate from the medium in which it is encoded. (Ink on paper, electricity inside a mammal’s head, vibrations in the air…)
“Information can be defined as a pattern, a combination of qualities that form a characteristic arrangement” (from wiki, I couldn’t find how to say it in my words)
Information is “material”, even in our brains or in our PC’s, it can’t be separated from his support.
That information *requires* material, it does not necessarily follow that information *is* material. To wit, Romeo & Juiliet is Romeo & Juiliet whether it be inscribed on a scroll or stored as a PDF. The subtending material seems to have nothing to do with its essential, as opposed to incidental, properties.
“Analogies don’t prove anything so why don’t you just skip them?”
Neither does theology.
To Sunny Day: Now that’s a great job of making your point clearly and concisely.
Boy, my professors are going to be surprised…
Let me ask you something: Is ‘Logic,’ as a discipline, imaginary?
That’s at rodneyAnonymous…
sorry for failing at life…
Obviously professors and students of theology would be hostile to the idea that it is a non-subject, as I’m sure witch-doctors would be hostile to the idea that there is no such thing as magic.
Logic is the study of a human system of inference and reasoning. As far as we know, humans exist.
Wow.
Whatever, dude. We’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t think I can summon up a civil or helpful response to this.
*bows out…
As much as I am inclined to agree with rodneyAnonymous, I don’t think the analogy of Theology to Astrology works.
It doesn’t work because Astrology (at its best) makes testable predictions about events and human characteristics based on the apparent positions of celestial objects. Theology, however, is the art of making untestable assertions about an unobservable entity based on whatever the heck the theologian wants to base his or her untestable assertions upon.
So Theology has nothing to do with Science, whereas Astrology is only loosely based on basic Astronomy and is also pseudoscientific.
Prayer makes testable predictions, but they write it off just like astrologers. Or make it purposely vague. Etc. They strike me as being similar, though not exact.
ah, but logic is philosophy, not theology… the best statement you can get about God out of logic is “If God exists, Ers is keeping very quiet about it”.
And those psychics are going to be surprised if you tell them astrology isn’t a real discipline… ;)
Seriously though, the study of anything can be a discipline, whether it’s theology, astrology, alchemy, or philosophy. The end result does not have to exist or be true for the discipline to exist. It just… helps.
Indeed. I’ve been studying the emperor’s clothes for years. It’s a very serious discipline and we always have aclothists (fools) running around harassing us because they are too stupid to see the very well tailored garments.
The universe does not care about human logic.
Olaf:
Morever, the universe does not care; period.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
— Stephen Crane
Universe: aw, you say that like I care…
Some other actual instances of directly witnessing evolution, just to keep them handy for the fundies.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305150917.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4716252.stm
If you have seen the BBC documentary The Cell, then soon scientists can create life how they want it, and maybe for fun create a Crocoduck. LOL
Very interesting to see, they created an artificial generated DNA that in its turned generated the materials to let yeast glow.