Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Lizards' camouflage reveals evolution


behaviour???
 Share

Recommended Posts

In White Sands, N.M., two species of traditionally brown lizards have evolved white scales in order to blend in with their environment.

By studying the genetic mechanisms at work in this adaptation, scientists are able to observe evolution as it happens.The study illuminates the mechanics of not only adaptation, but also speciation, or how species form.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Thanks

B???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Solid Skeptic

    2

  • Mattshark

    3

  • danielost

    1

  • Copasetic

    2

Prepare for the hordes of Young Earth Creationists 'debunking' this...

Oh don't you worry. A change in color or size has no connection to the kind of evolution that Darwinists want people to believe. There is no mutational advance whereby new structures are forming changing the one organism to another. There is no evidence for the common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionist tend to utilize the "bait-switch fallacy" when trying to promote one type of evolution publicly by creating press releases about micro-evolution whereby color and size changes are observed; all the while, wanting the public to accept common ancestry even though the kind of organism has not changed. (ei. They are still a snake and a lizard)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet again I would like to point out that Evolution is Biology... which has no correlation to the debate over how things "began"

Though to add something on topic. You can bet if the color change makes it more likely for these lizards to live longer lives. That will also result in them being more likely to produce offspring. And thus more likely to pass their genes on to future members of their kind. Resulting in a higher percentage of lizards having this color change. Rinse, repeat........ evolution.

Despite the fact that people like to tell you it's more complex than that. It's very simple really.

Edited by BaneSilvermoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't you worry. A change in color or size has no connection to the kind of evolution that Darwinists want people to believe. There is no mutational advance whereby new structures are forming changing the one organism to another. There is no evidence for the common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionist tend to utilize the "bait-switch fallacy" when trying to promote one type of evolution publicly by creating press releases about micro-evolution whereby color and size changes are observed; all the while, wanting the public to accept common ancestry even though the kind of organism has not changed. (ei. They are still a snake and a lizard)

Utter rubbish, evolution is merely a genetic change, it doesn't require a mutational advance, an claim of such thing is patently untrue.

Your blog is shows a lot of scientific paucity on the subject and uses horrific conjecture to make an attempt at a scientific argument. It is not credible.

The fact that you claim their is proof of god through science is pure nonsense and STILL wouldn't provide evidence for the fraud that is intelligent design.

You blog is an insult to science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet again I would like to point out that Evolution is Biology... which has no correlation to the debate over how things "began"

Though to add something on topic. You can bet if the color change makes it more likely for these lizards to live longer lives. That will also result in them being more likely to produce offspring. And thus more likely to pass their genes on to future members of their kind. Resulting in a higher percentage of lizards having this color change. Rinse, repeat........ evolution.

Despite the fact that people like to tell you it's more complex than that. It's very simple really.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't you worry. A change in color or size has no connection to the kind of evolution that Darwinists want people to believe. There is no mutational advance whereby new structures are forming changing the one organism to another. There is no evidence for the common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionist tend to utilize the "bait-switch fallacy" when trying to promote one type of evolution publicly by creating press releases about micro-evolution whereby color and size changes are observed; all the while, wanting the public to accept common ancestry even though the kind of organism has not changed. (ei. They are still a snake and a lizard)

I would reply to your "points" point-by-points but it has been my experience that pop-up creationists (such as yourself) don't tend to hang around and discuss anything. Just simply stop by to advertise there website.

I've also found that creationists and the subspecies of creationist called cdesign proponentsists (intelligent design creationists) tend to look and argue best when there is no one to respond to them and they can predate upon the ignorance of the general populace. Having all those damn 'smarty-pants liberal godless evolutionists' around sure hampers your arguments (**shakes angry fist at 'evolutionists'**)

However, unlike pop-up creationists and their slick-salesman subspecies cdesign proponentsists, I am certainly willing to alter my perception of you all in light of new evidence (that being that you would be willing to engage in conversation). Which you can easily accomplish in a few ways.

For instance you said "There is no mutational advance whereby new structures are forming changing the one organism to another." So you could acknowledge this portion of the article (just a small aside as well, we are talking about popular news releases here, not the actual scientific papers, but it will suffice for now):

In two of the species studied by Rosenblum and her team, the fence lizard and the whiptail lizard, the researchers found that pigment-producing genes in each species had mutated. However, each lizard evolved this mutation differently on a molecular level.

And maybe rather than make the blind statements you have made above, address what the researchers are saying (which is direct evidence of what you claim no one has).

You also said: "There is no evidence for the common ancestry of all living things." Again, maybe you could do something like address why we see nested sets of traits which occur throughout life and address how that isn't evidence for common ancestry. Better yet you could put forth a new "creationist scientific theory" supported by evidence which could explain said traits.

Another point of contention you mentioned: "Evolutionist tend to utilize the "bait-switch fallacy" when trying to promote one type of evolution publicly by creating press releases about micro-evolution whereby color and size changes are observed". Biologists don't distinguish in a practical way between "micro" and "macro" evolution. They are the same processes viewed over different periods of time and those descriptions are only used to subjectively distinguish between the two. Maybe you already know this and your dishonest, maybe you learned something new-Either way, maybe you could address it. Again, you could put forth a "creationist theory" which explains why "micro" and "macro" evolution are not one in the same. Or maybe you could provide some personal insight on when such a line should be drawn between the two.

Finally, you said; "all the while, wanting the public to accept common ancestry even though the kind of organism has not changed. (ei. They are still a snake and a lizard)", which again provides you (the creationist) with a great opportunity to show off your 'science-mind'. You could for instance, define just what a "kind" is--And please make such a definition an objective thing, not some mumblings of couldn't-hack-it-in-science-class-creationists.

All of which, would certainly force me to alter my perception of you. So please, don't make out to be some of kind of psychic and prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

didn't they do this with moths in england only years later find that they were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

didn't they do this with moths in england only years later find that they were wrong.

Nope, that is a creationist lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence for the common ancestry of all living things.

Despite the fact that you are wrong, it is nice to see a creationist who knows about common ancestry rather than spouting all that rubbish about crocaduck and badgers giving birth to gerbils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that you are wrong, it is nice to see a creationist who knows about common ancestry rather than spouting all that rubbish about crocaduck and badgers giving birth to gerbils.

Wait Crocaducks give birth to gerbils? I always thought it was the Fronky kind that gave birth to gerbils :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.