|
1-7 of 7 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Coevolution in Reptiles
|
Reply
|
|
Anonymous post on January 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While there are instances in nature where we can find evidence of coevolution to some extent, I believe many of the relationships between prey and species should be considered 'learned behavior' or 'conditioned response' as opposed to 'coevolution.'
For the sake of discussion, we can use the relationship between the Austrailian Broadhead Snake and the Velvet Gecko. I believe the statement was, "Velvet Gecko populations that are sympatric with this snake species have 'evolved' the ability to detect and react to the scent of this predator."
Wouldn't this simply be the ability of this particular gecko to learn to stay away from this snake, in much the same way we learn not to step out in front of a speeding car?
Food for thought - that has coevolved with my ability to think and reason for myself...
Just a ponder...
|
| |
|
RE: Coevolution in Reptiles
|
Reply
|
|
by BitisG on January 30, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is all adaptation at work. Athough these are reptiles with no "paternal bonds" ,specifically, having no "parents" to learn from. Case in point, the Broad Headed Snake and Velvet Gecko. I agree that that is a display of learned behavior. They still have instics that will cause them to "learn" each others behavior while co-existing in the same environment. However the garter snake and toad that is adaptation in the sense of a built up immunity to the toxin over time. This is not co-evolution.
|
| |
|
Coevolution in Reptiles
|
Reply
|
|
by ChurleR on February 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Actually, resistence to toxins and increased toxicity is coevolution, the newts would have no reason to increase their toxicity nor the snakes to increase their resistence if they weren't living together. He's not talking about resistance building over a period of a year, he's talking about resistance to toxins and hence toxicity building over generations. This means the newts that weren't toxic enough got eaten, the ones that were overly toxic survived, and pread their genes, and vise versa. That's all basic evolution is.
|
| |
|
RE: Coevolution in Reptiles
|
Reply
|
|
Anonymous post on April 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Science is never religiously neutral. Science deals with cause and effect. Unless one makes the dogmatic presupposition that causes can only be natural, it must be said that causes can be either natural or supernatural. In the case of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the appearance of most, if not all, new species, science can show us no natural causes. In the case of the universe, direct proof now exists that the cause, or causer, must transcend matter, energy, length, width, height, and time. In other words, the causer must be supernatural.
If this is true, then one must assume that the fossil record can be interpreted in 2 ways. Either evolution is true, or a supernatural being created life in quantum leaps. Why is it okay for evolutionists to defy the law of maximum entropy, but other disciplines may not? Take your pick, but I must ask, where are all of the transitional fossils that tie all of these species together? The lack of transitional fossils cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material can it? No, the deficiencies are real, and they will never be filled. Have you ever met an evolutionist that was researching information that would undermine the theory? They aren't looking for that data, and therefore will never arrive at a fully educated conclusion.
|
| |
|
RE: Coevolution in Reptiles
|
Reply
|
|
by Nightflight99 on November 1, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The anonymous post was way off-topic, but so satured with misinformation that it actually deserved a response.
Actually, religion is outside of the realm of science. Science operates on a set of particular rules (i.e. scientific method) and is based on evidence, whereas religion is based on faith, and therefore a tautology. Because religion fails to pass even the easiest of scientific tests, explanations that are based on faith are not alternatives to scientific laws, despite the constant attempts of religious groups to pass them off as such.
Furthermore, statements such as "In the case of the universe, direct proof now exists that the cause, or causer, must transcend matter, energy, length, width, height, and time. In other words, the causer must be supernatural" offer little except evidence of selective reading. It is most ironic that some people will refuse to accept evolution at large, but gladly acknowledge changes in allele frequencies.
There is nothing wrong with religious beliefs, but to attempt to pass them off as science is not only misleading, but also demonstrating a lack of understanding of science and the rules that it is based upon.
|
| |
|
RE: Coevolution in Reptiles
|
Reply
|
|
by Coralsnayk on December 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let’s pick this apart.
The anonymous poster said… “Science is never religiously neutral. Science deals with cause and effect.”
Science’s findings may have implications to religions. But the observations that science makes, and the questions that it asks are not religious in quality. Science does not (because it cannot) address the question, “Was a deity the cause of this?” Therefore, since it does not take a stance in assumption either way on questions of this kind, it is neutral with respect to religion. Science, and indeed, logical thought as a whole, deal with cause and effect. In this sentence, anonymous was correct.
Anonymous continued, “Unless one makes the dogmatic presupposition that causes can only be natural, it must be said that causes can be either natural or supernatural.”
There is no such dogmatic presupposition in science. Science is not dogmatic, but instead, tentative, pending better evidence. If something is thought of as supernatural and then is later understood, it is then included in the realm of nature. We call nature that which we can observe, perceive, study, and objectively test. If something is supernatural, then it by definition, it exists outside of nature, therefore we cannot observe it, perceive it, study, test it or make any definitive pronouncements about its existence. There may be a super (or sub) natural realm that actually exists, but until such a time as it is observable, science will be neutral with respect to the parameters or the existence of such things. Indeed, those who posit the existence of such things bear the burden of evidence. Evidence, not proof, but I'll get to that in a minute.
Anonymous continued, “In the case of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the appearance of most, if not all, new species, science can show us no natural causes.”
The origin of the universe is known as the Big Bang. We KNOW this because we can still see the movement of the expansion happening. The rate of expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, not slowing down. How and why this originated is not known and may never be known since we may not travel back in time and observe the initial event. Further evidence is forthcoming, however. The origin of life is known as abiogenesis. That organic molecules can be formed from non-organic components is an observed FACT. Creationists/Intelligent Design advocates often and incorrectly claim that science asserts that the first simple chemical replicators were anything as complex as a modern cell or even a primitive bacteria species. This is not a claim science makes or defends. Speciation events have been OBSERVED. Examples: Oenothera, Tragopogon miscellus, Drosophila melanogaster, Tribolium castaneum. Science is NOT an “us and them” mentality. It is self-critical, self-correcting, and tentative. These are its strengths. Because of this, science DOES NOT claim absolute inerrancy. You may say, “Well one has to be right, and the other has to be wrong.” A scientist would reply, “No, we may both be wrong. Let’s follow the evidence.”
Anonymous continues, “In the case of the universe, direct proof now exists that the cause, or causer, must transcend matter, energy, length, width, height, and time. In other words, the causer must be supernatural.”
Science is not the venue for proof. Scientists do not “do” proof. Nothing outside of mathematics is ever proven. When you say “proof”, perhaps you mean evidence. When you say “direct”, perhaps you mean observable. Therefore, if your claim of “direct proof” is in fact, observable evidence, would you perhaps elucidate what that is? Has it hit the peer-reviewed journals, if not the newspaper headlines? As far as such “proof” of a cause or causer… if he/she/it transcends the qualities of existence that we can observe, and indeed, the continuum in which we are thoroughly embroiled, how can there be evidence that we can perceive IN this continuum?
Anonymous: “If this is true, then one must assume that the fossil record can be interpreted in 2 ways.”
This is not known to be true, so there is no need to interpret the fossil record in any way that is inconsistent with the scientific method. Parsimony demands that the interpretation with the most explanatory power, but with the least requirement of assumption is to be preferred.
Anonymous: “Either evolution is true or a supernatural being created life in quantum leaps.”
Evolution is an observed fact (anyone may KNOW that populations change with respect to their collective genomes, through reproduction and death) and requires no assumptions. Supernatural beings are not observed facts. Note that evolution – the natural phenomenon – is not the same as Evolutionary theory which defines, describes and makes predictions about the natural phenomenon.
Anonymous: “Why is it okay for evolutionists to defy the law of maximum entropy, but other disciplines may not?”
What is an evolutionist? If you mean scientist, then say scientist. Do you call the same number of people who accept that gravity exists, “Gravitationists” or “Newtonists”? Do you call weathermen “precipitationists” because they accept that the observed natural phenomenon, rain, occurs?
By the law of maximum entropy, I assume you mean the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. I don’t know of anyone would want to defy this law. I don’t know anyone who can defy a law of physics, for that matter. Perhaps the confusion lies in your understanding of that law. First of all, it involves closed systems. This, straight away disqualifies the earth or anything upon it. The earth is receiving energy from the sun constantly and therefore is NOT a closed system. However, the law simply states that in a closed system (which the earth is not), the sole result of an interaction between a cold body and a warmer body cannot be a transfer of thermal energy from the cold to the warmer. Again, this does not apply to natural processes on the earth, because energy is constantly being added to the earth from the sun. The law is not defined in terms of disorder, however, disorder and entropy can sometimes be correlated.
Anonymous: “Take your pick, but I must ask, where are all of the transitional fossils that tie all of these species together? The lack of transitional fossils cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material can it?”
No need to pick or choose. The current understanding has explanatory power and is sufficient, pending introduction of new, robust evidence. Fossils, if they exist, are in the ground or have been collected and not yet described. Where else could they be? The fossil of any animal from a population that has speciated is a transitional fossil. Perhaps you mean intermediate fossil. Thousands of these have been found. Why do you assert that lack of [intermediate] fossils cannot be explained by scarcity of material? That makes no sense. Is a lack of fossils not, by definition a scarcity of material? Nevertheless, many intermediates are lacking. They may have never fossilized or we may have not yet found them. This does not offset the validity of the ones we HAVE found. Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are both excellent examples of intermediates. The first is an intermediate with traits of both non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs, and the second is an intermediate tetrapod with traits common to both lobe finned fish and amphibians.
Anonymous: “No, the deficiencies are real, and they will never be filled.”
If you expect the fossil record to be as complete as a video surveillance of several millions of years, then you are correct. You are also bound to be disappointed. Do you also have a problem accepting that a person that you met as a baby and then not again until he was an adult is the same person, if you don’t have pictures for every day of his life in between? If you were handed only a few pictures instead of a complete video account of the person's intervening years, would you say that the person existed in [quantum](why quantum?) leaps and bounds? Somehow I don’t think so. So it is the case, then, with ancestral and modern populations.
And lastly, Anonymous: “Have you ever met an evolutionist that was researching information that would undermine the theory? They aren't looking for that data, and therefore will never arrive at a fully educated conclusion.”
To my knowledge, I have never met an evolutionist. If you mean scientist, then yes. Science does that all the time. It is called intellectual honesty. It is called Peer review. It is a necessary first step in science to attempt to falsify your own hypothesis. The next step is not to research data to support your hypothesis, but to ask OTHER scientists in the relevant field to ALSO falsify it. Good scientists don’t look for only the data that will bolster their hypotheses. Good scientists follow ALL the evidence to its conclusion. This may not be “fully educated” as humans cannot know all things. But it is, at least intellectually honest and rigorously learned.
|
| |
|
Coevolution in Reptiles
|
Reply
|
|
by SueP on April 21, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The relationship between the newt and the garter snake is a classic example of coevolution. It is an "evolutionary arms race" if you will. BTW: Religion cannot ever be scientific; the very foundation of science is to gather evidence, test hypotheses and find patterns in nature. Those who try to use science as a religious tool start at the end; to take a belief and try to find evidence to support that and only that belief - this is not science. Science does not have an agenda, creationists do, and it's not scientific.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
