Skip to comments.Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years
Posted on 11/02/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
You'd think that one example of something that evolved would be the final nail in the coffin, but of course 'they' are driven by something other than science. It never was about science.
The creationist rallying cry used to be "show me an example! Show me an example!"
Now it will be "Um... show me another example!"
I don't mind plain ignorance - everybody has to start learning sometime. Willful ignorance, however, is just sad.
If ignorance were only painful...
It often is. Read my tagline.
You must have missed that point entirely about how the rain forest had been separated by climate shifts and then rejoined by their expansion 8000 years ago. That separated the frog populations and this article examined the repercussions of the forest coming back together.
No doubt there's plenty of evidence of forest boundaries over the years available.
Of course if you think the earth is only 6000 years old, then I see your problem.
"that is unable to mate with either of the original frog populations."
Maybe they aren't really trying.
It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake. I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution.
Nahhh, She's in the Ancient/Classic Greek Mythology Section under, Gorgons Sisters, and their Ilk.
Darwinist barf alert.
Why is everyone so excited about a frog becoming a frog?
Why would I think the earth is 6,000 years old? Think I just fell off the turnip truck?
Actually it's a very good example of evolution. What it is not a good example of is the creationist strawman version of evolution. Tell me, what would you accept as a good example of speciation?
It's obviously not about science. It's also not about God or religion, IMHO. The question is, what is it really about. I suspect at heart it is anti-individualism.
Once creationists as a group admit that new species are indeed evolving, we'll talk about that....
Hmmmmmm, this guy may not believe in intelligent design, but he definitely believes in intelligent frogs practicing eugenics.
But then, having found each other again, the same behavior (breeding only among southern frogs) led to a speciation in only 8000 years?
What was different between the physical separation and the "choice" separation?
Isn't it much more likely that the southern population already have females which were incompatable with the other group? And when they started inbreeding again, those who couldn't get pregnant from the northern group would have babies which couldn't get pregnant from the northern group?
Meanwhile those who still COULD would randomly get inpregnated from their own group OR the northern group, and since the cross-breed children were inferior they tended to die out?
So over time simple natural selection tended to select toward those southern frogs who could only get pregnant by inbreeding?
How do they know what the ones from 8000 years ago did?
And it is rational that frogs would somehow notice their children were dying if they bred with the "wrong" frogs, and some of them would be smart enough to change their behavior and only breed with the "right" frogs?
That seems like a stretch even for true believers.
I understand it to go something like this:
A group of frogs got physically isolated. During that time, each subgroup developed subtle genetic differences independently of each other. However, because the two groups physically could not interbreed, there was no environmental pressure for the females to differentiate between the two groups. This means that while differences did develop, there was no reason for natural selection to encourage a trait that caused the groups to discriminate in regards to interbreeding.
Once the groups reunited, however, this changed. Since the hybrid spawn lacked viability, the females that displayed the trait of being more particular about mating only within their group stood a better chance of passing along their genes, including this 'picky gene'. This altered the environmental conditions for the males as well, by causing those that were readily discernible by the females to be preferred. This resulted in their genes, with the differentiating identifier, to be passed along more readily than those that weren't.
This all culminated in an acceleration of the natural selection process resulting in the sped up genetic development of a new species.
Had these two groups not come back into contact, this new environmental pressure would not have been a factor, as both the 'easy' and 'picky' females would still be producing viable offspring (since they would not have had the choice of a male that would result in nonviable offspring).
That's because you obviously don't understand what evolution is.
Please re-read the article. The frogs evolved from one species to another. The very essence of Darwin's work (which was entitled "The Origin of Species", after all). And, incidentally, creationists mistakenly claim this type of evolution doesn't happen.
There's a good list o'links where you can learn about it - I'll see if I can dig it up.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years, Conservativehomeschoolmama wrote:
"It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake. I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution."
"Frog" is not a species. It's a whole group of species, just like salamanders and snakes. Here we have direct evidence of one species of frog splitting into two. And, yes, it's an adaptation to environmental change. THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS ALL ABOUT!
Trying to dodge the issue via semantic games is dishonest. God will boil you in molten sulfur for a billion years for being dishonest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.