How widespread is plasticity?

[supersport]

Evolutionists have it all wrong. Life is miraculous, scientifically unexplainable and utterly mind-blowing. The following is an example that you will never read in evolutionists' books because these authors must avoid the miraculous events of nature in order to sound credible.

http://www.fiu.edu/~donnelly/termpaperex1.pdf#search='plasticity%20body%20struc ture'

1) in the presence of a predator, eggs can hatch at later times:


..... Flatworms (Phagocotus gracilis) were used as
predators or predator chemical cues upon salamander larvae (Ambystoma texanum and Ambystoma barbouri). The presence of the flatworms and their cues induced the eggs to delay their hatching time. This resulted in larger, and more advanced hatchlings. This finding supports the earlier field observations that the flatworm preyed heavily on smaller, less developed hatchlings. This shift in hatch time is adaptive and supports greater hatchling survival (Sih and Moore 1993).

Any evolutionists care to explain this phenomenon? How can this near-miracle happen without intelligence?

2) specific morphological changes happens due to predators:

In 1997 McCollum and Leimberger examined the morphological changes that
arose in the gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) in response to the presence of a predatory dragonfly (Aesha umbrosa). The larvae that were reared in the presence of the predator differed in shape and in color than those that were reared in predator free environments. The treatments exposed tadpoles to tail damage and to chemical cues of the dragonfly feeding on conspecifics. The tadpoles responded plastically by altering their color and tail shape. The tail was extended, presumably increasing swimming speed and hence survivorship. The color change was seen in the tail. The appearance of color on the tail is thought to attract predatory attacks on the tail rather than on the body.

3) specific behavior changes as a result of predators

Larval anurans have demonstrated phenotypic plasticity in response to variation in food availability (Anholt 1998). It has been argued that food availability and predation risk are intertwined. This can be demonstrated when food resources in an environment are high, search time by prey is reduced and predation success may suffer. During times of limited
food availability search time may be lengthened, thus increasing prey vulnerability to predation (Anholt and Werner 1998). In the presence of predators, search time is reduced as activity is restricted to avoid predation.

4) Diet induces developmental changes in physical characteristics.

Depending on their diet, individuals (tadpoles) of both species develop into either a small-headed omnivore morph, which feeds mostly on detritus, or a large-headed carnivore morph, which specializes on shrimp.

http://www.citeulike.org/user/balicea/article/454684
--------------------------------------------------------------

Thus if plasticity can instantly effect the hatch time of eggs, the size, shape, color, and physical/behavior characteristics of an animal, then about the only place I see a role for random mutations via natural selection is in the wishfully creative minds of evolutionists.

And this study is just on tadpoles. Does anyone think that this is not a world-wide, creation-wide phenomenon? Of course it is. Every creature is a product of their environment. Traits are formed from the beginning of conception -- all the way throughout life. Over time, this may give the illusion of "evolution" in the fossil record.

This would explain why there are virtually no intermediate fossils. This would also explain why gradualism is not found in the fossil record. This would also explain why evolutionists cannot give us any example of random mutations that could lead to cumulative selection -- because they DON'T EXIST.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Evolutionists have it all wrong. Life is miraculous, scientifically unexplainable and utterly mind-blowing. The following is an example that you will never read in evolutionists' books because these authors must avoid the miraculous events of nature in order to sound credible.

http://www.fiu.edu/~donnelly/termpaperex1.pdf#search='plasticity%20body%20struc ture'

1) in the presence of a predator, eggs can hatch at later times:


..... Flatworms (Phagocotus gracilis) were used as
predators or predator chemical cues upon salamander larvae (Ambystoma texanum and Ambystoma barbouri). The presence of the flatworms and their cues induced the eggs to delay their hatching time. This resulted in larger, and more advanced hatchlings. This finding supports the earlier field observations that the flatworm preyed heavily on smaller, less developed hatchlings. This shift in hatch time is adaptive and supports greater hatchling survival (Sih and Moore 1993).

Any evolutionists care to explain this phenomenon? How can this near-miracle happen without intelligence?

2) specific morphological changes happens due to predators:

In 1997 McCollum and Leimberger examined the morphological changes that
arose in the gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) in response to the presence of a predatory dragonfly (Aesha umbrosa). The larvae that were reared in the presence of the predator differed in shape and in color than those that were reared in predator free environments. The treatments exposed tadpoles to tail damage and to chemical cues of the dragonfly feeding on conspecifics. The tadpoles responded plastically by altering their color and tail shape. The tail was extended, presumably increasing swimming speed and hence survivorship. The color change was seen in the tail. The appearance of color on the tail is thought to attract predatory attacks on the tail rather than on the body.

3) specific behavior changes as a result of predators

Larval anurans have demonstrated phenotypic plasticity in response to variation in food availability (Anholt 1998). It has been argued that food availability and predation risk are intertwined. This can be demonstrated when food resources in an environment are high, search time by prey is reduced and predation success may suffer. During times of limited
food availability search time may be lengthened, thus increasing prey vulnerability to predation (Anholt and Werner 1998). In the presence of predators, search time is reduced as activity is restricted to avoid predation.

4) Diet induces developmental changes in physical characteristics.

Depending on their diet, individuals (tadpoles) of both species develop into either a small-headed omnivore morph, which feeds mostly on detritus, or a large-headed carnivore morph, which specializes on shrimp.

http://www.citeulike.org/user/balicea/article/454684
--------------------------------------------------------------

Thus if plasticity can instantly effect the hatch time of eggs, the size, shape, color, and physical/behavior characteristics of an animal, then about the only place I see a role for random mutations via natural selection is in the wishfully creative minds of evolutionists.

And this study is just on tadpoles. Does anyone think that this is not a world-wide, creation-wide phenomenon? Of course it is. Every creature is a product of their environment. Traits are formed from the beginning of conception -- all the way throughout life. Over time, this may give the illusion of "evolution" in the fossil record.

This would explain why there are virtually no intermediate fossils. This would also explain why gradualism is not found in the fossil record. This would also explain why evolutionists cannot give us any example of random mutations that could lead to cumulative selection -- because they DON'T EXIST.

What was wrong with your earlier title when you called this thread Tadpoles disprove evolution?

 

[supersport]

What was wrong with your earlier title when you called this thread Tadpoles disprove evolution?

mm...it's not quite the same....I've added a few things. There's a whole other set of people here if you haven't noticed. I just post here because I know you love it so much.

 

[Chalnoth]

So what? These sorts of adaptations are well within the concept of evolution. Environments change all the time, so it is natural for some organisms to adapt to more than one environment, based upon specific triggers. A good example of a capability like this evolving through Darwinian means in the lab can be found here:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Some five carbon sugars are very rare in nature, so very few organisms have the ability to use these exotic compounds in their metabolism. Robert Mortlock determined that the bacteria Klebsiella aerogenes was not immediately able to metabolize D-arabinose and xylitol by growing strains in media containing those compounds and noting the strains that were able to grow only after a lag time. This indicated that the original strain did not have the ability to process the compounds, but was able to evolve such a capability. Mortlock then went on to see how this capability was evolved. In the case of D-arabinose, Mortlock showed that the arabinose could be utilized if it could be converted to D-ribulose by an enzyme (an isomerase). Unfortunately, K. aerogenes has no such isomerase for the conversion of D-arabinose. However, the isomerase for L-fucose has a low activity for D-arabinose. But, the bad news is that the L-fucose isomerase is normally produced only when the cell is exposed to fucose. Nonetheless, in a few individuals, mutations occurred that allowed the fucose isomerase to be produced at all times - not just when L-fucose is present. This is normally a bad thing and would be selected against because it wastes the cells resources by constantly producing an unneeded enzyme. In this situation though, the mutation is a very good thing, and allows the cell to survive because it can now metabolize arabinose (albeit rather poorly). Although production of the fucose isomerase has been deregulated, the structure of the isomerase itself has not been changed. The next mutation was a change to the isomerase to make it more effective in the conversion of arabitol to ribulose. Finally (although I can't tell from Bell's description if this was actually done in the experiments), the culture could be selected to regain control of the expression of the isomerase - so that it is produced only when arabitol is present.

Here you see bacteria first mutating so that they can metabolize the new food source. Then they mutate further to optimize the usage of this new food source. Finally they mutated to turn off the gene responsible for allowing them to use this food source when the food source was no longer present.

This is a bacteria strain, in the lab, evolving plasticity through a process perfectly-predicted by the theory of evolution. Plasticity does not oppose the theory of evolution. It is predicted by the theory of evolution in some circumstances.

 

[ushishir]

Does anyone think that this is not a world-wide, creation-wide phenomenon?

Yes, people who study phenotypic plasticity do:

"The high potential fitness benefit of phenotypic plasticity tempts us to expect
phenotypic plasticity as a frequent adaptation to environmental heterogeneity.
Examples of proven adaptive plasticity in plants, however, are scarce and most plastic
responses actually may be ‘passive’ rather than adaptive. This suggests that frequently
requirements for the evolution of adaptive plasticity are not met or that such evolution
is impeded by constraints. Here we outline requirements and potential constraints for
the evolution of adaptive phenotypic plasticity, identify open questions, and propose
new research approaches. Important open questions concern the genetic background
of plasticity, genetic variation in plasticity, selection for plasticity in natural habitats,
and the nature and occurrence of costs and limits of plasticity. Especially promising
tools to address these questions are selection gradient analysis, meta-analysis of
studies on genotype-by-environment interactions, QTL analysis, cDNA-microarray
scanning and quantitative PCR to quantify gene expression, and two-dimensional
gel electrophoresis to quantify protein expression. Studying plasticity along the
pathway from gene expression to the phenotype and its relationship with fitness will
help us to better understand why adaptive plasticity is not more universal, and to
more realistically predict the evolution of plastic responses to environmental change." (emphasis added)

Constraints on the evolution of adaptive phenotypic plasticity in plants
Mark van Kleunen and Markus Fischer
New Phytologist (2005) doi : 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01296.x
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01296.x (free full text)

also:

"Phenotypic plasticity itself evolves, as does any other quantitative trait. A very
different question is whether phenotypic plasticity causes evolution or is a major
evolutionary mechanism. Existing models of the evolution of phenotypic plasticity
cover many of the proposals in the literature about the role of phenotypic plasticity in
evolution. I will extend existing models to cover adaptation to a novel environment,
the appearance of ecotypes and possible covariation between phenotypic plasticity
and mean trait value of ecotypes. Genetic assimilation does not sufficiently explain
details of observed patterns. Phenotypic plasticity as a major mechanism for evolution
– such as, invading new niches, speciation or macroevolution – has, at present, neither
empirical nor model support." (emphasis added)

The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in spatially structured environments: implications of intraspecific competition, plasticity costs and environmental characteristics
B. Ernande & U. Dieckmann
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 17 Page 613 - May 2004
doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00691.x
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00691.x

 

[Tomk80]

Here we go again.

Supersport: "Evolutionists ignore phenotypic plasticity"

Evolutionists: "But we don't, we study it in depth and it fits perfectly in the framework of evolution"

Supersport: *no listen, leave thread, start new thread with essentially the same subject*

Supersport, for the umpteenth time, phenotypic plasticity is taken into account with the theory of evolution.

By the way, have you taken up a genetics book yet by now?

 

[Elduran]

What, no completely inappropriate use of "checkmate" this time? HA!

 

[gluadys]

Evolutionists have it all wrong. Life is miraculous, scientifically unexplainable and utterly mind-blowing. The following is an example that you will never read in evolutionists' books because these authors must avoid the miraculous events of nature in order to sound credible.

http://www.fiu.edu/~donnelly/termpaperex1.pdf#search='plasticity%20body%20struc ture'

1) in the presence of a predator, eggs can hatch at later times:


..... Flatworms (Phagocotus gracilis) were used as
predators or predator chemical cues upon salamander larvae (Ambystoma texanum and Ambystoma barbouri). The presence of the flatworms and their cues induced the eggs to delay their hatching time. This resulted in larger, and more advanced hatchlings. This finding supports the earlier field observations that the flatworm preyed heavily on smaller, less developed hatchlings. This shift in hatch time is adaptive and supports greater hatchling survival (Sih and Moore 1993).

Any evolutionists care to explain this phenomenon? How can this near-miracle happen without intelligence?

2) specific morphological changes happens due to predators:

In 1997 McCollum and Leimberger examined the morphological changes that
arose in the gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) in response to the presence of a predatory dragonfly (Aesha umbrosa). The larvae that were reared in the presence of the predator differed in shape and in color than those that were reared in predator free environments. The treatments exposed tadpoles to tail damage and to chemical cues of the dragonfly feeding on conspecifics. The tadpoles responded plastically by altering their color and tail shape. The tail was extended, presumably increasing swimming speed and hence survivorship. The color change was seen in the tail. The appearance of color on the tail is thought to attract predatory attacks on the tail rather than on the body.

3) specific behavior changes as a result of predators

Larval anurans have demonstrated phenotypic plasticity in response to variation in food availability (Anholt 1998). It has been argued that food availability and predation risk are intertwined. This can be demonstrated when food resources in an environment are high, search time by prey is reduced and predation success may suffer. During times of limited
food availability search time may be lengthened, thus increasing prey vulnerability to predation (Anholt and Werner 1998). In the presence of predators, search time is reduced as activity is restricted to avoid predation.

4) Diet induces developmental changes in physical characteristics.

Depending on their diet, individuals (tadpoles) of both species develop into either a small-headed omnivore morph, which feeds mostly on detritus, or a large-headed carnivore morph, which specializes on shrimp.

http://www.citeulike.org/user/balicea/article/454684
--------------------------------------------------------------

Thus if plasticity can instantly effect the hatch time of eggs, the size, shape, color, and physical/behavior characteristics of an animal, then about the only place I see a role for random mutations via natural selection is in the wishfully creative minds of evolutionists.

And this study is just on tadpoles. Does anyone think that this is not a world-wide, creation-wide phenomenon? Of course it is. Every creature is a product of their environment. Traits are formed from the beginning of conception -- all the way throughout life. Over time, this may give the illusion of "evolution" in the fossil record.

This would explain why there are virtually no intermediate fossils. This would also explain why gradualism is not found in the fossil record. This would also explain why evolutionists cannot give us any example of random mutations that could lead to cumulative selection -- because they DON'T EXIST.

Typical. A creationist cites three great examples of adaptive evolution under the selection pressure of predators, yet claims these are not examples of natural selection.

Do us a favour, supersport. Read two books: The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner and In the Blink of an Eye by Andrew Parker. Don't assume you know what they say from book reviews you have read. Read the books themselves.

Then show us why the tadpoles are not examples of natural selection.

 

[Opethian]

Why are you still feeding this troll? We explained everything he needed to know to understand evolution and why phenotypic plasticity presents no problem for it, in the very first thread he created. We refuted all of his ideas in the very first thread he created. He never takes any of it into account. This guy has a cognitive bias that's almost as large as his ego, just too bad his knowledge and intelligence is inversely proportionate to that. It has no use to argue with him, you cannot change his fixed and laughable ideas, he just selectively takes only information that supports his ideas into account, or if he can't find any, he twists other information to make it seem like it supports him. The fact that he keeps creating and fleeing threads should be enough to show this. There is no point in posting in his threads anymore. Stop wasting your time evolutionists, and supersport, STOP WASTING OUR TIME!

 

[supersport]

Not to mention intellectually dishonest. You're like oreo cookies -- you say one thing on the outside -- but you think different things on the inside. You totally and completely make your theory unfalsifiable. On the one hand you say something like the following:


Evolution is a strange mechanism.
When we say "animals adapt to their environment" what we really mean is:

• an animal produces offspring or "replicates"
• the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies
• some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate
• which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment
• inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLetter/E/Evolution.html

Yet then you have geniuses say, "oh well....plasticity has evolved over millions of years"

And then all you have to do is NOT TEST ANYHING!!! Don't test to see if animals emerge with correct traits. Don't test to see how future generations may emerge with new colors, shapes and sizes to match the new environment. That way it's easy to say -- "Oh well, that's not evolution because furture generations will not change."

What a joke. Science is a joke....full of dishonest CHICKENS!

 

[notto]

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment

No, what is said is that the genetics an individual are born with are the genetics they die with. The genetics and heritable characteristics of an individual do not change during their lifetime to be passed of to their offspring (that would be lamarkism).

If you would have quoted the full sentance from the site you linked to , this would be obvious. Why did you leave the second part out? Another dishonest quotemine.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

If you really took the time to read some books on genetics and evolution, this would be apparent to you.

You have turned a statement into a strawmn through selective quotemining. This seems to be a fairly common occurance in your arguments. Why is that?

It is well know that individuals adapt to their environment. The evolve the ability to do so through regular mechanisms of evolution.

It's so cute to see creationists misread things and think they have discovered something new only to be shown that it has been known about and researched for years.

You have shown nothing that puts a dent in our understanding of evolution, genetics, and how new heritable traits come about.

 

[notto]

And then all you have to do is NOT TEST ANYHING!!! Don't test to see if animals emerge with correct traits. Don't test to see how future generations may emerge with new colors, shapes and sizes to match the new environment. That way it's easy to say -- "Oh well, that's not evolution because furture generations will not change."

What a joke. Science is a joke....full of dishonest CHICKENS!

Do you know what these are?

How about these?

(Another tip for debating evolution - when your argument can be shown to be false with Google image search, it might be time to get a new argument)

 

[supersport]

No, what is said is that the genetics an individual are born with are the genetics they die with. The genetics and heritable characteristics of an individual do not change during their lifetime to be passed of to their offspring (that would be lamarkism).

If you would have quoted the full sentance from the site you linked to , this would be obvious. Why did you leave the second part out? Another dishonest quotemine.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment; they don't change genetically during their lifetime.

If you really took the time to read some books on genetics and evolution, this would be apparent to you.

You have turned a statement into a strawmn through selective quotemining. This seems to be a fairly common occurance in your arguments. Why is that?

It is well know that individuals adapt to their environment. The evolve the ability to do so through regular mechanisms of evolution.

It's so cute to see creationists misread things and think they have discovered something new only to be shown that it has been known about and researched for years.

You have shown nothing that puts a dent in our understanding of evolution, genetics, and how new heritable traits come about.

That is not dishonest at all ....the second part of that sentence is a strawman.

This site says the same thing:

http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwep1.htm


Adaptations All organisms have adaptations that help them survive and thrive. Some adaptations are structural. Structural adaptations are physical features of an organism like the bill on a bird or the fur on a bear. Other adaptations are behavioral. Behavioral adaptations are the things organisms do to survive. For example, bird calls and migration are behavioral adaptations.
Adaptations are the result of evolution. Evolution is a change in a species over long periods of timare the result of evolution. Evolution is a change in a species over long periods of time

all this can be completely explained under plasticity -- which could give the ILLUSION of evoution in the fossil record -- and in darwin's finches and peppered moths.

 

[Tomk80]

That is not dishonest at all ....the second part of that sentence is a strawman.

Strawman? It's the most important part of the whole sentence.

So, supersport. When are you finally actually going to study up on genetics? So that you actually know something about it when discussing it? Don't you think that would be a good idea? The same goes for your knowledge on evolution.

 

[notto]

That is not dishonest at all ....the second part of that sentence is a strawman.

How so? What is it a strawman of? What is the valid argument that it is misrepresenting? Do you know what a strawman is?

This site says the same thing:

http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwep1.htm


Adaptations All organisms have adaptations that help them survive and thrive. Some adaptations are structural. Structural adaptations are physical features of an organism like the bill on a bird or the fur on a bear. Other adaptations are behavioral. Behavioral adaptations are the things organisms do to survive. For example, bird calls and migration are behavioral adaptations.
Adaptations are the result of evolution. Evolution is a change in a species over long periods of timare the result of evolution. Evolution is a change in a species over long periods of time

And if you follow the links on evolution, it says exactly what has been said before. Evolution is the result of selection acting on variation within a population, not individuals adapting. The variation is due to genetic mutation and recombination. Wow. Shocking stuff.

Each organism in a species has a slightly different genetic makeup. Organisms within a species that have characteristics that help them survive in their environment tend to breed and pass on those positive characteristics.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

all this can be completely explained under plasticity -- which could give the ILLUSION of evoution in the fossil record -- and in darwin's finches and peppered moths.

But without a mechansism or evidence, your argument is bunk. The evidence contradicts your claims at every turn. Sorry dude, you don't have an argument.

Your claim is that organisms in different environments are not studied and darwins finches and peppered moths show that they have been, extensively. Why do you keep repeating a falsehood?

If you argument is based on quotemines, a process that has no mechansism, falsehoods that can be shown to be demonstratably wrong, and poor reading comprehension, you should think about a new argument.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm thinking, how can differentiation in different breeds of a species even occur if supersport's argument were true. I mean, a labrador, doberman pincher and poodle live in quite the same environment, just as a shetland pony, Frisian work horse and arab horse. Yet they are completely different in build. In supersport's scenario, this is impossible. Selective breeding, on the other hand, and thus genetics, explains the phenomenon quite handsomely.

 

[gluadys]

Not to mention intellectually dishonest. You're like oreo cookies -- you say one thing on the outside -- but you think different things on the inside. You totally and completely make your theory unfalsifiable. On the one hand you say something like the following:


Evolution is a strange mechanism.
When we say "animals adapt to their environment" what we really mean is:

• an animal produces offspring or "replicates"
• the replicates are close to the original, but not exact copies
• some of these copies survive and replicate again, others die before they can replicate
• which copies replicate and which die before they can do so is influenced by the environment
• inexact copies whose differences make them less well adapted to the environment have a higher probability of dying, those better adapted get a higher chance of surviving to replication age.

Individual animals do not adapt to their environment

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLetter/E/Evolution.html

Yet then you have geniuses say, "oh well....plasticity has evolved over millions of years"

And then all you have to do is NOT TEST ANYHING!!! Don't test to see if animals emerge with correct traits. Don't test to see how future generations may emerge with new colors, shapes and sizes to match the new environment. That way it's easy to say -- "Oh well, that's not evolution because furture generations will not change."

What a joke. Science is a joke....full of dishonest CHICKENS!

Read the books I suggested, supersport. You will find these ideas have been tested and are continually being tested.

 

[supersport]

the second part of that sentence is a strawman because no one on the Creationist side is saying that genes change during the lifetime of an individual. That's a nonsense statement.

However, animals DO adapt individually in their lifetime....which is what the whole article is about -- he says that adaptation is a populational event -- that's not true.

 

[notto]

the second part of that sentence is a strawman because no one on the Creationist side is saying that genes change during the lifetime of an individual. That's a nonsense statement.

Who said anything about creationists? You clearly misrepresented the statement from the site you linked to. It is not a strawman. It is a statement that we know to be true. The only strawman is the one you created when you left the second part of the sentence off.

However, animals DO adapt individually in their lifetime.

Yep - but there genetics don't change. No 'evolutionist' would say otherwise. To claim that they do would be a strawman. That is what you are doing so you argument is a strawman.

Your own cites where you try to suggest that evolutionists are saying that individuals don't adapt directly contradicts your claim.

You either need to read your sources closer or quit purposely misrepresenting them.

Quotemines and strawmen are all you have presented.

 

[Tomk80]

the second part of that sentence is a strawman because no one on the Creationist side is saying that genes change during the lifetime of an individual. That's a nonsense statement.

However, animals DO adapt individually in their lifetime....which is what the whole article is about -- he says that adaptation is a populational event -- that's not true.

Meaning adaptation of the population. He doesn't talk about individual adaptation in the first place. Not because he denies it exists, not because he does not think it happens, but because that is not the subject. That's why the last part of the sentence is important, it actually denotes what he is talking about.

Well, at least I see where the problem comes from for a part in your statements. Reading incomprehension.