Peppered Hares — An Emerging Evolutionary Icon

[Anguspure]

Here is an emerging icon of evolution: the snowshoe hare. This animal is similar to the jackrabbit, except that it turns white in winter, giving it camouflage against the snow. In milder climates, though, turning white would be a disadvantage, so its relatives remain brown in winter.

One notices a similarity to the story of peppered moths, but the authors of a recent study compare it to Darwin’s finches. Maybe we’ll get two icons hybridizing into one!

The report by Jones et al. in Science, “Adaptive introgression underlies polymorphic seasonal camouflage in snowshoe hares,” makes this comparison to Darwin’s finches:.....

With this background, let’s ask some questions about the work by Jones et al. on snowshoe hares.

Did they find a random mutation? No, they found existing variants.

Did they find new genetic information?
No, just differences in the amount of regulation of an existing gene.

Did they find positive selection?
Not for this case; they only mentioned it for Darwin’s finches, but misrepresented the situation.

Did they find speciation?
Arguably not, because jackrabbits and snowshoe hares can hybridize and produce fertile offspring. According to the biological species concept, that makes them varieties, not separate species.

Did they find irreversible, directional change?
No, they admit that climate change “may further intensify directional selection for winter-brown camouflage,” which would simply change the ratio of existing varieties. That would mimic the peppered moth icon.

Did they rule out intelligent design?
No, because ID would predict that species will be engineered to adapt to the environment.

In Zombie Science, Jonathan Wells tells about the shenanigans Darwinians pulled with finches and peppered moths. For instance, Michael Majerus showed sampling bias in his counts of peppered moths, and assumed that those he released that he couldn’t find had been eaten by birds (pp. 64-66), when they might have just flown to some other place. From this dubious work, he claimed that peppered moths remain “proof of evolution” and concluded that humans had invented God, a “helping hand from on high” when the grand materialistic story of Darwinism had rendered a designer superfluous.

No one suspects the Montana team of gluing white hares to brown rocks. But neither should you be surprised if some Darwinists try to make the conclusions outrun the data.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/peppered-hares-an-emerging-evolutionary-icon/

 

[Brightmoon]

Problem is, every link to any claimed past ancestry is at every single point only substantiated by common ancestors that are each and every one missing, no matter which tree we discuss.....

Here is an emerging icon of evolution: the snowshoe hare. This animal is similar to the jackrabbit, except that it turns white in winter, giving it camouflage against the snow. In milder climates, though, turning white would be a disadvantage, so its relatives remain brown in winter.

One notices a similarity to the story of peppered moths, but the authors of a recent study compare it to Darwin’s finches. Maybe we’ll get two icons hybridizing into one!

The report by Jones et al. in Science, “Adaptive introgression underlies polymorphic seasonal camouflage in snowshoe hares,” makes this comparison to Darwin’s finches:.....

With this background, let’s ask some questions about the work by Jones et al. on snowshoe hares.

Did they find a random mutation? No, they found existing variants.

Did they find new genetic information?
No, just differences in the amount of regulation of an existing gene.

Did they find positive selection?
Not for this case; they only mentioned it for Darwin’s finches, but misrepresented the situation.

Did they find speciation?
Arguably not, because jackrabbits and snowshoe hares can hybridize and produce fertile offspring. According to the biological species concept, that makes them varieties, not separate species.

Did they find irreversible, directional change?
No, they admit that climate change “may further intensify directional selection for winter-brown camouflage,” which would simply change the ratio of existing varieties. That would mimic the peppered moth icon.

Did they rule out intelligent design?
No, because ID would predict that species will be engineered to adapt to the environment.

In Zombie Science, Jonathan Wells tells about the shenanigans Darwinians pulled with finches and peppered moths. For instance, Michael Majerus showed sampling bias in his counts of peppered moths, and assumed that those he released that he couldn’t find had been eaten by birds (pp. 64-66), when they might have just flown to some other place. From this dubious work, he claimed that peppered moths remain “proof of evolution” and concluded that humans had invented God, a “helping hand from on high” when the grand materialistic story of Darwinism had rendered a designer superfluous.

No one suspects the Montana team of gluing white hares to brown rocks. But neither should you be surprised if some Darwinists try to make the conclusions outrun the data.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/peppered-hares-an-emerging-evolutionary-icon/

. This is the silliest thing I’ve ever read. Of course two different species can hybridize. Neanderthals and humans or grizzlies and polar bears hybridized even though they’re two different species. Complete Genome separation occurs long after speciation. The issue here is that they’re closely related and that in the distant past they might have been part of the same species. . In some organisms the light combined with the temperature causes the hair to change color . because of global warming the second trigger might it occur . This process is how organisms respond to temporary changes local environments and this is already part of their genes.

 

[Jimmy D]

 

[sfs]

With this background, let’s ask some questions about the work by Jones et al. on snowshoe hares.

Since you've stated that you're not interested in the answers, why are you asking questions? It's more than a little rude to pretend to be engaging in a discussion when all you're doing is spreading propaganda.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here is an emerging icon of evolution: the snowshoe hare. This animal is similar to the jackrabbit, except that it turns white in winter, giving it camouflage against the snow. In milder climates, though, turning white would be a disadvantage, so its relatives remain brown in winter.

One notices a similarity to the story of peppered moths, but the authors of a recent study compare it to Darwin’s finches. Maybe we’ll get two icons hybridizing into one!

The report by Jones et al. in Science, “Adaptive introgression underlies polymorphic seasonal camouflage in snowshoe hares,” makes this comparison to Darwin’s finches:.....

With this background, let’s ask some questions about the work by Jones et al. on snowshoe hares.

Did they find a random mutation? No, they found existing variants.

Did they find new genetic information?
No, just differences in the amount of regulation of an existing gene.

Did they find positive selection?
Not for this case; they only mentioned it for Darwin’s finches, but misrepresented the situation.

Did they find speciation?
Arguably not, because jackrabbits and snowshoe hares can hybridize and produce fertile offspring. According to the biological species concept, that makes them varieties, not separate species.

Did they find irreversible, directional change?
No, they admit that climate change “may further intensify directional selection for winter-brown camouflage,” which would simply change the ratio of existing varieties. That would mimic the peppered moth icon.

Did they rule out intelligent design?
No, because ID would predict that species will be engineered to adapt to the environment.

In Zombie Science, Jonathan Wells tells about the shenanigans Darwinians pulled with finches and peppered moths. For instance, Michael Majerus showed sampling bias in his counts of peppered moths, and assumed that those he released that he couldn’t find had been eaten by birds (pp. 64-66), when they might have just flown to some other place. From this dubious work, he claimed that peppered moths remain “proof of evolution” and concluded that humans had invented God, a “helping hand from on high” when the grand materialistic story of Darwinism had rendered a designer superfluous.

No one suspects the Montana team of gluing white hares to brown rocks. But neither should you be surprised if some Darwinists try to make the conclusions outrun the data.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/peppered-hares-an-emerging-evolutionary-icon/

Yah, let's compare them to Darwin's finches....

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/9/5101.full

“The traditional classification of ground finches into six species and tree finches into five species is not reflected in the molecular data.”

So the DNA data does not agree with their classification of ground and tree finches into separate species.

www.nature.com/articles/nature14181

“Extensive sharing of genetic variation among populations was evident, particularly among ground and tree finches, with almost no fixed differences between species in each group.”

In fact it shows extensive breeding between them, with no fixed DNA markers to distinguish them as separate species.

But of course they will never admit publicly that Darwin might have simply made a mistake in classification. They will never correct their incorrect classifications and reclassify them all as one species, merely subspecies in the species at the most.

His choice of separate species to compare them to is telling, being that the DNA data shows they are not separate species at all, but the same species. That speciation never occurred at all. I can understand why he would be confused and think hares show speciation like finches do - in reality, none at all.

 

[Anguspure]

Since you've stated that you're not interested in the answers, why are you asking questions? It's more than a little rude to pretend to be engaging in a discussion when all you're doing is spreading propaganda.

Yah...weell, when truth is labelled as propoganda in order to protect the dominant discourse it is kinda hard to find enthusiasm.
Nevertheless it is interesting to observe the discussion.

 

[sfs]

Yah...weell, when truth is labelled as propoganda in order to protect the dominant discourse it is kinda hard to find enthusiasm.

It's not labelled as propaganda in order to protect the dominant discourse. I labelled it as propaganda because it's falsehood dressed up as scientific-sounding arguments for the purpose of fooling those who don't know any better -- and because you refuse to stand behind your own claims.

 

[Anguspure]

It's not labelled as propaganda in order to protect the dominant discourse. I labelled it as propaganda because it's falsehood dressed up as scientific-sounding arguments for the purpose of fooling those who don't know any better -- and because you refuse to stand behind your own claims.

Falsehood? ROFL.
The habit of Darwinists extrapolating well beyond observation in order to promote extravagant claims of accidental invention is practically a prerogative.

 

[sfs]

Falsehood? ROFL.

Yup, falsehood. Let's take a look at your OP in this thread. . .

Did they find a random mutation? No, they found existing variants.

True. But since variants are the product of random mutations, it's not clear why you think this is a relevant point.

Did they find new genetic information?
No, just differences in the amount of regulation of an existing gene.

False. Regulation of an existing gene is coded by genetic information; how do you think gene regulation works, anyway? A change to gene regulation requires a change to genetic information.

Did they find positive selection?
Not for this case; they only mentioned it for Darwin’s finches, but misrepresented the situation.

False. They found increased genetic divergence between color populations around the relevant gene, which is one of the classic signatures of positive selection. They also explicitly stated that they had found evidence for a selective sweep in one of the populations: "To link introgression with local adaptation, we tested for selective sweeps on the basis of allele frequency skews (32) while controlling for demographic history (fig. S9 and table S9). We detected a hard sweep overlapping Agouti in winter-brown individuals from the polymorphic zone but no evidence for a sweep in winter-white individuals (figs. S10 and S11)." Did you even read the paper?

Did they find speciation?
Arguably not, because jackrabbits and snowshoe hares can hybridize and produce fertile offspring. According to the biological species concept, that makes them varieties, not separate species.

Um, no, they didn't find speciation. Were you under the impression they were looking for speciation? Again, did you read the paper?

Did they find irreversible, directional change?
No, they admit that climate change “may further intensify directional selection for winter-brown camouflage,” which would simply change the ratio of existing varieties. That would mimic the peppered moth icon.

Were they looking for irreversible, directional change? What does this question even have to do with the paper?

Did they rule out intelligent design?
No, because ID would predict that species will be engineered to adapt to the environment.

Since you post this as a valid question, you must have a clear idea of what would rule out intelligent design. What observation would do so?

So your post had two outright falsehoods, two specious comments that look like they're critiquing the study but actually have nothing to do with it, and one misleading response. Yeah, I can see why you don't want to defend this stuff.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Here is an emerging icon of evolution: the snowshoe hare. This animal is similar to the jackrabbit, except that it turns white in winter, giving it camouflage against the snow. In milder climates, though, turning white would be a disadvantage, so its relatives remain brown in winter.

One notices a similarity to the story of peppered moths, but the authors of a recent study compare it to Darwin’s finches. Maybe we’ll get two icons hybridizing into one!

The report by Jones et al. in Science, “Adaptive introgression underlies polymorphic seasonal camouflage in snowshoe hares,” makes this comparison to Darwin’s finches:.....

With this background, let’s ask some questions about the work by Jones et al. on snowshoe hares.

Did they find a random mutation? No, they found existing variants.

Did they find new genetic information?
No, just differences in the amount of regulation of an existing gene.

Did they find positive selection?
Not for this case; they only mentioned it for Darwin’s finches, but misrepresented the situation.

Did they find speciation?
Arguably not, because jackrabbits and snowshoe hares can hybridize and produce fertile offspring. According to the biological species concept, that makes them varieties, not separate species.

Did they find irreversible, directional change?
No, they admit that climate change “may further intensify directional selection for winter-brown camouflage,” which would simply change the ratio of existing varieties. That would mimic the peppered moth icon.

Did they rule out intelligent design?
No, because ID would predict that species will be engineered to adapt to the environment.

In Zombie Science, Jonathan Wells tells about the shenanigans Darwinians pulled with finches and peppered moths. For instance, Michael Majerus showed sampling bias in his counts of peppered moths, and assumed that those he released that he couldn’t find had been eaten by birds (pp. 64-66), when they might have just flown to some other place. From this dubious work, he claimed that peppered moths remain “proof of evolution” and concluded that humans had invented God, a “helping hand from on high” when the grand materialistic story of Darwinism had rendered a designer superfluous.

No one suspects the Montana team of gluing white hares to brown rocks. But neither should you be surprised if some Darwinists try to make the conclusions outrun the data.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/peppered-hares-an-emerging-evolutionary-icon/

Oh, Look, yet Another dishonest posting by @Anguspure that he can't or won't defend...

 

[Anguspure]

True. But since variants are the product of random mutations, it's not clear why you think this is a relevant point.

Variants within the genetic OS are not the product of mutation. Rather they are part of the design redundancy of a syestem.

False. Regulation of an existing gene is coded by genetic information; how do you think gene regulation works, anyway? A change to gene regulation requires a change to genetic information.

Genetic information redundancy allows for a certain amount of change within prescribed limits. This sort of change is transferred to progeny however when changes that exceed design limitations are exceeded procreation ceases.

False. They found increased genetic divergence between color populations around the relevant gene, which is one of the classic signatures of positive selection. They also explicitly stated that they had found evidence for a selective sweep in one of the populations: "To link introgression with local adaptation, we tested for selective sweeps on the basis of allele frequency skews (32) while controlling for demographic history (fig. S9 and table S9). We detected a hard sweep overlapping Agouti in winter-brown individuals from the polymorphic zone but no evidence for a sweep in winter-white individuals (figs. S10 and S11)." Did you even read the paper?

I disagree.

Um, no, they didn't find speciation. Were you under the impression they were looking for speciation? Again, did you read the paper?

Speciation is necessarily more basic than the sort of evolutionary change sought by the researchers. Not even speciation was observed, let alone some sort of significant genetic change.

Were they looking for irreversible, directional change? What does this question even have to do with the paper?

If a mutatuon is not preserved as beneficial then it is an evolutionary dead end. Caput!

Since you post this as a valid question, you must have a clear idea of what would rule out intelligent design. What observation would do so?

ID identifies biological systems that have flexibility and redundancy to allow huge biological variation, the best explanation for which is design.

ID would be ruled out if it could be demonstrated that the observed biological phenomina could not possibly have been brought about through a process if design.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is an emerging icon of evolution: the snowshoe hare. This animal is similar to the jackrabbit, except that it turns white in winter, giving it camouflage against the snow. In milder climates, though, turning white would be a disadvantage, so its relatives remain brown in winter.

One notices a similarity to the story of peppered moths, but the authors of a recent study compare it to Darwin’s finches. Maybe we’ll get two icons hybridizing into one!

Let me see if I got this straight.

Some scientists see a hare turn white when it snows in winter, but stays brown if it doesn't snow.

So they retcon this thing back to Darwin and elevate it to the status of "icon of evolution"?

It only looks good on paper.

The chameleon has the snowshoe hare beat in spades; and the caterpillar has them both tore up.

 

[sfs]

Let me see if I got this straight.

Some scientists see a hare turn white when it snows in winter, but stays brown if it doesn't snow.

So they retcon this thing back to Darwin and elevate it to the status of "icon of evolution"?

Nope. Some scientists see a hare turn white when it snows in winter, and ask how exactly that trait evolved. They answer the question. Nobody touts it as an icon of evolution -- it's just one more example of natural selection at work. Then some ID folks come along, lie about what's in the paper, criticize it for not doing things it wasn't trying to do, and bamboozle the gullible.

 

[sfs]

Variants within the genetic OS are not the product of mutation. Rather they are part of the design redundancy of a syestem.

Great -- let's see your empirical support for this claim. When were these variants introduced? How can we tell which they are? What characteristics should they have? We know what mutations look like -- how many of each kind of variant we should find -- and we can compare that expectation to both within-species variation and between-species differences. Where are the variants that don't fit the expected pattern?

Genetic information redundancy allows for a certain amount of change within prescribed limits.

That doesn't seem to mean anything. Genetic information is the information encoded in the DNA. What's redundant about it? And what does that "redundancy" have to do with the need to have new genetic information to change gene regulation?

I disagree.

You disagree with what? That relatively high localized divergence is a signature of positive selection? That this paper measured localized higher divergence (here using the statistic Fst)? That the words I quoted from that paper were actually in the paper -- you know, the words that flatly contradicted your claim about the paper?

You also didn't answer my question: did you read the paper before posting the OP?

Speciation is necessarily more basic than the sort of evolutionary change sought by the researchers. Not even speciation was observed, let alone some sort of significant genetic change.

Completely false. The researchers were not searching for speciation, nor for genetic change more dramatic than speciation. If you think that's what they were doing, quote where they express those aims. What they were actually trying to do was to untangle the detailed history of a particular adaptive trait. Criticizing them for not doing something that wasn't remotely in the scope of their study is a strawman attack -- the sort of thing one would expect to see in propaganda. Now tell me again why we should take these postings seriously. . .

If a mutatuon is not preserved as beneficial then it is an evolutionary dead end. Caput!

Sure. So what? Who has claimed that this study said anything at all permanent change, or about common descent?

ID identifies biological systems that have flexibility and redundancy to allow huge biological variation, the best explanation for which is design.

ID would be ruled out if it could be demonstrated that the observed biological phenomina could not possibly have been brought about through a process if design.

And what observed biological phenomenon could not possibly have been brought about through a process of design? How could we tell?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope.

What's this then?

Peppered Hares - An Emerging Evolutlionary Icon

 

[sfs]

What's this then?

Peppered Hares - An Emerging Evolutlionary Icon

That's the ID folks lying about what's in the paper, criticizing it for not doing things it wasn't trying to do, and bamboozling the gullible.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the ID folks lying about what's in the paper, criticizing it for not doing things it wasn't trying to do, and bamboozling the gullible.

From their site:

Evolution News & Science Today (EN) provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues, including breaking news about scientific research. It also covers the impact of science on culture and conflicts over free speech and academic freedom in science. Finally, it fact-checks and critiques media coverage of scientific issues.

SOURCE

Breaking news ... emerging icon ... aren't you being a little prejudgmental?

 

[Speedwell]

From their site:


SOURCE

Breaking news ... emerging icon ... aren't you being a little prejudgmental?

No, it's published by a fascist front organization whose only interest in creationism and ID is using it to promote an ugly and unAmerican political agenda.

 

[sfs]

Breaking news ... emerging icon ... aren't you being a little prejudgmental?

Prejudgmental about what? I gave the reasons for dismissing their coverage in the paper. That evolutionnews.org is written by ID folk is hardly news -- it's part of the Discovery Institute, the flagship of the ID movement.

 

[Ophiolite]

Since you've stated that you're not interested in the answers, why are you asking questions? It's more than a little rude to pretend to be engaging in a discussion when all you're doing is spreading propaganda.

I believe it counts as preaching. Isn't that against forum rules?