February 3, 2010
Fish Species Said to Have 'Evolved' into Three
Distinct Species
There is a lot more biodiversity in the oceans than
previously thought.
Fish Species Said to Have 'Evolved' into Three
Distinct Species
There is a lot more biodiversity in the oceans than
previously thought.
SUMMARY: A fish called the King demoiselle, according to a new study, has
turned into three separate and distinct species. The study has also shown that
conservation efforts have failed to recognize the variety of species yet to be
identified.
"This work, along with others, is starting to show that there is a lot more
biodiversity in the oceans then we previously thought," said Joshua Drew, a
marine conservation biologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago. "We really are in a situation where we are losing things before we
even know they exist."
The King demoiselle is a variety of damselfish that lives in the Indo-West
Pacific. They are common in shallow waters and come in a variety of colors.
They are about the size of a human thumb.
In doing research, Drew's colleagues noticed that groups of King demoiselles
looked different in different geographical regions. So they sent him a dozen
fish samples taken from three separate populations in the South China Sea,
the Philippines and Indonesia. In his lab, Drew analyzed the samples for three
genes and concluded two had "evolved" rapidly and one slowly. He concluded
the groups only recently had begun to split.
Although fish are among the most scrutinized creatures on Earth, the study
shows we still don't know how many fish species there are. Drew urged more
emphasis on finding new species and also protecting the coral reefs.
(Photo of a King demoiselle (Cocoa damselfish) from Wikipedia. Thanks to Bill
Thorn for suggesting this topic.)
To read the entire article click on this link to MSNBC.
COMMENT: Let's give these researchers the benefit of the doubt (and the
article left plenty of room for doubt) and conclude that there are indeed three
species of fish where previously there was only one. Is this proof of evolution?
Amoeba-to-man evolution means changes from one kind of creature to
another, not changes of one variety of creature to another within the same
kind.
Most creationists are willing to admit that new species can come into
existence. We see that at times, whether in nature or in the laboratory. What
we don't see are entirely new kinds of animals evolving. Indeed, the three
species of King demoiselle pictured all look very similar except for coloring.
What would be newsworthy is if a damselfish was turning into a turtle or a
water snake or a dolphin. Such examples are, of course, impossible to find.
Evolutionists are among those people who often fall prey to a fallacious bit of
reasoning called the Affirmation of the Consequent. This idea comes in the
form of:
In other words--if evolution is true, then we ought to be able to see changes in
animals. We do see changes in animals. Therefore evolution is true.
The weakness in this reasoning is that there could be and often are other
reasons for seeing B besides A. In the case of changes in animals, genetics
allows for a certain amount of variation within an animal. However, there are
limits to how much the creature can vary, and it cannot change into a new kind
of creature. Therefore, this limited genetic variation, which we can witness,
would seem to be a more logical explanation for changes in animals than
Darwinian evolution, which we can't witness.
Creationists must also be careful not to fall into the Affirmation of the
Consequent trap, which is easy to do. If in doubt, go back and see what
the Word of God has to say about the topic. It says, "according to their kinds,"
not "according to some other kind." That settles the issue.
I've said it before, as for humanity changing, the only really big physical
change that will happen is the change that will happen on Judgment Day.
Then, those of us who have repented of our sins and come to faith in Jesus
as our Savior from sin will experience a huge change. No longer a weak sinful
being, every believer will be changed into a holy eternal creature as he enters
heaven's gates. Whether you want to call that a new variety of human or a
new kind of human, it will indeed be a wonderful new person ready to live in a
wonderful new place, with all credit going to God.
****************************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
****************************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Is honey really healthier than sugar?
****************************************************************************************************
turned into three separate and distinct species. The study has also shown that
conservation efforts have failed to recognize the variety of species yet to be
identified.
"This work, along with others, is starting to show that there is a lot more
biodiversity in the oceans then we previously thought," said Joshua Drew, a
marine conservation biologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago. "We really are in a situation where we are losing things before we
even know they exist."
The King demoiselle is a variety of damselfish that lives in the Indo-West
Pacific. They are common in shallow waters and come in a variety of colors.
They are about the size of a human thumb.
In doing research, Drew's colleagues noticed that groups of King demoiselles
looked different in different geographical regions. So they sent him a dozen
fish samples taken from three separate populations in the South China Sea,
the Philippines and Indonesia. In his lab, Drew analyzed the samples for three
genes and concluded two had "evolved" rapidly and one slowly. He concluded
the groups only recently had begun to split.
Although fish are among the most scrutinized creatures on Earth, the study
shows we still don't know how many fish species there are. Drew urged more
emphasis on finding new species and also protecting the coral reefs.
(Photo of a King demoiselle (Cocoa damselfish) from Wikipedia. Thanks to Bill
Thorn for suggesting this topic.)
To read the entire article click on this link to MSNBC.
COMMENT: Let's give these researchers the benefit of the doubt (and the
article left plenty of room for doubt) and conclude that there are indeed three
species of fish where previously there was only one. Is this proof of evolution?
Amoeba-to-man evolution means changes from one kind of creature to
another, not changes of one variety of creature to another within the same
kind.
Most creationists are willing to admit that new species can come into
existence. We see that at times, whether in nature or in the laboratory. What
we don't see are entirely new kinds of animals evolving. Indeed, the three
species of King demoiselle pictured all look very similar except for coloring.
What would be newsworthy is if a damselfish was turning into a turtle or a
water snake or a dolphin. Such examples are, of course, impossible to find.
Evolutionists are among those people who often fall prey to a fallacious bit of
reasoning called the Affirmation of the Consequent. This idea comes in the
form of:
In other words--if evolution is true, then we ought to be able to see changes in
animals. We do see changes in animals. Therefore evolution is true.
The weakness in this reasoning is that there could be and often are other
reasons for seeing B besides A. In the case of changes in animals, genetics
allows for a certain amount of variation within an animal. However, there are
limits to how much the creature can vary, and it cannot change into a new kind
of creature. Therefore, this limited genetic variation, which we can witness,
would seem to be a more logical explanation for changes in animals than
Darwinian evolution, which we can't witness.
Creationists must also be careful not to fall into the Affirmation of the
Consequent trap, which is easy to do. If in doubt, go back and see what
the Word of God has to say about the topic. It says, "according to their kinds,"
not "according to some other kind." That settles the issue.
I've said it before, as for humanity changing, the only really big physical
change that will happen is the change that will happen on Judgment Day.
Then, those of us who have repented of our sins and come to faith in Jesus
as our Savior from sin will experience a huge change. No longer a weak sinful
being, every believer will be changed into a holy eternal creature as he enters
heaven's gates. Whether you want to call that a new variety of human or a
new kind of human, it will indeed be a wonderful new person ready to live in a
wonderful new place, with all credit going to God.
****************************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
****************************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Is honey really healthier than sugar?
****************************************************************************************************
0 Comments
| LSI stands for the Lutheran Science Institute, an organization of WELS and ELS Lutherans interested in science and health issues with a special emphasis on the creation and evolution controversy. This blog's purpose is to search the Internet to find articles of interest to Christians. Views expressed are those of the author (Warren Krug) and are not necessarily those of the Lutheran Science Institute, Inc. |
While just about all natural sweeteners are
equally hard on teeth, waistlines, and
blood-sugar levels, honey has the advantage
of being a natural antimicrobial agent, and
studies show it can help heal wounds faster.
Source: Parade (1/17/2010)
equally hard on teeth, waistlines, and
blood-sugar levels, honey has the advantage
of being a natural antimicrobial agent, and
studies show it can help heal wounds faster.
Source: Parade (1/17/2010)
If A is true, then we should see B.
We see B.
Therefore A is true.
We see B.
Therefore A is true.