Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#15414 09/27/06 12:56 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Article says Crickets in Hawaii have lost the ability to make 'calls' using their wings. They are calling this evolution. The correct title is Devolution. The clever crickets have chosen an alternate way to attrack mates, so they are saying it is evolution at work. The ONLY way it could be the kind of evolution they are praying for is that the current wing weak crickets can be shown to have somehow acquired new DNA. Anything else is just plain old ordinary adaption. No different than a dog learning to walk on 3 legs after having lost one by accident.
Cheers!

.
#15415 09/27/06 01:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
hear here

you sho do be jus' 'bout right :-)

your analogy is a pretty weak in that the loss of a limb after birth is not a genetically related event...but your point is clear all the same

this same topic is on the *science* forum (forum 1 at this site) under topic title *evolution in action*

#15416 09/27/06 05:09 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
the difference between the dog learning to use three legs is that the dogs decendants will still have 4 legs and will still learn how to use them. Thats is why you dont see a lot of 3 legged dogs. You see a lot of the quiet crickets because it has become part of their dna.

there are always mutations going on. In this case likely a single cricket had the mutation, and because of it, he was able to mate where many others were not. that allowed him to have many offsprings. Those offsprings were able to mate while their noisy cousins were not, causing a large percentage of them to succeed in having more offsprings while the noisy ones had fewer make it to that point.

A three legged dog that lost his leg due to a genetic mutation would be at a disadvantage when it came to finding food, and finding mates. That would not give him much of a chance to have offspring. One that lost it due to accident would not have a gene that corrisponded to it.

This is actually more simular to the white and brown rabbits. when there was more snow during the increase in the ice age, mutations that caused the rabbits to have a white fur, gave them an advantage when it came to avoiding preditors over the the ones with brown fur. This cause the majority of the rabbits of that area to be born white furred. Later when the snow began to disappear, pure white was a disadvantage, so when a mutation occured that cause it to change from white to brown and back through the year, it had an advantage. Then when the snow disappeared in many areas, a mutation that left them with two colors gave those decendants an advantage. Now you can find some decendants of all of these in different areas.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#15417 10/01/06 11:51 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Where is the reference for your post that claims a mutation changed the color of the rabbits fur?

To be honest it sounds like you made that part up.

Still, I have to side with the original poster. It sounds more like de-evolution to me.

#15418 10/01/06 06:58 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
trollobyte wrote:
"It sounds more like de-evolution to me."

There is no concept in science of de-evolution. Did you find this somewhere or just make it up?


DA Morgan
#15419 10/01/06 10:12 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
CMJ:

This subject has received a lot of attention on the science forum where it was posted first.
"it is all irrelevant" sums it up.
jjw

#15420 10/02/06 12:20 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Morg, if you don't understand de-evolutionism...then perhaps you ought to study up just a bit.

#15421 10/02/06 12:27 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You're saying the crickets have chosen to change their wing shape and that this is the same as a dog learning to walk on 3 legs?

Wrong on both counts.

#15422 10/02/06 12:28 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
???????????

#15423 10/03/06 06:59 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
dehammer. You wrote:

"In this case likely a single cricket had the mutation, and because of it, he was able to mate where many others were not. that allowed him to have many offsprings."

At the risk of complicating matters I would point out that the cricket in which the mutation occurred is unlikely to have been the one where it first showed up. It was most likely a recessive mutation. Therefore until there had been some level of inbreeding it would not have showed up in the phenotype.

The same is true for the rabbits that change from white to brown with the seasons. New species do not arise from the expansion of small populations. Inbreeding prevents that. This is the problem that trilobyte, anyman and cmj are unable (or unwilling) to get their heads around. Populations as a whole evolve as their environment changes.

#15424 10/03/06 06:39 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
trilobyte wrote:
"Morg, if you don't understand de-evolutionism...then perhaps you ought to study up just a bit."

I admit it. I don't understand what you are trying to communicate with a made-up word that has no scientific significance.

And I would just love to study up on it. Perhaps you can point me to the ISBN number of a book I can get here at the University of Washington bookstore that discusses it.


DA Morgan

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5