Still just a lizard

It was humans who brought the lizards to the second island, intelligent agents. Proof that "evolution" can only occur with the help of intelligent agents, and also proof that lizards can't turn into cows.

Sorry, had to pre-empt the usual expected IDiots nonsense.

Although cows with lizard tails and lizard heads would be hella cool.

The cecal valves are an evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards. That's important. This is more than a simple quantitative change, but is actually an observed qualitative change in a population, the appearance of a new morphological structure. Evolution created something new, and it did it quickly (about 30 generations), and the appearance was documented

Lizards are good for that. I have been into herpetology for over 10 years. One species of gecko that I own is often wild caught. There is an extreme variety in these geckos. However it seems very little is done to track the populations. Chances are good a few of these are new species and subspecies. The problem is few know were these are collected and few do anything to research these animals. These geckos are no mystery either. I am talking about the Tokay gecko. This species has an impressive coverage of many different habitats. It has also been introduced into many areas around the world. Although people seem focused on its feet I am willing to be it has other surprises for us.

Small lizards may hold a great deal of insights into evolution. From my experience there isn't much research into small lizards and reptiles. Most of what I do find is from people like me who collect and breed the animals. Then go on to write about them. Personally I think this is a great chance. I would love to study lizards. However the problem of money for school kinda puts that on hold.

Lizards are very well studied in evolutionary biology. Much of what we know about competition for example comes from lizard studies (e.g. Anolis lizards studies by Roughgarden, Losos, ect.)

It just proves that the pre-flood lizard was a vegitarian.

Evolution works.

I would speculate that we’re not seeing anything novel or not present. Instead, I propose we’re seeing gene expressions dormant in the source population but not (yet) lost, now being “turned on” as an existing switch activates an existing enhancer or enabler.

Long ago creationists (a.k.a. ID'ers) anticipated this kind of stuff so they undertook their own experiment. They tested their mettle by trying to cross an abalone with a crocodile. What they had hoped to demonstrate to the scientific community that such a match would refute evolution. They were looking for an "aba-dile" but like all of their pseudo-experiments all they ended up with was a "croco-balone." Even today they keep repeating this experiment but always with the same results.

DavidK: You're comical, but not topical. All these changes in 30 years--OR LESS--is an embarassment of riches for Darwinism. It shows "macroevolution" at work, not "microevolution"; which, in case you're not aware of it, Darwin rejected as a mechanism (despite T. Huxley's urgings of the contrary) for his theory.

Sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity. Then again, there are many off-topic comments on the line. On the other hand, give the lizard a little bit more time than 30 years (100, 1000, 10000 years or more) when BlastfromthePast won't be around and let's see what transpires.

I agree. This can easily be explained through a combination of “front-loading” and environmental triggering: ID has been talking about this for years.

ID has been talking about this for years.

Talk talk talk. What experiments have they done?

This experiment doesn’t prove that evolution works. It proves that species can quickly change their morphology.

The truth always wins out. You can tell by how those IDists who are anti-truth eventually have to argue.

"2+2 doesn't equal 4!" they exclaim. "Rather, when two apples are combined with two other apples, they happen to then exist as four apples. But this is hardly proof of 2+2 = 4."

In time, a genetic analysis can be done. Whether it's really worth the time and money is another question. It is my understanding that adaptations can take place very quickly, utilizing variation that is already present in the population. Longer term evolutionary activity requires a signficant "turnover" of the genome. Personally, I suspect that certain types of genetic events (eg., gene duplication) have more implications for long term evolution.

stevaroni wrote: Um, if species are shown to “quickly change their morphology”, apparently from pressures exerted by a changing environment, apparently through the mechanism of natural selection (to a new food source and lifestyle), um, how is that not “evolution working”?

Perhaps someone more well versed in taxonomy and systematics then I has immediate examples, but I'd say most often if you have a demonstrably different diet, distinguishable morphology, and different geography you would give this animal a new species name if you just found the two of these on seperate islands and had no idea about their history.

In terms of the mechanics the new muscle in the digestive tract probably is present in very low frequencies in the ancestral population. That is not particularly relevant to whether or not there was evolution happening and forming a new species. If the original mutation occured 10 years ago, 50 years ago, or has been preserved as a neutral mutation for 100,000 years in the population doesn't really matter. It was available variation that in a different context produced a fitness advantage.

BlastfromthePast should also be aware that Darwin's particular preference for the pace of evolutionary change is not terribly relevant. This rapid change during a speciation event is exactly what punctuated equilibrium predicts. It also fits with patterns seen in lab selection experiments where what are superficially different conditions actually change a wide variety of selection parameters and can lead to a great deal of change in relatively few generations.

My initial reaction is identical with Flint. (But not with BlastfromthePast. I fail to see why it would be "front-loading" if the ancestors of the family had a diet similar to what is available on Pod Mrcaru.) 30 generations is extremely fast even for a single allele to become fixed (although in this case the founder effect should greatly help, I think). A saltation is out of the question, even by tradition. And a gradual sequence of several mutations just doesn't sound feasible at all given the short time interval.

So instead of the evolution of a novelty, my hypothesis is that a single regulatory mutation, turning the structure back on in the phenotype, was already present in one of the ten individuals brought to Pod Kopiste, and was brought to quick fixation by the founder effect and the diet available on Pod Mrcaru.

I'd like to know if the lizard has a mutated enzyme like hoatzins or langur monkeys to help digest the bacteria from the fermentation.

You are all missing the point!!! This was foretold in the Old Testament.

These lizards were clearly frontloaded for cecal valves in the Garden of Eden, 6,000 years ago. The Designer knew they would be kidnapped in 1971 by evil Darwinists and transplanted.

They are also clearly god's the Designer's chosen lizards. They managed to exterminate the resident Canaanites native species in a minor genocidal war. And they don't eat shellfish or wear clothes made from two different fibers.

Like Ham says, you need to look at the data through the lens of the bible to really understand what is going on.

stevaroni: Um, if species are shown to "quickly change their morphology", apparently from pressures exerted by a changing environment, apparently through the mechanism of natural selection (to a new food source and lifestyle), um, how is that not "evolution working"?

Just wondering what the possible outcome would be if they were left there for 3,600 years? Do these gradual adaptations produce new species?

Just wondering what the possible outcome would be if they were left there for 3,600 years? Do these gradual adaptations produce new species?

It has been known for a while that species can change drastically in a short period of time.

Dogs descended from wolves within 10,000 years. Does a spaniel or chihuahua look like a wolf? [These differences have little to do with modern breeding which seeks to prevent morphological change and has resulted in breeds with very little genetic variation.]

Or corn from teosinte, within the last 5K years. The changes from teosinte to corn are known somewhat. It apparently took changes in a few alleles and no major mutations to produce the crop form.

Most species have a lot of variation, much of it cryptic. IMO, the rate limiting step in evolution is selection pressure, not mutation frequency.

IMO, the rate limiting step in evolution is selection pressure, not mutation frequency.

These result show clearly that the lizard God intervened to bestow them the much-needed stomach muscles to digest plants.

This debunks both Evolution and Christianity. So there.

[quote]Most species have a lot of variation, much of it cryptic. IMO, the rate limiting step in evolution is selection pressure, not mutation frequency.[/quote]

Don't you think that kinda depends on population size? We're talking about an initial population of 10 here, having a habitat of 0.03 km2 to expand into. The islet might be a scenic paradise, but not exactly a paradise for genetic variation.

In regards to the variation and mutation issue, I think the most accurate way to view it is to think of the rate of evolution is capable of initially a very rapid burst of change with a new set of selection pressures (which can be seen in this case or numerous lab selection experiments) and then you approach the limit asymptotically. The only thing is that mutation is continuously moving the asymptote out a little bit at a time.

The basic definition of evolution is change in the genetic make up of a population. Based on the few sequences which have been studied, it seems the new population is no different than its parent population. Whether we are seeing morphological and behavioral plasticity present, but unexpressed, in the parent population; or if there are correlated genetic differences in the new population has not been addressed so far as I can tell. I speculate that there have been correlated genetic changes; but speculation is all I can manage based on what I know.

Jim Thomerson: Based on the few sequences which have been studied, it seems the new population is no different than its parent population. Whether we are seeing morphological and behavioral plasticity present, but unexpressed, in the parent population; or if there are correlated genetic differences in the new population has not been addressed so far as I can tell. I speculate that there have been correlated genetic changes; but speculation is all I can manage based on what I know.

I think it is quite reasonable to get the reported phenotypic changes in 30 generations of allopatry.

One way to look at mutation vs. selection is to note that selection (as well as genetic drift) reduces the amount of variety in the DNA. So by itself it would approach a limit as the variety declines. Mutation increases the variety, and recombination also does so (though it presumably can't produce new proteins).

Henry

One would expect sympatric speciation to proceed faster than allopatric speciation. At least if one is thinking of the biological species model. In the sympatric situation there would have to be selection for isolating mechanisms, whereas there is no necessary selection for isolating mechanisms in allopatry.

If there is stabilizing selection, where the average individuals have the highest fitness, then genetic variation is maintained because those individuals are the most genetically diverse, and each generation will have as much or more variation than its parent generation, at least initially. My impression is that stabilizing selection is quite common.

Flint: The concern is with the claim that it happened due to novel information previously nonexistent in the genomes of the founding individuals.

Of course, then we’d create two new gaps…

BlastfromthePast: DavidK: You're comical, but not topical. All these changes in 30 years--OR LESS--is an embarassment of riches for Darwinism. It shows "macroevolution" at work, not "microevolution"; which, in case you're not aware of it, Darwin rejected as a mechanism (despite T. Huxley's urgings of the contrary) for his theory.

Flint: My position is that the lizards moved from the center of the sphere toward the surface, but the sphere didn’t budge. Show me that I’m wrong.

BlastfromthePast: DavidK: You're comical, but not topical. All these changes in 30 years--OR LESS--is an embarassment of riches for Darwinism. It shows "macroevolution" at work, not "microevolution"; which, in case you're not aware of it, Darwin rejected as a mechanism (despite T. Huxley's urgings of the contrary) for his theory.

But I suppose this wouldn't win Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's transition fossil challenge, right? Do we still need a croco-duck to win their 10 grand?

My prior understanding was that 30 generations simply is not time for a population to evolve phenotypic changes of this magnitude de novo.

you mean wrt the new cecal valves?

you know from many papers reviewed on this site, and pharyngula, that a single change to a regulatory gene can drastically modify the result of a given set of genes during development.

no reason to assume that anything truly out of the ordinary happened here, but that's the fun, eh?

we get to ask that question and try to find out exactly what the mechanism really was.

-was it a mutation in a regulatory gene?
-is it just a case of simple developmental plasticity?
-is it a physiological response to gut nematodes that didn't exist in the parent population?
-or was it really a brand new, gene level mutation that produced the change and rapidly became fixated in the population?

Frankly, there isn't enough information presented to fully flesh out what the probabilities really are. I haven't read the whole paper, but I would suspect there are clues in the genetics work that has already been done on these critters.

as to the rest of the phenotypic changes noted (wider head, etc.), I doubt many would find them "extreme" in context.

regardless, the appearance of cecal valves in THIS particular species is new, regardless of the mechanisms behind its appearance, just to be clear.

30 generations does seem quite fast. But I can still see its plausibility. I know some of these questions cannot be answered right now but it is interesting speculation.

Is it possible for us to even estimate the radius of the "sphere" available for natural selection?
What if the production of cecal valves was not far from the surface of the sphere to begin with? What would it take? A flap of tissue and a muscle to pull on it? They have tissue and they have muscles.

It would be enlightening to see a genetic evaluation of the lizards from the islands.

Is it possible for us to even estimate the radius of the “sphere” available for natural selection? What if the production of cecal valves was not far from the surface of the sphere to begin with? What would it take?

-was it a mutation in a regulatory gene? -is it just a case of simple developmental plasticity? -is it a physiological response to gut nematodes that didn’t exist in the parent population? -or was it really a brand new, gene level mutation that produced the change and rapidly became fixated in the population?

First, it is known that DNA has the ability to restore previously ‘unexpressed’ functions and mutational damage by resorting to “an ancestral RNA-sequence cache”:
“Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information that was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380.html
“Here, we show that a rice triploid and diploid hybridization resulted in stable diploid progenies, both in genotypes and phenotypes, through gene homozygosity. Furthermore, their gene homozygosity can be inherited through 8 generations, and they can convert DNA sequences of other rice varieties into their own. Molecular-marker examination confirmed that this type of genome-wide gene conversion occurred at a very high frequency. Possible mechanisms, including RNA-templated repair of double-strand DNA, are discussed.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502903?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

Second, modifications in chromatin can ‘deactivate’ genes, but changes can also be reversed that can cause functions to reappear:
“Changes in gene expression can result from modifying chromatin, which is the structure comprising proteins and DNA that is the repository for genetic information. Marks are imposed that serve as templates for modification of the chromatin, altering the ability of genes to be accessed by the DNA transcription machinery. The result is that some genes are suppressed and others are silenced altogether. One of the key questions discussed at the ESF workshop concerned how these changes are “remembered” during cell division through replication of the epigenetic marks, and yet how in some cases these can be reversed, allowing a cell to be reprogrammed so that it can take on a different role or function.”
http://www.physorg.com/news127045681.html
“Eggs incubated at higher than normal temperatures of 93.2 to 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (34 to 37 degrees Celsius) produced a strong bias toward female hatchlings, which outnumbered males by about 16 to 1.
The researchers linked this gender bias to a sex-determining gene that was deactivated when the lizards' nests became unusually warm.
This process results in female offspring, because the key gene is on the so-called Z sex chromosome, of which male lizards have two and females only one.
Deactivation of the gene therefore turns a male (ZZ) into a female (WZ).”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/97933756.html

Third, if indeed this is a case of a new feature that was “not present in the ancestral population,” evolutionists must face the persistent problem of convergent evolution. Regardless of all the evolutionary excuses for the ‘evolution’ of identical features in unrelated organisms or, in this case, an isolated population, identical features arising in unrelated populations is an absurd premise. Of course, unless you believe in the supernatural:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html

I think people are mistakeningly concluding that recent mutations are important for significant evolutionary change. A mutation contributes to variation in the gene pool. Evolutionary novelties can occur when certain genes which have been strangers, finally "get together", so to speak. That is a result of shifting gene frequencies. It doesn't require recent mutations. The importance of mutations is that they contribute to genetic turnover in the long term.

Regardless of all the evolutionary excuses for the ‘evolution’ of identical features in unrelated organisms or, in this case, an isolated population, identical features arising in unrelated populations is an absurd premise.

Evolutionary novelties can occur when certain genes which have been strangers, finally “get together”, so to speak. That is a result of shifting gene frequencies. It doesn’t require recent mutations.

wallyk said: I think people are mistakeningly concluding that recent mutations are important for significant evolutionary change. A mutation contributes to variation in the gene pool. Evolutionary novelties can occur when certain genes which have been strangers, finally “get together”, so to speak. That is a result of shifting gene frequencies. It doesn’t require recent mutations. The importance of mutations is that they contribute to genetic turnover in the long term.

Where are my meds rambles on: Regardless of all the evolutionary excuses for the ‘evolution’ of identical features in unrelated organisms or, in this case, an isolated population, identical features arising in unrelated populations is an absurd premise.

In regard to the comments:

“The error here, I think, lies in the misuse of the word “identical”. So birds, bats, and insects all fly. Sensitivity to light, and even the ability to focus it, is common. But these characteristics are nowhere close to being “identical”, any more than rockets are “identical” to canoes because both do transportation by pushing some stuff in one direction so other stuff can move in the opposite direction. I agree that “identical” features arising in truly unrelated populations is absurd. But rough functional equivalence (i.e. doing kind of the same general task) isn’t absurd at all.”
And
“What identical features in unrelated populations?”
The wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all converged functionally to enable an animal to fly. But the wings are only superficially similar, the actual structures are quite different. One does not have to be too smart or educated to tell birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects apart.”

You both are confusing homologous ‘structures’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29
with convergent evolution that relates to analogous ‘structures’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution#Animal_examples
(Noting that Wikipedia is NOT the best reference, but useful in this case.)

While they may seem ‘simple,’ cecal valves are structurally and functionally complex and are almost identical in all organisms that possess them (1% of scaled lizards and most birds and mammals, including man).

If you would like to prove otherwise, cite your reference and counter.

While you’re at it, because cecal valves also “require fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants” why don’t just one of you give offer a likely scenario as to the genetic step-by-step process that would ‘evolve’ these structures.

Anyone?

While they may seem ‘simple,’ cecal valves are structurally and functionally complex and are almost identical in all organisms that possess them (1% of scaled lizards and most birds and mammals, including man).

why don’t just one of you give offer a likely scenario as to the genetic step-by-step process that would ‘evolve’ these structures. Anyone?

In general mutation rate, selection, and population size are the factors that affect the size of the variation sphere. In general the larger the population the more mutations are present and the higher the percentage of mutations that are nuetral the more variablitity there will be. And an increase in mutation rate clearly pumps more variation in.

If them lizards was really evolving, they'd all be selling auto insurance!!11!!eleven!

(Don't mind me, I'm a bit short of sleep today. :) )

Henry

Just a few comments:

(1) As to "Gould's spheres", this sounds very much like the example used by Ferguson Jenkins in the 1860's to counter Darwin when, IIRC, he spoke of a multi-faceted crystal, and suggested that the farther one went from its simple center, the more complicated it became, and in an exponential manner, thus introducing a limit to how much change can take place; i.e., you could only move so far away from its center before hitting a dead-end.

(2) 30 generations is not enough time for any novel information to have arisen, especially when you're starting with only a handful of lizards. I don't think anyone would argue that point. So, then, the most plausible mechanism would be a changed regulatory architecture. If we're talking about strictly random mutations, however, 30 generations, beginning with 12-14 lizards, is simply not enough replications to account for even one single mutation somewhere in the genome. If you assume that, contrary to statistical probabilities, the ONE mutation occurred, then this one mutation would have to have been highly correlated with a number of other genes. And where did the bacteria needed for the cecal valves to do their thing come from?

(3) I would be interested in an experiment wherein a similar initial lizard population is bred in isolation, with one half being fed insects, and the other half being fed the plant life present on the island to which the original lizards were transplanted to. Why not begin with a simple explanation, such as an environmental trigger, and rule that out first before doing any more elaborate experiments?

BlastfromthePast: And where did the bacteria needed for the cecal valves to do their thing come from?

BlastfromthePast: (3) I would be interested in an experiment wherein a similar initial lizard population is bred in isolation, with one half being fed insects, and the other half being fed the plant life present on the island to which the original lizards were transplanted to. Why not begin with a simple explanation, such as an environmental trigger, and rule that out first before doing any more elaborate experiments?

Saddlebred: They built foilage mats and survived the flood like all the insects did. Duh.

BlastfromthePast: (2) 30 generations is not enough time for any novel information to have arisen, especially when you're starting with only a handful of lizards. I don't think anyone would argue that point. So, then, the most plausible mechanism would be a changed regulatory architecture. If we're talking about strictly random mutations, however, 30 generations, beginning with 12-14 lizards, is simply not enough replications to account for even one single mutation somewhere in the genome. If you assume that, contrary to statistical probabilities, the ONE mutation occurred, then this one mutation would have to have been highly correlated with a number of other genes.

Just one particular example, but in http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1554%2F0014-3820(2002)056%5B1267%3AEOASMP%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

A gene that controls the mass of the triceps surae muscle goes from a very low previously undetected frequency to 50% frequency in 22 generations. It's entirely plausible that there is a low frequency mutation in the original population, that could very easily go to fixation with such a small founding population, and presumably it also conveys a bigger fitness advantage than the above cited mini-muscle. The important factors are the background frequency of the gene in the original population, is it truly just one trait, and in this new context what is the fitness advantage?

BlastfromthePast: (2) 30 generations is not enough time for any novel information to have arisen, especially when you're starting with only a handful of lizards.

I don't think anyone would argue that point. So, then, the most plausible mechanism would be a changed regulatory architecture. If we're talking about strictly random mutations, however, 30 generations, beginning with 12-14 lizards, is simply not enough replications to account for even one single mutation somewhere in the genome.

If you assume that, contrary to statistical probabilities, the ONE mutation occurred, then this one mutation would have to have been highly correlated with a number of other genes.

And where did the bacteria needed for the cecal valves to do their thing come from?

Another similar example from roughly 10 years ago:

Lizard experiment suggests rapid evolution

"An experiment with lizards in the Caribbean has demonstrated that evolution moves in predictable ways and can occur so rapidly that changes emerge in as little as a decade."

"The experiment involved the introduction of one species of lizard to fourteen small, lizard-free Caribbean island near the Exumas in the Bahamas. The lizards were left for fourteen years. The original intent of the experiment was to study extinction. The experiment, started by Thomas Schoener of the University of California at Davis, would have provided scientists with important information as they observed the extinction of the introduced lizards. Unfortunately, the lizards adapted to their new environments, and the focus of the experiment changed to study this rapid evolution."

"Lizards on Caribbean islands have been carefully studied by biologists for their adaptation to different conditions on different islands with corresponding changes in body shape. Birds, most notably the Finches of the Galapagos islands, also show such specializations when favoring a certain island. One of the specializations of lizards noted by scientists over the years has been that lizards that inhabit large trees tend to have long legs, whereas those lizards that live on twig-like plants have short legs."

"Jonathon Losos of Washington University in St. Louis stated that such adaptations allowed scientists to predict what would happen to the lizards placed on the islands, some of which are smaller than a football field. The more the vegetation differed from that of their original home, Staniel Cay, the more the lizards should evolve. The scientists predicted that evolutionary pressure would cause the long-legged lizards to produce short-legged forms as the Caribbean islands are almost treeless."

"Losos and his colleagues report in the journal Nature that the lizards evolved in the direction as predicted. Those with the shortest legs are found on islands with the scrubbiest vegetation."

For a minute, I thought there might have been something new here. We sat through series of lectures on changes to species in response to environment. Sea urchins changing shape as you go up or down the geologic column at the white cliffs near Dover, is a classic. Guess what. They change one way, then they change back again. They change within the parameters written in to the species' information control. I don't suppose anyone was sufficiently detached to put the 'evolved' lizard group back in the original conditions with members of the 'unevolved' population - and watch them change back to the original?

God did it. No other explanation is needed.

You'd think that the IDiots would be pouring all over this island looking for finger prints. The hand of God passing within the last 30 years has to be closer to God than they have ever been.

How, EXACTLY, did you ‘determine’ that any novel information was actually required, given that even small populations have variations?

Actually, this type of thing is probably quite common. Changes in allele frequency bring about adaptation to new environmental conditions without requiring any new genetic information. Then, when conditions change again, the population once again adapts, perhaps by reverting to allele frequencies closer to the original. In this case, by definition, evolution has occurred twice, or perhaps it would be more corrrect to say that evolution is occurring continuously.

This situation is much more clear in simple phenotypic polymorpohisms where the genetic basis is more clearly understood. The peppered moths of England come to mind as one example.

However, this doesn't mean that recombination, mutation, regulatory changes, gene duplication, etc. are not important over longer time scales. It only means that there is always genetic variation in the population and that poulations will always change over time if the environment changes, or go extinct.

Flint may be right. It might be extremely difficult to determine the exact genetic events responsible for this particular change. It might not be worth the effort inviolved, or it might be. If the genes that control this character are already known, then a comparative sequencing effort might yield the answer fairly easily. If, on the other hand, the genes are not known, or if unknown regulatory mechanisms are invovled, it might take considerably more effort to determine the exact nature of the changes involved. If the genetic changes are determined, I'm sure that PBH will be more than happy to tell us where the "information" came from.

Of course, either way, scientists will be looking for natural explanations and known genetic mechanisms, God would not enter into the equation. Ron is correct, if the ID crowd think that God was involved, (or the mysterious lizard designer in the sky), this is the perfect chance to dust for fingerprints. Shouldn't they be the ones doing the sequencing? Now why would God care what happened to a bunch of lizards anyway?

Shebardigan said: Ah. That would answer the question “Where on the Ark did Noah keep all of the species of termites, carpenter ants and other wood-loving critters?”

Experiments with the hsp90 gene of Drosophila (fruit flies) and Arabidopsis (plant) show that polygenic traits can become fixed in FOUR generations . . . After selecting for the new traits for four generations, screening showed that their hsp90 levels were normal - the new phenotype was now ‘locked in’.

You ‘determined’ that HOW, exactly, given that no DNA polymerase is perfect ?

your ‘alternative explanation’ is what ?

and being ‘highly correlated with other genes’ is not really a problem if expression of a regulatory gene is altered.

Just fascinating. As a layman interested in various aspects of biology, zoology and so forth, I grew up with the idea that evolution was a relatively slow process, not readily observed in the human time scale. Not only that, but that evolution moved at a rate uniform to all living things.

This was a child's idea, of course. As I've gotten older and a bit more informed, I find the truth to be far more interesting. This study on lizards is a great example of the dynamic motion of evolution. Many thanks for the post and the informed comments.