Evolution in prime time..its real..

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:06 am

SweetPea wrote: They did not find that a genetic difference was involved in the changed toe pads effect.


Nothing like that is mentioned in the text Sweetpea. There is nothing mentioned of genetic evidence or difference they just say that they evolved bigger toe pads: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142306.htm

Also you are wrong in the toe pads they have ruled out Plasticity:

To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.


Taken from: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... Real-Time/

So the whole debate is useless now. It seems you were wrong Sweetpea at least with this study. I am also speculating that even prof. Henry would now agree that evolution took place and not just plasticity even in the first case of wall island lizards because I think that the traits will go down in generations now like it happened here.

There must not always just be genetic evidence to prove it. There are other types how to disprove plasticity.

I will respond to your other replies later on but what they wrote in Science is actually the same thing I was thinking about that plasticity..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:01 am

Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote: They did not find that a genetic difference was involved in the changed toe pads effect.


Nothing like that is mentioned in the text Sweetpea. There is nothing mentioned of genetic evidence or difference they just say that they evolved bigger toe pads: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142306.htm

Also you are wrong in the toe pads they have ruled out Plasticity:

To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.

Not good enough. The gravid females already had recieved environmental signals from the conditions they were in. See my earlier post:

However, the other idea being mooted is that one could take babies and grow them and check them, but that is not a viable checking routine because such influences as would effect plasticity can occur before hatching or before birth, before eggs are laid, and are strong before first feeding too, then tapering off gradually. This extended period of possible major change is especially true of organisms which go through stages such as larval stages where whole organs appear and disappear.


Thanks, that's good work, Shen.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:07 am

SweetPea wrote:Not good enough. The gravid females and their mates already had recieved environmental signals from the conditions they were in. See my earlier post:


You make a error here because they took those lizards in 2011 that means new generations were born. This rules out plasticity because there was more then just 1 generation born out of these females and they checked it for that.

SweetPea wrote:To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.


Sorry still wrong. Your example is just for one generation which will be born out of it. They waited for 3 years.. Now is the year 2014. If I recall correctly a lizard can have offspring once a year maybe even more depends on the specie. My turtles have once a year a offspring. They worked on it for 3 generations to rule out plasticity.
Last edited by Shen1986 on Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:10 am

Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Not good enough. The gravid females and their mates already had recieved environmental signals from the conditions they were in. See my earlier post:


You make a error here because they took those lizards in 2011 that means new generations were born. This rules out plasticity because there was more then just 1 generation born out of these females and they checked it for that.

SweetPea wrote:To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.


Sorry still wrong. Your example is just for one generation which will be born out of it.


I think you got that part wrong, Shen. Look:

conceived on the invaded islands


They worked on it for 3 generations to rule out plasticity.
I didn't see that before.
That's better. I concede that they did provide the genetic testing.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:11 am

SweetPea wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Not good enough. The gravid females and their mates already had recieved environmental signals from the conditions they were in. See my earlier post:


You make a error here because they took those lizards in 2011 that means new generations were born. This rules out plasticity because there was more then just 1 generation born out of these females and they checked it for that.

SweetPea wrote:To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.


Sorry still wrong. Your example is just for one generation which will be born out of it.


I think you got that part wrong, Shen. Look:

conceived on the invaded islands


Nope I am talking about this:

So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions.


This line just only shows that they were the same as the one on the island:

The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:14 am

Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Not good enough. The gravid females and their mates already had recieved environmental signals from the conditions they were in. See my earlier post:


You make a error here because they took those lizards in 2011 that means new generations were born. This rules out plasticity because there was more then just 1 generation born out of these females and they checked it for that.

SweetPea wrote:To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.


Sorry still wrong. Your example is just for one generation which will be born out of it.


I think you got that part wrong, Shen. Look:

conceived on the invaded islands


Nope I am talking about this:

So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions.


This line just only shows that they were the same as the one on the island:

The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.

That isnt good enough. Concieved on the island. It's the part about 3 generations that is convincing.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:18 am

Shen, where did you see the quote for the 3 generations?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:23 am

You make a error here because they took those lizards in 2011 that means new generations were born.


Is it just your surmise? Quote them please, "or it didn't happen". ;)
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:32 am

lab-bred offspring
Lab-bred cannot be conceived on the island. Lab-bred is bred in the lab from start to finish. The article is mixed up. Lab-laid eggs is not lab-bred offspring. It's lab-raised offspring.

If the 3 generations thing is your surmise, then I retract my concedence.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:51 am

It's known that plasticity can produce a different egg size and nutritional content, and produce different offspring.

Growing out island-conceived offspring is not a sufficient test.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:10 am

SweetPea wrote:Lab-bred cannot be conceived on the island. Lab-bred is bred in the lab from start to finish. The article is mixed up. Lab-laid eggs is not lab-bred offspring. It's lab-raised offspring.If the 3 generations thing is your surmise, then I retract my concedence.


Are you ignorant or you just do not get it?? I did not know that you are such a expert in biology.

They first took gravid females from the island and then bred them in labs to see if the trait would pass down. Thats it. A good test to show this because it was passed down to a new generation if it was just plasticity then it would not. You make it sound that everything is plastic and not evolution from your point of view Sweetpea:

To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.


Also they worked on this for 15 years:

Scientists working on islands in Florida have documented the rapid evolution of a native lizard species -- in as little as 15 years -- as a result of pressure from an invading lizard species, introduced from Cuba.


Also you are wrong about this because it happens only in 1 generation:

SweetPea wrote:It's known that plasticity can produce a different egg size and nutritional content, and produce different offspring. Growing out island-conceived offspring is not a sufficient test.


Even wikipedia informs about this:

Fundamental to the way in which organisms cope with environmental variation, phenotypic plasticity encompasses all types of environmentally induced changes (e.g. morphological, physiological, behavioural, phenological) that may or may not be permanent throughout an individual’s lifespan.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity

However if only genetic evidence will convince you then write to the researchers.

Also phenotypic plasticity is helping genetic evolution:

The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic
evolution:

3. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Phenotypic plasticity is widespread in nature. Differences
between closely related species and populations
often have both a genetic and plastic component
(Bradshaw & Hardwick 1989; Day et al. 1994; Chapman
et al. 2000). For example, Day et al. (1994) compared five
foraging-related traits in two species of sticklebacks that
they had raised from an early age on the other species’
diet. Plasticity accounted for between 58% (head depth)
and 0% (gill raker number) of the difference between the
species. Kingsolver & Huey (1998) reviewed temperature
acclimation experiments in several different species
(maintaining individuals in a new environment and subsequently
measuring their improved fitness), which also
show an intermediate amount of plasticity. The widespread
contribution of both plasticity and genetic differences
to population differentiation implies that immediate
plastic responses often influence the course of genetic
evolution.


So sorry Sweetpea you can bash and catch on straws how long you want. Even Rick Shine a expert in biology and lizards wrote this about the study:

To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.

“The evidence for an evolutionary change surprised me,” said Stuart. “The pace at which the change was happening surprised me even more.”

“This elegant study adds to a growing body of evidence that evolutionary changes can occur very rapidly, on timescales that we once regarded as far too brief for significant adaptation,” Rick Shine, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Sydney, who was not involved with the study, told The Scientist in an e-mail.


Taken from: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... Real-Time/

Shine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shine

So I will stay rather with the experts because it even was published in Science: Y. Stuart et al., “Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener,” Science, doi: 10.1126/science.1257008, 2014.

For me this is evidence for evolution also for others who know what they are doing if not they would not even catch on the problem of plasticity in the paper and I am ending this debate because I am sick of this that no test will prove it to you besides a genetic one. Also it was quite predictable and I had that feeling that you would start to catch on straws after I would post this..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:36 am

Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Lab-bred cannot be conceived on the island. Lab-bred is bred in the lab from start to finish. The article is mixed up. Lab-laid eggs is not lab-bred offspring. It's lab-raised offspring.If the 3 generations thing is your surmise, then I retract my concedence.


Are you ignorant or you just do not get it?? I did not know that you are such a expert in biology.

They first took gravid females from the island and then bred them in labs to see if the trait would pass down. Thats it.
No, that's not breeding lab if they conceived on the island, so then it is not true that the babies were BRED in the lab. They were hatched and raised in the lab. And if you just surmised the 3 generation thing, then that "didn't happen" either.

Also they worked on this for 15 years
Immaterial.
Also you are wrong about this because it happens only in 1 generation
There was no clean "one" generation.

SweetPea wrote:It's known that plasticity can produce a different egg size and nutritional content, and produce different offspring. Growing out island-conceived offspring is not a sufficient test.


Even wikipedia informs about this:
Fundamental to the way in which organisms cope with environmental variation, phenotypic plasticity encompasses all types of environmentally induced changes (e.g. morphological, physiological, behavioural, phenological) that may or may not be permanent throughout an individual’s lifespan.
That doesn't say anything about the issue at hand, Shen, which is whether or not the babies were truly lab-bred or just hatched and raised in the lab.
And if the 3 generations thing is just something you made up yourself, then "it didn't happen".

They spent 15 years and then did not raise at least one clean generation? Phooey.

Also phenotypic plasticity is helping genetic evolution
Immaterial to your point; the changes from plasticity are not evolution. We aren't talking about "helping", although of course I know that. You're only now learning about this stuff. You should thank me, instead of getting worked up.

So sorry Sweetpea you can bash and catch on straws how long you want. Even Rick Shine a expert in biology and lizards wrote this about the study:

To rule out phenotypic plasticity, the researchers sought to establish whether the larger, stickier toepads were passed on to the next generation. So the team collected gravid females from four invaded and four non-invaded islands in 2011, raising their offspring in identical conditions. The larger, stickier toepads persisted in the lab-bred offspring conceived on the invaded islands.

“The evidence for an evolutionary change surprised me,” said Stuart. “The pace at which the change was happening surprised me even more.”
If he's surprised by that, then he might not even know about how eggs are commonly affected. Look at the change in the Italian lizards. New body part. Where has this guy been hiding?

If you can admit that eggs are commonly affected, then you have no logical basis to reject what I say.
There was no 3 generation test. Correct?

I posted about the eggs being affected even before this came up, so it's not clutching at straws at all.

You can get heated up all you like, it does nothing for your case.

Your legitimacy on this issue now rests on your ability to admit one thing; that eggs commonly are affected, they come out of the female different.

Since at least 1998 this has been established, Shen.

The present study provides the first clear evidence of larval developmental plasticity in
forcipulate seastars and a relationship between egg size and developmental plasticity. Adult
Pisaster ochraceus
were collected from Point Caution (a wave-protected site) and Mar Vista (a
wave-exposed site) on the San Juan Islands. Seastars from the wave-exposed site were larger and
had larger pyloric caeca while those from the wave-protected site were smaller with smaller
pyloric caeca. Bigger females produced smaller eggs with a low biochemical content / egg and
smaller females produced bigger eggs with a high biochemical content / egg. Egg quality and larval
food had a significant effect on larval growth, development and survival. Bipinnariae from large
eggs were initially bigger with faster developmental rates than those from small eggs. When
starved, the numbers of bipinnariae surviving later on in development were higher for those from
large eggs than for those from small eggs. When fed, the numbers of larvae surviving was higher
for those from small eggs. This suggests that for this species large and small eggs might have
equivalent fitness depending on the environmental conditions in which the offspring develop. All
bipinnariae responded to food scarcity by changing their form, with those from smaller eggs
responding to food scarcity later than those from larger eggs. Starved early bipinnaria stages were
longer and wider and fed bipinnariae were narrower and shorter. Wider bipinnariae with larger
mouths and stomachs were able to progress to more advanced stages while those with smaller
internal structures could not.


For me this is evidence for evolution also for others who know what they are doing if not they would not even catch on the problem of plasticity in the paper and I am ending this debate because I am sick of this that no test will prove it to you besides a genetic one
Lab-breeding clean generations is a test which I accept as evidence. See earlier where I immediately conceded sufficient evidence when you claimed they persisted for 3 generations.

I suuggest you quit getting angry and deal with it properly. The effects of plasticity are most strong in the very earliest stages of life.
Eggs, and embryos ARE affected in the female by plastic changes, and so clean lab BRED (not just raised) generatons are needed for evidence.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:32 am

The original paper for those who are interested:

https://stuartyoel.files.wordpress.com/ ... cience.pdf

Also here is how they tested it that it is a evolutionary trait:

We tested several alternative processes that
could have generated the observed divergence.
First, we used a common garden experiment
to investigate possible posthatching, developmental
responses to physical challenges imposed
by arboreality during growth (i.e., phenotypic
plasticity). We took gravid A. carolinensis females
from four invaded and four un-invaded
islands in July 2011, collected their eggs in the
laboratory, and raised the offspring in identical
conditions (12). The effect of A. sagrei invasion
on A. carolinensis toepad characteristics
persisted in the common garden [Fig. 3, B and D,
and table S4; (12)], suggesting genetically based
divergence in nature (though we cannot rule out
transgenerational plasticity).
Second, observed divergence in A. carolinensis
could have arisen through nonrandom migration
of individuals with large toepads among invaded
islands, instead of arising independently on each
island. Thus, we tested whether relatedness
among A. carolinensis populations is independent
of A. sagrei invasion. In 379 A. carolinensis
individuals from four un-invaded and five invaded
islands, we genotyped 121,973 single-nucleotide
polymorphisms across the genome [table S5, (12)].
Individuals from the same island were closely
related, and islands were largely genetically independent
(pairwise-FST 0.09–0.16; table S6).We
found no evidence that population relatedness in
A. carolinensis was correlated with whether an
island had been colonized by A. sagrei [Fig. 4; (12)]
or with distance between islands (Mantel test; P >
0.25), suggesting that gene flow is relatively limited
among islands and that island populations were
independently founded from the mainland.
Third, toepad changes could have been generated
by adaptation to environmental differences
among islands that are confounded with the
presence of A. sagrei [e.g., (24)]. However, invaded
and un-invaded islands do not differ in
characteristics important to perching or arboreal
locomotion [e.g., vegetated area, plant species
richness, or available tree heights; table S7;
(12)]. Fourth, toepad changes could have arisen
through ecological sorting, wherein A. sagrei was
only able to colonize those islands on which the
existing A. carolinensis population was already
sufficiently different. However, A. sagrei seems
capable of successfully colonizing every island it
reaches, regardless of resident A. carolinensis
ecology or morphology: All 10 A. sagrei populations
introduced in 1994–1995 are still extant
(12), and A. sagrei inhabits nearly every other island
surveyed in the lagoon (Fig. 2). Finally, toepad
changes observed in A. carolinensis in 2010 could
be unrelated to interactions with A. sagrei if the
latter’s invasion merely missed the five islands
with the lowest A. carolinensis perch heights
(fig. S2) by chance; however, this would occur
only one time in 462. In sum, alternative hypotheses
of phenotypic plasticity, environmental
heterogeneity, ecological sorting, nonrandom migration,
and chance are not supported; our data
suggest strongly that interactions with A. sagrei
have led to evolution of adaptive toepad divergence
in A. carolinensis.


Taken from: https://stuartyoel.files.wordpress.com/ ... cience.pdf
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Gord » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:14 am

Shen1986 wrote:I did not know that you are such a expert in biology.

Oh my, yes. He's also such an expert in medicine, climatology, psychology, and riding dinosaurs! :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:16 am

Here in the actual study language we find your article's error, Shen


We took gravid A. carolinensis females from four invaded and four un-invaded islands in July 2011, collected their eggs in the laboratory, and raised the offspring in identi-
cal conditions (12 ).


Lab-raised, not lab-bred (as your article incorrectly stated and I correctly re-stated as lab-raised).

thank you.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:16 am

Interesting stuff about plasticity and it shows what I was thinking about that plasticity is a form of evolution:

The greatest benefit of phenotypic plasticity may be that it generates
adaptive genetic change (see below), an essential long-term strategy for
evolutionary persistence. Plasticity may foster adaptive evolution by
allowing genotypes to jump maladaptive valleys to reach fitness peaks in
adaptive landscapes (Price 2006). It may also protect hidden genetic
diversity from elimination, allowing that stored diversity to be exposed
under specific conditions (Schlichting 2004, Suzuki and Nijhout 2006).
Indeed, maintenance of genetic variation is so essential to life that costly
mechanisms to achieve it (recombination and sexual reproduction) are
nearly universal. Phenotypic plasticity may serve a similar role by both
shielding genetic diversity, and by producing organic novelty that can then
be incorporated into the genome via genetic assimilation (see Box 2). By
maintaining a capacity for plasticity, heredity may provide for modification
of its own machinery (Baldwin 1896).


Taken from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs ... nsects.pdf

 -  
Genetic assimilation (GA) is a process by which an environmentally induced
trait comes, after selection, to be constitutively expressed. Conrad H.
Waddington proposed the idea in 1942, and then went on to demonstrate it
experimentally, twice, using D. melanogaster. In the first case, he applied heat
shock to fly pupae to induce a new adult phenotype with a reduced cross
vein. After 14 generations of artificial selection under heat shock for
expression of the plastic trait, some flies produced the veinless condition
without heat shock (Waddington 1952, 1953a,b). In the second case,
Waddington exposed fly eggs to ether to induce a novel phenotyopic
abnormality, “bithorax,” in the adult. After 29 generations of selection, the
flies produced the bithorax phenotype in the absence of ether, and this new
phenotype was heritable (Waddington 1956, 1961). In a third case,
Waddington induced large anal papillae by exposing fly larvae to high salt
levels. After 21 generations, the maggots expressed both large papillae and
greater plasticity in low salt media (Waddington 1959).
Waddington (1953a) proposed that selection had altered the regulation of
trait expression, such that the thresholds for expressing these traits were
lowered to the point that the traits were expressed in all environments
(Fig. 8). Examples from nature might include fixation of extrafloral nectar
production in Acacia (Heil et al. 2004), and fixation of aposematism
(Sword 2002). Suzuki & Nijhout (2006) showed GA of body color in the lab.
GA is an important idea because it suggests that acquired, phenotypicplastic
traits can become genetically fixed (Schmalhausen 1949). Hence,
environmental induction can initiate evolutionary change (Pigliucci &
Murren 2003). Furthermore, because the bithorax condition (above) created
a second pair of wings, it mimics macroevolution, and thus suggests that
macroevolutionary jumps might occur via genetic assimilation. GA in one
trait might favor plasticity evolution in other traits, because as one trait
becomes invariable to environmental conditions, it may increase conditional
expression or selection pressure for plasticity in another (Jablonka & Lamb
2005). GA, its occurrence in nature, and its role in evolution are controversial
subjects (de Jong 2005, Pigliucci et al. 2006, Crispo 2007), in part because of its
similarity to Lamarckian evolution, the inheritance of environmentally
acquired traits. However, GA is assumed to proceed via traditional
Mendelian and Darwinian processes (see main text).


Taken from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs ... nsects.pdf
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:18 am

Shen1986 wrote:Interesting stuff about plasticity and it shows what I was thinking about that plasticity is a form of evolution:

The greatest benefit of phenotypic plasticity may be that it generates
adaptive genetic change (see below), an essential long-term strategy for
evolutionary persistence. Plasticity may foster adaptive evolution by
allowing genotypes to jump maladaptive valleys to reach fitness peaks in
adaptive landscapes (Price 2006). It may also protect hidden genetic
diversity from elimination, allowing that stored diversity to be exposed
under specific conditions (Schlichting 2004, Suzuki and Nijhout 2006).
Indeed, maintenance of genetic variation is so essential to life that costly
mechanisms to achieve it (recombination and sexual reproduction) are
nearly universal. Phenotypic plasticity may serve a similar role by both
shielding genetic diversity, and by producing organic novelty that can then
be incorporated into the genome via genetic assimilation (see Box 2). By
maintaining a capacity for plasticity, heredity may provide for modification
of its own machinery (Baldwin 1896).


Taken from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs ... nsects.pdf

 -  
Genetic assimilation (GA) is a process by which an environmentally induced
trait comes, after selection, to be constitutively expressed. Conrad H.
Waddington proposed the idea in 1942, and then went on to demonstrate it
experimentally, twice, using D. melanogaster. In the first case, he applied heat
shock to fly pupae to induce a new adult phenotype with a reduced cross
vein. After 14 generations of artificial selection under heat shock for
expression of the plastic trait, some flies produced the veinless condition
without heat shock (Waddington 1952, 1953a,b). In the second case,
Waddington exposed fly eggs to ether to induce a novel phenotyopic
abnormality, “bithorax,” in the adult. After 29 generations of selection, the
flies produced the bithorax phenotype in the absence of ether, and this new
phenotype was heritable (Waddington 1956, 1961). In a third case,
Waddington induced large anal papillae by exposing fly larvae to high salt
levels. After 21 generations, the maggots expressed both large papillae and
greater plasticity in low salt media (Waddington 1959).
Waddington (1953a) proposed that selection had altered the regulation of
trait expression, such that the thresholds for expressing these traits were
lowered to the point that the traits were expressed in all environments
(Fig. 8). Examples from nature might include fixation of extrafloral nectar
production in Acacia (Heil et al. 2004), and fixation of aposematism
(Sword 2002). Suzuki & Nijhout (2006) showed GA of body color in the lab.
GA is an important idea because it suggests that acquired, phenotypicplastic
traits can become genetically fixed (Schmalhausen 1949). Hence,
environmental induction can initiate evolutionary change (Pigliucci &
Murren 2003). Furthermore, because the bithorax condition (above) created
a second pair of wings, it mimics macroevolution, and thus suggests that
macroevolutionary jumps might occur via genetic assimilation. GA in one
trait might favor plasticity evolution in other traits, because as one trait
becomes invariable to environmental conditions, it may increase conditional
expression or selection pressure for plasticity in another (Jablonka & Lamb
2005). GA, its occurrence in nature, and its role in evolution are controversial
subjects (de Jong 2005, Pigliucci et al. 2006, Crispo 2007), in part because of its
similarity to Lamarckian evolution, the inheritance of environmentally
acquired traits. However, GA is assumed to proceed via traditional
Mendelian and Darwinian processes (see main text).


Taken from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs ... nsects.pdf
No, Shen it does not say that it's a form of evolution. It doesn't say that at all.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:19 am

SweetPea wrote:Lab-raised, not lab-bred (as your article incorrectly stated and I correctly re-stated as lab-raised).thank you.


If it was not for me you would not have the original study. Also the study claims this:

suggesting genetically based divergence in nature


Also you are wrong about Phenotypic Plasticity. It is like I claimed before. First comes plasticity and then these traits can become PERMANENT written in the genome. Its evolution it does not matter how you twist it. If the trait survives long enough ti become permanently written in the genome.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:20 am

SweetPea wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:Interesting stuff about plasticity and it shows what I was thinking about that plasticity is a form of evolution:

The greatest benefit of phenotypic plasticity may be that it generates
adaptive genetic change (see below), an essential long-term strategy for
evolutionary persistence. Plasticity may foster adaptive evolution by
allowing genotypes to jump maladaptive valleys to reach fitness peaks in
adaptive landscapes (Price 2006). It may also protect hidden genetic
diversity from elimination, allowing that stored diversity to be exposed
under specific conditions (Schlichting 2004, Suzuki and Nijhout 2006).
Indeed, maintenance of genetic variation is so essential to life that costly
mechanisms to achieve it (recombination and sexual reproduction) are
nearly universal. Phenotypic plasticity may serve a similar role by both
shielding genetic diversity, and by producing organic novelty that can then
be incorporated into the genome via genetic assimilation (see Box 2). By
maintaining a capacity for plasticity, heredity may provide for modification
of its own machinery (Baldwin 1896).


Taken from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs ... nsects.pdf

 -  
Genetic assimilation (GA) is a process by which an environmentally induced
trait comes, after selection, to be constitutively expressed. Conrad H.
Waddington proposed the idea in 1942, and then went on to demonstrate it
experimentally, twice, using D. melanogaster. In the first case, he applied heat
shock to fly pupae to induce a new adult phenotype with a reduced cross
vein. After 14 generations of artificial selection under heat shock for
expression of the plastic trait, some flies produced the veinless condition
without heat shock (Waddington 1952, 1953a,b). In the second case,
Waddington exposed fly eggs to ether to induce a novel phenotyopic
abnormality, “bithorax,” in the adult. After 29 generations of selection, the
flies produced the bithorax phenotype in the absence of ether, and this new
phenotype was heritable (Waddington 1956, 1961). In a third case,
Waddington induced large anal papillae by exposing fly larvae to high salt
levels. After 21 generations, the maggots expressed both large papillae and
greater plasticity in low salt media (Waddington 1959).
Waddington (1953a) proposed that selection had altered the regulation of
trait expression, such that the thresholds for expressing these traits were
lowered to the point that the traits were expressed in all environments
(Fig. 8). Examples from nature might include fixation of extrafloral nectar
production in Acacia (Heil et al. 2004), and fixation of aposematism
(Sword 2002). Suzuki & Nijhout (2006) showed GA of body color in the lab.
GA is an important idea because it suggests that acquired, phenotypicplastic
traits can become genetically fixed (Schmalhausen 1949). Hence,
environmental induction can initiate evolutionary change (Pigliucci &
Murren 2003). Furthermore, because the bithorax condition (above) created
a second pair of wings, it mimics macroevolution, and thus suggests that
macroevolutionary jumps might occur via genetic assimilation. GA in one
trait might favor plasticity evolution in other traits, because as one trait
becomes invariable to environmental conditions, it may increase conditional
expression or selection pressure for plasticity in another (Jablonka & Lamb
2005). GA, its occurrence in nature, and its role in evolution are controversial
subjects (de Jong 2005, Pigliucci et al. 2006, Crispo 2007), in part because of its
similarity to Lamarckian evolution, the inheritance of environmentally
acquired traits. However, GA is assumed to proceed via traditional
Mendelian and Darwinian processes (see main text).


Taken from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs ... nsects.pdf
No, Shen it does not say that it's a form of evolution. It doesn't say that at all.


Learn to read and read the whole paper. Learn what is Genetic assimilation. Okay my last post. You know nothing about this.. I gave you a normal text but you claim otherwise. Okay live in your world. Read the black line.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:28 am

Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Lab-raised, not lab-bred (as your article incorrectly stated and I correctly re-stated as lab-raised).thank you.


If it was not for me you would not have the original study.
I thanked you for that. You have yet to thank me for introducing you to the very concept of plasticity.

Also the study claims this:

suggesting genetically based divergence in nature
...suggesting, not showing.

Also you are wrong about Phenotypic Plasticity. It is like I claimed before. First comes plasticity and then these traits can become PERMANENT
Of course. When the genetics change.
That's not phenotypic plasticity, that's genetic change. It can happen with plasticity playing several roles in fostering success if genetic change does occur.

Its evolution it does not matter how you twist it. If the trait survives long enough ti become permanently written in the genome.
It never said what you claim, that plasticity is evolution, a form of evolution, or that it is change in the genome. It says none of those things, Shen.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:29 am

Even here scientists discuss if plasticity retards or speeds up evolution and is a factor in evolution. In the end plasticity helps to evolve the organism or retards it but even retardation is evolution:

 .
&(

Scientists debate whether or not phenotypic plasticity speeds or retards
evolution (Chapter 21). Some suggest that plasticity shields traits from
evolution because selection chooses among phenotypes (Huey et al. 2003,
Price et al. 2003, de Jong 2005). Individual adaptation may preclude genetic
selection. An example might be when a plastic behavior such as solar
basking, microhabitat shift, or seasonal migration moderates body
temperature, preempting selection for fur, melanin or thermal-adapted
enzymes. Others suggest that plasticity stimulates evolutionary
diversification by generating novelty (West-Eberhard 2003, Schlichting 2004), and/or via genetic accommodation. An example is dung beetles,
where plasticity in body size may have subsequently stimulated evolution of
testis size and alternative mating tactics (Simmons et al. 2007). Phenotypic
plasticity may act as an evolutionary capacitor to shield genetic variation
from elimination, only to release it under extreme environmental conditions
(Masel 2005, Feder 2007). Price (2006) argues that phenotypic plasticity can
either retard or accelerate rates of evolution, based on relative fitness of the
new phenotype. If an environmentally induced plastic change has high
fitness, then there should be little subsequent selection on either the plastic
trait or associated traits (no genetic change), as long as the population is
exposed to both environments. If the plastic change is highly detrimental,
then selection should act on genes to reduce the plastic response or
compensate in other ways (Nijhout 2003a, Grether 2005). If the plasticity is
slightly or moderately favorable, then subsequent selection should produce
genetic change that alters the reaction norm and associated traits to bring the
genome to an adaptive peak.


Taken from: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/pdfs ... nsects.pdf
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:30 am

SweetPea wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Lab-raised, not lab-bred (as your article incorrectly stated and I correctly re-stated as lab-raised).thank you.


If it was not for me you would not have the original study.
I thanked you for that. You have yet to thank me for introducing you to the very concept of plasticity.

Also the study claims this:

suggesting genetically based divergence in nature
...suggesting, not showing.

Also you are wrong about Phenotypic Plasticity. It is like I claimed before. First comes plasticity and then these traits can become PERMANENT
Of course. When the genetics change.
That's not phenotypic plasticity, that's genetic change. It can happen with plasticity playing several roles in fostering success if genetic change does occur.

Its evolution it does not matter how you twist it. If the trait survives long enough ti become permanently written in the genome.
It never said what you claim, that plasticity is evolution, a form of evolution, or that it is change in the genome. It says none of those things, Shen.


Thanks for plasticity but its only a form of evolution nothing more. It has more to do with epigenetics which later on express themselves in genes. Like it was written above. Sorry SweetPea plasticity is a form of evolution in the genome slowly but really it is. That is why its such a novelty and it does not destroy evolution.
Last edited by Shen1986 on Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:31 am

I was aware of genetic assimilation for a long time, Shen.

Let me bring you information on that subject.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:33 am

SweetPea wrote:I was aware of genetic assimilation for a long time, Shen.

Let me bring you information on that subject.


Not interested. I have already read about it. It shows what experimental evolution shows. So the lizards have evolved if you want or not even the authors suggests that it was a genetic change and many experiments even in the pdf about plasticity show that.

The only thing I need to know is this:

Genetic assimilation is a process by which a phenotype originally produced in response to an environmental condition, such as exposure to a teratogen, later becomes genetically encoded via artificial selection or natural selection.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_assimilation
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:42 am

Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:I was aware of genetic assimilation for a long time, Shen.

Let me bring you information on that subject.


Not interested. I have already read about it. It shows what experimental evolution shows. So the lizards have evolved if you want or not even the authors suggests that it was a genetic change and many experiments even in the pdf about plasticity show that.
"Suggests" is not "shows".



Genetic assimilation is a process by which a phenotype originally produced in response to an environmental condition, such as exposure to a teratogen, later becomes genetically encoded via artificial selection or natural selection.


Yes, LATER the phenotype can become genetically encoded. Do you understand what that means? That a genetic change can occur later; that means evolution can occur later.
It does not say that plastic change is evolution, nor that plasticity is a form of evolution.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:45 am

Shen,
Is eating the same as shitting?

First you eat, then you {!#%@}.

One is not the same as the other, except maybe in Gord's case.
Got it?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:52 am

SweetPea wrote:"Suggests" is not "shows".


Yeah almost every paper in science writes a lot the word may, suggest maybe etc.. Science does not claim things 100 percent because you cannot prove in science for 100 percent. Its only about the evidence where are they pointing to, nothing more.

SweetPea wrote:Yes, LATER the phenotype can become genetically encoded. Do you understand what that means? That a genetic change can occur later; that means evolution can occur later.It does not say that plastic change is evolution, nor that plasticity is a form of evolution.


Plastic change is a form of evolution. I am saying that it later on can become a part of the genome or it can even deform the genome. However the two examples with the lizards show that change took place and that change suggests it was genetic because some generations have passed where it can have been genetic like in the paper they written that they suggest it was a genetic change therefore evolution.

Actually plasticity first very well into the evolution theory itself because it is logical that changes will be quite slow before the genome changes so first the changes are epigenetic and later on genetic.

Also you did not mentioned that plasticity can become incorporated into the genetic make up later on. Which is why I am bringing this up.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:55 am

the plasticity is different phenotypes from only one genetic configuration.

if a mutation in the genetics arises, producing the same phenotype as with plasitic change, that gentic change can become fixed in the population...it's helped by the fact that the population is already operating with that phenotype. Potential mates would recognize a genetically changed one as one of their own.

See how nice that works?
Last edited by SweetPea on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:04 am

Shen1986 wrote:
SweetPea wrote:"Suggests" is not "shows".


Yeah almost every paper in science writes a lot the word may, suggest maybe etc..
Yes, the reader is expected to know the difference.

SweetPea wrote:Yes, LATER the phenotype can become genetically encoded. Do you understand what that means? That a genetic change can occur later; that means evolution can occur later.It does not say that plastic change is evolution, nor that plasticity is a form of evolution.


Plastic change is a form of evolution.
None of what you presented says or even sugests that in any way.

I am saying that it later on can become a part of the genome
I agree. That is what can happen. You're saying evolution can happen later when you say that. Remember the definition of evolution is genetic change in population.

or it can even deform the genome. However the two examples with the lizards show that change took place and that change suggests it was genetic because some generations have passed
No. No clean generation passed. Not even one.

Actually plasticity first very well into the evolution theory itself
It does fit. Later on, as you say, there may be a genetic change.

Also you did not mentioned that plasticity can become incorporated into the genetic make up later on. Which is why I am bringing this up.
There are so many things involved you wouldn't believe, Shen.

It was all I could do to get you to accept the premise that all phenotype change is not necessarily caused by genetic change. Rememeber?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby SweetPea » Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:11 am

As you say, they collected the pregnant females in 2011, giving time for multiple generations by now.

Why is there no report that they lab-bred them for the successive generations, clean of the previous environmental signal repercussions to the ovum sperm and embryo?
What did they do? Throw the lizards away?

Instead of a showing we get a "suggestion".

You know what? 15 years of work would have only produced evidence of plasticity if it didn't follow through to successive generations. A nothing-burger. No ability to claim surprisingly fast evolution.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Dutch
BANNED
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:10 pm

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Dutch » Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:52 pm

SweetPea wrote:No ability to claim surprisingly fast evolution.


See, sweetpea, you have this one problem with all of your arguments...you are holding onto the belief that evolution just simply cannot be possible. The real "why" of it probably lies in your upbringing (theistic most likely), but I can certainly see how the "why" can persist in the face of so much "evidence"....let me help you out here...

Rapid changes in a species are not new. Changing beak sizes for finches in the Galapagos, the color arrangement for moths in England, and the presented changing toe size of lizards are all very common occurrences. Now, where things get murky are on the interpretations of these types of events. Let's look at two of the common viewpoints...

Creationists: This is called micro-evolution which is not a sign of macro-evolution. God did it.
(Wow, Christianity has fallen so far from the days of Newton...)

Evolutionists: This is evolution at work! Natural selection baby!!
(Lol? The only aspect of evolution present in these rapid developments is inheritance...but of course, who would ever expect regurgitators to actually understand the material they regurgitate?)

As we can see from both of these oversimplified examples, both sides are so stuck in ideology that they are unable to actually see what this type of data signifies. Such rapid changes can only be attributed to one thing, genetics. Unfortunately pop-science is at least a decade behind known research and who knows how far behind the breakthrough research happening in some basement lab right now. The real question of how evolution works is in the genetic code. The ability of a species to adapt is already presupposed in the species' genetic data. The lizard toe length changes rapidly because it is programmed to do so. Were the lizards placed back into a situation where shorter toes are required for survival, you can be assured that those tiny toes will become even tinier.

Anyway, I kind of baited you with "you are holding onto the belief that evolution just simply cannot be possible" and never presented *why* you should believe in evolution, at least to some extent. However, this is neither the time nor the place...PM me if you are curious...

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:24 pm

Hi, Jason!
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10528
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:45 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Hi, Jason!

Or is that 'high Jason'?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Evolution in prime time..its real..

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:48 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Hi, Jason!

Or is that 'high Jason'?

LoJack, HiJason.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests