Prabhupada: “Then after development of human body, why is the monkey species does not cease? Why not it does not cease?”
Beweis was “Evolution” in Wirklichkeit ist – ein Anpassungsvorgang bereits erschaffener Lebensformen.
Evolution läuft rückwärts
Im sauberen See wird der Stichling wieder wehrhaft – weil seine Entwicklung eine Rückwärtsrolle macht.
Von FOCUS-Redakteur Sebastian Jutzi
Ein Forscherteam um die Biologin Catherine Peichel vom „Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center“ in Seattle hat beobachtet, wie die Evolution rückwärts läuft. In dem See Lake Washington erlangten Stichlinge eine Eigenschaft wieder, die sie wegen der starken Verschmutzung des Wassers verloren hatten.
Bis in die 60er-Jahre des vergangenen Jahrhunderts flossen riesige Mengen Abwasser in den See und überdüngten ihn. Die Trübung durch das Abwasser und starkes Algenwachstum verschlechterten die Sichtverhältnisse bis auf gut 70 Zentimeter. Dreistachlige Stichlinge (Gasterosteus aculeatus), die sich üblicherweise von Fressfeinden, zum Beispiel Forellen, verfolgt sehen, konnten sich nun viel besser verstecken.
In der Folge verloren sie die Knochenplatten, die sogenannten „Schilde“, die sie statt Schuppen als Schutz auf der Haut tragen. Ende der 60er-Jahre wiesen nur noch sechs Prozent der Fische die Knochenplatten auf. Klare Sicht für Jäger Als man damit begann, das Wasser des Sees zu reinigen, verbesserte sich die Sicht allmählich – zunächst auf etwa 3,5 Meter, später sogar bis auf 7,5 Meter. Bei einer aktuellen Untersuchung der Stichlinge stellten Peichel und ihre Kollegen fest, dass mittlerweile 49 Prozent der Fische wieder komplett und 35 Prozent zum Teil von Knochenplatten überzogen sind. „Wir nehmen an, dass der wahrscheinlichste Grund für diese rückwärts gerichtete Evolution die verbesserte Sicht und der dadurch erhöhte Jagddruck durch Forellen ist“, erklärt Peichel. Flexibel dank Vielfalt In der natürlichen Stichlingpopulation kommen sowohl komplett beschilderte und teilweise beschilderte als auch schildlose Formen vor. Stichlinge, die kaum Knochenplatten aufweisen, leben ausschließlich im Süßwasser. Diejenigen mit vielen Knochenplatten sind marine Wanderformen.
***********************************************************
Loss of Function in Stickleback Fish = Loss of Another Argument for “Macroevolution” for Francis Collins
In his book The Language of God, theistic evolutionist scientist Francis Collins contends that diversity within populations of stickleback fish demonstrates that there is no distinction between “macroevolution” and “microevolution.” According to Collins, “It is not hard to see how the difference between freshwater and saltwater sticklebacks could be extended to generate all kinds of fish. The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is therefore seen to be rather arbitrary; larger changes that result in new species are a result of a succession of smaller incremental steps.” (p. 132) Aside from the fact that this provides another example refuting the Darwinist myth that ID proponents invented terms like “macroevolution” or “microevolution,” a closer look at the facts shows that Collins’ story sheds little light, if any, on “macroevolution,” unless one considers loss of function to constitute impressive “macroevolution.”
There are two basic groups of sticklebacks: marine (saltwater) sticklebacks that have armor-plating, and freshwater sticklebacks with normal fish scales and little-to-no armor-plating. According to Collins, the presence of unique armor-plating in marine sticklebacks shows great variation within a group that is relatively low on the taxonomic hierarchy, allegedly demonstrating the possibility for large-scale evolution. Or perhaps better put, microevolutionary devolution…
A scientific study published a few months ago reports that the marine stickleback (the ones with the armor plates) came before freshwater sticklebacks (the ones without armor-plating), meaning that this is not an example of the evolution of a new function, but an example of loss-of-function, or what one might term devolution. As a Science Daily press release on the paper from this past September stated, this evolution entailed “[s]hedding some genetically induced excess baggage”:
Shedding some genetically induced excess baggage may have helped a tiny fish thrive in freshwater and outsize its marine ancestors. Measuring three to 10 centimetres long, stickleback fish originated in the ocean but began populating freshwater lakes and streams following the last ice age. Over the past 20,000 years – a relatively short time span in evolutionary terms – freshwater sticklebacks have lost their bony lateral plates, or “armour,” in these new environments. “Scientists have identified a mutant form of a gene, or allele, that prohibits the growth of armour,” says UBC Zoology PhD candidate Rowan Barrett. Found in fewer than one per cent of marine sticklebacks, this allele is very common in freshwater populations.
Alas, Collins’ example, which is intended to break down the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, really only provides evidence that populations of organisms can lose unique and complex features when selection pressure is relaxed. This tells us nothing about how complex features like armor-plating evolved in the first place — it just shows something we already knew: that Darwinian evolution is great at losing functional genetic information. I’m sure that most biologists — either pro-ID or anti-ID — would consider finding that populations can lose certain complex features to be unsurprising.But the best part about this story isn’t Collins’ bad argument for “macroevolution,” but rather it’s the ScienceDaily press release’s misleading title: “’Armored’ Fish Study Helps Strengthen Darwin’s Natural Selection Theory.” If evidence showing that populations can lose a unique and complex characteristic is considered to “strengthen Darwin’s natural selection theory,” then Darwin’s “natural selection theory” must be indeed gravely lacking in evidence supporting its grand claims.
