I suspected it was happening. Many a times I’ve stood in my backyard and thought to myself, “I smell evolution.” Is it really the case? According to recent research, it’s happening here in my own lower, somewhat flaccid member-state of the Bible Belt.
What’s happening? Native U.S. Lizards Are Adapting To Escape Attacks By Fire Ants. In particular -
Penn State Assistant Professor of Biology Tracy Langkilde has shown that native fence lizards in the southeastern United States are adapting to potentially fatal invasive fire-ant attacks by developing behaviors that enable them to escape from the ants, as well as by developing longer hind legs, which can increase the effectiveness of this behavior.
Holy crap. We have fence-lizards in our very yard. I should get a camera and document this alleged EVOLUTION in action. But wait – the lizard legs in my piece of turf don’t look longer, they just look as they are. Hmm. Seems I can’t see evolution. How do I really know it’s happening? Learn me some science? Do I have to?
Okay, I’ll try a little learnin’. Here goes –
Langkilde conducted an experiment in which she compared the responses to fire ant attacks of lizards that were collected from four different sites: one that had not yet been invaded by fire ants and ones that were invaded by fire ants 23, 54, and 68 years ago. Her goal was to determine whether the amount of time since invasion influences the ways in which lizards respond to attacks.
What did Tracy Langkilde find when she wasn’t in the kitchen (where the Bible god would have preferred her to be)?
“The lizards can survive this attack by twitching to flick off the ants and then by running away from the mound,” said Langkilde. “We found that the lizards from sites that have been invaded the longest were more likely than the lizards from sites that have not yet been invaded to perform this survival behavior. Many of the lizards from the uninvaded site and the most recently invaded site just sat there with their eyes closed while the ants attacked,” said Langkilde, who stopped the experiment after 60 seconds to prevent any of the lizards from dying.
And . . .
She also discovered that lizard leg length appears to be inherited from an individual’s parents. Langkilde concluded that the lizards living near fire ants are developing behaviors to increase their survival and are evolving longer hind legs in response to attacks by fire ants.
But wait a minute. How the hell do you get from lizards wagging their tails to the conclusion that Darwin was right and my grandpa was a monkey? What? I have more learning to do?
Screw that. I’ve got a cold Bud waiting. Where’s my wife to fetch one?
[recycled post: first appeared 1/28/09 here]
> Related Posts
Tags: creationism, wildlife
July 9th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Evolution? …. phhh!
Nothing evolves of course. If a species evolves it dies out.
Death is the hallmark of change, not evolution. How the evolutionists missed that one is beyond me.
July 10th, 2010 at 8:46 am
John -
Nothing evolves? How do you know this? Field study? Scholarly research? What?
Don’t you find it curious that the vast majority of the well-educated individuals working in the life-sciences fields have come to the conclusion, Yup, sure looks like evolution occurs?
Perhaps you are the one missing something. That’s my educated guess.
July 10th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
When I say nothing evolves, I am saying that no thing has been specified that evolves.
No proof is needed. A “thing that evolves” doesn’t specify what that thing is.
July 11th, 2010 at 7:44 am
John -
Evolutionary theory does not claim that a single “thing” evolves. Rather, life forms evolve, species evolve. The genetic makeup of groups changes and shifts in a direction set by environmental pressure. This is not just conjecture. Experiments have confirmed it (I recall one with guppies and another with bacteria — I’m sure there are many more). Species evolve over time, not within the lifetime of a single individual. In essence, evolution occurs between generations: when gametes are formed and when a fertilized zygote with unique qualities is created. The change is incremental, and it basically occurs between generations of species. Over many generations, there is change. Species do change. It’s a very well documented fact. I suggest you do some reading of more objective sources than you seem to be presently familiar with.
July 11th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Species most definitely DO NOT evolve. They vanish, their individuals die, and another species may, or may not use their resources. Why that’s called “evolution” is more about marketing than common sense or science.
Nothing “advances” in evolution. There is nothing to advance toward. Each species, any species, is complete. “Species advancement” is a synonym for “elimination of a species”.
Change is not incremental. It is not incremental because tehre is nothing to which an increment is working toward. The only reason for saying that there is change, increments, and evolution is that we regard all life as a means to an anthropomorphic end. Well, I’m not fooled by this narcissistic promo.
July 11th, 2010 at 9:45 am
John, you don’t know what you are talking about.
And who used the word “advance”? Not me. And I certainly wouldn’t because that would imply progress.
I hate to do it, but because your comments are so out-to-lunch, I’m going to be filtering them. Write anything remotely rational and coherent, and I’ll post it. Otherwise, I’ll save my other readers’ exposure to such inanity. Or is it insanity?
July 11th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I have an MA in analytic philosophy, degree in chenistry, LRIC biochemistry. I have been accepted as a PhD student working on analytic philosophy- Wittgenstein and the Tractatus.
The skeptism here is intellectually fragile and protectionist.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:48 am
John-
Your philosophy/skepticism strikes me as nearly nihilistic. Not very pragmatic nor helpful.
I am a fan of philosophy and read quite a bit of it (particularly on what philosophers have to say about the nature of space and time). That said, philosophers can be led astray by the intricacies of the workings of their own minds, losing touch with potentially grounding, empirical data.