Revolutionary new food item! :D

[Zephyr]

So my mind got to ticking... Why are there so many garters in the one small area I herp? They defy traffic, human disruption, and gravity *always at the crest of the hill* for one thing: food. A further examination of the area reveals the following:
Amphibians- N/A. No breeding pools, no population.
Fish- N/A Local river high in metals, low count of small fish but high in junk fish too large for garter consumption.
Worms- ... Plentiful.
So I did a quick herping *worming, I should say. :P* trip to the area and dug up some leaves from the forest floor. Bingo. A species of worm I'd never seen before. Most specimens were large; 3+ inches. And the catchy trait; The squirm and wiggle, like a salamander, often dropping a fraction of their tail. I collected a sustainable amount from 2 areas both only 1 square yard; A total of 300 worms, mainly 3+ inches. After doing some research, I discovered that the worms in the great lake's basin are actually "exotic" invasions from Europe that are destroying our forests. *Mhm, chya right.* So I wondered if this food was garter gold... So I tried it on Fatty, who's in shed. One down. Tried it on her sister. Two down. Que the same situation with every other garters I own, even the ribbon sucked one down! Gentlemen, and ladies, I believe I have discovered one of the best foods for garters. I snapped a few photos of the specimens I found and sent them to a laboratory in the UK to be pinpointed as to the exact species. The person who does the ID's is out until the 14th, so we will have to wait for him to return for the exact identity. As soon as I get the culture going and find out exact care requirements, I will offer them for sale. This has to be one of the best discoveries to date! A worm with the attitude of the red wiggler, the size of a nightcrawler, and the flavor of the garden dew worm. What more could you ask for? :D

[adamanteus]

often dropping a fraction of their tail.

You found a worm that drops it's tail?:confused: Are you sure?

[Zephyr]

Yep, around 30% of the time when grabbed the very end of the tail fragments off, even when no pressure is applied. And better yet is the fact that when pestered or touched the slightest bit the thrash from side to side, perfect for finicky garters who like motion. :D
**And if you're thinking these are actually salamanders... They aren't. lol

[Zephyr]

Here's a pic of a medium sized individual.
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/6460/img0630ak7.jpg
They tend to thrash, then stop moving for a moment, then thrash again.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

it looks... "rigid"

[adamanteus]

No, I wasn't thinking salamanders, Kyle... I'm certain you know the difference. But I'd like to see video of a worm casting it's tail.... if it's 30% of them, that shouldn't be a problem.

[Zephyr]

I'll try and get one. It may be them just thrashing about though.

[Zephyr]

Okay, I tried to get a vid of the tail dropping, but to no avail. I did, however, catch the spasms. You've never seen a worm fragment its tail, James?

[Zephyr]

Youtube needs to load faster... lol

[Zephyr]

YouTube - New garter snake food (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM32ZJ-z29M)
Tada.
No tail break, but it did spasm. They wig out completely when a garter grabs them. XD

[crzy_kevo]

lol kyle i wathced your garter snake feeding vid with the 2 garters fighting for 1 worm that was funny

[Zephyr]

lol kyle i wathced your garter snake feeding vid with the 2 garters fighting for 1 worm that was funnyYeah, that was a few months ago... Before I knew to hand feed each. (AKA pamper. XD)

[ssssnakeluvr]

hmmmm......she spazzing out sounds different...I found some large worms in Kansas, as big as if not a little bigger than earthworms. one was crawling across the road at night, thought it was a small snake. I went back and went to grab it, it spazzed out real bad....all stiff and flipping around. the red siders seemed to like them also. wonder if it's the same type I found....looks similar...the one I found on the road was a good 10 inches long.

[infernalis]

I was waiting outside a doctors office while Dorothy was seeing the doc, I got bored and started digging in the leaves, the worms I found were nothing like I had ever seen, and match Kyles description exactly.

The dekays were afraid of them, the garters sucked them down quickly though.

The band (1/3 down from worms head) was whiter in color than I have seen, and they thrash like mad when disturbed.

I just never gave it any thought?? Sound like the same worm Kyle?

[Garter_Gertie]

I find this discussion on worms very thought provoking.

MN has no native worms but one; all others are introduced. The glacier(s) wiped them out and the native North American worms haven't made it up here yet. They only travel one mile, I think that's correct, in 100 years. Too, it's not know if they can survive our winters.

So, given that... earthworms weren't native MN garter's first choice in food. They've developed a hankering for them in the last 300 years or so. (It's supposed worms got here in earth that was used for ballast, worms or casings, and also in the soil around the plants the Europeans brought over.)

Isn't that fascinating? I think ittiz!

Invasive earthworms - Invasive species: Minnesota DNR (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html)

I just can't believe all the things I'm learning because I decided to get a snake. Wonderful factoids.

[KITKAT]

Here's a pic of a medium sized individual.
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/6460/img0630ak7.jpg
They tend to thrash, then stop moving for a moment, then thrash again.

WEIRD! I don't see a clitellum on this worm. Does it have one? If so, what is the distance from the tip of the nose to the clitellum?

[drache]

these look like worms I've got here
I always thought they were just night crawlers
the ones I've got in the back yard wiggle a lot too
I'll have to look at them more closely

[infernalis]

Dorothy reminded me last night, the worms from outside her doctors office DID have a tendency to break themselves when handled a bit.

[Lori P]

1. How does Kyle know they taste like dew worms????
2. How do you know the head from the tail???
3. What's a clitellum??

:-) :-)

[infernalis]

1. How does Kyle know they taste like dew worms????

Yeah, that one has me scratching my head as well, Kyle you eating worms????:rolleyes:

[Snake lover 3-25]

kyle was eating worms???? and he must have eaten a quite few to know what they taste like!!!!:D:p

[GartersRock]

OMG! I saw THOUSANDS upon thousands of those in Louisiana! We were on a missions trip in the fema trailer parks and we where clearing out an area of woods to build a park. They were JUST like that. They did sometimes drop a peice when you handled them too rough. I brought about 200 home with me and my garters loved them. I have NEVER seen these in TX thats for sure.
Thats the smae spot I caught my blue phase western ribbon. =D

[Zephyr]

Yeah, that one has me scratching my head as well, Kyle you eating worms????:rolleyes:
I can honestly say I have tried worms before. lol
If my snakes can eat them, so can I. But I will NOT touch pinkies. XD

[Zephyr]

This whole thing is quite perplexing. Obviously they stemmed from Europe, so peeps over there should have them too... And no, I have not seen a clitelum on any of the specimens. (Reproductive organ, Lori. :P)
Which somewhat fits one of the species description I looked up; Parthenogenesis.
If the species is parthenogenic, they wouldn't need a clitelum. :O

[Snake lover 3-25]

OMG kyle you really ate a worm!!!!!!?????:eek: ok now i'm curious!!!:D what did it taste like????:rolleyes:

[Zephyr]

OMG kyle you really ate a worm!!!!!!?????:eek: ok now i'm curious!!!:D what did it taste like????:rolleyes:Tasted like nothing; felt like an unflavored loogy. XD

[Snake lover 3-25]

ewwwwww now that is grose!!!!!

[jeanette]

they look like worms i dig up when im gardening.
i usually have three or four different looking worms in the garden some have a very bluish tinge to them others are very red some are brown with red stripes and some look like that one.
in england we also have a few foriegn worm invaders so i couldnt say if they are all native.

[Zephyr]

2. How do you know the head from the tail???

The head has the mouth on it. It looks like a little bubble of skin the protrudes out; also, it is usually darker in color.

[Zephyr]

Also, I HIGHLY doubt that the worms cause much damage, and I think they've been here longer than we think. Just think of the butler's and dekay's snakes! Their ranges couldn'tve expanded as far as they have without worms!

[Zephyr]

And the ID has been given:
Amynthas agrestis


Which is a highly "aggressive" Asian worm commonly used for bait.

[Zephyr]

I find it VERY odd how garters have adapted to eat a food found on most every other continent that's not there own.
Could it be that the introduction of the worm to US soil has been a driving force in garter population expansion? :O

[infernalis]

oddly, most studies focus on dwindling populations, instead of growth....

[Zephyr]

oddly, most studies focus on dwindling populations, instead of growth....Well of course there are other causes... I'm going to be generic and say pollution and loss of habitat, but the big killer is ignorance.

[Garter_Gertie]

You know, one o'the worms I got for P&J today, dropped its [I'm guessing] tail. I've never had that happen before. The 'tail' end went BONKERS.

There are native North American worms, just not in areas that were heavily glatiated like up here.

[Zephyr]

I still find it interesting that a species like Butler's or dekay's has adapted to the new food items though. Perhaps one of the only reasons for the development of the butler's as a species was because of the invasive worms! :O

[KITKAT]

I still find it interesting that a species like Butler's or dekay's has adapted to the new food items though. Perhaps one of the only reasons for the development of the butler's as a species was because of the invasive worms! :O

More and more, we have worms and not frogs. The reduction in frog populations is very noticeable in my area. Perhaps they gradually switched from frogs to worms?

[Zephyr]

That's alot easier for me. :P
Although I can't quite find records saying they even eat/ate frogs. The article I read says they're basically neotenic radix.

[Garter_Gertie]

What about Gertie? She's only been eating worms for 300 years or less. Prior to Post Contact, there were no earth worms in MN at all, but for that aquatic one.

Opertunistic, as it's been said of garters. She's not develope in 300 years or so because of worms. Garters have been here forever, as well as north in Canada.

And Dekays? Like where's their usual, normal basic habitat? Maybe unglaciated and they've eaten worms all along? And just 'went over' to the non-native North American species of worms because they were handy?

[Garter_Gertie]

It's far more reasonable to think the snakes adapted to whatever the food source they could eat than a species evolving because in hundreds - we're talking recent history here and survival of the fittest takes WAY longer than that - of years invasive worm species came about.

[KITKAT]

Brought inadvertently to the United States more than a century ago in plants imported from Japan, the earthworms are common in areas where people live, including Clarke County.
But now they're moving into wild forests like the Smokies, and scientists fear the voracious worms could disrupt the forests' ecological balance from the bottom up, consuming the leaf layer of soil that's a key part of the forest life cycle.
Just how much risk they pose isn't clear, Callaham said.
They don't look much different than other earthworms - 5 or 6 inches long, a little fatter than most.
But in maple forests in Minnesota where the worms have taken up residence, the leaf litter - decaying leaves and other plant material - has disappeared where the worms have invaded, Callaham said.
Layers of leaf litter that took 100 years to build up have disappeared in months, along with big and little creatures that lived in the litter.
Some plant species also seem to be declining in the worms' wake, and some scientists fear that could be the first evidence of bigger changes the worms are wreaking on the maple forests, Callaham said.

Read the entire article:

OnlineAthens.com | News | Invasive Asian earthworms hooked on destruction 11/05/07 (http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/110507/news_20071105041.shtml)

[Zephyr]

we're talking recent history here and survival of the fittest takes WAY longer than that -
Or does it? ;)

[Zephyr]

Yeah, that was actually the only info I found on the asian worms.
Personally, I think things will balance out eventually.

[Garter_Gertie]

Actually, it is not just the Asian worms. It's the Canadian night crawlers and others. All worms used for bait and then are dumped. You are sighting only one example.

As I posted earlier, a link to a MN DNR info on worms in MN, until approximately 300 +/- years ago, there were no native worms here but for a native aquatic one that garters don't eat

You are siting recent history. Prior to +/- 300 years ago the garters in MN did not eat worms. They did the frog, native minnows, small birds, carrion thing.

And yes. For survival of the fittiest to occur, it takes hundreds and hundreds - if not thousands - of years to pass for evolution to occur. What you're seeing now, in garters and the eating of non-native earth worms (at least in MN) is opportunistic and is contributing to the evolution of garters here. However, so far nothing in the lines of survial of the fittest has occured since the garters' original source of food has not dissapated.

[Zephyr]

I'm just saying that maybe the reason garters have become so "Successful" is because of the worms. We have no records of their population sizes before, oh maybe 1900.
Also, I tend to stay away from the term "Evolution." Natural selection and survival of the fittest can be proven in a lab, evolution can't.

[Garter_Gertie]

But as Dekay said, garters are not successful. While they have become opportunistic and found easier means of getting food - worms vs. their usual diet (far easier to cabbage onto a worm than swim for a native minnow) - they populations are nowhere increasing, but actuall decreasing.

And how are you able to differientate between natual selection, survival of the fittiest and evolution when, as a whole, they are the same?

You're correct. Evolution cannot be proven in a lab while et al can, as it takes thousnads of years for survival of the fittest/natural selection to induce evolution.

Look at yourself, man. You monkey, you! :D

[Zephyr]

Ah, but in a simulated environment I've yet to see Billy the chimp become Kyle the human. Though it may take thousands of years, I've yet to meet any one who's been alive for more than 120, so who's to say the planet's even been around for that long. :O

There are plenty of other factors that could be hitting hard on garters; I blame loss of habitat as the primary one.
What I do wonder is if one were to compare garter population from 1970's to the population size today, factoring in the given amount of land actually usable to the garters, if they would be an equal ratio.
AKA,
60 garters per square mile in a surveyed area of 60 square miles in 1970 (or any other date)
As compared to 30 garters per square mile in 30 square miles surveyed in 2008.

[Garter_Gertie]

And it is loss of habitat, Zepher, that's contributing to garters turning from their normal diet to worms. That are become ever more available as they [the worms] desinagrate the natural woods. Gods Bless Garters!

But there is the problem. Normal garter habitat is decreasing. Thus garters turn to worms that are readily available. Loss of habitat leads to less matings, less garters born. However, those that survive survive on less than natural/usual food - worms. They stay. And as their habitat decreases, so they do as they've turned to worms for their major diet.

Whatever, Zepher. You're seeing evolution - as so the passenger pidgeon - in garters. Not even plains garters' natural food has ever been worms.

If you want to get het-up about something, go in the opposite direction. Instead of praising worms and beliveing erroneoulsy they're the gods send to garters, open your eyes and see the truth - they may well be the downfall and demise of garters.

You've got the belief, you're just a bit misguided.

[Zephyr]

But if there's no consistent data that says that the worms are dooming garters, why believe it? Obviously the garters can live in a variety of habitats. If the worms are present, it indicates an area with a lot of soil aeration and obviously if the worms are accessible to the garters there's a forest floor.
Also, did we ever think that worms are a better diet for garters then say, fish?
Tilapia, salmon, etc, is what we feed them in captivity, but in the wild it's a thiaminase filled world of sunfish, bass, cyprinids and catfish they've got to deal with.
And as for amphibian, doesn't every one on here tell beginners not to feed an amphibian diet due to parasites?
All I'm saying is, if it isn't killing garters, it's making them stronger. If the worms were making such a large impact, we'd be seeing more of native fauna die off; when it's the opposite. We see them moving into our yards and out of areas recently refurbished from forest to human dwelling.
I will stand by my beliefs that the biggest threat to garters is the destruction of one, their den sites, which in turn is mainly caused by overall habitat destruction.
The worms themselves may be a God send to garters; gardeners always praise worms for overturning the soil and keeping things from getting stagnant. As long as the worms are available, and there's a den waiting some where nearby of course, there will be garters. Until some what proves, in a lab, that the entire scenario is dooming garters, I will remain on my side of the hypothetical debate.

[Garter_Gertie]

We are seeing native flora die off. Check it out. The link I posted previously.

Whatever, Zepher. You've not an open mind, nor caring one - from my perspective. You've your own agenda and will do whatever you need to to justify it instead of listening to what is really the case. I'm tired of presenting you with facts and realities.

You will believe what you want and what suites your erroneus suppostions and ideas. Have at'ur. Thanks for allowing me to speak my mind.

[Stefan-A]

And how are you able to differientate between natual selection, survival of the fittiest and evolution when, as a whole, they are the same?
They're part of the same theory. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution and survival of the fittest is another way to describe natural selection. But for natural selection to occur, there needs to be a criteria for selection and that means there needs to be variation.




You're correct. Evolution cannot be proven in a lab while et al can, as it takes thousnads of years for survival of the fittest/natural selection to induce evolution.
Also, I tend to stay away from the term "Evolution." Natural selection and survival of the fittest can be proven in a lab, evolution can't.
It can and has been proven in labs, and elsewhere. Every single part of evolution has been proven. It wouldn't even be adopted if it wasn't testable and if turned out to be false. When all the mechanisms have been tested and proven to work, there's no reason to assume that evolution doesn't.

To be blunt, all you really need to understand, is that random genetic mutations do happen and that those mutations sometimes influence the fitness of an individual. Natural selection can't work without actually causing evolution.

[ssssnakeluvr]

evolution type stuff happens a lot...was reading an article years ago about a moth species that was colored gray like the bark it would hang out on....over years, all the coal powered plants turned the bark black. the gray moths became easy targets for moth eating predators..and an occasional black one would pop up...eventually they all were colored black to match the bark.. :cool:

[drache]

evolution tends to be more observable in species that have faster life cycles
what you end up seeing short-term in species with longer life cycles, is behavioral adaptation, which can eventually be another evolutionary force

[GartersRock]

Hehe. Thats not evolution Don. Macro evolution is when they evolve into an entirely different species. Which has never been recorded.
I don't believe in evolution in the sense that one species will evolve into another.
But micro evolution. Where changes remain within the species is well recorded and perfectly true!

[Stefan-A]

Hehe. Thats not evolution Don. Macro evolution is when they evolve into an entirely different species. Which has never been recorded.
I don't believe in evolution in the sense that one species will evolve into another.
But micro evolution. Where changes remain within the species is well recorded and perfectly true!
I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, not in the sense you are using it, there's only evolution. Furthermore, there's no reason why "micro evolution" could exist without "macro evolution".

What you call macro evolution, is actually called speciation and it has in fact been recorded on numerous occasions.

[Zephyr]

...
Go intelligent design! XD
Of course that wouldn't explain half of my peers...
"Dumbing down" theory any one? XD

[GartersRock]

Yeah... Your "no reason" that macro evolution couldn't exist is theory. Not fact.

Ok. As for speciation. Yeah, thats the correct term.
Allopatric, Peripatric, Parapatric and Sympatric evolutionary processes still don't explain how one species would slowly evolve into an entirely different one.

As for those moths Don, the change of color has often been attributed to mutations, and while this may be a kind of change that mutations could make, it now seems to have been established that both colors already existed in the DNA of the moths, just like some people have darker coloration than others. When the trees were white, few of the dark moths lived to reproduce, so many more light colored moths were born. Later, when the trees became dark, the situation was reversed; the dark moths were the ones with protective coloration and the population shifted in their favor with fewer light colored moths able to evade the birds and reproduce. Natural selection had really made significant changes in the coloration of the moth population. The majority were no longer white as before, but dark.
However, natural selection can only choose between traits which are present. The moths remained moths. None had become bats or humming birds, or even a different kind of moth. Later, ecological awareness led to cleaning up the industrial smoke and many of the trees returned to their former white color. So did the moths.

Zephyr. =D

[Stefan-A]

Yeah... Your "no reason" that macro evolution couldn't exist is theory. Not fact.
It's a theory based on a multitude of facts that all seem to point in that very direction. Evolution is both fact and theory, just like the theory of gravity, the theory of electricity and several other scientific theories. And above all, it's a testable theory. It would never have been accepted as a scientific theory, if it wasn't.


Allopatric, Peripatric, Parapatric and Sympatric evolutionary processes still don't explain how one species would slowly evolve into an entirely different one.And why not? :rolleyes:


However, natural selection can only choose between traits which are present.True. However, mutations create new traits all the time and they generate new genetic information all the time. It's well recorded.


The moths remained moths. None had become bats or humming birds, Of course they didn't, because that's not how evolution works. It's a gradual change, not a complete makeover.


or even a different kind of moth.Actually, that's precisely whay they became.

[Zephyr]

My question for conservationists out there than is:
Why preserve and protect? So what if the giant panda goes extinct? If evolution is the driving force of organisms more suitable to their environment, why do humans struggle to keep these "obsolete" creatures from going extinct? It's a mixed view on a topic that most every one believes in but it's against our nature; if we know something is out dated but we like it, we're going to try to keep it that way. I guess this ties in with the worms; obviously, they're here, right now, and things better get used to them. The organisms that can't adapt, IE native flora and fauna and whatnot, will die off and the organisms performing better will survive. That's why I praise the garters; taking advantage of a new food source that's readily available and obviously influencing their environment; why not adapt? As I've stated before, until some one turns a salamander into a lizard, I will never believe in evolution. Adaptation and natural selection can be observed, but the total change of one organism into an entirely different cannot. (Or, more correctly, has yet to be recorded or observed.)
Seeing as I highly doubt any one's been around on this planet to make observations for the past 3.7 billion years, who's to say life, or even out planet, is that old?
On second thought... maybe James... :p

[Stefan-A]

My question for conservationists out there than is:
Why preserve and protect? So what if the giant panda goes extinct? If evolution is the driving force of organisms more suitable to their environment, why do humans struggle to keep these "obsolete" creatures from going extinct?
There are several reasons. The most obvious one is that it's psychologically satisfying to do it. Other reasons why it would be in our interest, as opposed to just "fun", is that it keeps the ecosystem better able to withstand disturbances if it has a higher biodiversity and that every species has potentially valuable genetic information that we may one day find a use for. Right now, worms are drastically reducing the biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems in North America. They are knocking out ecosystems that have developed under conditions without worms.


As I've stated before, until some one turns a salamander into a lizard, I will never believe in evolution.If that ever happened, I'd have to stop believing that the theory of evolution is a viable option. It simply doesn't work that way. Species diverge, they don't turn into each other.


Adaptation and natural selection can be observed, but the total change of one organism into an entirely different cannot. (Or, more correctly, has yet to be recorded or observed.)And by entirely different, you mean of course from a cat to a dog, not through gradual changes over a long period of time until the existing species is entirely different from the one it started out as. And you are of course incorrect, it has been observed and recorded several times.


Seeing as I highly doubt any one's been around on this planet to make observations for the past 3.7 billion years, who's to say life, or even out planet, is that old?The evidence. Who's to say that it isn't?

[Zephyr]

There are several reasons. The most obvious one is that it's psychologically satisfying to do it. Other reasons why it would be in our interest, as opposed to just "fun", is that it keeps the ecosystem better able to withstand disturbances if it has a higher biodiversity and that every species has potentially valuable genetic information that we may one day find a use for. Right now, worms are drastically reducing the biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems in North America.
But if evolution is driving for change, wouldn't the fittest survive? Let's say due to the worm's expansion, hence environmental changes, only garter snakes survive. They're the fittest of the fit; everything else failed. That would be evolution. But due to the lack of diversity, evolution wouldn't be able to happen. Evolution isn't a drive for change: It's a drive for finding the best and keeping it that way. Hence the reason why it doesn't work.



If that ever happened, I'd have to stop believing that the theory of evolution is a viable option. It simply doesn't work that way.
Well, apparently ichthyostega just sorta crawled out of the ocean and became the first amphibian. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual change; the evidence it has suggests a very rapid change. So what if you have sinoropteryx and archaeopteryx, and you say one "evolved" into another? Where's every little step in between, the specimen that is a little different than archaeopteryx, then a teeny bit more, then a little more, that evolution would require? The data shows a rapid change; not a slow one.



And by entirely different, you mean of course from a cat to a dog, not through gradual changes over a long period of time until the existing species is entirely different from the one it started out as. And you are of course incorrect, it has been observed and recorded several times.
Then let's take a look at Canis lupus familiaris. Over the past 1000 years, a relatively short window in the "history" of the earth, humans have spawned the many breeds we see today. In just that little time, we took a "wolf" and made it a "dog." Even so, we still see fertile dog x wolf crosses, of two animals that don't even have the same temperament, hunting techniques, or most anything else. You could barely even classify the dog as a subspecies of the wolf, more or less a variety. The selection and production of the dog by man shows that even within a comparatively short series of time, one thing can change its appearance but not what it is.
Same with goldfish; You can take a crucian carp and convert it to a pudgy, bubble-nosed aquarium pet, but no amount of even human selection could change it into anything near an amphibian. You can only work with what you have: In horses, 64 chromosomes, in donkeys, 62. If you so much as subtract one chromosome, you get a sterile animal. So how on earth do you expect me to believe that evolution defied known science and flopped the count of a few original chromosome sets and made man, more or less even a fertile animal! It's also known that it's easier for things to fall apart than stay together, like when an untended garden becomes overrun with weeds. The same is true with genetics; you can only subtract to get a desired outcome. Using this information, evolution wouldn't be adding genetic information, but rather deleting it. One bacteria isn't immune to an antibiotic; the immunity isn't added but rather the information in the bacteria's genetic structure deletes the weakness to the antibiotic, therefore making it immune. Therefore, to change any feature, you have to delete genetic material that says you can't have it. So, we're looking at the first organism being the most genetically complex organism to exist on Earth . Which coincidently, was formed entirely by accident. You can simulate early Earth conditions in a lab, but no matter how much help you give your materials, you'll never make life. The chances of a whole bunch of proteins and other structures snapping together to make a living organism defies the odds itself!


The evidence. Who's to say that it isn't?
This could go back and forth. But until some one travels back in time, snaps a photo, and brings it back with written observations of how everything occurred, I won't be entirely convinced.

[GartersRock]

Thumbs up Zephyr!! So far, no evolutionist has shown me anything to believe that it is true. Just a bunch of backpeddling.

[Stefan-A]

But if evolution is driving for change, wouldn't the fittest survive? Let's say due to the worm's expansion, hence environmental changes, only garter snakes survive. They're the fittest of the fit; everything else failed. That would be evolution. But due to the lack of diversity, evolution wouldn't be able to happen. Evolution isn't a drive for change: It's a drive for finding the best and keeping it that way. Hence the reason why it doesn't work.
Evolution isn't a drive for anything and neither is natural selection/survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest isn't an ideology, or a goal. It's a process.

In the garters' case, the introduction of the worms may provide one new food source, but it's one that does in fact cause habitat loss, which may very well harm the garters directly, especially in the long run. And if the conditions changed in a way that would knock out the worms, then those species dependent on the worms would also be knocked out. Even if the worms do fine, then the empoverished ecosystem has little or no resilience when something like climate change, or a natural disaster for example, occurs.


Well, apparently ichthyostega just sorta crawled out of the ocean and became the first amphibian. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual change; the evidence it has suggests a very rapid change. So what if you have sinoropteryx and archaeopteryx, and you say one "evolved" into another? Where's every little step in between, the specimen that is a little different than archaeopteryx, then a teeny bit more, then a little more, that evolution would require? The data shows a rapid change; not a slow one.You do realize that the "rapid" means rapid to geological terms, i.e. millions of years, not a few hundred or a few thousand?

According to what I've just read in the past 5 minutes, Sinosauropteryx and Archaeopteryx weren't even closely related. But even if one was a direct descendant of the other, it's an unrealistic expectation to find a fossil of every single animal in the whole chain between them. It's a completely ludicrous requirement to have a representative of every single mutation.


Then let's take a look at Canis lupus familiaris. Over the past 1000 years,The evidence suggests it's more like 15 000 years.


a relatively short window in the "history" of the earth, humans have spawned the many breeds we see today. In just that little time, we took a "wolf" and made it a "dog." Even so, we still see fertile dog x wolf crosses,We see fertile crosses, because they have been separated merely for a few thousand years. You probably already know this, but reproduction between dogs and wolves has become more difficult, partially because of the size difference between many dog breeds and the wolves, because of differences in behavior and because wolves are often having trouble identifying dogs as members of their own species. Most wolves don't treat a dog as another wolf, they treat it as prey. Speciation is already occurring, because the reproductive separation is already well established, albeit relatively new.


Same with goldfish; You can take a crucian carp and convert it to a pudgy, bubble-nosed aquarium pet, but no amount of even human selection could change it into anything near an amphibian.Again, they don't jump from one limb of the phylogenetic tree to another, and thus far, we have been unable to do more than to select. When we breed, we do not create the mutations, we just work with the ones that have occurred naturally and more importantly, mutations that we can detect. Provided that we had an infinite amount of time and thus an infinite amount and kind of mutations to choose from, we could get the correct random mutations that would make it possible for us to breed an amphibian-like animal that descends from goldfish. There is no natural law that could prevent it, if you ignore the simple fact that we do not have an infinite amount of time and cannot therefore choose the mutations that will turn a goldfish into a salamander.



You can only work with what you have: In horses, 64 chromosomes, in donkeys, 62. If you so much as subtract one chromosome, you get a sterile animal. So how on earth do you expect me to believe that evolution defied known science and flopped the count of a few original chromosome sets and made man, more or less even a fertile animal! It's very simple. Chromosomes fuse and split to form new chromosomes and they still retain the information we need to determine a common ancestor. Remember, we're talking about gradual changes, not a horse giving birth to a freak with two less chromosomes. I haven't bothered checking the counts, they're irrelevant to the discussion.

So how would I expect you to believe? Well, there are no competing scientific theories to the theory of evolution and every new discovery fills in another gap in our understanding of it.


It's also known that it's easier for things to fall apart than stay together, like when an untended garden becomes overrun with weeds.Ah, the good old entropy argument. You have no idea how many times it has been torn apart.


The same is true with genetics; you can only subtract to get a desired outcome. Using this information, evolution wouldn't be adding genetic information, but rather deleting it.Now that's simply untrue. "Copying errors" and mutations constantly add information to the genetic code, it's not something that is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics.


One bacteria isn't immune to an antibiotic; the immunity isn't added but rather the information in the bacteria's genetic structure deletes the weakness to the antibiotic, therefore making it immune.Incorrect. It can be a question of deleting information or adding information, but the end result is that the antibiotic doesn't have an effect on the bacteria. It's a matter of changing bacteria, which doesn't mean that information has to be deleted.


Therefore, to change any feature, you have to delete genetic material that says you can't have it.Not at all.


So, we're looking at the first organism being the most genetically complex organism to exist on Earth. Complete nonsense, considering that the molecule can gain material and does so.


Which coincidently, was formed entirely by accident.It's called chemistry, there's not much that's accidental about it.


You can simulate early Earth conditions in a lab, but no matter how much help you give your materials, you'll never make life.And why not? :rolleyes:

You're not talking about evolution anymore, you're talking about abiogenesis and there are a number of possible ways that we know of, that could have started it all.


The chances of a whole bunch of proteins and other structures snapping together to make a living organism defies the odds itself!Nonsense. We're talking about chemistry here, it follows strict rules, some of which makes it easier and much more probable for molecules to "snap together" in a certain way. Talking about odds is pointless, too. The often quoted probabilities are completely irrelevant.


This could go back and forth. But until some one travels back in time, snaps a photo, and brings it back with written observations of how everything occurred, I won't be entirely convinced.The photo could be fake, the person could be lying or may just have misunderstood what he saw. That's also something that could happen if you had the opportunity to go back and see for yourself. Without applying the scientific method, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.

[Stefan-A]

Just a bunch of backpeddling.Such as? :rolleyes:

[GartersRock]

Whoops. It all got deleted... Darn! Hold on...

[GartersRock]

Evolution mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. I have always agreed that there is variation within species. But there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Evolutionists want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A generation of bacteria grows in a matter of hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than the already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible.

[Stefan-A]

But there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed,
Care to elaborate on what these "strict limits" are and how they are enforced? :rolleyes:


something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.That would be the fact that selective breeding has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Evolutionists want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.Rubbish, we see it all the time. And then there's the evidence creationists are more than happy to ignore or just deny without even a basic understanding of genetics or biology in general.

They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria.What problems? The evidence for it is plentiful.


But they never turn into anything new.Yeah, how many times do I need to tell you this? The change is gradual. Somebody obviously isn't listening.


Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.Actually, that's the exact opposite of what scientific research is showing us. But please, keep ignoring the facts.

But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate componentsLess intricate than you might think. Our genetic code is a real mess, like a hard drive that desperately needs to be defragmented. We have genes that don't serve a purpose anymore, genes that never had a purpose, genes that work even if you flip them around and move them about, genes that have been deactivated.. In short, it's not a well-organized filing cabinet, it's more like a wall in a public bathroom.

[GartersRock]

You know what. I was going to type a detailed response. But this is going back and forth. It appears to me you are not listening. It appears to you I am not listening. Well I am listening. No need for sarcasim... I could very well say YOU are not listening for continuing to say the change is gradual. After years of constant arguing with people on many subjects.. Dogs, vaccines, evolution. Some changed their opinions, most didn't. I have learned after a few exchanges to let it go. Which is what I am gonna do. I have learned over the years the signs of those whose minds won't be changed by back and forth disscussions and refuse to waste my time.
(And NO this is not be "giving in". It is very hard for me to back off of a debate. But is something I have learned to do in situations where the debate isn't going anywhere).

[MoJo]

I may have missed part of the argument but bacteria are changing all the time. The fact that many bacteria become resistant to antibiotics show that.

Let's take an antibiotic that kills a bacteria by breaking down the cell wall of the bacteria. The bacteria don't become resistant to the antibiotic by saying to themselves "Hmm this antibiotic breaks are cell walls by doing abc, let's develop something in our genes that does not allow abc to work". The bacteria are not that smart. The reality is by chance some bacteria already had something in there genetic make up that did not allow their cell wall to be broken so they were the ones to survive and went on to reproduce/divide. So now you have more of that bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic making the antibiotic useless for that bacteria. Other bacteria never by chance had that gene so they stay susceptible to the antibiotic. If this isn't natural selection or evolution at work I don't know what is. Just because the bacteria is still a bacteria does not mean evolution is not true. It evolved in a different way.

There are many other examples today that are available. Why do black people have more sickle cell disease than white people? It is because they lived in hot tropical climates where malaria was common. The abnormal red blood cell (sickle cell) did not allow for malarial infections to be successful i.e kill the human being. So people who carry the sickle cell gene on only one of their chromosomes had less chance of dying from malaria and going on to reproduce. These is called sickle cell trait and they have a smaller number of red blood cells that "sickle" and they do not die of sickle cell disease. It was evolutionarily beneficial to carry the sickle cell trait. That is no longer the case for the most part.

I will give you another possible example. I can wiggle my ears, as can my father and all three of my children. For the most part this is a useless behavior. Let's say that in the future someone decides they want to exterminate all Americans but believes that anyone who can wiggle their ears is somehow magical and should not be exterminated. Well then, my kids will survive to reproduce as will other ear wigglers and eventually a large portion of the population will be able to wiggle their ears. Pure chance that this silly hereditary trait was beneficial! But again showing "survival of the fittest".

[Zephyr]

Might I mention one last thing?
Evolution is just a theory. If it were so true, and the evidence unsurmountable, then everyone would believe it; The universal LAW of gravitation as compared to the THEORY of evolution.

[MoJo]

Just because a majority of people believe something does not make it true. That is a self serving argument.

I trust that you believe that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. You might want to read this excerpt from Wikipedia

"Western Christian biblical references Psalm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms) 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Chronicles) 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Psalm&verse=104:5&src=NIV) says, "the LORD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_LORD) set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes) 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-Bellarmine_quote-87)
Galileo defended heliocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism), and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.
By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Bellarmine), acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Barberini) as Pope Urban VIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII) in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems), was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) and papal permission. "

[Stefan-A]

Might I mention one last thing?
Evolution is just a theory. If it were so true, and the evidence unsurmountable, then everyone would believe it; The universal LAW of gravitation as compared to the THEORY of evolution.
The evidence is indeed insurmountable and we are talking about a scientific theory, not theory in the sense that people use it in everyday speech. I mentioned other scientific theories before, such as the theory of gravity. The difference between "just a theory" and scientific theory, is that a scientific theory is backed up by actual evidence. It's not a guess and it's not just a hunch. It's all about evidence (gotta love that word).

The problem with your theory (in the casual sense, not the scientific), is that some people don't want to believe the truth even when the evidence is clearly pointing in that direction and they'll do anything in order to hold on to their beliefs. The more compelling the scientific evidence becomes, the more these people will try to resist it.

MoJo is right, just because many believe something, doesn't make it true. It's called argumentum ad populum and it's a fallacious argument. As a side note, you might want to google "Project Steve", or just look it up in wikipedia.

[ssssnakeluvr]

It's all about evidence (gotta love that word).


hehehe....love that word myself.....get to work with it on my job.....:cool:

[Stefan-A]

(And NO this is not be "giving in".
Duly noted.

[Zephyr]

lol At the giving in bit.
But it's still scientific THEORY. It has yet to be PROVED, no matter how much EVIDENCE we have, it has yet to be PROOVED.
And that's how you sound like a scientist. :)

[Zephyr]

Also, I think James may $H!7 his pants when he finds out we had a debate and no one's head's rolled. lol

[Stefan-A]

lol At the giving in bit.
But it's still scientific THEORY. It has yet to be PROVED, no matter how much EVIDENCE we have, it has yet to be PROOVED.
And that's how you sound like a scientist. :)
You don't seem to quite get it. As a SCIENTIFIC theory, it has already been proven, it has been tested and it has been observed inside and outside of the laboratory. That evolution occurs is a fact.

[Zephyr]

You don't seem to quite get it. As a SCIENTIFIC theory, it has already been proven, it has been tested and it has been observed inside and outside of the laboratory. That evolution occurs is a fact.
As stated before, I've yet to see any animal, no matter how much human influence or environmental influence is used upon it, become another. There has yet to be a laboratory, anywhere, that has turned a fish into anything other than a fish. Natural selection and adaptation can exist WITHOUT evolution; Cockroaches can adapt to new environments, humans can adapt to new environments, most any animal can adapt to a new environment. You can have two populations of gliding lizards; one with longer wings and one with shorter wings; and higher winds in their environment naturally select those with shorter wings which are less air resistant. But you can't have one organism become another when there is no data in their genetic material to do so. And as for mutations... How many mutations can you name that are beneficial? Just look at my deformed hybrid albino checkered: Mutation for a kinked neck, obviously no good for maneuvering. No left eye, so if a hawk swoops down from that direction, he's done for. And a shortened and deformed mouth, not strong enough to hold onto prey. Any mutation that isn't bad has neutrality in use; If an animal adapts to a subterranean lifestyle, eyes are unnecessary. However, due to the environment, IE natural selection, the trait of not having eyes is neutral to its lifestyle. Another example; Genetic mutations in fruit flies. In the lab environment, yet again natural selection (And partially human selection) a mutation in eye color, possibly causing loss of sight in the eyes, doesn't matter because there are no predators! It's not beneficial because it obviously doesn't help the fly, but it's not harmful either.

[Zephyr]

Also... There's a big difference between data and evidence. We have evidence of evolution, but we don't have any data. We don't have statistics showing how the early fish gradually grew fins; we have evidence in the fossil record that "suggests" they did. We don't have any data showing that we descended from apes; we have evidence of our supposed ancestry through the fossil registry. However, we don't have any data; no stats saying that the cranial capacity of apes became greater, no stats that the feathers of test subject one's third generation offspring were slightly longer due to so and so influences. No data.

[Stefan-A]

As stated before, I've yet to see any animal, no matter how much human influence or environmental influence is used upon it, become another. There has yet to be a laboratory, anywhere, that has turned a fish into anything other than a fish.
You're still not getting the fact that the changes are gradual.


Natural selection and adaptation can exist WITHOUT evolution; Cockroaches can adapt to new environments, humans can adapt to new environments, most any animal can adapt to a new environment.
Adaptation of behavior has nothing at all to do with natural selection. In fact, the change has to happen within a single generation, or the population is knocked out. What you can't get without evolution, is the ability to adapt. You can change your survival strategy only because evolution has made it possible.


But you can't have one organism become another when there is no data in their genetic material to do so.
New data can be generated and it has been proven to occur. Even our own DNA contains information that's just waiting to be activated.


And as for mutations... How many mutations can you name that are beneficial? Just look at my deformed hybrid albino checkered: Mutation for a kinked neck, obviously no good for maneuvering. No left eye, so if a hawk swoops down from that direction, he's done for. And a shortened and deformed mouth, not strong enough to hold onto prey.
Worst example ever. Occurrences of detrimental mutations do not change the fact that beneficial mutations occur as well.


Any mutation that isn't bad has neutrality in use; If an animal adapts to a subterranean lifestyle, eyes are unnecessary. However, due to the environment, IE natural selection, the trait of not having eyes is neutral to its lifestyle.
Not true. Not having eyes not neutral to its lifestyle, it's beneficial. Eyes are sensitive and easily damaged, and developing and having them requires energy. Eliminating unnecessary and under the conditions detrimental features improves the animal's fitness. That's why there are still vestiges which prove that a species has evolved from something different.


Also... There's a big difference between data and evidence.
Yeah, evidence is data within a specific context.


We have evidence of evolution, but we don't have any data. We don't have statistics showing how the early fish gradually grew fins; we have evidence in the fossil record that "suggests" they did. We don't have any data showing that we descended from apes; we have evidence of our supposed ancestry through the fossil registry.
Actually, we all carry the data that shows our relation to apes, turtles, amphibians, birds, bacteria and garters. The data is there, we're not guessing when we talk about common ancestry.


However, we don't have any data; no stats saying that the cranial capacity of apes became greater, no stats that the feathers of test subject one's third generation offspring were slightly longer due to so and so influences. No data.
No, actually we do have the data that shows for example changes in skull shape and volume. What we don't have, is a sample from every single generation, but that's not something that is needed to prove evolution

So, what's your alternative to evolution? :rolleyes:

[Lori P]

Ahhh... I've been sitting here sipping my coffee and having a ball reading thru this. You guys rock. What a great discussion. I have nothing of value to add, just love watching your minds work. :-)

[Garter_Gertie]

If there's no evolution, why do I have an appendix? And why did my little toe get little?

I love the way Stefan thinks because I can't think like that. Very intelligent and articulate. WoW!

[Stefan-A]

why do I have an appendix?
The deadline closed.

[Zephyr]

Also, not to be too personal, but are you an atheist Stefan?
If so, this conversation will continue to go back and forth. I've tried showing atheist friends that evolution doesn't exist, but always to no available.
If not so, technically, I don't believe in evolution as a force by itself. Hence the intelligent design. There is evidence, as you've said, of things changing, but we don't have all the little bits in between and have not observed the change of one organism into another in the natural world or in a synthesized environment. (YET, might I add.)

So, if you'd like to continue our discussion I'd be more than happy to, but for now I'm putting the heavy artillery fire away. (The sound of rattling mental machine guns tends to scare the baby garters. :P )

[Zephyr]

The deadline closed.
I had to stare at that for a minute before I got it. XD

[Stefan-A]

Also, not to be too personal, but are you an atheist Stefan?
It really shouldn't matter what I am.


If so, this conversation will continue to go back and forth. I've tried showing atheist friends that evolution doesn't exist, but always to no available.
You're using stock arguments against evolution, but the problem is that they are easily refuted. There are two reasons why that is. The first, is that the people who came up with them know absolutely nothing about science, they are simply trying to convince people who are poorly educated and they are therefore prone to resort to a lot of fallacious arguments, especially straw man arguments, as well as direct lies. They're admittedly more proficient at convincing people than evolutionists are, since they're appealing to ignorance and emotions, while evolutionists are forced to appeal to knowledge, which isn't going to work if the listener isn't familiar with certain scientific concepts. The second reason, is the refusal of creationists to discard failed arguments. After a while it's like shooting fish in a barrel for those of us who aren't creationists.


If not so, technically, I don't believe in evolution as a force by itself. Hence the intelligent design. There is evidence, as you've said, of things changing, but we don't have all the little bits in between and have not observed the change of one organism into another in the natural world or in a synthesized environment. (YET, might I add.)
Actually, we have. The problem is that creationists keep moving the goal posts to come up with new excuses not to accept the evidence that they are presented with.