Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy 109 Replies latest jw friends

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Hey gang! I apologize for my absence of a few weeks. I have been very busy with work lately, and I hate to write something that I haven't been able to research properly, so I haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now. This week's installment will be a brief one, but certainly one that should provide interesting fodder for further thought and research.

    Previous articles:
    Retroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx
    Cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx
    What evolution is not: The role of randomness: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87711/1.ashx
    Mitochondrial DNA, part 1: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87781/1.ashx
    Mitochondrias DNA, part 2: Neandertals: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88271/1.ashx
    Atavisms and Vitamin C: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88649/1.ashx

    My entry this week will be on the phenomenon of species that exist in only one place in the world. There are many instances of this. For example, kangaroos exist only in Australia (in fact, marsupials as a whole are found only in Australia and the surrounding islands). There are 900 species of insects in Hawaii that have been shown to be descended from a single ancestor. Large inland lakes, such as Lake Tanganyika in Africa also provide an interesting study in this phenomenon.

    Some quick facts about Lake Tanganyika, from http://www.africaguide.com/facts.htm:

    Take Tanganyika is the deepest lake in Africa reaching at its greatest depth is 1,436 m (4,710 ft), making it the second deepest freshwater lake in the world after Lake Baikal.

    Interestingly, Lake Tanganyika is home to many species of fish that exist nowhere else in the world. http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lakes_east_africa.php says that there are about 200 unique species of cichlid fish. Just to give these guys a face, here are a few pictures:

    Okay. Now, the phenomenon of unique species is pretty interesting, especially when they occur in isolated bodies of water. Why should a species occur in this lake and nowhere else in the world? How is that even possible?

    From a creationist point of view, if I may be so bold, it is impossible to explain in a convincing manner. Even if we say that God created 200 species just for this particular lake, what happened during the flood? Remember "the waters covered the highest mountain." So these fish were no longer confined to their lake. They swam around uninhibited for a year, and then somehow all ended back back in the same lake? Definitely hard to swallow.

    What makes it even harder to swallow is that several DNA studies in situations like this have shown that the unique species are genetically related.

    DNA studies of 16 species, representing the major Malawian cichlid groups, suggest that all the Malawian cichlids arose from one single species within the past 700,000 years.
    -- http://www.hagblomfoto.com/article_evolution.htm

    Regarding the same phenomenon in Lake Victoria:

    In the October 11th (1990) issue of Nature, Meyer et.al. present of paper aimed at establishing if the cichlid fish species of Lake Victoria (Africa) are monophyletic or polyphyletic. (If they all share a recent common ancestor in that lake or came from separate lineages that invaded the lake). In their paper they sequenced a 363 bp part of the cytochrome b gene and a 440 bp segment of mitochondrial DNA from what is called the control region. They sequenced these genes from several species of fish in the lake and a few species from relatively nearby lakes.

    What they found was the sequences in the Lake Victoria species of fish were all very similar, but they were different from the sequences of fish in nearby lakes. All the sequences are listed in the paper.

    They came to the conclusion that this indicated the cichlid species of Lake Victoria all derive from a recent common ancestor in the lake.

    -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#cichlid-fish

    So what we have are a family of isolated species that can be shown to be genetically related, and which exist nowhere else in the world. This is about as solid a set of evidence for evolution as one could ever expect to see. There simply is no reasonable explanation except that evolution is a real phenomenon that is actively creating new species.

    So that's it for this week! Think, discuss, enjoy!

    SNG

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    Thanks for another great installment, SNG!

    Not to take things off track, but as I've learned more about evolution, I've come to appreciate how very inevitable it is. So natural. Like the water cycle. The water cycle is played up to be some great miracle of creation by god, but it doesn't require any intervention, any "kick-off". It's what happens. Water evaporates, condenses, falls, evaporates, and so on. It's a natural process. You'd be hard pressed to find a way to stop this inevitable cycle.

    Evolution too is so fully in tune with natural processes. Creatures can't help but reproduce; that's what they do. The reproduction process can't help but be flawed from time to time, producing mutations. Those mutations can't help but to occassionally produce a benefit. The benefitted creature will be inexorably drawn to the top of his population by virtue of his greater ability to survive and/or reproduce. The better genes simply can't avoid being spread around through the population as the better version takes over, or splits off. The lesser versions can't help but be driven away or killed off.

    You drop a ball, it falls. It can't help it. So too evolution happens because it must happen. Nature wouldn't have it any other way.

    Beautiful, I think. Absolutely awe-inspiring. Praise be to.. to.. well, anyway, very cool.

    Dave

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Oh when will Malawi stop persecuting God's people??? *nashes teeth*

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    LOL Six!

    Seriously, island species were one of the things that really bugged me as a Witness. Especially considering the flood legend, since not only was some sort of 'microevolution' required to turn whatever Noah could bring onto the ark into all the species we find today, but the critters somehow had to hop the ocean to end in Australia and America, as well.

  • No Apologies
    No Apologies

    Now for the JW response:

    First of all, the Bible speaks of animals reproducing according to their kind. The Bible's 'kind' is not the same as what a scientist refers to as a 'species'. Although there can be much variation within a kind, it still remains as the same kind.

    So yes, although there may be several different species of this cichlid fish, for example, the fact remains that they are all still fish. They have not turned into reptiles or amphibians.

    No Apologies(of the devils-advocate class)

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    No Apologies:

    The beauty of having a vague word like "kind" is that it can mean whatever it needs to mean at the time. Is a "kind" a species, a family, a genus, an order, or a kingdom?

    Science defines a species as a population that is reproductively isolated from other populations. So we have 200 groups of fish that cannot or do not reproduce with others outside their population. The creationist is therefore forced to acknowledge "microevolution." At this point, however, we should begin to wonder what, exactly, the difference between micro- and macro-evolution would be.

    Also, keep in mind that in cases such as marsupials in Australia, we have an entire order (Marsupialia) that exists in an isolated geographical area. Kangaroos, wallabies, koalas - are these all the same "kind"? If so, a kind is huge! Why not just say that a "kind" is any living organism and be done with it?

    SNG

  • tijkmo
    tijkmo

    yeah for all i have difficulty believing in a god of justice anymore and certainly in a wt directing god...i cannot accept that there isnt a creator..as sherlock holmes said 'once you have ruled out the impossible whatever is left no matter how improbable must be true....and evoluton is impossible

  • jaffacake
    jaffacake

    For me, can someone convert the cubits of the ark into our language, so I can work out how many animals it could carry?

  • Jodo
    Jodo

    SNG, thanks for these great articles....

    tijkmo,

    How about a creator of the first basic organism which had an ability to evolve, and was then LEFT to evolve? To me, that would explain the apparent evolved links between all lifeforms, AND the (to me also) impossibility of evolution. Of course, the creation account in Genesis would have to be thrown out, but I never did believe the bible as God's word anyway.

    Just my 2 cents.....

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Why does a discussion of neaderthals seem apropos right now?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit