On Sunday, the Washington Post published a nice news article covering the recent study on island colonization and adaptation in anoles (pdf now available here). Very quickly, back-and-forth exchanges appeared in the paper’s online comments section, but most of them were debates about evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design, as well as invectives, insults, and ad hominem attacks. The same thing happened when I posted a story on the anole genome and its utility for the study of evolution on a National Geographic news website. Who knew that anole research was so pivotal to the evolution/creationism controversy? Or that it could bring out the worst in so many?
Appended below are the 77 comments that had appeared in the Washington Post by mid-afternoon on Monday.
Your Comments On:
Castaway lizards put evolution to the test
By Brian Vastag, Published: February 4
77
Comments
2/5/2012 4:48 PM EST
So the key to evolution is a superior being manipulating things. From a lizard’s perspective, what’s the difference between a biologist and a diety?
itsthedax
2/5/2012 10:11 PM EST
No, evolution is a naturally occurring process. Why do you need to inject a superior being into that process?
vacohee
2/5/2012 1:43 PM EST
Transcendent Truth is not the proper object of science. The job of science is to come up with the best explanation for observable things–given the current state of data and theory at any given time. Science changes–comes up with better explanations–as data accumulate and theory advances, but one hesitates to say that earlier scientists were “wrong.” Earlier scientists were providing the best explanations available at their own time . . . just as current scientists are providing the best explanation for things at the present time. Science doesn’t provide Truth–though its findings may hint at higher things.There is simply no alternative to evolution based on natural selection in contemporary biology; there is no competing explanation for the appearance of either species or larger phylogenetic categories–orders, families, etc. There is, in this regard, no difference between “macroevolution” and “microevolution.” There is no competing model to explain either. Evolution can explain why all living forms utilize the same DNA–the same nucleotides organized in different ways–such that humans contain the same DNA as protozoans and oak trees. Evolution can explain why the various taxa appear in a particular order rather than appearing simultaneously.Creationism–or its doppelganger Intelligent Design–are misdirected efforts to apply theological categories in realms where they do not apply. Faith and science can co-exist, but they both have to stick to their own respective lanes in the road.
Belfast1
2/5/2012 1:35 PM EST
Only egghead conservatives doubted this anyway.
kerryberger
2/5/2012 12:39 PM EST
And to all those who question the validity of Evolution, this evidence goes a long way to debunking Creationism and Intelligent Design. Natural selection ensures that species will survive and mutate in ways that no mythology could explain. Facts are facts, science is science, belief systems should be relegated to their proper place.
VWWV
2/5/2012 12:53 PM EST
People have been watching chromosomes duplicate under microscopes for decades. Mutations and speciation has likewise been observed countless times. There’s no need to “debunk” creationism because it has no observable basis for truth
ggrant9170
2/5/2012 11:47 AM EST
no the bible is not a science book….
so i suggest you go mate with a monkey and if you get little monkeyhumonoids then we will talk…
itsthedax
2/5/2012 12:07 PM EST
I’m glad that you agree that the bible is not a science book. Thanks for agreeing that creationism should not be taught in public school science classes.
ggrant9170
2/5/2012 11:45 AM EST
mating a lizard with another lizard does not prove evolution! it proves what we have known all along, you can mate horses with donkeys and get a mule, you can mate a bobcat with a housecat and get a cat! if you guys want to say you came from apes, fine, me I was created by God…don’t try to mate with a money people…now if that happened , that would be a shocker…i wonder if scientist tried that yet? anyone?
VWWV
2/5/2012 11:49 AM EST
presto668
2/5/2012 12:03 PM EST
@ggrant9170
“me I was created by God”No, you were created by your parents have sex. Or are you literally Jesus?
kerryberger
Seems to me you didn’t read the article properly from the beginning.
itsthedax
2/5/2012 11:44 AM EST
Proving once again that the bible is not a science book.
ggrant9170
2/5/2012 11:38 AM EST
i thought different species was like mating a ape with a lizard and that would be a entirely different species? mating species with species does not prove evolution….you can mate a horse with a zebra, both the same species…right? what am i missing here, oh yeah “the link” (:
VWWV
2/5/2012 11:45 AM EST
I believe you can mate a horse and a zebra
presto668
2/5/2012 12:07 PM EST
@ggrant9170
“i thought different species was like mating a ape with a lizard and that would be a entirely different species?”No, a species is a group of organisms that either cannot (because they are too genetically different to produce offspring) or choose not to mate with other organisms. You can’t mate an ape with a lizard even if you got them drunk enough.
“i thought different species was like mating a ape with a lizard and that would be a entirely different species?”No, a species is a group of organisms that either cannot (because they are too genetically different to produce offspring) or choose not to mate with other organisms. You can’t mate an ape with a lizard even if you got them drunk enough.
Sara121
2/5/2012 12:12 PM EST
You can’t mate a monkey with a lizard. That’s foolish. The closest thing to what you’re talking about is saltation, two members of the same species begetting a new species. There’s no evidence to suggest any such thing happens. Minor saltation, like antenapedia, does happen, and such mutant offspring don’t typically survive to reproduce and that change in the gene sequence doesn’t spread.
Speciation is a function of isolated populations adapting gradually over time to the environment (which includes their own gene pool, the gene pools of competing a d cooperative species, and the physical environment). The mircro evolution of those small changes builds over time, affecting the embryological development in the isolated species, thus eventually creating a new species.
exbrown
2/5/2012 10:34 AM EST
Three cheers for Charles Darwin!
jackoByte
2/5/2012 12:53 PM EST
Don’t forget about Lamarck!
Any species that allowed the environment to influence its genotype would have quite an advantage over mere Darwinians…For completeness this experiment should be also conducted by dropping short legged lizards on well forested islands to see if the legs lengthen.But I dare say that the shorter legged variantion might allow the creature to hug the ground more fully and thus avoid being blown to sea during storms, Ha Ha!
rlalumiere
2/5/2012 1:06 PM EST
That’s still not Lamarckian. Sorry, but you don’t get Lamarck.
Lee1865
2/5/2012 7:45 PM EST
jackobyte – you sound like a republican. That’s not a compliment.
HGF78
2/5/2012 10:13 AM EST
What a way to wipe a species out. Lizards lay eggs thus exactly how did they determine the native species was totally gone? Sounds like wanting to prove evolution got in the way of saving a species. What they did in no way proves evolution. In Florida, we have non-native snakes in the everglade. European and White Tip Doves were released from the Miami Zoo during Hurricane Andrew. You can see these birds all the way to Jacksonville. That Hurrican hit in the early 1990s. The species spread but they did not evolve.
Sara121
2/5/2012 10:19 AM EST
The key is the isolation of the islands. They are small so individual animals are easy to track. Animals can be tracked in the Everglades too, but they aren’t isolated like they are on an island. Even birds, which are trickier because they do fly, can be isolated and tracked. They are not so isolated on a continual land mass like Florida. But Darwin’s finches were isolated. That’s what made it so important.
HGF78
2/5/2012 10:43 AM EST
The flaw is that they really have no idea if the native lizards are actually gone as lizards lay eggs. Just because they couldn’t find a lizard doesn’t mean there are none left. Take the example of the Miami Blue Butterfly which was though extent and then small colonies of them were found along the South East Coast of Florida.
VWWV
2/5/2012 10:57 AM EST
I don’t think these guys are “trying” to “prove” evolution…
muskrat5710
2/5/2012 10:01 AM EST
For crisp 11: yep, they’re still lizards but now they talk to each other under those little plants…
Angusomy
2/5/2012 9:26 AM EST
They found Newt Gingrinch in the Bahamas? What?
ignatz2
2/5/2012 12:32 PM EST
But the Grinch has not adapted. Limited genetic diversity apparently.
robgomez19841
2/5/2012 9:20 AM EST
Why doesn’t Lozo drop them in his yard? Or in the White House’s yard?
edallan
2/5/2012 9:06 AM EST
“Right now, macro-evolution is indistinguishable from creation theory in that both are accepted on faith without much hard evidence or testability. Indeed, when you look at the fossil record, it more closely matches Divine creation than evolution at any level. I mean, you do realize that both the scientific and Biblical order of taxonomy are identical, right? “
On the other hand, rather remarkably, new fossil finds seem to consistently and regularly provide further validation of the probability that evolution is valid, whereas from the standpoint of creationism, all that new fossil evidence can “prove” is that God plays increasingly subtle mind games to convince scientists that evolution is real.
sanfran6003
For crisp11: Your conclusion uninformed. Speciation is taking place constantly. Evolving a different class of creature takes millions of years longer.
hairguy01
2/5/2012 8:06 AM EST
Watch for Newt to emerge.
ianmac37
2/5/2012 7:26 AM EST
Proving again that the sun rises in the east. What other truth or fact that has been proven over and over do we need to test once again?
zekewinston
2/5/2012 6:57 AM EST
Has anyone put evangelicals to the SAME test?
robgomez19841
2/5/2012 9:21 AM EST
the best comment! lol
polecatx1
2/5/2012 5:02 PM EST
That is ALL we need, evangelicals with short legs multiplying and polluting the islands.
crisp11
2/4/2012 8:52 PM EST
Yet they are still lizards.
Trakker
2/4/2012 9:04 PM EST
It’s only been 5 years!
crisp11
2/4/2012 9:27 PM EST
And in five million years, they will still be lizards.
JEC5
2/4/2012 9:45 PM EST
But they’ll be different kinds of lizards, and distinct from the others descended from the same original colony of lizards, as environmental factors influence them to adapt in different ways, or, to use another term, evolve.
warking7
2/4/2012 8:10 PM EST
More evolution theory tail chasing.
Pyrrhus
2/4/2012 10:32 PM EST
Or, as we educated people call it, science.
schumann-bonn
2/5/2012 8:57 AM EST
That’s right. God created all creatures existing today some 6 thousand years ago in one day. All these scientists know nothing.
Professor of Biology and Director of the Living Earth Collaborative at Washington University in Saint Louis. I've spent my entire professional career studying anoles and have discovered that the more I learn about anoles, the more I realize I don't know.
Latest posts by Jonathan Losos (see all)
- Diet Notes on Beautiful Blue Knight Anole - September 4, 2024
- Anoles Provide Ecosystem Services - September 2, 2024
- Mississippi Kite Eats Green Anole - August 6, 2024
Jenny R
That is actually pretty good for newspaper comments. Usually there is someone who tries to tie whatever the stori is to Obama being a socialist or blaming it on Mexicans.
Martha Munoz
I feel bad for the few people trying to have a reasoned discussion on the message board. It seems that communication and rational debate about the article got lost in the mix. Too bad.
Daniel Stolte
Why are you even feeding this ignorance and providing them with visibility by reposting their comments here? This really doesn’t help.
Janson
“Yet they are still lizards.” KA-BOW!!! heh.
J James
Very entertaining. Stealing the thoughts of a mathematician, I might add that the fear of evolution is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual evolution, even though it in its highest form has created and sustains us.
Ramon E. Martinez-Grimaldo
“According to a 2009 Gallup poll taken on the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, fewer than 40% of Americans are willing to say that they “believe in evolution.” When another study asked if humans had developed from earlier species of animals, the American public split right down the middle. 40% said they had, while 39% rejected any suggestion that our species had emerged from the process of evolution. Even more worrisome is the fact that rejection of evolution correlates closely with political views, with a majority of the members of one of our major political parties casting themselves as Darwin rejectionists…
…This year, Darwin’s 203rd birthday, on February 12th, will see an anti-evolution bill, already passed by the Indiana State House of Representatives, awaiting action in the State Senate…”
more in America’s Darwin Problem from Kenneth R. Miller
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false