Well, this is incredibly fascinating. Apparently the stickleback in Alaska has evolved into a fresh water species since the 1964 earthquake. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214165724.htm
That is what Intelligence does, right? Or was it hit and miss, by chance, and it got lucky? Evolving, or adapting in such a short period points to Intelligence. It had the genes that could adapt to freshwater, for it may have been freshwater at some point. Then when the environment changed an Intelligence, a memory recalled the genetic makeup needed to adapt to fresh water. And it was so. That is what intelligence does. It gives life a better chance at surviving. Creativity is not a roll of dice. Intelligence is the source of creativity. Although some people much prefer the village idiot, who gets lucky and looks intelligent. But an idiot is not intelligent, but he can be lucky.
It's not "intelligence". It's adaptation. It's following the rule of survival of the fittest. "Fit" means the ability to adapt to the environment and this is an example.
I find it interesting that these fish apparently have a "genetic toolbox" with the innate ability to call up different sequences as the environment changes. Maybe that "junk dna" is more useful to us all than many have thought.
What intelligence? Do you believe that fish thought "Gee, I'm stuck in freshwater, I better telepathically tell those fresh water genes to turn on now.". Here I thought fish only cared about eating, (*)(*)(*)(*)ting and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing.
Good to hear. Now maybe humans will evolve to have a 3rd arm, a necessity when bringing in the groceries. To hell with making a 2nd trip!
Exterminate new species and protect the old ones from endangerment. This advanced fish is gonna displace something.
hahaha!!!! "adaptation"., you really think that Evolution means that living species somehow adapt to changes in the environment, and their offspring have this adaptation in their genetic code? nope. thats not how Evolution works. what happens is that those members of a given species that have random qualities that make survival easier, live longer and have more offspring, and their randomly advantageous qualities get passed on. there's no adaptation in it. its just like selective breeding, except the choice of animals to breed is done by the luck of the draw and better survival attributes
Actually this IS adaptation in evolution. It usually takes far longer over many more generations of breeding, but this is pretty damn cool...makes Influenza look kinda wimpy.
Read the paper, this does not look like evolution. It looks like the stickleback had the ability to live in fresh water (its happened before with the stickleback) and salt water, trapping the fish in fresh water just brought that trait to the forefront. Its like the peppered moth, there were always black moths and white moths, but the white moths formed the majority pre-industrial age. Post industrial age, the black moths form the majority but there are still white moths. Same moth, same species, just changes within the majority.
You made an assumption, based upon another assumption, called philosophical materialism. I made an assumption, based upon the idea that matter is not fundamental, consciousness is fundamental. My assumption just makes more sense to me, personally. And don't try to exclaim materialism is not an assumption. The assumption that takes on faith, the idea, that matter is fundamental. As I said, evolution is easier to explain, if an intelligence is involved, as is the origin of life itself. Don't worry, I would never think it was an old man in the sky, that looks just like us, that provides that intelligence. I would say intelligence was just a quality of Consciousness. And I would say the brain does not create consciousness, but rather is a receiver of consciousness, that is independent of the physical brain. Like a TV signal that is received by your television. If the tv has an issue with receiving the signal, it shows up on the screen as a problem. Same with the brain.
I doubt the fish thinks. I do not know how it would work, but I can think that when the fish gets caught in a different environment, that intelligence acts on the genes, and if the genes contain the potentiality of reorganizing which adapts the offspring to fresh water, perhaps because it was once long ago in fresh water, then through intelligence it adapts. But the potentiality to adapt was already there, genetically. If the potential was not there, intelligence might cause a mutation, which would serve the same purpose. Not that this is how intelligence would affect the future of the organism, as I just thought it up. If I spent some time, I could come up with other ideas. We already know via experiements that conscious intent can affect matter outside of the brain. So it extends beyond the brain.
I meant I read the paper, not that you should. And your quote from the paper supports the idea that the fish already had these abilities, its all in their pre-existing "bag of tricks". Its sounds more like wishful thinking that evolutionists can slide this by as proof of evolution.
While I'm an evolutionist, philosophically and scientifically, I don't see the stickleback's "evolution" to be a big deal as presented in terms of the evolution vs. creation argument. Reading more about this species, the three-spined stickleback, the real evolutionary wonder is that there are two incipient species out there. There are freshwater sticklebacks that live on the bottom, and another population that lives in mid-water. They are technically still the same species, but are well on their way to becoming two different species in a matter of 50 years (since 1964). This is an interesting study for those who believe in evolution, but nothing in it will persuade people on the fence.
I agree it isn't a big deal wrt "creationism vs evolution" nor did I suggest it was. My fascination with this story is in the suggestion of a "genetic toolbox" that can respond to radical environmental changes. It suggests some very interesting things about all that noncoding DNA we have.
You didn't, but the posters following you did. I don't see the real big deal in terms of the freshwater/saltwater. Most of the sticklebacks live in brackish water (neither fresh nor salt) anyway. It' s not a big evolutionary stretch. The real story is the divergent evolution between the bottom dwelling subpopulation and the mid-water subpopulation.
It is the micro-organisms that live within the fish that interacts with the micro-organisms in this new environment that alters the genes of the fish to adapt to its environment.
