Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In my knickers
    Posts
    31,029
    Thanks (Given)
    13927
    Thanks (Received)
    15358
    Likes (Given)
    4384
    Likes (Received)
    5487
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475356

    Default Frog in amber may be 25M years old

    To my untrained eye, this frog certainly looks a lot like present-day tree frogs.
    Which makes one wonder- after 25 million years, shouldn't this species have evolved some?

    Frog in amber may be 25M years old Fri Feb 16, 5:43 PM ET

    MEXICO CITY - A miner in the state of Chiapas found a tiny tree frog that has been preserved in amber for 25 million years, a researcher said. If authenticated, the preserved frog would be the first of its kind found in Mexico, according to David Grimaldi, a biologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History, who was not involved in the find.

    The chunk of amber containing the frog, less than half an inch long, was uncovered by a miner in Mexico's southern Chiapas state in 2005 and was bought by a private collector, who lent it to scientists for study.

    A few other preserved frogs have been found in chunks of amber — a stone formed by ancient tree sap — mostly in the Dominican Republic. Like those, the frog found in Chiapas appears to be of the genus Craugastor, whose descendants still inhabit the region, said biologist Gerardo Carbot of the Chiapas Natural History and Ecology Institute. Carbot announced the discovery this week.

    The scientist said the frog lived about 25 million years ago, based on the geological strata where the amber was found.

    Carbot would like to extract a sample from the frog's remains in hopes of finding DNA that could identify the particular species, but doubts the owner would let him drill into the stone. "I don't think he will allow it, because it's a very rare, unique piece," said Carbot.

    Grimaldi of the American Museum of Natural History called the idea of extracting DNA "highly, highly unlikely," given that — as other scientists have noted — genetic material tends to break down over time.

    But George O. Poinar, an entomologist at Oregon State University who founded the Amber Institute, said extracting DNA is theoretically possible.

    "If it's well-preserved ... and none of the frog has been exposed to the outside, where air could enter in and oxidize the DNA, it could be possible to get DNA."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/..._frog_in_amber
    Last edited by Abbey Marie; 02-17-2007 at 12:57 PM.
    After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown

    “Unfortunately, the truth is now whatever the media say it is”
    -Abbey

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Road
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Abbey,

    Not all animals change that much. If they're well-suited to their environments, then there's no reason for them to change and it's more likely that genetic mutations wouldn't survive.

    Crocodiles, certain sharks and some insects also haven't changed much, although there's been some change in size.

    Horseshoe crabs are pretty much as they were, too.

    Isn't an argument against evolution.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abbey View Post
    To my untrained eye, this frog certainly looks a lot like present-day tree frogs.
    Which makes one wonder- after 25 million years, shouldn't this species have evolved some?
    I guess that depends on what the driving force behind evolution is. I've always considered necessity to be the primary cause. A successful organism that's found its niche would not need to evolve further until something upsets the balance.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,274
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    58690

    Default

    human beings are not evolving

    "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

    ~Albert Camus

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,819
    Thanks (Given)
    34251
    Thanks (Received)
    26352
    Likes (Given)
    2315
    Likes (Received)
    9915
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    I guess that depends on what the driving force behind evolution is. I've always considered necessity to be the primary cause. A successful organism that's found its niche would not need to evolve further until something upsets the balance.
    Seems to me if a life form could not survive in its environment, it'd be kind of hard for the dead to evolve into something that could survive.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,274
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    58690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Seems to me if a life form could not survive in its environment, it'd be kind of hard for the dead to evolve into something that could survive.
    that is how it happens the dead ones are the week ones the live ones reproduce....problem is welfare etc....lets the weak ones live

    "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

    ~Albert Camus

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Seems to me if a life form could not survive in its environment, it'd be kind of hard for the dead to evolve into something that could survive.
    Which is why catastrophic changes have led to mass extinctions in the past. A gradual change in a niche would more likely lead to a gradual adaptation in the organism. It's still born of necessity.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Road
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manu1959 View Post
    that is how it happens the dead ones are the week ones the live ones reproduce....problem is welfare etc....lets the weak ones live
    True of things like IVF and AI, as well, no?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,274
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    58690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jillian View Post
    True of things like IVF and AI, as well, no?
    sure....as do doctors, medicine, indoor plumbing, grocery stores, cars, clothes, you name it.......

    but i could argue the rich can afford these things more so than the poor so natural selection would be a function of the ability to earn money and benifits....which is the modern day equal of hunting and gathering....

    "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

    ~Albert Camus

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,274
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    58690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    Which is why catastrophic changes have led to mass extinctions in the past. A gradual change in a niche would more likely lead to a gradual adaptation in the organism. It's still born of necessity.
    to be more specific, mass extinction of a particular species....not life itself.....correct?

    "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

    ~Albert Camus

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    I wish we could evolve solely based on our percieved NEED. If that did happen, I'd start shitting money.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Road
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manu1959 View Post
    sure....as do doctors, medicine, indoor plumbing, grocery stores, cars, clothes, you name it.......

    but i could argue the rich can afford these things more so than the poor so natural selection would be a function of the ability to earn money and benifits....which is the modern day equal of hunting and gathering....
    That's an interesting perspective. But by the same token, there's a correlation between number of children and low socioeconomic status, so kind of mitigates the other way.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,274
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    58690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    I wish we could evolve solely based on our percieved NEED. If that did happen, I'd start shitting money.
    not sure that is where i would want money to be coming out of my body

    "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

    ~Albert Camus

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manu1959 View Post
    not sure that is where i would want money to be coming out of my body
    If it were coin, rolled and wrapped...it'd be aight. Especially the Susan B Anthony dollars.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,274
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    58690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jillian View Post
    That's an interesting perspective. But by the same token, there's a correlation between number of children and low socioeconomic status, so kind of mitigates the other way.
    there is economic incentive to have lots of children when you are poor....one you have a lot more little workers you can send out to beg borrow or steal and the govt. pays you more to have kids.........plus since you are poor you are probaly not too bright since you don't have a job and have more kids than you can afford to feed....or you are nuts....or sick....but none the less the govt. keeps you alive......pays you to have more kids....which allows the weak to produce more offspring....societly social programs ensure survival of the weakest....

    "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

    ~Albert Camus

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums