Posted on 07/10/2006 11:21:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Biologists generally accept that evolutionary change can take from decades to millennia, while ecological change can occur over mere days or seasons. However, a new Cornell study shows that evolution and ecology can operate on the same time scale.
When evolution occurs so quickly, the researchers conclude, it can change how populations of various species interact. Ecologists need to consider such evolutionary dynamics in their studies because evolution could affect populations being studied. This insight is critical to predicting the recovery time needed for threatened populations or for predicting disease dynamics, says Justin Meyer '04, who conducted the study as an undergraduate student with Cornell ecologists Stephen Ellner, Nelson Hairston and colleagues.
To observe ecological and evolutionary changes together, the researchers monitored the ecological fluctuations in a model predator-prey laboratory system: a microscopic organism called a rotifer that eats a single-celled algae.
Meyer developed a method to track genetic changes, and the researchers found that as the prey population fluctuated, the algae "evolved" from a type that grows quickly to a type that resists being eaten. The frequency of the algal-genotype changes in response to rotifer population flux clearly demonstrated the synchronicity of ecological and evolutionary time.
The study is published in the July 11 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
#6 - I'm confused, which came first?
THe computer was in a laboratory.
I believe that I agree with you on this subject. But, just so you know, one of the convenient definititons of "evolution" is the "shifting allele frequencies of genes" within a population.
A tax-break for blondes in Rhode Island might induce more blondes to move to RI. That would -- you see -- be evolution in action.
The experiment in the thread seems to me to be quite pointless (no species creation) but by the word game definition, it would be considered "evolution".
So much for "can't be reproduced in a lab."
Of course, the fall back(s) will be:
(1)"this proves intelligent design, not evolution!"
(2) "yeah, but it's still an XYZ. It didn't change into a ABC." and/or
(3) "These traits already existed; there's nothing new here."
Evolution is a respect and energetic field of science, studied by a variety of different disciplines. It has a solid 150 years of successful integration of fact and theory.
You, on the other hand, appear to be a little unsettled. Take a deep breath and try again.
Whatever makes you able to sleep at night.
Um, why? Is there some, "one-series-of-experiments-and-resulting-publication-must-prove-everything-all-at-once" rule that applies only to evolution? Whereas every other science (at least those that don't perturb biblical literalists) gets to follow the normal pattern of using experiments to ISOLATE different aspects of complex phenomena?
[cue "scraping" sound of goalposts being pushed waaaaaay back]
How, exactly does algae resist being eaten, I wonder...
What is happening here is most likely a step toward extinction for one variety, while another is opportunistically advancing it's numbers. No speciation, nor even adaptive adjustment; just a change in population demographics.
Well said.
Is it evolution when a human develops a resistance/tolerance for alcohol and drugs? We develop resistances just like the bacteria. That is not what Darwin had in mind I'm sure. He was looking at the whole of geologic time so to speak, not single generation adaptation.
Same song, second verse. Just another variation on "Sudden Appearance, fully formed..."Another evidence of special creation that the Evol-Doers seek to avoid.
Whatever makes you able to sleep at night.
___________________________________________
Knowing I deal with reality is a key to it. Give it a try.
>>Wrong, mind you, but good and civil. :)<<
In what way is it wrong?
>>The experiment in the thread seems to me to be quite pointless (no species creation) but by the word game definition, it would be considered "evolution".<<
I firmly believe that kind of evolution exists. Heck, it'd demonstrable. It is the REAL evolution claims that I have a really hard time with.
I am amazed how many times it is this sort of natural selection (the blondes or the bears) that are offered as proof of evolution by some of the college freshmen.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Evolution is the rust happening to the 57 chevy rotting away in a field. But rust is not what made the car in the first place.
"How, exactly does algae resist being eaten, I wonder..."
You have to listen really closely. The resistant algae say, whenever the rotifer approaches, "You don't want to eat me. I'm tough and bitter. Now, that algae over there...it's very tasty and tender. You should eat those."
They have very quiet voices, though, so you have to put your ear right next to the petri dish.
Bump for later
>>They need to prove that an actual change in DNA occurred not that a particular trait was favored but already existed.<<
>>Um, why?<<
Because simply favoring an existing trait vs. coming up with something that never existed before are two completely different things. They are as similar to each other as the 737 I flew to LA last week and the model of a 737 I kid carves out of a piece of wood.
No, They are as similar as a glock 9mm and a gun carved out of a piece of soap and covered in black shoe polish: it only fools the people who are not paying attention.
Concur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.