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.
>>How, exactly does algae resist being eaten, I wonder...<<
It doesn't taste like chicken.
"brainwahed"
Were you calling brother Pat a Brainwad, or were you saying he was brainwashed? It almost looks like a small spasm occurred on that word.
Dolt! The intelligent designer issues a restraining order.
The Force has a strong influence on the weak minded. ;)
"Who woulda guessed? And?"
And... evolution is real, and the 6000 year old earth theory loses another feather. Seems like all the feathers that have been plucked since the days of Galileo, the bird wouldn't have any feathers left.
Hey...who you callin' a dolt, then? Why...why...you're little more than a...a...dimwit. There! I've said it!
[grin]
We're now in Chat. Congratulations to all the trolls who helped to make this move possible.
"The Force has a strong influence on the weak minded. ;)"
Learning fast you are.
I see "General Chat" is on duty again.
"Would Jesus have posted a post such as yours?
"
Nah! He'd have just zotted the whole thread, or moved it to Chat or something like that.....;>}
You're earlier post cracked me up. I was thinking the algae said, "You don't want to eat me. These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business..."
"You're earlier post cracked me up. I was thinking the algae said, "You don't want to eat me. These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business...""
Yeah. I had the same scene in mind. I'm afraid I just can't take any of these threads too seriously. There's just too much opportunity for humor in them. Good catch!
Since you dove right in and took the bait, and proceeded to proclaim this as evolution in the laboratory, and accepted her experiment without qualification, I propose that they continue with this experiment to validate their absurd claims. I know it can hurt for darwinists to actually follow a premise to conclusion, but keep reading and I promise it won't hurt TOO much.
My conjecture is that the resistant algae existed in the population, and only came to the fore when it became obvious that the resistant ones were the only ones still undergoing mitosis (the rest were eaten, of course).
WHERE THIS CAN BE DISPROVED is if she were to then take the fully-resistant algae (and this time, ONLY the resistant algae, not a mixed sample with both resistant and fast-growing algae) and introduce it into an environment that DID NOT FAVOR resistance, but rather favored FAST GROWTH. In fact, make it so that their little cellular lives DEPENDED on fast growth, just like in the first experiment, if you want to be dramatic.
If she guarantees that the population starts with ONLY those algae that are resistant, then she should be able to reverse the conditions in the first test, and "evolve" them back to the way they supposedly were when they were supposed to favor fast growth and not resistance.
It won't work, of course. You know it, I know it, and she knows it -- but hey, don't let a nice story and a thesis premise get in the way of logic.
Either they can cause laboratory evolution, or they can't. If they can (and they have now stated that they CAN), they can reverse the changes.
Should make for a nice Doctoral thesis this time.
Of course, there won't BE a doctoral thesis, because the experiment will prove that she had a contaminated population to begin with when she is unable to reverse the changes from a non-contaminated population of resistant-only algae to a population of fast-growing algae.
And the funny thing is... no matter how "far out" the breeding went, subsequent generations always returned to the archetype. They could only go so far. Yin. Yang. Theses. Antithesis. And always back to sythesis...
I was quite shocked to find that there are over 100,000 hits on Google for "sythesis."
"Pigeons. It's amazing how adaptable they are - and are yet one species..."
Um no, there are many many species of pigeons. Try again.
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping!
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.