An anonymous reader writes to mention an LA Times article entitled 'A Primeval Tide of Toxins.' The article looks at changing conditions in the world's oceans, and the resulting explosion in the growth of algae, jellyfish, and other primitive lifeforms. From the article: "In many places -- the atolls of the Pacific, the shrimp beds of the Eastern Seaboard, the fjords of Norway -- some of the most advanced forms of ocean life are struggling to survive while the most primitive are thriving and spreading. Fish, corals and marine mammals are dying while algae, bacteria and jellyfish are growing unchecked. Where this pattern is most pronounced, scientists evoke a scenario of evolution running in reverse, returning to the primeval seas of hundreds of millions of years ago. Jeremy B.C. Jackson, a marine ecologist and paleontologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, says we are witnessing 'the rise of slime.'" The article is parting of a just-beginning series on our changing world called Altered Oceans.
god made man but he used the monkey to do it apes in the plan we're all here to prove it i can walk like an ape talk like an ape i can do what a monkey can do god made man but a monkey supplied the glue
Why is this devolution? It is simply selection pressure: the higher life forms are pressured into extinction, and the jellyfish and algae go back to evolving: one taxonomy branch is pruned so that another may try. That IS evolution (well, a big hoerkin' chunk of it).
Disclaimer: I have a Ph.D. in chemistry but am not a marine environmental researcher.
What is happening is a massive die-off of many highly adapted species, which, directly or indirectly, depended on oceanic dissolved oxygen being higher, pH being slightly alkaline, and toxin levels being lower.
A big culprit here is phosphate and nitrate fertilizer runoff; read the series for all the details.
Re-evolution may take as long as the first time; don't hold your breath!
Re-evolution is rather flattering, it implies that we're the end result of evolution; but it's silly to think that our more distant cousins are 'less evolved' than us because they're smaller/not-conscious. They have been around for just as long as we have, and if they have changed less than us that only shows how successful their genes are.
I haven't seen the word 'evolution' consistantly misused like this since Pokemon.. "Gather 'round everyone, this Bulbusaur is EVOLVING!"
Exactly. Why does everyone think that evolution only leads to more and more complex life forms? Evolution is simply the never ending meat grinder getting the most out of the available resources. More often than not simple life forms are actually favored, which is why we live in a world with a thousand species of bacteria for every "higher" life form and a few billion individual bacteria for every "higher" life form.
We (meaning animals) are almost an anomaly, not the rule. Anyway, as you said, as the environment changes so do the life forms that thrive in it. The very small are generally more able to cope with changing environments so they definitely win out in the short term.
Evolution is neither good nor bad, it is a description of what happens. It's kind of like calling gravity or relativity good or bad.
There also is no such thing as "de-evolution." Evolution is the change of allele frequencies within a population over time due to differential reproductive success. If this results in a "simpler" form of organism or the extinction of the species all together, it's still evolution. Of the five great extinctions to hit the earth, none of them caused any "de-evolution," they just killed off a good portion of extant species and left a lot a niches open for the survivors to exploit. We might be at the begining of the next great extinction event (though I doubt it'll get to that point, as I think we'll clean up our act before it happens).
That was pretty much my thought when I read the story.
Bacteria are no less evolved than us. They've had the same 3-4 billion years, with more intense selection pressure* and much shorter generation times. They are exceedingly well optimised, and are the dominant branch of life on Earth.
* The larger a population, the more effective evolution is. This is standard nearly-neutral population genetics, demonstrated by Kimura.
Remember those museum displays labeled "Age of bacteria", "Age of Fish", "Age of Amphibians", "Age of Dinosaurs", "Age of Mammals"? They should have read "Age of Bacteria", "Age of Bacteria (plus a few multicellular marine organisms)", "Age of Bacteria (plus a few multicellular marine and land organisms)". Bacteria dominated the past, they dominate the present, and will be thriving when vertebrates are extinct.
Consider (as is commonly done) the history of life on Earth as a day (but ending with the end of life on Earth, rather than ending with today.) The Earth will be sterilised by the red-giant phase of the sun, in about 5 billion years. Taking life as starting 3 billion years ago, the Age of Bacteria lasts 8 billion years, and on our 24 hour time scale, that means it is now about 9am.
Cue music from "Hair":
This is mid-morning of the Age of Bacteria The Age of Bactera Bacteria! Bacteria!
I would have to disagree. The concept of Darwinism as I understand, defines evolution to be mutation and gain in genetic material. If true, then this allows a concept of de-evolution, being the loss of genetic material.
Uh, no. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] actually has a nice definition: "the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations." Nothing whatsoever to do with a "gain in genetic material."
Darwin himself certainly proposed no such thing. Keep in mind that Darwin didn't know anything abo
It's funny when people claim that things are evolving into "higher" or "lower" forms, as if people are the obvious pinnacle of the process.
What's happening is that the rate of change in the environment is faster than many species can keep up. When you have 10,000 individuals in a population and they breed every 5 years, they can only "absorb" so much change. When you have a species that has billions of individuals and reproduce every 20 minutes, they can take massive environmental change and thrive in it.
The genetic diversity in the bigger population is vast and there's bound to be some individuals with higher tolerance of whatever the change is, be it increased temperatures, environmental toxins, or loss of food supplies. If one individual has the gene that boosts survival, it can propagate through the species very rapidly due to short lifespans.
Think of the human species as the biological equivalent as a comet hitting the earth and you've got it about right.
I prefer a different system of classification. Rather than "higher" or "lower", I like to classify organisms as "tasty" or "not tasty". According to my detailed studies, oysters and lobsters are the pinnacles of ocean life, followed by rock crab, shrimp, salmon, and others. Jellyfish is pretty far down the list. This change in our oceans is a travesty!
I'm not a biologist, but why is this de-evolution? Evolution is just organism's adapting to their environment over many generations through natural selection. There have been plenty of times when simpler organism's triumphed when more complex ones failed. Take the dinosaurs for instance. Simple things like cockroaches and small rodents survived while the much larger and more complicated dinosaurs died out. Types of bacteria have been around basically forever (as far as life on the Earth is concerned).
Really, (again, I'm not a biologist) it seems like simpler organisms are generally the things that make it through massive changes in the enviornment, because the more complicated animals are too-adapted to the current condiditions and can't evolve fast enough (too long of lifespans maybe?). The exception to this might be animals (humans) that are smart enough to either adapt their enviornment to them (for better or worse), or use tools to protect themselves from that change.
Minor nitpick: Organisms do not evolve, populations do. Otherwise, your post is right on. The more highly adapted species (specialists) are capable of filling only very specific niches. When that niche disappears, the population either changes, or dies out. If the change to the environment/niche is very rapid, the species is unlikely to be able to adapt quickely enough, especially if they have longer life cycles and small populations (relative to, say, bacteria). Less highly adapted species (generalists) have a better chance at survival, especially if they have shorter life-spans, and larger populations (which imply greater genetic variability), as it is likely that the genes needed to survive in the new environment are already present in some sub-section of the population, and only need the chance to spread.
We humans are drastically changing the environment. In this century we will see mass extinction. We will also see mass adaptations and new speciation. The hardiest and most successful new species may turn out to be the bacteria and engineered organisms and ultimately nanotechnological devices that can break down and reprocess our industrial waste. Who is to say all of this isn't natural? We're 100% natural, we evolved here and we're part of this system. Whatever we do, it's natural by definition.
The question is, what do we place value upon keeping around? The polar bears, the coral reefs, the rain forests? Polar bears are cute. Have you ever walked through a forest? I'd like for my kids to be able to go diving someday...
Whatever the cause, over-hunting, over fishing, toxic waste, global warming, it means something to us in terms of food. People talk about environmental changes in terms that don't mean quite so much as food. If it affects our food supplies, then it really affects us.
As far as "de-evolution" is concerned, it'll take another 500 million+ years before anything "new" comes about if ever. But what it does mean is that we will likely starve to death before we see whatever comes next.
My guess would be that there are some good recipies for this in Japan. I know that there are various algae that are extremely popular (Nori, the green stuff that sushi is often rolled in (among other uses) is a type of seaweed, of which pretty much all are algae.) Spirulina is what people would more identify as algae, and is often used as a food additive. Soylent blue-green anybody? I think algae would just about win the crown for efficient nutrient production out of any foodstuff... can be grown in fre
I'm from Williamsport, PA. At one time, that small, now drug-ridden city was called the "Lumber Capital of the World", and had the highest level of millionaires per-capita in the entire world. Unfortunately, demand for lumber rose a little faster than the trees did, and now is not the same. In 6th or 7th grade, we went out to a nature preserve (that the power plant owns - I believe the government made them due it due to all the coal pollution). He explained to us why there were so many evergeen trees in the area and not much in the way of deciduous forest. The explanation seemed pretty logical to me - Once everything in the forest was killed off by the lumberjacks, it pretty well fucked up the ecosystem. But life isn't so easily put off. First, the lesser photosynthetic life returns, ferns, small plants, etc. and so on up until you finally get pine trees, and then deciduous trees. Animal life takes just as long to return. I never saw an elk until I was probably 16 or so (I'm 20 now.), and now they actually auction off a few elk tags a year.
Once we figure out how to stop destroying our oceans, the balance will correct itself, but it will take many, many years. I kinda wonder how long until my hometown returns to it's former affluent ways (ha.).
Caulerpa taxifolia seems to be a good candidate for taking over the worlds seas and oceans.
Originally a genetically modified strain was found that survived well in aquariums in Germany, and this strain was accidently released by the Oceanographic Museum of Monaco, it quickly spread and seems to be impossible to destroy effectively. As it is asexual technically it is the same plant, there is no known predator apart from one slug I think. It is currently spreading like wildfire and nobody really knows what to do. It easily spreads via ships ballast tanks, and the plant is toxic.
The strain in question wasn't genetically modified, at least not deliberately. According to the links you gave, it was exposed to tank chemicals and lighting, and that exposure appears to have caused it to mutate and gain increase ability to survive in cold water -- it's naturally found only in the tropics.
Also, it's not 'impossible to destroy effectively'. The PDF you linked to describes several methods that have been found effective, but only for relatively small infestations, like those that have been found in the United States and Australia. Introduction of the animals that eat taxifolia in its natural locations would probably clean up big infestations, but the effects of further alien introductions are nearly impossible to predict. So far it's spreading like wildfire only around the Mediterranean, but other temperate waters have to be watched for infestations (warmer waters aren't at risk, because they already have taxifola and its predators, and colder waters aren't at risk, because even this strain of taxifolia can't stand that much cold).
So, it's a cause for concern around the temperate waters of the world, but only a potential disaster in the Mediterranean area. It's similar to the Zebra Mussel, which is causing significant harm to the freshwater lakes and rivers of North America and Sweden.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 04 2006, @05:49PM (#15849427)
Lake Erie was pretty much dead in the 1970s. Agricultural runoff and phosphate based cleaning products in sewage had acted as fertilizer for the algae. The algae took all the oxygen out of the water and the fish had died off. We changed a couple of laws and banned a couple of chemicals and fish returned to Lake Erie. If we had the will, we could do the same for the oceans. We have managed to ban ozone depleating chemicals for instance. Of course, we still have to solve the problem of various European nations (Spain comes to mind) completely stripping all the fish from wherever their fleet goes.
The solution is just a matter of international political will.
This is assuming that this damage to the oceans can continue indefinitely. A massive extinction of marine animals would make its way up the food chain. Land life would eventually be affected, both by the stuff we're already doing and by the extinction of their marine food. Eventually, it will affect humans. We'd start dying off too, leading to basically a collapse of civilization. It would return us to the stone age. With civilization gone, the damage to the oceans will stop.
It's very hard to kill all humans. Even now we don't have enough nukes and chemical weapons to kill every single person on Earth. You can probably get 99%, but that still leaves 62,000,000...
The new, better toxic oceans will simply be a tought playing field for our watery bretheren. The competition will be fierce, but in the end the seas will be populated by new fish. Better fish. New, better races of ATOMIC SUPERFISH THAT I SHALL BEND TO MY WILL AND RULE THE WORLD! Ha ha ha ha! Despair, ye mortals, and weep! Oh, Discordia!
Imagine! Goldfish that shoot lasers from their eyes! Tuna that can bite through adamantium! Shrimp that can do your taxes! Coelacanths that can write bug free code! Oh, the mind wobbles. More toxins! DUMP MORE TOXINS, DAMMIT!
Evolution can't "run in reverse." Evolution doesn't have a goal or a direction. Natural selection says that whatever organism is best adapted to a particular environment/nice will reproduce more. It doesn't say that that organism must be more "advanced" or complex than the ones that were in the niche before. Less complex organisms are better able to adapt to the changes happening in these particular environments. Maybe they'll get some new adaptations eventually that lead to their becoming more complex. Maybe not. Maybe the environment will change again to favor the more complex creatures. Maybe not. But it's certainly not running "in reverse."
But the problem is, people with less science background read things like that and get the idea that that IS how evolution works. I went to a church a couple of weeks ago and the pastor was giving an anti-evolution sermon (not going back there) - and he was using arguments like "evolution claims that if we wait long enough, eventually humanity will evolve into perfection" (with the further argument that only God is perfect, so evolution is wrong). Which is patently untrue, but if the general media keeps churning out things like this it's very easy to see how people get that idea.
It's not even a useful metaphor. It's more of an attempt at sensationalism.
If the biology of the sea is reverting back to a more primative state, it could mean that a biological reset and redesign is happening. Go back to a checkpoint in the design, scrap what came after it and start again to see if the new design can better cope with the changed environment.
Well, what happens is that more sensitive organisms are being killed (not sure "reverting back" is a normal term to use here), because they're more sensitive to specific conditions and food, while more primitive stuff isn't as
If the biology of the sea is reverting back to a more primative state, it could mean that a biological reset and redesign is happening. Go back to a checkpoint in the design, scrap what came after it and start again to see if the new design can better cope with the changed environment.
Dude, don't anthropomorphize nature. She doesn't like it when you do that.
Specilization for a certain environment will cause an organism to be successful as long as that environment is static. But once an environment changes, specilization becomes a very bad (=extention) thing.
There have been several mass extinction in the history of Earth. In each, the majority of species went extinct. Some of the coolest, most complex creatures can be found in the fossil record, but they died out when the environment changed.
I think humans are unique in that our increasing complexity (manifested in our brains) will cause us to survive the next mass extinction while all the other complex species die out. This is speculation, of course, but it may be just us, microbes, and plants some day.
Alternatively, we may become so powerful that we will be able to stop all future mass extinctions. That's a fantastic thought, but our current carbon-regulating attempts are the first attempt at such a feat. Building something like a giant, polarized sun-shield may be required eventually, though.
How come this pseudo-scientific babble was modded +5 interesting? Sure, the concept of life on a planet carrying out a "biological reset" might be a great concept for a science fantasy TV series like Star Trek, but it has no place in any kind of discussion of what might actually be happening on Earth right now. This kind of teleologico-evolutionary raving is no better than the kind of nonsense spouted by Creationists and is a nice example of how many people blindly subscribe to evolutionary theory as a kind of religion without having the faintest clue of what it's actually about. Of course it's not surprising that some people hold such views, but it is mildly shocking that such views get modded to the highest level of interest on/.
Sure, the concept of life on a planet carrying out a "biological reset" might be a great concept for a science fantasy TV series like Star Trek, but it has no place in any kind of discussion of what might actually be happening on Earth right now.
How does this grab you then?
"THIS is evolution?!" "Survival of the fittest. Often the simplest organism is the strongest." From the movie Evolution
I don't know how your flamey post got modded up to +4, since you apparently missed the point. In a crisis the most f
This is merely survival of the fittest, one of the basic tenets of evolution. When something gets kicked out of their niche, this means evolution works as designed.
If the species that got kicked out of it's niche is one you loved more than the victor, oh well, my advise is... adapt or die.
She feeds them by the dozen or worse. She provides blankets, selecting perfectly unwrinkled ones in soothing colors to ensure the cats will be happy. She pays to have shelters built.
Even the less-crazy people are totally enslaved by crop plants. We built elaborate irrigation systems, protect the plants from disease, spread the seeds around the world...
With a smile on my face, and in the spirt of discussion... I beg to differ. Design and Random are not the same thing.
"Design" implies purpose. I only meant to point out that some folks are perfectly happy with the idea that stuff can happen without purpose. In my experience stuff happens, on purpose, and otherwise. To me, the suggestion of a "biological reset" is nothing more than a continuation of the random selection, more commonly known as "Evolution". (There is no such thing as "de-evolution" - it is
Of course it is reasonable. Of course it is cause and effect. The question is whether we want to keep causing these effects. I for one would rather not leave the world to mold and cockroaches, even if they are superior in the darwinist sense of adapting to environmental devastation. Let's think deeply about this for a moment... 1) pollution is bad for complex, "highly-evolved" organisms; 2) people are such organisms; 3) you and I are people; 4) do you get it yet?
"Fish, corals and marine mammals are dying while algae, bacteria and jellyfish are growing unchecked."
How that is de-evolution?
It's not de-evolution. In this case, the less complex organisms work best in that environment. So, really, it's survival of the most-fit. Wait... I've heard that somewhere before...
Today's topic is pollution, not global warming (which has been proven to be caused by man - an issue only disputed by people already exposed as paid oil industry shills).
And yes, you are totally out to lunch: we need to stop those chemicals from seeping into our oceans first, before anything else. In case you haven't noticed, organisms are feeding off that stuff and turning into health hazards.
I mean, unless you just like a life without ever seeing a dolphin, eating a shrimp or what not.
Don't forget your part to help stem over-population by not having too many kids!
Really, I find it hard to respect an environmentalist who has four children. They may be energy-savvy, but I doubt they are *twice* as efficient as the Bush children. Plain and simple, we have way too many people, even if we all install fluorescent lighting and buy hybrids. If we don't stabilize and eventually decrease the population, nothing will save us.
. . . but if you rewind the VCR of evolution and let it play again, the show won't be the same.
It could tens of thousands of years for all the niches to re-fill. And because ecological niches are defined in large part by what life is already around, the new species that arise won't be the same as the ones we are used too and benefit from.
We could end up with an ocean without fish worth eating. They could be bony or greasy or, like a lot of fish species, poisonous.
And the human survivors living in the depleted, impoverished ecosystems we leave behind will utterly despise us for our careless, irresponsible, wasteful ways.
We were DEVO! (Score:5, Funny)
We got our tails.
Evolving down
To little snails.
I say it's all
Just wind in sails.
Were we once men?
We were DE-VO!
Re:We were DEVO! (Score:3)
but he used the monkey to do it
apes in the plan
we're all here to prove it
i can walk like an ape
talk like an ape
i can do what a monkey can do
god made man
but a monkey supplied the glue
Question: Are we not men?
Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Who'da thunk it?
"DE"-evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"DE"-evolution? (Score:5, Interesting)
What is happening is a massive die-off of many highly adapted species, which, directly or indirectly, depended on oceanic dissolved oxygen being higher, pH being slightly alkaline, and toxin levels being lower.
A big culprit here is phosphate and nitrate fertilizer runoff; read the series for all the details.
Re-evolution may take as long as the first time; don't hold your breath!
Parent
Re:"DE"-evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
In general during extinctions it is the specialists that do poorly and the generalists that do well. The opposite is true other times.
Parent
Re:"DE"-evolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't seen the word 'evolution' consistantly misused like this since Pokemon.. "Gather 'round everyone, this Bulbusaur is EVOLVING!"
Re:"DE"-evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
We (meaning animals) are almost an anomaly, not the rule. Anyway, as you said, as the environment changes so do the life forms that thrive in it. The very small are generally more able to cope with changing environments so they definitely win out in the short term.
Parent
Re:"DE"-evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:"DE"-evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bacteria are no less evolved than us. They've had the same 3-4 billion years, with more intense selection pressure* and much shorter generation times. They are exceedingly well optimised, and are the dominant branch of life on Earth.
* The larger a population, the more effective evolution is. This is standard nearly-neutral population genetics, demonstrated by Kimura.
Remember those museum displays labeled "Age of bacteria", "Age of Fish", "Age of Amphibians", "Age of Dinosaurs", "Age of Mammals"? They should have read "Age of Bacteria", "Age of Bacteria (plus a few multicellular marine organisms)", "Age of Bacteria (plus a few multicellular marine and land organisms)". Bacteria dominated the past, they dominate the present, and will be thriving when vertebrates are extinct.
Consider (as is commonly done) the history of life on Earth as a day (but ending with the end of life on Earth, rather than ending with today.) The Earth will be sterilised by the red-giant phase of the sun, in about 5 billion years. Taking life as starting 3 billion years ago, the Age of Bacteria lasts 8 billion years, and on our 24 hour time scale, that means it is now about 9am.
Cue music from "Hair":
This is mid-morning of the Age of Bacteria
The Age of Bactera
Bacteria! Bacteria!
Parent
De-evolve? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:De-evolve? (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] actually has a nice definition: "the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations." Nothing whatsoever to do with a "gain in genetic material."
Darwin himself certainly proposed no such thing. Keep in mind that Darwin didn't know anything abo
Evolution doesn't have a direction (Score:5, Insightful)
What's happening is that the rate of change in the environment is faster than many species can keep up. When you have 10,000 individuals in a population and they breed every 5 years, they can only "absorb" so much change. When you have a species that has billions of individuals and reproduce every 20 minutes, they can take massive environmental change and thrive in it.
The genetic diversity in the bigger population is vast and there's bound to be some individuals with higher tolerance of whatever the change is, be it increased temperatures, environmental toxins, or loss of food supplies. If one individual has the gene that boosts survival, it can propagate through the species very rapidly due to short lifespans.
Think of the human species as the biological equivalent as a comet hitting the earth and you've got it about right.
Re:Evolution doesn't have a direction (Score:3, Insightful)
"Higher"/"Lower" is common lingo for "complex"/"less complex". And as far as complexity goes, we're fairly high up. It doesn't imply a value judgment.
Chromosome comparisons (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, you can't compare "complexity" to chromosome counts, but I'd suggest that there's some rather complex little critters out there.
Re:Evolution doesn't have a direction (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
"De"-evolution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, (again, I'm not a biologist) it seems like simpler organisms are generally the things that make it through massive changes in the enviornment, because the more complicated animals are too-adapted to the current condiditions and can't evolve fast enough (too long of lifespans maybe?). The exception to this might be animals (humans) that are smart enough to either adapt their enviornment to them (for better or worse), or use tools to protect themselves from that change.
Re:"De"-evolution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Why is this surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
We humans are drastically changing the environment. In this century we will see mass extinction. We will also see mass adaptations and new speciation. The hardiest and most successful new species may turn out to be the bacteria and engineered organisms and ultimately nanotechnological devices that can break down and reprocess our industrial waste. Who is to say all of this isn't natural? We're 100% natural, we evolved here and we're part of this system. Whatever we do, it's natural by definition.
The question is, what do we place value upon keeping around? The polar bears, the coral reefs, the rain forests? Polar bears are cute. Have you ever walked through a forest? I'd like for my kids to be able to go diving someday...
Re:Why is this surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
Try lookin' at one from the inside.
KFG
Parent
Let's eat algae! (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as "de-evolution" is concerned, it'll take another 500 million+ years before anything "new" comes about if ever. But what it does mean is that we will likely starve to death before we see whatever comes next.
hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Just Life's Cycle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Once we figure out how to stop destroying our oceans, the balance will correct itself, but it will take many, many years. I kinda wonder how long until my hometown returns to it's former affluent ways (ha.).
Caulerpa taxifolia (Score:5, Informative)
Originally a genetically modified strain was found that survived well in aquariums in Germany, and this strain was accidently released by the Oceanographic Museum of Monaco, it quickly spread and seems to be impossible to destroy effectively. As it is asexual technically it is the same plant, there is no known predator apart from one slug I think. It is currently spreading like wildfire and nobody really knows what to do. It easily spreads via ships ballast tanks, and the plant is toxic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caulerpa_taxifolia [wikipedia.org]
http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/downl
A real disaster in the making..
Not genetically modified and only a local disaster (Score:5, Informative)
The strain in question wasn't genetically modified, at least not deliberately. According to the links you gave, it was exposed to tank chemicals and lighting, and that exposure appears to have caused it to mutate and gain increase ability to survive in cold water -- it's naturally found only in the tropics.
Also, it's not 'impossible to destroy effectively'. The PDF you linked to describes several methods that have been found effective, but only for relatively small infestations, like those that have been found in the United States and Australia. Introduction of the animals that eat taxifolia in its natural locations would probably clean up big infestations, but the effects of further alien introductions are nearly impossible to predict. So far it's spreading like wildfire only around the Mediterranean, but other temperate waters have to be watched for infestations (warmer waters aren't at risk, because they already have taxifola and its predators, and colder waters aren't at risk, because even this strain of taxifolia can't stand that much cold).
So, it's a cause for concern around the temperate waters of the world, but only a potential disaster in the Mediterranean area. It's similar to the Zebra Mussel, which is causing significant harm to the freshwater lakes and rivers of North America and Sweden.
Parent
There is hope (Score:4, Informative)
The solution is just a matter of international political will.
Dirty mind (Score:5, Funny)
With a tug on the trip-rope, the bulging sack unleashed its massive load.
This won't happen (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very hard to kill all humans. Even now we don't have enough nukes and chemical weapons to kill every single person on Earth. You can probably get 99%, but that still leaves 62,000,000...
Melissa
Piffle (Score:5, Funny)
The new, better toxic oceans will simply be a tought playing field for our watery bretheren. The competition will be fierce, but in the end the seas will be populated by new fish. Better fish. New, better races of ATOMIC SUPERFISH THAT I SHALL BEND TO MY WILL AND RULE THE WORLD! Ha ha ha ha! Despair, ye mortals, and weep! Oh, Discordia!
Imagine! Goldfish that shoot lasers from their eyes! Tuna that can bite through adamantium! Shrimp that can do your taxes! Coelacanths that can write bug free code! Oh, the mind wobbles. More toxins! DUMP MORE TOXINS, DAMMIT!
??? That's nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:??? That's nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even a useful metaphor. It's more of an attempt at sensationalism.
Parent
Re:Start of the next version of earth biology? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, that process worked great for Windows Vista...
Can't wait...
Parent
Re:Start of the next version of earth biology? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, what happens is that more sensitive organisms are being killed (not sure "reverting back" is a normal term to use here), because they're more sensitive to specific conditions and food, while more primitive stuff isn't as
Re:Start of the next version of earth biology? (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, don't anthropomorphize nature. She doesn't like it when you do that.
Parent
Re:Start of the next version of earth biology? (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been several mass extinction in the history of Earth. In each, the majority of species went extinct. Some of the coolest, most complex creatures can be found in the fossil record, but they died out when the environment changed.
I think humans are unique in that our increasing complexity (manifested in our brains) will cause us to survive the next mass extinction while all the other complex species die out. This is speculation, of course, but it may be just us, microbes, and plants some day.
Alternatively, we may become so powerful that we will be able to stop all future mass extinctions. That's a fantastic thought, but our current carbon-regulating attempts are the first attempt at such a feat. Building something like a giant, polarized sun-shield may be required eventually, though.
Parent
Re:Start of the next version of earth biology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Start of the next version of earth biology? (Score:3, Informative)
How does this grab you then?
"THIS is evolution?!"
"Survival of the fittest. Often the simplest organism is the strongest."
From the movie Evolution
I don't know how your flamey post got modded up to +4, since you apparently missed the point. In a crisis the most f
Evolution is what it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is merely survival of the fittest, one of the basic tenets of evolution. When something gets kicked out of their niche, this means evolution works as designed.
If the species that got kicked out of it's niche is one you loved more than the victor, oh well, my advise is ... adapt or die.
Evolution is what it is...
some organisms already dominate us (Score:4, Interesting)
She feeds them by the dozen or worse. She provides blankets, selecting perfectly unwrinkled ones in soothing colors to ensure the cats will be happy. She pays to have shelters built.
Even the less-crazy people are totally enslaved by crop plants. We built elaborate irrigation systems, protect the plants from disease, spread the seeds around the world...
Parent
Re:Start of the next version of earth biology? (Score:3, Funny)
you're.. not.. human?
SETI would be interested to know!
Not the same... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Design" implies purpose. I only meant to point out that some folks are perfectly happy with the idea that stuff can happen without purpose. In my experience stuff happens, on purpose, and otherwise. To me, the suggestion of a "biological reset" is nothing more than a continuation of the random selection, more commonly known as "Evolution". (There is no such thing as "de-evolution" - it is
Re:Seems reasonable.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Flawed concept (Score:4, Informative)
1. Highly developed or complex.
I would say not so much a mistake.
Parent
it's not de-evolution (Score:4, Funny)
How that is de-evolution?
It's not de-evolution. In this case, the less complex organisms work best in that environment. So, really, it's survival of the most-fit. Wait... I've heard that somewhere before...
Parent
Re:it's not de-evolution (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire and I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, you are totally out to lunch: we need to stop those chemicals from seeping into our oceans first, before anything else. In case you haven't noticed, organisms are feeding off that stuff and turning into health hazards.
I mean, unless you just like a life without ever seeing a dolphin, eating a shrimp or what not.
Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire and I agree (Score:3, Funny)
Don't forget your part to help stem over-population by not having too many kids!
Really, I find it hard to respect an environmentalist who has four children. They may be energy-savvy, but I doubt they are *twice* as efficient as the Bush children. Plain and simple, we have way too many people, even if we all install fluorescent lighting and buy hybrids. If we don't stabilize and eventually decrease the population, nothing will save us.
Re:Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire and I agree (Score:3, Funny)
I do; how about "Fascists"?
Well, sure . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
It could tens of thousands of years for all the niches to re-fill. And because ecological niches are defined in large part by what life is already around, the new species that arise won't be the same as the ones we are used too and benefit from.
We could end up with an ocean without fish worth eating. They could be bony or greasy or, like a lot of fish species, poisonous.
And the human survivors living in the depleted, impoverished ecosystems we leave behind will utterly despise us for our careless, irresponsible, wasteful ways.
Parent