Resurrection Ecology Gives Life to Old Eggs 582
Ant writes "ABC News reports that scientists are bringing the past to life by hatching eggs once thought to be dead and producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago. They are calling it 'resurrection ecology,' and it's a whole new field that quite literally allows scientists to observe evolution as it occurred, using animals that were quite different than their kinfolk today."
Side effects may vary. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe this will put an end to those viagra emails I keep getting too.
Re:Side effects may vary. (Score:2)
Badadum!
Thank you! I'll be here all night.
Replacement Technologies (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
Can this possibly be used as an argument for evolution?
Not until zooplankton evolve into seamonkeys it won't.
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, this means most jellyfish are macroscopic zooplankton.
m-
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... by that definition, Stephen Hawking is a zooplankton.... so I think the definition is a bit broad....
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Informative)
Like the definition of "herb": defined (iirc) as any plant without a woody stem.
m-
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, this will still not prove it for most creationists, since it will only show what can happen under closed, controlled conditions. It's never realistic enough to change the lives of the people to whom absolute, totally undeniable proof of evolution would be a faith-shattering experience.
There will always be room for another Scopes Monkey Trial, even today. There are still creationist education groups. It's not like the evidence will be easily accepted by them, either. It will take more than just some simulated ecosystems.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just stupid evolution has to be dragged into every single discussion about something biology. When biologists say that they have a scientific consensus about the validity of evolution that means its the same when physicists say this about gravity.
The people denying evolution are not lacking evidence, they are lacking education.
You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Timespace is curved, and it's that curvature that gives the acceleration. There is no such thing as gravity, just as there is no such thing as centrifugal force.
So there is a consensus on gravity - and that is that it isn't a valid theory.
I'd like to point out that there is no real discussion between evolution vs. creationism, except in the minds of people
Re:You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because gravity isn't a force doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things fall to earth, mass is attracted to other mass and we call that phenomenon "gravity". The curvature of space-time is an explanation of gravity and the behaviour we see.
GR, and SR, are really good in certain circumstance, but break down in others. Certainly scientists are looking to both test relativity in the places it works (like the recent satalite frame dragging experiments) and come up with new theories where it breaks downs, ones that will explain both quantum and macro level behaviour.
Evolution isn't like GR, it doesn't have a equations, it is a much more general observation. In fact, it's more like gravity, stuff falls, animals evolve, the interesting science is in figuring out how and why. Scientists aren't looking to replace evolution but refine it and figure out the specific details.
The discovery of DNA had a huge impact on evolutionary theory. There is research into how much impact spontaneous mutation has vs gradual section, and is evolution slow and steady vs sudden bursts.
While you can certainly believe in God and be a scientist, you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist. If you reject the outcome of the scientific method because of faith or dogma, you aren't doing good science period. Of course if your area is nothing to do with biology it isn't going to intefere with you science. I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.
Evidence of the Creation (Score:3, Funny)
QED.
PS. You yourself are also evidence of the creation.
Re:Reason and Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
The people most likely to do this are the religious themselves, typified by creationist groups that seek to get their 'theory' into textbooks as a direct contrast to evolution. If the religious stuck to religion and stopped trying to interfere with or invalidate science we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Max
Re:You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not all theories are infinitely reducible. Sometimes science "gets it right." By diligent application of the scientific method, the correct theory may be found. For instance, I doubt many scientists are out there still trying to figure out why the sky is blue, or why fire is hot. The existing theories are sufficient.
Similarly, I don't think ther
Re:You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:5, Interesting)
We appear to be having one right now.
Aren't biologists looking for a better theory than evolution to replace it one day
No, not at all; there is not even the slightest hint that Evolution needs replacement; it is simply a very general and succesful a principle. All that is being done is filling out the details.
Creationism [...] doesn't try to explain the origin of the diverse creatures
Uh, last time I looked, it did. For instance:
Believers of creationism [...] accept themselves as created in the image of God as children of God
You appear to be trying to explain Man's origin right here.
Many scientists are creationists
Do you work in science ? I have been working in science (lifesciences) the last 15 years, must have met hundreds of scientists. Only 3 or 4 of them believed in creationism, none of them biologists, and none of them at professor level. It may be different in the U.S., though.
Do you see how evolution doesn't even really enter the argument for creationists
Most creationists (and you appear to one of them) are hellbent on 'disproving' evolution and 'proving' 'Intelligent Design' (newspeak for Creation) using nothing more than the bible (itself a text of debatable origin).
Grow up.
Re:You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a way to make friends and influence people:
* tell someone they are wrong.
* justify it using something that the party in the wrong does not believe.
* turn the argument into a game of uh-huh, nuh-huh.
It reminds me of people using the Monster of Jekyll Island to tell their creditors w
Re:You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh really? As far as I know, no one is trying to force Sunday Schools to discuss evolution. But many religious groups throughout the country are trying to force science classes to teach creationism.
Which pink unicorns you worship is your business. When you try to force those unicorns onto others, it becomes a problem.
Re:You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, that indicates a lot of bias on their part... certainly much more than a biologist who studies living creatures much more closely than any of us does. Creationists are inherently more biased since (from their view), being right means potentially having an eternal life. For them, there is much more at stake.
You are right in a sense about the scientific method [wikipedia.org]: scientists are always looking for ways to improve or replace theories. We hold on to theories because they provide the best possible explanation and (quantifiable) prediction of phenomena. If a better theory comes along, that doesn't mean previous ones are entirely invalidated. Usually (as with the theory of relativity), you will see that they are more accurate in certain ranges (e.g. very high speeds). You can still use Newton's theories for a whole range of applications.
How much do you actually scrutinize the holy book of your religion? Crucial events described in your book are rather vague or conflicting. Who are the authors? How did they come by the information? Can they be trusted? Who controls the exact translations and makes sure their (subtle) meaning stays intact? That's just some examples of critical questions you could ask if you weren't so eager to accept the conclusion.
To come back to the non-religious creationist thing: even if you can make a scientific case that things were designed by a super-natural force, that still does not mean that this force is the same as classical views of deities dictate, but rather an entity or group of entities outside our reality. Whether or not this entity is directly involved in humanity or its destiny is then the next major hurdle... and maybe even a bigger one. Certainly one that a true critical thinker would be interested in.
I'm interested in hearing your view on these points.
Re:You do know that gravity doesn't exist right? (Score:4, Informative)
No you don't. The order's all wrong. Genesis says that the Earth was around before the Sun (and that daylight, as well as the seperation of day and night, also existed in the absense of a sun.) I believe that it also states that birds appeared before land animals, but I don't have a copy on hand to check.
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Interesting)
Organisms are considered of the same species if they are capable of producing offspring which can also reproduce. (I am not sure how to define it for asexual organisms, though obviously the first experiments will take place in this
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
In the 1930's the Murrumbidgee Irragation Project destroyed a large slab of habitat in the center of the range of the bird. There were now two populations of Eastern Rosellas. In each group colouration tended to the mean of each region, with the result that now birds of opposite gender from the two regions will not interbreed without major human intervention (colouring the birds, or feeding them sex hormones etc).
Given that the definition of species is a population of organisms that will mate and reproduce spontaneously under natural conditions, the Eastern Rosella is a text book case of Speciation, as outlined in the Origin of Species.
The "no new species have been observed" objection is dead in the water. Note also that we're not talking about plankton or bacteria or virus here - we are talking about a parrot a bit bigger than a pidgeon.
Your bar seems a little low. (Score:2)
This does sound as close as any evidence so far however, since unwilling and unable produce the same end result - extinct. Can you point in the direction of more information?
I know i'm splitting hairs here, but it would be nice to have undeniable evidence, non? The point is that we haven't, with the possible exception of the example you cited, any direct observation of evolution (in higher species). A counterexample by analogy would be the
look harder (Score:3, Informative)
As for the difference between unwilling and unable, give it time. Any reasonable estimate as to how long such an event would take runs into hundred(s) of generations. We simply haven't had enough time for one to take place. Now, you can prove that it has taken place, but you have to accept genetic evidence for it. There is tons of genetic evidence for 'speciation' that has resulted in 'unable' but cre
Re:Your bar seems a little low. (Score:4, Informative)
However I was first aware of this in 1992, I can't recall the original source, but it was fairly well known in Population Ecology Circles in Australia at the time.
I can also refer you to www.geocities.com/pb56_au/mtbuffalo/ student/activities/speciation.PDF which illustrates the debate on this issue. Note that the species in central NSW have vanished, so in the map in this document imagine varieties that filled the concave side of the curved range shown.
You are of cource correct that my "definition" was too lax, and I'll accept your correction on this. It doesnt dilute the point I was making however.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolution doesn't require similar faith. It requires some faith, because all science does. Faith that if lots of people observe something, we can take it that that thing is actually happening. Faith in cause and effect. Faith that the universe is consistent in the rules it follows, they won't all change tomorrow, and didn't all change yesterday (and when they did change, like the very early universe, there were rules and reasons to it).
Evolution is based on observations, scientists started with some observed facts, came up with a hypothesis and looked for evidence to back it up.
Now, scientists have been wrong in the past, science is a process after all. So far though there hasn't been any alternative hypothesis that holds up nearly as well, while evolution has moved from hypothesis to theory.
Creationism comes from myths and a time when people explained things they didn't understand with magic and gods. People believe in it now because they were taught it, or because it is written in the bible.
There is a difference between believing something because it is the best explanation science currently has to offer, and believing something because it's a very old myth. Of course you can blindly cling to scientific theories irrationally when presented with differing facts, and that is as unreasonable as blindly clinging to religious beliefs when presented with alternate facts.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Most rational creationists accept that micro-evolution - the development of new species, sub-species, and distinct populations - occurs regularly, thanks to adaptive survival and the remarkable propensity of the genome to re-activate inactive DNA. I remember a recent example where a species of bacteria unable to digest lactose developed that ability within a few generations after being grown in a lactose-rich solution. The bacteria didn't gain this ability through random mutations, but by the activation of a previously unknown gene in the "junk DNA" part of the genome.
There's also an excellent article in the latest American Scientist detailing the specifics of spider speciation in the Hawaiian islands. There seems to be little doubt that this sort of micro-evolution occurs constantly.
However, many people (like myself) believe there is little or no persuasive evidence for macro-evolution, the spontaneous generation of radically new organisms marked by completely new genes, chromosomes, and physiological characteristics. There is pretty much no explanation of how such changes could occur at the molecular level. Michael Behe refers to it as a black box problem, since such macro-evolution can currently only be explained by treating very complex biological and chemical systems as black boxes. It's easy to imagine in macroscopic terms how a freckle might turn into an eyeball. It's impossible, however, to explain the process in molecular-evolutionary terms.
In other words, macro-evolution is not really a theory, because no theoretical framework even exists yet. Note that one need not be a creationist to reject macro-evolution and abiogenesis as viable scientific theories (though there are admittedly few other options).
Incidentally, I have read a fair amount on the subject, including the online article "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" and the relevant rebuttals. Nothing was persuasive; every "evidence" offered (1) were not necessary indicators of common ancestry, and (2) would not disprove the theory by their absences. They were simply interesting facts that could explained both by macro-evolution and by creation.
(Please don't flame me here, I'm trying to make some honest and intelligent points about a topic that gets a lot of crazy people into an irrational frenzy. Don't be one of those people!)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given a belief in God and creation what is more likely given the evidence: that God created everything according to the literal interpretation of the bible, but made all this evidence of evolution to [trick us|force us to have to take the bible on faith], or that God created the mechanism of evolution more or less as science describes it and that the bible [should not|does not need to] be taken literally?
In my mind, the later seems more elegant and, following the principle of Occam's Razor, more likely. And surely a creation that essentially creates and evolves itself from the beginning is far more divine than a creation that is designed to last detail? But it's very much a question for religious, not scientific debate.
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, I'll feed your troll. Read up on "sickle cell anemia" and how the people who carry this mutation almost always live normal healthy lives -- with the added bonus they don't die of malaria.
Now the reason you haven't heard about this is because you've been wandering around with wads of cotton in your ears for your entire life. If you'd actually taken them out for long enough
Adaptation is part of evolution (Score:4, Informative)
Also, show me a mutation that was for the better of the species.
Pesticide/herbicide resistence, happens with increasing frequency. Predicted by evolution: change the environment and a mutation that confers an advantage in dealing with the new environment will rapidly spread through the population.
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/
Them pesky biologists! Cut their funding, that'll teach 'em to contradict your gut feelings about the world!
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
I'd rather be right about evolution being wrong rather than wrong about evolution being right.
Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sorry, ignore parent, consider this instead... (Score:4, Insightful)
What more is there to be than "just" a theory?
evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What more is there to be than "just" a theory?
Evolution is "just" a theory because, although a theory is a statement of what we think something to be like, that includes in itself an inherent understanding that we can't know more than that, that we could always possibly be wrong . . . so evolution has trouble standing up to things like Creationism and it's masquerade/reinvention as "Intelligent Design", which offer eternal and proclaimed truths at their core. They have the gift of certainty; and unreal concreteness is often more persuasive than truthful equivocation.
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:2)
The point is, if its not proven, its not fact. Yet. This can at least put evolution into the fact category for certain. That still leaves faith out there, but it has no facts...
For me at least, if it cant be proven, it isnt real. This applies to everything. Im also drunk right now.
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in my country (not the states), even if you want an IT degree, you have to attend some courses about history and philosophy of science. It is essential, to say the least, that people have an open mind and actually know things like, what is (scientifically) a proof, or fact, or how science is progressing, how does the total knowledge of humanity grow, if it grows at all, etc. Amongst other things, it's taught that there is no universal all-time fact, you cannot prove anyth
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:3, Funny)
So to you, nothing is real except for some mathematical theorems? I wonder how you are able to get out of bed in the morning...
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:2)
I've never observed the existence of New York City (I know, I don't travel a lot...), but because I have a LARGE amount of convincing evidence, the vast majority of it non-contradictory, that it does indeed exist, I choose to believe it.
It doesn't take a lot of faith, it just takes a little bit of rationality.
I would show you documented examples of evolution (they're plenty enough easy to find to anyone familiar with Google), but unless you're unlike every other creationist I know, you'll simply dismiss
Re: evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> There is no reason or sound evidence for abiogenesis yet
Sure there is. It is well established that the universe was once inhospitable to life, and that now at least one tiny corner of it teams with life. Ergo, life had to start sometime between then and now. The only open questions about abiogenesis are the when, where, and how; the 'if' is a closed question.
> which is necessarily a part of evolution (whether or not we want to admit it)
No, evolution is what happens to a system of imperfect replicators. It doesn't matter in the least where they came from. In particular, it doesn't matter to biology whether life on earth arose from natural chemical processes or was put here by a magic pixie; that fact that life replicates itself, imperfectly, is sufficient for evolution to occur.
Re:evolution is "just" a theory because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have no evidence that's a 'conjecture'. Creationism is not even a theory it's a conjecture. Unfortunately the un-educated masses who believe all the codswhallop do not know of the difference either.
Re:sorry, ignore parent, consider this instead... (Score:2)
Evolution? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Evolution? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, would somethign that was perfectly healthy and able to succed in life be dormant for no reason? If so then has the process of being dormant in any way changed the creature once they are hatched. How do we know what is discovered is any more acurate then the imagination of scientist that already try to point out the differences.
Re:Obligatory Bill Hicks quote (Score:3, Funny)
RIP.
makes you wonder.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:makes you wonder.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds to me likely you're dangerously close to treating Wikipedia as an authoritative source. And I certainly don't see how "understanding" life is easy.
The fact that some bacteria have five hundred year long reproduction cycles and that others can survive dormant for thousands of years just shows that natural selection over billions of years produces more advanced creatures than we have done during the mere three hundred years we claim to have been civlized (if you count from the beginning of the industrial revolution - I personally do not view the present world as civilized)
You are incorrect about the time frames. Modern man started breeding plants, animals, and microbes starting roughly 8,000-12,000 years ago. Yeast (used in making of bread and fermentation of carbohydrate rich fluids) seems to be an excellent counterexample to your claim above. Or perhaps the Border Collie or the rat.
woohoo (Score:4, Informative)
http://ut.water.usgs.gov/shrimp/ [usgs.gov] "The life cycle of Artemia begins from a dormant cyst that contains an embryo in a suspended state of metabolism (known as diapause). The cysts are very hardy and may remain viable for many years if kept dry."
Not Dead, Dormant. (Score:5, Informative)
It may be a landmark - I have no idea - but it's not resurrection.
Re:Not Dead, Dormant. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bah, who cares for semantics when you can have sensationalism?
Is it me or does the Red Queen Hypothesis also sound a lot like good ole' survival of the fittest thing that Darwin fella' had put forward?
when you're a jet, you're kinda of jet, except not (Score:3, Interesting)
Human beings of eighty years ago would have been able to deal with this impending crisis much more efficiently, let's bring some of that natural genetic drift back, for example. Sort of gets away from another accidentally arbitrary classifications.
Jurassic Park Connection (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought "de-volving" DNA was a 50's sci-fi movie myth. I understand that it is sometimes possible, at least in theory, to "turn on" suppressed DNA, and that one could mutate and selectively breed modern species into creatures with traits resembling extinct species, but without the full genome of the extinct species to "rewrite" your modern genome into a copy of, you would just end up with a vaguely dinosuar-like [mithuro.com] modified bird, which would exhibit any mistaken assumptions of the breeders.
Simply put, a bird would not "revert" into a real dinosaur, it would evolve into an immitation dinosaur. As far as frozen mammoth thread goes, I think it should be possible to reconstruct the mammoth genome from frozen DNA, as I understand that DNA is much more stable than most other organic structures. Once you had your genome to work from, if you had the time and money to devote vast biotech rescources I suppose a mammoth zygote could be synthesized, but it would be immpossible to guess the cost or time involved anywhere within several orders of magnitude. I have no proffesional training in any of this, I'm just an informed interested person throwing in my $0.02 worth in. However, if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the mammoth resurrection group over the bird devolution group without a second thought!
movie script ? (Score:2, Funny)
Eggstinct eggcology (Score:5, Funny)
Most eggcellent!
Re:Eggstinct eggcology (Score:2)
Re:Eggstinct eggcology (Score:2)
Eggsit stage right!
Re:Eggregious (Score:2)
Structure & Energy (Score:3, Insightful)
Wohooo!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Those things must have been tasty if they went so extinct.
Maybe I'll get to taste one in my lifetime...
Re:Wohooo!!!! (Score:2)
How d'ya like yer eggs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Nope, I like 'em alive and kicking.
Jokes aside, this is cool - but wasn't it already known that only the fittest survive? How is the Red Queen Hypothesis any different?
Or are they both saying the same thing, and the resurrection ecology is merely confirming it?
Re:How d'ya like yer eggs? (Score:2)
How is the Red Queen hypothesis any different?
Good question - but I think the answer centers around the question whether an environment can be stable enough for an organism to not bother evolving for a while, or whether the presence of competitors forces organisms to continue to evolve.
For example, if you are the only thing filling a particular ecological niche and nothing is gnawing on your leg, then you (as a population, not as an individual) don't have a particular need to get stronger, smarter, more
Re:How d'ya like yer eggs? (Score:2)
There are many facets to survival.
Re:How d'ya like yer eggs? (Score:2)
A few thousand years ago, strength was largely physical - today it's intellectual.
Re:How d'ya like yer eggs? (Score:3, Insightful)
A few thousand years ago it was brawn, then it was a combination of both brain and brawn, today it is mostly brain -- but still, good looking folks do find it easier to find mates, due to reasons that go back in the evolutionary chain.
That was my original point.
We do not know what will constitute the "fittest" of tomorrow as we advance as a species and as a civilization, however that does not mean the n
Re:How d'ya like yer eggs? (Score:2)
Jesus Fucking Christ! You should have said that, sheesh! I was wondering wtf you were talking about.
Cheers.
Microevolution (Score:5, Insightful)
The startling point is that we're talking about only 100 years. Given the number of generations the Daphnia can manage in that time, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.
But think: if you can get that much useful change in such a short amount of time, how much more can occur over hundreds of thousands of years?
Re:Microevolution (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a Creationist. But I can't help thinking critically about stuff like this. There are a few holes in the picture that make it hard for me to buy TFA's conclusions.
For instance, the bugs grew uglier so they wouldn't get eaten. How did they do that? But let's suppose they did. The article claims their DNA actually changed. I don't get that at all.
It seems more likely that when there were more predators only the ugly bugs survived to leave eggs. The others got eaten. But their DNA didn't change, the tasty-looking bugs just got weeded out.
In other words the DNA of the uglier bugs looks different because their parents were ugly. The problem with calling it an evolutionary change is that a subsequent generation was pretty again. If the DNA had in fact changed, they would have stayed ugly.
Or is it late and I'm missing something obvious?
Re:Microevolution (Score:2)
Re:Microevolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine an n-dimensional graph, with each possible bug quality expressed as one axis on the graph. In fact, to make it easier to visualize, let's simplify the problem down to just two dimensions for now: spininess and helmet size. We'll have have spininess indicated by the position along the X axis, and helmet size indicated by the position along the Y axis.
Any particular bug will have a given amount of spininess and a given size helmet, and thus we can assign it a point on the 2-D graph. Now, when that bug has children, its children will either be identical to it (and thus be represented by the same point on the graph), or slightly different (in which case they will be represented by nearby points). We'll assume that since the differences in the children are due to chance (i.e. random gene mutations, luck of the draw in selecting a mate, etc), that the childrens' locations on the graph will show up as a small "cloud" of points, roughly centered on the parent's point.
Now we throw some predators into the mix. These predators will (for whatever reason) have a preference for eating bugs of a certain quality -- in this case, they prefer bugs with smaller helmets and less spines, since they are easier to swallow. So, to represent the predators eating the bugs, we will randomly erase some of the dots on the graph -- and the key point is -- we will make it so that the closer the bug's dot is to the lower left (i.e. low spininess and small helmet size) the more likely that bug is to get eaten and his dot erased.
Now, run the simulation for a few generations, and it should become clear what happens -- at each generation, each bug spawns, causing his dot to be surrounded by his children's dots, in a small cloud centered on him. But the dots in the lower left portion of the cloud get eaten more than the dots at the upper right portion of the cloud. So, when it's time for the next generation to spawn children, the grandchildren are (on average) a bit farther up and to the right than before.
Now speed up the simulation to a good 30fps, and here's what you will see: it looks like the little clouds of dots are moving up and to the right! Of course, none of the dots themselves ever actually move
And of course in reality the graph has any number of dimensions, not just two... and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying a number of other factors as well... but that is the gist of it.
Re:Microevolution (Score:3, Insightful)
t seems more likely that when there were more predators only the ugly bugs survived to leave eggs. The others got eaten.
Congratulations, that is exactly what evolution is.
But their DNA didn't change, the tasty-looking bugs just got weeded out.
On average, next generations will be uglier because more of their parents were ugly. Not all of them will get ugly kids though - just a lot more than before. That means the population as a whole got uglier.
In other words the DNA of the uglier bugs looks differ
Re:Microevolution (Score:4, Interesting)
This research doesn't show a change in the animal, just a change in population ratios. During the time when there were a greater number of predators more of the small helmeted animals were eaten and therefore produced fewer eggs. Once the threat was over the ratios returned to normal levels.
Huge gains (Score:2, Informative)
Not a scientific article (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this article merely takes that interesting subject and attempts yet again to twist it into another prove of the theory of evolution. The mass media does that with any major story in the life sciences area.
Regenerate! (Score:2, Funny)
Unlocking the past (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish people would read... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wish people would read... (Score:2)
Who has time for the simple things in life, like trolling on slashdot. I know I certainly dont.
Besides....Its a TROLL. its not like people pay attention to them. Often times my trolls are just random character strings. Sometimes these random trolls do sound like MS bashing, but who knows. I cant predict the future.
Ya know -- Some species die out for a reason (Score:2, Offtopic)
While in our Politically Correct Era the focus is on how mankind has exploited the eco-system - let's not be too quick to jump on the band wagon of thinking this is a wonderfull way to bring back the Do-do and other species that came to an abrubt end in modern history.
Exploitation of wildlife resources is only one of many reasons.
Another reason is because ecology changes and those species not well suited to adapt to the new envir
Re:Ya know -- Some species die out for a reason (Score:2)
Who calls it that? Are we unnatural? At what point did natural selection stop being natural when it comes to us? Isn't everything we do inherently natural? Or are we gods who are totally seperate from the processes that created us?
resurrectionecology.com (Score:2)
Re:resurrectionecology.com (Score:2)
I'm still holding out (Score:5, Interesting)
These are microscopic eggs (Score:2, Informative)
We're not talking about bringing back Dodos!
Helmets? Spines? save 'em... (Score:2)
I've had a few dates that had big helmets, big spines. And, really, they weren't appetizing!! :-P
The researchers had hi
How does this prove anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
The researchers found that the specimens in the lab changed and then later changed back, just as fossil records had shown.
If anything this disproves evolution as the cause.
Did they have predators and competition in the lab? It wasn't mentioned and I highly doubt they recreated the lake.
They removed the predators and the same thing still happened. This dis
Re:I can't believe this wasn't mentioned (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I can't believe this wasn't mentioned (Score:3, Funny)
system... (alas, poor SGI).
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, no good can come of it, as those memes are the same ones we have today.
Re:I can't believe this wasn't mentioned (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, bringing back extinct critters, what could possibly go wrong??? Then again, I wonder what a t-rex steak tastes like. Better living (and eating) through science I always say.
Re:This would have never happened (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is very interesting (Score:2)
Re:This is very interesting (Score:2)
Re:This is very interesting (Score:2)
Yes, but at least when aliens land on earth ten thousand years from now and find nothing but barren earth, they'll be able to hatch sea monkey eggs and bring sea monkeys back to their kids.
Hey, here's a
Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
How long until the Bush administration puts an end to their research?
Re:No (Score:3, Informative)
M