Roadkill Forcing Cliff Swallows To Evolve 387
sciencehabit writes "Cliff swallows that build nests that dangle precariously from highway overpasses have a lower chance of becoming roadkill than in years past thanks to a shorter wingspan that lets them dodge oncoming traffic. That's the conclusion of a new study based on 3 decades of data collected on one population of the birds. The results suggest that shorter wingspan has been selected for over this time period because of the evolutionary pressure put on the population by cars."
Tricky EIRs (Score:3, Interesting)
This could be tricky, if this gets classified as a new species, how do we factor in the need for persistant traffic in environmental impact reports? If we cut traffic this species would lose its competitive edge and thus habitat and could become extinct!
Re: (Score:3)
Quick! Before it becomes a new established species, if you see one swerve your car dangerously to try and hit it!
Re: (Score:2)
There is going to be less meat on the little swallow wings.
So instead of swallows, they'll be gags?
Re:Tricky EIRs (Score:4, Informative)
No. The change is likely morphological rather then genealogical. As a result they will stay the same species, just like dogs do.
Re: (Score:3)
If you take a population of poodles, and breed them selectively for long enough, they would become a separate species. It just hasn't gotten that far yet.
These swallows can just mix with the general population too, but given enough time, would become a separate species.
Re: (Score:3)
That's only because they keep breeding poodles to be poodles. They arent selectively breeding them to change them into something new.
If it was me, I'd be going for size....big,,,curly haired...attack poodles!
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. English Sparrows are very close to speciation already, and they've only been in North America for a couple hundred years. The songs of North American sparrows have diverged enough that sparrows from England show little to no interest in breeding with them. You could undoubtedly artificially inseminate them, genetically they're pretty much identical, but one of the various definitions of 'species' ref
Re:Tricky EIRs (Score:4, Informative)
BTW, **NINE** digits of years? 100 million or more? Only three million years ago we were Australopithecenes, do you actually think Homo Sapiens haven't made 'long term' changes in the interim? 70 million years ago we were rat-sized egg-laying insectivores, are you really sure that we haven't changed significantly since then?
Re:Tricky EIRs (Score:4, Informative)
That's what I thought too, but then I actually looked it up [wikipedia.org] and found the GP is actually right. Two groups of animals can be morphologically the same, but still considered different species due to natural inhibitions against interbreeding.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if hedgehogs 'evolve' tungsten-carbide spikes that make car tires deflate so that they are fighting back the cars that kill them, and the car makers fit all their cars with caterpillar tracks... Would you consider those cars 'merely morphological' or genealogical different?
And what about flying cars, is
Re: (Score:3)
That is the same thing. They would still become different species after their outward appearance changed sufficiently, just like dog breeds.
A 180-pound English Mastiff and a two-pound Chihuahua, are not the same species, by any definition of the term.
Re: (Score:3)
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens
If the sperm from one can create fertile offspring in the other, it's the same species...
Re: (Score:3)
First off that is not the definition of a species.
And even using that definition, the would not be considered a species.
We all use DNA, so it would not be difficult to interbreed any two species on the planet together. How a species puts together its sperm and eggs prevents most species from interbreeding, but that is a tiny part of an organism and not particularly important when defining species.
Let us assume that even if you could impregnate a female Mastiff with with Chihuahua sperm that she came to term
Re: (Score:3)
Physical compatibility aside, the definition of a species is the biocompatibility and viability of their germ cells, NOT THEIR PHYSICAL ABILITY TO MATE AND CARRY OFFSPRING TO TERM.
You said, "And loads of different species can interbreed, in that if we could force them breed together they could produce offspring." Yes, horses and donkeys can interbreed - but their progeny are NOT (typically) FERTILE.
From the most often accepted definition of species [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine): "groups of actually or potentially interbr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be tricky, if this gets classified as a new species, how do we factor in the need for persistant traffic in environmental impact reports? If we cut traffic this species would lose its competitive edge and thus habitat and could become extinct!
Unlike religion, taxonomy is based on science. You can't just name something a new species because of a slight variation.
Species:
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
If the short wing swallows can breed with the long wing swallows to create fertile offspring... they probably aren't a new species.
Re: (Score:2)
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
You make it sound so easy, when it is not, and the GP has a point.
It's easy to tell when two things aren't the same species in many cases: e.g. a grey parrot and a rainbow trout.
But in many cases it's very much harder. Evoloution isn't a neat tree with branches handily cut off as species (or clades). It's a DAG which at coarse scales rather resembles a tree. The arrows point in the direction of time si
Re: (Score:2)
Species definition is quite messy. Easiest example is Tiger and Lion; They are listed as members of two separate species, yet they can interbreed.
Re: (Score:2)
...environmental impact reports?
Don't be a smartass...
excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Now if only humans would evolve that fast...
We have. Our asses have spread to better secure ourselves to couches. Our bellies are also evolving into shelves for beer cans.
Re: (Score:2)
If creating roadkill is the cause, then I've been doing part for years!
Re:excellent! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
If I keep on smacking my kids, their arms will get shorter?
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Their skulls may become thicker.
Re: (Score:2)
That would help explain recent observed behavioral patterns...
You're Welcome (Score:5, Funny)
...And this is yet another proof that God exists. My prayer circle has spent the last 10 years asking for Divine intervention to halt the senseless deaths of road-adjacent animals. Thanks to our unceasing intervention, He knew to trim a wee bit off the tip of every bird's wings (gradually, of course, so that mommy birds would still recognize their babies - and left longer wings on the sinner birds so that they would die and serve as a warning to others). Praise Jesus!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That is a really tough story to... Swallow...
lies, all lies (Score:5, Funny)
these evolutionists are just trying to force these lies down your throats.
how can the birds be changed by the overpasses? the bible tells us that the overpasses have existed since the creation of the universe, 3 decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
This is clearly heresy. As is recorded in the bible quite clearly, overpasses do not exist, and have never existed.
Re:lies, all lies (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing, at least to me as a Christian, is that none of the other Christians I know would take issue with anything said in the summary, other than the use of "evolution" to describe natural selection and adaptation: principles with which they have no problems.
Re:lies, all lies (Score:4, Insightful)
... even though that's exactly what evolution is?
I think they have a hard time understanding what the Theory of Evolution really is. If they did, they'd suddenly find it's compatible with faith as-is.
Re:lies, all lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Evolution and abiogenesis are frequently conflated. Many Christians have no problem with the former, but do not agree with the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
They do not agree that at some point life appeared where there was none before via some process---which is hte definiion of abiogenesis.
That's an odd thing to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Abiogenesis is life arising from non-living matter. In context as a piece of scientific terminology, it also usually conotes a natural process (i.e. not divine intervention).
Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
There really isn't a difference in kind between 'alive' things and 'collections of matter.'
Muscles are not magical energy conversion systems, they are composed of complicated proteins that bend and twist and contract, driven by chemical reactions that are well known. We can make the same reactions happen with artificial proteins, no problem.
Cells are not magical 'alive' packages, they are sacks of dirty water contained in a lipid bilayer. Something we can make with a syringe of oil and a bucket of water.
'Al
Re: (Score:3)
Never said they were magic, nor that biotic processes aren't understandable. We can understand the components that make up a living organism, and we can understand the chemical processes through which they interact. We can even create the components that make a living organism. What we can't do (although I'm not saying it's impossible) is initiate those processes, transforming something that is an inert collection of material into an autonomous entity; we can create a cell, but we can't create a monad.
The d
Re:lies, all lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm...yes and no. When people talk about "evolution", they're generally talking about the creation of new species via the combined mechanics of random mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is something that everyone I know is fine with. Random mutation is something that everyone I know is fine with. But the creation of new species? Not so much. And in this case, we're merely seeing natural selection at play, which is not evolution, in and of itself, any more than a motor by itself should be considered a car.
Re: (Score:3)
But the creation of new species? Not so much.
All "new species" means is "genetically incompatible". When people talk about evolution, they'd better fucking know what species means.
And in this case, we're merely seeing natural selection at play, which is not evolution
Uh wrong. If the changes we're seeing are genetic, then we're seeing evolution at play, through the mechanism of more or less natural selection. Consult your dictionary, it can help you the way it has helped so many others not be blatantly, stupidly wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Natural selection is something that everyone I know is fine with. Random mutation is something that everyone I know is fine with. But the creation of new species? Not so much. And in this case, we're merely seeing natural selection at play, which is not evolution, in and of itself, any more than a motor by itself should be considered a car.
Until the sub-species is altered in some way to prevent interbreeding(physical isolation, physical inability to mate, behavioral changes which prevent mating, etc), it is indeed not a speciation event. It is, however, evolution("a change in heritable traits over time"). The term "species" is just a convienent label to place on living things in order to categorize them. It is just a snapshot of a particular group of living things at a particular time. All species are always adapting, always evolving. Some ca
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing, at least to me as a Christian, is that none of the other Christians I know would take issue with anything said in the summary, other than the use of "evolution" to describe natural selection and adaptation: principles with which they have no problems.
Dude, I gotta ask, how can you be on the internet and not have seen them?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not denying that they exist, merely that they're representative of the whole. I'm aware that they're out there. I just don't know any personally, despite having grown up in the church. In fact, I learned about those principles while attending a private Christian school, back almost 20 years ago now (and no, I didn't learn them as "these are evil ideas that Godless people will try to tell you are truth", despite the stereotypes and Internet crazies that might lead you to believe otherwise :P).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lies, all lies (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fortunately, zero percent of all the grains of sand in the world believe that god created man. There are fewer incorrect grains of sand than there are ignorant Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Small subset... LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a point in debating someone who I agree with. ;)
Go back and re-read what I said. You inferred something where no implied message was intended. All I stated was that the Christians I know, myself included, do not have a problem with natural selection or adaptation. Just a simple statement of fact. I did not mean to imply that because they have no problems with those that they must then therefore accept all of the tenets of typical evolutionary theory. It wasn't until I read your response that I e
Re: (Score:2)
do not have a problem with natural selection or adaptation. Just a simple statement of fact. I did not mean to imply that because they have no problems with those that they must then therefore accept all of the tenets of typical evolutionary theory.
All of what tenets? I think you have it slightly back to front.
Evoloution is an observable fact: one can observe species change, speceiate and even develop new biochemical processes. Mutation and natural selection is how evolution occurs. The mechanism for muta
Re: (Score:2)
Calling an engine a "car" does not make it one. Natural selection is an important mechanic. In fact, you can't have evolution without natural selection, but that doesn't mean that natural selection is suddenly "evolution", despite your claims to the contrary.
Bridgekeeper (Score:5, Funny)
What is the new air speed velocity of an unladen cliff swallow?
Re:Bridgekeeper (Score:5, Funny)
The one impaled on the antenna of a passing vehicle or not?
Re:Bridgekeeper (Score:5, Funny)
The one impaled on the antenna of a passing vehicle or not?
I don't know but the little fucker dropped his coconut and cracked my windshield.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The one impaled on the antenna of a passing vehicle or not?
I don't know but the little fucker dropped his coconut and cracked my windshield.
It was trying to do you a favour: cut the coconut in half, bang the halves together and you'll not need to pay for a car anymore.
Maybe birds with shorter wings don't fly as much (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fly less, get less food, starve to death?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an alternative possible explanation. Older birds are bigger. Older birds have slower reactions. As overpasses became more common, it was predominantly older birds which were killed disproportionately by passing cars. Consequently the birds may have increased in number, but their population distribution is now skewed towards the younger, smaller
Saw a Chipmunk Up In the Mountains (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering the same thing about moths. In the last few years I've really started noticing that when I'm driving my car at night on a quiet road with no traffic, moths that are fluttering over the lane will suddenly drop to the pavement as my headlights hit them.
Sort of like a fainting goat, only more useful -- moths who have mini-seizures when they see headlights must have a higher survival rate because now all they have to worry about (besides being bashed up a bit by the fall) is my tires, which are a
Re: (Score:3)
I see hawks or eagles circling some highways nowadays - I wonder if roadkill makes up a significant part of their diet. But they'd better learn to avoid becoming roadkill too
On a related note, I wonder if we are doing the wrong thing by eating/killing the larger members of various fish species while leaving the smaller ones alive. Seems to me for millions of years its been the sm
hawks and eagles circling highway thermals (Score:2)
:>)
My understanding of why birds of prey are often seen circling highways is that they are taking advantage of thermals [wikipedia.org], rising columns of air heated by the asphalt/cement roadway surfaces, to power and maintain their gliding and flying. The fact that there's also an abundance of roadkill may have something to do with it also. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge-tailed_Eagle#Behaviour_and_diet [wikipedia.org] for how the eagles can observe thermals wi
Re: (Score:2)
Crows in Japan have made the most of it. They drop nuts into an intersection, wait for the walk signal and then pick out the meat after car tires do the hard work for them. When the sign changes to don't walk, they fly back up to a wire and wait.
Re: (Score:2)
They drop nuts into an intersection... and then pick out the meat
They can keep away from my meaty nuts, I says.
Re: (Score:2)
I think smarter dogs, who check for oncoming vehicles before venturing onto a road, will survive more. You can notice this behaviour in a few dogs in places that have large numbers of strays.
It would be interesting to note how quickly this could result into an increase in the average intelligence of dogs (heh heh). Of course, not all dogs live near highways. This roadkill risk has arisen only in the last 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You can notice this behaviour in a few dogs in places that have large numbers of strays.
The males seem to lose their traffic sense once a female in heat is in sight.
But that happens to humans too ;).
... wow, that was stupid (Score:2)
You are aware that the size difference in fish is NOT to seperate fit from unfit fish but that is a seperation on AGE of the fish?
Basically you are suggesting that the answer to a healthy fish stock for the future is to kill all the young and life the adults to swim free...
I know this is Slashdot and that with your intelligence we should all be grateful you got so little practical experience with reproduction but I think that even you might need to read up a bit on how a species survives.
Hint: It involve
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I was driving up in the mountains a year or so ago and saw a chipmunk run out into the road between me and the car coming the other way. Now normally this is pretty much certain doom for the chipmunk, but this one stopped calmly on the yellow line, stood up and waited for us to pass before continuing. I've always wondered if the evolutionary pressure of traffic combined with their short generation cycles would lead to critters less likely to become roadkill. Guess I have my answer.
I wish deer would learn this trick. I had a pair of them stop and stare at my car. Unfortunately they chose a night when the road was like glass and my brakes were nearly useless. I finally managed to change lanes a few feet from them and they only moved after my car was even with them. If I hadn't grown up driving on ice I would have had a face full of air bag and two deers riding shotgun. Apparently Chipmunk behavior is evolving faster than deer behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Hares still didn't evolve though (Score:3)
What happened then was hilarious. The hare saw the left head light, became scared and jumped to the right. Being now closer to the right head light, it became scared again and jumped to the left. Then again to the right, and so the hare became trapped between her
Re: (Score:2)
Venison is deer, you could possibly call the meat game, if you're looking for a generalized name for roadkill meat.
Evolution? Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
To generate increased fuel economy, today's automobile is a lot more streamlined than ones of the past. So there is less air disturbance. It may be that the birds with smaller wings are not affected by the turbulence as much as the larger winged birds are now, and can thus survive an encounter, whereas in the past, there was enough turbulence to affect the birds regardless of wingspan. Also, changes in traffic patterns and vehicle types changes the exhaust, which changes the local plant life, which changes the insect life, which ultimately changes the birds.
While it is simple to observe that long winged birds are being disproportionately killed and that the population's wingspan is growing shorter, and conclude that some sort of selection (Is it natural selection when birds are hit by cars?) is taking place, the reality may be quite different.
Re:Evolution? Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, what? Are you trying to suggest that bird wings are shrinking because automobiles produce less turbulence than they used to?
I have seen some really stupid write-ups in Science, but this one was concise and accurate. Roadkill birds have longer wings and the average wingspan has decreased over the decades of the study. It is known that birds with shorter wingspans are more agile in the air. The conclusion is that roadkills are placing a selection pressure on the birds for shorter wingspans. Turbulence is not actually believed to play much of a part, as death is caused when the birds are struck by cars, not when they get caught in their wake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Evolution? Maybe... (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, what? Are you trying to suggest that bird wings are shrinking because automobiles produce less turbulence than they used to?
No, I am suggesting that bird wings are shrinking because the automobiles are using a different blend of fuel than they used to.
Further, I am suggesting that turbulence inducing vehicles might be harder to avoid. The wake could cause a bird to hit the side or rear of a vehicle, or whip it into the ground, or just be violent enough to snap the wing altogether without the bird even hitting anything. Who knows? If the types and sizes of vehicles, the frequency and distribution of traffic, and even the fuel composition of the vehicles travelling through the underpass were the same, then the conclusion would have been a slam-dunk. However, the traffic now is not the same as it was thirty years ago, so there is another variable in the scenario; a variable that could cause the same observed phenomenon (unlikely though it may be).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it natural selection when birds are hit by cars?
Why would it not be natural selection?
The environment in which the birds exist was rapidly changed due to the actions of another migratory species.
This new environment is more dangerous to birds with a larger wing span. The birds with dominant short wing span alleles were able to survive longer and produce more offspring. Ergo, the nature of the environment selectively breed for short wing span alleles in this species in bird. The fact that the environmental change that catalyzed this selective process was
Kinda Related... (Score:5, Interesting)
The real questions (Score:2)
What effect does this have on their air speed and coconut carrying ability?
Re: (Score:2)
That quickly? (Score:3)
Is that seriously enough time for such an evolution to take place? I was not aware evolution happened so quickly, even accounting for their quicker viability for reproduction. Seems like there might be a million other reasons why this is happening, not because of something so recent.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that seriously enough time for such an evolution to take place? Seems like there might be a million other reasons why this is happening, not because of something so recent.
It happened recently, so yeah, it probably is due to something recent. Don't believe it? You can always get yourself a PhD like the scientists who did the study and repeat the research yourself.
Evolution can easily occur in a single generation if the selection pressure is high enough. In fact, it does occur, all the time, in every generation, but just isn't always this noticeable.
Why didn't they evolve... (Score:2)
Useless hindsight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how about someone come up with a prediction for once, as in something like, "Due to these conditions, this so-and-so life form will eventually evolve to have such-and-such appurtenances with such-and-such characteristics". Anybody up for the challenge?
How about Darwin himself predicting that ther must be some mechanism for passing on most of the characteristics of parents on to children but with the opportunity for relatively small random changes to happen: small enough to be not necessarily harmful.
DNA cro
Re: (Score:2)
Re:first (Score:5, Insightful)
That will be the downfall of your species. Those who march in front are merely the meat-shields for the warriors that follow, the first torn down by the musket balls and horse mounted cavalry while those behind remain to actually fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution [wikipedia.org]:
Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations:
1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive
2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction
3) trait differences are heritable.
Re: (Score:2)
1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive
Why is this fact required? Don't the other two suffice by themselves?
Re:not evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
The definition of evolution existed for over century before genetic material was discovered.
Keep changing the goalpost because the facts don't match your dogma, kinda like "climate change"
Re: (Score:2)
OK so change the definition when things stop working out for you.
Like you just did when you claimed natural selection but not evolution? No. That has always been the definition of evolution from when Charles Darwin first put it in writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, contrary to popular judeo-christian mythology, evolution is NOT magic.
Please defend your statement by pointing out the section of the Bible where evolution is discussed.
Because folks confusing what a bunch of right-wing fundamentalist nutjobs spout on TV vs. actual Christian religious tradition is part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There is more to "judeo-chistian mythology" than just the Bible.
Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say that the Book of Genesis was part of Christian tradition, and that explicitly states that God created animals and man from scratch, in direct contradiction to the Theory of Evolution.
What Bible are you reading? From Genesis 1:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth abrought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
I'm missing the part where it "explicitly" says "from scratch with no evolution involved." It just says God said, "Make it so," all Captain Picard like, and then it was carried out through some unspecified agency.There are literally no details about how it was done. Likewise with the animals:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Even the word "day" could better be rendered "time period." A "day" might be 1 billion years. In any case, evolutionary theory neither proves nor disproves God. In fact, if you read Origin of Species, you'll find that Charles Darwin was not the atheist demigod smarmy atheists like to make him out to be. He speaks quite openly about God and pontificates that "Hey, maybe this is how God speciates animals." (Also, he wasn't particularly concerned with the ultimate origin of life. He was specifically concerned with speciation.)
Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D (Score:5, Insightful)
A "day" might be 1 billion years.
And "seed" might be asteroids, "fowl" might be spaceships, "creeping thing" might be nanotech bots and "blessed" may be "provided a 1 billion year support contract". If you like to provide your own translation of every word and concept in the Bible, you can make it anything you want it to be, prove anything you like and be infinitely update-able.
If we were to accept this, it must be very comforting that Genesis can seem to be more than simplistic myth. But it doesn't stop it being fiction.
Re: (Score:3)
YOU are the one providing an incorrect translation, you are the one insisting it means what you want it to mean.
The Hebrew word "yom" means "period of time". It may be used to mean 12 hours, may be used to mean 24 hours, and it may be used longer periods of time. For example Genesis 4:3: "And in process of time(yom) it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In that case "yom" means "one growing season". That is a several month period of time.
To quote Lewis Bla
Re:How come no animals have evolved 4D (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it's fashionable to assume everybody who believes in Christianity takes every kernel of the Bible as an absolute truth, but most take the book as a whole. You talk about ignoring the details - with all of our modern science, we *still* can't grasp the details of how the universe was created.
Hell, I'm not even a Christian. Why do you jump to inflammatory conclusions and make me take their side?
Re: (Score:3)
Are the short-winged swallows unable to mate with other swallow in their parent population?
This normally happens only if the two strains of livings are separated and allowed to develop independently. And even then it doesn't necessarily mean that the now occuring species can't interbred anymore. Polar bear and grizzly are a wellknown example of two species who could interbred, but normally don't do because they live in different environments. In this case, we talk about geographical species.
What we see here, is a so called genetic drift. While still being the same species, the average genotype
Re: (Score:3)
Has anyone seen mutations arise that weren't in the gene pool of an organism and seen the mutated form "take over" a population because the mutation conferred a survival advantage
I saw a documentary recently that said there are nurse sharks near the bikini atoll that are believed to have developed a mutation (missing second dorsal fin) due to exposure to radiation from nuclear testing in the late 40's, early 50's. Normally that type of mutation only affects one or two generations, but the mutation has persisted to this day. I don't think anyone has theorized an advantage yet. They didn't detect any abnormal radiation levels in the water at this time.
Re: (Score:3)