'Truly amazing' scientific discovery on adaptation of Yakutian horses to cold

Siberian Times ^ | November 28, 2015

[null and void]

Yes! Being primitive does NOT mean being stupid.

Could you or I, with our sophisticated edumacations, survive a year in Siberia even if dropped in early spring?

[PapaBear3625]

What an inane, blithering crock! So they “evolved” to where they could srvive the cold over 800 years, did they? And how, may I ask, did the original arrivals from Mongolia survive the cold for the first 500 years or so.

They didn't. You would have to get horses that survived somewhat less harsh conditions further south, and keep importing horses north until you got some that were able to survive. Then repeat the process to get further north.

[Tucker39]

All I know is that the Mongolian Nomads did it, and they didn’t do it gradually over 800 years.
Thanks.

[SunkenCiv]

Definitely. Best time for those kinds of pictures are during the hottest, most humid part of the summer. :’)

[BroJoeK]

Jan_Sobieski post #21: "I am no genetic scientist, but my studies have revealed that geneticists have never witnessed a beneficial mutation.
Therefore the growth of hair in this species is natural variation, not mutation, and therefore not evolution!"

Jack Hydrozine post #33: "Evolution is defined as increasing complexity of an organism through mutation.
When you switch a few genes off or on you aren’t adding any information therefore no evolution has occurred."

Jack Hydrozine post #35: "When you have no additional complexity added to an organism you can't call it evolution.
If you add more genes you add more complexity and then you can call it evolution."

Axenolith post #28: "There's no difference between humans culling out the ones less adapted to cold or the cold achieving it on its own..."

First of all the scientific definition of "biological evolution" (as opposed to, say, evolution of automobiles) is: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
That's it, period.

For sake of discussion, we sometimes divide evolution into short-term "adaption" and long term "macro-evolution", but they are exactly the same process: every generation comes with small genetic mutations which are selected for, or against, based on more-or-less natural conditions.
These changes accumulate over time, eventually making it more & more difficult for separated populations of the same species to interbreed.
Based on the resulting degree of difficulties, biologists classify various populations as separated "breeds", "sub-species", "species", "genera", "families", etc.

As for witnessing "beneficial" new mutations, they can be seen whenever DNA from two populations are matched up and compared, allele by allele.
In human beings, we see them in natives of high Tibet & Andes compared to all others.
The high altitude dwellers have special DNA adaptions (Tibetans different from Andeans), not found in everybody else.
The same is true of some African adaptions to fight malaria, and European adaptions for lactose toleration in adults.

So the anti-evo claim of "no new genetic data" is falsified by comparisons of species DNA to find recent mutations.

Bottom line: there's no difference in processes between "adaption" and "evolution" short term, or long term.
Evolution = adaption = evolution = adaption = etc.

[Jack Hydrazine]

So if all life came from the primordial ooze how did the ooze “evolve”? Did it just adapt and not become more complex over time? Did it not add information to itself by some not-understood process or did it mutate?

When did the definition of evolution go from adding more information and creating more complexity in an organism to just simple adaptations where no information or complexity have been added?

Has evolution ever been directly observed?

[BroJoeK]

Jack Hydrazine: "So if all life came from the primordial ooze how did the ooze 'evolve'?"

Science recognizes a distinction between "complex chemistry" and "simple life", though where, exactly, that line should be drawn is a matter of discussion.
Prions which cause mad-cow disease are certainly organic chemistry, not biology.
Viruses: still chemistry, not life.
Bacteria: life.

But organic chemistry can and does evolve, and that is the basis for scientific hypotheses explaining how chemistry grew into life.

Jack Hydrazine: "Did it just adapt and not become more complex over time?
Did it not add information to itself by some not-understood process or did it mutate?"

Adaption = evolution, evolution = adaption.
Adaption / evolution can mutate from simple to complex, or complex to simple, depending on natural selection.
Yes, "complexification" is indeed an overall long-term effect of evolution / adaption, but in circumstances where complexity is a problem for survival, complexity is often eliminated.
For a quick example, think of: legs on whales.

Jack Hydrazine: "When did the definition of evolution go from adding more information and creating more complexity in an organism to just simple adaptations where no information or complexity have been added?"

But you have simply redefined evolution to fit your anti-evolution beliefs.
In fact, basic evolution theory, from the time of Darwin has consisted of two confirmed facts: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Yes, the results of evolution, including increased complexity, are often noted, but it's not inevitable, given that nature sometimes selects simplicity over complexity.

Jack Hydrazine: "Has evolution ever been directly observed?"

Evolution = adaption, adaption = evolution.
The fact of small mutations from parents to offspring have been observed, even in humans, over many generations.
The results of human or natural selection have been observed in many domesticated animals, and in wild animals subject to environmental changes.
The effects of evolution / adaption on DNA can be measured, allele by allele, in comparisons of different biological breeds, sub-species, species, genera & families, etc.

Bottom line: the parts of evolution / adaption which have been observed (i.e., mutations, natural selection) are facts, while that which cannot be observed (i.e., long term changes) is evolution theory.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks BroJoeK.

[fishtank]

This is a stupid article.

“Engineered adaptability” is the plausible explanation for this effect.