Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution can occur quickly and change how populations interact [Lab demonstration]
Cornell University ^ | 03 July 2006 | Susan Lang

Posted on 07/10/2006 11:21:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

Biologists generally accept that evolutionary change can take from decades to millennia, while ecological change can occur over mere days or seasons. However, a new Cornell study shows that evolution and ecology can operate on the same time scale.

When evolution occurs so quickly, the researchers conclude, it can change how populations of various species interact. Ecologists need to consider such evolutionary dynamics in their studies because evolution could affect populations being studied. This insight is critical to predicting the recovery time needed for threatened populations or for predicting disease dynamics, says Justin Meyer '04, who conducted the study as an undergraduate student with Cornell ecologists Stephen Ellner, Nelson Hairston and colleagues.

To observe ecological and evolutionary changes together, the researchers monitored the ecological fluctuations in a model predator-prey laboratory system: a microscopic organism called a rotifer that eats a single-celled algae.

Meyer developed a method to track genetic changes, and the researchers found that as the prey population fluctuated, the algae "evolved" from a type that grows quickly to a type that resists being eaten. The frequency of the algal-genotype changes in response to rotifer population flux clearly demonstrated the synchronicity of ecological and evolutionary time.

The study is published in the July 11 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevolist; enoughalready; pavlovian; pingtheusualsuspects
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-186 next last
To: SaveUS
Yeh - got the right idea, but it was the mitochondrion.

Probably some stinky thing like Desulfosomething.

121 posted on 07/10/2006 4:25:25 PM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Damn. Natural Selection. Who'da thunk?


122 posted on 07/10/2006 4:27:03 PM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bvw

I didn't think you would understand what I posted. I am glad you didn't disappoint me.


123 posted on 07/10/2006 4:34:00 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Everything in this experiment in re evolution versus design has already been better demonstrated in the Hasbro Labs. That's my point.


124 posted on 07/10/2006 4:36:38 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: bvw

"Everything in this experiment in re evolution versus design has already been better demonstrated in the Hasbro Labs. That's my point."

And it was a very silly point.


125 posted on 07/10/2006 4:38:07 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

All those people had colds.


126 posted on 07/10/2006 4:47:27 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
No, it is not. You have to be very wishful to read in "evolution without design" into this rotiferuous excursion. Occam's razor cuts to bones of design.

Evolution in action:

You see, ideas are what evolve.

127 posted on 07/10/2006 5:07:01 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: bvw

"Everything in this experiment in re evolution versus design has already been better demonstrated in the Hasbro Labs."

Does Hasbro have a Law coloring book? Maybe you colored one earlier in life, and that is where you got hung up on the "Bible is Law" thing.


128 posted on 07/10/2006 5:10:33 PM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: bvw

"No, it is not."

Sure it was. And your later posts have been no less silly.


129 posted on 07/10/2006 5:11:28 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Hydrogen Sulfide, and all it's relatives. Mmmmm mmmm. On a 100 degree July day, it just makes you want to purge yourself.


130 posted on 07/10/2006 5:19:47 PM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: SaveUS
Hasbro knows design and marketing. Idealogy. (Ideal Toys even.) Marketing of ideas is something that was lost by the fevered designer-free god-free (and many atheistic) evolutionists after Huxley, and was dead by the time Time or Newsweek rolled out the old "God is Dead" cover.

Like the dinosaurs, however, death of a bad idea is a long time passing. However design-free evolution is a dead and moritfied idea. Dead cat, too. Ugly, yucky, wormy, smelly, festering rot and no bounce at all.

131 posted on 07/10/2006 5:20:26 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: bvw

"Dead cat, too. Ugly, yucky, wormy, smelly, festering rot and no bounce at all."

Whut?


132 posted on 07/10/2006 5:28:38 PM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: SaveUS

Evolutionary.


133 posted on 07/10/2006 5:30:27 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Wow. If you ever find out that God's greatest accomplishment was creating a perpetual life engine so that life could go on forever, you might be a tad embarrassed.


134 posted on 07/10/2006 5:37:24 PM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Are you channeling Timothy Leary?


135 posted on 07/10/2006 5:46:12 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Like the dinosaurs, however, death of a bad idea is a long time passing.

So were dinosaurs an experiment?

136 posted on 07/10/2006 6:00:27 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the BANNED disruptive troll who was seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

Comment #137 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger

"you sure have a lot of people mocking creationists and bringing the crevo debates into it from the get-go."

Creation isn't science. Why are they here? Do we go into the Religion Forum and tell them they are silly? They step into the arena, then get their feelings hurt and say we are bashing. Dang that parallels the typical Democrat, doesn't it?


138 posted on 07/10/2006 6:35:35 PM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Junior

"Are you channeling Timothy Leary?"

Ok, if we start mixing bvw's post's with "4 Way Window Pane" I'm checking out.


139 posted on 07/10/2006 6:41:16 PM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Shapiro. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html

McClintock recognized that genetic change is a cellular process, subject to regulation, and is not dependent on stochastic accidents. The idea of internally-generated, biologically regulated mutation has profound impacts for thinking about the process of evolution. Darwin himself acknowledged this point in later editions of Origin of Species, where he wrote about natural "sports" or "...variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection." (6th edition, Chapter XV, p. 395).

To see the real-world evolutionary importance of built-in biological mechanisms of genetic change, we have only to consider the post-WWII emergence of multiple antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This phenomenon represents the largest and best-documented evolutionary experiment in the molecular biology era. Interestingly, when antibiotic use began, we had a robust theory of how resistance would evolve by modification of existing cell components so that they were no longer antibiotic-sensitive. This theory was confirmed by laboratory experiments. Nonetheless, when the basis of naturally evolving multiple antibiotic resistance was determined, the experimentally-confirmed theory was wrong. Resistance resulted from the presence of new biochemical activities in the bacteria, encoded by new transmissible genetic systems that could accumulate additional DNA encoding these resistance activities (35).

140 posted on 07/10/2006 6:50:53 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-186 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson