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.
I don't know. I wasn't there at the time. there are a lot of theories though... ;)
"But it's still an algae!"
Look around the room....We're still monkeys!
>>Now, let me tell you the story of Lot. That's another example of what happens when you're bad.<<
It was not about Lot being bad.
I agree with your first few paragraphs. It looks as though ALL theories have a few holes. That's where faith comes in - on both sides of the issue.
"Look around the room....We're still monkeys!
"
Hey, now....who you callin' a monkey. I ain't no monkey. I'm a human being. Wait a sec...my wife just got home and has some bananas. I love bananas.
I'll have to finish this message later, after I have a banana. hoo--hoo--hoo!
It seems that there isn't a darwinist out there that will respond to my scientific challenge to this undergrad. Care to read post 55?
>>Evolution is not rust, and it does produce fitter organisms in response to environmental change.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634489/posts<<
You will find me discussing this same "Selection, not evolution" point on that thread as well.
I was watching a show about the possibility of bacteria existing on rocks from Mars and how the religious community would try and hide the facts. Since God created the universe, I didn't understand why.
">>Now, let me tell you the story of Lot. That's another example of what happens when you're bad.<<
It was not about Lot being bad.
"
That's right. Very good. You remember from the last time I told about Lot. He was good...well he was good then...and all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were bad...very bad, indeed.
So God blew those towns to smithereens, even though Lot asked him to wait and see if he couldn't find some good folks.
Lot and his family survived, because they were good. But...Lot's wife...poor woman...she didn't pay attention when God said not to look back, so God turned her into a pillar of salt. You see....that's the kind of thing that happens if you misbehave. I want you, Johnny, to take out the garbage now, and Sissy...you still haven't cleaned up your room.
When you're all done, I'll tell you what happened to Lot and his daughters after Sodom and Gommorah, but it's a pretty grown-up story, so you have to do a good job and show me how grown-up you really are.
And don't forget to ask me about Elisha and the bears. That's another good story, and its about misbehaving children, too.
There is nobody who calls him or herself a darwinist on this thread. That's a term used only by those trying to poke at those who believe that evolution is how speciation occurs.
As for your challenge, if I remember correctly, you wanted DNA information on the two types of algae, right.
I'm sure they could do that for you. The point, however, was adaptation and selection, part of the foundation of evolution. Those were clearly demonstrated in the experiment.
This was an article in a lay publication, so I'm not sure exactly what tests were done on the algae. I don't have time to research that today.
The article I posted was from a university press release. I never run into copyright problems posting them. Here's the abstract of the actual article. You need a subscription to read the whole thing. From the abstract, it appears that they looked into the DNA:
Prey evolution on the time scale of predator-prey dynamics revealed by allele-specific quantitative PCR.
"I know it can hurt for darwinists to actually follow a premise to conclusion, but keep reading and I promise it won't hurt TOO much."
Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you tell us how it all happened?
They mean "as the PREDATOR population fluctuated." The algae are the prey.
I further stated that should they do that, they would merely discover that their initial sample population was a mixed bag, and all they did was remove those algae that were not able to live in the constructed conditions, allowing those that *were* able to handle the constructed conditions to prosper.
It is not TOO MUCH to ask them to do this, since they went so far out on a limb as to suggest that they caused evolution to occur in an observable manner. It can be done, but won't (or won't be published if the results don't meet their pre-conceived notions).
Mmmmm...bananas...
I think you should start calling me "grasshopper". ;)
So you have no idea what causes variation in populations, but you are sure it isn't mutation? If you do not understand it, how can you be certain about it?
THEY are the ones that made the claim that they could force "evolution" to occur. Let's see them do it for real.
So you're suggesting that evolutionary biologists conspire to suppress results that contradict Darwinian orthodoxy? Do you have any evidence to support this (rather paranoid) claim?
A small victory for small minds. No one, no matter how insane, can move reality itself into "chat," so they're kinda stuck.
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.