Posted on 02/22/2006 10:38:24 PM PST by quantim
Don't look now, but your backyard is evolving. It's no joke. There's a growing body of evidence that evolution is no longer something only seen either in this year's flu virus or Cretaceous tyrannosaur bones. It's happening everywhere, right now, and charging full-steam ahead.
Research on toads, frogs, salamanders, fish, lizards, squirrels and plants are all showing evidence that some species are attempting to adapt to new conditions in a time frame of decades, not eons, say biologists.
What's more, one of the biggest reasons for all this evolution right now may be that human-induced changes to climate and landscapes give species few other options.
Move, Adapt or Die
"Basically, a species can do three things," said the University of Sydney's Richard Shine: "go extinct, move or adapt."
The first two have kept conservation biologists working day and night, to the exclusion of the third, he said. But that's changing as real-time evolution is hitting the news wires and getting more attention.
The highest-profile case yet was made public by Shine and his colleagues in the Feb. 16 issue of Nature: the case of toxic cane toads at the forefront of a seven-decade Australian invasion. Measurements over the years prove that the leading toads have evolved significantly longer legs.
It appears that hopping further and faster rewards long-legged toads with the first crack at lush virgin territory, and therefore more offspring to perpetuate their athleticism.
Behind that story are even more cases of rapid evolution, says Shine, an evolutionary ecologist. Already he's seeing changes in native Australian snakes. First they tried to eat the toads, and died. Now, Shine says, the surviving snakes have modified jaws which make them unable to eat the toads and therefore safe from their toxin.
"Invasive species are a nice model," Shine said.
They hint at the rates of evolution that might be expected as species feel the increasing pressure of global warming. They also draw the attention of conservation biologists, who are often on the front lines of battles to save habitats and individual species.
"In the past 20 years, essentially all evolutionary biologists have come to widely recognize the importance and prevalence of (what's) often called 'rapid evolution,'" wrote evolutionary biologist Andrew Hendry of McGill University, who responded to questions via email from the Galapagos Islands. "Many conservation biologists have recently come to the same realization and I expect that the rest will soon follow."
Rapid evolution is good news for conservation biologists. It implies that the number of species that might go extinct will be less than some current estimates, which predict as many as one-third of all species alive today will be wiped out by 2050.
The first known case of a mammal responding genetically to warmer climate warming is the red squirrel of the Yukon Territory.
Canadian scientists have discovered that red squirrels are giving birth about 18 days earlier than their great-grandmothers. It's the early squirrel that gets the nut, after all: natural selection in action.
Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand the subject.
A "classic case of different characteristics," when it is the result of heritable variations becoming more common in a population, is precisely evolution.
I'm not going to get into what you think a "mulatto" is. This is an evolution thread and you need to understand that subject first. We can get into multiple alleles and incomplete (genetic) dominance after the basiscs are covered.
There it isn't.
I see neither a purposeful locial fallacy nor a flat out lie.
Which are you claiming; and back your claim with specifically quoted text, explaining why that text represents what you claim.
locial=logical
Well, clearly, the statement he made is demonstrably false. Would you agree?
He did not use that exact wording, and if you will note, I did not present my claim in the form of a quote. The claim that I presented was based upon my direct inference of his pattern of statements. Again, if you believe my inference to be in error, explain a flaw in my reasoning and I will admit my mistake.
What I want you to admit, is whether the statement that you made is true or false. It's very simple. Did he, or did he not, tell you, it is permissible to lie to non-believers.
You did not answer my question.
I, for one, not slight changes each time csense addresses this question.
Why is that?
My answer is yes.
hot=note
Come on, you can say it...
You have not responded in a substantive way to two of my posts.
You are not in a postion to push for any type of response from me, most especially not by posing a false dichotomy question.
I could really care less what your demands are.
WHATEVER
Humans are devolving, a consequence of the welfare state.
My feelings too.
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.