It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: chr0naut
I tend to agree with you on all points.
But let's shelve the cynicism for a minute and assume that the researchers were not compromised and their results are true. Can it be considered, by the current definition, to be evolution (in one generation)?
Also, to be published in Nature, it would have to be peer reviewed, yes?
originally posted by: chr0naut
I think this is indicative of a short-fall in the scope of evolution. I can think of no other source of the gene changes except for epigenetics but the changes as suggested may have been evolved to deal with overcrowding situations.
originally posted by: DexterRiley
I remember recently reading about some crickets in the Hawaiian Islands that had evolved over the course of a few generations to foil the hunting practices of one of their predators. However, I believe those changes were genetics rather than epigenetic. I don't know whether that was ever discussed here on ATS.