7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes

Ok I know the source is cracked a humor and satire sight so the article is a little lowbrow.
But the folks at cracked take the time to back up their articles with links and I have to my surprise found quite a few of their articles to be quite informative even though they are written in the context of a humor website.

here is the article enjoy

People who doubt evolution tend to have one main argument: "If evolution is true, why do we still see monkeys running around today, all chimp-like? Where are all the monkey-men I was promised?"
Well, if you or someone you know refuses to believe that organisms change over time without proof on a monkey-man level, here are a bunch of animals in the middle of getting their evolve on. Well, seven anyway.

www.cracked.com...

reply to post by ELahrairah


I just read that first one about Elephants, and already it doesn't sound like Evolution, but selective Breeding.

Obviously there are going to be Elephants that don't have fairly large tusks in the wild, and so, when a Poacher goes out to find his prey, is he going to choice the Elephant with measly wimpy Tusks, or large, glorious Tusks on the Elephant standing next to him?

The answer should be obvious, and what does the Elephant that has wimpy tusks do? He runs away, finds a mate, and has babies. Those babies inherit his wimpy tusks, and so on and so forth.

If this qualifies as Evolution than I don't know what to believe anymore.

I miss being young and stupid when this type of thing was the weightiest I would read *sniff*.
Cracked has their collective tongue planted so firmly in cheek that it is in fact in someone else's mouth.
Nice post, OP, that was hilarious, and kinda scary!
GROLAR BEARS!?!?!?

Be very afraid!
DD

Good post!
Regarding monkeys' evolution, never actually looked into it, but I remember back in my second yr of high school, asking my teacher the very same question on the evolution of monkey. She told me that there was a different "breed" of monkey that had a high, sorta metabolism, DNA that was engined to evolve/adapt quicker to the surrounding,environment, hence the evolution of mankind. . .
again til today I haven't researched it, but I'm still a person of religion n science -pls no attack-

Some of these are debatable if they qualify as evolution but I still enjoyed the article. Especially the part about the stray dogs who had adapted to the Moscow subway.

So is there a difference between adaptation and evolution through mutation?

reply to post by Lionhearte


it is evolution andd selective breeding.

survival of the fittest/evolution means whatever animals has the traits that will help it live will produce more. elephants with smaller tusks get killed less by their environment(which includes poachers). I wouldnt really cally it selective breeding as poachers arent out breeding these elephants. so in a sense it is evolution, its just that the spark for promoting change wasnt unconscious/nature but due to conscious beings effecting their environment.

What is most fascinating is most of these adaptations are in response to humans impact on nature.

Elephants not having tusks in order to turn away poachers.
Dogs adapting to the environment of the Moscow Subway.
Lizards learning to shake in response to fire ants which are an alien species brought to another eco system by man.
Fish that have to adapt to toxic substances brought about by pollution.
Bears that have to interbreed to produce a new species to adapt to melting ice.

Nature is really trying to adapt to the impact of humans.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by ELahrairah

 

I just read that first one about Elephants, and already it doesn't sound like Evolution, but selective Breeding.

Obviously there are going to be Elephants that don't have fairly large tusks in the wild, and so, when a Poacher goes out to find his prey, is he going to choice the Elephant with measly wimpy Tusks, or large, glorious Tusks on the Elephant standing next to him?

The answer should be obvious, and what does the Elephant that has wimpy tusks do? He runs away, finds a mate, and has babies. Those babies inherit his wimpy tusks, and so on and so forth.

If this qualifies as Evolution than I don't know what to believe anymore.

Yes this is evolution.
The trait of tusk size is genetic. Most elephants with large tusks are hunted in huge numbers so the elephants the smaller tusks are more abundant. Because there are a bunch more elephants w/ smaller tusks breeding they will produce more smaller tusk elephants. Obviously.

Evolution effects populations not individuals.
The hunters are effectively removing a trait from the gene pool.

This is like the most basic (elementary level .. seriously) understanding of Evolution and Natural selection.
It is not up for debate. It follows the definitions of Evolution and Natural Selection to a tee.

Originally posted by ELahrairah


Nature is really trying to adapt to the impact of humans.

edit on 18-5-2011 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)

I think nature is only reacting to our impact, just wait, she is not done and she is not happy. She is just gearing up to come back around and kick our ass.

Originally posted by Artanis667
So is there a difference between adaptation and evolution through mutation?

When you say adaptation you are most likely talking about Natural Selection. Yes it is a different force then Mutations, Genetic drift, and Gene flow.

edit:
All of them are forces of Evolution.

I, personally, believe evolving and adapting are different...

One is micro, the other is macro.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
I, personally, believe evolving and adapting are different...

One is micro, the other is macro.

If something can change or adapt genetically what would prevent speciation ?
If you accept things can genetically change you have to accept the whole package or show something that would prevent "macro-change".

You never actually thought about it, did you ?


That is completely ignoring that we have observed speciation.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
I, personally, believe evolving and adapting are different...

One is micro, the other is macro.

They use the exact same machanisms, and are on the same scale(s), so I don't see why you would want to seperate them.

Absolutely fascinating stuff.
Thanks so much for that OP!

Instead of mentioning animals that change, how about mentioning even one animal that isn't changing?

reply to post by Artanis667

Originally posted by Artanis667
So is there a difference between adaptation and evolution through mutation?

...adaptation happens through mutations. There is no way for an organism to adapt to its environment in its lifetime, populations adapt through selective pressures preserving favorable mutations.

reply to post by Lionhearte

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by ELahrairah

 

I just read that first one about Elephants, and already it doesn't sound like Evolution, but selective Breeding.

I'm not sure if it's you, but I've already explained this. Natural selection, Sexual selection, notice the word 'selection' is in there? It's about breeding. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over successive generations, it tends to happen through natural and sexual selection, though humans have directed it through selective breeding.

Obviously there are going to be Elephants that don't have fairly large tusks in the wild, and so, when a Poacher goes out to find his prey, is he going to choice the Elephant with measly wimpy Tusks, or large, glorious Tusks on the Elephant standing next to him?

Which do you think the lion is going to go for, the slow, weak, fat animal or the quick, virile, strong one? It happens in the animal kingdom. Those with certain traits survive, those with others don't. We just added an odd factor in.

The answer should be obvious, and what does the Elephant that has wimpy tusks do? He runs away, finds a mate, and has babies. Those babies inherit his wimpy tusks, and so on and so forth.

If this qualifies as Evolution than I don't know what to believe anymore.

Is there a change in allele frequency that is carrying over successive generations? Yes. You just don't know what the word 'evolution' means. Just because humans are involved doesn't mean it's not evolution.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There is no way for an organism to adapt to its environment in its lifetime,

I'm inclined to disagree with this statement.

There are no guarantees in how organisms respond to environmental stimuli. Now I think it reasonable to assume humans can't breath underwater indefinitely, but at the same time organisms have an amazing amount of developmental flexibility, and perhaps if a global flood plagued the Earth, there may be a fraction of a millionth percent than can survive underwater for prolonged periods of time.

To use just one example, mangrove trees in certain estuaries have found ways to adapt to the anaerobic conditions a few meters below the mud, where they typically draw water. If you dig down far enough, there is a black region of earth devoid of oxygen, made up of hydrogen sulfide, which of course is poisonous to most eukaryotes. This is just the result of bacteria decomposing algae and other organisms, and thus consuming oxygen, that fall to the bottom of the bodies of water that make up the estuary. These mangrove trees direct the roots upward, protruding out of the dirt or mud like a snorkel or periscope, from which they draw oxygen. Its a very interesting morphological response. Did this happen over successive generations of waiting for the right mutation? I don't know, it didn't seem to. What appears to have happened is selection pressure was exerted on the trees whose genes allowed it to respond favorably in conditions that are unusual, or typically unfavorable. In other words, a happy accident stemming from a cascade of molecular interactions.

Its sort of hard to understand because how genes work is still in many ways a mystery to scientists.

reply to post by uva3021


The global flood example is horrible.
That is a pretty massive environmental change.

One of the few things the Bible is correct about (sort of) a true global flood would kill pretty much everything living on Earth besides maybe a few osmoregulators. Even some of them would most likely have issues with water temperature.
(Fish that can live in salt and fresh water)

Unfortunitly for the Bible this is obviously a pretty good show there was no global flood.