Climate Change sparking rapid evolution.

Holy crap.

rawstory.com...

At least one fish species can adapt in just three generations to survive a sharp change in temperature, researchers said in a study on the fastest rate of evolution ever recorded in wild animals.

This is pretty intense. I mean, that's a massive mutation rate within stable reproductive boundaries. I would far more like to see how these species can evolve with such a high success rate without destructive mutations.

This seems to question the randomness of evolution, or perhaps the fish can change its genes as needed. Evolving the ability to evolve?

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Holy crap.

rawstory.com...

At least one fish species can adapt in just three generations to survive a sharp change in temperature, researchers said in a study on the fastest rate of evolution ever recorded in wild animals.

This is pretty intense. I mean, that's a massive mutation rate within stable reproductive boundaries. I would far more like to see how these species can evolve with such a high success rate without destructive mutations.

This seems to question the randomness of evolution, or perhaps the fish can change its genes as needed. Evolving the ability to evolve?

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Gorman91]

The key to analyzing this article is the statement quoting the researcher, saying, "We don't understand the genetic basis of this trait." If that is so, they eally haven't shown enything related to evolution. Sure, it is adaptation, but so is going out and buying an air conditioner to cope with summer heat. The adaptive behavior can be learned rather than truly genetic. Most people, and particularly those who deny it, misunderstand the underpinnings of evolution.
Giraffes don't evolve longer necks in order toreach the tall leaves. Rather, the gene coding for neck length mutates and causes a giraffe to accidentally have a longer neck. It can, for this reason, reach the tall leaves. It eats better and lives longer fathering more baby giraffes with the same genetic anomaly. The random mutation provides a reproductive benefit.
Rather than being a genetic change in three generations, it seems more probable that the genetic distribution of these fish provides 5% of them with resistance to cold. After all, 95% of the fish died. Now, over time, whatever genetic makeup provided the resistance would, if the cold conditions continued, grow to predominate. Fish without this genetic makeup would procreate less, providing less input to the gene pool. Now, that's evolution. And not over 3 generations.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Indeed. I once talked with someone who thought that if you cut your leg off, in three generations there would be no leg when you are born.

Oy vey!!!

But yea, that's what I was getting at. I can't see this as evolution because 3 generations is not enough.

Hey.

This really cool info. Another major discovery in my life time.

I posted a thread a couple of months ago about another fish that ete some of those evolutionary chilly peppers.

Although it took a about a century. I assume a fish needs a few more generations then 3 to pass a century.

Proof ? Observable macro evolution happening now.