9 ms·

Watching Evolution Happen in Two Lifetimes

52 points by M_Grey 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Overstated? They witnessed natural selection in action. No genes were created/destroyed. Just a change in average beak size, presumably because the species already had genes to vary beak size.
- spthorn60 10y ago
  The characteristics/causes they describe are attributes of microevolution, which would have been a more accurate term to use.
  - splawn 10y ago
    "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are words that have been invented by creationists to try to reconcile the fact that evolution is directly observable. Despite the fact that both have the same underlying mechanics (natural selection) and the only difference is time.
    - hawkice 10y ago
      I assumed this was the case, but maybe not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution They say it's the technical term for change in allele frequency, which is what OP was talking about.
      - splawn 10y ago
        I stand partially corrected.. from now on I will have to remember to say "co-opted" by creationists rather than "invented" by. However, they are still identical things with the only difference being the amount of time. From your link: "The main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference)."
      - tdb7893 10y ago
        From the article you linked, "Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales"
  - Oletros 10y ago
    Microevolution and macroevolution and different terms for the same thing, evolution.
  - 0xfeba 10y ago
    What's the difference between so-called micro and macro evolution?
    - toss1941 10y ago
      Micro-evolution is defined as changes (mutation) or loss of DNA. This happens all the time, much to the chagrin of anti-biotic researchers. Macro-evolution is defined as addition to the DNA (new information never before seen on that oranism).
      - splawn 10y ago
        defined by who? the discovery institute? Edit: Looks like some might not like the lack of detail in this comment. So.... In case anyone doesn't know "the discovery institute" is a group of creationists that tried to get creationism taught as science in public schools.[1] And redefining and inventing terminology to serve their purposes without requiring any scientific basis for it is something right out of their playbook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
        Why is mutation necessarily a loss of information, and also what do you think about whole-gene duplication events.
      - 0xfeba 10y ago
        Interesting, I've never heard this definition before. Seems to combine two common creationist claims against evolution: 1) No new information can be created 2) Sure, microevolution, but we've never seen macroevolution Where did you get these definitions? What is your definition of "new information"? New genes? Because that happens all the time. Fox example in humans, Fragile X syndrome causes a gene to be repeated (inserted[1]) too many times. But that's been "seen before" so perhaps it is off topic. In E. Coli and common yeast we've seen new genes added to be able to process different substances as food[2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) [2] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html [3] http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract The common creationist response at this point is that "It's still yeast/bacteria. It's not going to evolve into a cat.", to which our (biologists) response is that it very well could given enough time. And so since "new information" has been demonstrated, and natural selection ("microevolution") accepted by creationists, it's up to creationists to show us what exactly prevents organisms from evolving past human created naming barriers. That is, since we know that gene mutations happen and won't stop happening as long as organisms keep reproducing, what keeps a population from evolving passed the species/genus/family/"kind" barrier? The answer is nothing, except time. Time is why you don't see the bacteria evolve into a cat.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Same thing with the famous English moths. They were white, so that they could hide on the white bark of trees. Then industrial pollution turned the trees black, and the moths turned black. Then a century later, they cleaned up the pollution, and the bark went back to white, and so did the moths. But in fact, the original (pre-pollution) population had something like 10% black moths. They were still there, despite a few million years of evolutionary pressure against their coloring. (Perhaps because burned trees would occur sometimes over the years.) When the trees turned black, the population shifted to 90% black moths. When the trees turned back to white, the population reverted back to 90% white moths. No evolution of a new feature, just a shift in the distribution of existing genes under changing selection pressure.
  - 0xfeba 10y ago
    > No evolution of a new feature, just a shift in the distribution of existing genes under changing selection pressure. Which is exactly evolution. Why the high standards?
    - splawn 10y ago
      because those goalposts don't just move themselves =P
      - toss1941 10y ago
        It's not moving goalposts. We all know that DNA is what programs how and when cells divide, so how can anyone claim they're witnessing evolution without a thorough understanding of how the new DNA is different from the old?
        splawn 10y ago
        Because understanding DNA isn't required to understand evolution (even though the discovery of DNA did reinforce the theory greatly by showing how the changes occur at a chemical level) So I am not sure what you mean... But saying "these generational changes are too small to count as evolution" is moving the goalposts.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  Evolution is the change of a population's phenotypes (and really, extended phenotypes), over time. This is exactly that. What you seem to want is a special kind of speciation, which the article did not claim. And besides, the whole idea of a "species" is dubious at some level, because it's merely a human invented category.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    > And besides, the whole idea of a "species" is dubious at some level, because it's merely a human invented category. I think something like K nearest neighbors algorithm[1] describes our understanding of species pretty well. You have a scatter of animals and you try to find groupings. The finer-grained the groupings, the less distinction there is between members on each side of an edge. Or to put it in more simple terms: say you're putting pebbles together. How many do you need before it stops being "1, 2, 3, 5 pebbles" and becomes "a pile of pebbles". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-nearest_neighbors_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-nearest_neighbors_algorithm
    - 0xfeba 10y ago
      Ah HN, never change.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    I guess my kids are 'evolved' then? Different from their mother and me (and their grandparents). I'd reserve 'evolved' to describe something more dramatic.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Typically they would literally be different. (typically may be an understatement until we really get going with the cloning)
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Darwin's seminal work was titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Overstated? No. > They witnessed natural selection in action. Natural selection is mechanism, evolution is what is performed by that mechanism. So, yes, they witnessed both evolution and natural selection in action. > No genes were created/destroyed. AFAICT, that's just your speculation, not established fact. EDIT: And, in any case, irrelevant to whether evolution was observed.
M_Grey 10y ago
I don't know about anyone else, but I found this especially interesting (and blessedly unrelated to semantic arguments): "Our work has shown that this model of speciation does hold. But in addition, we have shown there are other routes to speciation, such as gene flow from one species to another. We see this in the Big Bird lineage but also in cichlid fishes and butterflies. There are multiple routes to speciation." It's one thing to have a hypothesis, another to spend the decades it takes to modify it with observations.
JoeDaDude 10y ago
There has been some debate about the modern coywolf [1] being a new species that has evolved in recent, observable time [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf [2] http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/a-new-species-is-evolving-right-before-our-eyes-an-ultra-successful-mix-of-wolves-coyotes-and-dogs/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/a-new-species-is-evolving-ri...

52 points by M_Grey 10y ago

Overstated? They witnessed natural selection in action. No genes were created/destroyed. Just a change in average beak size, presumably because the species already had genes to vary beak size.

spthorn60 10y ago
The characteristics/causes they describe are attributes of microevolution, which would have been a more accurate term to use.
- splawn 10y ago
  "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are words that have been invented by creationists to try to reconcile the fact that evolution is directly observable. Despite the fact that both have the same underlying mechanics (natural selection) and the only difference is time.
  - hawkice 10y ago
    I assumed this was the case, but maybe not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution They say it's the technical term for change in allele frequency, which is what OP was talking about.
    - splawn 10y ago
      I stand partially corrected.. from now on I will have to remember to say "co-opted" by creationists rather than "invented" by. However, they are still identical things with the only difference being the amount of time. From your link: "The main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference)."
    - tdb7893 10y ago
      From the article you linked, "Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales"
- Oletros 10y ago
  Microevolution and macroevolution and different terms for the same thing, evolution.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  What's the difference between so-called micro and macro evolution?
  - toss1941 10y ago
    Micro-evolution is defined as changes (mutation) or loss of DNA. This happens all the time, much to the chagrin of anti-biotic researchers. Macro-evolution is defined as addition to the DNA (new information never before seen on that oranism).
    - splawn 10y ago
      defined by who? the discovery institute? Edit: Looks like some might not like the lack of detail in this comment. So.... In case anyone doesn't know "the discovery institute" is a group of creationists that tried to get creationism taught as science in public schools.[1] And redefining and inventing terminology to serve their purposes without requiring any scientific basis for it is something right out of their playbook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      Why is mutation necessarily a loss of information, and also what do you think about whole-gene duplication events.
    - 0xfeba 10y ago
      Interesting, I've never heard this definition before. Seems to combine two common creationist claims against evolution: 1) No new information can be created 2) Sure, microevolution, but we've never seen macroevolution Where did you get these definitions? What is your definition of "new information"? New genes? Because that happens all the time. Fox example in humans, Fragile X syndrome causes a gene to be repeated (inserted[1]) too many times. But that's been "seen before" so perhaps it is off topic. In E. Coli and common yeast we've seen new genes added to be able to process different substances as food[2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) [2] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html [3] http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract The common creationist response at this point is that "It's still yeast/bacteria. It's not going to evolve into a cat.", to which our (biologists) response is that it very well could given enough time. And so since "new information" has been demonstrated, and natural selection ("microevolution") accepted by creationists, it's up to creationists to show us what exactly prevents organisms from evolving past human created naming barriers. That is, since we know that gene mutations happen and won't stop happening as long as organisms keep reproducing, what keeps a population from evolving passed the species/genus/family/"kind" barrier? The answer is nothing, except time. Time is why you don't see the bacteria evolve into a cat.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Same thing with the famous English moths. They were white, so that they could hide on the white bark of trees. Then industrial pollution turned the trees black, and the moths turned black. Then a century later, they cleaned up the pollution, and the bark went back to white, and so did the moths. But in fact, the original (pre-pollution) population had something like 10% black moths. They were still there, despite a few million years of evolutionary pressure against their coloring. (Perhaps because burned trees would occur sometimes over the years.) When the trees turned black, the population shifted to 90% black moths. When the trees turned back to white, the population reverted back to 90% white moths. No evolution of a new feature, just a shift in the distribution of existing genes under changing selection pressure.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  > No evolution of a new feature, just a shift in the distribution of existing genes under changing selection pressure. Which is exactly evolution. Why the high standards?
  - splawn 10y ago
    because those goalposts don't just move themselves =P
    - toss1941 10y ago
      It's not moving goalposts. We all know that DNA is what programs how and when cells divide, so how can anyone claim they're witnessing evolution without a thorough understanding of how the new DNA is different from the old?
      - splawn 10y ago
        Because understanding DNA isn't required to understand evolution (even though the discovery of DNA did reinforce the theory greatly by showing how the changes occur at a chemical level) So I am not sure what you mean... But saying "these generational changes are too small to count as evolution" is moving the goalposts.
0xfeba 10y ago
Evolution is the change of a population's phenotypes (and really, extended phenotypes), over time. This is exactly that. What you seem to want is a special kind of speciation, which the article did not claim. And besides, the whole idea of a "species" is dubious at some level, because it's merely a human invented category.
- Swizec 10y ago
  > And besides, the whole idea of a "species" is dubious at some level, because it's merely a human invented category. I think something like K nearest neighbors algorithm[1] describes our understanding of species pretty well. You have a scatter of animals and you try to find groupings. The finer-grained the groupings, the less distinction there is between members on each side of an edge. Or to put it in more simple terms: say you're putting pebbles together. How many do you need before it stops being "1, 2, 3, 5 pebbles" and becomes "a pile of pebbles". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-nearest_neighbors_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-nearest_neighbors_algorithm
  - 0xfeba 10y ago
    Ah HN, never change.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  I guess my kids are 'evolved' then? Different from their mother and me (and their grandparents). I'd reserve 'evolved' to describe something more dramatic.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Typically they would literally be different. (typically may be an understatement until we really get going with the cloning)
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
maxerickson 10y ago
Darwin's seminal work was titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Overstated? No. > They witnessed natural selection in action. Natural selection is mechanism, evolution is what is performed by that mechanism. So, yes, they witnessed both evolution and natural selection in action. > No genes were created/destroyed. AFAICT, that's just your speculation, not established fact. EDIT: And, in any case, irrelevant to whether evolution was observed.

M_Grey 10y ago

I don't know about anyone else, but I found this especially interesting (and blessedly unrelated to semantic arguments): "Our work has shown that this model of speciation does hold. But in addition, we have shown there are other routes to speciation, such as gene flow from one species to another. We see this in the Big Bird lineage but also in cichlid fishes and butterflies. There are multiple routes to speciation." It's one thing to have a hypothesis, another to spend the decades it takes to modify it with observations.

JoeDaDude 10y ago

There has been some debate about the modern coywolf [1] being a new species that has evolved in recent, observable time [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf [2] http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/a-new-species-is-evolving-right-before-our-eyes-an-ultra-successful-mix-of-wolves-coyotes-and-dogs/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/a-new-species-is-evolving-ri...