4 ms·

and it happened in about 10 generations, which is zippy for evolution

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
Well it's not relying on evolution coming up with an entirely new chemical or protein, in this case it is increased expression of one the frogs already have. Still super fascinating to think we have innate, multipurpose radiation protection.
- an1sotropy 4y ago
  right, and the fun only really starts when the black frogs stop mating with the green ones; I don’t think that (speciation) was mentioned in the article
josefresco 4y ago
> which is zippy for evolution I feel like I hear this a lot - I wonder if our hypotheses about the "natural" speed of evolution are wrong.
- akiselev 4y ago
  > our hypotheses about the "natural" speed of evolution are wrong There's so much to unpack in that sentence! :) In general, a layman's understanding of a complex scientific topic is going to be wrong but if we restrict "our hypotheses" to evolutionary biologists, then no. Between the (very popular) equilibrium hypothesis that a sibling linked to, microbiology, and the textbook cases of evolution during the industrial revolution [1], biologists have known for a long time that natural selection can be fast or slow. Regarding "natural" and tying back into the equilibrium hypothesis: non-cyclical rapid changes to the environment used to be much rarer before humans began building civilization, so pre-historic evolution might have looked significantly different. Nowadays, all it takes is a single ship to accidentally transport an invasive species that will wipe out an ecosystem and leave only the ones best adapted to the new reality. Last but not least, the "speed" of evolution is actually a combination of two orthogonal factors: the mutation rate and selection pressure. Natural selection can only select from the species that exist (i.e. the ones already surviving) so mutation rate is really what most people mean when they say "speed of evolution". Chernobyl is a very special case where the radioactive fallout increases the mutation rate, reduces lifespans by an average of 30% (IIRC) putting more pressure on survival to sexual maturity, and removes much of human interference from the picture. I wouldn't draw many conclusions on evolutionary biology from Chernobyl unless we plan on turning the entire planet into a fallout zone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
- melagonster 4y ago
  Recommend reading: the beak of Finch. scientists detected evolutionary effects during one year period! this book published in twenty years ago. evolution work quickly sometimes,but don't towards same direction.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  The "speed" of evolution is influenced by a multitude of things, time between generations and number of offspring being two of the major ones. For species like frogs where generations are quick and tad poles are plenty, there's a lot of shots in the dark for evolution to work with so it can happen quickly. For species like humans that take like a fifth of a century per generation and only really shove out 1 or 2 offspring and have a large steady population for genes to diffuse through, the process is a multi-millennia affair. Fruit flies in a jar iterate fast enough if you want to try playing god for a while.
- Nzen 4y ago
  Our perception may reflect the lack of surveillance and tracking of our entire environment. Marlene Zuk tracked [0] a trait's velocity in cricket populations of Hawaii that made them less able to attract mates, but also less likely to attract mites. That took 20 generations. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15323 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15323
- biomcgary 4y ago
  Punctuated equilibrium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) is an evolutionary hypothesis that evolution is very slow, except when selection pressures change. If true, the average speed of evolution (in this case, of phenotype) is slow, but highly bimodal (i.e., breakneck or near zero).
- 725686 4y ago
  Yes it generally is. Look at this fragment where Nick Lanes (British Biochemist) talks a little about this. If you don't know Nick Lane, his books are fantastic. I highly recommend Power, Sex and Suicide. https://youtu.be/tOtdJcco3YM?t=9927 https://youtu.be/tOtdJcco3YM?t=9927

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Well it's not relying on evolution coming up with an entirely new chemical or protein, in this case it is increased expression of one the frogs already have. Still super fascinating to think we have innate, multipurpose radiation protection.

an1sotropy 4y ago
right, and the fun only really starts when the black frogs stop mating with the green ones; I don’t think that (speciation) was mentioned in the article

josefresco 4y ago

> which is zippy for evolution I feel like I hear this a lot - I wonder if our hypotheses about the "natural" speed of evolution are wrong.

akiselev 4y ago
> our hypotheses about the "natural" speed of evolution are wrong There's so much to unpack in that sentence! :) In general, a layman's understanding of a complex scientific topic is going to be wrong but if we restrict "our hypotheses" to evolutionary biologists, then no. Between the (very popular) equilibrium hypothesis that a sibling linked to, microbiology, and the textbook cases of evolution during the industrial revolution [1], biologists have known for a long time that natural selection can be fast or slow. Regarding "natural" and tying back into the equilibrium hypothesis: non-cyclical rapid changes to the environment used to be much rarer before humans began building civilization, so pre-historic evolution might have looked significantly different. Nowadays, all it takes is a single ship to accidentally transport an invasive species that will wipe out an ecosystem and leave only the ones best adapted to the new reality. Last but not least, the "speed" of evolution is actually a combination of two orthogonal factors: the mutation rate and selection pressure. Natural selection can only select from the species that exist (i.e. the ones already surviving) so mutation rate is really what most people mean when they say "speed of evolution". Chernobyl is a very special case where the radioactive fallout increases the mutation rate, reduces lifespans by an average of 30% (IIRC) putting more pressure on survival to sexual maturity, and removes much of human interference from the picture. I wouldn't draw many conclusions on evolutionary biology from Chernobyl unless we plan on turning the entire planet into a fallout zone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
melagonster 4y ago
Recommend reading: the beak of Finch. scientists detected evolutionary effects during one year period! this book published in twenty years ago. evolution work quickly sometimes,but don't towards same direction.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
The "speed" of evolution is influenced by a multitude of things, time between generations and number of offspring being two of the major ones. For species like frogs where generations are quick and tad poles are plenty, there's a lot of shots in the dark for evolution to work with so it can happen quickly. For species like humans that take like a fifth of a century per generation and only really shove out 1 or 2 offspring and have a large steady population for genes to diffuse through, the process is a multi-millennia affair. Fruit flies in a jar iterate fast enough if you want to try playing god for a while.
Nzen 4y ago
Our perception may reflect the lack of surveillance and tracking of our entire environment. Marlene Zuk tracked [0] a trait's velocity in cricket populations of Hawaii that made them less able to attract mates, but also less likely to attract mites. That took 20 generations. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15323 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15323
biomcgary 4y ago
Punctuated equilibrium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) is an evolutionary hypothesis that evolution is very slow, except when selection pressures change. If true, the average speed of evolution (in this case, of phenotype) is slow, but highly bimodal (i.e., breakneck or near zero).
725686 4y ago
Yes it generally is. Look at this fragment where Nick Lanes (British Biochemist) talks a little about this. If you don't know Nick Lane, his books are fantastic. I highly recommend Power, Sex and Suicide. https://youtu.be/tOtdJcco3YM?t=9927 https://youtu.be/tOtdJcco3YM?t=9927