We move into a neighborhood and the creatures that don’t adapt go extinct.

But it’s not just dying out that causes a species to evolve, but mate selection can play a big part also. So the fastest evolving life forms are the numerous small life forms at the bottom of the food chain, which is as it should be. The bottom of the food chain needs to survive in order for the higher life forms to continue surviving. I think that that, in a nutshell, is natural selection. The life in any given area reaches a stable equilibrium with themselves and the climate.

I think it’s more attributable to simply killing off the portion of that particular group with the less manoeuvrable wings. Noticable genetic changes within 5 to 10 generations time.That is shockingly fast. Originally Posted by zinjanthropos Why are we more inclined to think evolutionary change takes thousands of years if not more? Changes in physiology and in learned habits are a couple of ways creatures evolve but where in the manual does it say it can’t be quick? However, many of these rapid evolution cases deal with having to adapt to living amongst humans, such the term urban.

As long as the equilibrium remains fairly stable there will be a minimum of pressure for evolutionary change. Originally Posted by adelady University of Tulsa ecologist Charles Brown says he was surprised it took just 30 years for the cliff swallows in his study to evolve shorter wings that help them avoid traffic. Private water companies are only too happy to profit off it, having a situation where clean water is a luxury. I’d presume that other populations of the same bird still have the full variety of wing spans that the bridge group started out with.

I’d presume that other populations of the same bird still have the full variety of wing spans that the bridge group started out with. I don’t think that’s evolution as people commonly understand it, i.e. gradual changes. Mainly because more resistance genes existed and were passed on to new generations of humans. The more generations you have in a specific time frame the faster that species will evolve.

Changes in physiology and in learned habits are a couple of ways creatures evolve Learned habits are not a factor in evolution. but where in the manual does it say it can’t be quick? It can be! But it usually isn’t.

It would seem the population from under the bridges are not mingling with the other populations though. University of Tulsa ecologist Charles Brown says he was surprised it took just 30 years for the cliff swallows in his study to evolve shorter wings that help them avoid traffic. I’d presume that other populations of the same bird still have the full variety of wing spans that the bridge group started out with.

We see it here as well as other well documented examples such as in quick difference of bird beak shapes after a drought, or the altered digitize track with new organs for that lizard near the mediterranean after loosing it’s native food source. I don’t think that’s evolution as people commonly understand it, i.e. gradual changes. The effect is a society divided, literally and psychologically, by freeways, railroad tracks, landfills and hazardous-waste dumps.Bullard: Much of America has wrong complexion for protection — Environmental Health News We need to take pride in our ability to intelligently use a Geiger counter, to test our water and soil purity, and to generally detect general toxicity in our environments, as well as to find and prosecute the source when a human is at fault, or to mitigate and protect with purifiers when nature is at fault. From the CBC, a story of the pace of evolution.

But surely, while rather blunt, that is one of the more common paths to rapid evolution. Why are we more inclined to think evolutionary change takes thousands of years if not more? Changes in physiology and in learned habits are a couple of ways creatures evolve but where in the manual does it say it can’t be quick? However, many of these rapid evolution cases deal with having to adapt to living amongst humans, such the term urban. University of Tulsa ecologist Charles Brown says he was surprised it took just 30 years for the cliff swallows in his study to evolve shorter wings that help them avoid traffic.

In some cases I think it might just be selection by elimination. So I was just wondering if in the past, sans humanity, would it have been entirely possible for rapid evolution to take place if, say some other creature suddenly dominated the landscape putting selective pressures on native inhabitants? I can’t see how it couldn’t have occurred but I’ve been wrong before. Originally Posted by adelady I think it’s more attributable to simply killing off the portion of that particular group with the less manoeuvrable wings.

We move into a neighborhood and the creatures that don’t adapt go extinct. Combatting natural antibiotics or toxins? It’s usually thousands of generations of minor improvements adding up to a big improvement. After that anything that changes that equilibrium has a lot of potential to cause evolutionary change. imo we greatly underestimate the amplitude of mutations/diversity already present in populations. some humans are born with 6 fingers, if an extiction event wiped out all humans except a tribe in the south pacific where people have 6 fingers, would you say the change for humans to go from 5 to 6 fingers took 1 day or 1000 years? neither views would be an accurate understanding of the process in this example because the label “human” is simplistic(it discribes a wide range of diversity and mutations), humans with totally diffenent T-cell elements have coexisted and mingled for hundreds (if not thousands) of years yet we use the same label and are unable to distinguish these(T-Cell alterates) along with a great many other variations that are not apparent to the eyes (eyes which we use to make abitrary and irrelevant distinction, like so called “white ” and “black”, but thats another story). my layman opinion at this point in time anyway I think it’s more attributable to simply killing off the portion of that particular group with the less maneuverable wings. The main thing is this is going to get worse, I believe.

I think the animals mentioned in the article illustrate the fact that subtle variations and mutations are taking place all the time. Originally Posted by adelady University of Tulsa ecologist Charles Brown says he was surprised it took just 30 years for the cliff swallows in his study to evolve shorter wings that help them avoid traffic. A lot of the tools needed aren’t that much.

As the life forms get larger and more complex with longer lifespans as in the case of humans our generations average about 20 years. I think it’s more attributable to simply killing off the portion of that particular group with the less manoeuvrable wings. I’d presume that other populations of the same bird still have the full variety of wing spans that the bridge group started out with. Originally Posted by adelady I don’t think that’s evolution as people commonly understand essaywriterforhire.com
it, i.e. gradual changes. It looks to me almost like the start of species differentiation from one part of the population adapting itself into a new environmental niche. What I mean is, there had to have been some fish resistant to PCB’s when the toxin was introduced would there not? Or would the introduction of PCB’s to the fish’ environment spur the changes? The right thing to do is to empower the communities.

So I was just wondering if in the past, sans humanity, would it have been entirely possible for rapid evolution to take place if, say some other creature suddenly dominated the landscape putting selective pressures on native inhabitants? I can’t see how it couldn’t have occurred but I’ve been wrong before. I’d presume that other populations of the same bird still have the full variety of wing spans that the bridge group started out with.

I don’t think that’s evolution as people commonly understand it, i.e. gradual changes. I think it’s a testament to the wonders of evolution. Millions of years required? Maybe not in some cases. I don’t think that’s evolution as people commonly understand it, i.e. gradual changes.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos Why are we more inclined to think evolutionary change takes thousands of years if not more? Because usually it does. Fascinating stuff IMHO.Edit: I think I may have erred when I said the fish wasn’t that way originally. This is exemplified when we say an invasive species is introduced into a stable environment, and I don’t know any https://gradstudies.missouri.edu/current-students/thesis-dissertation/ more invasive species than humans.

And if the communities can’t be empowered, you need to find individuals in communities who CAN be empowered, who are willing to learn the science, and build communities out of them. Except in this case, the killer/predator, doesn’t really improve their hunting techniques/skills to match that of the birds. We already have situations where drinking water in the third world is dirty due to industrial pollution. It all boils down to a bigger commitment to science. Back in the time the plague killed about half the worlds population, the survivors were the ones that were more resistant to that disease.

Noticable genetic changes within 5 to 10 generations time.That is shockingly fast. Maybe middle class neighborhoods could’t afford professional equipment for testing all potential pollutants. I think it’s more attributable to simply killing off the portion of that particular group with the less manoeuvrable wings. So we evolve rather slowly compared to the life forms we depend on for survival.Even then most of our adaptations don’t change our physical appearance when they do happen.

I think it’s more attributable to simply killing off the portion of that particular group with the less manoeuvrable wings. Related Discussions:Guns in the USANew article on Global WarmingUrban EvolutionSuper Gluespiked drinksI’m WillUrgent statistics helpReading multiple books simultaneously, and listening to music while writing: has there been any research into how this affects productivity?Quick question: How many human biological systems are there?Question about Genetic Engineering(Genetics) Career. Look at the work a lot of good people are doing right now on drinking water purity, its expected to be a big issue in coming decades.

Originally Posted by adelady Noticeable genetic changes within 5 to 10 generations time.That is shockingly fast. In some cases I think it might just be selection by elimination. After that the plague still cropped up, but never killed that same high percentage of the population again. You can’t have evolution without new generations and if you don’t mate, then your the last of your line. Traffic is traffic, doesn’t purposely seek out the birds to kill them.

Why, how…. does a fish adapt to PCB’s? It certainly wasn’t that way originally. People that don’t die from a disease have a better chance of passing that resistance on to their offspring. I guess they trust their goverment is responsible enough, otherwise the excessive cost in public health will be evident for the media. Fossilized human feces from 14th century contain antibiotic resistance genes — ScienceDailyI assume these genes must have been useful for other things and weren’t just waiting around for us to invent antibiotics.

I noticed this on Science Daily. This kind of maks me wonder if it will just become a separation on range of habitat or if it will soon be found the shorter winged swallows are no longer able to breed with the longer winged swallows and become a genetically distinct species.Of course if the traffic went away there would cease to be any selective pressure for the trait and the longer wings would become the dominant trait again, unless the cars are not the only pressure but something else is too.Maybe the insects the swallows feed on swarm under the street lights and shorter wings make it easier for the birds to catch them there.As always I am a bit leary of singular causes for events that are complex. I believe you are on the right track here.