Traditionally, scientists have viewed such changes simply as behavior modifications in the face of a changing environment—in this case, global warming.
But scientists say these shifts provide mounting evidence that for some animals, global warming is sparking genetic changes that are altering the ecosystems we live in.
The effect is most striking in the northern latitudes, where climates are becoming more and more like those in the south, researchers say.
I thought this was interesting because we are seeing these genetic changes. Something like this is an unlikely thing to be able to study and it is good that we have this chance.
These shifts aren't simply a response to warmer summers but instead reflect recent and rapid changes to the climate at large.
It is not good that this is being caused by global warming though because overall that is dangerous and we need to find a way to prevent it.
If anyone thinks it possible for a creature to *gain* new genetic information and 'evolve', please give me one example! Just one.
Here are a whole bunch!
Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence
Read these carefully with an open mind. When plants and animals with common ancestors evolve to the point where they can no longer interbreed and produce viable offspring then you have an example of creatures that have gained new genetic information. There are a LOT of them. Note that while quite a few of the listed examples were forced in the labratory, quite a few others were observed in nature.
Now that you have been provided with numerous examples, I assume you are going to retract your previous comment which is demonstratably false and has been proven to be false with testable and repeatable science.
Life generally thrives in warmer climatic conditions.
I'm pretty certain that the fossil record is clear that life is at its most abundant during the periods when the earth has been at its warmest.
Some species may vanish and others may emerge. Se la vie and I mean that in its most literal sense. Its no great tragedy. It is just the progression of geological and biological history.
The biggest problem with this post: "global warming is sparking genetic changes that are altering the ecosystems we live in."
Global warming doesn't spark genetic changes. In fact, you can really only "spark" genetic changes within an individual by mutating its DNA. I think people have some kind of wild idea that organisms can just "strive for betterment" and that that's what evolution is based on. It's not.
Global warming, coupled with what may be the start of a natural warming cycle, is a problem for organisms because natural selection just doesn't happen fast enough. If an environment has been generally stable for the millions of years that its inhabitants have been occupying it, natural selection will have resulted in populations consisting of organisms with the best-suited features for that environment (within physiological limits). Once you have an abrupt shift in the environment, these adaptations may not matter anymore. Global warming causes and will cause that abrupt shift (for example, warmer temperatures cause coral to expel their algal symbionts and die, and all the organisms in that ecosystem suffer as well).
I feel there is a lot of talk about warming .
Not a lot is being done .
More action is needed .
America and China aren`t bothered .
Issues placed onto people to change it .It isnt fair .The president should .
Do something yourselves instead of placing the burden on children in schools and people .
Articles read " The problem with green house is....." ."the Animals with greenhouse is.." People are..." .
what about a line reading ." Cuts in flights ,
smaller planes .No Aerosols ,banned .Companies emissions use ,banned.Cars ,banned"..
If it`s such a crisis then I feel I would ask ." THESE THINGS SUCH AS PLANES AND CARS
ARE THE MAIN CAUSE.fOR WHAT REASON AREN`T THEY BEENING PREVENTED FROM DOING IT THEN" .
Similar to the bizarre storm in America where innocent people died .An ignorant speech from the Presidents wife saying they where better off dead.
Is the green house efect something we like to talk about ?.
I refer to the above comment: "We are seeing genetic changes".
Not true.
What we are witnessing is the changing selection of DNA *within the gene pool* of the creatures referred to.
None of the creatures are developing new DNA.
It's just that certain features are being *selected* as the climate changes.
Take dogs as an example. One can select DNA to produce Pekinese, Alsations, Dachshunds, Irish Setters, Great St. Bernards etc. But they remain dogs, all using parts of the original gene pool of the first pair of dogs.
Yes, mutations may occur occasionally, but mutations are always corruptions. They are harmful and either do not survive for long or simply result in a loss of genetic information.
It is not possible for any creature to 'gain' DNA, to gain genetic improvement.
What we are seeing is emphatically not evolution, but cases of selection of genes for particular environments as climate changes.
That's why, for example, bears are white in the polar region - but not elswewhere. White hairs were already in the gene stock. They are not new.
If anyone thinks it possible for a creature to *gain* new genetic information and 'evolve', please give me one example! Just one.
Tony Bennett
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ
Tel: 01279 635789
Yes, it is. It's called... transmutation, I believe. Basically, a virus can insert its dna into a chromosome during the lysogenic phase of its reproduction. When it comes out, it can pick up additional DNA from around it. The next time that viral DNA inserts itself into a chromosome, it brings with it that new DNA. Human DNA is largely made up of these bits of viral DNA that get picked up and left behind. Additionally, bacteria can acquire DNA from their surroundings.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I'm sorry Tony, but what you said misses the point of the statements made by the journal author and misunderstands how evolution works. I do not wish to make assumptions that are way off-base, but your comments seem very close to those made by creationists or ID advocates here in the states. Anyway, on to the dissection -
"I refer to the above comment: "We are seeing genetic changes".
Not true."
So there are no genetic differences between parents and offspring? There is no such thing as microevolution, or variation within a group? Genetic change doesn't mean a dinosaur laying an egg and a bird coming out, but rather descent with modification on at least the genetic level if not the phenotypic level as well.
"What we are witnessing is the changing selection of DNA *within the gene pool* of the creatures referred to.
None of the creatures are developing new DNA."
You haven't mentioned any creatures at all, and I doubt you're familiar with the literature or studied any of them, much less any papers on the various modes of speciation. I agree that the change at the moment is happening on the level of variation, and possibly speciation, but we haven't seen any new phyla emerge. Still, "none of the creatures are developing new DNA" is a rather broad and vauge statement, and technically any variation within DNA would make it "new" i.e. not old. I assume you're referring to the idea that no new information is being added, which is true, but who says you can't do new things with old DNA? Just look at Hox genes. They are widespread through various Orders and Families of organisims, helping everything from ourselves to fruit flies determine their body organization. None of it is "new", just using the same (or similar) genes in new ways.
"It's just that certain features are being *selected* as the climate changes."
Would this be natural selection by any chance? The mode by which Darwin postulated species would evolve via descent through modification? This statement is accurate enough - certain animals are more successful than others because their traits are allowing them to have more (or stronger) offspring, essentially selecting certain traits.
"Take dogs as an example. One can select DNA to produce Pekinese, Alsations, Dachshunds, Irish Setters, Great St. Bernards etc. But they remain dogs, all using parts of the original gene pool of the first pair of dogs."
What you're referring to here is what creationists call bariminology, or dogs beget dogs and nothing else. Is this to say that dogs are NOT related to wolves? And wolves not related to any other of the Carnivora? Even though all the breeds you mentioned are dogs, their DNA does differ, otherwise they'd all look the same. Man artificially selected them, and therefore they are not a good example for how natural selection works. You mention "the first pair of dogs" as well. Would this be the Adam and Eve of the dog world? Where did they come from? Out of thin air or by the hand of God? What evidence do you have that wolves or dogs did not initially evolve?
"Yes, mutations may occur occasionally, but mutations are always corruptions. They are harmful and either do not survive for long or simply result in a loss of genetic information."
This view is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of genetics. All mutations change DNA, and many are deleterious, but a mutation can be deleterious and be beneficial. Biological organisms and processes aren't very efficient, so if for instance you're a fish that can see the color red, this isn't very useful because red fades out very fast in the water column. If a mutation occurred that stopped you from seeing red, it wouldn't be a bad thing because you really didn't need it, and it may even be beneficial because it frees up your eyes to do new things, or at least less energy is spent trying to see red wavelengths. This idea is better described by Sean Carroll in his new book Making the Fittest, where he goes on at length about "fossil genes" and what they mean to the evolutionary process. Just because a mutation is "deleterious", or changes things up a little, doesn't mean that it's always a bad thing.
"It is not possible for any creature to 'gain' DNA, to gain genetic improvement."
I am not an expert on genetics, but if creatures can't "gain" genetic information how do you account for the differing amounts of DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc. across the diversity of life? Where did this come from? How do you account for the duplication of the entire genome in zebrafish? Were they created ex nihilo with different amounts? You haven't given anything to back up your claim other than your say-so. Also, gaining genetic "improvement" is different than the sum total of DNA increasing, and mutations and selective pressure can lead to an organism being better adapted to an envrionment, which I would call an improvement (although there is no defined endpoint as envrionments are constantly changing).
"What we are seeing is emphatically not evolution, but cases of selection of genes for particular environments as climate changes."
Emphatically not evolution, eh? Well, the process isn't anywhere near done, and who are you to say that the continued pressure on the ecology will not result in new kinds of animals? Evolution doesn't have an end point, and while right now we're primarily seeing microevolution and potential for speciation, given enough time and the right pressure new higher taxa could indeed evolve. You seem to be denying it from a philosophical standpoint because you don't like the idea of evolution, but evolution is a constant, ongoing process that has to start somewhere, and for you to say that this isn't evolution at all speaks to your closed mind on the subject. Unless you can see into the future, I don't see how you can be so emphatic.
"That's why, for example, bears are white in the polar region - but not elswewhere. White hairs were already in the gene stock. They are not new."
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying all bears were initially white? Then the brown bears would have to have changed their color because of (gasp) evolution, as well as other characteristics that make them different. You fail to explain your support here other than what seems like common-sense taken with a creationist worldview, and I don't see any merit to it. The differences in bears extends to more than just hair color, which is why brown bears, black bears, polar bears, panda bears, sun bears, sloth bears, and spectacled bears are all different.
"If anyone thinks it possible for a creature to *gain* new genetic information and 'evolve', please give me one example! Just one."
There are plenty of examples of macroevolution, and I suggest you check out the TalkOrigins archive online. It is a wonderful resource on the subject. You seem to have already made up your mind on the subject of evolution based on a particular worldview and you don't seem familiar enough with genetics or evolution to accept even a correct answer, so why should anyone respond with examples if you're going to reject them outright anyway? I suggest you read up on Gould, Wilson, Mayer, Darwin, Carroll, etc. to get a better idea of what evolution is, how it works, and how we know it has occurred. Evolution is a fact - we might not know all the processes by which it occurrs, but we know it happens just like we know it's gravity that's keeping me from floating off into space. Anyway, I hope I was not too terribly insulting, but I suggest you make yourself more familiar with the debate and use more specifics in your argument if you're going to try to make any sort of constructive criticism. To the author of the original post, I agree with you and we should watch the evolutionary trends occurring in various parts of the world with great interest to better understand how such a marvelous process occurs.
I have to agree with most of what you wrote...It makes sense...But I do have to disagree with part of what you wrote. Evolution is not a fact...Rather it is a theory...A theory supported by many trials and tests...aka "experiments"... but a theory nonetheless. Actually, it is better regarded as a concept because most scientists accept the idea of evolution, and use this idea to make hypotheses about other natural processes. However, observations are perceptions or lenses in which an individual sees an aspect of the world around him or herself. This lens or perspective "can" change, as new information is obtained...not that it has to change...and will either refute or modify a theory or concept.
I am reminded of Descartes' assertion "I think therefore I am"....This may be true....I hope it is...but how do you know it is true?...how do you prove that it is true?...All proof is is a perception or idea that is not doubted by the person who believes it....Facts are just generally accepted beliefs...accepted by a such a degree that they appear to transcend the questionable nature of beliefs...but actually facts are questionable...In fact people do question things that are regarded as "facts"...Also facts will have varied definitions...One person may define a "fact" or "concept" in one way and another person may define it in another way...........Therefore "facts" can only be proven to those who choose to believe they are facts.
I hope you don't think I was trying to bash you....Really I wasn't....I believe in evolution...its a logical concept....but I can't know for sure that it is the TRUTH...This is not to say that there is any more credibility to the idea that GOD created anything or everything...This too cannot be rejected nor proved to complete certainty...Certainty itself is also in doubt.....
What you are saying is that we cannot have absolute certainty of anything. That's true. But so what? Do you REALLY question whether or not you actually exist? Do you REALLY question whether or not there is a person who typed up this response to you? I certainly hope you answered that you don't. While you cannot know it to absolute certainty, you can know it to a level of certainty such that it would be irrational to believe otherwise.
If we use that definition of a fact -- something known to a level of certainty such that it would irrational to believe otherwise -- the question is whether or not evolution rises to that level.
Before I answer that we need to know exactly what mainstream science refers to as the FACT of evolution and distinguish it from the THEORY of evolution. What we refer to as the FACT of evolution is descent with modification, the idea that all organisms share a common ancestry. Is that so well known that to believe otherwise is irrational? The answer is a resounding YES!!!
The THEORY of evolution involves the mechanism(s) behind that descent. Mainstream science's theories behind the mechanism(s) have become more numerous:
(1) Mutation and random selection
(2) Neutral selection
(3) Multilevel selection
(4) Punctuated equilibrium
(5) Macromutation
(6) Hybridization
(7) Symbiosis
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into detail on each of these. It is here that the real controversies in modern evolutionary theory reside. The consensus is that all play a role in the diversification of life.
The final thing I want to touch on is that in science, a THEORY is not the same thing as a lot of people think of in everyday conversation. A scientific theory is not a wild-assed guess. It is a conceptual framework for interpreting facts and making predictions. The last part is very important. If the predictions the theory makes are useful they will be testable. Testing the theory is what gives us confidence that it is correct.
Gotta go,
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Sorry, I didnt phrase that correctly. I know things do not just 'get' dna.
New DNA IS created. We haven't seen it in our species, but how do you think a single celled organism turned into us?