Slashdot Mirror
Resurrection Ecology Gives Life to Old Eggs
Ant writes "ABC News reports that scientists are bringing the past to life by hatching eggs once thought to be dead and producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago. They are calling it 'resurrection ecology,' and it's a whole new field that quite literally allows scientists to observe evolution as it occurred, using animals that were quite different than their kinfolk today."
More SEA MONKEYS!
http://ut.water.usgs.gov/shrimp/ "The life cycle of Artemia begins from a dormant cyst that contains an embryo in a suspended state of metabolism (known as diapause). The cysts are very hardy and may remain viable for many years if kept dry."
As the article says (in the headline, at least), scientists made dormant eggs hatch by putting them under the right conditions. "They found that eggs that had been trapped beneath the sediment years ago had never hatched, but miraculously, were still alive."
It may be a landmark - I have no idea - but it's not resurrection.
Already, scientists have made huge strides in their research using this technique. Thanks to new technology and innovation, more and more creatures are able to be 'reanimated' in this way.
but it's already been shown the evolution is more then just a theory. It's a scientific theory which has stood up to many people trying to place the word of some book over the huge amounts of evidence in support of evolution.It's a theory backed in fact, and has reached the point where the only arguements over it are over some of the processes. Not, at least in any true scientific community, over if evolution is real or not.
Er, seamonkeys (brine shrimp) are zooplankton. If it can't swim against the current (on a macroscopic level), and it isn't a plant, it's zooplankton.
Yes, this means most jellyfish are macroscopic zooplankton.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
The Theory of Evolution is not about wether evolution exists or not, it is about the process by which it occurs. It is a fact that evolution exists and happens, in the same way that gravity exists and various theories about gravity are not theories about the existence of gravity, but how it happens. The LAW of gravity does not state anything about what causes gravity, it simply describes the effect of gravity.
Bacteria with mutations causing resistance to any form of antibiotic-they survive and multiply despite exposure. For more complex organisms, Cockroaches with mutation not to be attracted to the specific type of sugar are effectively resistant to the RAID product, others to DDT or chlordane and have become dominant in areas where the product was used heavily-they survived over those that were not to breed more resistant Cockroaches.
But speciation has been observed. The Australian Eastern Rosella had a range extending from near Adelaide in South Australia to the Macpherson Ranges in SE Queensland. The sprcies had a continuous variation in colouring though this range from SW to NE. You could take a pair of birds of opposite gender and they would mate without needing any particular prompting.
In the 1930's the Murrumbidgee Irragation Project destroyed a large slab of habitat in the center of the range of the bird. There were now two populations of Eastern Rosellas. In each group colouration tended to the mean of each region, with the result that now birds of opposite gender from the two regions will not interbreed without major human intervention (colouring the birds, or feeding them sex hormones etc).
Given that the definition of species is a population of organisms that will mate and reproduce spontaneously under natural conditions, the Eastern Rosella is a text book case of Speciation, as outlined in the Origin of Species.
The "no new species have been observed" objection is dead in the water. Note also that we're not talking about plankton or bacteria or virus here - we are talking about a parrot a bit bigger than a pidgeon.
From the article: Daphnia retrocurva are zooplankton that live in lake waters for one summer and then die, leaving eggs behind. Scientists have found eggs that didn't hatch for years -- and are hatching them to see how the animal has adapted over time. (University of New Hampshire)
We're not talking about bringing back Dodos!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Ok, I'll feed your troll. Read up on "sickle cell anemia" and how the people who carry this mutation almost always live normal healthy lives -- with the added bonus they don't die of malaria.
Now the reason you haven't heard about this is because you've been wandering around with wads of cotton in your ears for your entire life. If you'd actually taken them out for long enough to pay attention in biology class you'd have heard about this and a hundred other mutant adaptations in the human race.
You're wrong. Scientific theories are not "proven" in the sense we know they're 100% correct. Theories are demonstrated to explain the phenomena they claim to explain, the predict new phenomena which were unknown before and to withstand critical tests. For example, Einstein's special theory of relativity explained the known facts (it had Newtonian mechanics as it's low-speed limit and it explained Michaelson-Morley experiment), predicted new phenomena (E=mc^2, that the mass of moving particles changes, lenghtening of the life-time of decaying particles when accelerated to speeds almost equal to the speed of light). It also withstood experiments designed to test it. All of them. That's what makes a theory taken to be "correct". It's not, however, a 100% guarantee that Einstein's theory is right and there does not exist a "better" theory which makes the same predictions in the areas where Einstein was experimentally proven to be right, but also explains other phenomena, is based on different assumptions, and so on.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
The idea that "falsifiability" is one mark of a scientific theory is usually associated with Karl Popper, who put it forth in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. This was in contrast to some Logical Positivists who argued that science contained verifiable assertions.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
It, uh, wasn't the same animal putting on or taking off a helmet.
The eggs laid in prey-heavy years were born with spines & a helmet, and the eggs laid in prey-scarse years were not, even though they were the many-generations removed descendants of the former.
The scientists weren't reproducing this situation in the lab, they were merely hatching old eggs to see which traits were dominant in which era.
As for the difference between unwilling and unable, give it time. Any reasonable estimate as to how long such an event would take runs into hundred(s) of generations. We simply haven't had enough time for one to take place. Now, you can prove that it has taken place, but you have to accept genetic evidence for it. There is tons of genetic evidence for 'speciation' that has resulted in 'unable' but creationists don't seem to be willing to accept such genetic evidence.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
I refer you to http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/aoc/ , in the 2001 conference, paper 61 "Evolutionary Isolates and Cryptic Species in Australian Birds, Basis Nature: What to call Species" for a reasonably recent discussion of this issue.
However I was first aware of this in 1992, I can't recall the original source, but it was fairly well known in Population Ecology Circles in Australia at the time.
I can also refer you to www.geocities.com/pb56_au/mtbuffalo/ student/activities/speciation.PDF which illustrates the debate on this issue. Note that the species in central NSW have vanished, so in the map in this document imagine varieties that filled the concave side of the curved range shown.
You are of cource correct that my "definition" was too lax, and I'll accept your correction on this. It doesnt dilute the point I was making however.
Yes, it's a broad definition. In fact, it's an extremely broad definition. ...but that's what the definition is.
Like the definition of "herb": defined (iirc) as any plant without a woody stem.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Also, show me a mutation that was for the better of the species.
Pesticide/herbicide resistence, happens with increasing frequency. Predicted by evolution: change the environment and a mutation that confers an advantage in dealing with the new environment will rapidly spread through the population.
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/
Them pesky biologists! Cut their funding, that'll teach 'em to contradict your gut feelings about the world!
No you don't. The order's all wrong. Genesis says that the Earth was around before the Sun (and that daylight, as well as the seperation of day and night, also existed in the absense of a sun.) I believe that it also states that birds appeared before land animals, but I don't have a copy on hand to check.
Many egg forms as well as bacteria can exist intact in a cysted state for a very long time under surprisingly harsh conditions. From a USDA anthrax fact sheet: "When cells of B. anthracis escape from the animal's body through bloody discharges from the natural openings of the body after death, and are exposed to oxygen, they form spores. These spores are highly resistant to heat, cold, chemical disinfectants, and long dry periods. B. anthracis spores are reported to survive for years in the environment."
m
More here http://www.usda.gov/homelandsecurity/anthraxfs.ht
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.