Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reversing Undesirable Fish Evolution

Posted by samzenpus on from the make-them-bun-shaped dept.

TaeKwonDood writes "Your granddad's approach to fishing — throw the little 'uns back — may have hurt their evolution, but we can reverse that, says a group of researchers, with a change of policy. Fish have been 'reprogramming' themselves to be smaller and live longer. Welcome to evolutionary dynamics, Lamarck. But, no, they are serious. And it can be fixed within 12 generations. What do the smart people out there think about this? Are they using the term 'evolution' the wrong way?"

6 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Are they using the term evolution the wrong way? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, but you're being rather careless with your language.

    It hasn't "hurt" their evolution. Their evolution has been helpful, based on the selection pressures they face.

    Nor are the fish "reprogramming themselves". The species' genetic make up may be shifting (in a loose sense "reprogrammed") but they aren't doing it to themselves.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  2. Re:Clear example of directional selection... by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do wonder if the poster actually read the article. It uses the word "reprogrammed" once, as a metaphor, and it's not the fish "reprogramming themselves," it's the selective harvesting.

    I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth it to come here if the blurbs misrepresent the articles so badly.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  3. Re:Clear example of directional selection... by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    of course there are actual biologists who read slashdot that don't think highly of evolution being thought of in terms of a ladder but rather fitness and genetic change over time in order to maximize the chances that organisms can and do reproduce. the summery did a poor job of phrasing what the researchers actually said on the matter calling it "bad for their evolution" in contrast to being "undesirable [from humanity's perspective] evolution" for which the latter is far more accurate and the former.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  4. Helped their evolution by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    just because those fish didn't evolve the way we would have liked that it somehow means that it "hurt their evolution."

    I'd in fact go further and say it has helped their evolution. If they become small enough that us humans cannot be bothered with them then they have managed to eliminate the most dangerous predator on the planet as a concern. Seems like a smart move to me.

    1. Re:Helped their evolution by TempeTerra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd in fact go further and say it has helped their evolution.

      More precisely, you can't 'hurt' or 'help' evolution - you can't even really evolve in a 'bad' direction since evolution by definition increases the survivability of the species. An individual mutation could be good or bad, but evolution is the process of selecting the good mutations.

      As you say, in this case 'good' means 'humans don't eat me'.

      Now, TFA may mention this (but how would I know?), but the clever thing for fishermen to do is to catch the biggest, tastiest fish and then breed them. This leverages evolution by making 'tasty to humans' a survival trait. If you doubt this works, consider sheep, pigs, cows, wheat and rice.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  5. Re:Clear example of directional selection... by beckerist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eeeeexactly. Reverse evolution is like "reverse discrimination" *cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

    Evolution is evolution... Just because we might be the primary environmental factor OR we might BECOME the primary factor doesn't make it "reverse."