Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Evolution Can Occur Much Faster Than Previously Thought (ox.ac.uk)

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-better-faster dept.

An anonymous reader writes: An Oxford study on chickens discovered that evolution can make significant changes to a genome in as little as 15 years. "For a long time scientists have believed that the rate of change in the mitochondrial genome was never faster than about 2% per million years. The identification of these mutations shows that the rate of evolution in this pedigree is in fact 15 times faster." Professor Greger Larson, senior author on the study, said, "Our observations reveal that evolution is always moving quickly but we tend not to see it because we typically measure it over longer time periods."

8 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Mutation only, not evolution by mbeckman · · Score: -1, Troll

    The study did not observe evolution. Not one single biological trait conferring a survival advantage was detected. All that was observed were two mutation of unknown origin. The authors surmise "paternal leakage", but nobody really knows the source of the mutations. The act of mutation itself was not observed. It was only detected by comparing samples over a long time span.

    This is similar to what astronomers' do when they "blink" star fields -- switching between early and late images to make any change easy to pick up visually. When a change is picked up, the astronomer knows nothing about the cause, only that the change occurred.

    But here we are, science and media over-reaching. The researchers themselves asserting that evolution is happening, and happening faster than before. We've never observed evolution yet -- some scientists only assume it from observed differences in the fossil record.

    Why do scientists feel the need to over-reach in their conclusions? I can only guess. Funding, probably.

    1. Re: Mutation only, not evolution by mbeckman · · Score: -1, Troll

      "We" is science. It's true that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection have only been seen to result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

      Evolution, on the other hand, requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into new bacterial kind, and ultimately, higher organisms.

      Because mutation and natural selection have only been observed to lead to a loss of functional systems, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution, but rather variation within a bacterial kind.

    2. Re: Mutation only, not evolution by mbeckman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Name one of your dozen proofs of speciation, and one instance where modern medicine depends upon evolution being a fact. Evolution is a theory, and a poorly, supported theory with tons of failed predictions. It's not, in fact, empirical science. Evolution is a religion.

    3. Re: Mutation only, not evolution by mbeckman · · Score: -1, Troll

      Not Darwinian evolution, which purports to explain the origin of species, not the continuation. Darwin's entire point was that evolution is a mindless process that creates order our of disorder, structure from amorphism, and ultimately life from the unlife. It must be random, because there was, according to Darwin, no need for any intellectual input to the evolutionary process. There can be no doubt, either, that Darwinian evolution is what the authors of this paper are talking about, since they mention the process occurring over millions of years (during which time there is no conscious control by any other organism).

    4. Re: Mutation only, not evolution by mbeckman · · Score: -1, Troll

      Wrong. What the authors describe is precisely Darwinian evolution, which is defined (by Wikipedia) as "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Robert Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms [e.g., chickens] arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."

      Read the paper. That's what they're talking about with their chickens. It's Darwin, all the way down.

  2. Re:OH YAY more aspies by alreaud · · Score: -1, Troll

    Evolution is a theory. God is very real. You have the freedom of choice to percieve Him or not...

  3. Re:Fossils by alreaud · · Score: -1, Troll

    As you mock, He laughs at you, and STILL loves you, LOL. No, God is not Cuthulu, he doesn't have appendages. Myself, I don't have problem with believing in the theory of evolution and believing in God. See, God, is outside of time, and hence He sees beginning, now, and end. A second to God is a thousand years... God can use the laws of nature, He made them! So when you read Feynman's Lectures, you know what, God made those laws and He doesn't change. So, when the preacher online starts harping about science, remind him that the same God that created all also created the physical laws that allows that internet stream of his Sunday service, and that God is constant. The same physical laws apply everywhere, because God made those laws, and God doesn't change!

  4. Re:Fossils by alreaud · · Score: 1, Troll

    No brother, that's the difference between Charismatic and Southern Baptist, LOL... ;-) Think about it, "Thousands of Gods"? If we're but a resemblance of them, then what does a committee do? I was impressed that of all of the scientific disciplines, astronomers seemed to be most likely to be of the faith. Why? Because, IMHO, they work with the "big" picture. A committee didn't create what they see in the Hubble Deep Field... A lot of my thought of it comes out of physics and quantum mechanics. Non-locality, a photon doesn't experience time (do the math), etc. If one can wrap their mind around an ever present NOW encompassing past, present, and future, then one can start to perceive the operating sphere of God.