Evolution Intelligent Design

More examples of human-made “evolution,” which are changing the way evolution is seen

Spread the love

A very large dataset is offering a different picture:

Wild populations must continuously adapt to environmental changes or risk extinction. For more than fifty years, scientists have described instances of “rapid evolution” in specific populations as their traits (phenotypes) change in response to varying stressors. For example, Spanish clover has developed a tolerance for copper from the mine tailings in which it grows, and the horn size of Alberta bighorn sheep has decreased due to trophy hunting. But until now it hasn’t been possible to reach any overarching conclusions about how different factors (such as harvesting, climate change, invasive species, or pollution) shape this rapid (now called “contemporary”) evolution.

Building on earlier work, a McGill University-led team has created a massive new dataset of close to 7,000 examples of changing traits in various populations around the world, from house sparrows and gray wolves to freshwater snails and Canadian goldenrod. The dataset is 80% larger than any that existed in the past and documents trait changes that are a mixture of evolution and immediate (plastic) responses to the environment.

“We have come a long way from the old view of evolution as a slow process to the point where we are now realizing that everything is evolving all around us all the time,” says Andrew Hendry, a Professor of Biology at the Redpath Museum of McGill and the co-senior author on the paper recently published in Molecular Ecology.

McGill University, “Uncovering the underlying patterns in contemporary evolution” at ScienceDaily (January 19, 2022)

This is valuable information but that which changed quickly before can probably change just as quickly back. Whether we end up with evolution in the traditional sense of an irreversible trajectory is going to take a while to sort out.

The paper is closed access.

You may also wish to read: Are humans changing evolution? Like tuskless elephants… In a human-dominated world, things happen faster, for better or worse. Should we still call it “evolution” if we did it?

11 Replies to “More examples of human-made “evolution,” which are changing the way evolution is seen

  1. 1
    Nonlin.org says:

    How is adaptation “evolution”? Hint: it isn’t.
    And what about stasis? You know, like the one that killed “gradualism” and that we see in all from trilobites to humans. Turns out neither variability nor adaptation is “evolution”.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    They’re not really finding faster change, they’re just noticing more and more variable parts in the genome, under the control of the animal. In other words, the whole genome can be epigenes when needed. It’s all “junk”.

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    Nonlin.org

    How is adaptation “evolution”? Hint: it is

    one of the example how Darwinists have been misinterpreting the reality for 150 years…
    For Darwinists, everything is evolution … even if it is an A D A P T A T I O N …. a designed adaptation …

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Again, the DNA model is the science of genetics. It is not Evolution.

    So called rapid evolution or fast adaptation can never be Evolution because the necessary changes in body plans and new organic systems must take place elsewhere and not in the genome.

    Very interesting and extremely useful but we continually confuse the issue when the two are conflated.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Jerry, the evolution of anti-biotic resistance in bacteria doesn’t change body plans. And yet it is still evolution. And of course adaptation is evolution. I don’t see how anyone can claim otherwise.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Antibiotic Resistance Didn’t Evolve; It Was Borrowed – June 2017
    Excerpt: A paper this month in Nature Communications (open access) shares findings about “Dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes from antibiotic producers to pathogens.” They show how the genomes of Actinobacteria, that live in soil, include resistance genes against the antibiotics they create. This makes sense, because they don’t want to die of their own poison. But then, they found that other bacteria from other phyla and other organisms even from different kingdoms can obtain those secrets from the Actinobacteria. This kind of “horizontal gene transfer” is not evolution, because the genetic information already existed. It’s more like passing around prefabricated exploit code between hackers or, better yet, antivirus software from service suppliers.
    https://crev.info/2017/06/antibiotic-resistance/

    Antibiotic resistance genes are essentially everywhere – May 8, 2014
    Excerpt: The largest metagenomic search for antibiotic resistance genes in the DNA sequences of microbial communities from around the globe has found that bacteria carrying those vexing genes turn up everywhere in nature that scientists look for them,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....121347.htm

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    And of course adaptation is evolution. I don’t see how anyone can claim otherwise.

    I claim that it is not Evolution.

    Any change could be evolution under that conception. But the debate on Evolution is different from just change.

    As I said people are constantly conflating different processes as the same thing because the same or similar term is being used to describe these very different processes.

    This was pointed out here in 2006 but here we are 16 years later making the same errors.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency over time within a population. If adaptation includes that then obviously it is evolution.

  9. 9
    chuckdarwin says:

    Martin_r @ 3

    even if it is an A D A P T A T I O N …. a designed adaptation

    Designed by whom?

  10. 10
    jerry says:

    Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency over time within a population. If adaptation includes that then obviously it is evolution.

    How is this different from genetics?

    It’s also a model/science/theory based on DNA.

  11. 11
    martin_r says:

    Chuck, let me correct myself…

    What i meant was, that species were designed to adapt… it can’t be more obvious… you stress the species and the genome instantly responses …and always the right way …. always….it was designed that way…

    Adaptation is not evolution… ATB resistance is not evolution… it is an adaptation…. the bacteria is still bacteria and always will be … just look at the Lenski experiment… after 60,000 generation, still bacteria …

    Darwinists need to use the E word all the time, so their theory looks more convincing to common people ….

    PS: i never understood how is color change of peppered moth an evolution… did the peppered moth evolve into a new species ? just another example of designed adaptation…. larvae of pepper moth can ‘see’ the background with its skin and adjusts the body color so it matches the background …

    Adaptive colour change and background choice behaviour in peppered moth caterpillars is mediated by extraocular photoreception
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0502-7

    So i dont understand why Darwinists think, that an adult peppered moth can not do the same…. again, nothing to do with evolution and natural selection….some species were designed that way… they can change the body color … that is it ….

Leave a Reply