Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments |

Document Speed Limit To The Pace Of Evolution, Biologists Say

by ScienceDaily

Thanks to rod-the-farmer for the link.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102171726.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2009) — Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a theoretical model that informs the understanding of evolution and determines how quickly an organism will evolve using a catalogue of "evolutionary speed limits." The model provides quantitative predictions for the speed of evolution on various "fitness landscapes," the dynamic and varied conditions under which bacteria, viruses and even humans adapt.

A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness. Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate -- a pattern long considered the hallmark of "neutral" or non-Darwinian evolution -- even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection.

While much is known about the qualitative aspects of evolutionary theory -- that organisms mutate and these mutations are selected by the environment and are gradually absorbed by the entire population, very little is known about how, or how quickly, this is accomplished. Information on evolution between consecutive generations is hard to come by, and the lack of understanding has real-world implications. Public-health officials would have an easier time preparing targeted vaccinations, or combating drug resistance, if they understood the evolutionary speed limits on viruses and bacteria such as influenza and M. tuberculosis.
...
Continue reading
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102171726.htm

Comments 1 - 6 of 6 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #429474 by TIKI AL on November 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm

Do they have an estimate on when godbots will finally evolve, or will they continue plodding along in the wrong direction?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

2. Comment #429483 by SPS on November 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm

I just read a related article on the same site:
Inefficient Selection: New Evolutionary Mechanism Accounts For Some Of Human Biological Complexity.

Other Comments by SPS

3. Comment #429512 by JuJu on November 4, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Something seems wrong with the statement that the environment does the selecting. This opens the door for environmental determinism. Which opens doors to such things as the Aquatic Ape idea. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I think it can be taken the wrong way. Maybe I'm just an idiot that doesn't know what He's talking about.

Other Comments by JuJu

4. Comment #429637 by keithapm on November 5, 2009 at 8:50 am

 avatarThe environment is a big factor in natural selection. From the environment that genes find themselves in within an organism to the environment that that organism finds itself in, including geography, climate, competing species, rivals within it's own species etc.

Other Comments by keithapm

5. Comment #429664 by Anvil on November 5, 2009 at 1:10 pm

 avatar3. Comment #429512 by JuJu:

Hi JuJu. Sorry, perhaps I'm misreading you, but what exactly did you imagine was doing the selection?

A genetic mutation has to survive a vast number of collisions with it's environment if it is to increase it's frequency within its gene pool - most don't.

This is the interplay between chance, selection, and time. This is Natural Selection.

As for the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, no evidence (at any rate, no hard evidence) exists for such suppositions but at least these suppositions are, for the most part, Darwinian suppositions, and shouldn't be discounted until other competing hypotheses are shown to make AAH redundant. There are, whether we like it or not, no hypotheses that presently do this.

As T.H. Huxley puts it:

"science warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such beliefs than for one to which I was previously hostile."

Again, apologies if I misread you.

[edit]: That said, I'm not too sure what this article is saying? I'm presuming the data under analysis is from the Lenski data? Anyone like to have a shot at explaining this to us idiots?

Anvil.

Other Comments by Anvil

6. Comment #430867 by JuJu on November 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm

I've taken the meaning of environment in the above article a twisted it a little. What some people I've recently spoke with think happens in natural selection is that the environment induces changes. And that these changes are made by the environment to help the organism evolve. I guess this is really just Lamarchism. A surprising number of people believe evolution works that way. They believe that if a primate species migrated close to water that their skin would have changed because of the moisture in the air. And they would pass this down to the next generation. They clearly don't understand how it works. I know I've taken the meaning of environment out of the context it was meant in the article, but someone with the above stated beliefs will most certainly take it out of context. I think a better wording would have been that (nature) does the selecting. I'm sure most of you will say "whats the difference"?. I think it is more accurate and less likely to encourage misunderstanding. After all its called Natural Selection not Environmental Selection.

Other Comments by JuJu
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: