Animals that are evolving. Great read.

[Grace]

7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes | Cracked.com

The elephant info and the russian dog info. Remarkable.

 

[Sunni Man]

This is not evolution.

It is just adaptation.

Big difference.

 

[Grace]

The dogs are adapting. The elephants? Thats evolving.

 

[Sunni Man]

The dogs are adapting. The elephants? Thats evolving.

Nope

As the bigger tusk elephants have been hunted.

The smaller tusk elephants had more chance of survival.

Thus the gene pool tended to be skewed towards smaller and smaller tusked animals.

This is not in any way evolution.

But a direct result of man made hunting practices.

 

[theHawk]

Weeding out certain traits from the gene pool isn't really "evolving". It is not producing a new trait that was never present before, it's just making a rare trait much more prevalent.

 

[RollingThunder]

The dogs are adapting. The elephants? Thats evolving.

Nope

As the bigger tusk elephants have been hunted.

The smaller tusk elephants had more chance of survival.

Thus the gene pool tended to be skewed towards smaller and smaller tusked animals.

This is not in any way evolution.

But a direct result of man made hunting practices.

Actually any factor that drives a species gene pool in a certain direction can be considered part of the evolution of that species, whether or not that factor is natural or created by mankind. "Skewing" the "gene pool" by killing off specific parts of it is evolution. Evolution refers to the changes in form, function and genetics that happens as a result of environmental pressures that favor one genetic development path and suppress other paths. The domestication of dogs from the original wolf genetic pattern is an example of a man caused "evolution" of a species into very different physical forms and basic psychology.

 

[Grace]

The dogs are adapting. The elephants? Thats evolving.

Nope

As the bigger tusk elephants have been hunted.

The smaller tusk elephants had more chance of survival.

Thus the gene pool tended to be skewed towards smaller and smaller tusked animals.

This is not in any way evolution.

But a direct result of man made hunting practices.

Actually any factor that drives a species gene pool in a certain direction can be considered part of the evolution of that species, whether or not that factor is natural or created by mankind. "Skewing" the "gene pool" by killing off specific parts of it is evolution. Evolution refers to the changes in form, function and genetics that happens as a result of environmental pressures that favor one genetic development path and suppress other paths. The domestication of dogs from the original wolf genetic pattern is an example of a man caused "evolution" of a species into very different physical forms and basic psychology.

This ^

At least, it's what I think. I could be wrong but pretty sure that ^ is pretty durn close.

 

[Grace]

Isn't learning a new trait evolving in to something else? Same with adaptation. Evolve could mean any "new" thing that is not the "norm". Right?

 

[JBeukema]

The dogs are adapting. The elephants? Thats evolving.

Nope

As the bigger tusk elephants have been hunted.

The smaller tusk elephants had more chance of survival.

Thus the gene pool tended to be skewed towards smaller and smaller tusked animals.

This is not in any way evolution.

Yes, it is. It's the survival of the fittest. That is the foundation of natural selection, one of the processes that drive evolution.

 

[JBeukema]

Isn't learning a new trait evolving in to something else?

If it's an instinctual and inherited skill, as opposed to a learned behavior, you can argue that, but that's still debatable.

 

[Tank]

Evolution is in a constant motion

Evolution does not always mean a improvement.

Case and point:
America is evolving into a third word country

 

[rdean]

Weeding out certain traits from the gene pool isn't really "evolving". It is not producing a new trait that was never present before, it's just making a rare trait much more prevalent.

Evolution doesn't always mean something was added. It's all about adaptation to the environment. Doesn't matter if an animal loses hair because it's warmer or an animal loses it's tusks because those have been hunted to extinction. Both adapted.

Scientists Find Chickens Retain Ancient Ability to Grow Teeth - ABC News

When Harris and his colleagues "turned on" the talpid2 gene in the oral cavity of a normal chicken embryo, they found that the mutation caused the tissues in the embryo's jaw to initiate the formation of teeth, very much like those belonging to the bird's ancestors.

What makes this experiment unique is the fact that, unlike earlier experiments, it involved no grafting or tissue transplants from a mutant chicken.

----------------------------------------------------------

Scientists have learned so much about "evolution", they are able to "turn on" and "turn off" genes still with the animal after millions of years of evolution.

For instance, there is no reason a "magical gawd" would give chickens the genes to grow "teeth". Yet there they are. Scientists have turned them on and "Wallah", chicken with "teeth".

-----------------------------------------------------------

"There are so many examples of such atavistic traits -- snakes with vestigial limbs, horses with three toes, even human beings who have hair growing all over their body and face," he said. "As far as I am concerned, this experiment vindicates the theory of evolution as it exposes the evolutionary history of birds. Supporters of intelligent design will have to scramble to explain this one!"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Isn't learning a new trait evolving in to something else? Same with adaptation. Evolve could mean any "new" thing that is not the "norm". Right?

Species do not learn traits.

My guess is that the "dancing lizards" always existed, they have just become a bit more prevalent as a result of the fire ant infestation killing off the ones that freeze. On the other hand, those dancing lizards will be more apt to be killed if they are threatened by birds.

as for the digs, unless i see some type of study that shows the dogs sleep at one station, eat at another, and travel between them regularly, i am going to chalk it up to anthropomorphism. It seems a bit trite to me to believe that the article from Cracked is not making wild assumptions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The dogs are adapting. The elephants? Thats evolving.

Nope

As the bigger tusk elephants have been hunted.

The smaller tusk elephants had more chance of survival.

Thus the gene pool tended to be skewed towards smaller and smaller tusked animals.

This is not in any way evolution.

Yes, it is. It's the survival of the fittest. That is the foundation of natural selection, one of the processes that drive evolution.

It is not survival of the fittest, it is simply survival. Elephants with tusks are actually better adapted to survive in the wild because they can use those tusks to dig up food and for self defense. Ivory hunters skewed that and the ones without tusks now have a better chance of surviving. My guess is that, if something does not change, elephants will die out because they do not have tusks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Weeding out certain traits from the gene pool isn't really "evolving". It is not producing a new trait that was never present before, it's just making a rare trait much more prevalent.

Evolution doesn't always mean something was added. It's all about adaptation to the environment. Doesn't matter if an animal loses hair because it's warmer or an animal loses it's tusks because those have been hunted to extinction. Both adapted.

Scientists Find Chickens Retain Ancient Ability to Grow Teeth - ABC News

When Harris and his colleagues "turned on" the talpid2 gene in the oral cavity of a normal chicken embryo, they found that the mutation caused the tissues in the embryo's jaw to initiate the formation of teeth, very much like those belonging to the bird's ancestors.

What makes this experiment unique is the fact that, unlike earlier experiments, it involved no grafting or tissue transplants from a mutant chicken.

----------------------------------------------------------

Scientists have learned so much about "evolution", they are able to "turn on" and "turn off" genes still with the animal after millions of years of evolution.

For instance, there is no reason a "magical gawd" would give chickens the genes to grow "teeth". Yet there they are. Scientists have turned them on and "Wallah", chicken with "teeth".

-----------------------------------------------------------

"There are so many examples of such atavistic traits -- snakes with vestigial limbs, horses with three toes, even human beings who have hair growing all over their body and face," he said. "As far as I am concerned, this experiment vindicates the theory of evolution as it exposes the evolutionary history of birds. Supporters of intelligent design will have to scramble to explain this one!"

No reason you can think of.

 

[JBeukema]

Nope

As the bigger tusk elephants have been hunted.

The smaller tusk elephants had more chance of survival.

Thus the gene pool tended to be skewed towards smaller and smaller tusked animals.

This is not in any way evolution.

Yes, it is. It's the survival of the fittest. That is the foundation of natural selection, one of the processes that drive evolution.

It is not survival of the fittest, it is simply survival. Elephants with tusks are actually better adapted to survive in the wild because

No, they're not.

Those with shorter tusks are better suited to avoid the predators they face now and survive.

Ivory hunters skewed

They skewed nothing any more or less than any other effective predator.

 

[Jessica Blume]

I love parody sites!
They're so funny!
Well, sometimes.

 

[konradv]

I love parody sites!
They're so funny!
Well, sometimes.

I like FOX NEWS for their parodies. I mean, who can help but laugh when they flash their "Fair and Balanced" logo?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, it is. It's the survival of the fittest. That is the foundation of natural selection, one of the processes that drive evolution.

It is not survival of the fittest, it is simply survival. Elephants with tusks are actually better adapted to survive in the wild because

No, they're not.

Those with shorter tusks are better suited to avoid the predators they face now and survive.

Ivory hunters skewed

They skewed nothing any more or less than any other effective predator.

And, when there are no more elephants with tusks, they will all die because they cannot survive a drought. Just because you do not understand how evolution works does not mean everyone else is equally ignorant.

Natural selection, or unnatural selection in this case, is not survival of the fittest in the way you are trying to use it.

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educate yourself and then come back and pretend like you agreed with me all along.

 

[RollingThunder]

It is not survival of the fittest, it is simply survival. Elephants with tusks are actually better adapted to survive in the wild because

No, they're not.

Those with shorter tusks are better suited to avoid the predators they face now and survive.

Ivory hunters skewed

They skewed nothing any more or less than any other effective predator.

And, when there are no more elephants with tusks, they will all die because they cannot survive a drought. Just because you do not understand how evolution works does not mean everyone else is equally ignorant.

Natural selection, or unnatural selection in this case, is not survival of the fittest in the way you are trying to use it.

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educate yourself and then come back and pretend like you agreed with me all along.

The topic concerns 'evolution', not 'survival of the fittest' (a rather ambiguous phrase). Mankind has obviously become one of the factors in the environment that influences the evolution (and possible extinction) of other species but often for reasons (like Asian superstitions about the supposed viagra-like properties of rhinoceros horn) that have little to do with the natural environmental factors at play in the classical descriptions of evolution.

Even your wiki citation doesn't really seem to support your contentions.

Survival of the fittest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6]

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

"Survival of the fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8]

Moreover, to misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology. What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better adapted to live in changing environments. The concept is not tautological as it contains an independent criterion of fitness.[4]