Archaeologica.org

That depends Min on whether the genes are there that will permit of adaption, if not, curtains, and the same applies to us.
Our biggest enemy when it comes to adaption is our ability to resist change by modifying our environment.

I thought the same basic bug has been around through numerous climate changes.
It seems to be temp. resistant, elevation resistant, CO2 concentration resistant. I think they even found them in the Nevada desert after the A and H bomb tests. So they are even radiation resistant.

I would say they have this survival thing down pat. Stay small, only come out after dark, breed by the millions, and don’t be ashamed to eat what others leave behind.

I still wouldn't want to be one though.

Good choice.

Hmmm..........

Sharks, alligators, cockroaches.

I'll add jellyfish, and trilobites.

(and Keith Richards).

I'll agree that all the above have existed as Linnanean Families for millions of years, but disagree at the Genus/Species level for obvious reasons, being that evolution in the Darwinian sense continued. Cretaceous sharks are at most an ancestral memory of Holocene sharks, and, if there were a Cretaceous shark available today, I doubt it could interbreed with a Holocene shark.

Now I'll forward a most insidious statement.
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

I'm sure this gave Darwin fits for Darwinian reasons, i.e., if ontogeny DID exactly recapitulate phlyogeny, then there would be no evolution.

And it gives me fits with regard to Homo sap., in the sense that ontogeny IS recapitulating phlyogeny - the statistical genetic bellwether being that all Homo sap. on Earth today are capable of interbreeding (THUS NO SPECIATION) - because of our ability to modify our environment to meet our immediate needs. The result being that we have cut ourselves off from Darwinian genetic change because we are on this one way street of immediate gratification created by our ability to change our environment to suit our needs.

Of course, this does not include inadvertent genetic change being inflicted on all species as an ongoing result of our modification of the environment. Hanford, or Chernobyl, anyone? I won't speculate.

Summation. We seem, at least at the Neolithic horizon (if not earlier) to have substituted cultural diversity (ability to modify environment to suit our needs) for genetic mutation (Darwinian adaptation to changing environment).

I wish I could live for another couple hundred K years, to see how all this turns out.

john

Here's another thought excerise. Perhaps it can be argued that all of life is an a state of equilibrium and thus very little selective pressure. For example consider the adage, if man evolved from monkeys then why do we still have monkeys? Of course, man did not descend from monkeys but the answer often stated is monkeys are well adapted to their environment and so why change? In fact it seems that every case of active mutation we observe, drug resistant bacteria, herbacide resistant plants, etc are the result of man's meddling with the balance.

Perhaps it takes a major event; comet strike, world-wide earthquakes, major climatic change to fire off a new round of selective proessures.

Or maybe we are just too tied up in our species-specific math of a 'human lifetime' to be able to see changes. There are species which are going to be impacted by global warming. Maybe polar bears will learn to breathe underwater?

Minimalist wrote:Or maybe we are just too tied up in our species-specific math of a 'human lifetime' to be able to see changes. There are species which are going to be impacted by global warming. Maybe polar bears will learn to breathe underwater?

Polar bears have already begun mating with grizzly bears. Offspring is seen frequently. If the Arctic ice disappeaers - so will the Polar bear, but the genes will still be available to re-emerge in the next Ice Age.

Forum Monk wrote:Here's another thought excerise. Perhaps it can be argued that all of life is an a state of equilibrium and thus very little selective pressure. For example consider the adage, if man evolved from monkeys then why do we still have monkeys? Of course, man did not descend from monkeys but the answer often stated is monkeys are well adapted to their environment and so why change? In fact it seems that every case of active mutation we observe, drug resistant bacteria, herbacide resistant plants, etc are the result of man's meddling with the balance.

Perhaps it takes a major event; comet strike, world-wide earthquakes, major climatic change to fire off a new round of selective proessures.

Consider this from one John Ball, an english preacher ca. 1300's

"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the better gentleman?"

Learned this at my mother's knee about 99 years ago.

What Ball was referring to was that human society - and by implication, culture - was having a very bad effect on the common people's ability to survive and prosper. Now, he was a hedge preacher and had an axe to grind, but nonetheless had an intuitive grasp, early on, as to the relative effects of genetic vs. cultural change. Genetics was not an issue. Culture was. I believe he was hanged, drawn and quartered for his impertinence.


john

Evolutionary Science Scores Another Coup.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007 ... 977716.htm

Speedy butterfly evolution astonishes scientists
Posted Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:34am AEST

A team of international researchers has found that butterflies on a South Pacific island quickly developed genetic defences when they faced extinction from a parasitic bacteria.

john wrote:Hmmm..........

Sharks, alligators, cockroaches.

I'll add jellyfish, and trilobites.

(and Keith Richards).

Let's not forget cycads, horsetails and ferns.

Minimalist wrote:Evolutionary Science Scores Another Coup.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007 ... 977716.htm

Speedy butterfly evolution astonishes scientists
Posted Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:34am AEST

A team of international researchers has found that butterflies on a South Pacific island quickly developed genetic defences when they faced extinction from a parasitic bacteria.

So...a population of butterflies turn into ... well ... butterflies.

"Live" butterflies.