Unbelievable evolution

[wacki]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

I've done a lot of work with radiation and microbes so I have seen radiation resistance occuring with bacteria. But that on happens after a few billion "lambs fall to the slaughter" of the radiation lamp. But the fact that this article seems to be stating radiation resistance happens in 1 generation in relatively large mammals simply baffles me.

"We marked animals then recaptured them again much later," he says.

"And we found they lived as long as animals in relatively clean areas."

The next step was to take these other mice and put them in an enclosure in the Red Forest.

"They felt not very well," Sergey says.

"The distinction between the local and newcomer animals was very evident."

If this means what I think it means, I literally can't believe this.

[luckyme]

You're the expert, but it seems you're seeing more in that story than I can dig out, and I'm a supporter of the concept.. "if they didn't want us to read between the lines, why did the put the lines there."

not claiming you're wrong, though

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

Life will survive. This helps with the problem of emergence a bit, in my mind. While astounded at the amazing capacities of life, I am less amazed than i should be at one more example of it.

[cambraceres]

This is rather suprising, do you know if Oklo is showing similar signs, or rather if it did near the time of the radioactive incident there? I suppose this would be evident from the fossil record, but I'm unsure of the details there.

Cambraceres

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
The next step was to take these other mice and put them in an enclosure in the Red Forest.

"They felt not very well," Sergey says.

"The distinction between the local and newcomer animals was very evident."

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing out of the ordinary needs to take place for those types of effects to be observed.

If you learn a new language at age 30, you will probably have an accent. If your kids grow up in a new country, they probably won't. That's not evolution in a generation.

What this article suggests to me is that animals may have a latent ability to deal with higher levels of radiation.

[Doctaprofit]

contrary to popular belief, natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution) can happen rather quickly...the humans of today are unrecognizable from their counterparts of even a few hundred years (dare i say less)

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
contrary to popular belief, natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution) can happen rather quickly...the humans of today are unrecognizable from their counterparts of even a few hundred years (dare i say less)

[/ QUOTE ]

Unrecognizable? I think thats quite a stretch.

I also would like some support that any differences (average height, longevity, morbidity) are genetic vs environmental before I atrributed any of it to natural selection.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
the humans of today are unrecognizable from their counterparts of even a few hundred years (dare i say less)

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Rduke55]

I think we're seeing animals adapting to the environment rather than selection. In this case of course the new animals aren't able to cope as well.
I think of it as the clean animals aren't "tan" and can't take as much "sunlight".

Also, the radiation levels are relatively low aren't they?
And I think this quote suggests the reason we're seeing more animals there:

[ QUOTE ]
There may be plutonium in the zone, but there is no herbicide or pesticide, no industry, no traffic, and marshlands are no longer being drained.

[/ QUOTE ]

And:

[ QUOTE ]
Now it's typical for animals to be radioactive - too radioactive for humans to eat safely - but otherwise healthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
contrary to popular belief, natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution) can happen rather quickly...the humans of today are unrecognizable from their counterparts of even a few hundred years (dare i say less)

[/ QUOTE ]

Q2. What is the best example of two internally recognizable and mutually unrecognizable humans where the first developed into the second in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of unrecognizable humans from hundreds of years ago?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

Q3. What is a causally sufficient explanation of the above in terms of observed natural phenomena?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Q2. What is the best example of two internally recognizable and mutually unrecognizable humans where the first developed into the second in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of unrecognizable humans from hundreds of years ago?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

Q3. What is a causally sufficient explanation of the above in terms of observed natural phenomena?

[/ QUOTE ]


Awesome

[wacki]

Rduke55:

Those quotes still don't explain why animals outside the zone, that are only 1 generation apart, show significant differences in tolerances. I see nothing contradictory in that statement.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Those quotes still don't explain why animals outside the zone, that are only 1 generation apart, show significant differences in tolerances.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps as an animal develops, its body decides how much energy to spend on resistance to radiation based on the ambient radiation level. Animals that grow up in the zone have a little less energy for other things, but show few ill effects when exposed to radiation. Animals that do not grow up in the zone are more sensitive to radiation sickness. These are possible with no genetic differences.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q2. What is the best example of two internally recognizable and mutually unrecognizable humans where the first developed into the second in a manner that can be extrapolated to the creation of unrecognizable humans from hundreds of years ago?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

Q3. What is a causally sufficient explanation of the above in terms of observed natural phenomena?

[/ QUOTE ]


Awesome

[/ QUOTE ]
Ad hominem all the time from you. Can you answer my question?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps as an animal develops, its body decides how much energy to spend on resistance to radiation based on the ambient radiation level. Animals that grow up in the zone have a little less energy for other things, but show few ill effects when exposed to radiation. Animals that do not grow up in the zone are more sensitive to radiation sickness. These are possible with no genetic differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very possible and seems likely. Still, radiation resistence is normally governed by whether or not you have a gene to repair genomic damage. It's an either or situation. Acquired immunity to disease normally comes from the production of anitbodies. Those can be built up over time. Those are two completely different situations.

[Exsubmariner]

I don't know what research you do, wacki, but I have a little, just a tiny bit, of expertise concerning radiation as I work with particle physics all the time.

Three things can happen to a strand of DNA in a human cell struck by radiation of whatever energy or makeup.

1. The cell will die. The DNA will be so damaged that the cells stop functioning and as a result, simply perish.

2. The cell will mutate. The damaged DNA will be alterered just enough to change the function of the cell slightly. These cells will then reproduce other cells which function in the same way as the parent cell. These cells often become tumors.

3. The cell is not damaged enough to change it's function and continues to operate as normal and reproduces slightly damaged but normal functioning cells.

Of course, the lower the dose rate and the longer the time, the organism has a greater chance to heal itself and continue to function normally. An example is in airline pilots, who travel to the upper reaches of the atmosphere regularly and are exposed to more cosmic radiation as a result. Curiously, there is a higher incident of female offspring with airline pilots than with the average population, but that is an aside.

I guess that what I am trying to get across is that if a member of a species possesses DNA which, for some reason, is more likely to keep functioning after it has been damaged by radiation, than that animal will continue to function and will reproduce offspring with the same resistant DNA and change the species to be more tolerant to radiation.

You can nuke the surface of the planet to a level that nothing could survive. Life would crawl back out of the seas. A few minor nuclear accidents have virtually no chance at impacting life on the planet significantly. To think that human beings are such a force of nature to be able to accomplish the incredible feat of killing the Earth is hubris.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
To think that human beings are such a force of nature to be able to accomplish the incredible feat of killing the Earth is hubris

[/ QUOTE ]

I am off topic, but I hope so, Exsubmariner. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Dr. Strangelove]

This doesn't sound like hubris, more like positive delusion.

[tolbiny]

"And in general, she notes, scientists study populations as a whole, and are not that interested in what happens to particular individuals."

What it seems to me is that you started with a blank slate for these animals. When the mice moved in, those that already had a mutation allowing for radiation resistance had only to find food as there were no predators around. The limits on their population growth were essentially non existant and mice reproduce in large litters several times a yar. By the time they get 3 + generations their population has had a chance to boom and now any predators of mice have a virtually unlimited food supply provided that they can stand the radiation. Again they get a short boom untill their population is sufficient to support predators. Larger animals like the elk who reproduce much slower don't spend their entire lives in the zone so thier resistance levels required are lower (stolen straight from the article).
I don't know a heck of a lot about nuclear fallout, but i assume that the surrounding areas gradually delcine in radiation levels. So the areas that the mice/boars and elk moved in from probably had varying levels of radiation which wouldn't have been high enough to kill all animals but would have been to give those with resistance genes a large reproductive edge.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Rduke55:

Those quotes still don't explain why animals outside the zone, that are only 1 generation apart, show significant differences in tolerances. I see nothing contradictory in that statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think tolerance has something to do with it. There are lots of examples of animals that tolerate "lethal" doses of compounds, that their conspecifics cannot tolerate, because of gradual increases in exposure during their development.

And I don't see why selection could not happen this quickly. I'm thinking of the moths and soot story from England (granted not one generation but still...).

[tolbiny]

Edit:
never mind i titally misread a few key words.