How do you even measure the speed of thought?
And who cares what chickens think?
11–20 of 20 posts
How do you even measure the speed of thought?
And who cares what chickens think?
A new study of chickens overturns the popular assumption that evolution is only visible over long time scales. And yet the popular assumption remains the same, because it is the ignorance of the general public that perpetuates it and not the lack of research. The solution: stop calling it popular assumption and start treating it as fact, journalists.
I've read your comment three times and I still have no idea what it's supposed to say.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10462246
What are the implications for dates obtained with mitochondrial DNA? I suppose the answer for anything beyond chickens or maybe other birds is "More research needed".
A new study of chickens overturns the popular assumption that evolution is only visible over long time scales. And yet the popular assumption remains the same, because it is the ignorance of the general public that perpetuates it and not the lack of research. The solution: stop calling it popular assumption and start treating it as fact, journalists.
I've read your comment three times and I still have no idea what it's supposed to say.
So, this one study doesn't tell us much new about the speed of evolution (because we already knew), and there's no reason to think this study will do any more to correct common misconceptions than previous science.
I never really understand the view that evolution can only happen over long timescales. From a theoretical perspective, natural selection can obviously have a huge effect over a single generation. Imagine that the ability to swim was an extremely heritable, genetically determined trait. A flood on an island could select for the swimming gene in about 30 minutes.
In general selection propagates a variant exponentially fast based on the reproductive advantage it confers. If you make 1000 progeny and I make 1001, my reproductive advantage is 1.001 - every generation the frequency of my variant relative to yours goes up by this factor. If I start at frequency f and my advantage is s, it will take n=ln(1/f)/ln(s) generations to fix (approximately). For the example above with f=1%, this gives about 4607 generations.
There are other factors, notably population size. For a population of size N, the initial f will be 1/N. If N is small, f will be larger and selection will take less time. On the other hand, in a small population, genetic drift is stronger, and weakly selected variants are more likely to be eliminated by drift before they can fix.
I never really understand the view that evolution can only happen over long timescales. From a theoretical perspective, natural selection can obviously have a huge effect over a single generation. Imagine that the ability to swim was an extremely heritable, genetically determined trait. A flood on an island could select for the swimming gene in about 30 minutes.
Your example is one of pretty fast restriction of traits: The trait of not being able to swim pretty quickly disappeared. However, how long did it take for the ability to swim to be present in the population in the first place? How long will it take for individuals to exist without the ability to swim after the event?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read your comment three times and I still have no idea what it's supposed to say.
It's been known for a long time that much of evolution happens in spurts. When the environment is fairly stable evolution is a slow refinement toward local maxima. When the environment changes there's much more selection pressure and evolution happens much more quickly. So, this one study doesn't tell us much new about the speed of evolution (because we already knew), and there's no reason to think this study will do…