How about 20 generations over an 8 year time frame!?

When Evolution Is Not So Slow And Gradual
ScienceDaily (June 3, 2009)
Adapted from materials provided by University of Chicago Press Journals.








Tags: evolution, fish, science

Views: 14

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yep, really really real, for real this time. :P
Huh... Nice add; thanks Doone!
Does anyone know if the guppies evolved enough to be considered new species? Or was it just the change in reproductive habits?

Not that changing reproductive habits isn't evolution. Just that some would argue (not me) that a change in reproductive habits is "microevolution" (*shudder) or "just an adaptation, but not evolution" (*grrrrr).

As an does one mark a guppy and then find it again? Radioactive isotopes, perhaps?
Yea, I thought about noting that creationists will just say its "micro-evolution," but left it out.

I wondered the same thing... Could the two still cross breed? If they can't, then the "micro" claim couldn't be used. If they can, then it would be interesting to see how many generations it takes for natural selection to re-establish the entire population being the ones producing more eggs.
There is no defined species line. Even interbreeding isn't a great metric... are breeds of dogs different species? A male mastiff can't breed with a chihuahua successfully. Lions and tigers can create tigons and ligers, and those aren't always sterile. What about bird species such as various Galapagos finches that simply don't interbreed, even if they are genetically capable of it? Don't fall for the creationist line falsely differentiating micro- from macro-evolution. There is no hard and fast line between species, there is no line they can point to where they stop "believing" in evolution.
This is a good point, though I've found it difficult to explain to those who do not understand evolution.

Also, as Napoleon Dynamite said: "Ligers are pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic."
Yea, I cringe at the thought of throwing in micro/macro because they aren't real scientific terms; but it is a battle we often have to fight (so I throw it in sometimes as a preemptive strike).

Also you're right (and others that posted) on the speciation technicalities; I just threw out the first two hypotheses that popped into my head. For speciation, Nelson's comment seems most pertinent; that its not a matter of if they can crossbreed, but do they crossbreed.
Bedazzled guppy collars? Permanent marker? Iris recognition / fin printing? Painstaking individual training whereby each guppy learns to respond to its name when called?

If I were a scientist, those are the possibilities I'd consider.
You um.
Well how about that, I can't come up with anything else.
Nicely played, ma'am.
A tight tat! Of course!
I know what makes 2 species different species...I was just wondering if that had happened. Jeez. j/k ;-)

I just read in a book that this definition breaks down a bit with different species arranged in a circle around a barrier. For instance; A, B, C, D, E are found around a lake. A&B can interbreed, as can B&C as well as C&D. But A&C or A&D cannot. But this case doesn't really involve that so I'm not sure why I'm writing all this. Just interesting, I guess.

I suppose a radioactive isotope would be a bit much for such a small fish. Unless someone else finds otherwise, I'll go with your tattoo idea to set my mind at ease.
I'm sticking with bedazzled guppy collars, but I guess that's why I'm not the scientist.



Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me


Free at last


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service