NationStates Jolt Archive

ABC News reports that scientists are bringing the past to life by hatching eggs once thought to be dead and producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago. They are calling it 'resurrection ecology,' and it's a whole new field that quite literally allows scientists to observe evolution as it occurred, using animals that were quite different than their kinfolk today.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=666435&page=1

***

Article:

Scientist Urges Dormant Eggs to Life to Test Evolution

Apr. 14, 2005 - Scientists are bringing the past to life by hatching eggs once thought to be dead and producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago.

They are calling it "resurrection ecology," and it's a whole new field that quite literally allows scientists to observe evolution as it occurred, using animals that were quite different than their kinfolk today.

And who do they have to think for it all? Alice in Wonderland.

Alice, as we all know, had a pretty difficult life in Lewis Carroll's yarn. In one scene she complained to the queen that she didn't seem to be getting anywhere even though she was running as hard as she could.

She was admonished that resting on her laurels was not an option. "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place," the queen told her.

Change or Die

In 1973, biologist Leigh Van Valen of the University of Chicago picked up on that theme and postulated that in nature, it's not enough to tread water. One must constantly evolve to keep abreast, or ahead, of predators.

That became known as the Red Queen Hypothesis, suggesting that change is not only good, it's essential because without it, organisms will perish. You've got to stay ahead of the competition.

For decades now, scientists have tried to either prove, or disprove, Valen's argument. And now, at least one group thinks it has succeeded.

"We are confirming the Red Queen Hypothesis," says biologist W. Charles Kerfoot of Michigan Technological University, who has spent years now chasing Alice to see if she really did have to keep running just to stay in place. He is one of several authors who took over a recent issue of the journal Limnology and Oceanography, reporting widespread results in the search for "resting eggs" that are dormant, but still alive.

Kerfoot found his answer in the murky waters beneath an inland lake on Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Portage Lake has gone through many changes over the past century. Copper mines flooded the lake with debris. Dredging changed its nature considerably. And more recently, the waters have been depleted of oxygen through the growth of algae, a process called eutrophication.

Kerfoot began collecting cores from the sediments beneath the lake a few years ago because of something he had learned in Germany. He had been invited there, along with several other researchers, by the Max-Planck Institute to study lakes that had not recovered fully from pollution, even though the quality of the water had been restored.

Dredging Ancient Eggs

Of particular concern was the absence of plankton, those tiny animals that are at the bottom of the food chain and so critical to so many other organisms. It was while combing through sediments from that lake that Kerfoot and his colleagues made a remarkable discovery.

They found that eggs that had been trapped beneath the sediment years ago had never hatched, but miraculously, were still alive.

A little incubation and bingo, the eggs hatched into animals not as they appear today, but long ago when the eggs were first deposited on the floor of the lake. How they survived all that time is a great mystery.

"My friends in genetics would really like to know how in blazes they did that," Kerfoot says.

Biologist Nelson Hairston, a member of the Max-Planck team, was among the first to describe the finding several years ago.

After returning to the States, Kerfoot turned his attention to Portage Lake. The history of the lake had been so well documented that he knew it would be possible to come up with precise dates for whatever he might find there.

Kerfoot and geneticist Lawrence J. Weider, formerly of Max-Planck and now of the University of Oklahoma, found layers of eggs dating back nearly a century that were clearly alive. These aren't man-eating dinosaurs, but they were living specimens from a time that is now past.

The eggs had been deposited by a tiny shrimp-like animal in the zooplankton family known as Daphnia retrocurva. These critters live in the cool waters of the lake for only one summer, and then die out, leaving their eggs behind to begin the process anew the next spring.

Bigger Helmet Heads Dissuade Predators

The scientists exposed the eggs to sunlight and warmth, about what they would expect in the spring, and the eggs hatched. As they grew to maturity in tightly controlled experiments, they changed over the years, particularly in the length of their spines and the size of their helmets.

By examining the fossil record, the researchers found that fish that prey on the small animals also changed significantly over the years, at least in terms of abundance.

About 80 years ago, when the predators were all over the place, the Daphnia retrocurva extended the size of its helmet and spines to make itself less appetizing. Later, when the number of predators shrank, the animal reduced the size of those features, thus conserving its energy for other uses.

The researchers had hit pay dirt. The changes in Daphnia retrocurva were precisely what would have been expected as part of the predator-prey interaction.

Furthermore, DNA analysis shows that the changes were passed on genetically from one generation to the next, until they were no longer needed, thus confirming that the researchers had caught evolution in the act. Lee Dye's column appears weekly on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer for the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.

***

So what do you think the effect will be on the evolution debate? I believe it proves without a doubt mutation occurs much more faster then most ordinary people realize.

In 80 years the plakton had adapted itself to living in a polluted lake.

Best of all, no one can refute the evidence!

Take that, creationalists. :sniper:

heh....a few days ago someone posted something along the lines of "show me evolution happening or i wont believe it" (they also said something like "prove God exists or i wont believe creationism"), so i guess thats showing evolution happening

Clearly God put those eggs there last week to test your faith. It's absurd to think that eggs marinating in pollution at the bottom of a lake for 80 to 100 years can simply come back to life. Just another foolish misinterpretation of the facts by atheist evolutionists.

*Pokes DCR's comment with a stick* Is that sarcasm or a heartfelt statement? I can't tell.

*Pokes DCR's comment with a stick* Is that sarcasm or a heartfelt statement? I can't tell.
I was channeling Jesussaves for a minute.

Ah I see. Speaking of that person, was he banned sometime ago? I seem to remember a bit of a ruckus regarding him.

And on-topic, the article does seem to be quite interesting. Evolution certainly seems to have taken less time than I thought.

But wait, evolution is based on a per generation basis is it not? What would the average life cycle of these shrimp be? In the time between their original conception and now, would not hundreds if not thousands of generations have passed? Not disuputing the evolutionary case, but if we were to consider it in shrimp years (that sounds so wrong), what would the equivalent be in human years?

Maybe evolution wasn't as fast as I thought it was.

And on a side note. Stupid servers. A whole lot of errors nowadays.

Ah I see. Speaking of that person, was he banned sometime ago? I seem to remember a bit of a ruckus regarding him.
Drunk Commies was Jesussaves

Ah I see. Speaking of that person, was he banned sometime ago? I seem to remember a bit of a ruckus regarding him.

And on-topic, the article does seem to be quite interesting. Evolution certainly seems to have taken less time than I thought.

But wait, evolution is based on a per generation basis is it not? What would the average life cycle of these shrimp be? In the time between their original conception and now, would not hundreds if not thousands of generations have passed? Not disuputing the evolutionary case, but if we were to consider it in shrimp years (that sounds so wrong), what would the equivalent be in human years?

Maybe evolution wasn't as fast as I thought it was.

And on a side note. Stupid servers. A whole lot of errors nowadays.

It said the shrimps live for a single year, so about a 100 generations. The earliest humans lived over a million years ago (Homo Ergaster/Erectus- or possibly Homo Habilis depending on your opinion)

Drunk Commies was Jesussaves
I still am Jesussaves.

Hmm... that's very interesting. Again, another proof for evolution.

Btw, regarding Drunken Commies = Jesussaves, that's... pretty suprising. :eek:

isnt that natural selection rather than evolution?

more along the lines of the classic black/white moth example than the primitive rat becomes human example?

isnt that natural selection rather than evolution?

more along the lines of the classic black/white moth example than the primitive rat becomes human example?
Natural selection IS evolution.

No, it's not natural selection, natural selection would imply that both big-helmeted and small-helmeted Daphnia existed at all times, and that the numbers of each were dictated by the environment. What the article says is that they had the big helmets and spine, and then they didn't need them, so those genetic freaks which had /smaller/ ones actually had an advantage - they were more energy efficient. So their mutated genetic code was passed on more to the next generation, and after a while, became normal.

-- and as someone asked, if a daphnia generation is one year, a human generation is around 25. So this change took place in the equivalent of the time since 500 BC. And now someone's going to jump in and say 'but humans looked the same 2500 years ago!'. I'm not disputing that -- I'd suggest that the advent of so-called sentience slowed human evolution down, because pretty much any specimin would survive to reproduce, and mutations remained abnormal. But that's a whole nother debate.

-- and as someone asked, if a daphnia generation is one year, a human generation is around 25. So this change took place in the equivalent of the time since 500 BC. And now someone's going to jump in and say 'but humans looked the same 2500 years ago!'. I'm not disputing that -- I'd suggest that the advent of so-called sentience slowed human evolution down, because pretty much any specimin would survive to reproduce, and mutations remained abnormal. But that's a whole nother debate.

Well I think we have gone through minor changes since then, I talked to a representitive from a glove making company in my middle school economics class, he said that each generation has a slightly larger average glove size, as has the height of the average human.

Well I think we have gone through minor changes since then, I talked to a representitive from a glove making company in my middle school economics class, he said that each generation has a slightly larger average glove size, as has the height of the average human.
That isn't evolution, that's proper nutrition.

-- and as someone asked, if a daphnia generation is one year, a human generation is around 25. So this change took place in the equivalent of the time since 500 BC. And now someone's going to jump in and say 'but humans looked the same 2500 years ago!'. I'm not disputing that -- I'd suggest that the advent of so-called sentience slowed human evolution down, because pretty much any specimin would survive to reproduce, and mutations remained abnormal. But that's a whole nother debate.

Actually, the sentience factor is extremely important in regards to evolution. Of practically every other living example we can see, most creatures adapted to their environments. Humans did this too. The most obvious examples are the skin color but that is something for another debate.

What is important to note is that with the advent of sentience, humans began adapting their environment to suit them rather than adapt to the environment. So as the environments are adapted to suit the human physique, less and less evolution is required in the gene pool.

This in itself raises a question.

Is humanity coming to an evolutionary dead end?

Now given the up or out policy that evolution/natural selection theory espouses, that being get ahead of the competition or die, it would seem that following either policy shows that coming to an evolutionary dead end is like running out of rail on a track and sitting in a train barreling down it at 400kp/h. Of course given the lack of natural predators, it might seem that humanity won't face that problem, but what if it manifests itself in a different way? Decreasing fertility rates and increasing effectiveness of diseases against our immune systems (or in reverse, reduced effectiveness of an immune system to disease), could be possible effects of decreased evolutionary speed.

i.e. humanity can't keep up with the others, and is being outpaced by the fastest evolver of them all. Bacteria and viruses.

I'd write more about this, but its late and I'm not thinking too clearly.

So what do you think the effect will be on the evolution debate? I believe it proves without a doubt mutation occurs much more faster then most ordinary people realize.

Actually, it does nothing of the sort, which you would understand if you were paying attention. It does show that a change in the environment can make certain trait go from being rare (but already existing) to being commonplace in a very short amount of time, but we already knew that from the famous peppered moth example. It doesn't prove anything about mutation because no actual mutation took place.

In 80 years the plakton had adapted itself to living in a polluted lake.

Best of all, no one can refute the evidence!

Refute the evidence of what? That spiedes vary over time due to changes in their environment? Nobody's disputing that. However, it fails to prove that an entirely new species can arise from this form of natural selection.

Take that, creationalists. :sniper:

Took it. Anything more to add? Better yet, please go back to school some more.

Refute the evidence of what? That spiedes vary over time due to changes in their environment? Nobody's disputing that. However, it fails to prove that an entirely new species can arise from this form of natural selection.

There are known cases where entire new species arose within recent times. Of course, Creationists will still talk about that "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" nonsense (and continously insist the latter one would be impossible), 'cause they haven't realized that it's prettymuch all the same.

Clearly God put those eggs there last week to test your faith. It's absurd to think that eggs marinating in pollution at the bottom of a lake for 80 to 100 years can simply come back to life. Just another foolish misinterpretation of the facts by atheist evolutionists.

Now, now Drunk commies reborn don't tempt fate. If you insult those atheist evolutionists they may put you in a large petri dish and put you in the bottom of a very deep lake to see if Drunk commies evolve. ;)

Took it. Anything more to add?

Yes.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411693

I haven't noticed you making an appearance there yet. Feel free to do so.

Better yet, please go back to school some more.

As you appear to be a creationist let me offer some advice. You may want to hold off on denigrating other people's understanding of this particular subject.

Originally from the article
They found that eggs that had been trapped beneath the sediment years ago had never hatched, but miraculously, were still alive.

A little incubation and bingo, the eggs hatched into animals not as they appear today, but long ago when the eggs were first deposited on the floor of the lake. How they survived all that time is a great mystery.

"My friends in genetics would really like to know how in blazes they did that," Kerfoot says.
Pardon my skepticism, but I find this a little amusing.

Scientists are using a "miracle" to prove evolution? This whole idea of eggs being dormant, yet still alive for one hundred years is not a scientifically sound idea, is it? Yet these scientists would rather accept something that science does not support and deem it as a miracle in order to try to prove that another theory is true? Surely not. Why would a scientists, particularly one who believes that the only way we know anything is through science, accept something like this? I find the simple acceptance that these eggs are as old as the scientists claim a bit presumptuous. What do you do when science seems to conflict? The answer cannot simply be to accept one to be true and just deem it a miracle.

Originally posted by Nikoko
Best of all, no one can refute the evidence!
Easy. You refuse to accept this 'miracle,' thus invalidating the findings as being reflections of evolution, while still maintaining a hold to the principle that an egg does not survive for so long in nature.

Originally posted by Wisjersey
Of course, Creationists will still talk about that "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" nonsense (and continously insist the latter one would be impossible), 'cause they haven't realized that it's prettymuch all the same.
Maybe this is a better explanation . . .

Macroevolution: the development of a new species
Microevolution: the development of a subspecies (golden retriever, doberman pincers, sphynx, etc.)

Macroevolution: the development of a new species
Microevolution: the development of a subspecies (golden retriever, doberman pincers, sphynx, etc.)

*shrug*

I guess it's something along those lines, yeah. In any case, Creationists insist that the macroevolution would be impossible (because it doesn't fit into their view of the world) - even though the phenomenon is real and has been observed. :(

*shrug*

I guess it's something along those lines, yeah. In any case, Creationists insist that the macroevolution would be impossible (because it doesn't fit into their view of the world) - even though the phenomenon is real and has been observed. :(

I'd like to see proof of that.

I'd like to see proof of that.

Ask, and you shall receive... the talk.origins "Observed Instances Of Speciation"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Enjoy.

This is more about faith in one over the other, as the underlying and key principle of both faiths: God, and the "first cell" are impossible to represent factually. The first cell being of course the cell that was made of essentially nothing at the beginning of life in the universe, and God being that fellow in the sky that created everything with magic. I'm being facetious on the latter note of course, but you get the idea.

I'd like to see proof of that.

I was going to mention it has been observed in polychaete worms, but i just see it's also mentioned on that page provided by Reformentia (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) . So yeah, enjoy. :D

This is more about faith in one over the other, as the underlying and key principle of both faiths: God, and the "first cell" are impossible to represent factually. The first cell being of course the cell that was made of essentially nothing at the beginning of life in the universe, and God being that fellow in the sky that created everything with magic. I'm being facetious on the latter note of course, but you get the idea.

What are you talking about? That "first cell" has very little to do with faith, it's simply that evidence hints at the existence of once common ancestor of all lifeforms. It's only logical to assume that it really was that way.
And that cell was not "essentially nothing", it could easily have formed from lifeless matter over a sufficiently long time span.
Why would God create species and make them extinct in chronological order like they are found in strata? And why would he give them DNA so that the fits exactly into the same pattern that points at a (in that case non-existent) common ancestor. I don't see why God would use such awkward methods. Therefore, life must have evolved.

There was no first cell, there was replicating R.N.A. which was basically a runaway chemical reaction, if I remember correctly. Any more familiar with that theory then me?

Yes.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411693

I haven't noticed you making an appearance there yet. Feel free to do so.

Except I'm somewhat agnostic when it comes to the whole creation/evolution debate, so I'm not particularly interested in taking sides there. I'll leave the "angels on a pin" debates to you people who have more time on your hands than I.

As you appear to be a creationist let me offer some advice. You may want to hold off on denigrating other people's understanding of this particular subject.

Well, I am a creationist in the broadest sense, and not in the sense you're apparently thinking. I believe in the God of the Bible, and I believe that He created the universe. However, I'm still open as to the exact mechanism He used.

I wasn't taking him to task for being an evolutionist. I was taking him to task for showing poor scientific understanding and using shoddy logic.

What are you talking about? That "first cell" has very little to do with faith, it's simply that evidence hints at the existence of once common ancestor of all lifeforms. It's only logical to assume that it really was that way.
And that cell was not "essentially nothing", it could easily have formed from lifeless matter over a sufficiently long time span.
Why would God create species and make them extinct in chronological order like they are found in strata? And why would he give them DNA so that the fits exactly into the same pattern that points at a (in that case non-existent) common ancestor. I don't see why God would use such awkward methods. Therefore, life must have evolved.

The DNA argument is a "false dilemma" logical fallacy. It might indicate a common ancestor. Or it might indicate a common Designer. It really proves nothing.

The strata argument is one to which I have yet to see ex nihilo creationists come up with a good counter, though.

The DNA argument is a "false dilemma" logical fallacy. It might indicate a common ancestor. Or it might indicate a common Designer.

Ok... now I'm going to have to direct you (again) to that other thread I previously linked you to.

If you believe that the specific evidence presented there can be the work of a common designer and NOT the result of common ancestry please explain how you reach that conclusion in at least some detail.

The DNA argument is a "false dilemma" logical fallacy. It might indicate a common ancestor. Or it might indicate a common Designer. It really proves nothing.

The strata argument is one to which I have yet to see ex nihilo creationists come up with a good counter, though.

Why is the DNA argument a 'false dilemma', as you call it? It's a wonderful method of finally verifying (and sometimes falsifying) the claims biologists and paleontologists have made over relationships of lifeforms based on morphological features. Why does it prove nothing?

Imagine the following situation: You ask somebody about witnessing some event. Because you don't trust him, you could go ahead and ask somebody else and he tells you he witnessed exactly the same. If both people (or more people) tell you the same, it's only logical to assume it really happened that way. It's very idiotic to go ahead in that case and say "This proves nothing." But - in the context of evolution - this is what Creationists do. :headbang:

If DNA evidence would point at multiple ancestors, then the common ancestor hypothesis would be wrong. In that case, i'd be willing to accept that the existence of a designer would be a possibility. However, that does not seem to be the case.