Evolutionary Patterns

T

TATABox

Registered Senior Member
Along the same lines as Halo's question previously, I ask, what would be selections against or selections for in today's enviornment? In a day of increasing populations, global warming, polution and so forth, what permutations might come out, things we may see in the future? Kind of a silly creative question, but only as it pertains to humans. For example, greater ciliated throats keeping pollution out, or increase in skin pigmentation b/c of sun rays etc..
 
Last edited:
Corals would likely die out (not nice but it wont be destabalizing on the global scale) leaving shallow waters with an algae and mollusc dominated ecosystem. Fast growing seagrasses, kelps, and algaes would be promoted along with whatever would eat them. Bivalves would take up the role of filtering the water.
Perhaps reefs of oyster analogues?

On land the weather would be more erratic, having more extreme wet and dry seasons. Plants would either be short lived, be generalists, or go into a dormancy period.

Grasses, herbs, and softwoods would excel. Many hardwoods, especially Pines, would be inferior. Some tough trees like the baobob or eucalyptus would do quite well.
 
reply to clock

why do you think coral would die out? what makes you think that all species of coral would be affected the same way? why would algae and molluscs dominate without corals? You said, "Bivalves would take up the role of filtering the water," but they already have that role.

This statement, "Plants would either be short lived, be generalists, or go into a dormancy period," is just ridiculous.

You say, "Many hardwoods, especially Pines," pine is a soft wood. That being said, why would hardwoods do less well?

You've made some sweepng ecological predictions based on nothing.
 
to above

It was an open ended question that was supposed to evoke some thought on what human beings may look like in the future based on our current environmental problems etc....polution
 
Cough

Originally posted by paulsamuel
why do you think coral would die out? what makes you think that all species of coral would be affected the same way? why would algae and molluscs dominate without corals? You said, "Bivalves would take up the role of filtering the water," but they already have that role.

This statement, "Plants would either be short lived, be generalists, or go into a dormancy period," is just ridiculous.

You say, "Many hardwoods, especially Pines," pine is a soft wood. That being said, why would hardwoods do less well?

You've made some sweepng ecological predictions based on nothing.
Click to expand...

In the construct named Biosphere 2 (now used for ecological research) they experimented by changing the interior conditions to how things are projected to be in a few hundred years. Sure enough, the majority of corals died out and never regrew. Algae blanketed the bottom of their artificial sea and was eaten by a few varieties of hardy fish. Clams and barnacles covered protruding rocks. It became stable, but very different.

As for my remarks on plants I have evidence for that as well. Quick growing plants can complete their entire life cycle in less than a season and are thus largely immune to seasonal changes. THey also are not as susceptable to damage by humans. Things like hardwood trees can be killed by extreme droughts and waterlogging (more pronounced in a warmer world) As for pines THEY JUST DONT LIKE WARM WEATHER!!!
 
reply to clockwood

research out of biosphere is crap. no controls, no replications. peer reviewed journals won't even publish the data.

some corals will be affected, most will not. most species in the genus Acropora will probably do quite well. soft corals will probably be not affected at all.

in a real coral reef environment, algae cannot grow faster than the fish eat them. there is literally hundreds of published studies that show this, biosphere data notwithstanding.

you said, "Quick growing plants can complete their entire life cycle in less than a season and are thus largely immune to seasonal changes. THey also are not as susceptable to damage by humans." this is just plain wrong. example, a lot in an urban area dominated by quick growing plants that complete their life cycle in a single season (i'm assuming you mean annuals), humans pave the lot and put up a building. this will preclude any plant growth regardless of life cycle.

hardwoods are LESS susceptible to droughts and floods. major climatic changes can take decades to affect the longlived plants. in the sahara desert there are still tropical wet forest plants. they are not reproducing, but they still produce seeds and if the climate changes back, they will recover.

there are florida scrub pines that do quite well in warm weather.

you need some ecological education. their are many good text books out there.
 
THe biosphere project was originally crap, then the nut who built it started leasing out project time to various scientific foundations.

I have a question for you. Things eat coral. Things eat algae. Why does coral grow faster than fish eat it (and thus get a chance to produce reefs) but algae cant?

In the cretacious era coral did not exist yet. Instead a shell building relative of the squid build reefs. During the carboniferous sponges and algae made reefs. In the cambrien, guess what, algal mats covered much of the sea floor.

About your coment about paving, quick growing plants do well enough. Cracks sprout with weeds, lawns grow dandelions, cudsew goes berserk in pastureland. Remember, humans as we are now would go mad if we never saw a blade of grass. There will always be highway dividers and strips for dogs to poo on for as long as there are cars and dogs.

Humans activly seek out hardwoods for its lumber. Softwoods we hardly give a $@^$ about. We just had a drought here in nebraska a bit back and my ash tree just about died. At the same time some ornimental bamboo withered and then sprung back at the first rain. My ash is still very sick. The same ash almost died 5 years ago when he had persistent rains.
 
reply

try these:

This is an excellent book.
The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs
edited by P. F. Sale (1991). Academic Press, Inc.; San Diego, CA. 447pp. Great compilation by most of the major researchers in coral reef fish ecology. Written for those with some science background; especially those who plan to work in the field.

This is a good reference text:
Coral Reef EcologyÊ
Yuri I. Sorokin

Format: Paperback,Ê2nd ed.,Ê480pp.
ISBN: 3540605320
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, Incorporated
Pub. Date: DecemberÊ 1995
Edition Desc: 1st ed

good luck
 
As we has seen there is a problem of childhood asthma that is effecting the population. This is a direct result of a need to have a more developed or differently structured lung at birth. We may see this change in the future.
Also I believe that because of the information age, amount, speed and need we will see a shorter period of time in which our young with live with the parents, hence we may be actually evolving backwards in some areas.
Our stomachs with shink as there will be less and less truely organ safe food to comsume, we will learn to feed more effieciently to fuel our bodies, some are already doing this.
 
Corals can and do grow very quickly, and prove rather hearty. My dad breeds coral in his living room aquarium at home, and it takes little more than a few summers to develop one piece of live rock. Truth be told, from what I've seen, Coral doesn't die unless the enviornment drastically changes. Examples are a new animal species in the area which loves to eat that particular coral, or something major like an oil spil. The corals my dad has bread (and I admit I don't know much about what he does, I'm sorry) survive water temperature changes as much as 10 degrees without a problem. In truth, I do not think that coral is going to give a hoot about Global Warming.
 
At the same time the hard corals in the gigantic aquarium here in nebraska Henry Doorly Zoo keep croaking. Must be hard keeping the conditions homogenous in large tanks.

You know that if anything even brushes the surface of a hard coral big streaks just die. The Same happens if silt lands on it in any quantity.
 
Actually, it wouldn't be so hard to keep hard corals in a larger tank. The issue is expense. Aquariums try so hard to keep their costs down, and to be honest the majority of those I have seen do not pay good attention to water quality. Sea World of Texas for example, has lost two Killer Whales this summer due to water quality. Marine Mammal Rescue in Galveston Texas not only does not pay attention to water quality, but actually uses CHLORINE in it's dolphin tanks. It takes good money, and real attention to detail to keep a marine system balanced. It's effort that many people simply don't give.
 
they do not give the effort because some are so busy making money and spending it on consumer goods to make themselves feel that they are something other than just mammals, others are to busy working because they are only trying to provide for the family of chridren that are taught in school to be mass consumers. Our main concern should be to maintain our living space here on earth, not how to rip it up and pile garbage on it.
Now can we get off of coral!
 
Unless we really screw up the environment human evolution will most likely not involve any morphological changes.

Mental characteristics that are likely to be selected may include stuff like fear of crowds. I'm not sure what else ... I can think of pros and cons for many. And I was initially thinking it might be easy to name a bunch.

Since we are coming up with treatments, both pharmacuetical and behavioral, to deal with many genetic diseases we are decreasing selection against them. This will transiently increase the frequency of these alleles in the populace, which I believe counts as selecting for them. A bit strange, but it's happening. We may begin to run into new diseases that result in complex interactions between these ... new work for doctors of the future!
 
Well it was just a side thought, but metabolism is a complex network of biochemical pathways where a certain homeostasis must be maintained.

Many genetic diseases are a result of missing key players in regulating this homeostastis or breaking down toxic byproducts. If you can balance one sub part of the network in an otherwise self-correcting system that's one thing. When the other components can't self correct anymore it'll take much more extreme efforts to balance the broken parts if they're closely connected.
 
Everyone's actions shape evolution. The mighty god is the living man. We think about the future and try to shape it. No animal really does that. They mainly react.

We've attempted to shape the environment to our liking ... not that it'll last unless we recognize how to find a compromise between what the world wants to be by its nature and what we want it to be by ours.
 
Would hairy people be less susceptible to skin cancer? Would they end up breeding more successfully as a result?

What about something like eye colour? Any advantages for one colour over another?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top