"Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish

[Whitney]

In the 1950s, Lake Washington, an inland lake that parallels Washington State's Pacific Coast, took on 20 million gallons (76 million liters) of phosphorous-laden sewage a day (see Washington State map).

By the 1960s it had become a 300,000-acre (121,400-hectare) cesspool.

Then an unprecedented U.S.-$140-million cleanup in the mid-1960s transformed the lake into the pristine boaters' paradise that it is today.

But the lake's recovery put at least one species in a pickle: the three-spine stickleback.

The small fish, formerly hidden in the murky depths, found itself swimming in plain view of predators like cutthroat trout.

Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into rapid evolution toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.

Today's Lake Washington sticklebacks are a throwback to their ancestors, which grew armored plates as a defense, according to Katie Peichel, a biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

"We call it 'reverse evolution' because the sticklebacks are reverting to an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks, which originally founded the lake populations," she said.

Peichel is co-author of a new study on the sticklebacks that appears in the May 20 issue of the journal Current Biology.

full text --->  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

[myleviathan]

So any sticklebacks without the armor got eaten. Then the ones with the armor survived more easily and continued to breed. Is this basically how evolution works, at least on a micro level?

[joeactor]

So any sticklebacks without the armor got eaten. Then the ones with the armor survived more easily and continued to breed. Is this basically how evolution works, at least on a micro level?

Yeah, you're right.

I like the article, but have a problem with the term "reverse evolution"... it's just evolution.  Period.

"Reverse Evolution" would be some odd process where the animal that is least adapted to its environment thrives.  That just ain't gonna happen.

Heading off to breathe water,
JoeActor

[myleviathan]

Heading off to breathe water

That reminds me of the Toadies song "I Come from the Water". I love that song. On the top of my all time favorite song list. AND it's about evolution.

Here are the lyrics:

"I Come From The Water"

I come from the water
I crawled upon the shore
I left my brothers there
I got what I came for

I sucked that hot air in
And rolled upon the sand
Emerged beneath the sun
To be a man.

I come from the water
I come from the water
That weren't no easy thing
It's more than nature
It's like my destiny

I stood upon these legs
And held my head up high
Emerged beneath the sun
To start a new life

I Come From the water

Life in the desert
Just to be together
The sand forever
The same forever
It moves beneath me
It pulls my body
My pulse beats hotter
So far from the water

I love to see the sun
In spite of all it's done
I pray for shade and rain
I pray to live again
I come from the water

[Will]

Reverse evolution is creationists procreating.

[Asmodean]

So any sticklebacks without the armor got eaten. Then the ones with the armor survived more easily and continued to breed. Is this basically how evolution works, at least on a micro level?

Yeah, you're right.

I like the article, but have a problem with the term "reverse evolution"... it's just evolution.  Period.

"Reverse Evolution" would be some odd process where the animal that is least adapted to its environment thrives.  That just ain't gonna happen.

Heading off to breathe water,
JoeActor

Wouldn't reverse evolution mean the best adapted species "un-adapting" in order to thrive? The least adapted thriving would be more like reverse survival of the fittest?

All in all, I agree with you. It's not reverse-anything. It's just evolution.

[myleviathan]

Reverse evolution is creationists procreating.

That brings up an interesting question. Who will evolution favor? Theists or atheists?

[Will]

That brings up an interesting question. Who will evolution favor? Theists or atheists?

The honest answer to this question scares me.

[myleviathan]

That brings up an interesting question. Who will evolution favor? Theists or atheists?

The honest answer to this question scares me.

Would you say then that theists are better adapted for survival?

[Will]

Would you say then that theists are better adapted for survival?

They are a larger part of the population and breed like fundamentalist rabbits. I know several catholic families with over 8 children. I know of one atheist family with over 3.

[Kylyssa]

I'd have to agree.  There is a correlation between high IQ and secular living but unfortunately there's also a correlation between high IQ and smaller family size.  Also, chances of children raised in secular households using birth control are probably higher than in religious households.

My personal anecdote involves my sister.  Of three children who survived to adulthood, only my sister is religious.  She has three  religious children of her own who have subsequently reproduced.  I have none and my brother has one.  Her breeding began in her teen years shortly after she "found God" so she became a grandmother in her late thirties.  My brother waited until he fell in love with an intelligent woman and thus did not become a father until he was forty.  I am unable to bear young.

[Asmodean]

Well, I'm not likely to ever have kids so evolution does not exactly favour my bloodline either  

[Will]

People with a higher IQ may simply be more likely to have more academic pursuits than a family. I plan on going on to get my masters in psych and my doctorate of jurisprudence before everything is said and done, and I'd like to get degrees in biology and economics, too. I likely won't have the time for more than one or two children.

Life can be kinda busy if you really take advantage of it.

I think the sad part, though, is intelligent people would likely make better parents on the whole. Yes, there'd be some bad apples, but you're not likely to see a really intelligent parent spank their child or neglect them. Yes, much of parenting is innate, but there's a lot of it that takes education and well developed intuition. Raising children requires that you pick up on behavioral patterns and can teach.