/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2322698]

What do you think is the fastest evolution has happened?

[Anonymous No.2322706]

some disease

[Anonymous No.2322717]

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060213/full/news060213-4.html

toads are so badass

[Anonymous No.2322718]

something that has a short generational cycle and is under high selective pressure under changing environmental conditions.

probably some bacteria

[Anonymous No.2322737]

Dunno. Bacteria have it pretty good.
Your question is basically asking what the organism with the highest generation turnover rate is.
Like bacteria have children's children every few minutes, men have children's children every 50 or so years.

[Anonymous No.2322749]

>>2322737
So if bacteria breeds so fast, could we put it in harsh conditions and see if it evolves to survive, thus proving evolution.

[Anonymous No.2322759]

>>2322749

We do that already tard-burger.

You won't prove evolution to the religious.

[Anonymous No.2322770]

>>2322759
Why does it not prove it.

If you could do it with something such as insects, would that not prove it.

[Anonymous No.2322780]

>>2322749
Trust me on this; experiments of this type have been performed in the hundreds, if not thousands, each with the same overwhelming result.
The reason scientists don't bother finding 'proof' of evolution is because it's already been overwhelmingly and undeniably proved beyond all reasonable doubt many times over.

[Anonymous No.2322782]

On the topic of evolution:

I'm making a homebrew tabletop game in which mankind is forced underground for a thousand years or more. Assuming they have the tools to survive, would there be any significant physical adaptation after several generations of living in a much different environment? Significant enough that they would look different from how we are now? I was thinking their skin tones may become lighter(I have no idea if you "lose" skin tone from the lack of sunlight, I'll google that in a bit) and their eyes would become adapted to low-light environments, perhaps even a minor amount of ecolocation from living in pitch-black conditions. Any ideas /sci/?

[Anonymous No.2322787]

>>2322770

It doesn't prove it *to creationists* because they refuse to accept any proof.

[Anonymous No.2322793]

>>2322749
Selective growth media, motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.2322802]

>>2322782
No changes, because we are able to make artificial light.

You wouldn't have tanned guidos going around, though. Unless they use tanning lamps, that is.

[Anonymous No.2322811]

>>2322782
Okay, for anything that a creature builds from its DNA, there is a cost/benefit ratio associated with it.
Take skin pigmentation, it has to be synthesised by the body, which takes energy and resources that could be put elsewhere, like into improved bone structure, or better eyesight, or anything else.
If skin pigmentation is useless, then the reason to build it is gone, and so those that don't waste resources on it have a slightly better survival rating than those that don't.
And that's not strictly true, because a gene will pop up which doesn't give pigments, and it is spread through the population via reproduction, so there will be lots of people that have the gene, but not express it. As time goes on, the proportion of people who express the gene will be favourable over not expressing it, and so will be reproduced in offspring with higher chances.

[Anonymous No.2322813]

>>2322782

The different appearances of humans across the world shows that human skin-tone can evolve very quickly; however, 1000 years would be pushing it.

Furthermore, there would be no strong selective pressure for it. Humans in Scotland have lighter skin than ones in Africa because they have to deal with less sunlight, but in an environment with no sunlight at all, there'd be no benefit in being paler.

[Anonymous No.2322836]

>>2322811
To expand- you'll have people dying of diseases they could have held off if only they had a better immune system, gained by sacrificing skin pigmentation. And so on and such.

[Anonymous No.2322879]

>>2322813
Actually there is evidence that under extreme conditions humans can evolve in just a few centuries.

I cannot remember well, but there is an island full of human remains, but they are tiny, but it was figured out that they were fully grown adults, and they had huge teeth, this was before their teeth were normal sized, but they had evolved to be tiny so fast that a lot of the other parts hadnt caught up. The teeth were normal sized for a normal person.
They were so small because food was so limited it was either be fucking tiny or die.

It wasnt flores, it was some island group, i will try and find it, there was strong evidence that they evolved very quickly but i cannot remember it.

[Anonymous No.2322926]

>>2322879
It was Palau hobbits.

I recommend you look them up.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread345738/pg1

[Anonymous No.2323087]

>>2322802
>>2322811
>>2322813
>>2322836
I see. Thank you for the responses. So, there wouldn't be any major changes in skin color. Aside from that, would there be any -other- changes to the human body?

>>2322879
>>2322926
Interesting! I'll certainly take a look at it.