One of the most shrill arguments from alarmists is the idea that climate change will wipe out species because they can’t adapt. The claims run from polar bears to tortoises, to plants and coral. Yes, if we listen to these arguments, Nature so poorly equipped it’s creatures that they can’t adapt to a slightly warmer future.
Except when the last ice age ended, and it got warmer, and the saber-toothed cats got bigger because the prey got bigger…instead of disappearing due to “climate change”.
From the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
La Brea Tar Pit fossil research shows climate change drove evolution of Ice Age predators
LOS ANGELES — Concerns about climate change and its impact on the world around us are growing daily. New scientific studies at the La Brea Tar Pits are probing the link between climate warming and the evolution of Ice Age predators, attempting to predict how animals will respond to climate change today.
The La Brea Tar Pits are famous for the amazing array of Ice Age fossils found there, such as ground sloths, mammoths, and predators like saber-toothed cats and powerful dire wolves. But the climate during the end of the Ice Age (50,000-11,000 years ago) was unstable, with rapid warming and cooling. New research reported here has documented the impact of this climate change on La Brea predators for the first time.
Two new studies published by research associates at of the Page Museum document significant change over time in the skulls of both dire wolves and saber-toothed cats. “Different tar pits at La Brea accumulated at different times,” said F. Robin O’Keefe of Marshall University, lead author on the dire wolf study (Palaeontologia Electronica, April 9, 2014). “When we compare fossils deposited at different times, we see big changes. We can actually watch evolution happening.”
After the end of the last Ice Age, La Brea dire wolves became smaller and more graceful, adapting to take smaller prey as glaciers receded and climate warmed. This rapidly changing climate drove change in saber-toothed cats as well. “Saber-toothed cats show a clear correlation between climate and shape. Cats living after the end of the Ice Age are larger, and adapted to taking larger prey,” said Julie Meachen of Des Moines University, lead author on the sabertooth study (Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2014).
The two scientists discuss their work in a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK_DKSNbgR4&feature=youtu.be
“We can see animals adapting to a warming climate at La Brea,” said O’Keefe. “Then humans show up and all the big ones disappear. We haven’t been able to establish causality there yet. But we are working on it.”
The emerging links between climate change and evolution needs further study. There are many unanswered questions; such as why predators change in the ways that they do, the importance of factors other than climate, and whether the arrival of humans played a role in the mass extinction at the end of the Ice Age. “There is much work to be done on the specimens from the tar pits. We are working actively to bring together the researchers and resources needed to expand on these discoveries,” says John Harris, chief curator at the Page Museum. “Climate change is a pressing issue for all of us, and we must take advantage of what Rancho La Brea can teach us about how ecosystems react to it.”
O’Keefe, F. R., W. J. Binder, S. R. Frost, R. W. Sadleir, and B. Van Valkenburgh. 2014. Cranial morphometrics of the dire wolf, Canis dirus, at Rancho La Brea: temporal variability and its links to nutrient stress and climate. Palaeontologia Electronica.
Palaeontologia Electronica was the first peer-reviewed online paleontology journal in the world and has been in publication for 17 years. On April 9, visit palaeo-electronica.org/content/2014/723-canis-dirus-craniometrics
Meachen, J. A., F. R. O’Keefe, and R. W. Sadleir. 2014. Evolution in the sabre-tooth cat, Smilodon fatalis, in response to Pleistocene climate change. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27: 714-723. Visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.12340/abstract
About the Natural History Family of Museums
The Natural History Family of Museums includes the NHM, the Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits (Hancock Park/Mid-Wilshire), and the William S. Hart Park and Museum (Newhall, California). The Family of Museums serves more than one million families and visitors annually, and is a national leader in research, exhibitions and education.
a butterfly that adapts to a new enviroment is still a butterfly.
james says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:32 pm
But the moths from which butterflies evolved in the Eocene to exploit the spread of flowering plants were not butterflies.
Catherine Ronconi says (April 10, 2014 at 2:32 pm): “I used to respect this blog before I found out that it’s a hangout for creationist cretins.”
Heh heh. I suspect Ms. Ronconi has had dealings with creationists and/or “intelligent design” fans before. I’d suggest, though, that the name-calling is counterproductive. It certainly doesn’t improve the odds of convincing one’s opponents.
Example: When I checked BioBob’s peppered moth link I found this comment:
“ID and Creationist propagandists will never stop using the peppered moth bit, anymore than climate change denialists will ever stop claiming that the famous emails revealed unholy doings…Good luck getting people who think you’re the enemy to invest the effort required to actually understand an issue that requires as many as three sentences to convey.”
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/selective-bird.html#comment-278540
The irony, it burns! Such arrogance also makes me want to support the creationist view out of sheer cussedness.
Almost. 🙂
Dear Duster,
“evolution” does NOT = “Darwin’s Theory of the Origin of Species”
It is (essentially): Change over time with-IN species via NON-directed mutation and natural selection.
“[T]he varieties of dogs you see being walked every day… ” came about from highly DIRECTED genetic selection.
Who’s the “religious” one, here? Takes a WHOLE lot of faith to believe in Darwinism (even as refined by later scientists).
Why did you bring in pastors and stuff like that anyway?
Sincerely,
Janice
Well, I have to agree with BioBob’s comment that evolution brings out bad behavior. I don’t understand why.
Some folks seem to insist that I must agree with their world view. And I would, if I believed that the links posted so far proved conclusively what is claimed. But I don’t see it that way. That makes me ‘ignorant’ to more than one commenter. Who has the problem here?
I look at evolution as the argument that people are descended from apes, more than the argument that different breeds of dogs prove anything. To me, evolution means evolving to a higher state. As I said, I am not a biologist [or a creationist, and I think DDT was the best medical invention of the last century]. But I do believe in evolution. What I asked for is proof. I know that is a high bar, but I didn’t see proof. I saw some evidence. Not the same thing.
Forgive me if the examples posted were not very convincing. What I hoped for was more than a few examples of simple natural selection. If evolution is nothing more than natural selection, there is no need to go ballistic. I think I’ve been pretty level-headed in this thread, unlike some.
Finally, I agree with a lot of what Cathering has written. Part of the reason I replied to her was because she was very unreasonable in her attack on Janice Moore, who has never been anything but polite to everyone. She only asked for information. Catherine responded with some vicious name-calling [“…you chose to pontificate out of such laughable ignorance.”]
I wrote way upthread: “I am not a biologist, and I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I would like to see some proven observations showing evolution in action. I’m interested, that’s all.” And I’m not alone: another commenter wrote “I would like to see some proven observations showing evolution in action.” So you see, some folks here are just not as convincing as they think they are. Or, maybe ‘evolution’ means different things to different people.
I expected more than the links that have been posted. I didn’t expect the insults for having a different view of the matter. So at this point I will agree that I’m ignorant about evolution. I will stay that way on this subject, because it’s time for me to MovOn. ☹
james says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:32 pm
a butterfly that adapts to a new enviroment is still a butterfly.
___________________
They used to be called flutterbys, so what’s that tell you?
listening to: Jethro Tull– “Thick As A Brick”
Duster says (April 10, 2014 at 4:15 pm): “…why Spanish immigrants could not reproduce at the high altitudes in Peru, while their children and descendants, who grew up there, could and continue to do so”
Since discussions on “religious” subjects like evolution are endless and often unproductive, I try instead to mine them for humor. While I think I understand what Duster means, as written it’s pretty funny. 🙂
BTW thanks for posting, Duster. I hope Catherine reconsiders and continues to educate us as well.
I should have said Lepidoptera that adapt is still a lepidoptera
In answer to those who claim that Chimp chromosomes 2A and 2B fusing into Human Chromosome 2 is fantasy, see here:
Chromosomal Heterozygosity and Fertility in House Mice (Mus musculus domesticus) From Northern Italy
Of course, this has little to do with the subject at hand.
james says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:04 pm
Are you having us on?
You know that we can keep going farther & farther back into insect evolution, don’t you?
Order Lepidoptera probably evolved in the Early Jurassic from a group of Trichopterans (caddisflies), which emerged in the Triassic. Those two sister orders are grouped into the superorder Amphiesmenoptera, which Grimaldi & Engel find diverged from the extinct Necrotaulidae in the Jurassic as well. Whiting, et al, proposed a sister group for Amphiesmenoptera called Antliophora, a superorder comprising Diptera (flies), Siphonaptera (fleas) & Mecoptera (scorpionflies). The two superorders, Amphiesmenoptera & Antliophora, compose the group Mecopterida in this cladistic phylogenic reconstruction.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0079500
BTW, the Ur Butterfly probably took wing in the Paleocene or even Cretaceous, not the Eocene.
Catherine Ronconi says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:24 pm
________________
I just knew you were a physician and you just set about proving it in yet more ways, without even having to mention saving a patient.
My diagnosis is that you’re in real need of stress relief. I’d add that it’s apparent to me that any woman displaying such an aggressive and self- stroking
bitchyattitude, seriously needs it, so here’s my prescription- do yourself and everyone else a real favor and go %&* yourself.Ps You don’t have time to be here, with your stress- you- out life as a little god (little g,) but about those multi- hundred thousands of deaths each year due to physician error…
it is a lot of fun too get a debate going if every body plays nice
Dear Ms. Ronconi,
You have said many things, some quite worthwhile, but you have not proven your point.
1. You at 10:47am: “Adaptation is an evolutionary process. It might or might not eventually produce a new species. ”
Answer: Adaptation has only been observed to drive change with-IN species.
2. You (10:47): “…the case of polyploidy… .” [or secondary speciation]
Answer: “[Re:] chromosome doubling, or “polyploidy.”43 This usually follows hybridization between two existing plant species. Most hybrids are sterile because their mismatched chromosomes can’t separate properly to produce fertile pollen and ovaries; occasionally, however, the chromosomes in a hybrid spontaneously double, producing two perfectly matched sets and making reproduction possible. The result is a fertile plant that is reproductively isolated from the two parents—a new species, according to the BSC [Ernst Mayr’s Biological Species Concept].
But speciation by polyploidy (“secondary speciation”) has been observed only in plants. It does not provide evidence for Darwin’s theory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and genetic divergence. Indeed, according to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics… [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy.44
So secondary speciation does not solve Darwin’s problem. Only primary speciation—the splitting of one species into two by natural selection—would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution’s smoking gun has never been found.45
{Source: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661}
3. Your “human evolution” leg-bone point (10:47): “…Our upright stance probably owes to a single gross chromosomal mutation… .”
Answer: Your theorizing has ENORMOUS gaps in it. You have fallen FAR short of showing a sufficiently detailed chain of causation from asserted driver to result. Pure speculation.
4. Along with more conjecture and unobserved generalizations at 1:25pm, you make a plausible point about polyploidy: “In plants, it’s common for new species to emerge in a single generation through polyploidy… .”
However…
Answer: “In Why Evolution Is True, [Jerry] Coyne claims that primary speciation was observed in an experiment reported in 1998. Curiously, Coyne did not mention it in the 2004 book he co-authored with Orr, but his 2009 account of it is worth quoting in full:
‘We can even see the origin of a new, ecologically diverse bacterial species, all within a single laboratory flask. Paul Rainey and his colleagues at Oxford University placed a strain of the bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens in a small vessel containing nutrient broth, and simply watched it. (It’s surprising but true that such a vessel actually contains diverse environments. Oxygen concentration, for example, is highest on the top and lowest on the bottom.) Within ten days—no more than a few hundred generations—the ancestral free-floating ‘smooth’ bacterium had evolved into two additional forms occupying different parts of the beaker. One, called ‘wrinkly spreader,’ formed a mat on top of the broth. The other, called ‘fuzzy spreader,’ formed a carpet on the bottom. The smooth ancestral type persisted in the liquid environment in the middle. Each of the two new forms was genetically different from the ancestor, having evolved through mutation and natural selection to reproduce best in their respective environments. Here, then, is not only evolution but speciation occurring in the lab: the ancestral form produced, and coexisted with, two ecologically different descendants, and in bacteria such forms are considered distinct species. Over a very short time, natural selection in Pseudomonas yielded a small-scale ‘adaptive radiation,’ the equivalent of how animals or plants form species when they encounter new environments on an oceanic island.’46
But Coyne omits the fact that when the ecologically different forms were placed back into the same environment, they “suffered a rapid loss of diversity,” according to Rainey. In bacteria, an ecologically distinct population (called an “ecotype”) may constitute a separate species, but only if the distinction is permanent. As evolutionary microbiologist Frederick Cohan wrote in 2002, species in bacteria “are ecologically distinct from one another; and they are irreversibly separate.”47 The rapid reversal of ecological distinctions when the bacterial populations in Rainey’s experiment were put back into the same environment refutes Coyne’s claim that the experiment demonstrated the origin of a new species.”
{Source: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661}
Finally, dear Ms. Ronconi, why the angry, sneeringly dismissive, tone? Surely, one so highly informed and confident in her position as you could be a bit more gracious to someone she apparently perceives as being simpleminded-to-the-point-of-idiocy? However, in spite of that, I take heart! (with a bit of a wry smile) For you flatter me by such a vigorous attack. I must come off, despite all my failings, as quite the worthy opponent!
Now. How about if we TRY (I promise I will) to be friends? Certainly we disagree! The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, you know.
#(:))
Your Ally for Truth (about human CO2, at least),
Janice
P.S. Did I say anything about “creation?” How did that come into all this?
james says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:38 pm
it is a lot of fun too get a debate going if every body plays nice
________________
James, most of us think of ourselves as agreeing with you, but it sure is fun to get into fights, too. Maybe next time (or later in this thread.)
Alan!
THANK YOU, SO MUCH FOR CALLING ME A “FRIEND.”
You made my day.
btw: not just Patrick, but YOU, my friend, are BOTH being prayed for {yes, yes, I realize Ms. Ronconi will likely never want to be my friend when she reads that I pray. Sigh.} for the same thing… . (whenyoumeetherTELLus, okay? — smiling and looking forward to hearing your good news — OH, DON’T TELL ME YOU HAVEN’T WISHED FOR THAT… — I could tell from some comments you have made over the past few months, so I decided to pray. Of course, God may say, “Not yet…,” for quite awhile, too… . Hang in there.)
Your friend and ally for truth,
Janice
Correction to mine at 5:52pm —
At 4. replace “polyploidy” with: “your point about bacterial evolution’… “
Jezzee, and all those years the poor CO2 molecules where pretty confused;
Jim: (thinking out loud) It’s warmer now, shouldn’t there be more of us around ?
Oh, there there are, how ya doing Fred, long time no see.
Fred: yeah I got stuck in a stupid log until somebody burnt it, thank goodness.
Jim: What’s that’s Fred ? we are supposed to be driving the temperature ?
OK, Ok, I’ll get right on that.
Fred: yeah and try to be quicker about, that last ice age went on way longer than it was supposed to.
Jim: Oh, by the way Fred, which way am I driving the temperature now, Up or Down? I get so confused in my old age.
Cheers, Kevin.
While the evolutionary aspects of the digs at the tar pits are interesting, I’ve made my pilgrimage there and was more intrigued with the part of the parking lot they had to close off due to asphalt seepage. It’s such a strange place to find in the middle of the city.
Pilgrimage indeed – It’s a hallowed place to software engineers and anyone else who is at fan of Frederick Brooks’ The Mythical Man-Month, still one of the best books on managing software development. http://www.amazon.com/Mythical-Man-Month-Software-Engineering-Anniversary/dp/0201835959/ref=sr_1_1
fighting and debating are is far apart as earth and sky
Ric Werme,
I just checked out Mythical Man-Month. What I read made me want to read the whole thing! (and I’m only a computer-science BUSINESS emphasis major).
This is SO TRUE (I can remember this from my first CS course (BASIC):
“Adjusting to the requirement for perfection is, I think, the most difficult part of learning to program.”
Yes! The higher the intelligence (humans = highest) the less perfection is required. It was excruciating to remember (for a simple little example) that a computer (of average intelligence in 1983) is NOT going to see that spelling “UNTL” means, obviously (eye roll, duh! (smile)) “UNTIL,” just a typo… .
#(:))
…. and on and on.
I tell you, Mr. Werme, the more I read about computer science and of the IPCC’s computer models, the more I am FIRMLY CONVINCED that the IPCC’s computer simulation code is not just JUNK it is NON-EXISTENT!
Thanks for sharing that!
Janice
dbstealey says:
BioBob links to the debunked [IIRC] study of the peppered moth. I’m too lazy to look it up…
—
The Peppered moth study by Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s has been shown to be flawed. That doesn’t mean the moths don’t adapt to their environment, it only means the research wasn’t properly done and included gluing moths to tree trunks so photos could be taken. I thought I had read about it here on WUWT, but when I searched for moth, only a story about clouds appeared. I have no idea why. However, the link below provides some info about Peppered moths and the flawed study. I have also included a short extract from the article below the link.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/127-the-peppered-moth.html
“…the peppered moth remains a peppered moth. Only the relative frequencies of light and dark varieties will alter. When the environmental conditions change again, so do the frequencies. This clearly demonstrates the on-going presence of both light and dark forms within the gene pool of this species.
Conclusion
School children need to learn that the peppered moth story provides evidence for changes of frequencies of different types within a population, but it does not show that large scale evolution can occur. They should also understand that the original experiments behind the peppered moth story have widely acknowledged flaws, and some of these issues have been addressed in more recent experiments.
Oh, (smile), but dear James, the sky touches the earth… .
LET’S ARGUE ABOUT ARGUING!!!! OOOOKAY??!!!
#(;))
Just a little gentle humor, I hope. Yes, one can debate civilly without it turning into a quarrel. Rancor and invective are NOT necessary to reasoned discourse. More heat than light is generated by that method, in the long run anyway.
I’ll try to remember your very good exhortation.
Take care,
Janice
“””””…..Catherine Ronconi says:
April 10, 2014 at 11:15 am
Richard Sharpe says:
April 10, 2014 at 11:10 am
The topic raised by Ferdinand is indeed speciation, what he called “species metamorphosis”. In the early 19th century it was called “transmutation”. It is a repeatedly observed, scientific fact. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain these observations. Like any well supported body of scientific theory, such as gravitation, it constantly improves through the scientific method……”””””
“Commentary on puzzling things in life………”
This is why WUWT is such a success. We can always depend on some body who really knows, to set us straight,
I’ve never read Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, but I get the gist, even just from the title. It almost seems self evident.
I just look at my kids; and see they are different; in many ways from their parents, as we differ from ours. I can see how good traits might persist better than poor ones. Sooner or later that’s got to matter.
I wasn’t good at biology, so it’s nice when we get contributions from readers, such as Catherine, who seem to be.
I actually kick in annually towards a scholarship, for someone , who’s both unwealthy, and of Polynesian persuasion, to work towards a degree in Biology at the University of Auckland. Another person provides the beef, I just make the gravy; but right now we have someone getting a Marine Biology degree at Auckland.
If he decides to study sea otters, I’ll disown him. But I’m all for more graceful wolves; I always liked the ballet anyway.
Thanks for keeping us straight Catherine; maybe I should read Darwin.
Janice Moore says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:56 pm
__________________
It never crossed my mind that you wouldn’t know that you are my friend. Besides a long standing familiarity, we often stand on common ground, but more than that, I know your heart is in the right place. That’s one definition of friendship for me, but perhaps not to others.
If you must pray for me, I ask only this- that you ask that my highest need be met- that way you won’t hole my skiff when you only meant to scrape barnacles. I assure you that I have no idea what such a need might be, but having witnessed the invisible hand at work many times in many ways, then that prayer should do. I’ve set the course and trimmed the sails and my hand’s been on the tiller, but it wasn’t me that steered around those rocks and into those strange ports of call.
Dear Alan,
Thank you for such a thoughtful and kind reply (made even more welcome after Mr. Smith’s subtle but definite disrespect just above for my comments — yes, I noticed — and yes, it was disappointing, but, oh, well). I asked him how his sister was and said I was praying for her about a week ago. He just ignored me. What a refreshing response from you, much appreciated.
If I MUST pray for you (lol)… . I am HAPPY to pray. And I will (continue) pray for ALL your needs (and heart’s desires, too) to be met. Re: a habit you hoped to get rid of, I’ve been praying about for nearly a year, now. THAT is a toughy. Don’t sweat it, too much. Lots of wonderful people can’t get rid of that one.
Well, indeed, God knows what is best. And God can DO it! “‘ALL things are possible… .'”
Take care.
Your sister in Christ,
Janice
P.S. I didn’t think we were enemies, but “friend” is a big word and I don’t like to assume.
****************************************
@ur momisugly D. B. — Thank you. Much appreciated (your support earlier today).