Comments (17) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   nomad2112 said, 4 months ago

   More junk science. Fish size is likely due to overfishing.

2. 

   DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

   This story just came out five minutes ago. So before any evidence or reason is offered, a firm conclusion has been reached. Don’t you people ever THINK?

3. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   I’ve read several studies (over several years) that point out overfishing has led to pre-adults being taken in excess, driving down numbers, and then reef lose due to temperature AND chemical changes in the ocean have pretty much wiped out fisheries. It’s happening around the globe, actually.

4. 

   DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

   Well, if the big fish are being caught and the species are becoming smaller as only the small fish are reproducing , that means - gasp! - that evolution is TRUE.
   
   Right, nomad?

5. 

   wbr said, 4 months ago

   right – and fish must have been real small in the real warm jurasic period

6. 

   cdward said, 4 months ago

   wbr, you forgot DrC’s point about the overfishing (which I’m just guessing did not take place in the jurasic period).

7. 

   MrGromit said, 4 months ago

   Arguments aside, this was a cute cartoon.

   Nicely done.

8. 

   Redeemd said, 4 months ago

   DrCanuck,

   I believe you’re confusing Natural selection with Evolution. For example, selectively breeding a wolf into a miniature poodle is not Evolution. No random mutation is required.

   Cheers.

9. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   Doc, by the way, I assume you know I meant the BIG fish just aren’t around any more, and genetics has nothing to do with the fact only small, non-reproductive fishies are left. The cod fishery on the Banks got in big trouble a long time ago.

10. 

    DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

    Redeemd said: “I believe you’re confusing Natural selection with Evolution.”

    DrCanuck responds: Oh dear, where to start…?

    Naw, it would take too long and never be understood anyway. No point.

11. 

    DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

    Throughout my years as a university lecturer, I have had dozens of kids inform me in class that the theory of evolution is entirely wrong. Yet, when questioned, not a single one of them has ever known what the theory says, how it works, and what its principles and mechanisms are. All start spouting misinformation popularized by fundamentalists.
    (Interesting enough, once they understand it, about 95% of them accept it.)

12. 

    person918 said, 4 months ago

    point of note: selection by humans is “unnatural selection” also, random mutation is still present in unnatural selection, it’s just that humans choose which mutations are encouraged by choosing which animals reproduce and which don’t.

13. 

    fennec said, 4 months ago

    Let’s try tho’. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Random mutations occur constantly and at random (hence the name). Most mutations are disadvantageous to the organism or at best neutral. A few are actually advantageous. Natural selection simply says that those mutations which are advantageous give a reproductive advantage to the organism carrying them. Neutral mutations, of course, have no significant effect and may not even change the final gene product. Also complicating the picture is that some mutations which appear to be deleterious do confer a selective advantage in specific circumstances. The sickle cell gene as a heterozygote (that is, one normal and one mutated gene of a given allelic pair) is one of these.
    The result of selective breeding is simply to assort the various existing alleles (multiple forms of any given gene) into a kinship line. This does not rule out additional mutations, as that rate is fairly constant and depends on exactly where in the genome you are looking (some areas are more variable than others).

14. 

    DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

    person918 said: “point of note: selection by humans is “unnatural selection”

    DrCanuck responds: Rubbish. That assumes humans have free will. Since they don’t and are entirely driven by their biological imperative, it’s still natural selection.

15. 

    fennec said, 4 months ago

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print]
    Global warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems.
    Daufresne M, Lengfellner K, Sommer U.

    Understanding the ecological impacts of climate
    
    

    change is a crucial challenge of the twenty-first
    century. There is a clear lack of general rules
    regarding the impacts of global warming on biota.
    Here, we present a metaanalysis of the effect of
    climate change on body size of ectothermic
    aquatic organisms (bacteria, phyto- and zooplankton,
    and fish) from the community to the individual level.
    Using long-term surveys, experimental data and
    published results, we show a significant increase
    in the proportion of small-sized species and young
    age classes and a decrease in size-at-age. These
    results are in accordance with the ecological rules
    dealing with the temperature-size relationships
    (i.e., Bergmann’s rule, James’ rule and
    Temperature-Size Rule). Our study provides evidence
    that reduced body size is the third universal
    ecological response to global warming in aquatic
    systems besides the shift of species ranges toward
    higher altitudes and latitudes and the
    seasonal shifts in life cycle events.

16. 

    person918 said, 4 months ago

    DrCanuck responds: Rubbish. That assumes humans have free will. Since they don’t and are entirely driven by their biological imperative, it’s still natural selection.

    fair enough; I was just using the commonly accepted terminology. I agree that trying to place humans as somehow separate from the natural order of things is foolish.

17. 

    omQ R said, 4 months ago

    Thanks Fennec.
    But I suppose we can count on everyone else following Stayskal’s take on the statement.