Evolutionary Dark Ages ???

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154055.htm

Explosive Evolution Need Not Follow Mass Extinctions, Study of Ancient Zooplankton Finds

ScienceDaily (Feb. 13, 2012) — In the wake of a mass extinction like the one that occurred 445 million years ago, a common assumption is that surviving species tend to proliferate quickly into new forms, having outlived many of their competitors.

But new research shows that tiny marine organisms called graptoloids did not begin to rapidly develop new physical traits until about 2 million years after competing species became extinct.

The discovery challenges the idea that explosive evolution quickly follows mass extinctions. In the absence of competition, the common theory goes, surviving species hurry to adapt, evolving new physical attributes to take advantage of newly opened niches in the ecosystem. But that's not what researchers found in the fossil record of graptoloid evolution.

"What we found is more consistent with a different theory, which says you might expect an evolutionary lag as the ecosystem reforms itself and new interspecies relationships form," said University at Buffalo geology professor Charles E. Mitchell, who led the research.

The research provides insight on how a new mass extinction, possibly one resulting from human-made problems such as deforestation and climate change, might affect life on Earth today.

(continued)

[Clinton Huxley]

I don't like the way this is written. Sloppy.

In the absence of competition, the common theory goes, surviving species hurry to adapt, evolving new physical attributes to take advantage of newly opened niches in the ecosystem

[PsychoSerenity]

I don't like the way this is written. Sloppy.

In the absence of competition, the common theory goes, surviving species hurry to adapt, evolving new physical attributes to take advantage of newly opened niches in the ecosystem

Agreed. And from a science site too. It doesn't matter so much using simpler language when you're talking only to people who understand, though it's still the wrong way round. But by the time things like this have been copied and re-written through numerous articles it's no surprise they end up with crocoducks. It's like playing Chinese whispers and inaudibly mumbling on the very first word.

[Svartalf]

Hogwash, in the absence of competition, or a hostile environment, a species would proliferate until resources became scarce, or the environment changed, which pressures would prompt an acceleration of evolution.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hogwash, in the absence of competition, or a hostile environment, a species would proliferate until resources became scarce, or the environment changed, which pressures would prompt an acceleration of evolution.

Rapid reproduction might be a feature of a competitive environment? Bristle cone pines don't reproduce quickly. The century plant reproduces (you guessed it) infrequently. Both are in low competition environments. Reproduction is a deduction from the "energy account", and if you can same a few energies by not reproducing so often, you do better in other areas.

[Svartalf]

Ooops, When I said proliferate, I did not mean " multiply andgobble up available ressources as fast as possible". Actual growth rate would depend on the traits of the species placed in a non competitive environment.
What I meant is that a species placed in such a situation would live out its normal growth cycle and expand at whatever rate it was prone to until resources became scarce, prompting a need to adapt by either having an edge on basic stock, or becoming able to colonize other basins.

In the meantime, evolution would depend mostly on baseline random mutations.

[Atheist-Lite]

Ooops, When I said proliferate, I did not mean " multiply andgobble up available ressources as fast as possible". Actual growth rate would depend on the traits of the species placed in a non competitive environment.
What I meant is that a species placed in such a situation would live out its normal growth cycle and expand at whatever rate it was prone to until resources became scarce, prompting a need to adapt by either having an edge on basic stock, or becoming able to colonize other basins.

In the meantime, evolution would depend mostly on baseline random mutations.

Evolution is smoked after a die-off. What you on about?

[Svartalf]

and die off yourself

[Atheist-Lite]

and die off yourself

Looks like diversity hotspots disappear and don't re-appear very quickly? Evolution is a snail like progression based on random mutation without these densely networked inter-adaptive bio-cities?