Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: ItsYaBoiGaryOak on 17/02/2021 04:02:29
-
Krill for example act as a keystone species by converting phytoplankton into energy that larger organisms can make use of. They are threatened by ocean acidification as many other marine animals are.
Hypothetically, we have a hundred and one ways to induce genetic mutation, with the addition of selection pressure those mutations could be focused towards a goal, like "survival in increasingly acidified water" for example.
I'm sure geneticists have more specific approaches to getting results they want, but a shotgun approach like how nature does it would eventually get the job done too
Say for example I build a krill tank and get some krill eggs and use UV to induce mutation in them, and then grow them in slightly acidified water. The chances would be low especially given that any beneficial mutation would need to happen in reproductive cells to be heritable, but ignoring minor technical details and focusing on the big picture, is anyone working on projects like this? Are they possible?
If our current problem is that the environment is changing faster than evolution can keep up, why can't we just artificially speed up evolution to match it?
-
why can't we just artificially speed up evolution to match it?
I think the scale is just impractical. There are a lot of species that would need to be changed. If I recall correctly, experiments to artificially induce evolution through mutagenesis have tended not to go very well. Deleterious mutations are more common than beneficial ones and increasing the rate of mutation would likely lead to the accumulation of such negative mutations. Even if the odd beneficial one popped up from time to time, the negative ones would likely mask its effect and make the organisms less healthy as a whole. You'd probably be better off doing selective breeding sans the induced mutations. But still, the question of scale is a problem.
-
If our current problem is that the environment is changing faster than evolution can keep up, why can't we just artificially speed up evolution to match it?
That's a very perceptive question. Consider how humans have adapted to fast environmental changes. Such as the recent succession of Pleistocene Ice-Ages. These happened fast. In terms of life's slow evolutionary time-scale.
If this slow scale had applied to humans, our species wouldn't have survived. We'd never have been able to evolve such cold adaptations as thick coats of fur. Not in the traditional evolutionary time available. That'd be too short.
So what we did was to "artificially speed up evolution", as you pithily express it - by using our brains.
Our superior brain-power enabled us to kill other species with fur-coats. Such as bears. Then skin them, strip off their fur - and use it to make artificial fur-coats to put on ourselves!
This was an amazing and unprecedented feat in the history of life. It was an artificial means to speed up the slow evolutionary process. All due to our brain-power.
Surely this power can be applied to all other changes in the environment?