April 2, 2013 — We tend to think of evolution as a slow path. It’s something that happens over hundreds of thousands of years. It’s a force that treats millions of years like the blink of an eye.
But that’s not always the case.
In March of this year, the cliff swallows of southwestern Nebraska made headlines after researchers found that this population appeared to be adapting to highway traffic. Over the course of just 30 years, the average wingspan of these birds got shorter. Meanwhile, individuals with longer wingspans appeared to have a greater risk of being hit by a car. Most importantly, as the average wingspan got smaller, the number of swallows dying at the grill of a moving vehicle also decreased.
Disruptive environments can happen without human intervention, but we are particularly good at creating them.
That’s just one study, but it’s part of a growing body of research that suggests evolutionary adaptation can happen much faster than we thought — and that human beings can play a role. It’s all about disruptive environments; what happens when the system a species lives in changes relatively quickly and in big ways. For instance, David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at The University of California–Riverside, told me that there are dozens of studies suggesting that modern commercial fishing, especially the advent of technologies like motor-driven nets, have changed fish populations. Over the course of a few generations, multiple species have shown trends towards earlier sexual maturity and reaching maturity at much smaller sizes. Those skills allow the species to survive, but make the fish less useful to us as food.
Disruptive environments can happen without human intervention, but we are particularly good at creating them. Whether you’re talking about the construction of a highway or the arrival of a fishing fleet, Reznick told me that dramatic environmental shifts spur localized populations to change very quickly. And those changes can even create new species or subspecies, all within the span of tens to hundreds of years.
This has big implications for environmental science. For one thing, it should change the way we think about invasive species. After all, what’s more disruptive than dropping an animal into an entirely new environment? Reznick told me that the invasive animals and plants often end up very different from the relatives they left behind in the old country. And that is exactly the thing that makes them so difficult to remove from their new homes — they’ve adapted. After a few generations, the new environment isn’t really all that foreign.
But in the bigger picture, this knowledge should also affect how we think about environmental science as a whole. “Traditional ecological theory assumes that evolution does not happen,” Reznick said. “Not because they don’t believe in it, but because they think it’s so much slower than ecology that it can be ignored.”
Ecology is a science of systems — how different species interact with each other and with their habitats. If evolution plays a part in that dance, acting on the systems within human lifespans, then we might be reaching incorrect conclusions about the effects of change.
In other words, it’s not just about how the highway reduces bird populations and affects the food web. It’s also about how the birds adapt to the highway, and what effects those adaptations have on the bigger system. Do swallows with short wingspans eat different things than their wider-winged siblings? If we aren’t paying attention to adaptation, then we don’t even know to ask that kind of question. The systems of ecology aren’t just complex. They’re even more complex than we give them credit for.
Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present them to further discussion around important topics. We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found here. In addition, you might consider submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s “Contact” page for submission guidelines.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
It is that the birds with shorter wingspans survive longer to produce more offspring.
Survival of the fittest!
I am not myself a greatly respected scientist, but I know that there are big names in science, even if they are a possibly a minority view, that suggest an Intelligent Design theory. At Liberty University I ask my professor Dr. Marcus Ross, who I am pretty sure if I remember things right got his credentials hard-won at some very liberal college. But he came to teach Creation Studies at Liberty University.
LU isn't my first school or my first choice, but I approached transferring here with a broad mind, and while *not* everyone at LU is broad-minded about the Creation-Evolution Debate, I think Dr. Ross is a competent scientist and that the two main views are both legitimate Theories.
I Googled "Fast Evolution" because I play a trading card game called Magic: the Gathering and it occurred to me, an English major, purely out of my thoughts that when Mark Rosewater, the lead designer of the game, writes articles about Game Design at wizards.com/Magic, the phenomenon he calls Power Creep is very similar Evolution. And yet not, because Rosewater is a Game Designer, Creating game pieces. The cards will never turn into different cards on their own no matter how long you look at them.
But new cards get Made, and seem to actually follow almost-evolutionary principles in the changes? Magic has been around for 20 Years, this is the 20th Anniversary in fact. A LOT has changed in the Game since 1993.
I am planning to email Dr. Ross and talk to him about the thoughts that run in my mind linking Mark Rosewater's "Fast Evolving" Magic cards to the possibility that, if you have the TWO significant factors of
a) A Highly Disruptive Environment
b) An Intelligent Designer
Might a Creationist standpoint be able to explain "Fast Evolution"?
I am....I would have to say closer to superstitious than religious, because I am not very big on doctrines and dogma-- though I like studying them. I really would prefer to say I'm more Wanderlust than Superstitious though. I just expect the Universe to be able to surprise me, really.
If we are observing quick Adaptations in Birds due to highways, then that suggests that Birds and Humans are forming a Metagame, and that maybe the language of Gamers and English Majors might be able to suggest to the REAL Scientists, new ideas, new directions to look in?
I plan on having a conversation with Dr. Ross about what the actual Scientific way to react to my wandering thinking would be. He did reinforce that he doesn't think Evolution happens because of the age thing, and that he thinks Evolution is too slow, BUT if you ever meet the guy in person you know he's good at talking in the hypothetical and good at chasing down rabbit holes to see where they might go-- in other words though he firmly as his beliefs, alternate beliefs are very imaginable to him and he does understand both views (about Old Earth vs. Young Earth/Creation vs. Evolution) very well.
I'm not sure what kind of response I might get for this. Dr. Ross is I'm sure Google-able for anyone wishing to look him up and ask him- he is in fact more scientific that I am, lol. I just thought I'd contribute what I'm good at- imagination and thinking up possibilities, to the conversation? It can be the scientists' job to test the ideas and prove them wrong for whichever reasons they might be wrong. :)
So- My Suggestion: Fast Evolution could mean God is some kind of Game Designer, and that Creation still largely follows Evolutionary principles...or...patterns similar enough to Evolution that, at first it might *look* like Macroevolution, as the Designer is struck with inspiration sometimes, to make something New that is still like something Old, but different?
So that Big Changes still logically follow in patterns from previous Creations, even though Creation is actually...well, tbh, Spontaneous Generation? Which would be ludicrous *without* a Divine Miracle, of course. Spontaneous Generation has absolutely no place at all in an atheist explanation, that much theists and atheists are in agreement on! This would explain why transitions seem abrupt on the Macroevolution level?
But didn't, I think it was Descartes, ask questions about where our Ideas come from? Well, What if the way Creation/Generation happens is that, while Evolution requires long periods of time because it relies entirely on physical reality for every step in the process, every resource....well what if Instead, the Intelligent Designer, like an Author, draws Inspiration from Ideas, and essentially needs no Physical Resources to Create, but DOES need...I guess Metaphysical Resources, which maybe that Creator could literally measure but that we have no method (yet!) of measuring the same way? Inspiration is a Resource that contributes to the Process?
If you read Mark Rosewater, he'll talk about "Design Space" a lot in "Making Magic" articles on wizards.com/Magic. Well, what if God actually knows how to empirically measure Design Space, how to actually Measure Imagination, and that is somehow plays a part in how what God might do with Creation is similar to what Rosewater does with Trading Cards?
Can we learn how to measure Design Space? In fact, has Mark Rosewater actually got a more fixed idea now than he did six years ago of how to do just that?
I know I'm splicing together lots of fields here, possibly misplacing some of them. I hope my thoughts are at least followable enough, so that if I need to be disproved, I've stated things in a way that can be? (Either proved or disproved?)
And sometimes different Creations let loose on the same planet react to each other and cause little arms races/metagames in the forms of smaller Adaptations? Adaptation/Microevolution being already well-established fact/observed directly in this and other cases?
I would be EXTREMELY interested in trying to get:
An English Major/Philosopher/Airhead (Me)
A Creationist-Scientist (Dr. Ross)
and a Game Designer (Mark Rosewater)
together in the same room with three Atheist Scientists:
an Ecologist,
an Astronomer,
and a Biologist,
and see as a challenge, how many Ideas and Suggestions can Rosewater and I design, and what would the Scientists have to tell us? How many of our Ideas are impossible and why? But really take a very cross-fields approach to it.
I suggest 3 Atheists instead of 2 Creationists and 2 Atheists simply because what Religious Tradition is changes very slowly (you could say Theology is relatively not a Disruptive Environment?), so you only need 1 guy that knows how to look up things in the Bible and check that part out.
Not because I'd -personally- assume the Bible was automatically authoritative just for being itself, but Instead because it would just be interesting to see how Scientific Observation compares with reading the Bible,
"What is God's Imagination capable of?"
I would expect that Science and Religion- ie Human Understanding, ought to both change together if New Observation justifies it...but interestingly, the Bible itself might be just as true-- it would be an exercise in learning how to *Understand* both the Bible and the World better than we did yesterday? :)
I don't know about Dr. Ross, but I'd be interested if the atheists have answers to my suggestions that still support how they look at things. I think Dr. Ross would do something like place a large bet against their chances, but I think he'd be happy to pay up if he loses his bet too. :)
So, I would like to know where are these changes leading us which may be pleasing or devastating?
Also I would like to learn about examples of significant evolutions in human beings.
Sir, my email id is prasoon2204@gmail.com
Do reply if you get time or read it in a simple language.
I did find your article useful to me.
One speculation about why some periods seemed to have vastly greater rates of speciation is that the current climate is not warm enough.
Imagine that.