help me with this evolution experiment idea

[drdanger]

I've been reading about evolution recently and I was curious about a potential experiment that might evidence the idea of speciation, that is, that new species evolve from old ones as a result of changing environmental conditions. I've seen evidence that shows that evolution can occur quite rapidly in many instances, for example an experiment that was conducted by the Grants in the Galapagos showed that average beak size in a finch population shifted dramatically over a short period as a result of a drought. With that in mind I was curious as to why an experiment couldn't be conducted to attempt to create a new species.

 

What I have in mind is to have a group of mice and put them in a condition of competition, that is, introduce some form of predation, and control the food source so that population growth is checked. In this condition, control the food source so that the mice have to submerge them selves to get the food. At first this could be achieved by placing food pellets in a trough of water that they would have to dunk their heads into to get. Since they are competing for food some of the mice would starve, or become unfit and be more subject to predation than the other mice. This would result in natural selection favoring those mice which were best able to submerge for food. After a certain amount of generations, the food could then be placed in a puddle which would required the mice to submerge their whole bodies in to get. The natural selection would continue to favor those mice that were best able to swim. The process could then be extended to place the food deeper so the mice would have to dive to get the food and they would be in direct competition with the other mice. These harsh conditions should, by evolutionary theory, cause rapid change and natural selection would favor those mice had those characteristics best suited to swimming: less fur, longer limbs, development of webbed feet, etc. Eventually water predators could be introduced to encourage the development of faster swimming, and hypothetically as the mice became more and more specialized toward aquatic living genetic drift would make them sexually incompatible with other mice and will have become a new species.

 

Since mice breed so rapidly, I feel as though this process could be achieved within a feasible time line, it seems at least within 100 years. Additionally the mice could be made subject to radiation to encourage DNA mutation which might also quicken the process.

 

The significance of such an experiment would be to provide direct evidence in favor of speciation and would be substantial evidence in favor of evolution.

 

Does anyone know any reasons why this experiment might be unachievable? The idea seems solid to me, but I am operating solely off of information gathered through my own research and do not know any knowledgable sources whom I could ask, which is why I ask here.

 

Thanks in advance for any answers or discussion on the topic

[ecoli]

evolution may work on a 100 year time line, but people don't.

[drdanger]

wouldn't the experiment be worth conducting anyways? If time is the only factor it's not as though it would require a whole lot of resources, and wouldn't it be worth while if it were able to provide the conclusive evidence that evolution lacks? When people speak against evolution they often cite the lack of fossil evidence but with if this experiment proved productive then it would absolve then need for fossil evidence. Wouldn't proof of evolution be worth devoting a bit of lab space to?

[npts2020]

Why would that prove evolution any more than breeding already does?

(It would be an interesting experiment though)

[drdanger]

Because breeding doesn't produce new species to my knowledge. Regardless of what type of dog you have they are still Canis lupus familiaris and a chihuahua could still conceivably breed with a St Bernard, if not physically than through artificial insemination. I want to see if an entirely new species could be created, one which wouldn't be reproductively compatible with other mice.

[npts2020]

I see, but couldn't you do the same sort of thing with drosophila in much less time?

[drdanger]

I don't know much about insects. Is there such a thing as an aquatic insect? From what I know, there are already quite a few experiments that have been done on fruit flies to prove evolution but they don't seem to have been received by the public very warmly. I feel like if people were shown that mammals are subject to evolution than it would hit a lot closer to home and people would be more willing to believe that it applies to them as well than if the same experiment were performed with insects. Besides, with mice you would be more capable of artificial selection. You could remove mice which aren't aquatically adapted and encourage breeding between those mice which are.

[iNow]

From what I know, there are already quite a few experiments that have been done on fruit flies to prove evolution but they don't seem to have been received by the public very warmly.

 

We have more evidence in favor of evolution than for nearly any other scientific idea ever put forth. If people still don't accept it as real, then no one other single experiment will change that, whether you use fruit flies, dogs, horses, or humans.

 

I think that most of the general public do, in fact, accept evolution. Those who do not are blinded by their religious dogma and faith, and no amount of empirical data can change that.

 

If you want to make a change in this regard, you need to attack the root cause of the ignorance. Convince them that their belief systems and religious teachings are invalid. Only once you have will those people you described as "the public" (a public who STILL to this day refuse to accept evolution) have a chance at living their life more aligned with the reality around them.

 

Do you know any secularists or atheists who don't accept evolution? Think about it.

[npts2020]

Maybe you could get funds for a National Institute of Evolutionary Studies or something similar and do several ongoing experiments using different species. Someone might be doing something along those lines right now but I don't know about it. It would be worth looking into so you can design your experiment to not exactly duplicate someone elses work. It would also be worthwhile to have a discussion with an evolutionary biologist or someone in a related field about likely ways of producing speciation.

[Ophiolite]

wouldn't the experiment be worth conducting anyways?

It is an intriguing experiment. (Although I envisage a colony of such mice escaping by chance and for ever after we shall be fearful to sit upon a toilet.) It would offer nothing in relation to the reality of evolution, though it could produce some interesting new detail.

and wouldn't it be worth while if it were able to provide the conclusive evidence that evolution lacks?

As iNow has pointed out evolution does not lack conclusive evidence. Evolution is as solidly rooted a theory as anything in science and more solidly rooted than most.

When people speak against evolution they often cite the lack of fossil evidence .............

That's because they are speaking from ignorance. There is abundant fossil evidence. The problem is it requires open eyes and minds to see it.

 

I hate to sound dismissive, because your intentions are excellent (and the proposed experiment is clever), but pandering to a scientifically illiterate minority with specially designed experiments is not the way forward.

[drdanger]

Thank you for all the responses. I'm not sure if I have the capability of conducting such an experiment at this point in time but maybe later in life I can. My main concern was just that there is some well known law that would make my experiment impossible that I didn't know about but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm intrigued to know about all this evidence that you all have mentioned in favor of evolution. In my own studies I've found enough to convince me, but I wouldn't say that it has been a mountain of conclusive evidence. Just enough for me to accept it as the most likely explanation that we have. I'll have to keep researching for more evidence.

[Phi for All]

I'm intrigued to know about all this evidence that you all have mentioned in favor of evolution. In my own studies I've found enough to convince me, but I wouldn't say that it has been a mountain of conclusive evidence. Just enough for me to accept it as the most likely explanation that we have. I'll have to keep researching for more evidence.

TalkOrigins is a great place to start if you haven't found it already, especially if you're looking for answers to questions typically asked by the scientifically illiterate minority, as Ophiolite so aptly names them.

[pioneer]

I have a theory for speciation that came to me the other day.

 

If we look at two sperm cells, that form from a full amount of DNA, each sperm cell will get half the DNA, with the separation occurring in a random way. This is basic biology without the details and nomenclature.

 

If we go back one generation to that male's parents, his DNA is half from his mother and half from his father. What that means is a random split of the son's DNA to make 2 sperm cells, should make at least some male sperm (his father's DNA) and female sperm (his mother's DNA). Most will be a blend with X% from his father (male) and the complement X% from his mother (female).

 

I say male and female sperm only in the sense of the originator of the genes from the previous generation. The male DNA in sperm is sort of a misnomer, since you can't split DNA from a male, formed from a male and female and get two males. What this means is genes from the grandmother can be transfer via female gene dominate sperm. The result can still be a male child, but with more female secondary genes. The son can have the thick long hair normally associated with a female from grandma's DNA or via female gene dominant sperm.

 

Relative to speciation this random split should also allow a way to concentration mutations from previous generations. If the random split concentrated mutations from son's parents and grandparents, into some sperm during random split, the combined change can occur without a mutation in the son's generation. In other words, previous generations are adapting slowly and adding genes or pieces to the puzzle that have some advantage. The son randomly concentrates all this during a sperm split.

 

Relative to the mouse experiment. One group of mice may develop different fur. Another aspect of the group the ability to hold its breath, another different feet, etc.. It is easier to evolve one related task at a time from different members. Eventually these concentrate in one of the sperm for a complete package or new species.

[vampares]

Dog breeds. It's not evolution until the DNA can't combine.

[insane_alien]

Dog breeds. It's not evolution until the DNA can't combine.

 

i think you mean 'its not speciation...'

 

evolution occurs everytime there is reproduction.

[Mokele]

Dog breeds. It's not evolution until the DNA can't combine.

 

Actually, many "species" can hybridize, including the famous Galapagos finches. Hell, I've personally seen 3 cross-genus hybrids in snakes, including one which crossed genera separated by at least 70 million years.

 

The definition of "species" is contentious, and how much slop is allowable is subject to vigorous debate.

 

Mokele

[drdanger]

Actually, many "species" can hybridize, including the famous Galapagos finches. Hell, I've personally seen 3 cross-genus hybrids in snakes, including one which crossed genera separated by at least 70 million years.

 

The definition of "species" is contentious, and how much slop is allowable is subject to vigorous debate.

 

Mokele

 

Does anyone have any information from studies on the line between species? Clearly we can say Elephants and Humans are different species, for one because they are in no way able to breed, but there are other factors as well. I personally don't know too much about the subject, and it would be nice to know.

[Mokele]

There are entire books, big ones, about it, and the problem is that we're trying to draw boxes and demarcations in an immensely complex process which is continuous. Essentially, if two species are in the process of separating, at what point, and by which criterion, do you split them? Do you need to apply it to all organisms from bacteria to bunnies, or can you have different definitions of 'species' for sexual and asexual organisms?

[CharonY]

Precisely. One of the most debatable species concept is that within prokaryotes. In practical terms a simple cut-off in sequence divergence is used, but this is, of course, an arbitrary line. It is clear though, that prokaryotic gene pools behave differently than that of (higher) eukaryotes. As such it is painfully obvious that a general species definition is very hard (if possible at all) to apply. But as Mokele pointed out, species is essentially a crutch that we use out of convenience, but also out of necessity in some cases.