New model backs controversial idea of how evolution works

[Simon]

Research supports Gould's hypothesis that new characteristics evolve during periods of rapid change.  (Link follows):

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/new-modelling-backs-controversial-evolution-hypothesis

[Loon]

Very intriguing; Gould has always been a controversial figure, and I think this just adds to a long list of disagreements he has erected. However, new information is new information, and it's always great to learn something new. Will definitely be interested in further research. However, I am not looking forward to certain pundit websites pushing stories to support their narrative, at least when related to evolution.

[stargatedalek]

I think to argue about this idea in such a way is to undermine all of the work in regards to both concepts of the progression of evolution, because this isn't a one or the other scenario. Evolution simply isn't going to happen the same way in every situation, some environmental shifts will demand rapid adaptation and evolution, such as water quality changes, or global temperature spikes, while other slower or more subtle changes, such as the merging of continents (by which I mean invasive species), or a (natural) raising of sea level, will result in more gradual changes as animals are forced into new habitats and confrontations with species they don't normally interact with.

We can even see this occurring in the world around us, moths changed colour in certain regions during the early stages of the industrial revolution, lizards on isolated islands evolved to fertilize their own eggs, and populations of white sharks that focus on different food are changing their proportions accordingly.

There is definitely some truth to this theory, as we see in extreme circumstances both natural and man-made that animals and plants undergo rapid periods of evolution, but to suggest this is the sole method that can lead to radical changes is a foolishly narrow-minded conclusion.

[Mamasaurus]

Very interesting article, and it certainly has a few nuggets of truth to it.  Just look at how animals and plants today have changed to adapt to new environments and situations, man-made or natural.  But life is a messy thing, and I'd be shocked if species didn't change slowly over time as well.  After all, our own human species has been slowly getting taller, to name just one example.

The research seems to suggest that species are capable of changing rapidly under certain circumstances.  I don't think they're suggesting slow evolution of a species does not happen.  We're just not likely to see very many "missing links" because such "bridges" would occupy a very short span of time, in the grand scheme of things.  In a world where you have slow gradual changes (which are usually not the monumental kind), punctuated by quick changes to survive extraneous circumstances, then you are not likely to find the punctuation marks within the grand story.

I think that is what they are suggesting. At least I would hope so.  I really don't care for polarized opinions claiming that things happened only one way, and no other way.  Science should always be open to new ideas and hypotheses, it's how we learn.  By being humble and admitting that we don't know it all, and perhaps there is merit to the opposite side.  It's at least worth a little understanding instead of outright refusal.

[Neosodon]

Fast is kind of vague on a geological time scale because 1 million years can be considered fast in comparison to how long the Mesozoic was. But allot of things went down quicker than many people assume. For example the oldest feathered dinosaur (compsagnathus) comes from close to the same time as the oldest bird(archaeopteryx). Evolution isn't a steady process. The early cretaceous was kind of slow in comparison to the late Cretaceous with the explosion of hadrosaurs, ornithomimasaurs and ceratopsians.

[Rathalosaurus]

Well this is certainly new for me.
However, I do must say that, although supposedly against Darwin's theories, many parts of this could be facts. However, we don't know the answer to every question nature gives us, so in my opinion, the best thing to do is to do more research and to always be open to learning new things.

[Dinophile]

Well, regarding dinosaur evolution I found little nugget...The study was outlined in a recent article in Current Biology by Brown and co-author Charles R. Brown of the University of Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma April 4, 2013.  It cited the changes of barn swallows that lived under bypasses developed shorter wings as an evolutionary selective pressure which prevented the swallows with shorter wings from being road kill.  It seems that this theory can explain rapid changes in current as well as extinct forms.
Here is a link to website:  http://ianrnews.unl.edu/swallows-evolving-shorter-wing-lengths-thanks-messy-encounters-vehicles

[laticauda]

Well, regarding dinosaur evolution I found little nugget...The study was outlined in a recent article in Current Biology by Brown and co-author Charles R. Brown of the University of Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma April 4, 2013.  It cited the changes of barn swallows that lived under bypasses developed shorter wings as an evolutionary selective pressure which prevented the swallows with shorter wings from being road kill.  It seems that this theory can explain rapid changes in current as well as extinct forms.
Here is a link to website:  http://ianrnews.unl.edu/swallows-evolving-shorter-wing-lengths-thanks-messy-encounters-vehicles

Fascinating!   I can't help but wonder, in the article they were "interested in the social behaviors of the cliff swallow", I wonder if there have been any behavior changes along with the wing length?