Hurricanes can be deadly to plants, people and animals caught in their paths. The idea that such destructive events could drive natural selection is controversial. Now, new research on Caribbean lizards seems to suggest that recent hurricanes have selected for certain traits. These traits could help them cope with high wind speeds and might even be advantageous enough to influence their evolution. Find out more in this Nature Video.
Find the original research paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0352-3
25 July 2018
do u ever Research Lizards Home > ?
I'm Serious There's Can Comunication One other One Very Good .
How Smart IQ Lizards ? ( there can Reports any situation at around me , to Big Lizard ! ) we talking About Research Science !
Talking about 'natural' selection when the military admits it has for decades, had the power to generate / degenerate / steer hurricanes. These phoney baloney scientists just hunt for any way to suckle up grant money.
Basil Serpent if you can't see my reply, then YouTube blocked it for containing links, so I will double post just in case.
Search Wikipedia for: *Cloud Seeding, Operation Popeye, Project Stormfury, HAARP*
No, it's a well known fact among people who are informed on the topic but since you're probably like 15 years old, I don't expect you to know anything about the Vietnam War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye <Vietnam War
"Could hurricanes drive natural selection?"
Natural selection is driven by survival. Hurricanes are part of the environment which every living being needs to survive.
Why waste 3 minutes on an obvious answer?
What if you artificially bred these lizards by how long they could hold on to a tree in a wind chamber until they were much better than wild lizards, then reintroduced this variant species back into the wild?
Hopefully this does not spark a rage comment spree:
Wouldn't this explain the main difference between human races by looking at the country a race originates from?
For example, Jamaicans are well adapted to warm climates due to their skin tone and higher heat tolerance yet Russians have tougher builds for the cold and hard climate.
This may be the general idea yet a person, from any race, in a cold region is much different to one in a warm climate.
Can this be the subtle genetic ideas each generation adapts to over time?
You're in dodgy territory. Also remember that populations' traits can diverge simply due to randomness. Just because they look different, doesn't necessarily mean that the differences are adaptive. Evolution 101. In order to show that were true, someone would have to show (with an experiment) that someone with lighter skin, for example, is more likely to die or less likely to get food in a hot environment. That'd be a super unethical experiment to run.
Also wtf is a "subtle genetic idea"? A population either has an allele/mutation or it doesn't. If the appropriate mutation never appears in a population, natural selection cannot operate on it and thus evolution (by natural selection) cannot occur (obviously genetic drift can still happen). It is perfectly possible for a population to not change very much. Just because a population or species is in a specific location, doesn't necessarily mean it is "optimal."
irondvs1996 can you please mention who you are reffering to because we can't tell who you are talking to, also I don't watch that, it is to toxic and about an idiot thinking the world is a videogame and getting kids to watch his videos. If you think I/Bianca watch him because of how we say 'species' or 'generation' that is because they are actual terms used in science and he is just hijacking them.
The dumbest theory ive ever heard. To the scientist that doubts the power of a hurricane; go outside and try to survive primitively in a hurricane. 21st century scientist would have 50% survival rate according to my study of butterflies that are sprayed by my hose in the backyard.
ghidfe well the lizards survived it with relatively low casualties because of genetic changes in their bodys. Called evolution powered by natural selection. They teach it in school unless you went to dumbass creationist schools for people who can't grasp concepts like evolution because to them reading one book full of Christian stories telling you how to live is easier than reading many ooks with evidence to back them up (evidence is what seperates cdeationism from science)
Whoever animated that hurricane at 0:30 doesn't even have a rudimentary intuitive idea of how those storms function. Reminds me of the time I watched a space documentary and they were explaining how a moon revolving around a planet causes the planet to have a lesser revolution around the moon -- only the CG animator had both the moon and the planet on the same side of the revolution.
This is why everyone has to go to primary school, folks.
Was there anyone who actually doubted that the massive death to the least fit festival known as a hurricane could be an evolutionary pressure? I want to meet these fools that thought that a lizard would survive a hurricane no matter what their shape was.
Deathly Wraith You contradicted yourself. “You can like pizza without liking the majority or Italian foods.” Pizza is a group branched from the whole Italian food. It’s like how music is art but not all art is music. Technology is science but only one specialized group.
CUTE but wrong.
the inherant - is NOT memorable (via brain matter)
although a microbe can "survive" - based on margarine dynos
IT IS NOT the REASON for the lizards wing flange.
remember - its NOT he arms (it's the penile flight or fight base.meme)
Here is something else to think about and do some independent research on.
How many people, around the world, perish from "extreme weather events" and starvation? How has that trended over the years? You'll find that people die much less frequently from climate and weather events. Why? Because fossil fuels.
This is a good start.
I understand. And it has been a pleasant conversation.
Their models, since people have been doing modeling, have been wrong. The only prediction you can make from computer modeling is that it will be wrong. They are literally predicting the future weather, 100 years in advance. They are creating a climate of fear, doubt, and uncertainty to fund their existence.
I should probably disclose that I am not a US citizen, they don't use my taxes to fund these studies, and even if they did, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
While it might not directly affect me, the increasing of human knowledge is a greater whole, I would rather have my taxes go to research like this, rather than another senator's salary.
I did read the article, and the snippet you quoted is right above this:
"We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average. In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, tropical cyclone surge levels should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5."
They're not linking global warming just for funding, sea levels are rising (take it from the person who lives below sea level, it's moderately terrifying), and the temperature of the water is climbing along with it, which then plays its own part in the severity of tropical storms. Again, I'm not claiming human involvement here, I'm just talking about the fact that global warming, or more aptly, climate change, is real. Whether you choose to accept that humans influence it or not is really not relevant to me. The effects of climate change are more about more extreme climates, rather than just a hotter world. It does happen, the climates have changed over the past, and they will do again, but it is a danger to the unstable human existence.
If you want, we can agree to disagree, It has been a lovely discussion, and you've been very civil (something incredibly rare in these comment sections) and I wouldn't want this to turn ugly. I will agree that you make a powerful case, and it is definitely something to challenge my own ideas.
Link works now.
Did you read this? I didn't read the whole thing. But here's a snippet. Section "E".
"E. Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming
In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups.
Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)."
In short, they create computer models to predict the future. Their models don't fit the past observations. And they predict a 100% increase in CAT5 hurricanes that won't be detectable for another 50 to 100 years. In other words, once everybody currently working there retires, THEN, their predictions will come true.
They are a government org. They get your tax dollars to do research.
How much of your money are you willing to front to study the potential impact of the health benefits of taking a cold shower once every 5 years? Probably none of it. How many people would want to fund such research? Probably nobody. Why? Because it doesn't impact them. It doesn't scare them. it is not a problem.
You don't pay people to research problems that either don't exist or we can't do anything about. So they link climate change to human emissions so they get your tax money to fund their salaries. And they can also steal more money from you in forms of "carbon taxes" like CAFE.
But niw the lizards are probably safe in captivety, put back into the wild or have become educational animals. If they even became an educational animal or a pet then they are living a happy life with no predators and being fed instead of having to hunt. Also this is a common anole species so if they are captive then it won't be having a bad effect on the eco system
could someone please explain: what sort of evolution or natural selection or nature events lead to me having a 14-15 centimetre phallus (peepee dingdong wang tang) with an average or less girth!
risk of going down the Gorilla way :-? 4cm¡!
Humans are, most of the time, closer to the sexual behaving of chimpanse, or bonobos than to that of gorillas, which means females have a big amount of potencial partners, while in the gorilla society there is one alpha-male which gets to do it with the females, while other males get beaten up by the alpha-male when they try to have sex with a female of the alphas harem. Long story (really) short, when the females get to chose which male they want (and theoreticaly also if the bigger penis doesn't have an disatvantage like, I don't know, it gets stuck somewhere and causes injuries) the penises are, on average bigger. If you humanity would want to have bigger penises on the long run, females would have to only create offspring with big penissed ( by the way, funny word, it's like big headded but with genitalia! :-)) males for several generations. I'm not sure about how many generations would be needed, but I would guess that it takes over 1000, which would be roughly 30000 years. Also do we really need bigger penises?
That's not all of natural selection. Natural selection also entails survival of the fittest which contradicts hospitals. Natural selection also entails competition which is challenged by symbiotic evolution. Natural selection from the neo darwinian evolution perspective is also unfalsifable.
The difference is, we know how natural selection works. We have evidence for it. We have seen it with our own eyes in the form of of many species adapting to environments in only decades. On the other hand, we don't know how god does things or works. We don't have direct evidence for a god or gods. And we have never seen a god or gods with our own eyes.
I'd be a better comparison to say that cooling and warming periods affect evolution so why not extreme storms like hurricanes? Anyway I get what you mean, I think it's more like they're wondering if the adaptions that help them during hurricanes came about because of those storms or if they were for a different purpose and just so happened to be useful in those cases too, it's an interesting question to ask because they use their padded toes and elongated legs for climbing but they could've been a development for for either purpose or both.
Swole Astronomer, the term you're looking for is "genetic drift." And you're right; rare events like asteroid impacts can certainly drive evolution (via genetic drift), but they probably aren't selection pressures.
"You disagree with me on this one thing, so I'll assume everything about the rest of your stance. You MUST be my total polar opposite, and thus evil & stupid. It always, always boils down to black & white, the left & right - there is no greater complexity than that. I'm so obsessed with hating this particular group that I have to reach wildly to connect a video about lizards in hurricanes to politics so that I can complain some more. MAGA"
Do you realize how insane you sound?
Yes, the example is a bit simplistic, but not as extreme as you might think, epidemics for example do actually make such a clean cut through entire population of a species sometimes. I just hope my example worked in illustrating how selective pressures work. Hurricanes and tree lizards are similar, specimens that are better at holding on and not flying off to high winds have a remarkably better chance at survival. So if you have a hurricane visiting the island every now and then, the process will weed out less fit specimens, every hurricane making a significant change to remaining gene pool. Such selective pressures can have significant effect in remarkably small number of generations, for example, African elephant tusks are getting shorter due to ivory trade.
In case of something like hurricane driven evolution, no not really. Imagine for a second a hypothetical scenario, let's say all people who are not redheads would be killed overnight. Such an event would have an instant effect on the human gene pool and almost universally, all future generations would be redheads. Evolution doesn't have to be slow, an already existing trait can be enforced or reduced overnight by a single event, but no amount of evolutionary pressure can make your descendants sprout tentacles, even within 100 generations.
Indeed they would have, so here is an opportunity. Get a PVC pipe, a leaf blower, a net, camera, species of tree lizards from an area that suffers frequent hurricanes and similar species of lizards from area that doesn't. Measure the wind speeds at which lizards fall off the pipe, compile a comparison, write a paper and publish. For science!
if you get reported then your comment won't show up for that person or it will just disappear.but your channel won't get deleted.
cause youtube mainly cares about videos cause they want to be advertiser friendly.
star and fox lol i didn't say that your comment was about me so you didn't read my comment. You can get reported and idk what happens to someone if it's in a comment that could be the next video these people do
you said people who posted videos during the 2016 election got their channels removed.which proves my point that only videos can get you banned.but writing a comment can't get your channel banned.
just cause a comment is directly after yours doesn't mean it's directed at you.context clues are important.
There has not been anything that you have said that has been proven with any comment that I wrote. Your comment was directly after mine and it was a big let-down for me with seeing all of this crap about what people think on religion instead of a video about a lizard. I could care less if people agree or disagree with me but I am just tired of seeing people so nasty that I decided to say something which most people wouldn't do. it doesn't affect me having a YouTube channel or not I could care less I'm going to fall asleep tonight I'm going to wake up and pay taxes I'm going to have to go to work it doesn't affect me what people are going to say there would be no reason for me to get off of YouTube because I have a lot of opportunity to help educate people with the field that I'm in.
It sounds though like you are starting to loosen up a little bit I was not attacking you as a person I was trying to say what you were doing was the problem i had with you.
everything I said was true and you proved it to be true.
yes yes it is.I'm also not criticizing about the lizard I'm criticizing them about denying facts and throwing insults.also why would I go protest out in front of a church?I have no problem with religion itself I have a problem with a lot of people in religions like SupraNaturalTT and ZipYour Lib.
I have no hate for the church.also my comment had nothing to do with yours but I guess your feelings are so hurt you didn't realize who my comment was directed at.
+Dziban Molniya Most will say, "what are you talking about? I pronounce it Uh-nole."
scroll down to "what's in a name"
"Among anolologists, anole is almost invariably pronounced “uh-nole” or “an-ole”, but the etymologically correct pronunciation is probably “a-no-lee”. The word “anolis” is a French West Indian word, still used on some French (or Creole) speaking islands, and on currently English-speaking islands which were previously French. In Haitian Creole, Wade Davis (1983) rendered the word as “zanolite” (he pronounced it with stresses on the first and third syllables), while Allsop (1996) gives it as “zandoli” on St. Lucia. (In both these forms, the ‘z’ is a common addition to Creole nouns, as in “zwazo”, from French “oiseau”.) It is most plausibly derived from a Carib word, but claims for an African origin have also been made. So, pretty much every anole biologist you meet (including me!) will be saying “anole” wrong."
Prescriptivism is BS. The correct way is the way people who use it actually say it. In Florida and the Caribbean, it is three syllables. Among people who study the animals for their scientific usefulness, it is two.
Most of the world pronounces anole with three syllables anne-ol-ee. Two & three syllable pronunciations are both acceptable according to dictionaries, but three syllable is the historic way from the Latin binomial
Antidepressants are medications that can help relieve symptoms of depression, social anxiety disorder, anxiety disorders, seasonal affective disorder, and dysthymia, or mild chronic depression, as well as other conditions.
They aim to correct chemical imbalances of neurotransmitters in the brain that are believed to be responsible for changes in mood and behavior.
Depression Medications (Antidepressants)
These are the most commonly prescribed type of antidepressant.
Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are used to treat major depression, mood disorders, and possibly but less commonly attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), anxiety disorders, menopausal symptoms, fibromyalgia, and chronic neuropathic pain.
SNRIs raise levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, two neurotransmitters in the brain that play a key role in stabilizing mood.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. They are effective in treating depression, and they have fewer side effects than the other antidepressants.
SSRIs block the reuptake, or absorption, of serotonin in the brain. This makes it easier for the brain cells to receive and send messages, resulting in better and more stable moods.
They are called "selective" because they mainly seem to affect serotonin, and not the other neurotransmitters.