As IF Times

link:  https://scitechdaily.com/decade-long-study-challenges-traditional-views-of-evolution/

An article came to my notice which quite piqued my interest.  It does not concern politics or culture per se and in fact is quite an arduous read.  But if you can get through it, the ramifications of the findings of this article should make people think about issues which have always been accepted as being incontrovertible science.

Even those with only a rudimentary education will understand the concept of Darwinism.  Very broadly, it postulates that in an ecosystem, the strong will survive and the weak won’t.  The popularity of this theory has been adopted as a universal truth in society and accepted in scientific circles as well.

Reading of this 10 year study will induce sleep faster than watching golf on TV, but the gist of the conclusion indicates that genetic codes in Daphnia plankton have a mechanism that can quickly adapt to changing external conditions which enables them to survive. In other words, they don’t just die off because of change, they are able to adapt to the new environment.  Here’s the salient excerpt:

They discovered that the strength of natural selection on individual genes varies significantly from year to year, maintaining variation and potentially enhancing the ability to adapt to future changing environmental conditions by providing raw material for natural selection to act on.

While this distinction may be subtle, the eggheads in the science world are now facing the possibility of changing their views of species evolution.

As gripping as this may seem, it would just draw a blank stare from the less scientifically inclined.  The implication is that, by extrapolation, all living species have the capacity to adjust their genetic codes to suit changes in their environment.  The caveat though, is that this happens over generations and not during a sudden change in the environment

As these findings trickle through the scientific community, it’s going to cause a lot of narratives about shrinking polar bear populations and missing bees and penguins into question.  At the very least, this demonstrates the fundamental foundational tenet of all science:  An observation is made and then attempts are made to explain a phenomenon by objective study and testing to validate any claims.  It’s quite the thing to find out that something that’s been accepted to be true…may not be at all.  Empiricism has to be the basis for knowledge.

We’ve all realized by now that much of what passes as science can often be traced to whomever may have been funding the study.  Examples such as cigarette brands most recommended by doctors; foods best suited for long life, good teeth and shiny hair.  And of course, as has been exposed of late, the efficacy of vaccines. All were once apparently endorsed “by science”. When I read the linked article, I can’t determine if anyone had an axe to grind either for or against Daphnia plankton, so we assume its objectivity.  Plankton doesn’t engender as much cuteness sympathy as baby polar bears, thus no teen-aged girls are championing their issues.

What this discovery should lead to is the dampening of the mass hysteria propagated by all quarters on the existential dangers of driving a pick-up, using plastic straws or of dangerous flatulent cows. It appears that animals, including humans, have the innate capacity to adapt to ecosystems over time.  This also has implications for treatment of illnesses. Thus any plans to depopulate the world to save it are not only despotic, but truly unhinged.  In fact, if you think about it, that whole belief system is anti-science.

In earlier times, the official world narrative used to be controlled by those who had the capacity to do so.  This included religious organizations and feudal rulers.  The vast number of people just accepted their dictates as truths.  As we know, the availability of education to everyone eliminated (mostly) these institutions’ monopoly on information.

But as we all know, human nature is predictable; that is, people are malleable. The modern day feudal lords propagate their worldview by control of the media narrative, rather than sending men with swords to the doors.  They effectively use influential proxies as their messengers as well as painting skeptics as deniers of science.  Imagine the pushback Galileo must have endured when he first proposed that the universe did not revolve around the Earth.  Or the ancient Greek, Pythagoras when he surmised that the earth wasn’t flat. Of course they were proven to be correct over time and empirical observation.  But someone brave had to question the established beliefs.

And yet to this day, you still have people pushing flat earth narratives, rising oceans and imminent human calamity.   Even worse, an entire bunch of entitled people still think that the world revolves around them.

link Flowers losing scent due to climate change.

Ok, now it’s getting serious.  For lands to flood, habitats to disappear and glaciers to melt are bad enough.  But now for flowers to lose their scents?  An abomination.

Kudos to these scientists for uncovering yet another major calamity about to befall mankind as a result of global warming.  The discovery of this new phenomenon now edges out some others on the list of issues of urgent importance to mankind.  More specifically, it comes in at a firm 187,778th position after smelly feet syndrome and before excessive nasal hair. 

Special mention should be made of the scientists’ acuity of reasoning which enabled them to attribute the loss of floral scent directly to global warming. The confidence with which they were able to conclude this surely qualifies them for some kind of award or at the very least,  a fancy floral arrangement.

The article goes on to describe the ‘butterfly effect’ of this condition, leading the reader to conclude that massive impacts on food production will result unless science steps in to modify genes in plants to avert catastrophe.  While I’m all for the application of science to help out with issues that affect mankind, history has shown that the earth’s ecosystem has its own  order and means of working out excesses and shortages.  Amazingly this happens even without the input of humans.

Fairly recently, in Canada’s north, someone concluded that wolves were endangering the caribou population and therefore justified targeted killings to cull the wolf population.  There are those who believed that doing so would upset the natural predator/prey balance and that the caribou population would grow larger than would otherwise be naturally sustainable.  So? Well, it turns out that caribou and certain deer are carriers for parasites that are lethal to boreal growth, which of course creates a whole new set of problems. 

If we believe modern science, organisms have a way of adapting to their environments though not always in a way that is considered favorable.   If there were scientists around a few million years ago, they’d be fretting that fish were sprouting legs and were adapting to land life. If the global warming crowd were around then, they’d be panicking that all fish would evolve themselves out of existence.  In any event, with regard to the ‘defragrancing’ of flowers, maybe the scientists can work on the smelly feet problem.