My hypothesis for this evolution theory, first mentioned at the Birdfair 2016 to
a a member of the BTO so I have decided to publish it now (Oct 8th 2016) before anyone else publishes it.
“It takes just 30 generations for any successful mutation or species to become fully integrated within its local ecosystem”
This has come about from listening to various natural history and science programmes, and my number brain. It seems that living creatures change to sort their environment as Darwin’s Theory describes but where he believed it took a long time for any change to take place, I differ in that I believe the time is measured in generations of the orgasm, my estimate with the limited research to date is 30 generations to become established, meaning for some viruses that would be 3 ‐ 5 years, but man about 500 ‐ 600 years.
The reasoning behind this theory is that we already understand that the reproduction processes produce mutations, then if these mutations enable the organism to be more successful as Darwin describes and that the initial mutation can breed and we assume its offspring can also breed, when this mutation is dominant, especially within a closed environment, where it will then multiply even if a recessive mutation will start producing offspring showing the original mutation, and as like breed with like, it necessarily follows that the numbers will increase given time due to being stronger to survive so pushing out the original line off the parents that produced the new mutation, or may exploited a new niche within the ecosystem, so starting a new sub specie. Just look at the diseases that have struck man in resent year such as Aids and e‐bola, reverse migration of Blackcaps at present taking place, the spread of the Collard Dove, the time it took Rabbits to fight against myxomatosis, plus mans own flu vaccines needing constant changes due to the flu’s natural changing mutations.
Higher lines towards Kingdoms most likely can from fertile outcross, which rarely ever are produced but as all living things attempt to propagate, or when strong multi mutations which generally only occur with high radiation levels, it necessarily follows that either could happen at times. The other method would be a string of mutations that as Darwin perdicted but would take much longer to achieve, when most of the earlier species changes may die out before the final kingdom change is achieved. This hypothesis theory covers the speed of change when conditions suit a mutation or an introduced alien, which will than most likely change the ecology of the ecosystem. Most mutations and released species will not be successful and will soon fall by the wayside without support by man, but others will thrive and very quickly become established if man does not intervene, so changing the previous balance.
This hypothesis if proved to be a theory will need us to rethink our reintroduction programmes, for will we have already given the ecosystem time to re‐establish a partially balanced environment before we return an old generally higher predator of a previous system, will it displace other organisms lower down the food chain that will then effect another higher up the food chain that have either evolved or moved onto this new available food source and expanded their numbers, that had been earlier been controlled by the proposed reintroduction subject. We need to understand that any action will produce a reaction, through natural selection as Darwin’s original theory taught us, but not over long periods but with just approx 30 generations.
We already understand the environmental problems of alien species being introduced onto islands such as rodents eating ground bird eggs, here in England with the animal rights movement through their believed kindness of letting out Mink from fur farms have almost bought our Water Vole to extinction, had it not been for captive breeding re-introduction and mass killing of the released minks offspring. All around the globe this problem has been repeated many times with different species for different reasons so planned other unplanned unexpected errors, those that I have looked at fit this 30 generation time space to get fully establish if man has not intervened earlier. I've yet to see the link that reacts to the second change due to the first becoming established.
It is now time to look at some of my thinking behind this, please follow the following link.
Guppies, evolved in less than 30 generations
The above link takes you to a study on Guppies a small freshwater fish, that are also found among aquarists, that was carried out by Swanne Gordon a biology graduate student. They introduced then to a section of the Damier River above a barrier waterfall that had no predators, but the adults and young escaped to the lower section with predators.
Within 8 years, less than 30 guppy generations, those in with predators had evolved by producing fewer but larger young with each generation; no such changes took place above the waterfall without predators. Latter tests showed this gave the young a better survival rate then those of the none changed subjects.
As time goes by I will publish pages as I write them, and so develop this hypothesis into a theory.
If you wish me, to give a talk or you have your own thoughts. You can email me via firstname.lastname@example.org
Grass Snake in Water, this reptile hunts both in the water and on the land, but generally only found near a water body
Wasps generally taken as a pest, but cleans up dead decaying meat and fruit, similar roll to Vultures in Africa and Asia.
| Muntjac Deer
This small Deer found in Britain was introduced and is spreading, eating vegetation and
causing damage to woodlands fresh ground plant regeneration, or should that be stopping woodlands from expanding?
Young tree growth and primula plants are accepted to form part of their diet
Being a tusked breed, it points out that they are closely related to the first deer breeds to be seen some 15‐35
million years ago.