What percent of species have been wiped out by evolution, as opposed to being improved by it?
What chance do you give the humans right now?
I have no idea.
Are there any mammals that are capable of parthenogenetic reproduction?
Are you a proponent of geometric metabolic scaling (metab. rate == constant * mass^(2/3)) or of a 3/4 exponent?
1)As Cecil said, one reported case.
2)42
I think the fern is older, but I am not a botanist.
Your next two questions require value judgments. There is no such thing as one plant or anything being “superior” to another. Similarly, sexual reproduction is “better” for creatures that reproduce that way, but there are other things that have been reproducing assexually for millions of years with no problems.
Disregard all of the above if you were being facetious.
As for the impact of genetically engineered foods I fully expect the decisions the human race makes today to alter the course of human history, as usual. It wouldn’t be the first time changes in agriculture have done that.
Depends on what you mean by good paying. I have a BS in Molecular Biology and make in the high 5 figures, although I have been working in industry for years.
There is definitely a “ceiling” above which you can’t go unless you do have some type of advanced degree however (PhD or MD, or even law or business degree). In my experience this ceiling is not so much in regard to pay but more in terms of position in the company…my company must have 10 or so VPs and they all have a bachelor’s plus some other degree. For me there is simply no career path to that type of job unless I go back to school (which is my long term plan).
As far as general job prospects go most predictions I have seen for biologists expect the job market to grow at least as fast as the general job market, or faster, in the forseeable future. And industry jobs do tend to pay better than jobs in academia, although there is overlap.
CaptBushido in terms of types of jobs there are things like basic research, QA and QC, Process Development, Manufacturing. Even in areas like Sales or Purchasing a Biology degree can come in handy if you are working for a biotech or pharmaceutical company.
All species go extinct eventually. I would guess that at least 99.99% of all species that have ever lived on the Earth are now extinct, but it is hard to say because the concept of “species” itself can get fuzzy, as has been discussed on these boards before.
What are you doing in my thread aye? Muscling in?
Sexual reproduction fosters evolution.
As for GM, it doesn’t matter. Of course our decisions shape our future. What we do is a product of our nature, and thus is the impetus for furtherance of our nature (evolution as a species).
The fern is older.
We train hard for the olympics, horses don’t. Horses have been evolving longer and have plateaud. We have been artificially enhancing pumpkins.
Do you prefer cladograms to binomial nomenclature?
Merla
[muscling in]
One really doesn’t prefer one over the other: binomial nomenclature is simply used to name species. How those species are arranged is where cladograms vs. traditional Linnaean taxonomy comes in. And I, for one, abhor Linnaean taxonomies. Cladistics all the way, baby!
[muscling out]
Behavioral ecology, I’m curious. Can you give an example?
Actually I do know that. I knew something was wrong with the post as soon as I posted it- I learned that in marine invert biology not too long ago. :smack:
But thank you.
Merla
Sorry, but I pester all biologists I meet with this one:
What is the difference between a plant and an animal?
Amateurs: it’s not chlorophyll/chloroplasts
Well, some of those questions had been hanging there for a while. Just thought I’d help out.
I hope you are not saying that organisms that reproduce asexually can’t evolve.
Still mostly serious here.
But I’ll pose my question in another way since you are an evolutionary biologist.
Under what environmental conditions might elephants or other large animals evolve into tiny versions of themselves? And how long will it take - I really want my pet elephant.
No problem 
Taxonomy and paleontology are my own “specialities” (such as that term actually applies to me, anyway – I’m very much the amateur biologist), so I could go on all day about such things.
Who is your favourite writer on the topics you specialize in?
(As an aside, I read one of the books suggested in the CS thread about this - I loved it! This looks like it could be a topic that takes up much more of my reading time in the future.)
“Taxonomy and paleontology are my own “specialities”…”
Oh…and systematics.
[Muscling in again, since I’m here]
What you need is a good dose of directional or disruptive selection*. If the environment of the elephants changes such that smaller sizes are favored (e.g., less available food, increased predation on larger specimens, etc.), then, well, they will likely tend to become smaller. Such pressures have to remain for a significant period of time, of course, otherwise the population could just as easily swing back towards “normal” elephant size.
*There are three main flavors, so to speak, of natural selection: stabilizing selection, in which extremes are selected against; directional selection, in which the extremes of a population are favored (a process which, incidently, can potentially lead to sympatric speciation); and disruptive selection, which is essentially a more extreme form of directional selection. In the case of the latter, the changes tend to be, well, disruptive, as a result of drastic environmental changes, so the changes in poulation are likely to also be more dramatic and more rapid.
[muscling out again]
There’s someone else into behavioural ecology on the boards! Awesome!
Behavioural ecology, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are more or less synonymous with one another. It got a big boost with the printing of E.O.Wilson’s Sociobiology, but it had been around for quite a while before. It looks at the ultimate (evolutionary) causes of behaviour rather than the proximate (more immediately environmental) causes.
One of my favourite examples is the Seychelles Warbler. Dependent on the environment, it’s either favourable for it to have male or female offspring. I think in a hostile environment it’s better to have a male, so they can fly off and find a better nest, and in a nice (for want of a better word) environment it’s better to have a female so they can stay in the nest and pump out the offspring.
Studies have shown that in a nice environment that the birds will have 75% female offspring, and in a hostile environment they will have 13% female offspring. (This might be the other way round, but I think the figures at least are right).
Sorry if I got this all wrong Ilsa_Lund. I’ll give you a question to make up for me muscling in on your territory: Does the Trivers-Willard effect exist, or has it been disproven?
I believe there are some fossil remains of small elephants on some islands in relatively recent times…I will have to find a cite though. They are naturally extinct now, and they were never cat sized, more like horse sized IIRC.
Apparently the decreased availability of food forced them to become smaller. Also I would guess there were fewer large predators on the island so being really large was no longer an advantage there.