life history - Has there been any observation of species adapting the evolution process?

Pigliucci gives a good review of some aspects of this topic in "Is evolvability evolvable?" (2008). He sees what you're asking about, which he calls "evolvability", as one of the key topics for the future of the study of evolution.

It's very conceptually dense evo-devo-theory, so I'll probably do a poor job trying to explain it, but he tries to set up a framework that deals not just with things like life-history (per kmm's answer) and mutation/recombination rate (low fidelity in HIV per GWW's answer, and, I suppose, the evolution of sex itself), but also with constraints that evolve at various levels to "positively channel" mutation (that is, the understanding that while mutations are effectively random, the phenotypes that emerge, and are acted upon by natural selection, are not random, but are channelled by the developmental system of the organism).

He also includes the role of development in opening up "phenotypic space" into which a lineage may evolve. For instance, single-celled organisms have a limit on size and complexity, the evolution of multicellularity opens up this huge zone of evolvability. In a sense, this is also the "evolution of evolution".

---

Time from stimulus to gene expression

My understanding is that gene expression, in response to some stimulus, generally occurs on the order of minutes. I'm curious about the extremes...the quickest and the slowest cases.

What is(are) the fastest time(s) recorded for genes being expressed in response to a stimulus? What are the slowest times?

botany - What is the lowest pressure at which plants can survive?

I like your question!

Low surface pressure on Mars (averaging 600 Pa or about 1/170 of Earth's at sea level) is only one difficulty that an organism would have to contend with. In addition, mean surface temperatures are ~210 K (-63 C), the surface ultraviolet flux is extremely high (no ozone layer) and an aridity comparable to the Atacama desert. On the plus side, a 95% CO2 atmosphere might promote photosynthesis.

So, higher plants are extremely unlikely to prosper on Mars. Purely in terms of pressure, experiments suggest that at 1/10 Earth atmospheric pressure vascular plant transpiration increases significantly. So much so that they enter into a drought response which often leads to plant death.

However, lichens may be another matter. These are often adapted to low precipitation/pressure environments such as high mountains. Indeed, this article addresses exactly your question (sadly it is not open access). The authors suggest that the lichen Xanthoria elegans experiences no loss in vitality after 22 days exposure to laboratory Mars-like conditions (low pressure, low temperature etc.)!

Having skimmed this article I am frankly amazed (and slightly dubious) at the result. However, it should be noted that they only ran the experiment for 22 days, applied no ionising radiation (to simulate the high UV flux) and make little mention of the precise metabolic state of the lichen. If it has entered into cryptobiosis (cessation of metabolic processes) then it can't exactly be regarded as prospering.

• de Vera et al., 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 2, Survival Potential and Photosynthetic Activity of Lichens Under Mars-Like Conditions : A Laboratory Study

digestive system - Is it the sphincter that flexes when a human pushes a bowel movement?

Of course the sphincter muscle is at the exit point. To use a toothpaste tube analogy, if I want to squeeze out some toothpaste, it does me little to no good to jostle the nozzle; I need to squeeze the tube (which is analogous to the colon) to get the paste (payload) to come out.

So when a human is sitting on the toilet squeezing, is that squeezing flexing of the sphincter, or squeezing muscles along the sides of the colon pushing on it as one's fingers push on the tube to get toothpaste to come out.

If it's the sphincter that's getting flexed, how is that helping get a big log out?

neuroscience - Long-term-potentiation and memory. Where do we stand?

Really good questions. As the guy who brought up LTP/LTD in the question you referenced, I thought I would weigh in.

There is the traditional definition of LTP/LTD as an increased/decreased synaptic efficacy at a single synapse or in a single cell. As you've noted, this is unlikely to be the only phenomena underlying memory and sometimes it's hard to see how some of these mechanisms can result in memory on behavioral timescales.

Let me propose, therefore, that the term long-term plasticity is more relevant these days, as it can refer to a variety of mechanisms that relate to the ability of the nervous system to change in stable ways over time. Physiological mechanisms involving changes in protein expression include traditional LTP/LTD at single synapses, but also homeostatic plasticity and long-term changes in intrinsic excitability where the tendency of the cell to fire changes independent of changes in synaptic weighting. Some structural mechanisms include the growth of new synapses, new spines, and new neurons--synaptogenesis, spinogenesis, and neurogenesis.

In the end, it is all of these mechanisms (and probably more) at play. Note, for instance, that the plasticity may move through structural changes in the system. This means that the lifetime of LTP in one cell or at one synapse does not necessarily have to be the same as the lifetime of the memory itself. All that said, I think all plasticity mechanisms ultimately reduce down to a change in the ability of an input to elicit an action potential somewhere in the brain (known as EPSP-spike coupling). This is likely to be the basic underlying mechanism of memory.

How To Avoid Macro-Evolution Confusion?

I regularly encounter students who believe humans came from amoebas and when asked why they often say Macro-Evolution has been scientifically proven.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, which leads to the problem: Scientific evidence does exist for speciation at the Biological Species Concept (BSC) level, but not for all species concepts and only if a helpful definition is employed. Lions and tigers are considered different species and have been know to reproduce--sometimes with fertile offspring. Therefore, what benefits are there to such a broad category as macro-evolution?

The distinction between lions and tigers is so much smaller than feathered vs. scaled creatures! Surely the current definition of macro-evolution is overly broad and confusing to newcomers. Only the fuzzy edge of the macro-evolution definition has been proven. Proving that 1 inch of a yardstick exists does not prove that the rest does. There is a distinct lack of rigor to the statement that "macro-evolution has been scientifically proven."

Surely the definition of macro-evolution could be chopped in half with the goal of distinguishing between relatively trivial changes (Lion vs. Tiger, but beyond micro-evolution) and relatively non-trivial distinctions (either at and above the genus or the family level). The "trivial" changes could be termed "Middle Evolution" and work something like this:

1.) Middle evolution: evolution at or above the species level, but below the family level.

2.) Macro evolution: evolution at or above the family level.

Substitute the word genus for family in the above definitions if that seems better. I admit that line would be somewhat arbitrary, but would not the term "Middle Evolution" be informative?

homework - Why are Birds and Reptiles with abundant yolk sac polyspermic?

I was given an explanation that birds and reptiles are polyspermic because they have an abundant yolk sac. But how does it explain the thing?

Chicken as an adult is not using in my opinion yolk as an energy source.
Yolk is used during embryogenesis as the primary energy source with blastula and gastrula -stages and during organogenesis, since the embryo needs proteins and energy somewhere.

How does abundant yolk sac make birds and reptiles polyspermic?