re: #34 Charles

I didn’t read it that way at all. The example I quoted is very clear that a decade of adaptation had taken place between the two cultivated groups of seeds.

Sure - I got that part. I’m pointing out that there’s no new genetic information in the more recent population, just a shift in prevalence over time in what was already there.

I just like to be explicit about what’s actually taking place. When you say things like “The plants adapted…” it sounds as though the genetic changes seen were induced by some external factor - like climate in this case. But that isn’t true at all. The genetic variation was already sitting there in the population, and the shift in climate shifted the point of successful adaptation within that existing variation - it didn’t introduce the variation, though.