Well, like it or not, we are amidst of the sixth extinction period. Unlike other five extinction in our geological epochs, this current one is caused by human activity. No doubt about Anthropocene extinction.
During mass extinction, the normal rate of adaptation is too slow to help survival. My sentiment is that by the time current period of mass extinction is over, the fossilized Homo sapience will be among the hundreds of thousands of species represented in the paper-thin layer of the earth crust. Compared to 4.6 billion years of earth's history, 200 thousand years history of mankind is nothing but a blink of time.
Mass extinctions have lasted months to millions of years. They are particularly variable in that way. At very least it provides confidence that they have a variety of causes. After whatever badness subsides, rates of evolution increase. That is among the most enduring ecology 'stories'. Personally would like to see closer looks at that. For example, is evolution faster in warmer climates? (it really ought to be...)
With some important exceptions, rates of biological reactions increase 2.3 fold with 10 oC increase in T. Activity at organism level is product (or sum) of a whole bunch of biological reactions. There are some interesting twists on this. Migratory species face distinct evolutionary pressures in 2 or more different environments. They ought to 'rock'. In an oddly similar way, species that undergo metamorphosis (butterflies or whatever) live in different 'worlds' at different life stages. I call them migrants in time, not space
Interesting hypothesis. I would think the rate of evolution is determined at the population level, not at the individual organismal level. Only thing I can think of organismal level changes that affect evolution is the rate of mutation. Are there any evidences supporting a higher rate of mutation in a warmer climate? If that's true, tropical fish would be changing their genotype at a higher frequency than arctic fish.
Not at all intended as an insult - I always appreciate it when someone demonstrates that they remember something from classroom. Mutations leading to non-fatal births are surely the first step (in Classical Darwinism). Then the little weird ones need to get to baby-making age, and make some. This seems more probable where food is abundant and predators can (at least) be eluded. Food abundance in (warm) tropical areas is high. OTOH, arctic has intense (brief) abundance. This seems to be what makes seasonal migration a winner, even though log travel seems biophysically absurd on its face. There are many mutation-rate determinations floating about, but all done on too-long time scales. I could totally see this as feasible lab-scale one-species experiment. But as always, challenging to 'scale up' in a meaningful way. Sal King inspires what could be done. Start with a taxonomic group with wide latitudinal range. Look within for genetic variability in hot-climate and cold climate example species. Fish might be an excellent starting point.
@tochatihu I found a piece of evidence supporting your hypothesis. According to the article, there seem to be many more. Interesting, indeed. Temperature responses of mutation rate and mutational spectrum in an Escherichia coli strain and the correlation with metabolic rate. - PubMed - NCBI
There are many others for bacteria, on proximal time scales, but my impression is they are few for eukaryotes. Latter are more difficult experiments to interpret.
Mauna Loa CO2 "highest ever" news. Readers may remember that May is always highest month, so we could expect same news every May, as far as eyes can see... At websites where comments are hosted, I see 'same old' objections involving (high) 19th century measurements in cities. Also because even though those chemists had good skills, they did not appreciate that breathing into titration flasks messes everything up. Forgave them long ago. But it seems misinterpreting those results will also persist as far as eyes can see.
Yap, in their discussion, authors caution broader interpretation of the results extending to other taxa especially in eukaryotes. Nonetheless, interesting results.
Richard Lenski has been mutating* bacteria for decades, and has at least one temperature-related publication. Also a super nice fellow, not that it should affect interpretation of results *bwa ha ha