Balanced Aquariums (by request)

[Fishkeeper26]

Not neccesaraly. You guys are thinking of adaptation of animals such as a cat or dog for example. Fish such as common guppies can reproduce monthly, and therefore have a faster reproduction rate, enabling them to adapt faster.

It took 8 years for this to happen, one year won't cause an adaptation.

http://darwinevolving.blogspot.com/2009/06/pace-of-evolution.html

 

[ashleynicole]

You still havnt answered a few key questions.

If you are only doing topoffs as you said, what do do about the accumulation of dissolved toxins? Plants don't use up everything.


How long did you have this tank set up and how often did fish die?

 

[Mumma.of.two]

It took 8 years for this to happen, one year won't cause an adaptation.

http://darwinevolving.blogspot.com/2009/06/pace-of-evolution.html

Interesting, but are we not talking about the so call adaptation to toxins in the water. I would assume this would take longer than a few years.

 

[Wy Renegade]

What? The fish I got were in this environment for alot of generations. Prove your point

I don't have to prove my point, its already been proven, many times over. Animals of any type (including fish or rodents ~ all of which have a relatively fast reproduction rate) do not adapt that quickly.

Not neccesaraly. You guys are thinking of adaptation of animals such as a cat or dog for example. Fish such as common guppies can reproduce monthly, and therefore have a faster reproduction rate, enabling them to adapt faster.

Let me state the science again: Hundreds of years (minimum regardless of species). If this were not true, science could show you evolution happening before your very eyes with quick reproducing fish and the question of creationism vs. evolution would be proven and would be a mute point (and please don't take this comment off on some creationism vs. evolution tangent as I'm simply using this statement to illustrate my point). The fact is you're practicing Lamarkism and trying to make the organisms fit your theory, it doesn't work that way in nature or aquariums. You don't get to ignore the science, because you want it to be that way. Are you trying to tell me that these fish have been in captivity and in this same environment for hundreds of years? I doubt they've even been in captivity for 50 years.

 

[adeebm]

Can an individual adapt to it's environment? Yes, to an extent. It is bound by it's DNA, and adaptation of individuals is limited. So a fish that ate live insects in the wild can adapt to pellets in captivity. However, changing something as monumental as resistance to ammonia or other toxins is no easy feat. In the wild, this occurs through natural selection. A population is subject to random mutations, some of which are beneficial and most of which are not. When a mutation is beneficial, it gives the individual a better chance of survival, thus a better chance of reproduction, and being able to pass on its beneficial mutation. Again, because of the nature of evolution, this takes hundreds of years and generations. A mutation may not be passed down, or the individual may die and it's DNA be lost. Over time, a species will adapt to it's environment, though many go extinct from failure to adapt. What you are proposing is that my simply dumping your guppies into an environment they are not accustomed to, you expect them to, over a few generations, adapt to your artificial conditions. This is extremely unlikely.

Granted, guppies have a relatively fast reproduction rate, but it is not nearly enough to produce the rapid evolution you suggest. Look at fruit flies for example. Fruit flies have extremely fast reproduction rates and are susceptible to mutations. They are often used in science to study mutation and adaptation. Fruit flies adapt MUCH faster than guppies, yet even for them, variation takes generations upon generations.

There is also the process of selective breeding, where, by taking the place of nature in deciding what reproduces and what doesn't, humans have brought about desired adaptation in animals. Even when breeding for desired traits, this process takes enormous amounts of time to produce a change on the magnitude that you propose. You could perhaps, take 1000 guppies, dump them into water with large amounts of ammonia, wait till most die and only the most resistant are left alive. Then breed those, repeat the process, and breed their children. If you continued this for MANY generations, breeding the most ammonia tolerant guppies, you MIGHT produce an ammonia tolerant strain. Obviously, this isn't ideal, not only because of the time it takes, but the number of fish that suffer or die in order to produce ammonia tolerant guppies would be unacceptable. So can a large group of individuals eventually adapt to new conditions? Yes. Can a few individuals rapidly evolve because you dumped them into your tank? Not unless you have magic.

--Adeeb

 

[GhillieSniper115]

They had been in this so called 'balanced' aquarium for thousands of years?

No maybe two, three decades? I'll have to check

 

[GhillieSniper115]

It took 8 years for this to happen, one year won't cause an adaptation.

http://darwinevolving.blogspot.com/2009/06/pace-of-evolution.html

Ya I know

 

[GhillieSniper115]

You still havnt answered a few key questions.

If you are only doing topoffs as you said, what do do about the accumulation of dissolved toxins? Plants don't use up everything.

How long did you have this tank set up and how often did fish die?

A year and only a couple died. I gave the rest away

 

[Rokuzachi]

Not neccesaraly. You guys are thinking of adaptation of animals such as a cat or dog for example. Fish such as common guppies can reproduce monthly, and therefore have a faster reproduction rate, enabling them to adapt faster.

I don't think their reproduction is so much more astronomical than cats or dogs that it would boil down thousands of years into the single digits.

What started as "you don't need a filter" seems to have been distilled down to a concept where you need a very specific set of tools and circumstances to even attempt this, with a narrow range of species.

In my ignorant youth I did some things that I know now were very foolish with my first large aquarium. That tank persisted for nearly a year, but I wouldn't ever recommend anyone subject their fish to what I did. When I later came back to the hobby for the first time and kept a lot of the same fish, in a much larger tank with high end filtration and live plants, the difference between my specimens in the past and the new ones was unbelievable.

Yes, it's anecdotal data, but that seems to be most of what is being offered in defense of this method. I'd be much more inclined to believe any of it if it were more documented, but some of the things coming out of this thread just boggle my common-sense addled mind.

There's just something about this that doesn't seem quite...
Right. I mean, maybe I'm just being closed minded or something.
Overly skeptical? I'm generally pretty open to new ideas, especially if they involve intricacies as this seems to. I enjoy trying new things. Well, as long as doing so doesn't involve
Living organism that I believe are in harm's way. I jumped on the Silent Cycle because I found multiple documentations of it and a lot of success stories.
Luck comes to mind when I think of all this. Who knows.

 

[aqua_chem]

Fish can adapt. Didn't you take biology?

Pretty condescending tone to take, especially when your primary arguments seem to be "It works I've done it", "You don't understand", and "I have special fish".

You very clearly do not understand evolution. Let's say there is a population of people that like on a certain island that constantly smells horrible. Rotten flesh smell literally seeps up through the ground. And let us assume, for the purpose of this analogy, that they never get used to it, and it always smells like death.

Now, flash forward 500 years. Do they still smell yet?





Answer: Yes they do.

In order for a thing to adapt, there needs to be a pressure for it. Smelling bad is not a pressure. In order for a species to evolve, their has to be a pressure that causes problems for a species and reduce their viability, or more typically, kills them. Think that a species adapts simply because it can is Lamarkism, a widely discredited theory.

This is the case of ammonia. You might have ammonia resiliant fish. But in order for them to become ammonia resiliant, the less resilant ones had to have been selected against, which usually bodes poorly for the fish.

Advocating this tank strategy is basically saying, to me, "Hey, torment your fish until only the most resilient ones are alive and reproduce".

 

[aqua_chem]

Freaking people, posting all my points while I type my post...

 

[adeebm]

Freaking people, posting all my points while I type my post...

Whoops, sorry. I did spend a long time on my post though!

btw that's why I check for new posts before actually posting

--Adeeb

 

[ashleynicole]

A year and only a couple died. I gave the rest away

So only one year, this may have worked because the level of dissolved organic compounds and dissolved toxins didn't build up to a high enough level to cause a real problem.

No maybe two, three decades? I'll have to check

Do you know the definition of a decade? You said the tank was setup for about a year. A decade is 10 years, so the fish were not in the environment for 20-30 years, just one year?

You still haven't answered the question about what you do about dissolved organic compounds and dissolved toxins that do not get utilized by the plants and that must be removed with PWC's.


I also would like to ask what your age and education level is? I am sure there are many people on here with higher level degrees, but I currently hold an associates degree in science and bachelors degree in nursing. I am currently working on my masters degree, but again it is in nursing so some of my biology classes are several years ago. (I am 27) I've taken biology and microbiology in addition to chemistry and anatomy and physiology courses. To me it seems like you don't have an understanding of basic biology when I am reading your answers to many of the questions that are posted.

 

[aqua_chem]

I also would like to ask what your age and education level is? I am sure there are many people on here with higher level degrees, but I currently hold an associates degree in science and bachelors degree in nursing. I am currently working on my masters degree, but again it is in nursing so some of my biology classes are several years ago. (I am 27) I've taken biology and microbiology in addition to chemistry and anatomy and physiology courses. To me it seems like you don't have an understanding of basic biology when I am reading your answers to many of the questions that are posted.

Might add while simultaneously knocking other's education level. Otherwise it might never have come into question.

 

[bruinsbro1997]

I agree with the above posts. I'm only in high school but even I understand what they're saying. Regardless, all I can say is what's been repeated; it takes thousands, if not millions-which sounds more realistic if you put it in perspective (ex. humans took 4,000,000 years)-for an animal to evolve. It's not going to happen overnight. Nor in a month. Nor a year, a decade, a century. It takes that long.

 

[aqua_chem]

Evolving a new species can tale millenia. Developing nitrite/ammonia resilience could take much less if it's something simple like increased Cytochrome b5 reductase levels, which is the enzyme responsible for restoring function to hemoglobin after being deactivated by ammonia/nitrite.

Maybe as few as ten generations for noticeable results? Assuming you kept fish in conditions nasty enough that the fish with normal levels would be, *ahem*, selected against.

 

[bruinsbro1997]

Evolving a new species can tale millenia. Developing nitrite/ammonia resilience could take much less if it's something simple like increased Cytochrome b5 reductase levels, which is the enzyme responsible for restoring function to hemoglobin after being deactivated by ammonia/nitrite.

Maybe as few as ten generations for noticeable results? Assuming you kept fish in conditions nasty enough that the fish with normal levels would be, *ahem*, selected against.

Ah, I see I see. More well-explained than me

 

[absolutangel04]

I feel like some issues here are that the OP is trying to say that the fish adapted to the situation which is different from evolving a new mechanism to deal with it. Old Tank Syndrome is helped along by fish adapting slowly to levels of ammonia ect. that would kill other fish. I do not agree with the method, nor am I saying I think the fish kept were fine. I am just saying I think we are crossing our evolutionary terms. No, I am sure the fish in questions did not become immune to ammonia or anything like that, but people with OTS prove that select fish can adapt to poor conditions. Wild type guppies are pretty hardy in the first place, so it doesn't surprise me at all that the OP was able to keep them mostly alive for a year.
That does not deal with the ethical questions raised by other members who said, just because we can, should we?
I have to say I would be more inclined to lend relevance to the method if somebody who kept a tank like this longer (the full extent of the projected lifespan of the fish used) was able to give further info and specifics. On this site, I have been invlved in multiple threads pertaining to what standards we look for in believable data and experience and one thing I havce discussed is whether or not people were able to use their method and still have the fish in question live the lifespan expected of their species.

 

[ashleynicole]

Might add while simultaneously knocking other's education level. Otherwise it might never have come into question.

I didn't mean to sound like I was knocking someone's education. I know people with no degrees that are way more intelligent than those with the most advanced degree. But that doesn't mean they understand some biological principals or even anything about cycleing a fish tank. Let's face it, I could be lying about my education, how would you know? We can say whatever we want. Lol, ask me about nursing and I can answer, but I was just saying to point out, its been good 7 years since my last biology or microbiology course.
I was just thinking, if this is a person in high school, as to me it seems like that just by reading the responses, then I would understand why he/she seems to ignore some of the questions asked and why the answers don't contain any sort of scientific facts or reputable sources. Just "i did it for a year and the fish survived" .

Also still no answer to the question about the buildup of dissolved organic compounds and dissolved toxins that are not able to be used by plants?

 

[aqua_chem]

I wasn't refering to you. I was refering to this:

Fish can adapt. Didn't you take biology?