Top 10 Evolutionary Adaptations 716
oneill40 writes "The New Scientist has an interesting article up listing the Top 10 most amazing things to have evolved, including sex, death, the eye, language and parasites!" From the article:"Sponges are a key example of multicellular life, an innovation that transformed living things from solitary cells into fantastically complex bodies. It was such a great move, it evolved at least 16 different times. Animals, land plants, fungi and algae all joined in." J adds: Number four, Language, got a careful look from Carl Zimmer a while back. It's Pinker vs. Chomsky, winner take all, pass the popcorn!
DNA - Missing from the list (Score:5, Insightful)
Language genetic vs. memetic (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not buying language as an object of biological evolution at all. At best, it seems to be an expressed meme, rather than a genetic advancement, or a trait that can be selected for. Also, I am not buying the facts expressed in the article abotu language. Haven't we taught chimps and apes sign language? Aren't there example of such creatures telling us things spontaneously (the most recent example was when the chimp told some scientists that it had a mildly severe toothache)? It doesn't seem that language is merely confined to humans, but it further seems like a learned trait rather than a biological trait. For instance, even if we had the biological capacity for language, there does not seem to be an inherant argument for the actual expression of language. In other words, an organism may have the capacity to express a meme-like trait, but may never actually express it. Thus, in humans, the capacity to understand language may be selected for, but the language usage itself is a socially learned trait. Also I would wonder if we never began using our capacity for language, then if the capacity may be biologically selected for, but if the utility of that capacity is never expressed, then why is the gene for that capacity being selected for?
Fine Journalism (Score:1, Insightful)
11. The ability to create unparalleled controversy by publishing a story that is intended to incite heated argument between two equally strong factions.
Where would we be without journalists? (Probably without the Spanish-American war for one..)
Photosynthesis (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Death? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Death? (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG n0 w4y!!111 (Score:4, Insightful)
really? by reading slashdot, it feels more like devolution to me!
OMG u R teh st00p1D!!11!eleventy-leven!!WTFBBQQED!!111!
Gah - how can people actually communicate that way? That sentence alone (such as it was) made me feel icky.
Perhaps Coneasfast is correct...
Re:Language genetic vs. memetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How could they have forgotten (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution is Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not accusing the people who anthropromorphize as being bad scientists - I'm sure that they have the proper understanding of evolution and natural selection and similar concepts within their mind. However, what you have to realize is that your audience may not. Making consistent use of words like innovation and discovery, and general verbs associated with multicellular life makes the article sound more like journalism than science.
I realize that it's probably convenient to not have to worry about portraying modern evolutionary theory in the right manner, but it's also responsible. I wouldn't be bringing this up if I didn't run into it every single day - we anthropromorphize to such a degree that eventually we ourselves begin to believe that evolution really is a deliberate mechanism that acts towards creating the "perfect" life form.
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution? Likely not to happen while Christian Conservatives still hold popular sway in politics, nor until science figures out how to convey its teachings to the lowest common denominator.
Re:what about alcohol metabolism? (Score:2, Insightful)
An article several years ago in Scientific American gave some historical background on the history of distilling technology and the creation of cities.
As soon as people started living in cities, they started polluting their water supply. Brewed and distilled spirits were the only safe source of water.
Re:Fine Journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
and where would we be with journalists? Probably without the iraq war for once.
Re:DNA - Missing from the list (Score:5, Insightful)
It is less stable than DNA but is has shown to be able of enzymatic activity.
RNA is still used as a katalytic agent in cells (rRNA for example).
It therefore possess two very import biologic attributes: it can hold information and it can influence its environment by means of katalysis.
So it could be the ultimate first replicator.
It was a very popular hypothesis (don't know if it still is) that life started with RNA (google for "RNA world" or something)
Re:Language genetic vs. memetic (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't be a proper evolution discussion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me up when the creationists debate in an unbiased forum.
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Evolution is Blind (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Death? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the best explanation for currently observed phenomenon, but I'd hardly call any scientific theory "infallable". All theories are subject to revision in change; that is the nature of science. There is no scientific explanation that could not be potentially falsified.
Re:DNA - Missing from the list (Score:4, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Reason for sex! (Score:1, Insightful)
For humans and dolphins, maybe. Anyone who's ever heard cats have sex knows that it is far from feeling "REALLY REALLY GOOD" to the female, so I doubt that the reason it feels good (to us) is to encourage procreation.
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:5, Insightful)
Dishonest creationist tactic #874: list, as support for creationism, the names of "creationist Scientists" whose work was not in any field related to biology, whose work did not support any actual creationist claims and most of whom were dead before Charles Darwin was even born, much less published Origin (though Faraday didn't die until 1867, but that's hardly time for a non-biologist to fully examine the evidence for evolution and draw conclusions).
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:3, Insightful)
Darwin's observations are pretty easily accessable, so most pre-college biology classes don't really go any deeper than that. Unfortunately, they're really some of the weakest evidence we have confirming evolution.
Honestly, I don't know how to explain what the molecular biologists have figured out without having to explain a whole lot of background information. The result being the population at large will only get the Darwin part, thus leaving an opening for the creationists.
Re:Death? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but if an organism that has the potential to live forever has children that will someday be able to compete with and eventually kill it, better to kill it asap instead of waiting for it to get strong. In fact, it's better to not have children at all.
Only organisms that will die no matter what they do have a motivation for helping their children survive. Since organisms that do not die of old age will not evolve, organisms that do not die of old age will eventually be killed by those that do die of old age.
Re:Death? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that, with a little salt and pepper, we are food.
Re:Death? (Score:3, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Death? (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, things could be argued from a different approach. It could be possible that programmed cellular death is an adaptation for succesful reproduction. Without death we have the danger of overpopulation, a population crash, and the eventual death of everybody. Without reproduction we have the eventual extintion of the species as the environment changes but the species does not.
A population needs some sort of dependable death mechanism in order to keep it in balance with the environment's resources and it also needs reproduction in order to keep it adapting to changes on said environment. Without this "dependable" death, we would most likely not have ecosystems to begin with.
Re:Evolution is Blind (Score:3, Insightful)
Aha, but that's because you are fully aware it's a program. Metaphors are indeed both powerful and efficient, I'm not arguing that. But in order that they may be used, people have to know what parts of the metaphor reflect the subject, and which parts are superfluous.
The problem of anthropomorphizing (spelled it right this time) with evolution is that not only is it not comparable to human beings (like your computer program) but it is also not even an active process in and of itself. I myself, in writing my posts, have some difficulty in maintaining neutral language. Still, so long as both I and my audience understand what is intrinsic to the topic and what is a product of my own expressive limitations, everything is fine. However, everybody seems to have jumped on the bandwagon here as far as evolution is concerned, and we've forgotten (or granted, many of us might not even know) what it's really about.
I'll give you an example of a common misunderstanding of evolutionary "adaptations."
We say that copious and consistent use of antibacterial soap is not a good idea because it will produce strains of bacteria that are resistant to the antibacterial agent.
Now, saying such a thing is perfectly fine if all of us understand what is going on. The problem is that we don't. You see, mutation is independent in origin from evolutionary pressure. The resistant strain of bacteria already exists within the population - the use of antibacterial soap doesn't cause the mutation. What it does do, however, is increase the fraction of the population that possesses this mutation by eliminating those that do not. Thereafter, any bacteria that reproduce from amongst that population will have the plasmid.
Let's look at another example. This one will be slightly less historical because I can't think of a strong one off the top of my head (I'm in political science now, not biology). Yeah, I'll use a movie example because I simply can't think of one (wanted to do something with kangaroos and other mammals but I'm drawing a blank). In the movie Evolution, the first dinosaur-like animals require air that is higher in nitrogen and sulfur content (I think) than the air of earth. When they come up to the surface, all of them asphyxiate and die. One of them, however, gives birth to a new one which has "adapted" to the air (the premise of the movie is that these things hyper-evolve so there's a compression of time). Now, ignoring for a moment the non-serious nature of the movie, let's focus on that occurrence. Most people wouldn't find anything wrong with that - and there is indeed nothing wrong with that. "There was evolutionary pressure on them and so they evolved." Fine. But we're forgetting again what I just said before - the process that produces these mutations is independent from the evolutionary pressure. So in a sense it's almost silly to say that they evolved "because there was evolutionary pressure," since the evolutionary pressure only determined which ones would survive, not how they would survive. Additionally, the only guarantee that the species will adapt is statistical - more often than not it will simply die out because the numbers didn't work out.
Anyway, I'm straying from the point. It's the end of a long week and I'm too long out of touch with biology. Hopefully I biologist will come around to elaborate my point.
1-3 are vestigial (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing can be said of wisdom teeth, for example. Or paralell ports.
Presumably, as these structures continue to cause problems for some members of the species, while providing no advantages, evolutionary processes would eventually eliminate them.
SPACE TRAVEL (Score:2, Insightful)
We're not going to become extinct, and photosynthesis only affected (as far as we know) one planet. We're bringing life to the universe.
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:5, Insightful)
A huge number of people, otherwise homosexuality wouldn't be descriminated against by law, nor would drugs, gambling, prostitution, buying cars on Sunday, and all sorts of other things be prohibited in at least a few places in the US.
If my sins don't affect you, then why are you (generic, not personal) telling me what I can do in my own home with consenting adults behind locked doors?
Re:Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, for starters, I didn't say closed minded. I said narrow perspective, which is exactly what it is. If you equate that to closed minded, well so be it. The difference, to me, is that people with less experience, less education, and less knowledge tend to have a narrower perspective. That doesn't make them closed minded, however. Closed minded implies a decision to not accept anything that doesn't agree with your beliefs. While there are many a vocal Creationist who does qualify as closed minded, I certainly wouldn't lump them all together.
Who believes that their neighbour's sins affect them? I'm Roman Catholic, and I don't
So you're fine with gay marriage and abortion then because they are sins that don't affect you, right? And you're fine with the teaching of Evolution in school because it doesn't affect you either. Sorry, but the basic justification for imposing your morals on the populace is that their behavior (and sins) affect you. If it were otherwise, then there wouldn't be a debate about abortion or gay marriage as a moral issue.
You have managed to insult approximately 2.8 billion Christians across the world at once.
Because they all feel the same way you do? And I'm the pompous one? Science has its own arrogance which prevents it from reaching the lowest common denominator- those without experience, education, or knowledge. Keep in mind that you relate these folks to be Christian, I'm merely saying that science has to figure out how to talk to them, independent of belief. The less perpective a person has, the easier it is to render issues in black and white terms.
That allows Creationism to make the argument that God created everything, that Evolution likens everyone to monkeys, and that all you have to do is believe. Evolution has to explain the history of the Earth as we understand it, the ways in which species exist and evolve, and what that all means to us. And instead of just believing, you'll actually need to invest some time in order to understand the process. This is the area in which Science needs to do a better job of communicating, so that folks who haven't had the same experience or education opportunities can relate to it.
People can't accept that there are those of us in the world that simply like to believe that there is a divine plan in life. We like to believe that there is a greater power that devised life as we know it. We like to believe that conciousness and self-awareness, along with free-will, are divine gifts and not accidental mutations which proved to be better suited than those beings without such mutations.
I do accept it. Indeed I have no problem with you or your beliefs. But they are just that, your beliefs. Can't you at least see that giving our children the best scientific knowledge we have is different than teaching them what you believe? And, if we're going to teach beliefs, why is yours superior to Hindu creationism, or Bhuddist creationism? Would you be OK with your kids learning in school that Evolution is merely a theory along with Intelligent Design and the cracking of the Cosmic Egg? If not, then why are your beliefs acceptable when other beliefs are not?
Pompous Asshole.
Am I? Well Mr. Pot, its nice to meet you. Folks around here call me Mr. Kettle.
Re:The most amazing evolutionary result... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Language genetic vs. memetic (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we have not taught chimps and apes sign language. We have taught them a small subset of sign language, and the implications of that are debatable. We can similarly condition other animals to communicate (via pecking buttons etc.) in situations that clearly do not involve human language. Animals can communicate, sure. But human language requires an ability to convey novel information with grammatical utterances (among other things). Chimps and apes have communicated seemingly novel information, but in an ungrammatical fashion. So yes, it is nearly certain that there is some biological difference in humans that allows for human language, and all the power that it provides. Chimp / ape sign "language" is not some sort of Human Language Lite, but something fundamentally different altogether (and radically inferior in terms of expressive power).
Re:Why the Eye is not a proof of "intelligent desi (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it matter where the photo-receptors are physically if they can be logically connected in any way?
Re:Fascinating Food for Thought (Score:2, Insightful)
There's that. Some people feel a need for structure, because they feel it excuses them of having to think. But religion would persist, even without that. Priests have wielded vast political power for centuries. From the "Divine Emperors" in Rome to the Divine Right of Kings, (in the past, and even in the modern day), religion has been a powerful tool for social control.
To this day, coins of the British Commonwealth read "D. G. Regina", which was latin for "Dei Gratia Regina": or 'By God's Grace, our Queen'. To this day, coins in the USA read "In God We Trust". Religion still has teeth.
It's been used to terrible effect, even in recent years. My friend in Ethiopia was taught as a boy that his King literally descended from Heaven. People were taught to believe it, and so they did, despite what their King did to them. The King, a selfish bastard, bought up all the food during a food shortage; and deliberately caused a famine. Food prices are higher during a famine, you see. Many people starved to death. No one blamed the King.
Years later, my friend told me his sister came to visit: and he mentioned what a bastard their King had been. By reflex, she objected: "You shouldn't talk about him that way". She'ld been conditioned to believe good things about their King: and she couldn't stop, despite excellent reasons to do so. She couldn't escape her social conditioning. That's what religious indocrination (a form of Christianity, in her case) can do to someone. Be careful out there!
I'm curious how older, non-religious geeks have come to terms with thoughts about death and dying when its impossible for one to believe that there is anything after death.
You mean, where does my "soul" go when I die? Well, my lawnmower is a loud, roaring thing that cuts grass. Where does the "soul" of my lawnmower go, all that "roaringness" and "cuttingness" that somehow "goes away" when the motor "dies"? When the machine breaks down, what happens to the essence of that machine that I've constructed in my mind? Where does the "essential lawnmowerness" go when the engine fails? Where does my "essential soul" go when my body can't be repaired? It's the same trick question, in my mind.
So, I don't let have a religion guide my morality. I have to make do with my reason, and my concience. To me, not having a god to fall back on means I have to hold myself to a higher, not lesser, standard. There's no god to right the wrongs we don't fix. There's no guy in the sky who's going to help out people we don't help; no one to defend people we ourselves don't defend. That doesn't mean we give up; it means we try harder, and take every victory we can. It means we have to try to teach people to be better to each other, not because of a god commanded it, but because that's what makes life better for us all.
It means taking all those old religious virtues, like kindness, and compromise, and common sense, and applying them wisely, not dogmatically. Don't just blindly "Do unto others as you would have them do until you". They may not want what you want. Just try to make each other happy in the time you've got. You've only got one life, kid. Make the most of it.
--
An old atheist AC
Re:Evolution is Blind (Score:2, Insightful)
They might if there were some kind of mechanism that selected for good literature. That's part of the point of the concept of evolution: there is a selection mechanism.
Re:Creation not science/Evolution not science eith (Score:3, Insightful)
Not believing in something is not the same as hating it.
It is pretty miraculous, in the way that 66 separate accounts tainted by human influence and church bureaocracy represent the truth of all things. Funny how those in the early church kept all the right writings and threw away all the writings that were incorrect or irrelevant. Of course, no-one had an agenda. Hypothetically, uf there was an account of Jesus saying "Organised religion is inherently evil and misleading", would the early Christian church include it in the bible, or would it be conviniently left to one side?
The bible is not used often by historians. It sometimes contradicts with archelogical evidence, and the records of other civilisations. It is awash with contradictions.
Personally, I've always been confused by Gods seeming lack of morality. Thou shalt not kill, but it's perfectly alright for God to commit genocide, then commit his victims to an eternity of suffering. This does not fit my definition of a loving God.
What about immunity to a particular drug? Viruses and bacteria in particular mutate and share DNA like we share ideas.
If you mean "observed" by "watch it happening right this instant with one's own eyes", then no. Instead, as with sciences such as astronomy and geology, evidence is gathered through finding patterns in past events.
The distinction between 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' I've never understood. It seems to be that it's a belief that small changes in the short term cannot add up to large changes in the long term. And that's the thing that seems rather odd to me. It's like saying, well, perhaps gravity keeps this solar system together, but how can it possibly keep whole galaxies together?
Not to me. For instance, Hawking Radiation is a theory derived from direct observations about relativity and quantum mechanics. It says that black holes will emit radiation, inversely proportionate to their size. This has never been observed, because the radiation involved would be too small, and our only hope of observing it is to find miniture black holes created at the beginning of the Universe. Yet despite this lack of observable events, it does provide a rational explanation as to why small black-holes would evaporate into thin air, explaining a lack of small black holes. Scientists accept it as probably true, because it combines observable events to predict unobservable pheonomenon.
Then I'm curious about your take on distance of stars. We can see that a particular star or galaxy is so many millions of light-years away, using basic triangulation. We have observed that light travels at a constant rate. Therefore, the light would take millions of years to reach us, implying the the Universe has to be at least this old.
The only explanation to this, if you believe in Creationism and a young Universe, is that God created the light in place, The star may not even be real; God could have created the light without bothering to construct a star -