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!
What about the thumb? (Score:4, Interesting)
Trying to get a feel for evolution in america - (Score:3, Interesting)
I really wish one of those researchers would spend some time responding to this guy, the owner of a website called Evolution, a Fairytale for Grownups! [evolutionfairytale.com] A lot of the features mentioned in the article come up on his site, although argued against in an un-proffesional manner (for more adult discussion he also posts debates that he's won.
For all the evidence presented by popular media and through the education system, there seem to be a lot of people, including scientists, who can't accept evolutionary theory, and dismiss it as propaganda. [darwinism-watch.com]
Considering the recent "Just a theory" textbook-sticker fiasco, there are a lot of big divides going on in America right now. Now, since this is Slashdot, the responses are going to be quite biased, but do you Americans find that a lot of friends, co-workers and family don't accept evolutionary theory?
More from Carl Zimmer: Resurrecting the Genome (Score:5, Interesting)
He also wrote this article some time ago that talked about Resurrecting the Genome [corante.com]. Here [corante.com] is another article (by him) on the same topic, that appeared on NY Times.
DNA didn't "evolve" as per the theory of evoluion. (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you don't have DNA, you don't have imperfectly-replicating life forms, which means that you don't have evolution. As such, you cannot use evolution to go from the stage where there is no DNA to where there is, because it involves at least one step where you don't have reproducing life forms.
Re:Language genetic vs. memetic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what about alcohol metabolism? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is true. I've travelled a bit in Europe and have done the tourist things like the guided tours of whatever castle or fortress, and there's always the story about how the soldiers were rationed x amount of beer a day, because the water was too unsafe to drink, and, well, nobody had any use of a sick soldier (drunken soldiers are a whole other issue :). You also hear similar stories when you do brewery and winery tours.
Pope accepted Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Although it's open to interpretation, I'd say that this is a tacit admission that evolution is correct. [ewtn.com]
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment witb a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
Re:More from Carl Zimmer: Resurrecting the Genome (Score:3, Interesting)
When you consider that rodents breed far, far faster than primates, it makes sense that they would also evolve far, far faster.
It would take a lot less time for non-essential code to get worked out of the system through random mutation.
I'm not a biologist either, but I remember my classes.
m-
Re:Fine Journalism (Score:2, Interesting)
Given this was published in New Scientist (a magazine about, you know, science) this is probably not particularly contraversal. I suspect the vast majority of their readers have already accepted the theory of evolution.
You actually have to be very fundamentalist to deny evolution. How fundamentalist? Well, the last two Popes both supported the theory of evolution, as will, most likely, all future Popes.
Virii - hypersexual gene modifyiers (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words - who is to say Virii are anti-evolutionary. Since virii are produced by the living and capable of carrying DNA and implanting it between living orgs.
It seems possible that virii could be used to communicate survival strategies between living orgs in real time rather than over generational time.
By merely surviving and exuding my DNA in the form of Virii, it stands that the population of DNA floating around in the air contains segments of info which belong exclusively to the surviving set, and if I can implement their codes, my chances of surviving are increased - moreover if i can incorporate the codes of my entire tribe into my child, then my offspring will bear the marks of all the living members of my community.
Thus the argument that virii are - hypersexual genetic hints used to inform genetic variation in real time.
AIK
sponges (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fascinating Food for Thought (Score:5, Interesting)
- What is [life's] purpose? - To successfully reproduce before you are eaten.
- What is *our* purpose? - See #1.
That's it. That's all there is. Reproduction. Everything else is just strategies to help us reproduce or control reproduction. However, you have a massive brain that bestows upon you language and consciousness. This gives you the ability to do more with your life than simply have kids.The purpose of your life is whatever you decide it will be. If you want a grand purpose then give yourself one. If all you want to do is watch TV until you fall over dead one day, go for it. There is no grand purpose. The universe doesn't give a wet slap what you do or if you live or die.
Re:Bad News (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you referring to the original development of the lactating teat or the exaggerated secondary sexual characteristic in adult human females?
The latter is just a display trait, and other than the interesting matter of being tied to human females being effectively in a permanent state of heat (not sure if this is unique among mammals, but I know it's at least quite rare), it's fairly uninteresting.
The lactating teat on the other hand is quite a remarkable development, and while I'm not sure I'd put it up there with language, you could make the argument that things like language are possible BECAUSE of the developments (like this one) which allow the young to experience a prolonged development stage outside of the womb. This prolonged development in turn makes the development of a more complex brain far more practical.
So, I half agree with you, they're pretty darned important, though I consider the reduced number of young and proportionally reduced number of teats on primates to be a bit of a step backward...
This is the core of Pinker vs. Chomskey argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Chomskey talks about a major factor that seems unique to humans language, recursion. We can merge sounds into words, words into phrases, phrases into sentences, and sentences into paragraphs recursively.
In any case, there are certainly creatures that have a more rudimentary form of language, and even culture, so memes ("use stick to catch termites! wash sand from yams!") were being passed around before full blown language came about. The article doesn't claim that all language is confined to humans, just that language as humans use it/i
is, which is self evident.
As far as being biological, this was Chomskey's major thesis from way back. He showed that all languages are built around identical deep structures. If language were merely learned, and not in some sense inherent, that would not be the case. We would find languages that were constructed in vastly differing ways. Instead, there are certain built in rules that all languages comply with.
Re:Photosynthesis (Score:1, Interesting)
I wouldn't count the human brain out yet.
Re:Bottom 10 Evolutionary advances (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, atheletes about 100 years ago almost never had knee problems. But they had a lot more sprained ankles. Shoes have improved to provide significantly more ankle protection. But at what cost? Knee problems often become more serious/chronic than ankle problems. It seems that the body may be better suited to naturally handle ankle wear than knee wear. And we may have circumvented this.
Re:Death? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because you can live-forever does not mean you can avoid the statistics of fatal accidents.
You would get the odd person to live to over a 1000 just like we find people today that live beyond 100 years.
The really bad thing about people living forever is the jobs. How would you like the entry level position for the next 200 years and by the time you could get an advancement your skills would be out of date so some young punk would get the job over you. I doubt anyone would like being a burger flipper for 300 years! I have my doubt that any marriage would last more than 100 years.
Religions as evolving parasites ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine that : religions appear and mutate randomly, and only the liveliest branches, the ones most able to hold out against reality and other religions gain followers and thus multiply...
Dead things can still "evolve" (Score:1, Interesting)
If you take evolution to mean stochastic random probability applied to a competition for shared resources, random processes can "evolve" in the same way that living things do. In _The Selfish Gene_, Richard Dawkins explains how this might have happened to create DNA from more basic chemicals, using esentially random chemical processes.
Suppose several chemical processes happen, initally at random. There are initially equal chances of any of a number of chemicals being produced. But now assume that each time chemical A is produced, the odds that more chemical A will be produced goes up. Assume this is not true for other chemials.
If we run a lot of these random processes, what do we expect will happen? Well, if the process starts to produce chemical A, it will tend to continue to do so: in other words, it will "evolve" in that direction, despite not being "alive" in any real sense of the word.
After all, "life" is just a vague English word for certain kinds of physical processes; it's not magic in and of itself, and past a certain point, the term becomes somewhat meaningless. Is DNA "alive"? In some sense, it's less "alive" than a cell, but more "alive" than an atom. Eventually, it all comes down to definitions.
--
AC
Re:Why the Eye is not a proof of "intelligent desi (Score:3, Interesting)
But we know a lot more today that Darwin knew. In particular, our knowledge of biochemistry is more advanced. We now know that all sorts of biochemical reactions are sensitive to light. It is almost inevitable that in a mostly transparent life form, the activity of some nerve cells would be affected by light. Given the extreme selective advantage to sensing light, evolution of light sensors of increasing sophistication seems almost unavoidable.
Re:Why the Eye is not a proof of "intelligent desi (Score:5, Interesting)
4. Lost the ability to see in ultra-violet.
From a study of 'opsins', the chemical molecules that convert light into electrons, and enable vision to work, many small animals and insects have the ability see these wavelengths. Humans seem to have lost this ability, due to the increased refraction at short wavelengths caused by larger eyes.
5. To be able to visualize magnetic field lines.
Magnetically sensitive molecules have been found in avian retinas. The theory is that these could appear as some sort of overhead display in the bird's mind (although, nothing more than lines running across the field of view, or maybe a pair of light/dark spots).
6. To be able to visualize polarised light (as used by the octopus). Underwater, light is polarized by the reflection of light reflected off fish scales. Many fish try and camouflage themselves by trying to match the optical intensity of their surroundings. For simple predators this works, but more complex creatures
such as the octopus are not fooled.
Also, polarized light can be used to signal to other members of the species without attracting undue attention.
7. Or having 16 visual pigments like the Stomatopod [berkeley.edu], which is also known to use polarised light to signal to others of the same species (And which also has stereo vision using one eye).
Re:Why the Eye is not a proof of "intelligent desi (Score:3, Interesting)
First, you quoted a different sentence than the one that stated that the photoreceptors are backwards.
I think that what he means are that the photoreceptors are positioned BEHIND the ganglion and bipolar cells, which seems a very poor choice for cells allegedly 'designed' to receive light coming in from the pupil. It would make more sense to have the photoreceptors right up front, where the light can hit them directly, unobstructed.
Re:goethe and darwin (Score:3, Interesting)
1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
Re:And More... (Score:2, Interesting)