Slashdot Mirror
Top 10 Evolutionary Adaptations
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!
AS FAR as humans are concerned, language has got to be the ultimate evolutionary innovation.
:)
really? by reading slashdot, it feels more like devolution to me!
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
How about DNA? It's contains all genetic information that determines how cells are formed and how they behave. It's what allows cells to copy the essence of themselves from one generation to the next, and allows them to continue on the platform from where the last generation left off. If our cells weren't packing around little mini protein 'storage devices', not a whole lot would be happening.
And talk about missing options sheesh! Best evolutionary adaptation? I vote breasts!
"It's true that many species, including insects, lizards and plants, do fine without sex, at least for a while." ... don't forget about Slashdot readers... ZING!
How could they omit the female human breast?
Weird. I would have expected to see an opposable thumb on that list. I mean, isn't that kind of important for us? Or maybe I'm just being too human-centric.
Creationists.
*ducks*
Didn't that happen in the 60's?
"However useful sex may be now that we've got it, that doesn't tell us anything about how it got started"
Are they kidding? I'm sure it was a 'double dog dare' on a Tuesday afternoon in the garden of eden.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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! 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.
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?
Photosynthesis is definitely the top for me. It changed the chemistry of the entire planet. Of course the human brain has done the same, but we will soon be extinct and out impact rather small compared to photosynthesis.
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
Death is what allows evolution to occur in the first place. Without death, organisms couldn't be replaced by ever improving versions of themselves.
They really should have said programmed cell death, or apoptosis.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Somewhat along the same lines, Carl Zimmer also talked about "resurrecting the genome" of a mammalian ancestor from about 80 million years ago. Snippets of the genome are present in all mammals today. By comparing the genomes of various mammals, they were able to come up with a pretty good approximate of the genome. This chart shows how much of the original genome different mammals have. Surprisingly, humans have lost only 25% of the original genome, whereas rats and mice have lost more than twice that. I would have thought otherwise since the earliest mammals were shrewlike... but I'm not a biologist/geneticist/whoever studies these things.
He also wrote this article some time ago that talked about Resurrecting the Genome. Here is another article (by him) on the same topic, that appeared on NY Times.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
My four favorite things produced by evolution: yeast, barley, hops, and monks.
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...
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The capacity to develop and understand evolution is something biological. Otherwise, every animal could learn a language just as complex.
It's what allows cells to copy the essence of themselves from one generation to the next, and allows them to continue on the platform from where the last generation left off.
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
I find it amusing that profanity is apparantly universal. Chimps/gorillas are never taught sign language for any profanity, but they regularly invent a sign for "shit" and use it as profanity. This is usually translated as "dirty" in scientific publication. ;)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You don't see any of these deficiencies in an octopuses' eye. So God's supposed "crowning creation" has worse vision than the lowly octopus?
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
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.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...without some moron like you coming in, spewing out a completely invalid analogy founded upon faulty premises and a total lack of understanding of the actual theory of evolution and then arrogantly acting as though you've somehow falsified the last 150 years of biological research with the amazing power of your ignorance.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Language requires very specific parts of the brain to work correctly. This has been seen in brain damaged people and children with certain birth defects. It may be very difficult if not impossible for them to learn a language, understand or speak it. This indicates that we have language-specific hardware built in. The abilities of the chimps is no surprise here - in fact, it supports the idea that we are evolved to use language, considering chimps are our closest genetic relatives. Other animals can learn human language to some degree too, and do in fact communicate amongst themselves. But really, it's a huge advantage for a group to be able to communicate within its ranks. From the altruistic warning cry to, oh I don't know, mating songs, language has had very good reasons to evolve.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Not quite correct. This simplest bacteria (no nucleus) uses only RNA. The mechanisms of transcription have likely evolved significantly as well.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why not? Many organisms already survive long enough to compete with their offspring. If the descendants of an organism are "better" than the ancestor, then they will outcompete the ancestor regardless of whether or not the ancestor is genetically programmed to die.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Immortality, now that would be a nice adaptation!
In the short and narrow terms, death seems like a failure but globally and long term, death is necessary for the survival of the species.
On a microscopic level death is vital to keep the whole organism healthy. The article specifically mentions cellular programmed suicide. Most of the time, cells in multicelluar bodies like ourselves commit suicide when they detect abnormalities in themselves. So far researchers have identified the gene (p53) in humans that directs this behavior. Cancer is the result when p53 fails to work correctly.
Macroscopically, death and evolution are mutually intertwined. The creatures with the most desirable traits can direct the path of the species with survival. Less desirable genes are removed from the population by death. In addition to gene and trait selection, death keeps populations healthy by keeping populations in check. Death ensures that limited resources are not depleted.
Imagine if every human that ever died of simple old age was still around today. I don't think the Earth could support that many humans. Because we at the top of the food chain, there are few if any predators that keep our population in check. We could easily deplete all the food, space, water, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
1. tonsils - create more problems than they're worth. F*cking swelling, soreness and sleep apnea.
2. appendix - that's a winner.
3. coccyx - I had to look this up to spell this useless thing right.
4. funny bone - this has never made me laugh. It has helped with new curse words though.
5. needing sleep - 8 hours-c'mon, can't we evolve down to 2 or so.
6. the knee - there has got to be a better way- stretched ligaments, torn ACL's etc.
7. religion - nuff said.
8. ingrown toenails - trim trim trim
9. ingrown hair - great fun digging them out
10. balding - (or hair migration to the back) what is the point of this "evolutionary advance"?
I'm sure I missed many
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.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
With regards to the first three items on the list, these are best described as "vestigial" stuctures. That is, they're body parts that evolution forgot--they once served a useful purpose, but no longer have any value or function.
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.
Sponges are very cool -- you can put one through a sieve so fine that it's broken down into individual cells, and it will then reassemble itself into a complete sponge, but with every cell rearranged into a new position! Apparently the scientist who first did this (ca. 1900) then tried doing it with two separate sponges of different species at once, and was disappointed when they didn't reassemble into a hyrbid. Shows how little they knew about the microscopic basis of genetics at that time.
Find free books.
- 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.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I thought I read somewhere that if human could live forever then the average life span would be about 600 years.
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.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
Anybody else ever considered regigions as some kind of parasistic idea, living and propagating on the human mind, and subjected to the same kind of natural selection as living beings ?
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...
What bacteria would that be?
Bzzt! Thank you for playing our game. Please try again.
Arceobacteria,Proteobacteria, and Cyanobacteria are the oldest, and all have a nucleoid ( non-membrane region containing one circular DNA molecule -- one circular chromosome).
The membrane is not a defining attribute for DNA use. First DNA developed, then the cell evolved a purse to stash it in.
DNA may or may not be the basal component of what constitues life, but once you get past its presence, things look pretty mechanical, not organic.
Images formed upside down
Why does it matter where the photo-receptors are physically if they can be logically connected in any way?
Uh Oh. What if the octopus is the crown of creation and humans are just here for their amusment. That would explain a lot.
Not forgetting
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, 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).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Of course, the quote by Darwin is taken out of context. Darwin then describes how the eye might evolve by gradual steps. From eye complexity,
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.
That's the ten million dollar for biologists these days. Nobody really knows. RNA world, aka, the "naked gene" idea is one idea. It is also thought that something resembling a primative cell membrane can develop out of abiotic chemical processes, just like strands of RNA can.
According to the RNA world idea, early Earth had these strands of RNA floating around that served as self-replicating genes/proteins. But the environment is very hostile to such critters. So they take up squatting in these proto-cell membranes for shelter. Over time, they developed the ability to do some housekeeping, do repairs on the proto-membrane and generally modify it to their own needs. Eventually the naked genes became "owners" instead of "renters".
There's some problems with this idea - the big one being that if there isn't anyway of getting nutrients in and waste out of the proto-cell membrane, these proto-cells would be deadly traps, not shelters. Getting food in and crap out of a membrane is still a big gap to cross, unless the problem can be broken down further. But at least we're better of than "toss a bunch of amino acids into a box, and shake it until a cell comes out".
In short, they're working on it. Intelligent design is a possibility, but it isn't the simplest one, so it gets sliced out by Occam's Razor, unless Occam gets trumped by fresh evidence. The Intelligent Design idea doesn't explain where this designer came from, so it isn't any simpler, it just push the problem further back. The hypothesis doesn't make any predictions that the naturalistic hypothesis doesn't, so, in general, it isn't falsifiable. Maybe specific variants of the intelligent design theory can make falsifiable predictions, but the general theory doesn't. Any the promoters of ID are very careful not to make falsifiable predictions...
Think about it this way - one scenario of intelligent design is that the designer was a time travelling human. We know that humans, who are capable of intelligent design, exist. We can't exactly say the same about God. We aren't very far away from being able to create very primitive life, and from there, evolution would do the rest. The only thing we are missing is time travel, but that could change next week.
Which would you prefer to assume: that life was created by a time travelling human, or that "naked genes" managed to eventually figure out the care and feeding of cell membranes, even if we don't know how they did it quite yet?
Intelligent design is a possibility, but it isn't the simplest one. Until we find evidence suggesting intelligent design - like finding a 2016 US quarter buried in 4 billion year old rock - it best to assume some naturalistic scenario took place, even if we don't know what that scenario is just yet.