Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The New Science of Evolutionary Forecasting

Posted by Soulskill on from the partly-hairy-with-a-chance-of-eyeballs dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists may not be able to predict what life will be like 100 million years from now, but they may be able to make short-term forecasts for the next few months or years. And if they're making predictions about viruses or other health threats, they might be able to save some lives in the process. "Biologists have found cases in which evolution has, in effect, run the same experiment several times over. And in some cases the results of those natural experiments have turned out very similar each time. In other words, evolution has been predictable. One of the most striking cases of repeated evolution has occurred in the Caribbean. ... Each time lizards colonized an island, they evolved into many of the same forms. On each island, some lizards adapted to living high in trees, evolving pads on their feet for gripping surfaces, along with long legs and a stocky body. Other lizards adapted to life among the thin branches lower down on the trees, evolving short legs that help them hug their narrow perches. Still other lizards adapted to living in grass and shrubs, evolving long tails and slender trunks. On island after island, the same kinds of lizards have evolved."

36 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. I didn't read TFA by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    TFS makes me think that it's an article about covergent evolution. That's not exactly news. The kiwi looks like a mouse. water dragons look like iguanas. animals look like the role they fill in the ecosystem.

    1. Re:I didn't read TFA by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is, they're filling the same roles in the same ecosystems. Suppose trees were square on one island, or very sticky on another, or very short and smooth, or poisonous, or covered in ants. In these cases the lizards would have evolved very different forms.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:I didn't read TFA by rossdee · · Score: 2

      "The kiwi looks like a mouse"

      But it doesn't have a scroll wheel

      "water dragons look like iguanas"

      Are they from Harry Potter, LOTR, or Anne McCaffreys books?

    3. Re:I didn't read TFA by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      The difference, of course, is in demonstrating the predictive value of evolution, in a measurable and falsifiable way. Before, we could make pretty reliable predictions about unknown past events, which is good enough to be science, but sciences' main draw is in its utility in being able to understand how things will happen under any given circumstance.

    4. Re:I didn't read TFA by Lazere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the point. When they know certain conditions, they can predict, with some level of accuracy, what evolutions will take place.

    5. Re:I didn't read TFA by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not necessarily. Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment has demonstrated that some evolutionary steps can be "pre-conditioned". That's what *I* thought immediately of when I saw the summary: that given a current state of a species, it might be possible to predict the likeliest changes to expect.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:I didn't read TFA by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      That's the point. When they know certain conditions, they can predict, with some level of accuracy, what evolutions will take place.

      I'm just curious as to how they overcame the more unpredictable factors such as random mutations (e.g. a cosmic ray bumps some life form's DNA a little, causing a benefit, etc.), or did they just count that as statistical noise, or...?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:I didn't read TFA by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's only the case when there are a limited number of ways to adapt successfully to a changed condition. What this seems to show is that there are is not a limited number of ways, at least a preferred number of ways. Which means that the mutations necessary to adapt to them don't occur at random.

      There are a couple of ways this could be done, but the reasoning isn't straightforwards. OTOH, if you instead can say "Well, the last time this situation occurred, that was the response", and make a correct prediction based on that, then you don't need the underlying reasoning to make it work. Historical observation suffices.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:I didn't read TFA by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      water dragons (Physignathus cocincinus) are a lizard found in southeat asia. They are omnivorous and fill roughly the same role there that iguanas fill in south america. They share a lot of physical traits, and to the untrained eye are often confused for each other (though with a little experience, it's easy to tell them apart)

  2. Re:tl;dr nature is BORING by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    Luckily all you have to do to fix your pointlessly nihilistic philosophical problems is kill yourself. Poof no more boredom with the intricate mechanisms of reality. All done.

    The rest of us can keep pushing that boulder up the hill for whatever reasons happen suit us, no matter how absurd.

  3. Convergent and Recurrent Evolution shows this by deathcloset · · Score: 1

    I think that convergent evolution would be a very high-level example of how the results of selection can be predictable and are in fact repeated, even if the actual underlying mechanisms and specific genes involved in the convergent adaption in different species differ, the results are the same. Recurrent evolution also seems to support the "non-random" or "predictable" nature of evolution. In other words, if you put a square organism in a round environment, we know that its successful decedents will have rounded edges.

    1. Re:Convergent and Recurrent Evolution shows this by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that they're trying to frame convergent evolution in a more falsifiable way, by asserting particular predictions of convergent evolution as measurable hypotheses.

    2. Re:Convergent and Recurrent Evolution shows this by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. Convergent evolution deals with appearance or function, not with genetics, details of implementation, etc.

      The classic example of convergent evolution is the icthyosaur and the dolphin. Both have LOTS of similarities in form and shape. The details of their function are different, but you need to look fairly closlely to see that. E.g. the Icthyosaur had huge eyes where the dolphin has sonar. The two animals have the axis of their tails at right angles to each other, etc. But you can trace the axis of the dolphin's tail back to the galloping gait of it's terrestrial ancestor, while the icthyosaur had a side to side movement, similar to that of a fish, because it's ancestor didn't gallop, but had a much more lizardish gait (and thus was more similar to a fish).

      Basically what convergent evolution tells us is that function follows form, and vice versa.

      What would be really interesting is if they could show that the tree climbing lizards on the various islands had adapted to climbing trees by activating the same genes. I don't expect that, but if it could be shown it would be evidence for a higher order of evolution, sometimes called "the evolution of evolveability". Nobody has yet shown that it exists, but it hasn't been proven theoretically impossible.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. Re:Metaphysics CYA by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    How the hell does any of that imply any sort of teleological argument? There's not even the vaguest hint of design in a word of it.

  5. Not Quite the Same by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    It does not appear to be quite the same thing as convergent evolution (but I'm a physicist not a biologist!). My understanding of covergent evolutions is that it is when two wildly different evolutionary paths end up with the same solution to a problem e.g. an octopus eye and a human eye are functionally very similar even though our last common ancestor certainly had nothing like it.

    This is rather the claim that evolution is reproducible in the short term i.e. if you put the same strain of bacteria in the same conditions they will evolve in the exact same way and not find different evolutionary paths to the same goal. This means that evolution becomes predictable and you can then predict with some degree of accuracy how a virus, bacteria or cell will evolve. This has obvious applications for disease control and perhaps cancer too.

    1. Re:Not Quite the Same by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      But it is the same forces in play. The limitations of the physics (and thus chemistry and thus biology) that drive structure and function of DNA, protein, etc limit the possible ways that nature can create ways to solve evolutionary problems. So whether it is a photon sensing system or pads on lizard, given the toolkit that nature (yeah, I'm anthropomorphizing a bit, sorry) has, it uses it in a similar fashion to get to a desired end result.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Not Quite the Same by outlander · · Score: 1

      Also not an evolutionary biologist, but I think you're on the right track. I don't know whether a given environment will favor a specific set of mutations (e.g., the exact same path each time), but assuming a constant environment, the organisms that result will probably be similarly adapted to the environment. It's kind of a cool idea because at a molecular-genetic level, there are probably something like functions (vs individual lines of code) which interact and can be documented at some sort of macro level, which combine in more or less predictable ways ('predictable' being a gross oversimplification of the molecular complexity involved).

      Ah, I need to go read some genetics textbooks. The evolutionary biologists have a lot of this stuff mapped already - look at what they know about HOX genes. So.cool.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    3. Re:Not Quite the Same by Livius · · Score: 1

      Evolution will favour adaptation. In some cases, there may only be one straighforward path to an adaptive solution, but there will sometimes be surprises.

    4. Re:Not Quite the Same by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking this is also about what we consider "alike" or "the same" Just a few days ago, I came across a report of a new (to me) member of the Burgess shale fossils, a relative of Anomalocaris. Basically, Anomalocaris was a two meter long killer shrimp with spiky grabbers and rasping plate teeth. It was the biggest thing in the ocean, the equivalent of a whale compared to the typial creatures of the time. This particular relative was a very large sized ( for the era) filter feeder, believed to be evolved from the Anomalocaris parent line about 25 million years later. If we agree that a 2 meter long swimmer that was fifty times the mass of just about everything else was the rough equivalent of a whale, it looks like that 'whale' eventually gave rise to several varieties of both predatory and filter feeding descendants. The question is, "What does "same" mean in this context?" - Anomalocaris must have been a living nightmare, like a T-Rex or a Great White, to the creatures of its era, but it would be a prey species in the modern seas. Hell, typical tuna would probably take them down routinely, let alone modern sharks. So does it make sense to say we now know of two cases where predatory whale-likes evolved into more varieties of whale-likes and some of those became filter feeders? Can we predict that large predators in the seas will give rise to large filter feeders in general? Is there, in fact. a lesson to be drawn in such cases? Or are humans, so good at seeing patterns we often see them where they don't exist, doing that thing we do sometimes?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Not Quite the Same by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking this is also about what we consider "alike" or "the same"

      Sort of but I'm thinking that it is more about the process vs. result. Convergent evolution is about the end results: there appear to be only a certain number of basic eye designs which work and so evolution tends to converge on one of these solutions no matter where it starts. This result is talking about the fact that given the same starting point and the same environment identical organisms will evolve in the same way i.e. there are not just stable solutions which you arrive at but stable paths along which you travel to get there.

      Anyway this is definitely the most interesting bioscience result I've seen in a while so I'll have to quiz my biological colleagues about it when I get the chance!

  6. so star trek wasn't so silly... by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    and the universe is filled with english-speaking humanoids;-)

  7. Prediction is very difficult... by NikeHerc · · Score: 2

    Niels Bohr famously said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future." I think he was on target, even factoring in possible facetiousness.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  8. Re:Metaphysics CYA by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Wikipedia

    It's the simple assertion of effect derives from cause. This bears absolutely no relationship to teleological philosophical arguments, which construe reality itself to be purpose driven. Outright unrelated concepts. You need to educate yourself.

  9. But Does It Scale by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    On island after island, the same kinds of lizards have evolved.

    Sure, in close islands with identical ecosystems. But if this hypothesis scales universally.... why don't we have kangaroos or elephants in the Americas?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:But Does It Scale by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      They don't like hanging upside down.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    2. Re:But Does It Scale by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure, in close islands with identical ecosystems. But if this hypothesis scales universally.... why don't we have kangaroos or elephants in the Americas?

      Not enough scaling. We're just talking about lizards turning into other lizards. There's nothing like an elephant that could turn into one on the same kind of time scale. Genes can't do just anything, only some possible outcomes are valid, and there was nothing which could turn into those things during that time. Also, different pressures. In the lizards-on-islands example, the pressures faced by the lizards are similar, down to respective environments, predators, etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:But Does It Scale by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      No, the point was if they knew what the conditions were like they may be able to predict short term changes based on being able to reproduce the same results multiple times in a identical ecosystem. Not that kangaroos and elephants would evolve in a place different from their natural habitat...

    4. Re:But Does It Scale by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      why don't we have kangaroos or elephants in the Americas?

      We ate them?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:But Does It Scale by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      We don't like the elepahants hanging upside down from our trees either. Why do you think we made the giant sloths stay on the ground? Walking under a low hanging elephant? Not advisable.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  10. Seems like they are characterizing the sensitivity by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    of biological systems to mutation more than anything else. Without mutation you will just see the permutations of the existing genome try to fill the ecological space with those best suited to particular niches taking up residence there. The lizards for example the best suited fro tree climbing/feeding take up residence in the trees and breed new generations with an ever more narrow slice of the original colonizers genome.

    The beneficial mutations that introduce new genes are were you get changes and would seem to be nearly impossible to predict in detail. You could hypothesize that a bacterial would eventually mutate to utilize an available food source, if not in any great detail the exact method.

    The rest just seems to be usual determinism. Does it really take that much to predict that if you breed horse in pens with 3 foot ceilings and keep them in them all the time, in a few generations you are going to get short horses ?

  11. Re:tl;dr nature is BORING by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Syphilis.

    Close. No cigar.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  12. Re:tl;dr nature is BORING by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but you mean amother.

  13. Re:tl;dr nature is BORING by outlander · · Score: 1

    Sisyphus.

    Syphilis is between shit and sympathy in the dictionary....

    --
    "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  14. Re:Metaphysics CYA by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm going to back out of this debate and call you a moron, instead. You've just made it very clear that you have a stupid position and that relatively simple definitions have no bearing on how you interpret words.

    This is a "shouting at graffiti" situation.

  15. I for one welcome our... by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss overlords!

    (That's the forecast anyway)

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  16. Re:tl;dr nature is BORING by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    illusions / allusions
    Another "no cigar" in the same sentence. One AC will die of ennui induced suicide, but the other will at least avoid lung cancer.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?