←back to thread

429 points sampo | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
corygarms ◴[] No.45302603[source]
This is nuts. If I'm understanding correctly, the M. ibiricus queen mates with a M. structor male, uses his sperm to create sterile, hybrid female worker ants for her colony, then she (astonishingly) can also lay eggs that develop into fertile M. structor males, which means she has removed her genetic material from the egg and effectively cloned the male she previously mated with.
replies(8): >>45302659 #>>45302788 #>>45303102 #>>45303712 #>>45303759 #>>45303836 #>>45310163 #>>45311222 #
alphazard ◴[] No.45303102[source]
If you take the idea of genes as the target of evolution seriously, then every possible "bargain" between different genes that moves towards a pareto optimal for those genes, will eventually be discovered through the brute force search.
replies(7): >>45304037 #>>45304096 #>>45304269 #>>45304909 #>>45305479 #>>45308108 #>>45308418 #
jcims ◴[] No.45304909[source]
I still struggle with the brute force search a bit. Just naively a very small gene has 4^500 possible combinations.
replies(4): >>45305071 #>>45306084 #>>45306274 #>>45306506 #
HarHarVeryFunny ◴[] No.45306084[source]
Genetic variation from one generation to the next is incremental - not a matter of tearing it all up and try some something random, not brute force exploring our way through all combinations.

Evolution seems more like building a tree where mostly all you can do is ascend the tree and add finer detail, leaving the trunk and branches (our evolutionary history) in place. It seems unlikely that, say, vertebrates are in the future going to "undo" the major evolutionary developments of the past and lose their skeleton, body symmetry, number of limbs, lungs, alimentary canal, nervous system, brain, etc. We see things like these developing in the evolutionary tree and mostly staying in place once created. Sure some fins turned to limbs, some gills to ears, but once things like that happened they seem to stay in place.

I wonder what evolution would look like if we could see it sped up from the origin of life to billions of years into the future? A building up of complexity to begin with, but those major branches of the evolutionary tree remaining pretty stable it would seem. Continual ongoing change, but of smaller and smaller scope, perhaps - building on what came before.

replies(3): >>45306966 #>>45308746 #>>45309673 #
1. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.45306966[source]
> It seems unlikely that, say, vertebrates are in the future going to "undo" the major evolutionary developments of the past and lose their skeleton, body symmetry, number of limbs, lungs, alimentary canal, nervous system, brain, etc. We see things like these developing in the evolutionary tree and mostly staying in place once created.

Try looking at whale skeletons over time. What isn't beneficial gets undone.

replies(2): >>45307531 #>>45309742 #
2. knodi123 ◴[] No.45307531[source]
Try looking at the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve. What isn't beneficial is sometimes retained as long as the cost isn't bad enough to impair reproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#Evid...

3. heavyset_go ◴[] No.45309742[source]
What doesn't affect fitness, or has relatively little cost, can and does propagate over time. By definition, nothing is selecting against them.

Similarly, beneficial and complex traits, like eyes, can "regress" if nothing selects against that trait. Plenty of species have lost their sight, making them less generally fit for many environments, because in a certain place and time those species could reproduce even without perfect vision, or just as the result of genetic drift.

replies(1): >>45313221 #
4. HarHarVeryFunny ◴[] No.45313221[source]
Yes, but it still seems that large scale structure tends to be preserved and it's more localized things like limbs/eyes/ears/teeth that may adapt. A chicken may have no teeth, but it's still basically a therapod.

I'm guessing there may be at least a couple of reasons for this:

1) Large scale structures evolved over long periods of time, involving layer upon layer of genetic change. This isn't going to be undone quickly or by any localized change, and those rare cases where a genetic change/defect does impact some fundamental aspect of the body plan (e.g. a frog with six legs) are very unlikely to be successful.

2) It seems possible that evolution acts to preserve large scale structure that has proved itself over time, and changes to which tend to be detrimental. In the same way that sexual reproduction seems like an evolution hack to evolve faster, then perhaps animals have also evolved genetic hacks to preserve/stabilize large scale structures that are critical to survival.