Unfortunatelly, this doesn't explain the behaviour of non haplodiploid eusocial animals like termites... On the other hand, some bees and wasps are haplodiploid, but they are still solitary...
Normally I support the kin selection, but this is one of the few examples where a group selection may be acceptable.
@TheMeju I suggest reading Bourke & Franks's book Social Evolution in Ants (1995), in which they suggest group-selection theory being an expansion of kin selection theory into broader scale I.e. levels-of-selection theory.
Nice presentation of a fascinating topic. S'pose the next dominate species on earth will be haplodiploid? One question jumped out at me though: Is there consensus that eusociality evolved 13 SEPERATE times? Is that documented anywhere?
That's fascinating. I took a genetics course in university, but it was an introduction to the subject, and essentially went over what I had learnt about it in high school - ie, we just focused on diploid organisms. I wish we had taken a look at ants and bees, though. :D Out of curiousity, was there a particular book you read to get your info about eusociality?
You have to have a lot of biology credits to even get accepted to medical school. Add to that a lot of chemistry, biochemistry and even some odd physics things too.
Just with the electives you need you're probably going to have to enroll in something like ecology, ethology, and other upper division credits.
You say that the "BEHAVIOUR did not cause genetic change responsible for haplo diploidy...um.. in order to further the species". OK.
Noted, terms "behaviour" and "social structure" used interchangably
1/Obviously, neither is a direct cause of genetic changes .
2/ It seems that mention of "in order to" leads thought to implied "purpose" ( I don't know why that part should even be in the conversation). You are denying that it happened anyway.
Either behaviour caused change in gene or it did not. Either change in gene "furthered the species", or it did not.
3/By "furthered", do you mean made it more successful or changed it more ? Changed to a different species, even ? i.e."Furthered" a species so much, that it no longer exists ?
4/You say that genetic change to H/D occurred first. OK, it's an assertion. No support given.
5/You then say that instead, the SOCIAL STRUCTURE evolved as a result of close relatedness of sisters in organisms with this genetic arrangement ( H/D). You go back to "social structure" here, rather than "behaviour".
6/Are you saying that the genetic change that results in H/D ( not H/D itself, mind), DIRECTLY CAUSED the social structure ? Or the H/D directly caused the social structure, or is it as you just said, that the "close relatedness of sisters" directly cause it ?
BTW, what genetic change results in a critter becoming an H/D critter ?
To sum up, it isn't clear whether whatever genetic made the critter change to H/D ALSO caused the social structure ( or the behaviour) to change to what it is, or whether the H/D itself caused the social structure ( or behaviour) to change to what it is, or whether the close relationship of the sisters caused it.
Of these possible interpretations, which caused whatever you are talking about ( either social structure or behaviour), to change ?
In the darwinian calculus H/D the H/D system began with some ancestral progenitor that would have lived like a non-colonial free living wasp today which would have passed the genetic basis of H/D.
Once this was in place the descendants that helped their siblings had a greater fitness than those who raised their own. As such further refinements such as the genetics for colonial living and the different body types and such flow from there, because these alleles get a higher inclusive fitness
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat Yes, say the H/D arrangement came first ( even though it's evloved separately many times ). Once it was in place, genes of sisters who helped were more successful than the genes would have been if the sisters didn't help.
However, from 5:20 it seems to say that the relatedness of the sisters caused the social arrangement.
Just for fun - if social structure was in place first, it's also just as easy to see how H/D would be a good thing.
Id imagine that they probably had were close living to begin with. Like either they lived close to each other geographically or had some pre-adaptation close familial association, given how young hymenopterans breed it wouldn't be impossible if things were highly incestous. That could have lead the way
Are you sure the numbers are that high? Since most of the genes of one species is identical most of it should be transfered into the offspring. Wouldnt it be more like 90% (dunno if this is a realistic number) of the gene which is identical in both male and femal (-% mutation) * 75%/50%. So the difference between sisters should be more like 7,5%/5%?
The relatedness coeffic. is just to show how alleles will behave locally. Like I have 50% relatedness with my father. However base per base it's nearly 100% sequence identity.
The real interest is seeing how alleles will bootstrap themselves in the first few generations and see if something could possibly get theoretically selected for
That is group selection or maybe even clade selection.
You know it's not a sin to invoke group selection. Its not forbidden, we should be free to at least pursue some of these lines of thinking especially since by all admission; group selection is theoretically plausible.
There is a difference between the idea that individuals work "for the good of the species" and recognizing some ecological circumstances where between group selective pressure is greater than individual selection
There are strong cases in favor. Anytime we see a genotype that is locally disadvantageous that is a good case for multilevel selection theory. That's what David Sloan Wilson calls the "original problem" it's what darwin identified as well.
These things are found in ethology but also in things like biofilms.
@lardhat Group selection is a term that isn't used because it was the label applied to a selection model that didn't actually WORK. (There's a vid of Dawkins discussing this somewhere on YouTube.) 'Kin selection' is a very applicable term, since selection of kin is what happens. (This happens in social mammals as well, but the genetic system in this group of insects favors females supporting their sisters enormously.)
I would assume this is the case but is the mechanism that operates in other social insects (like ants) similar or are bees and wasps unique in this?( I know that ants are somewhat closely related to bees so they may not be the best example.)
@OrbisFerrum Ants, bees, wasps, are all in the same suborder of Hymenoptera (called Apocrita), and the rest are Sawflies in the suborder Symphyta.
Ants are actually a subgroup of wasps, and the earliest fossil ants are very wasp-like.
As there are both solitary and eusocial ants, bees, and wasps, eusociality must have evolved independently at least once (more likely, more than once) in each group. For this genetic system, it creates strong benefits.
@evensgrey Thanks for answering that. Quick question though. Based on don's video haploidiploidy seems to be a trigger that leads to eusociality. However, the existence of other haploidiploidy species that are not eusocial begs the question if there might not be another mechanism in play as well or at the very least that haploidiploidy might not be as deterministic as suggest (not sure if don wanted to suggest that but it seemed like it). What's going on, what are the other factors?
@OrbisFerrum For why some species developed eusociality and others didn't, you need to consult a genetic entomologist. Such a person might be able to explain the details of why termites, which are not haplodiploid, developed eusociality as well, as there is, apparently a fitness benefit there as well.
I see! It's late over here in Europe and I have yet to commence my biological studies, so I guess I simply missed the whole point here! Will try to rematch again later. Peace!
Not really. In haplodiploid species like bees, sisters are 75% related, but only 50% related to their mothers, daughters and brothers. Males are 100% related to their mothers and daughters, but only 50% related to their siblings.
The big difference is that an ant aunt is 37.5% related to their neices or nephews, but an ant uncle is only the usual (i.e. like diploid species) 25% related to their nieces or nephews.
@daltriani If Dawkins was to rewrite that book now, I expect it would be much clearer for the non-specialist. He's had a LOT more practice since the 1970's in communicating with the general public.
@daltriani There's a very good reason why this kind of detail isn't taught in high school biology. For a more detailed account, try the _Science of Discworld_ series. The short version is: The best truth we have is very complicated, hard to understand, difficult to teach except as a refinement of a simpler and less true basis, and often not significantly more useful than a less true basis. (Think General Relativity compared to Newtonian Gravity.)
@evensgrey I appreciate that things are simplified for ease of teaching. I read in Hawking's book that science lessons are at least 15 years behind discoveries. Even history lessons simplify truths (alexander graham bell is still taught as the inventor of the telephone, and edison of course the light bulb. even though it is widely recorded that they were not the actual inventors.
I have always wondered which came first for bees and ants. Thank you for this. A good question now is why would haplodiploid evolve in the first place.
Stuff like this always bewilders me but not because of the math: I'm blown away that biology imposes these sorts of pressures/games on the species even when the species themselves don't know anything about biology.
Obviously, it's all an abstraction and we should be weary of reification but it's still pretty mind blowing none the less.
yeah and to think its all due to emergent forces acting around us.
Imagine though on some planet where the primordial genetic system had something like this. Then most taxa would have inherited social behavior. Perhaps our idea of the strength of individual selection is biased and is a historical accident.
Maybe if you re-ran the tape of life and rotifers can rise to animals this would have happened.
I think you may mean "more advantageous to raise your sisters" rather than "more advantageous to raise your sisters' children." However, as usual I really enjoyed your video. You do so many great specifics showing evolution at work. I always wondered how these structures would be an advantage in some species and not others. I never learned about haplodiploidy before.
Homosexuality is the biggest Darwinian puzzle of all. If I wasn't limited to youtube's comment limit and we were like talking in a lobby somewhere I could lay out a treatise on the issue of the evolution of homosexuality over the course of a few hours.
Short answer: we don't know why but there's many possible scenarios.
I just have to say that many of the proposed answers depart from what's called the "adaptationist" view. Homosexuality may just simply not be adaptive
At 4:57-5:03 you say it's more advantages to help raise the offspring of your sisters than to raise your own offspring. How does this follow? Doesn't a haplodiploid mother share 50% of her genes with her daughter and the super sister to this mother shares 37,5% with the same daughter? Or am I missing something?
@FalleJr You have to take into account the relative success rate of raising young cooperatively vs. raising young solo. If you get more copies of your genes into future generations by helping to raise your sister's offspring with the help of all your other sisters, that will be favored.
A whole lot of puzzling things abruptly make perfect sense when you apply the Selfish Gene paradigm.
So this is just a random question about these eusocial species. If being haploid makes them male, and being diploid (from fertilization) makes them female... what makes them a female capable of producing offspring? Since most of the females are necessarily sterile.
@lectricklightbulb It is environmental. Bee larvae are fed by nurse bees. If the queen is weak or has stopped laying eggs or the colony is strong enough to prepare to divide (swarm); then the nurse bees will build larger cells called swarm or queen cells around several larvae of the right age (about three days old). The nurses will feed these larvae a substance called "Royal Jelly". These larvae will develop into fully functioning females or queens.
@Afod3 That's not true of all eusocial Hymenoptera, however. In most species of wasps and ants, killing the queen kills the colony. Bees also tend to overwinter better than many wasps, with colonies lasting as long as nothing dramatic happens to the colony. (For instance, honey bees can be prey for other insects, including at least one species of hornet native to Japan that can destroy entire colonies of honey bees. Native Japanese bees, however, have a defense that can kill the scouts.)
I don't think you should worry about people not understanding, I understood it quite well and I'm not even a native english speaker or living in a english speaking country, the only part I have doubts on is, strangely, the math. I'm gonna go read about probability right now.
From economics we learn that a society benefits when people specialize and trade. Ants and bees have some that specialize in reproduction, some that specialize in foraging and others in defense.
Another view is that it is beneficial to a queen to reproduce sterile foragers to support the potential gene spreaders - .the males.
For bees, this assumes that a drone from a nearby hive has been attracted to the queen at diaspora, yes? Also, does the haploid male sperm only include half of his genes? Uhm... has to be 100%, does it not?
@DonExodus2 It isn't that bad, iv not had a problem with it. Maybe put a steep high pass filter at about 70- 80 Hz so when you are converting to compressed mp3s the low rumble isn't converted and leaves the rest of the signal washy and hollow. Maybe EQ for a bit more body at 200- 400 Hz and put a light compressor on there (4:1 with medium attack and release?)
Man, seems like everyone is missing the issue I'm trying to get an answer to. DonExodus2, please inject your expertise here and ACTUALLY answer my question :) Why isn't the branching of non-optimal species rampant in nature? Intuitively, I'd expect to see species everywhere with useless, random (not vestigial) appendages or ones with disadvantageous traits with beneficial features to compensate. I know there are SOME instances of abnormal species like this, but why so rare? DNA error correction?
Before someone AGAIN replies with a comment like "because they're not selected for and die out"... why don't we see these DYING species *all the time* as just a natural part of evolution? We all understand natural selection, but why aren't there abnormal, non-optimal species branching off all the time in nature, either thriving because the feature isn't overly disadvantageous (just worthless) or going extinct SLOWLY over thousands of years because it's marginally disadvantageous to its survival?
@vickmackey24 The mathematics of population genetics explain why you wouldn't expect a negative traight to disappear slowly (it would be unlikely to spread in the first place). Tiny differences in fitness have a large (exponential) impact when compounded over many generations.
What do you mean by "non-optimal"? IMHO no species is perfectly optimized for anything.
The example I gave before: Things like peacocking, brighter colours, larger antlers etc.
Again, I'm not even talking about what has a higher likelihood to persist over "many generations." Obviously, advantageous traits are more likely to carry on longer than disadvantageous ones or useless ones. The question is why we don't see it happening all the time in nature, even if they only last a few dozen generations. In other words, why aren't there *small* subsets or subtrees of these anomalous species cropping up everywhere? Are hereditary traits difficult to produce or what?
@vickmackey24 If a handful of traits become common or dominant for millions of years, they'll have in total more visibility than millions of traits that only affect a tiny fragment of the population for a handful of years. So even if negative and fitness-neutral mutations are thousands of times more common than beneficial ones, they'll still be much much harder to come by.
Anyway, you CAN find small subsets with negative hereditary traits. e.g. people with down's syndrome or obesity genes.
"you CAN find small subsets with negative hereditary traits. e.g. people with down's syndrome or obesity genes"
Right. That's precisely the kind of subset I'm talking about, but something a little more physically abnormal than obesity, like a relatively small, possibly short-lived subset of species with a 3rd eye or some other weird deformity that isn't OVERTLY disadvantageous. Intuitively, I'd expect to see these branches popping in and out of nature all the time... but clearly not.
@vickmackey24 We do see these dieing species all the time because, in a sense, almost every species is a dieing species, slowly becoming something different as traits change. And we also see species with something that's a part of them that's useless but not so much as to be overly detrimental to its survival, the human appendix for example. But if a trait goes so far as to be detrimental to an organism that organism will likely be selected against and not pass its genes on.
@eals524 Thanks, but it doesn't really address the question of why we don't see these subsets of species all over in nature, even if recently forming and only lasting for say a dozen generations or even a MILLION generations if the defect isn't overtly detrimental. It's the asymmetrical abnormalities I'd expect to see more of, but we don't... it's really rare. I know why it's rare in comparison to more advantageous features obviously, but not why its overall presence is rare *across* species.
Does the social structure actually make the species better able an to survive, or does it just make the trait more likely to persist?
Like how eventually the cancer gene will be present in all humans because we all work together to ensure that people with cancer can survive and procreate even though cancer does not make humans better off.
Hrm, I believe your argument is the basis for eugenics. While on many levels that our evolution is hindered by our relatively new social morals, technology is also developing to make up for many of the deficiencies as well. What is fairly certain is that negative eugenics will never occur on a large scale in modern society, and positive eugenics occur naturally. There's no way to reconcile morality with practicality always. *shrug*
@ddrddrddrddr No, leave eugenics out of it altogether. It is possible that a trait can select for itself but not make the species better able to survive.
@wwickeddogg That's not what you stated initially, at least now how I understood it. No one SELECTS cancer that I can think of, only ignore its presence. I can't think of any creatures preferentially selecting any trait that is entirely negative.
@ddrddrddrddr Many traights related to mating patterns fit your description. They are entirely negative in terms of survival, but because members of the opposite sex in the species likes to see peacocking, big antlers etc, the traight is selected for.
@Paulginz What description? Traits that are entirely negative in nature? Because neither of those traits are negative. OP's original example was cancer, and that is a negative trait that no one consciously strive for in their offspring.
@ddrddrddrddr Yeah, traits that are entirely negative in nature, in the sense that they decrease survival rates. Obviously, by definition if a trait decreases the rate of successful reproduction relative to other members of the same species, it will not be naturally selected.
Some people inject saline solution into their forehead in the same way people get piercings and tattoos. If people find that sexy, then some kinds of tumour might be considered aesthetically pleasing and selected for.
No but cancer cells increase their fitness by dividing rapidly. Those daughter cells in turn divide rapidly into cells that then go and divide rapidly. They get even better when they give up the density dependent limits and form a tumor instead of well regulated tissues.
And then they get even better when some cells mutate to evade apoptosis orders
and even better when they change their cell surface proteins to evade the immune system.
Cancer is in a very really sense a multi step adaptation
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat That "evolution" has a fatal flaw, it has a hard limiter on its ability to procreate, since they kill the host and are unable to infect other hosts. Though if you limit the system to only a single body, I see that even cancer can be considered to be evolving against the other living cells, but only in the short term. Normal cell still survive more generations, by contributing to life. Though I don't believe cancer is considered an organism unto itself.
Yeah I know; that's the definition of somatic selection.
And actually there are contagious forms of cancer.
For example there are HeLa human cancer cells that infected a researcher.
There's also that facial legion cancer in tazmanian devils that spreads from host to host.
You should read up on Hela cells. See they are fully human cells but they've evolved to be this sort of single celled protozoan type thing in culture. I remember one strain that expressed cilla to move around
HeLa cells should not be concidered fully human. Firstly, HeLa cells do not organise themselves into a human person. Secondly, HeLa cells have 4 copies of chromosome 12 and 3 copies of chromosomes 6, 8, and 17. This is possibly because (Thirdly) HeLa cells, like most cervical cancers, have been transformed by human papillomavirus 18 (HPV18). So, the cancer is not contagious, the virus that causes cancer is.
PS: Most human cells have primary cilia at some point.
I invoked the HeLa cells because someone wanted to say that somatic selection was somehow conceptually different. I just pointed out that actually they too could and do sometimes get passed through generations. HeLa cells have broken free of their host. They are more like the sort of plastic gonangium of algae in this respect
Yes well the structure of evolutionary theory as is recognizes that individual selection takes place from generation to generation. I'd say that this is what is happening to cancer.
Compare a tumor that kills it's host to say any of the 99.9% of dead lineages. or compare it to humans growing in population for their own selfish purposes, only to eventually trash the planet. Or bacteria accumulating waste products in a dish faster than the breakdown rate.
Interesting. Well it appears they've evolved the ability to have their cake and eat it too; both using the markings for sexual selection and offsetting the preference when the gene is too prevalent. Also, the melanoma aren't very limiting against procreation since it occurs after sexual maturity. I guess in this case the sword tail have managed to adapt to make even cancer useful :D
Sickle cell anemia for example. Though it is considerably detrimental to those who are affected by it, it selects for itself by providing a high resistance to malaria.
I loved the video and the explanation is very elegant. I however do have one reservation (ie. question) about the conclusions. To me it is not as clear to you that it really was haplodiploidity that came first. This is probably because I don't know how far back the haplodiploidity streches. I imagine it is WAY back, but would you happen to have some info on this Don? I mean, the genes first explanation seems more likely but I'd like some more info on this.
Hm... the video was a bit hard to follow. Though I understand exactly what you're saying because I read Richard Dawkin's "Selfish Gene", which goes over this in detail.
Its quite interesting when you look at how simple math involved with genetics hold true due to natural selection. Its unfortunate though that the concept is a bit too difficult for most people (i.e. creationists) to understand.
@rujiel17 You get 50% of your genes from your father and 50% from your mother. That's self-explanatory.
However, almost all of these genes are the same, i.e. it wouldn't matter if they came from your father/mother/pool-boy/milkman/chimp/cat/dog, because everyone has the same code in those genes (or a functionally identical code).
The 50% figure is still relevant, because of the remaining genes that DO change between individuals/species, you got 50% from your mom and 50% from your dad.
@DonExodus2-- You have got to turn on the auto-captions and watch this video-- the poor thing just can't handle words like "haplodiploid." I LOLed when it transcribed "order hymenoptera" as "I'm a doctor."
Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason it's important for biologists to always come up with an explanation for seemingly disadvantageous behaviors? Is there a reason we have to assume that every organism alive today is at the pinnacle of its evolution? What if they're exhibiting behavior that really ISN'T advantageous but survives *anyway* by other means? It just strikes me as odd because I rarely see a biologist concede that some behavior in nature is NOT advantageous. Please educate me :)
And while on that subject, is there a reason we don't seem to find any species of organisms that are asymmetrical, like having an eye that is just off in some strange location? Obviously symmetry is usually advantageous, but does it have to be SO advantageous that NO species could be left alive without it? I always found that puzzling. Are there any species in the process of going extinct because they are so hopelessly fucked in their evolution so far, but not so much that they die off quickly?
I'll give a quick example of something I'd expect to see in nature given my layman's understanding of evolution. I'd expect to see a bird, for example, that has a 3rd wing on its back that does absolutely nothing. It's just some hereditary genetic defect that happened to get past down to its offspring and it just persisted in this "retard bird species." This 3rd wing wouldn't IMPEDE its survival; it's just useless vestigial crap. Why don't we see really BIZARRE physical abnormalities like this?
@vickmackey24 Look at the muscle structure of a bird, a third wing would greatly impede it.
Further any of these hypothetical useless appendages would take additional food to grow, would weigh the creature down, would provide more grip for attackers, more surface for infections and parasites, etc. even IF they had no direct effect on the creature's survivability.
@Chal113 You're missing the point of my question. OF COURSE they're useless, even disadvantageous with a cost... but every disadvantageous feature need not be SO egregious that the entire species goes *extinct*. I want to know why such things do not exist in nature as just useless junk carrying on, or strongly disadvantageous stuff that IS *in the process* of causing the species to go extinct over a relatively long period of time.
@vickmackey24 Those things do exist. Their called vestigial (sp?) organs. Like our tailbone. Some people are born with a tail because we all still have the gene that makes it.
@vickmackey24 Asymmetrical eye for an example? Flatfish. Look it up. If your "layman's" understanding of evolution leads you to "Expect" to see something THAT outrageous, you clearly have a VERY bad understanding of evolution. You really need to study it more in depth at either a college (accredited non-religious college would be your best bet) or a trade school. If you are in high school then your teachers either failed, you are in a religious school or you are confused by what they teach you.
@vickmackey24 Try describing a symmetrical shape; you basically just need to describe one side of it. Next try describing an asymmetrical shape; see how it takes more information? My guess would be that genetic information is only coded for one side and the process is mirrored, except for special cases where asymmetry is needed.
Extra genetic code would mean extra room for errors, and the errors would be worse: ex. one leg longer than the other instead of just shorter legs. Symmetry's safer.
@Chal113 Yes, we know this... symmetry is safer and better. That's not the point, though. My question is why aren't there "retard species" that develop occasionally that carry on with these somewhat abnormal and NON-OPTIMAL features? Even if they slowly die out after 10000 years or whatever. What prevents this? I'm just not seeing why this isn't occurring all the time. It isn't intuitive. My *guess* is that some of these abnormal traits are just really difficult to develop or something. *shrug*
@vickmackey24 a particularly good example of what you are asking are the monotremes (egg-laying mammals). They are not particularly well-adapted to their evironment and the ones we have left (echidna, duck-billed platypus) are just plodding along, mainly because of lack of competition in their particular niche.
@ericflynnster That's interesting :) I wonder why it's so rare, though. I'd expect to see that kind of thing all over the place in nature. Species randomly branching off into less-than-optimal versions and either carrying on like that forever or slowly going extinct after thousands of years. But, I don't see how this would end because evolution is not a linear progression; it's a branching process. That's what I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around, the rarity of these occurrences.
"One of their eyes migrates to the other side of their body so they can lie flat on the seabed. Some species of crab (e.g. fiddler) have one big claw and one small claw"
That's interesting. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see a lot more of. I'd expect to see nearly every species on the planet with a sub-branch consisting of say 1% of its population with asymmetrical abnormalities. I'd expect them to exist everywhere as a natural result of evolution, both short and long-lived.
@vickmackey24 (continued from above) asking laymen on youtube is NOT a good way to get solid and reliable information about evolutionary processes. To reply to THIS comment ^ yes there are some animals that are in the process of going extinct. Look up cheetah breading issues (or problems). There, again, is no such thing as being "done" with evolution, or being SO advantageous that nothing can survive without "it". Species are adapted only to their current surroundings/environment. (next)
Because time and time again all behaviours have been shown to be gene-advantageous.. It's not about the individual. It's not about how much that individual reproduces - it's about the chance a variant gene has of getting into future gene-pools.
So there you have it - a genetic variation or gene mutation may not help the individual - but once it is passed on within the gene pool, it will survive or fail according to it's ability to self-replicate.
@8DX That still doesn't really answer my question. I understand why advantageous stuff carries on, but I don't understand why a lot of *disadvantageous* (or useless) stuff does NOT get passed along, too, just by happenstance. If a deformed monkey developed a useless thumb on its butt, it need not impede its survival, so what precludes this feature from being past on forever? I just don't see what precludes weird USELESS physical abnormalities from existing all over the place in nature.
...or even disadvantageous stuff that simply gets overcome (barely) by other features. Are there species in the process of slowly going extinct because a feature it has really IS disadvantageous? I know we've observed that most things we see that *seem* to not be advantageous to survival turn out not to be. My question is why. I'd like to know the answer to this so I know how to respond to a Creationist who tries to use this unintuitive result as a defense for their Intelligent Design nonsense.
@vickmackey24 Its simple really. If something has no advantage, nothing will drive the abnormal gene's survival. And if it costs energy to keep, that's a huge burden and it will evolve its way out or the individuals carrying that gene will most likely die off.
"that's a huge burden and it will evolve its way out"
Ok, I'm not sure I see how all abnormalities would have to be a "huge" burden. But even assuming that's the case, you say it will evolve its way out... but it seems all this evolution has ALREADY happened because we don't seem to see it anywhere. That's the part I find counter-intuitive and would like explained to me. Why don't we SEE species "evolving things out." Is the assumption that ALL organisms are at some sort of pinnacle?
@vickmackey24 No. Just think of the other example I used - our tailbone. We don't necessarily *need* our tailbone to survive as we don't even have a tail anymore. But some people are born with a tail, so the "non-advantageous" genetic trait does still live on in rare cases.
@ngarbo00 I'm not referring to vestigial organs/appendages that once had a use and now don't. I'm referring to completely random *garbage* that develops in an organism and just so happens to be passed on. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see given my limited understanding of evolution. Obviously something is preventing that... I'm just trying to figure out what it is.
@vickmackey24 Happens all the time. There are birds who dont need their wings. We dont need our tonsils or appendixes. All providing seemingly no benefit and yet, there they are.
Unfortunatelly, this doesn't explain the behaviour of non haplodiploid eusocial animals like termites... On the other hand, some bees and wasps are haplodiploid, but they are still solitary...
Normally I support the kin selection, but this is one of the few examples where a group selection may be acceptable.
TheMeju 9 months ago
@TheMeju I suggest reading Bourke & Franks's book Social Evolution in Ants (1995), in which they suggest group-selection theory being an expansion of kin selection theory into broader scale I.e. levels-of-selection theory.
Gruntti 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist / science use the gospel of guesswork
here is a challenge!
Give the age of the earth and or evolution without
utilising assumptive data to calculate it?
valu777 1 year ago
My new textbook has eusociality evolving 12 times.
niall142 1 year ago
@niall142
since hapldioploidy was at one time the more common way among insects its really easy to see how eusociality evolved.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Thanks so much, this is great for revision!
niall142 1 year ago
THANK YOU. Takes a frigging lifetime to find a source that explains haplodiploidy in a non-confusing way.
TheEntryCode 1 year ago
Who the hell made the subtitles??
DutchLiam84 1 year ago
So how do haplodiploidous species develop in the first place and what advantage does it have?
Mayokitty7 1 year ago
Nice presentation of a fascinating topic. S'pose the next dominate species on earth will be haplodiploid? One question jumped out at me though: Is there consensus that eusociality evolved 13 SEPERATE times? Is that documented anywhere?
akfletchers 1 year ago
That's fascinating. I took a genetics course in university, but it was an introduction to the subject, and essentially went over what I had learnt about it in high school - ie, we just focused on diploid organisms. I wish we had taken a look at ants and bees, though. :D Out of curiousity, was there a particular book you read to get your info about eusociality?
NusquamNihil 1 year ago
do you have to learn biology to be a doctor?
91jgphonecall 1 year ago
You have to have a lot of biology credits to even get accepted to medical school. Add to that a lot of chemistry, biochemistry and even some odd physics things too.
Just with the electives you need you're probably going to have to enroll in something like ecology, ethology, and other upper division credits.
Don't be a doctor though, it's a terrible job
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Hi DonExodus2.
You say that the "BEHAVIOUR did not cause genetic change responsible for haplo diploidy...um.. in order to further the species". OK.
Noted, terms "behaviour" and "social structure" used interchangably
1/Obviously, neither is a direct cause of genetic changes .
2/ It seems that mention of "in order to" leads thought to implied "purpose" ( I don't know why that part should even be in the conversation). You are denying that it happened anyway.
cont...
pointyhead1 1 year ago
cont...
Either behaviour caused change in gene or it did not. Either change in gene "furthered the species", or it did not.
3/By "furthered", do you mean made it more successful or changed it more ? Changed to a different species, even ? i.e."Furthered" a species so much, that it no longer exists ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
cont...
Then you go on to say what happened;
4/You say that genetic change to H/D occurred first. OK, it's an assertion. No support given.
5/You then say that instead, the SOCIAL STRUCTURE evolved as a result of close relatedness of sisters in organisms with this genetic arrangement ( H/D). You go back to "social structure" here, rather than "behaviour".
pointyhead1 1 year ago
cont...
6/Are you saying that the genetic change that results in H/D ( not H/D itself, mind), DIRECTLY CAUSED the social structure ? Or the H/D directly caused the social structure, or is it as you just said, that the "close relatedness of sisters" directly cause it ?
BTW, what genetic change results in a critter becoming an H/D critter ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
To sum up, it isn't clear whether whatever genetic made the critter change to H/D ALSO caused the social structure ( or the behaviour) to change to what it is, or whether the H/D itself caused the social structure ( or behaviour) to change to what it is, or whether the close relationship of the sisters caused it.
Of these possible interpretations, which caused whatever you are talking about ( either social structure or behaviour), to change ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
In the darwinian calculus H/D the H/D system began with some ancestral progenitor that would have lived like a non-colonial free living wasp today which would have passed the genetic basis of H/D.
Once this was in place the descendants that helped their siblings had a greater fitness than those who raised their own. As such further refinements such as the genetics for colonial living and the different body types and such flow from there, because these alleles get a higher inclusive fitness
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat Yes, say the H/D arrangement came first ( even though it's evloved separately many times ). Once it was in place, genes of sisters who helped were more successful than the genes would have been if the sisters didn't help.
However, from 5:20 it seems to say that the relatedness of the sisters caused the social arrangement.
Just for fun - if social structure was in place first, it's also just as easy to see how H/D would be a good thing.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
Id imagine that they probably had were close living to begin with. Like either they lived close to each other geographically or had some pre-adaptation close familial association, given how young hymenopterans breed it wouldn't be impossible if things were highly incestous. That could have lead the way
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Are you sure the numbers are that high? Since most of the genes of one species is identical most of it should be transfered into the offspring. Wouldnt it be more like 90% (dunno if this is a realistic number) of the gene which is identical in both male and femal (-% mutation) * 75%/50%. So the difference between sisters should be more like 7,5%/5%?
BoxOWater 1 year ago
@BoxOWater
The relatedness coeffic. is just to show how alleles will behave locally. Like I have 50% relatedness with my father. However base per base it's nearly 100% sequence identity.
The real interest is seeing how alleles will bootstrap themselves in the first few generations and see if something could possibly get theoretically selected for
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Cool.
LordCustard 1 year ago
Thanks for that.
DesdinovaImaginos 1 year ago
Wow.
SZSt 1 year ago
this really could have used better diagrams, perhaps moving along with what you are saying - sentence by sentence.
about halfway i gave up and closed it.
roidroid 1 year ago
Muff. ha ha.
arseymcpherson 1 year ago
Muff-So-Soft?
Really?
Robbiewusere 1 year ago
you forgot to post the link, i think.
mephistophile33 1 year ago
5:18 "(...) their species survives better if they develop a social structure like this".
While that may well be true, is it really worth mentioning? Couldn't it lead someone into thinking in terms of group selection?
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat
That is group selection or maybe even clade selection.
You know it's not a sin to invoke group selection. Its not forbidden, we should be free to at least pursue some of these lines of thinking especially since by all admission; group selection is theoretically plausible.
There is a difference between the idea that individuals work "for the good of the species" and recognizing some ecological circumstances where between group selective pressure is greater than individual selection
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat Theoretically plausible, yes. Worth mentioning? Only if there's a strong case in favor.
Yes, there is a difference between those two. Only one of them is an attempt of an explanation (which will not work anyway, in all likelihood).
If he means the first, then he wasn't explaining anything. Then why mention it?
lardhat 1 year ago
@lardhat
There are strong cases in favor. Anytime we see a genotype that is locally disadvantageous that is a good case for multilevel selection theory. That's what David Sloan Wilson calls the "original problem" it's what darwin identified as well.
These things are found in ethology but also in things like biofilms.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@lardhat Group selection is a term that isn't used because it was the label applied to a selection model that didn't actually WORK. (There's a vid of Dawkins discussing this somewhere on YouTube.) 'Kin selection' is a very applicable term, since selection of kin is what happens. (This happens in social mammals as well, but the genetic system in this group of insects favors females supporting their sisters enormously.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
That term IS used. And you're right about the rest (i don't know why you mention it though).
lardhat 1 year ago
11 independent evolutions, huh. That's cool.
taeyeonlover 1 year ago
@taeyeonlover It's also pretty strong evidence that the somewhat unusual genetic system in this group of insects favors this form of kin selection.
evensgrey 1 year ago
love your videos. whats the intro song? i know he played it all the way through one of his vids and it got me dancin.
geturphil69 1 year ago
@geturphil69 it sounds alot like goldfrapp's song 'train'
dooivid 1 year ago
In diploid species like us females give more DNA than males:
-The X give some "extra genes" that aren't included in the Y in male offspring and
viceversa (only for male offspring)
-Female give mitochondrial DNA that male are incapable to submit to its offspring (at least in humans)
hedleypanama 1 year ago
@hedleypanama
That really isn't significant enough to make a difference if you ask me.
8NCLI8 1 year ago
Very good job explaining a rather technical concept. Thanks!
jfbilodeau 1 year ago
I would assume this is the case but is the mechanism that operates in other social insects (like ants) similar or are bees and wasps unique in this?( I know that ants are somewhat closely related to bees so they may not be the best example.)
OrbisFerrum 1 year ago
@OrbisFerrum Ants, bees, wasps, are all in the same suborder of Hymenoptera (called Apocrita), and the rest are Sawflies in the suborder Symphyta.
Ants are actually a subgroup of wasps, and the earliest fossil ants are very wasp-like.
As there are both solitary and eusocial ants, bees, and wasps, eusociality must have evolved independently at least once (more likely, more than once) in each group. For this genetic system, it creates strong benefits.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Thanks for answering that. Quick question though. Based on don's video haploidiploidy seems to be a trigger that leads to eusociality. However, the existence of other haploidiploidy species that are not eusocial begs the question if there might not be another mechanism in play as well or at the very least that haploidiploidy might not be as deterministic as suggest (not sure if don wanted to suggest that but it seemed like it). What's going on, what are the other factors?
OrbisFerrum 1 year ago
@OrbisFerrum For why some species developed eusociality and others didn't, you need to consult a genetic entomologist. Such a person might be able to explain the details of why termites, which are not haplodiploid, developed eusociality as well, as there is, apparently a fitness benefit there as well.
evensgrey 1 year ago
wow I just learned something. thanks man.
TheRealEricLester 1 year ago
The use of the word "sister" stirs things up for me a bit, wouldn't it also be correct to call it individuals or simply offspring?
Hanzi89 1 year ago
Sure but that's not the point. The point is the darwinian puzzle where the workers work while giving up personal reproduction.
The point is that they help out their sisters.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
I see! It's late over here in Europe and I have yet to commence my biological studies, so I guess I simply missed the whole point here! Will try to rematch again later. Peace!
Hanzi89 1 year ago
@Hanzi89
Not really. In haplodiploid species like bees, sisters are 75% related, but only 50% related to their mothers, daughters and brothers. Males are 100% related to their mothers and daughters, but only 50% related to their siblings.
The big difference is that an ant aunt is 37.5% related to their neices or nephews, but an ant uncle is only the usual (i.e. like diploid species) 25% related to their nieces or nephews.
So it is all about the sisters.
WavegirlThinks 1 year ago
I struggled with the math but you actually made it clearer somehow than the chapter in 'the selfish gene'.
Cheers
daltriani 1 year ago
@daltriani If Dawkins was to rewrite that book now, I expect it would be much clearer for the non-specialist. He's had a LOT more practice since the 1970's in communicating with the general public.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Yeah, your probably right. I find it fascinating! I wish I'd been taught such things at school.
daltriani 1 year ago
@daltriani There's a very good reason why this kind of detail isn't taught in high school biology. For a more detailed account, try the _Science of Discworld_ series. The short version is: The best truth we have is very complicated, hard to understand, difficult to teach except as a refinement of a simpler and less true basis, and often not significantly more useful than a less true basis. (Think General Relativity compared to Newtonian Gravity.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey I appreciate that things are simplified for ease of teaching. I read in Hawking's book that science lessons are at least 15 years behind discoveries. Even history lessons simplify truths (alexander graham bell is still taught as the inventor of the telephone, and edison of course the light bulb. even though it is widely recorded that they were not the actual inventors.
It sure makes pub quizzes difficult these days.
daltriani 1 year ago
I had no idea about why some species with a strong hierarchy had these sterile workers until now. And it made no sense. Thanks for explaining!
NateBlack0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for telling what I all ready know. (lol) Really good video. Kin selection FTW.
pienipaha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for telling what I all ready know. (lol) Really good video. Kin selection FTW.
pienipaha 1 year ago
Thanks for telling what I all ready know. (lol) Really good video. Kin selection FTW.
pienipaha 1 year ago
I have always wondered which came first for bees and ants. Thank you for this. A good question now is why would haplodiploid evolve in the first place.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Stuff like this always bewilders me but not because of the math: I'm blown away that biology imposes these sorts of pressures/games on the species even when the species themselves don't know anything about biology.
Obviously, it's all an abstraction and we should be weary of reification but it's still pretty mind blowing none the less.
OrbisFerrum 1 year ago
yeah and to think its all due to emergent forces acting around us.
Imagine though on some planet where the primordial genetic system had something like this. Then most taxa would have inherited social behavior. Perhaps our idea of the strength of individual selection is biased and is a historical accident.
Maybe if you re-ran the tape of life and rotifers can rise to animals this would have happened.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
Great comments, RanapipiensPilboxhat !
manwichstick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
atheists deny their own life element... LIGHT...
************
Einstein puts the FINAL NAIL in the *coffin of atheism*
********
Click on my name for the Ur l
lambpower99 1 year ago
I think you may mean "more advantageous to raise your sisters" rather than "more advantageous to raise your sisters' children." However, as usual I really enjoyed your video. You do so many great specifics showing evolution at work. I always wondered how these structures would be an advantage in some species and not others. I never learned about haplodiploidy before.
jacevicki 1 year ago
Gread video, DonExodus. Thank you very much.
w3b3d 1 year ago
How does homosexuality evolve in humans? I've wondered this for a while, but my shitty high school education makes it hard to think of the answer.
anglaismoyen 1 year ago
Homosexuality is the biggest Darwinian puzzle of all. If I wasn't limited to youtube's comment limit and we were like talking in a lobby somewhere I could lay out a treatise on the issue of the evolution of homosexuality over the course of a few hours.
Short answer: we don't know why but there's many possible scenarios.
I just have to say that many of the proposed answers depart from what's called the "adaptationist" view. Homosexuality may just simply not be adaptive
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Interesting I didn't know bee male gametogenesis was done through mitosis.
Ekendil 1 year ago
Neph falls off the edge.
/watch?v=LD13FJKr4hA
Back at the beginning of February, NephilimFree dropped off the deep end. Watch this while you can, if you feel inclined to grab a copy, go for it.
Neph removed this video almost immediately. Apparently the woman in question returned.
This explains how he has the time to create so much.
Comments welcome
TimHorton2x2x 1 year ago
Thanks for a great video as always.
At 4:57-5:03 you say it's more advantages to help raise the offspring of your sisters than to raise your own offspring. How does this follow? Doesn't a haplodiploid mother share 50% of her genes with her daughter and the super sister to this mother shares 37,5% with the same daughter? Or am I missing something?
FalleJr 1 year ago
It's the specific genetic scenario of hymenopterans which makes relatedness between sisters greater than that between parent and offspring.
As such they make greater strides towards maximizing fitness by helping their fertile siblings
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@FalleJr You have to take into account the relative success rate of raising young cooperatively vs. raising young solo. If you get more copies of your genes into future generations by helping to raise your sister's offspring with the help of all your other sisters, that will be favored.
A whole lot of puzzling things abruptly make perfect sense when you apply the Selfish Gene paradigm.
evensgrey 1 year ago
So this is just a random question about these eusocial species. If being haploid makes them male, and being diploid (from fertilization) makes them female... what makes them a female capable of producing offspring? Since most of the females are necessarily sterile.
lectricklightbulb 1 year ago
@lectricklightbulb It is environmental. Bee larvae are fed by nurse bees. If the queen is weak or has stopped laying eggs or the colony is strong enough to prepare to divide (swarm); then the nurse bees will build larger cells called swarm or queen cells around several larvae of the right age (about three days old). The nurses will feed these larvae a substance called "Royal Jelly". These larvae will develop into fully functioning females or queens.
Afod3 1 year ago
@Afod3 That's not true of all eusocial Hymenoptera, however. In most species of wasps and ants, killing the queen kills the colony. Bees also tend to overwinter better than many wasps, with colonies lasting as long as nothing dramatic happens to the colony. (For instance, honey bees can be prey for other insects, including at least one species of hornet native to Japan that can destroy entire colonies of honey bees. Native Japanese bees, however, have a defense that can kill the scouts.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
@lectricklightbulb The queen is the only true female. The workers are not really completely developed females.
Afod3 1 year ago
@lectricklightbulb The queen is the only true female. The workers are not really completely developed females.
Afod3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sounds like a lesson straight out of The Selfish Gene.
Again, nice video. Keep up the good work!
kelskye 1 year ago
Sounds like a lesson straight out of The Selfish Gene.
Again, nice video. Keep up the good work!
kelskye 1 year ago
I don't think you should worry about people not understanding, I understood it quite well and I'm not even a native english speaker or living in a english speaking country, the only part I have doubts on is, strangely, the math. I'm gonna go read about probability right now.
rapzeh4 1 year ago
I wonder how it is in mole rats
neoZykl 1 year ago
mole rats are hapilodiploid
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
yay!
Zentz29 1 year ago
Like your vids, but too much text in this one
Golkarian 1 year ago
thanks 4 this vid very good
invisibletime 1 year ago
So you're saying they are their sister's bee keeper~/~ I know it was hard to resist though.
TheLummer66 1 year ago
Fantastic work, DonExodus2. I think you explained the situation quite well (even if the math was highly unnecessary for most)
Truthiness231 1 year ago
Oh yes! The old intro is back! Don't change it again y'hear?
Holammer 1 year ago
@Holammer What IS that song?!!?
LordMacBeth79 1 year ago
From economics we learn that a society benefits when people specialize and trade. Ants and bees have some that specialize in reproduction, some that specialize in foraging and others in defense.
Another view is that it is beneficial to a queen to reproduce sterile foragers to support the potential gene spreaders - .the males.
8WholeThing 1 year ago
AAAAAAH MY BRAIN IS MELTING. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ME?? HAPOLIPIPILIS!!
Any way now I know more about teh beeeez. XD
IIIstaticIII 1 year ago
For bees, this assumes that a drone from a nearby hive has been attracted to the queen at diaspora, yes? Also, does the haploid male sperm only include half of his genes? Uhm... has to be 100%, does it not?
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
Would you please get a microphone .. it's really cheap and would enhance the experience of your video's by a large margin.
herrbasan 1 year ago
@herrbasan I have a 100 dollar mic, idk what the problem is.
DonExodus2 1 year ago 12
@DonExodus2 your mic probably doesn't glow blue like a certain somebodies mic...
other than that, I personally don't think you have any audio problems. check your drivers if you like.
vinak963 1 year ago
@DonExodus2 I can hear the sound just fine, and I don't have the vid player's vol turned up all the way.
talmun 1 year ago 6
@DonExodus2 Perhaps it is a software issue? I don't hear anything wrong tbh.
Perhaps herrbasan just has a sound issue.
SenariXarn 1 year ago
@DonExodus2 It isn't that bad, iv not had a problem with it. Maybe put a steep high pass filter at about 70- 80 Hz so when you are converting to compressed mp3s the low rumble isn't converted and leaves the rest of the signal washy and hollow. Maybe EQ for a bit more body at 200- 400 Hz and put a light compressor on there (4:1 with medium attack and release?)
ultimateinfinite 1 year ago
@herrbasan
It sounds fine to me.
haloplayer300 1 year ago
Man, seems like everyone is missing the issue I'm trying to get an answer to. DonExodus2, please inject your expertise here and ACTUALLY answer my question :) Why isn't the branching of non-optimal species rampant in nature? Intuitively, I'd expect to see species everywhere with useless, random (not vestigial) appendages or ones with disadvantageous traits with beneficial features to compensate. I know there are SOME instances of abnormal species like this, but why so rare? DNA error correction?
vickmackey24 1 year ago
Before someone AGAIN replies with a comment like "because they're not selected for and die out"... why don't we see these DYING species *all the time* as just a natural part of evolution? We all understand natural selection, but why aren't there abnormal, non-optimal species branching off all the time in nature, either thriving because the feature isn't overly disadvantageous (just worthless) or going extinct SLOWLY over thousands of years because it's marginally disadvantageous to its survival?
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 The mathematics of population genetics explain why you wouldn't expect a negative traight to disappear slowly (it would be unlikely to spread in the first place). Tiny differences in fitness have a large (exponential) impact when compounded over many generations.
What do you mean by "non-optimal"? IMHO no species is perfectly optimized for anything.
The example I gave before: Things like peacocking, brighter colours, larger antlers etc.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz
Again, I'm not even talking about what has a higher likelihood to persist over "many generations." Obviously, advantageous traits are more likely to carry on longer than disadvantageous ones or useless ones. The question is why we don't see it happening all the time in nature, even if they only last a few dozen generations. In other words, why aren't there *small* subsets or subtrees of these anomalous species cropping up everywhere? Are hereditary traits difficult to produce or what?
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 If a handful of traits become common or dominant for millions of years, they'll have in total more visibility than millions of traits that only affect a tiny fragment of the population for a handful of years. So even if negative and fitness-neutral mutations are thousands of times more common than beneficial ones, they'll still be much much harder to come by.
Anyway, you CAN find small subsets with negative hereditary traits. e.g. people with down's syndrome or obesity genes.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz
"you CAN find small subsets with negative hereditary traits. e.g. people with down's syndrome or obesity genes"
Right. That's precisely the kind of subset I'm talking about, but something a little more physically abnormal than obesity, like a relatively small, possibly short-lived subset of species with a 3rd eye or some other weird deformity that isn't OVERTLY disadvantageous. Intuitively, I'd expect to see these branches popping in and out of nature all the time... but clearly not.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 We do see these dieing species all the time because, in a sense, almost every species is a dieing species, slowly becoming something different as traits change. And we also see species with something that's a part of them that's useless but not so much as to be overly detrimental to its survival, the human appendix for example. But if a trait goes so far as to be detrimental to an organism that organism will likely be selected against and not pass its genes on.
Hope that helps.
eals524 1 year ago
@eals524 Thanks, but it doesn't really address the question of why we don't see these subsets of species all over in nature, even if recently forming and only lasting for say a dozen generations or even a MILLION generations if the defect isn't overtly detrimental. It's the asymmetrical abnormalities I'd expect to see more of, but we don't... it's really rare. I know why it's rare in comparison to more advantageous features obviously, but not why its overall presence is rare *across* species.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
Your sound sux as usual.
U have 29,000 subscribers for fuck sake! fix it!
halo3guyy 1 year ago
Uhhh this is too difficult to understand. God did it!
Nightzo 1 year ago
Does the social structure actually make the species better able an to survive, or does it just make the trait more likely to persist?
Like how eventually the cancer gene will be present in all humans because we all work together to ensure that people with cancer can survive and procreate even though cancer does not make humans better off.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
Hrm, I believe your argument is the basis for eugenics. While on many levels that our evolution is hindered by our relatively new social morals, technology is also developing to make up for many of the deficiencies as well. What is fairly certain is that negative eugenics will never occur on a large scale in modern society, and positive eugenics occur naturally. There's no way to reconcile morality with practicality always. *shrug*
ddrddrddrddr 1 year ago
@ddrddrddrddr No, leave eugenics out of it altogether. It is possible that a trait can select for itself but not make the species better able to survive.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg That's not what you stated initially, at least now how I understood it. No one SELECTS cancer that I can think of, only ignore its presence. I can't think of any creatures preferentially selecting any trait that is entirely negative.
ddrddrddrddr 1 year ago
@ddrddrddrddr Many traights related to mating patterns fit your description. They are entirely negative in terms of survival, but because members of the opposite sex in the species likes to see peacocking, big antlers etc, the traight is selected for.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz What description? Traits that are entirely negative in nature? Because neither of those traits are negative. OP's original example was cancer, and that is a negative trait that no one consciously strive for in their offspring.
ddrddrddrddr 1 year ago
@ddrddrddrddr Yeah, traits that are entirely negative in nature, in the sense that they decrease survival rates. Obviously, by definition if a trait decreases the rate of successful reproduction relative to other members of the same species, it will not be naturally selected.
Some people inject saline solution into their forehead in the same way people get piercings and tattoos. If people find that sexy, then some kinds of tumour might be considered aesthetically pleasing and selected for.
Paulginz 1 year ago
No but cancer cells increase their fitness by dividing rapidly. Those daughter cells in turn divide rapidly into cells that then go and divide rapidly. They get even better when they give up the density dependent limits and form a tumor instead of well regulated tissues.
And then they get even better when some cells mutate to evade apoptosis orders
and even better when they change their cell surface proteins to evade the immune system.
Cancer is in a very really sense a multi step adaptation
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat That "evolution" has a fatal flaw, it has a hard limiter on its ability to procreate, since they kill the host and are unable to infect other hosts. Though if you limit the system to only a single body, I see that even cancer can be considered to be evolving against the other living cells, but only in the short term. Normal cell still survive more generations, by contributing to life. Though I don't believe cancer is considered an organism unto itself.
ddrddrddrddr 1 year ago
Yeah I know; that's the definition of somatic selection.
And actually there are contagious forms of cancer.
For example there are HeLa human cancer cells that infected a researcher.
There's also that facial legion cancer in tazmanian devils that spreads from host to host.
You should read up on Hela cells. See they are fully human cells but they've evolved to be this sort of single celled protozoan type thing in culture. I remember one strain that expressed cilla to move around
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
HeLa cells should not be concidered fully human. Firstly, HeLa cells do not organise themselves into a human person. Secondly, HeLa cells have 4 copies of chromosome 12 and 3 copies of chromosomes 6, 8, and 17. This is possibly because (Thirdly) HeLa cells, like most cervical cancers, have been transformed by human papillomavirus 18 (HPV18). So, the cancer is not contagious, the virus that causes cancer is.
PS: Most human cells have primary cilia at some point.
WavegirlThinks 1 year ago
I invoked the HeLa cells because someone wanted to say that somatic selection was somehow conceptually different. I just pointed out that actually they too could and do sometimes get passed through generations. HeLa cells have broken free of their host. They are more like the sort of plastic gonangium of algae in this respect
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@ddrddrddrddr
Yes well the structure of evolutionary theory as is recognizes that individual selection takes place from generation to generation. I'd say that this is what is happening to cancer.
Compare a tumor that kills it's host to say any of the 99.9% of dead lineages. or compare it to humans growing in population for their own selfish purposes, only to eventually trash the planet. Or bacteria accumulating waste products in a dish faster than the breakdown rate.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Comment removed
ddrddrddrddr 1 year ago
Yes actually in the Swordtails I have(and it turns out other species) the females select for males with black spots on their bodies.
Presumably those pigmented spots may have been an honest advertisment of male quality.
However this female sensory bias has started to select for genetic predisposition for melanomas(black spots)
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
news-medical.n et/news/2008/08/18/40771.aspx
Interesting. Well it appears they've evolved the ability to have their cake and eat it too; both using the markings for sexual selection and offsetting the preference when the gene is too prevalent. Also, the melanoma aren't very limiting against procreation since it occurs after sexual maturity. I guess in this case the sword tail have managed to adapt to make even cancer useful :D
ddrddrddrddr 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
Sickle cell anemia for example. Though it is considerably detrimental to those who are affected by it, it selects for itself by providing a high resistance to malaria.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very interesting to hear another way of explaining this phenomenon. The first time I heard aboout haplodiploidy insects iwas in the selfish gene.
luketc500 1 year ago
Comment removed
luketc500 1 year ago
That's too complicated. A god did it.
I'm kidding of course. It made sense to me. It's good to be intelligent.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
I loved the video and the explanation is very elegant. I however do have one reservation (ie. question) about the conclusions. To me it is not as clear to you that it really was haplodiploidity that came first. This is probably because I don't know how far back the haplodiploidity streches. I imagine it is WAY back, but would you happen to have some info on this Don? I mean, the genes first explanation seems more likely but I'd like some more info on this.
Spathever 1 year ago
THERE IS A GOD!!!
ChickMagnet767 1 year ago
Hm... the video was a bit hard to follow. Though I understand exactly what you're saying because I read Richard Dawkin's "Selfish Gene", which goes over this in detail.
Its quite interesting when you look at how simple math involved with genetics hold true due to natural selection. Its unfortunate though that the concept is a bit too difficult for most people (i.e. creationists) to understand.
PhysicsDude55 1 year ago
It's called Strict Machine by Goldfrapp.. ;?)
PsyogiBottoms 1 year ago
What's the distinction between 50% similarity and a similarity of 99% with chimps?
rujiel17 1 year ago
@rujiel17 You get 50% of your genes from your father and 50% from your mother. That's self-explanatory.
However, almost all of these genes are the same, i.e. it wouldn't matter if they came from your father/mother/pool-boy/milkman/chimp/cat/dog, because everyone has the same code in those genes (or a functionally identical code).
The 50% figure is still relevant, because of the remaining genes that DO change between individuals/species, you got 50% from your mom and 50% from your dad.
Paulginz 1 year ago 3
@DonExodus2-- You have got to turn on the auto-captions and watch this video-- the poor thing just can't handle words like "haplodiploid." I LOLed when it transcribed "order hymenoptera" as "I'm a doctor."
ipsoko 1 year ago 2
This is freaky. Just yesterday I had finished reading about kin selection in the Chapter: Genesmanship from the Selfish Gene.
dileepvr 1 year ago
Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason it's important for biologists to always come up with an explanation for seemingly disadvantageous behaviors? Is there a reason we have to assume that every organism alive today is at the pinnacle of its evolution? What if they're exhibiting behavior that really ISN'T advantageous but survives *anyway* by other means? It just strikes me as odd because I rarely see a biologist concede that some behavior in nature is NOT advantageous. Please educate me :)
vickmackey24 1 year ago
And while on that subject, is there a reason we don't seem to find any species of organisms that are asymmetrical, like having an eye that is just off in some strange location? Obviously symmetry is usually advantageous, but does it have to be SO advantageous that NO species could be left alive without it? I always found that puzzling. Are there any species in the process of going extinct because they are so hopelessly fucked in their evolution so far, but not so much that they die off quickly?
vickmackey24 1 year ago
I'll give a quick example of something I'd expect to see in nature given my layman's understanding of evolution. I'd expect to see a bird, for example, that has a 3rd wing on its back that does absolutely nothing. It's just some hereditary genetic defect that happened to get past down to its offspring and it just persisted in this "retard bird species." This 3rd wing wouldn't IMPEDE its survival; it's just useless vestigial crap. Why don't we see really BIZARRE physical abnormalities like this?
vickmackey24 1 year ago
...and not just SOME bizarre physical abnormalities... I mean LOTS of it, all over the place in almost every species. What precludes this?
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Look at the muscle structure of a bird, a third wing would greatly impede it.
Further any of these hypothetical useless appendages would take additional food to grow, would weigh the creature down, would provide more grip for attackers, more surface for infections and parasites, etc. even IF they had no direct effect on the creature's survivability.
Nothing is without cost.
Chal113 1 year ago
@Chal113 You're missing the point of my question. OF COURSE they're useless, even disadvantageous with a cost... but every disadvantageous feature need not be SO egregious that the entire species goes *extinct*. I want to know why such things do not exist in nature as just useless junk carrying on, or strongly disadvantageous stuff that IS *in the process* of causing the species to go extinct over a relatively long period of time.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Those things do exist. Their called vestigial (sp?) organs. Like our tailbone. Some people are born with a tail because we all still have the gene that makes it.
ngarbo00 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Asymmetrical eye for an example? Flatfish. Look it up. If your "layman's" understanding of evolution leads you to "Expect" to see something THAT outrageous, you clearly have a VERY bad understanding of evolution. You really need to study it more in depth at either a college (accredited non-religious college would be your best bet) or a trade school. If you are in high school then your teachers either failed, you are in a religious school or you are confused by what they teach you.
flameroller 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Try describing a symmetrical shape; you basically just need to describe one side of it. Next try describing an asymmetrical shape; see how it takes more information? My guess would be that genetic information is only coded for one side and the process is mirrored, except for special cases where asymmetry is needed.
Extra genetic code would mean extra room for errors, and the errors would be worse: ex. one leg longer than the other instead of just shorter legs. Symmetry's safer.
Chal113 1 year ago
@Chal113 Yes, we know this... symmetry is safer and better. That's not the point, though. My question is why aren't there "retard species" that develop occasionally that carry on with these somewhat abnormal and NON-OPTIMAL features? Even if they slowly die out after 10000 years or whatever. What prevents this? I'm just not seeing why this isn't occurring all the time. It isn't intuitive. My *guess* is that some of these abnormal traits are just really difficult to develop or something. *shrug*
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 a particularly good example of what you are asking are the monotremes (egg-laying mammals). They are not particularly well-adapted to their evironment and the ones we have left (echidna, duck-billed platypus) are just plodding along, mainly because of lack of competition in their particular niche.
ericflynnster 1 year ago
@ericflynnster That's interesting :) I wonder why it's so rare, though. I'd expect to see that kind of thing all over the place in nature. Species randomly branching off into less-than-optimal versions and either carrying on like that forever or slowly going extinct after thousands of years. But, I don't see how this would end because evolution is not a linear progression; it's a branching process. That's what I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around, the rarity of these occurrences.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24
" like having an eye that is just off in some strange location"
Flatfish
Taylor2534 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Soles are asymmetrical. One of their eyes migrates to the other side of their body so they can lie flat on the seabed.
Some species of crab (e.g. fiddler) have one big claw and one small claw.
How can you tell that a species is going extinct if they are dying off slowly (in geological time)? You just wouldn't notice.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz
"One of their eyes migrates to the other side of their body so they can lie flat on the seabed. Some species of crab (e.g. fiddler) have one big claw and one small claw"
That's interesting. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see a lot more of. I'd expect to see nearly every species on the planet with a sub-branch consisting of say 1% of its population with asymmetrical abnormalities. I'd expect them to exist everywhere as a natural result of evolution, both short and long-lived.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 (continued from above) asking laymen on youtube is NOT a good way to get solid and reliable information about evolutionary processes. To reply to THIS comment ^ yes there are some animals that are in the process of going extinct. Look up cheetah breading issues (or problems). There, again, is no such thing as being "done" with evolution, or being SO advantageous that nothing can survive without "it". Species are adapted only to their current surroundings/environment. (next)
flameroller 1 year ago
Because time and time again all behaviours have been shown to be gene-advantageous.. It's not about the individual. It's not about how much that individual reproduces - it's about the chance a variant gene has of getting into future gene-pools.
So there you have it - a genetic variation or gene mutation may not help the individual - but once it is passed on within the gene pool, it will survive or fail according to it's ability to self-replicate.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX That still doesn't really answer my question. I understand why advantageous stuff carries on, but I don't understand why a lot of *disadvantageous* (or useless) stuff does NOT get passed along, too, just by happenstance. If a deformed monkey developed a useless thumb on its butt, it need not impede its survival, so what precludes this feature from being past on forever? I just don't see what precludes weird USELESS physical abnormalities from existing all over the place in nature.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
...or even disadvantageous stuff that simply gets overcome (barely) by other features. Are there species in the process of slowly going extinct because a feature it has really IS disadvantageous? I know we've observed that most things we see that *seem* to not be advantageous to survival turn out not to be. My question is why. I'd like to know the answer to this so I know how to respond to a Creationist who tries to use this unintuitive result as a defense for their Intelligent Design nonsense.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Its simple really. If something has no advantage, nothing will drive the abnormal gene's survival. And if it costs energy to keep, that's a huge burden and it will evolve its way out or the individuals carrying that gene will most likely die off.
ngarbo00 1 year ago
@ngarbo00
"that's a huge burden and it will evolve its way out"
Ok, I'm not sure I see how all abnormalities would have to be a "huge" burden. But even assuming that's the case, you say it will evolve its way out... but it seems all this evolution has ALREADY happened because we don't seem to see it anywhere. That's the part I find counter-intuitive and would like explained to me. Why don't we SEE species "evolving things out." Is the assumption that ALL organisms are at some sort of pinnacle?
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 No. Just think of the other example I used - our tailbone. We don't necessarily *need* our tailbone to survive as we don't even have a tail anymore. But some people are born with a tail, so the "non-advantageous" genetic trait does still live on in rare cases.
ngarbo00 1 year ago
@ngarbo00 I'm not referring to vestigial organs/appendages that once had a use and now don't. I'm referring to completely random *garbage* that develops in an organism and just so happens to be passed on. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see given my limited understanding of evolution. Obviously something is preventing that... I'm just trying to figure out what it is.
vickmackey24 1 year ago
@vickmackey24 Happens all the time. There are birds who dont need their wings. We dont need our tonsils or appendixes. All providing seemingly no benefit and yet, there they are.
ngarbo00 1 year ago