42 replies to this topic

[Serafine]

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact.

Since when does evolution require a full population? The entire snake population of Guam is offspring from a single pregnant female introduced to the island during world war two. You just have to wait for a few hundred years and this population will be highly unlikely to be able to be able to mate with individuals from their ancestor gene pool as they have developed into different ways.
The same goes for ants - where do you think come all the ant species from? Lots of them have most likely evolved due to geographical isolation from their original population (which is exactly what happens if you breed them in captivity). If your assumption is true there would only be one ant species per continental plate.


 

Suddenly apes arent the only thing that's 90% similar to us in dna.

Life on Earth is astonishingly similar from a genetic perspective. On a cellular level all eukaryotic life forms run pretty much on the exact same machinery which has barely changed during the last three billion years.

Edited by Serafine, March 10 2017 - 9:13 AM.

[Antsinmycloset]

Yeah, this is sort of going a weird direction. A definition drilled into many heads is something along the lines of "the change in allele frequency in a given population over time." It's not mutations, speciation events, physical adaptions, nor is it reliant on a whole "species" changing, although it could certainly include any number of those things. It's simply a group of organisms changing. In that sense, it'd be bizarre not to expect evolution to occur.

True, the most extreme you would likely see anytime soon is gene fixation, but that's still evolution. It's just not particularly exciting.

[Works4TheGood]

It's statistically impossible (which has a special meaning). Nearly every single mutation is detrimental or fatal, and so you'd need massive sample sizes to increase the odds of finding good ones. Also, I think you're mostly talking about selective breeding, which we haven't been able to do reliably yet.

[Batspiderfish]

 

Suddenly apes arent the only thing that's 90% similar to us in dna.

Life on Earth is astonishingly similar from a genetic perspective. On a cellular level all eukaryotic life forms run pretty much on the exact same machinery which has barely changed during the last three billion years.

 

On the most basic level (i.e.  eukaryotes more or less preserving organelles and mitosis) this is true, but what the cells do and what they are made out of has come to vary wildly.

 

Yeah, this is sort of going a weird direction. A definition drilled into many heads is something along the lines of "the change in allele frequency in a given population over time." It's not mutations, speciation events, physical adaptions, nor is it reliant on a whole "species" changing, although it could certainly include any number of those things. It's simply a group of organisms changing. In that sense, it'd be bizarre not to expect evolution to occur.

True, the most extreme you would likely see anytime soon is gene fixation, but that's still evolution. It's just not particularly exciting.

Mutation is the underlying feature which changes or amplifies these alleles. These changes are tested by natural selection, and the organisms which survive and reproduce may have their traits passed on, which may be subject to further change. It is not always superficial, nor is it always slow and unapparent.

[Batspiderfish]

It's statistically impossible (which has a special meaning). Nearly every single mutation is detrimental or fatal, and so you'd need massive sample sizes to increase the odds of finding good ones. Also, I think you're mostly talking about selective breeding, which we haven't been able to do reliably yet.

This is not true. Mutations are only harmful if they disrupt a normal and essential process (Sickle Cell Anemia) or if the mutated gene produces something which actively harms us (Huntingtin's Disease). Most of the differing physical characteristic amongst humans occurred through mutation and recombination, including innocuous things like eye color and hair curliness. Innate resistances against diseases amongst populations is an example of beneficial mutation. The adaptation which keeps the lactase gene switched on is another such example.

Edited by Batspiderfish, March 10 2017 - 11:12 AM.

[Socalfireants]

 

 

That type of stuff is just too open ended for me. I don't like cartoons in my science either, I like very detailed and LONG articles. The opposite of this. 

 

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=20

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2935100/

 

And what does the Evolution of HIV have to do with Ants or this thread? You contradict yourself alot. Id stop while youre ahead.

[Socalfireants]

 

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact.

Since when does evolution require a full population? The entire snake population of Guam is offspring from a single pregnant female introduced to the island during world war two. You just have to wait for a few hundred years and this population will be highly unlikely to be able to be able to mate with individuals from their ancestor gene pool as they have developed into different ways.
The same goes for ants - where do you think come all the ant species from? Lots of them have most likely evolved due to geographical isolation from their original population (which is exactly what happens if you breed them in captivity). If your assumption is true there would only be one ant species per continental plate.


 

Suddenly apes arent the only thing that's 90% similar to us in dna.

Life on Earth is astonishingly similar from a genetic perspective. On a cellular level all eukaryotic life forms run pretty much on the exact same machinery which has barely changed during the last three billion years.

 

"highly unlikely". Apparently we can inbreed if we wait a few hundred years? Alot of contradictions going on here. Your example doesnt equate to ants because they don't breed. They have reproductives. Evolution of ants CANNOT be seen or tested with a single captive colony. Its impossible.

[Serafine]

Actually sickle cell anemia is an advantage in certain areas because it makes persons almost immune to Malaria.

Not every mutation that has a bad impact on an individual is necessarily bad in the grand scheme of things.

Edited by Serafine, March 10 2017 - 11:40 AM.

[Batspiderfish]

Actually sickle cell anemia is an advantage in certain areas because it makes persons almost immune to Malaria.
Not every mutation that has a bad impact on an individual is necessarily bad in the grand scheme of things.

This is true -- I figured we need to start with baby-steps before we can present evolution as a neutral force, where disadvantages can sometimes be advantages and vise versa. It is only a benefit when you have one copy of the gene.

Edited by Batspiderfish, March 10 2017 - 11:46 AM.

[Socalfireants]

The only natural mutations that actually change an organism usually result in death of the organism. In terms of a single ant colony evolving, that's not possible. You would need multiple ant colonies in proximity to each other to allow for evolution. (evolution that we can see with our eyes and record.) Evolutionary traits also MUST be passed onto its offspring. If the ant colony is isolated, there won't be offspring because alates won't fly. They also won't have anything to mate with,. Its impossible in isolated captivity. 

[Batspiderfish]

And what does the Evolution of HIV have to do with Ants or this thread? You contradict yourself alot. Id stop while youre ahead.

Evolution is a principle which applies to all organisms with genetic material (including whichever iteration of life viruses happen to be.) Responding to it with "humans and mice are a lot alike" doesn't change that.
 

The only natural mutations that actually change an organism usually result in death of the organism. In terms of a single ant colony evolving, that's not possible. You would need multiple ant colonies in proximity to each other to allow for evolution. (evolution that we can see with our eyes and record.) Evolutionary traits also MUST be passed onto its offspring. If the ant colony is isolated, there won't be offspring because alates won't fly. They also won't have anything to mate with,. Its impossible in isolated captivity.

Sources, regarding your claim about mutations only being negative? Sounds like somebody who didn't study biology or genetics.

The only true part about any of this is that yes, evolution of captive colonies will only be obtained through successive generations. Workers can pass on their DNA by laying unfertilized eggs, which will become males.

Breeding ants is only possible in theory, so far unachievable with most species in captivity, but that doesn't give us the excuse to spread misinformation.

Edited by Batspiderfish, March 10 2017 - 12:05 PM.

[Socalfireants]

 

And what does the Evolution of HIV have to do with Ants or this thread? You contradict yourself alot. Id stop while youre ahead.

Evolution is a principle which applies to all organisms with genetic material (including whichever iteration of life viruses happen to be.) Responding to it with "humans and mice are a lot alike" doesn't change that.
 

The only natural mutations that actually change an organism usually result in death of the organism. In terms of a single ant colony evolving, that's not possible. You would need multiple ant colonies in proximity to each other to allow for evolution. (evolution that we can see with our eyes and record.) Evolutionary traits also MUST be passed onto its offspring. If the ant colony is isolated, there won't be offspring because alates won't fly. They also won't have anything to mate with,. Its impossible in isolated captivity.

Sources, regarding your claim about mutations only being negative? Sounds like somebody who didn't study biology or genetics.

The only true part about any of this is that yes, evolution of captive colonies will only be obtained through successive generations. Workers can pass on their DNA by laying unfertilized eggs, which will become males.

Breeding ants is only possible in theory, so far unachievable with most species in captivity, but that doesn't give us the excuse to spread misinformation.

 

I said they "USUALLY" end up in death of the organism. You read my post wrong then try to say i don't understand what I'm talking about. 

I live in reality. Ever been on a farm? Ever bread animals? 90% OF THE TIME, an organism born with a mutation, dies. Majority of mutations in sheep breading include extra limbs, and body systems that have mutated to a point where its harming the organism. Like i said, i live in reality, and the only mutations I've seen on a farm are things like extra limbs. I also see color change, but that's a very different form of mutation that many animals can do. Show me a five legged sheep that is benefitted, or even survived the mutsations. 

[Socalfireants]

Also, i don't know where you got the information that "workers can lay eggs" some can, but not many species. If anyone is spreading disinformation its you. 

[Batspiderfish]

And what does the Evolution of HIV have to do with Ants or this thread? You contradict yourself alot. Id stop while youre ahead.

Evolution is a principle which applies to all organisms with genetic material (including whichever iteration of life viruses happen to be.) Responding to it with "humans and mice are a lot alike" doesn't change that.
 

The only natural mutations that actually change an organism usually result in death of the organism. In terms of a single ant colony evolving, that's not possible. You would need multiple ant colonies in proximity to each other to allow for evolution. (evolution that we can see with our eyes and record.) Evolutionary traits also MUST be passed onto its offspring. If the ant colony is isolated, there won't be offspring because alates won't fly. They also won't have anything to mate with,. Its impossible in isolated captivity.

Sources, regarding your claim about mutations only being negative? Sounds like somebody who didn't study biology or genetics.

The only true part about any of this is that yes, evolution of captive colonies will only be obtained through successive generations. Workers can pass on their DNA by laying unfertilized eggs, which will become males.

Breeding ants is only possible in theory, so far unachievable with most species in captivity, but that doesn't give us the excuse to spread misinformation.

I said they "USUALLY" end up in death of the organism. You read my post wrong then try to say i don't understand what I'm talking about. 
I live in reality. Ever been on a farm? Ever bread animals? 90% OF THE TIME, an organism born with a mutation, dies. Majority of mutations in sheep breading include extra limbs, and body systems that have mutated to a point where its harming the organism. Like i said, i live in reality, and the only mutations I've seen on a farm are things like extra limbs. I also see color change, but that's a very different form of mutation that many animals can do. Show me a five legged sheep that is benefitted, or even survived the mutsations.

I did grow up on a farm and *see* physical deformities which were emblematic of serious health problems. I eventually went to college to study genetics and learned the difference between genotype (what is in the DNA) and phenotype (how bodies and behavior appear), as well as the mechanisms behind genetic disorders. If genetics is only to you what you can see with the naked eye, then there's a lot you're missing out on. Counting mutation only as deformity is incorrect.

Edited by Batspiderfish, March 10 2017 - 12:37 PM.

[AnthonyP163]

 

 

 

That type of stuff is just too open ended for me. I don't like cartoons in my science either, I like very detailed and LONG articles. The opposite of this. 

 

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=20

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2935100/

 

And what does the Evolution of HIV have to do with Ants or this thread? You contradict yourself alot. Id stop while youre ahead.

 

There was no contradiction from my view.

[AnthonyP163]

Also, i don't know where you got the information that "workers can lay eggs" some can, but not many species. If anyone is spreading disinformation its you. 

It's not misinformation if it's true. You just said that some species of workers can lay eggs, yet you say the person spreading misinformation is him. Is he not allowed to say anything about these ants just because there's only a few of them? He is talking about the ants which can lay eggs as workers, there's nothing that gives off a hint of misinformation in what he said.

[Cindy]

I think that something very important to consider is that there are multiple theories of evolution and even the most mainstream / current one is still evolving (lol). Natural selection is definitely the most popular however nowadays more and more of the scientific community is pushing acceptance of an "evolutionary developmental theory" (or evo-devo as we called it in Bio class), which basically states that changes in generations are the result of individual change (not just population change). I believe there is also some argument for an "extended evolutionary synthesis" theory which accounts for non-genetic inheritance.

 

It's just something to keep in mind. 

[JasonD]

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

 

Just to be clear - a theory is not a scientific explanation that is yet to become fact. A theory is an extremely well tested model that explains a large body of evidence. Usually when people use 'theory' in conversation they mean it as a guess. But in science a theory is a rigorously tested and well proven idea. I'm not telling you to believe in evolution, you can believe what you want. But reasoning that evolution isn't true because it is a theory is similar to not believing that bacteria cause infections because germ theory is just a theory. 

[Reacker]

Some of you are in desperate need for more books in your life. 

 

 

 

 

[Works4TheGood]

 

It's statistically impossible (which has a special meaning). Nearly every single mutation is detrimental or fatal, and so you'd need massive sample sizes to increase the odds of finding good ones. Also, I think you're mostly talking about selective breeding, which we haven't been able to do reliably yet.

This is not true. Mutations are only harmful if they disrupt a normal and essential process (Sickle Cell Anemia) or if the mutated gene produces something which actively harms us (Huntingtin's Disease). Most of the differing physical characteristic amongst humans occurred through mutation and recombination, including innocuous things like eye color and hair curliness. Innate resistances against diseases amongst populations is an example of beneficial mutation. The adaptation which keeps the lactase gene switched on is another such example.

 

You've removed my quote from the context of this question.  The domain of discourse is the set mutations that have a significant effect (like that posed in the question "making a whole new species"), not those that are trivial or require a DNA test to find.  The latter were ignored because they aren't useful to the question.  For the record, most mutations are technically neither good nor bad, but to clarify, the ones that impact survivability are almost always detrimental.