4 ms·

Because they can't tell the difference. It's not obvious that they can evolve to tell the difference until you try.

by 0-_-0 5y ago

trhway 5y ago
>Because they can't tell the difference. you're kidding. I mean to people of course all mosquito look the same. It is a top of anthropocentrism though to think that mosquito would not differentiate. The basis of selection is "best fit" (to bring in and/or bring up new generation), and the weakness to the point of infertility is naturally selected out very quickly.
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  It's not obvious that a gene responsible for reproduction would produce an external characteristic that can be recognised by other mosquitoes.
  - ganafagol 5y ago
    Neither is it obvious that it would not. And that needs to be shown here. There is actually evidence to the contrary of your position. The grandparent post mentions mating discrimination.
    - JimBlackwood 5y ago
      That was found as a result of the experiment, though. I think he was just pointing out why the expectation was missed (or not seen as likely enough) before the experiment started. I don’t think it’s weird to assume mosquitoes won’t be able to tell the difference. It turns out that was wrong, I hope it’s taken into account in this experiment.
  - hahajk 5y ago
    It’s also not guaranteed that a gene that makes you glow red under fluorescent light will be noticed by other mosquitoes, but we can probably toss that in the pile of growing evidence. “A fluorescent marker gene that glows under a special red light. This allows researchers to identify GM mosquitoes from wild mosquitoes.” https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/sit/genetically-modified-mosquitoes.html https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/si...
- arghwhat 5y ago
  You're getting natural selection backwards. Evolution quickly selects against reproduction or immediate survival failure, but this modification leads to successful male offspring which makes the scenario trickier. Unless the modified mosquitoes are handicapped by something, they will be selected just like any other, as best fit metrics are superficial. Humans wouldn't be able to detect that a specific partner could only have male offspring unless it brought along visual defects. If the population survives for many generations with a significant population of defect males, if there is a physical characteristic in the defect males, and if that can be detected by a mutation present in some females - the UV marker maybe? - then the female population should slowly be replaced by ones that select against the defective male. That's a lot of ifs though.
  - wildmanx 5y ago
    Then nature got natural selection backwards too. Mating discrimination was shown to be real. Theorizing is great. But once there is evidence the reaction needs to be to adjust the theory instead of arguing away the effects that have been observed since they are inconsistent with the theory. "You're getting it backwards" is exactly that.
    - arghwhat 5y ago
      > Mating discrimination was shown to be real. Mating discrimination is real, but redefining "attractive" mates isn't just a single mutation that is implied in survivors like regular "survival of the fittest". Redefining behavior of a specifies is a hell of a lot more complicated, especially if it's not just a simple matter of making presence of a certain smell a turn-off. > Theorizing is great. And all we can do for a few years until we get the most recent results, all we can do to interpret them, and all we can do to iterate on them.
      - wildmanx 5y ago
        Right, and while interpreting them, we need to be cautious. Instead of seeing an effect and think "nah, doesn't fit my theory of natural selection, can't be, let's keep going" we should be more like "oh, this effect was not predicted by our theory, something fishy is going on, let's be cautious".
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  We've eliminated plenty species before when -not- really trying. Perhaps we should figure out how to make mosquito larvae twinkies?
kungito 5y ago
weren't they making sort of crossbreed and so made way more changes than 1 gene?

Because they can't tell the difference. It's not obvious that they can evolve to tell the difference until you try.

by 0-_-0 5y ago

Because they can't tell the difference. It's not obvious that they can evolve to tell the difference until you try.

>Because they can't tell the difference. you're kidding. I mean to people of course all mosquito look the same. It is a top of anthropocentrism though to think that mosquito would not differentiate. The basis of selection is "best fit" (to bring in and/or bring up new generation), and the weakness to the point of infertility is naturally selected out very quickly.

0-_-0 5y ago
It's not obvious that a gene responsible for reproduction would produce an external characteristic that can be recognised by other mosquitoes.
- ganafagol 5y ago
  Neither is it obvious that it would not. And that needs to be shown here. There is actually evidence to the contrary of your position. The grandparent post mentions mating discrimination.
  - JimBlackwood 5y ago
    That was found as a result of the experiment, though. I think he was just pointing out why the expectation was missed (or not seen as likely enough) before the experiment started. I don’t think it’s weird to assume mosquitoes won’t be able to tell the difference. It turns out that was wrong, I hope it’s taken into account in this experiment.
- hahajk 5y ago
  It’s also not guaranteed that a gene that makes you glow red under fluorescent light will be noticed by other mosquitoes, but we can probably toss that in the pile of growing evidence. “A fluorescent marker gene that glows under a special red light. This allows researchers to identify GM mosquitoes from wild mosquitoes.” https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/sit/genetically-modified-mosquitoes.html https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/si...
arghwhat 5y ago
You're getting natural selection backwards. Evolution quickly selects against reproduction or immediate survival failure, but this modification leads to successful male offspring which makes the scenario trickier. Unless the modified mosquitoes are handicapped by something, they will be selected just like any other, as best fit metrics are superficial. Humans wouldn't be able to detect that a specific partner could only have male offspring unless it brought along visual defects. If the population survives for many generations with a significant population of defect males, if there is a physical characteristic in the defect males, and if that can be detected by a mutation present in some females - the UV marker maybe? - then the female population should slowly be replaced by ones that select against the defective male. That's a lot of ifs though.
- wildmanx 5y ago
  Then nature got natural selection backwards too. Mating discrimination was shown to be real. Theorizing is great. But once there is evidence the reaction needs to be to adjust the theory instead of arguing away the effects that have been observed since they are inconsistent with the theory. "You're getting it backwards" is exactly that.
  - arghwhat 5y ago
    > Mating discrimination was shown to be real. Mating discrimination is real, but redefining "attractive" mates isn't just a single mutation that is implied in survivors like regular "survival of the fittest". Redefining behavior of a specifies is a hell of a lot more complicated, especially if it's not just a simple matter of making presence of a certain smell a turn-off. > Theorizing is great. And all we can do for a few years until we get the most recent results, all we can do to interpret them, and all we can do to iterate on them.
    - wildmanx 5y ago
      Right, and while interpreting them, we need to be cautious. Instead of seeing an effect and think "nah, doesn't fit my theory of natural selection, can't be, let's keep going" we should be more like "oh, this effect was not predicted by our theory, something fishy is going on, let's be cautious".
stjohnswarts 5y ago
We've eliminated plenty species before when -not- really trying. Perhaps we should figure out how to make mosquito larvae twinkies?

kungito 5y ago

weren't they making sort of crossbreed and so made way more changes than 1 gene?