15 ms·

Evolution can happen rapidly[1]. All the needed changes could have occurred over just a few generations. It likely starts with chemical mimicry. I can't imagin

by j_m_b 3y ago

Evolution can happen rapidly[1]. All the needed changes could have occurred over just a few generations. It likely starts with chemical mimicry. I can't imagine that it didn't start this way as insects live in an umwelt dominated by chemical sensory input. The beetle is able to easily visit the nest, grab food and not be attacked. Their life cycle becomes more and more intertwined with the termites until they never leave the nest. The beetles whole body starts to transform under evolutionary pressures to produce an additional tactile mimicry. That's my just-so story of how it could happen. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7818422/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7818422/

bentcorner 3y ago
It also probably works both ways - the termites evolve to better detect parasites, so simple mimicry that worked thousands of years ago wouldn't work today. Similar to the relationship of AV and malware.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Or how GANs work, two networks competing between the generator and the discriminator.
- astrange 3y ago
  You can also evolve the ability to evolve rapidly, eg by having areas of "configuration" genes and then "code" genes with more error correction.
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    It's not exactly what you described, but there are a few weird things. For example microsatelites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite that are small repeated regions in genes, that are difficult to copy, so they have a bigger mutation rate. They can function as tweaking knots when you consider times that involve many generations.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > It also probably works both ways - the termites evolve to better detect parasites, so simple mimicry that worked thousands of years ago wouldn't work today. This might or might not be true. Birds are a good example - they are subject to parasitic mimicry. One problem that a bird might have is that another bird lays one or more eggs in the first bird's nest. Theoretically, the victim bird will then incubate the egg and potentially feed and rear the nestling as if that nestling were the bird's own child. There are several points in this process where the victim has the opportunity to defend itself: - Ducks (at least some kinds) recognize the threat that another duck will lay an egg in their nest, and will fight approaching ducks to prevent them from doing this. But once the parasitic duck manages to get an egg into a victim's nest, the victim is not able to detect the foreign egg, and is stuck incubating and raising the adoptive duckling. - Some birds learn to recognize their own eggs. If they come home and find a foreign egg in their nest, they will dump that egg onto the ground. - Birds could theoretically be able to recognize nestlings of their own species. This would not help the ducks from the first example, who are victimized by their own kind. But it would help birds to defend themselves against cuckoos (and similar parasites), who lay their eggs in the nests of other species of bird. I am not aware that any species of bird has actually developed this defense, though I wouldn't be surprised if some have. Anyway, what's relevant here is that all of these defenses have failed to develop in large numbers of birds that are subject to the relevant pressures. It's definitely possible that the same simple mimicry that worked 100,000 years ago works just as well today. But it's also possible that there's been an arms race.
  - mojo74 3y ago
    > Some birds learn to recognize their own eggs. If they come home and find a foreign egg in their nest, they will dump that egg onto the ground. It can also works the other way round. Remove an albatross chick from its nest and the parent doesn't recognise them and the chick will starve https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7619547/Fans-Sir-David-Attenborough-left-tears-baby-Albatross-weathers-70mph-storm.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7619547/Fans-Sir-Da... Nature eh? (Apologies for the Daily Mail link)
    - zzbzq 3y ago
EGreg 3y ago
Something really makes me question all just-so stories. It’s not science. It paints a target around an arrow, the arrow being that all speciation must occur through random mutation and natural selection. Basically, the theory is unfalsifiable. It violates what Karl Popper was talking about. Now, don’t get me wrong. The theory of common descent is falsifiable. The phylogenic tree can be discerned. But the idea that we have discovered all the mechanisms by which speciation (or “macroevolution”) has ever occurred despite never having seen any of them in practice, is in my opinion bad science. And just-so stories are almost self-admitting that it’s more folklore than science. If you think I’m being too heterodox with my opinions, consider the just-so stories in the field of evolutionary psychology and extrapolate to all the phenotypes that are being described. But actually it seems worse than that because the math doesn’t seem to work out. What evolutionary advantage does a wing give before you can even glide? In the generations where it doesn’t accomplish much, it would seem that a random mutation would be far mord likely to disappear than take over a population. A mutation like proto—wings is likely to be extremely rare while the individuals’ genetic fitness may have increased by say 10%, although that is extremely generous considering the proto-wing confers no advantage and might be seen as freaky and unusual by the mates in the intermediate state. But even with an increase in genetic fitness, it is a tiny tiny effect. For it to take over the entire population eventually, or create a major branch within the population that has some “Lamarckian” direction towards a fully-working wing, seems extremely far-fetched.
- jakear 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - koliber 3y ago
    The word "falsifiable" does not mean the thing that you are using it for. It sounds like you are using it to mean "it was proven wrong." When talking about theories, a theory that is not falsifiable is one that could not be ever proven wrong. The best theories are falsifiable, but have a lot of evidence pointing for the theory, and little or no against it.
    - 3y ago
gorkish 3y ago
Thank you for “umwelt”.
- qup 3y ago
  Seconded, have never run across that word in all my reading.
  - jibal 3y ago
    Here's where I encountered it: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105793891/ed-yong-an-immense-world-animal-senses https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105793891/ed-yong-an-immense...
    - qup 3y ago
      Thanks! > Made famous by zoologist Jakob von Uexkull in 1909, the term Umwelt refers to the perceptual world experienced by each animal, a highly specific kind of "sensory bubble." When we walk our dog and she stops to smell every other bush or car tire, she's taking in through her acutely sensitive nose smells that we take in faintly or not at all. That's because humans and dogs have two different sensory bubbles, or Umwelten. Umwelten! <3
- jabiko 3y ago
  As a German speaker it felt really weird reading it. Like your brain is in English mode, reads over the word, then backtracks, switches to German, reads it again and then continues with English.
- huijzer 3y ago
  I have a lot of appreciation for some specialized German words, such as Fingerspitzengefühl, Wanderlust, Zeitgeist, or Schadenfreude, but why Umwelt? It can just be translated to environment.
  - james-bcn 3y ago
    it is the environment _as experienced_ by an organism. Me and my dog can have the same environment, but we'll have different umwelt, because mine is primarily visual but his has a much larger scent component.

by j_m_b 3y ago

bentcorner 3y ago

It also probably works both ways - the termites evolve to better detect parasites, so simple mimicry that worked thousands of years ago wouldn't work today. Similar to the relationship of AV and malware.

satvikpendem 3y ago
Or how GANs work, two networks competing between the generator and the discriminator.
astrange 3y ago
You can also evolve the ability to evolve rapidly, eg by having areas of "configuration" genes and then "code" genes with more error correction.
- gus_massa 3y ago
  It's not exactly what you described, but there are a few weird things. For example microsatelites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite that are small repeated regions in genes, that are difficult to copy, so they have a bigger mutation rate. They can function as tweaking knots when you consider times that involve many generations.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> It also probably works both ways - the termites evolve to better detect parasites, so simple mimicry that worked thousands of years ago wouldn't work today. This might or might not be true. Birds are a good example - they are subject to parasitic mimicry. One problem that a bird might have is that another bird lays one or more eggs in the first bird's nest. Theoretically, the victim bird will then incubate the egg and potentially feed and rear the nestling as if that nestling were the bird's own child. There are several points in this process where the victim has the opportunity to defend itself: - Ducks (at least some kinds) recognize the threat that another duck will lay an egg in their nest, and will fight approaching ducks to prevent them from doing this. But once the parasitic duck manages to get an egg into a victim's nest, the victim is not able to detect the foreign egg, and is stuck incubating and raising the adoptive duckling. - Some birds learn to recognize their own eggs. If they come home and find a foreign egg in their nest, they will dump that egg onto the ground. - Birds could theoretically be able to recognize nestlings of their own species. This would not help the ducks from the first example, who are victimized by their own kind. But it would help birds to defend themselves against cuckoos (and similar parasites), who lay their eggs in the nests of other species of bird. I am not aware that any species of bird has actually developed this defense, though I wouldn't be surprised if some have. Anyway, what's relevant here is that all of these defenses have failed to develop in large numbers of birds that are subject to the relevant pressures. It's definitely possible that the same simple mimicry that worked 100,000 years ago works just as well today. But it's also possible that there's been an arms race.
- mojo74 3y ago
  > Some birds learn to recognize their own eggs. If they come home and find a foreign egg in their nest, they will dump that egg onto the ground. It can also works the other way round. Remove an albatross chick from its nest and the parent doesn't recognise them and the chick will starve https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7619547/Fans-Sir-David-Attenborough-left-tears-baby-Albatross-weathers-70mph-storm.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7619547/Fans-Sir-Da... Nature eh? (Apologies for the Daily Mail link)
  - zzbzq 3y ago

EGreg 3y ago

Something really makes me question all just-so stories. It’s not science. It paints a target around an arrow, the arrow being that all speciation must occur through random mutation and natural selection. Basically, the theory is unfalsifiable. It violates what Karl Popper was talking about. Now, don’t get me wrong. The theory of common descent is falsifiable. The phylogenic tree can be discerned. But the idea that we have discovered all the mechanisms by which speciation (or “macroevolution”) has ever occurred despite never having seen any of them in practice, is in my opinion bad science. And just-so stories are almost self-admitting that it’s more folklore than science. If you think I’m being too heterodox with my opinions, consider the just-so stories in the field of evolutionary psychology and extrapolate to all the phenotypes that are being described. But actually it seems worse than that because the math doesn’t seem to work out. What evolutionary advantage does a wing give before you can even glide? In the generations where it doesn’t accomplish much, it would seem that a random mutation would be far mord likely to disappear than take over a population. A mutation like proto—wings is likely to be extremely rare while the individuals’ genetic fitness may have increased by say 10%, although that is extremely generous considering the proto-wing confers no advantage and might be seen as freaky and unusual by the mates in the intermediate state. But even with an increase in genetic fitness, it is a tiny tiny effect. For it to take over the entire population eventually, or create a major branch within the population that has some “Lamarckian” direction towards a fully-working wing, seems extremely far-fetched.

jakear 3y ago
[flagged]
- koliber 3y ago
  The word "falsifiable" does not mean the thing that you are using it for. It sounds like you are using it to mean "it was proven wrong." When talking about theories, a theory that is not falsifiable is one that could not be ever proven wrong. The best theories are falsifiable, but have a lot of evidence pointing for the theory, and little or no against it.
  - 3y ago

gorkish 3y ago

Thank you for “umwelt”.

qup 3y ago
Seconded, have never run across that word in all my reading.
- jibal 3y ago
  Here's where I encountered it: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105793891/ed-yong-an-immense-world-animal-senses https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105793891/ed-yong-an-immense...
  - qup 3y ago
    Thanks! > Made famous by zoologist Jakob von Uexkull in 1909, the term Umwelt refers to the perceptual world experienced by each animal, a highly specific kind of "sensory bubble." When we walk our dog and she stops to smell every other bush or car tire, she's taking in through her acutely sensitive nose smells that we take in faintly or not at all. That's because humans and dogs have two different sensory bubbles, or Umwelten. Umwelten! <3
jabiko 3y ago
As a German speaker it felt really weird reading it. Like your brain is in English mode, reads over the word, then backtracks, switches to German, reads it again and then continues with English.
huijzer 3y ago
I have a lot of appreciation for some specialized German words, such as Fingerspitzengefühl, Wanderlust, Zeitgeist, or Schadenfreude, but why Umwelt? It can just be translated to environment.
- james-bcn 3y ago
  it is the environment _as experienced_ by an organism. Me and my dog can have the same environment, but we'll have different umwelt, because mine is primarily visual but his has a much larger scent component.