Why Plants???

[vecktor]

I started a thread that everyone likes, everyone likes, EVERYONE likes.

I started a thread that everyone likes, all the live long day.


FAAAAART

I don't like it

QED not everyone likes it

 

[fastandbulbous]

I would have to disagree on grounds of this being a severe oversimplification.

Like most natural things, evolution is beautifully simple. I know some people have a problem with him/his theories, but Richard Dawkins book 'The Selfish Gene' makes perfect sense to me and at the heart of the book is the idea that I mentioned about non-functional aspects that require enegy put that organism at a disadvantage to those not having said non-functioning development.

It also seems to be bourne out from what we know of natural selection

 

[djsim]

I got in an interesting conversation with a marine biologist this weekend about brominated phenethylamines found in sea sponges (I think I forget was a little twasted). Very cool stuff. She claims it is an untapped frontier...in the next few decades we will discover many, many new compounds.

yeh Ive been researching some compounds like Prevezol. Theyre brominated diterpenes with a totally novel skeleton. Not common to find brominated compounds, even moreso ones that have therapeutic effects

 

[theWorldWithin]

Like most natural things, evolution is beautifully simple. I know some people have a problem with him/his theories, but Richard Dawkins book 'The Selfish Gene' makes perfect sense to me and at the heart of the book is the idea that I mentioned about non-functional aspects that require enegy put that organism at a disadvantage to those not having said non-functioning development.

It also seems to be bourne out from what we know of natural selection

I still tend to disagree. It is one thing to claim that these traits will be selected out which at face value makes a great deal of sense but unless you can propose a mechanism by which it happens then you claim holds no weight. Lets examine the classic example of the apendix. This is an organ that to my knowledge all human beings poses, IE it has completely propagated across the gene pool. Now this implies that it has no effect on mate preference, and common behavioral observations confirm this. Also the prescence of an appendix puts an individual at no greater risk to predation or disease (minus to occasional burst appendix). So if this trait has already saturated our entire gene pool and there is no sexual preference to select mates that are extremely abnormal and lack the organ then I see no mehcanism for it to be selected out.

Maybe I am missing something as I am no biologist but you need to propose a mechanism for these genes to be selected out because the use of energy is just not satisfactory. Certainly it establishes a reason why it would be advantageous to lose these traits but it does not answer how.

 

[vecktor]

I still tend to disagree. It is one thing to claim that these traits will be selected out which at face value makes a great deal of sense but unless you can propose a mechanism by which it happens then you claim holds no weight. Lets examine the classic example of the apendix. This is an organ that to my knowledge all human beings poses, IE it has completely propagated across the gene pool. Now this implies that it has no effect on mate preference, and common behavioral observations confirm this. Also the prescence of an appendix puts an individual at no greater risk to predation or disease (minus to occasional burst appendix). So if this trait has already saturated our entire gene pool and there is no sexual preference to select mates that are extremely abnormal and lack the organ then I see no mehcanism for it to be selected out.

Maybe I am missing something as I am no biologist but you need to propose a mechanism for these genes to be selected out because the use of energy is just not satisfactory. Certainly it establishes a reason why it would be advantageous to lose these traits but it does not answer how.

your theory would stand up if the appendix had no function however it retains a useful immune system function. it is highly reduced from its original form and now it has reached an equilibribrium point where it serves a useful purpose even though it is not the original purpose of it so it shrinks no further. It is a throw back a remnant. just as some snakes and whales still retain vestigial legs, they have shrunk to the point where they no longer cost much to maintain, and so the selection pressure has gone.

there is a school of thought along the lines that humans are no longer evolving, there is no selection pressure, for evolution to work animals with bad genes or who are less well adapted have to be less successful at breeding, but it is a fact that in the west fat, stupid ugly people have disproportionately more children and most of these children survive to adulthood. before anyone gets too excited its just an opinion, not necessarily mine.
There is evidence that resistance to HIV is evolving in some areas of the world HIV being a pretty strong selection pressure, killing those infected and also killing their offspring.

 

[daddysgone]

...are you ok, man? Maybe you should seek some professional help.

yes im quite alright murphy, unfortunately my room-mate who posted that rather odd post under my account is not always of the soundest mind. good news is that hes harmless, just a bit too weird for this world at most times. thanks for the concern though.

 

[MurphyClox]

there is a school of thought along the lines that humans are no longer evolving, there is no selection pressure, for evolution to work animals with bad genes or who are less well adapted have to be less successful at breeding, but it is a fact that in the west fat, stupid ugly people have disproportionately more children and most of these children survive to adulthood.

Thx for elaborating this Vecktor! Exactly what I wanted to say when I wrote earlier "humans withdrew from the usual means of evolution thousands of years ago. With our complex psychological implications and the (recent, i.e. ~ last 150 years) development of medicine, we are now able to make a) much more people stay alive and b) to make much more people propagate their genes."
The example with the disrupting appendix already explained it quite well: If we wouldn't have our modern medicine that everyone without an appendix (theoretically spoken) would have a evolutionary advantage. With a disrupting appendix you normally die (if untreated). Got it?

 

[Hammilton]

Let's pretend that the appendix didn't allow us any advantage, nor any special disadvantage.

It would still require extra energy to produce an maintain, which in the longest terms, will be a disadvantage.

 

[looons]

i would have to say that plant life and non mammal or fish sea life sea plant life well i guess there not exactly plants but you know
are the fundamental links that allow not only humans but all life that needs to eat and make waste to grow now that is all life periood there is something that alters the chemistry of all life when taken in ther is something for every thing alive to not only take care to heal but i believe that those altering whatevers is what allows life to evolve and is what will eventually let man become god like


i dont know if that came out right but hopefully it was understood its my first real post and on a very good subject

 

[MurphyClox]

Sorry, I didn't get it. Try it again with punctuation maybe...

 

[theWorldWithin]

your theory would stand up if the appendix had no function however it retains a useful immune system function. it is highly reduced from its original form and now it has reached an equilibribrium point where it serves a useful purpose even though it is not the original purpose of it so it shrinks no further. It is a throw back a remnant. just as some snakes and whales still retain vestigial legs, they have shrunk to the point where they no longer cost much to maintain, and so the selection pressure has gone.

there is a school of thought along the lines that humans are no longer evolving, there is no selection pressure, for evolution to work animals with bad genes or who are less well adapted have to be less successful at breeding, but it is a fact that in the west fat, stupid ugly people have disproportionately more children and most of these children survive to adulthood. before anyone gets too excited its just an opinion, not necessarily mine.
There is evidence that resistance to HIV is evolving in some areas of the world HIV being a pretty strong selection pressure, killing those infected and also killing their offspring.

Well I appreciate your elaboration on the function of the appendix but ultimately you did nothing to dispute my claim. Please suggest a mechanism for the selection you propose and we will be somewhere. All you did was confirm what I already suggested, that the appendix has completely saturated out genepool and will not be going anywhere. Or lets forget the appendix, just propose your mechanism for traits being selected out of our gene pool if they have no function. Because the use of energy is not sufficient explaination.

 

[fastandbulbous]

unless you can propose a mechanism by which it happens then you claim holds no weight

I did - by using energy on something that confers no advantage when it comes to survival,it leaves the organism at a disadvantage to those that don't because there are always limited resources for growth etc

How can you not see that's a viable mechanism?

Because the use of energy is not sufficient explaination

Of course it is if there are limited resources eg food available for the whole species because food equals energy. If you don't get that the I'd recommend reading a few books on natural selection (as the more expanded title would be natural selection by the most efficient use of limited resoources - that's why animals less well suited to compete for resources starve to death or are predated)

 

[Hammilton]

Well I appreciate your elaboration on the function of the appendix but ultimately you did nothing to dispute my claim. Please suggest a mechanism for the selection you propose and we will be somewhere. All you did was confirm what I already suggested, that the appendix has completely saturated out genepool and will not be going anywhere. Or lets forget the appendix, just propose your mechanism for traits being selected out of our gene pool if they have no function. Because the use of energy is not sufficient explaination.

This really basic natural selection. Anything that takes extra energy to maintain that does not confer benefits will take resources away from beneficial functions. This isn't some magical kingdom where resources are unlimited.

 

[vecktor]

Well I appreciate your elaboration on the function of the appendix but ultimately you did nothing to dispute my claim. Please suggest a mechanism for the selection you propose and we will be somewhere. All you did was confirm what I already suggested, that the appendix has completely saturated out genepool and will not be going anywhere. Or lets forget the appendix, just propose your mechanism for traits being selected out of our gene pool if they have no function. Because the use of energy is not sufficient explaination.

no as I said there is currently no pressure for the appendix to disappear completely so it doesn't. the appendix is a throw back,which costs next to nothing so there is next to no selection pressure.
NO SELECTION PRESSURE = NO EVOLUTION

however in our distant ancestors the appendix was much larger and cost a lot of energy and resources to maintain, but as it enabled our distant ancestors to eat and digest cellulose it remained large and essential. When at some point in the very distant past our ancestors changed diet away from a low energy cellulose diet to a diet containing more readily absorbed nutrients then the appendix was no longer totally essential to survival, those that say had a smaller appendix could survive and breed by eating cellulose and easier to digest materials, so they had the advantage of not having to expend so much resources on making a fully functioning appendix, which in turn meant that they could grow faster, perhaps breed faster, out compete and perhaps even kill off their bigger appendix ancestors. So way back there was a selection pressure, and because there was an advantage there was evolution, eventially it got to the point where there was no significant cost to having a residual appendix so evolution of the appendix stopped.

evolution is not a theory, it can be observed in practice, and the best places to see it occuring is where there is a very very strong selection pressure combined with rapidly reproducing organisms.
Bacteria and antibiotics are a great example of energy and efficiency and evolution in practice.

Take MRSA, This is a strain of Staphylococcus Aureus which is resistant to the pennicilin antibiotic methicillin/oxacillin. If Methicillin Resistant staph (MRSA) is grown in a plain culture mixed with non resistant, Methicillin susceptable Staph( MSSA) very quickly the non resistant staph out grows the resistant strain, it uses up all the nutrients in the petri dish and almost completely kills off the MRSA, so it is obvious that MRSA pays a price for being resistant, there is a selection pressure here not to have useless resistance to an antibiotic. if this is repeated through many generations the resistant strain disappears entirely, because it costs energy to be resistant, it slows your growth and puts you at a disadvantage.

on the other hand if MSSA is mixed with MRSA and cultured in a dish containing antibiotic oxacillin, the MRSA out grows the non resistant strain and eventually there is only resistant strain surviving, so in this antibiotic environment even though it costs energy to be resistant it is so advantageous to be resistant that resistance wins out.
this is a classic example of limited resources and energy driving evolution.

Annoyingly the same things happen with cultured fungi which are grown on one food, they lose the ability to consume other foods. Or salt resistant bacteria grown on non salty media lose their salt resistance. this makes maintaining useful strains rather tricky.

there are countless other examples of resource and energy driven evolution.

human and animal evolution is complicated by mate preference and sexual attraction, the idea being that attractive mates have better genes. But as human mating plumage for males includes expensive cars and flashy watches (indications of energy and resources to offer) which don't require good genes and the proliferation of trophy wives amongst the ugly but powerful I am not sure evolution is working any more,

it seems pretty evident that quite a lot of the human genome serves no purpose, perhaps 30% of it, so there are plenty of useless genes most of which are not active. evolution is not totally efficient but it doesn't have to be.

 

[fastandbulbous]

But as human mating plumage for males includes expensive cars and flashy watches (indications of energy and resources to offer) which don't require good genes and the proliferation of trophy wives amongst the ugly but powerful I am not sure evolution is working any more

Well it is sort of - the stupid are removed from the gene pool by virtue of their inability to reconise threatening/lethal circumstances (hence the Darwin Awards ). I think it's better to say that classical evolution isn't working on man any more because of the other factors vecktor mentioned (more survival of the smartest/slyest/most ruthless than survival of the fittest - not that this new variant of natural selection is going to necessarily be to the benefit of the species - one look at the so called 'elite' of society and I think that's patently obvious!)

 

[swilow]

Sorry, I didn't get it. Try it again with punctuation maybe...

Bit jumpy aren't you here?

 

[The_Idler]

ever suspect that psychoactive plants are successful, due to the fact that humans have a desire to cultivate them?

i.e. the same reason rice, wheat, apples, cows, etc are so successful.

 

[The_Idler]

evolution is not totally efficient but it doesn't have to be.

i like.

a kind of... meta-truth.




This seems to be one of the most prevalent misconceptions amongst those who do not understand evolution.
They appear to have become absolutely convinced that this universe is 100% perfect, and could not exist any other way....

 

[fastandbulbous]

ever suspect that psychoactive plants are successful, due to the fact that humans have a desire to cultivate them?

i.e. the same reason rice, wheat, apples, cows, etc are so successful.

Well look at opium poppies, cannabis and god knows how many other plants - would they have managed to establish themselves on every continent (barring Antarctica, but then who knows what the fuck they get up to at McMurdo base at the south pole! ) without the intervention of man? Probably not...

 

[fastandbulbous]

^ Glucose, ordinary salt & even plain old water are psychoactive if you take enough of them because they fuck with the osmotic balance between blood plama/cells and when that happens to neurones, they function in a different way to happy, healthy ones (generally though, altering your state of conciousness by fucking around with the osmolarity of your blood isn't at all plesant and frequently life threatening)