Category Archives: Evolution

February 13, 2017 The deep sea has its fair share of quirky creatures equipped with odd features, and the cockeyed squid, sporting two different sized eyes, likely doesn'tstand out too much among other bottom ocean dwellers.

But scientists have never before been able to pinpoint a reason for its two vastly different eyes. But now, researchers from Duke University may have finally nailed down an answer, according to a study published Monday in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

The cockeyed squid, officially known as Histioteuthis heteropsis, has long puzzled researchers. While the species is born with eyes of the same size, its left eye grows rapidly, becoming tube-shaped and sometimes twice the size of its right eye.

"You can't look at one and not wonder what's going on with them," Duke University biologist and study co-author Kate Thomas said in a press release.

Researchers watched more than 150 videos of the squids swimming in the Monterey Submarine Canyon in Monterey Bay,Calif., which were recorded over the past three decades, observing as they swam in an unconventional upside-down position. While doing so, the squids larger, left eyes continuously looked up, while their smaller right eyes were fixed downward.

Observation and light simulations revealed that the large eye seems to search for shadows of different fish swimming overhead, while the small eye scans the ocean floor for signs of light emitted by other marine organisms.

While the left eye's field of vision picks up shadows from sun shining into the water, that's not an option for the downward-facing eye, scientists concluded. Instead, they detect bioluminescence, the kind of chemically-produced light that comes from living organisms such as fireflies or deep sea fish. That requires a different kind of eye structure than is needed for ambient light. Bigger isn't better when it comes to spotting glowing fish, the researchers found, but larger eyes are better at detecting sunlight.

So while the cockeyed squids design might look odd at first glance, it actually allows the squids to navigate their complex environment.

"The eye looking down really only can look for bioluminescence," Snke Johnsen, the study's senior author and a professor of biology at Duke University, said in a statement. "There is no way it is able to pick out shapes against the ambient light. And once it is looking for bioluminescence, it doesn't really need to be particularly big, so it can actually shrivel up a little bit over generations. But the eye looking up actually does benefit from getting a bit bigger."

Overall, squid species are faring well among their deep sea neighbors. A 2016 study revealed that squid numbers have continuously boomed for six decades, while climate change and warming waters have spelled trouble for some other species.

While that marks good news for cephalopods for now, some wonder what long-term implications for aquatic life the trend could have particularly for the creatures they eat.

"We're seeing a new world here, one we haven't seen before. Any time you push an ecosystem into a different state, there's greater uncertainty in how it will behave, and how it will respond to future changes. Frankly, I think that should make people really worried," Ben Halpern, a biology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science and Management and the director of the school's Center for Marine Assessment and Planning, told The Christian Science Monitor last year.

"More squid and octopus to eat may seem like a good thing, and in the short run maybe it is. But I'm more worried about the long run," he said.

See the original post here:

How this cockeyed squid shines a light on deep sea evolution - Christian Science Monitor

TUESDAY, FEB. 14, 2017, 5:30 A.M.

Darwins Demons, a video game created at the University of Idaho, uses mutating aliens to teach students about natural selection and evolution.

The game, which retails for $4.99, was released Monday by video game distributor Steam. The release was timed to follow International Darwin Day on Feb. 12, which honors Charles Darwin and his groundbreaking work on how organisms change over time through the natural selection of characteristics that allow them to compete, survive and reproduce.

In the arcade-style game, players defend their spaceships against hordes of ever-evolving aliens. The fittest aliens, who destroy the most spaceships, produce the most offspring.

The nastiest, meanest aliens have the most babies. They shoot more projectiles, fire faster and move down the screen more aggressively, said Barrie Robison, a professor in UIs Department of Biological Sciences.

Within a few generations, the aliens turn into formidable foes, with genetic adaptations designed to outwit the gamers individual style of play.

Darwins Demons is the work of Robison, computer science Professor Terence Soule and an interdisciplinary team of 20 UI students, who spent last summer working on the game.

The team pulled together students majoring in biology, computer science, art and design, business, English and theater to work on various aspects of developing and marketing Darwins Demons. A National Science Foundation grant for evolution studies helped pay for the project.

The idea for Darwins Demons began several years ago, when Robison and Soule were brainstorming ways to present concepts in evolutionary biology to students.

There is ample evidence that school kids play a lot of video games, Robison said. But we wanted to make a game first, instead of a lesson plan disguised in a game.

Darwins Demons is rated for kids ages 10 and up. While younger kids can play it, they probably wont understand the science concepts, some of which are sophisticated enough for college-age audiences.

The game is based on mathematical models of evolutionary biology. Evolution computation, a sub-field of artificial intelligence, allows the video game to adapt to solve increasingly difficult problems, Soule said.

The game responds in an intelligent way to a players strategy, he said.

So, even though players can beef up defenses and fortify their spaceships, the aliens eventually prevail.

Evolution always wins, Robison said. It doesnt matter what you do, the alien population adapts to your strategy.

Like other arcade-style video games, Darwins Demons players try to beat other players highest score.

Robison has the highest score so far. But after about 20 generations of evolution, the aliens take down his fleet of spaceships.

Darwins Demons debuted on Steam, which is the amazon.com of the video game world for hard-core players, Robison said. By the end of the week, the site should include a demo of the game.

Business students are looking for ways to market the game to a wider audience of science teachers and parents. And Soule hopes to have Darwins Demons available on Xbox Live within a couple of months.

Proceeds from sales of the game will help fund similar projects in the future. If sales take off in a big way, theres also the potential for students to earn royalties from their work.

We want to develop a sustainable video design studio, Robison said. Were hoping we can release an evolutionary game around Darwins birthday each year.

View post:

Evolution always wins: University of Idaho video game uses mutating aliens to teach science concepts - The Spokesman-Review

February 14, 2017 by Alan Flurry A female burying beetle feeds her begging young. The parent and offspring are in a mouse carcass prepared by the parent as food. Credit: Allen Moore/UGA

University of Georgia researchers have confirmed that becoming a parent brings about more than just the obvious offspringit also rewires the parents' brain.

The study, published this month in Nature Communications, finds that the transition from a non-parenting state to a parenting state reflects differences in neuropeptides generally associated with mating, feeding, aggression and increased social tolerance.

Neuropeptides are small proteins that allow neurons in the brain to communicate with each other; they also influence behavior.

The team's research-tested on an insect, the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides-provides a predictive framework for studying the genetics of parenting and social interactions.

The burying beetle is intimately involved in raising its children, including regurgitating food to its begging offspring.

"We tested the idea that we could predict the genetic pathways involved in parenting based on old predictions from ethologists in the 1960s and 1970s," said the study's lead author Allen Moore, Distinguished Research Professor and head of the department of genetics. "When [burying beetle] parents feed their babies, they are feeding others rather than themselves and so genes that influence food-seeking behavior are likely to be involved."

Behavioral scientists predicted that genetic changes occur over time to develop parenting in a species. Based on this hypothesis, Moore's team sequenced and assembled the genome of the burying beetle and measured the abundance of neuropeptides. They theorized that behaviors related to parenting stemmed from alterations in existing genes rather than the evolution of new ones.

By looking at parenting and non-parenting beetles, their tests indicated that neuropeptides changed in abundance during parenting.

"When new traits evolve, evolution tends to modify existing genetic pathways rather than create new genes," Moore said.

The research, Moore said, suggests that many of the genes influencing parenting will be the same across many species. The commonality among organisms will help researchers identify genetic pathways important to parenting.

"It is exciting science when you take a step toward predicting the genetic changes involved in a behavior as complicated as parental care," he said. "And it was pleasing to collaborate with colleagues in genetics and Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, which allowed us to apply techniques that wouldn't otherwise be available to test our ideas."

Explore further: Beetles provide clues about the genetic foundations of parenthood

More information: Christopher B. Cunningham et al. Ethological principles predict the neuropeptides co-opted to influence parenting, Nature Communications (2017). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14225

A team of researchers including scientists from the University of Georgia has identified many of the genetic changes that take place in burying beetles as they assume the role of parent. Their findings, published recently ...

Research published today reveals for the first time that the different roles of mothers and fathers are influenced by genetics. The study, by the Universities of Exeter and Edinburgh, shows how variation in where males and ...

Scientists have presented the most conclusive evidence yet that genes play a significant role in parenting.

Yelling. Screaming. Slamming of doors. Sneaking out.

A new study has examined the interaction between coparenting and coercive parenting in predicting children's disruptive behaviour.

Toddlers' fussy eating habits are mainly the result of genetic influences rather than the result of poor parenting, according to new research led by scientists at UCL.

(Phys.org)A team of researchers at the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences has found that rhesus monkeys can pass the mirror self-awareness test if they are first taught how mirrors work. In their paper published ...

University of Georgia researchers have confirmed that becoming a parent brings about more than just the obvious offspringit also rewires the parents' brain.

Male guppies pay a high cost for their sexual harassment of female guppies including much higher mortality rates a new study from Macquarie University has found.

Scientists at the University of Wrzburg have generated new insights into the intricate molecular underpinnings of ubiquitin signaling. Their results may provide new avenues for cancer therapy.

The protein that helps the sperm and egg fuse together in sexual reproduction can also fuse regular cells together. Recent findings by a team of biomedical researchers from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Argentina, ...

Sardinia sits at a crossroads in the Mediterranean Sea, the second largest island next to Sicily. Surrounded by sparkling turquoise waters, this Mediterranean jewel lies northwest of the toe of the Italian peninsula boot, ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

View original post here:

Geneticists track the evolution of parenting - Phys.Org

Science Daily

How evolution alters biological invasions -- ScienceDaily Science Daily Biological invasions pose major threats to biodiversity, but little is known about how evolution might alter their impacts over time. Now, Rutgers University ... and more »

Continued here:

How evolution alters biological invasions -- ScienceDaily - Science Daily

In a previous article I described how theories of innovation provide insight into the limits of natural selection. I will now apply those concepts to hypotheses regarding the evolution of the vertebrate eye, a subject that, since the time of Charles Darwin, has been near center of the debate over the creative power of natural selection. As Darwin himself stated in the Origin of Species:

He did, however, still believe it could evolve over numerous gradual increments.

Today, evolutionists propose several of the stages in what they believe to be a plausible evolutionary path. Science writer Carl Zimmer has outlined the standard story:

See Wikipedia for a chart illustrating "Major stages in the evolution of the eye."

To add weight to this narrative, two biologists created a computer simulation, demonstrating, in their view, the incremental evolution of an eye in fewer than 400,000 generations.

This often-repeated tale sounds impressive at first, but it is not unlike most supposed explanations of the evolution of complex features. It scores high on imagination and flare but low on empirical evidence and thoughtful analysis. It most certainly does not represent a "detailed hypothesis." Likewise, the simulation does an admirable job of describing how a mechanical eye could develop incrementally, but it is completely disconnected from biological reality. In particular, it ignores the details of how a real eye functions and how it forms developmentally. When these issues are examined, the story completely collapses.

To fully appreciate why that is so requires a basic understanding of developmental biology. During development, cells divide, migrate, and differentiate into a wide variety of types. Throughout this process, the cells send chemical signals to their neighbors, and these signals cause proteins known as transcription factors (TF) to bind to genes in regulatory regions, which control the corresponding genes' activity. The TFs bind to what are called transcription factor binding sites (TFBS), and the correct binding enables the genes to produce their proteins in the right cells at the right time in the right amount.

The evolution of additional components in the vertebrate eye requires that this network of intercellular signals, TFs, TFBS, chromatin remodeling, as well as many other details be dramatically altered, so that each developmental stage can progress correctly. For instance, the seemingly simple addition of a marginally focusing lens -- that is to say, a lens that directs slightly more light onto a retina -- requires a host of alterations:

Ectodermic tissue folds into a lens placode, which then forms a lens vesicle.

Cells in the lens vesicle differentiate into lens fibers, which elongate to produce the proper lens shape.

The lens fibers then undergo several key modifications, including tightly binding together, filling almost entirely with special refractive proteins called crystallins, developing special channels to receive nutrients, and destroying their organelles.

All of these steps must proceed with great precision to ensure the end product focuses light in an improved manner. The development of the lens in all vertebrates is very similar, and it even resembles that in other phyla. Therefore, the development of the first lens should have closely followed the steps outlined above with only minor differences, inconsequential to the basic argument.

The challenge to evolution is that, short of completion, most of these changes are disadvantageous. A lens that has not fully evolved through the third step noted above would either scatter light away from the retina or completely block it. Any initial mutations would then be lost, and the process would have to start again from scratch. In the context of fitness terrains, an organism lacking a lens resides near the top of a local peak. The steps required to gain a functional lens correspond to traveling downhill, crossing a vast canyon of visually impaired or blind intermediates, until eventually climbing back up a new peak corresponding to lens-enhanced vision.

Once an organism has a functional lens, natural selection could then potentially make gradual improvements. However, moving from a reasonably functional lens to one that produces a high-resolution image is rather complex. In particular, the refractive index (i.e., crystalline concentration) has to be adjusted throughout the lens to vary according to a precise mathematical relationship. A gradual decrease from the inside to the outside is needed to prevent spherical aberrations blurring the image.

Even more steps are required for the improved image to be properly interpreted:

Feedback circuitry must be added to allow the lens to automatically refocus on images at different distances.

The retina has to be completely reengineered to process high-resolution images, including the addition of circuits to enable edge and motion detection.

The neural networks in the brain have to be rewired to properly interpret the pre-processed high-resolution images from the retina.

Higher-level brain functions must be enabled to identify different objects, i.e., dangerous ones such as a shark, and properly respond to them.

Until steps 2 through 4 are completed, a high-resolution image would likely prove disadvantageous, since most of the light would be focused on fewer photoreceptors. In insolation, the alterations of perfecting the lens and those involved in step 1 would hinder the analysis of large-scale changes to the field of view, such as identifying the shadow of a predator. Natural selection would thus remove most of the initial mutations, and evolution of the eye would come to a halt.

The difference between blurry and high-resolution vision is well illustrated by the box jellyfish. It has several eyes around its body. Two have lenses, which can produce highly focused images. However, the focal point is past the retina, so the retinal images are blurry. An ability to focus more clearly than is actually useful seems to be an example of gratuitous design. Zoologist Dan Nilsson comments:

However, for the box jellyfish a high-resolution image would be disadvantageous, since its neurology is engineered to respond to such bulky features as the edge of a mangrove. Is this blurry vision the result of the jellyfish not having yet evolved high-resolution vision? No: its neural organization is radically different from that needed for the latter. As Nilsson comments, "Another, more likely, interpretation is that the eyes are 'purposely' under-focused."

"Purposeful"? Yes, it would seem so. The example illustrates that low-resolution vision is not at an inferior point on the same fitness peak as high-resolution vision. Instead, both systems reside near the peaks of separate mountains. For any species, upgrading to high-resolution vision requires massive reengineering in a single step. Such radical innovation, coordinated to achieve a distant goal, is only possible with intelligent design.

Photo: European bison, by Michael Gbler [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Continue reading here:

Eye Evolution: A Closer Look - Discovery Institute

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

In late 2016, Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan pledged to invest at least $3 billion to "cure, manage, and prevent all disease" through the creation of a Biohub, a fount of non-profit innovation that would retain the exclusive right to commercialize its inventions. Around the same time, Microsoft said it had plans to "solve" cancer by 2026 and Facebook's co-founder Sean Parker promised $250 million (through his tax-exempt non-profit organization, or 501c3) to fight cancer while retaining the right to patents. The philanthropists Eli Broad and Ted Stanley have contributed $1.4 billion in private wealth to fund the Broad Institute research center (another 501c3, involved in a high-stakes patent battle) and its associated Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, to open "schizophrenia's black box" and hack the genetics of psychiatry. Much like Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller of yesteryear, who donated their wealth to build public libraries and establish foundations, today's Silicon Valley billionaires seek a legacy, this time in the realm of health and disease.

But there is a disconnect. Comparing the body to a machine, complete with bugs to be fixed by means of gene modification tools such as Crispr-Cas9, conflicts with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: machines and computers do not evolve, but organisms do. Evolution matters here because bits of code that compromise one function often enhance a second function, or can be repurposed for a new function when the environment shifts. In evolution, everything is grasping for its purpose. Parts that break down can become the next best thing.

The element of evolutionary time can be lost on technologists who think that more data and money will end disease. For Darwin, evolution of a species depended on natural selection of the individual organism. Discovery of DNA later resulted in what became known as the "modern synthesis," establishing a unifying framework for the influence of tiny things such as genes and large things such as populations, all while preserving Darwin's key principle that selection hinged on the individual. By 1966, the evolutionary biologists Richard Lewontin and John Hubby had proposed the concept of "balancing selection," which suggests that rare versions of genes can stay in a population since they add to genetic diversity. In fact, being heterogeneous, or having a single copy of a rarer form of a gene, even one that is suboptimal or contributes to genetic risk, can often benefit an individual, thus remaining among a species in small frequencies.

The theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman argued that rare genetic variants are the basis of innovation, and may remain in circulation, not by chance, but because they add a fitness benefit to the system of at least a small number of organisms in a population. "Evolution is not just 'chance caught on a wing.' It is not just a tinkering of the ad hoc, of bricolage, of contraption. It is emergent order honored and honed by selection," he wrote in The Origins of Order (1993).

By contrast, a modern data scientist often assumes the reductionist position: that more data and better analysis in biology will lead to problems solved. As the molecular biologist James Watson said in 1989: "We used to think that our fate was in our stars, but now we know that, in large measure, our fate is in our genes." One reason we might favor this explanation is that our brains are wired to seek answers, simple cause-effect relationships. But we have so few drugs and solutions nearly two decades after sequencing the human genome. This might have less to do with the quality of analysis and more to do with the biological principles of evolution and time. Instead of thinking of humanity as a closed system, we'd do better to look through the open lens of ecology, in which the system itself is subject to influence by input from the outside. In even a single lifetime, our bodies take on an onslaught of genetic mutations, hundreds of trillions of synaptic connections rewire our brains by the moment, and pathogens bombard us, penetrating the organs and blood-brain barrier, and creating an ever-changing microbiome that enhances or erodes health.

In evolution, nothing comes for free. Stress can both trigger creativity and compound a raft of chronic maladies. Genetic variants that cause cystic fibrosis can protect against cholera, and those that contribute to Tay-Sachs can protect against tuberculosis. A variant in the gene PCSK9 can lower your LDL cholesterol, but can increase your risk for ischemic stroke. Gene transfer can effectively treat diseases caused by a single errant gene, but risk variants that influence diseases won't go away because they often provide advantages as time goes on.

Even cancer is less a machine with cell circuits that go haywire than an evolving entity that undergoes evolution and change in real time. Shapeshifting tricks that enable a cancer to escape our treatment can be independent of changes to the permanent genetic code. One of the reasons that the immunotherapeutic approach has been so practical is that it treats cancer in terms of ecology. The cancer evolves, but the immune system, primed for that kind of fight, can sometimes keep pace.

Darwin introduced a viewpoint that was radically unsettling: We don't progress to a more perfect form, but adapt to local environments. If humans are machines, then we can simply repair the broken parts. But if there is something more fundamental to the crisis of life than mere mechanisms of biology, then risk, and an element of danger, will always be with us. I will wager something even more: Since genetic variation is the basis of innovation, and diversity, making ourselves too perfect could mean our doom.

This article was originally published by Aeon, a digital magazine for ideas and culture. Follow them on Twitter at @aeonmag.

See the rest here:

Why evolution may be tech billionaires' biggest enemy - The Week Magazine

The NBA in recent seasons has undergone a stylistic overhaul, moving to offenses built around three-point shots and inching toward a form of basketball without positions. The forces changing the league have bled into every aspect of the game, and that includes rebounding. Its not a drastic difference, but it is a difference. As teams launch more threes and play smaller lineups, there are more long boardsand fewer big men to grab them. The combination has led to a more egalitarian distribution of rebounds.

Russell Westbrook, the fluorescent Oklahoma City point guard, both epitomizes the changing nature of rebounds and provides the ideal for how to capitalize on it. His quest to become the first player since Oscar Robertson in 1962 to average a triple-double for an entire season depends in large part on his 10.5 rebounds per game, the most by a guard since Robertsons triple-double year.

But Westbrook is far from alone among guards and wings gobbling boards. Giannis Antetokounmpo (8.7), James Harden (8.2), Nicolas Batum (7.2) and Avery Bradley (6.9) all rank among the NBAs top 50 in rebounds per game. This season, 10 of the top 50 rebounders are listed as guards or small forwards. Only six such players ranked in the top 50 last year, up from four each of the previous two seasons. No guard or small forward has finished a season ranked in the top 25 since 2009-2010, and yet four are ranked that high this year.

The game is changing, Wizards shooting guard Bradley Beal said. More threes means a lot of long rebounds, so guards are going to have more rebounds, for sure.

[One of college basketballs best rebounders is a 6-foot-2 guard?]

NBA games see 34.6 missed three-pointers on average, or 37 percent of total misses. Just five years ago, the average NBA game included only 25.6 three-point misses. Longer shots typically produce longer rebounds, and so the shift in shot selection has created more opportunities for guards to swoop for boards without getting out of position.

Because of those long rebounds on three-point shots, theres more rebounds that are clearing the free throw line, where guys who are even at the three-point line can react to, Thunder Coach Billy Donovan said. I always feel this way: Great rebounders are the ones who can read the flight of the ball and can tell where its coming off before it comes off.

No guard is better at it than Westbrook, whose rebounding ability has buoyed his triple-double bid and allowed the Thunder to craft a strategy around his unique skill set. Oklahoma City instructs its big men to box out on defense not with the sole aim of snaring rebounds, but with the intent to create space for Westbrook.

Westbrooks rebounding activates Oklahoma Citys best brand of offense. The Thunder entered Monday as the 21st-ranked offense in the NBA, but had scored the third-most fast-break points per game. When Westbrook snares a defensive rebound, he zips down the floor, a fast break unto himself. Essentially, Westbrook serves as his own outlet pass.

He does a great job whenever he gets the rebound, he has an opportunity to start the break, Wizards point guard John Wall said. Its a tougher matchup. Its hard to stop him when he has the ball and hes coming full speed.

[John Walls between-the-legs pass may have been his best of the season]

Its huge, Thunder reserve forward Nick Collison said. It allows us to get into transition more than a lot of teams. Even just a guy finding him to make the pass, that one second allows them to get back. Some of those that end up in transition shots wouldnt be if we had to find him.

As a rebounder, Westbrook combines aggression which Donovan encourages, rather than asking his point guard to rush back on defense as he might with a typical point guard with rare physical force. Physically, hes able to get to boards above the rim more so than any other guard, Collison said. Underneath his obvious athleticism, Westbrook uses anticipation and careful study.

The reason Russell is such a great rebounder is, he watches the flight of the ball, Donovan said. You see Russell a lot of times, hell shoot a shot, and hell know its short, and hell take off and get there quickly. Thats a skill. Thats an ability. Theres times where maybe a shot goes up, and he can tell where its going, hes already running into that area, and hes able to come up with it. Guys who are guards who are able to rebound the ball like that, theres a skill, theres a talent, theres an intelligence that goes into trying to create those opportunities.

Hes always attacking, Wall said. When he passes, you cant relax, because he always stays around the paint area to try to get offensive rebounds. On the defensive end, hes always crashing the boards to get rebounds.

[Russell Westbrooks dismal night provides another dose of frustration]

On Monday night, in a 120-98 loss to the Wizards, Westbrook grabbed a season-low four rebounds. On the other side of the box score, the overall trend still surfaced. Otto Porter, a small forward frequently asked to play the four in smaller lineups, recorded 11 rebounds.

I remember when I first got in the league, there was almost always two bigs on the court, Collison said. Usually, one of those really wasnt much of an offensive player. He was just a guy you really had to keep off the board.

That kind of player, Collison said, does not really exist any longer. The league has changed too much. Ten years ago, the Golden State Warriors led the NBA by attempting 26.6 threes per game. This season, teams average 26.9, and the league-leading Houston Rockets launch 39.8 per game. The effects trickle down. There are still plenty of rebounds to be had, but a different kind of player is corralling more of them.

Read more:

Russell Westbrook is leading an evolution in NBA rebounding - Washington Post

Inside Science News Service

The Evolution of Valentine's Day Inside Science News Service You don't have to be, you know, the president of [the Human Behavior and Evolution Society] to understand, "hey, if I can create a day where I can get you to celebrate this very basal mating ritual, it's likely to work." And guess what? It does. IS ...

Go here to read the rest:

The Evolution of Valentine's Day - Inside Science News Service

February 13, 2017 by Todd B. Bates A paramecium, one of the protozoans used in the Rutgers evolution and invasions experiment. Credit: Peter J. Morin

Biological invasions pose major threats to biodiversity, but little is known about how evolution might alter their impacts over time.

Now, Rutgers University scientists have performed the first study of how evolution unfolds after invasions change native systems.

The experimental invasionselaborate experiments designed by doctoral student Cara A. Faillace and her adviser, Professor Peter J. Morintook place in glass jars suitable for savory jam or jelly, with thousands of microscopic organisms on each side. After entering the jarsuncharted territory - the invaders won some battles and lost some against the "natives."

"Oftentimes, we know the initial impacts of invasive species but we don't know the long-term impactsif things will get better or worse," said Morin, a distinguished professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution & Natural Resources in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. "Cara found that both things can happen, and it will depend a lot on the details of the biology of the species that's introduced and the biology of the community that's invaded."

The Rutgers scientists coauthored a study"Evolution Alters the Consequences of Invasions in Experimental Communities"that was published recently in Nature Ecology & Evolution.

Typically, biological invasions unfold when humans introduce exotic species - either accidentally or on purpose - into areas where they are not native, Faillace said. Invasive species, a subset of exotic species, usually are ecologically or economically harmful.

"Invasions can cause extinctions and that's been documented globally," she said. "They can also reduce diversity through competition, predation and when they introduce a pathogen."

In their study, the Rutgers researchers compared the performance of populations of resident and invading species before and after they interacted, and potentially evolved, for about 200 to 400 generations. They used two different groups of resident species consisting of aquatic bacteria, ciliates - protozoans with hair-like projections called ciliaand rotifers, organisms with cilia-laced mouths and retractable feet. The ciliates and rotifers were collected from Bamboo Pond in Rutgers Gardens in New Brunswick.

For the nearly two-year experiments, one species from each group was designated as an invader of the other community. One group had five ciliates and a rotifer. The other group had three different ciliates and a different rotifer.

The organisms' worlds were loosely lidded 8.5-ounce jarsabout the size of a jelly jar. The jars contained food, vitamins, sterile water and two sterile wheat seeds for extra nutrients.

There were likely hundreds of thousands of protozoans in a microcosm, or jar, and populations turned over fairly quickly, with many chances for mutations, Morin said.

"Every time an individual divides, it's still alive and it takes six to 24 hours for most of these organisms to reproduce," he said.

The study's results showed that the microbes' interactions altered the performance of the resident and invading species, and the researchers think evolution led to differences in performance.

A couple of species were abundant in the beginning but went extinct (they could not be found in the jar) after being invaded, Faillace added.

In nature, most biological invasions are accidental, Morin said.

"It took several tries to get the European starling in North America established, and that was intentional," he said. "Now they're the bane of every native bird."

"Gypsy moths were brought to North America by someone who wanted to see if they could establish a silk industry using gypsy moths," Morin said. "The cage they were kept in was damaged, they were released and the rest is history."

Yet many organisms, such as the emerald ash borer, which kills ash trees, get introduced accidentally through commerce, Faillace said. They include the Asian longhorned beetle, which also attacks and kills trees and likely arrived in shipping containers or pallets.

Biological invasions are especially damaging when a predator or pathogen is introduced and when native species have never encountered a predator, the scientists said.

Climate change is a major factor in biological invasions and its impact is likely increasing, Faillace said.

"Presumably as climate shifts, the species that can invade will change or the ranges of species that have invaded will change," she said.

"The bottom line is that we should expect to see changes in the impacts of invasive species as invaders and native species evolve over time," Morin said.

Explore further: Predator or not? Invasive snails hide even when they don't know

More information: Cara A. Faillace et al, Evolution alters the consequences of invasions in experimental communities, Nature Ecology & Evolution (2016). DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0013

Recognizing the signs of a predator can mean the difference between living to see another day and becoming another critter's midday snack.

Biological invasions get less prime-time coverage than natural disasters, but may be more economically damaging and warrant corresponding investments in preparedness and response planning, according to three biologists writing ...

The second longest river in the UK, the River Thames, contains 96 non-native species, making it one of the most highly invaded freshwater systems in the world.

When non-native herbivores invade new geographic regions, the consequences can be devastating to the native plants. Epidemic levels of herbivory damage may ensue because the delicate biological interactions that keep everything ...

Invasions from alien species such as Japanese Knotweed and grey squirrels threaten the economies and livelihoods of residents of some of the world's poorest nations, new University of Exeter research shows.

For the first time it is now possible to get a comprehensive overview of which alien species are present in Europe, their impacts and consequences for the environment and society. More than 11,000 alien species have been ...

Biological invasions pose major threats to biodiversity, but little is known about how evolution might alter their impacts over time.

From eyes the size of basketballs to appendages that blink and glow, deep-sea dwellers have developed some strange features to help them survive their cold, dark habitat.

Growing up in tough conditions can make wild animals live longer, new research suggests.

Cells need to repair damaged DNA in our genes to prevent the development of cancer and other diseases. Our cells therefore activate and send "repair-proteins" to the damaged parts within the DNA. To do this, an elaborate ...

Previous studies of flocks, swarms, and schools suggest that animal societies may verge on a "critical" pointin other words, they are extremely sensitive and can be easily tipped into a new social regime. But exactly how ...

A team at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute has discovered how a promising malarial vaccine target - the protein RH5 - helps parasites to invade human red blood cells. Published today in Nature Communications, the study ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

See the rest here:

How evolution alters biological invasions - Phys.Org

Jason Cassella/Kingman Resident

In Blake Boggesss opinion piece that evolution is false he made several mistakes, assumptions, and plainly misinformed the public.

He says that evolution has never been observed. This is flat out false. There have been many cases where evolution has been observed in real time, including in species such as fish, moths, and foxes, to name but a few. But the most simple example: why do you think you have to get a different flu shot every year, or that there is a threat that antibiotics might not be as effective as they once were? Its because viruses and bacteria evolve; and we observe this in real time. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

As far as the claim that scientists have not found the missing link, this is misconstrued. There have been many discoveries of intermediate species of human ancestors, over 29, and more are being discovered. The logic of even finding the missing link is outdated and fallacious. When one is found, it creates two more empty spaces around it. Think about it this way. If you lined up every human ancestor back to the divergence from the other apes (yes we are an ape; Homo sapiens means wise ape), 6 to 8 million years ago, you would be hard pressed to see an overt split from one species to another; its that gradual. Finding the missing link therefore, even if we found thousands, would mean that there would be an incalculable many more empty spots. It is a project of infinite regress.

As far as the unknown. Evolution doesnt have the answer for abiogenesis, or the beginning of life. It doesnt claim to. But it has proven that all of life on this planet related. We prove this genetically, through fossils, through observation, and more. The science is settled. Evolution is as much a theory as gravity: its a fact.

The argument that evolution is wrong because God created us is following just a few branches of Christianity (and other religions), mostly prominently Protestant Evangelical Christianity. But evolution is not incompatible with religion, exemplified by the Catholic churchs acceptance of the theory of evolution by natural selection. I personally know a Methodist preacher who is also an evolutionary biologist. The argument is partisan and doesnt hold.

Think of evolution this way: for thousands of years humans have bred animals and plants into various breeds and forms. Nature works the same way through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, death and sexual selection. Its actually a very simple and elegant idea. Its one of the very best ideas and discoveries of our species.

Just think of the beauty of it. Mountains of evidence shows that at several points there were different hominins living on the planet at the same time. Just imagine coming across different human species, and what that must have been like. And genetically we can even see that if you go back far enough, were related even to the tree in your front yard, much less jelly fish and elephants. Its amazing really. Life is wondrous.

Evolution is the cornerstone of not just all of biology but of other scientific disciplines as well, based on change over time. The science is settled, and those rare few scientists that disagree are a certain brand of Creationists, who ironically attempt to use evolution to prove intelligent design. Those who flat out refuse evolution are of one of a few sects of religion and have none or no pertinent scientific background.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson so very well said, Science is true whether you believe it or not.

Here is the original post:

Community Viewpoint: Evolution, like gravity, is much more than theory it is a fact - Kdminer