Evolution and conservation

[pioneer]

Conservation of endangered species demonstrates how fragile selective advantage can be if the environment does not cooperate with the advantage. We can go into a swamp that has a rare frog which is at the pinnacle of this frog's million year evolution. Through natural selection, survival of the fittest, breeding by the dominant males, we get this creature who as adapted to the swamp. If we set up a boat ramp, and alter the environment; extinct.

 

Conservation tries maintain or tailor the environment to maintain the selective advantage of critters. This is noble but it shows how dependent the selective advantage of critters are, on the environment. What appears to be evolutionary in a controlled environment can turn out to be a liability if we alter the environment. That is why we often to fight even small change. Does this mean that the environment sets the direction of evolution, since this is the context in which selective advantage ultimately will be defined?

[john5746]

Does this mean that the environment sets the direction of evolution, since this is the context in which selective advantage ultimately will be defined?

 

That's the way I understand Natural Selection.

[TrickyPeach]

Change in environment is one of the major catalysts in making a species go through some form of adaptation, adaptation to make the species (more) suitable to living in the environment. If that can't be done; extinct. Like you so rightly expressed.

 

Basically any change in the environment the species is in directly affects it, because evolution is such a long event compared to our lifespans it may not be noticeable. Though obviously extinction can be a very fast chain of events lasting even a few years, adaptation on the other hand is slower paced, usually.

 

Think of the shark/ray split.

[Edtharan]

That's the way I understand Natural Selection.

Also note that other organisms form part of that environment. This means that a static environment is actually impossible.

 

If one organism changes to adapt to the environment, then that alters the environment. This means that other organisms must adapt, but then this change the environment for that first organism ad it has to adapt again which changes the environment...

[TrickyPeach]

Also note that other organisms form part of that environment. This means that a static environment is actually impossible.

 

Yes, everything apart from the oraganism itself is the environment. And of course by adapting the organism changes the environment too.

Obviously the organism comes into contact with others of its own kind. So you could say that even the organism itself is part of the environment.

Edited October 2, 2008 by TrickyPeach

[pioneer]

If the environment is setting the goal of natural selection, does this mean the evolution of the physical earth, is what has defined the path of evolution? In other words, if we could run a simulation and change the parameters of the earth's evolution, would the evolution of life just line up with that? The answer should be yes, using a meandering path to a well defined goal, which is the environment.

 

I see two types of evolution, which is why I might appear confused relative to the accepted definition of evolution. Conservation appears to isolate one path of evolution. This path seeks optimization within a fixed environment but is not prepared if the environment changes too drastically. The rare frog has evolved but can't handle too much environmental change.

 

There is another or second path of evolution that has evolved in a way that can handle wider swings in the environment. This path is what I call being more evolved in a global sense. For example, dinosaurs were well suited to the warm environment and dominated due to selective advantage in the first path of evolution. But they were not designed for the wide temperature swings, especially when the temperature dropped. The mammal were more evolved, in the second sense, since they had a wider range of environmental adaptation. Dinosaurs were better at path one, but mammals were superior with path 2 because they were an upgrade in objective terms.

 

If we plot path 2 life, there is a steady upgrade to life, in the broad sense, with capabilities that can better adapt to the future. Path 2 is more like proactive life, while path 1 reactive life. Path 1 needs to be conserved because reactive life adapts slower, even though it also evolves. Proactive life has the genetic ability before the need. The mammals developed a warm blooded nature when it was still hot outside. This seems sort of counter intuitive to path 1 reactive adaption within a warm environment, but it did line up with an eventual need. It was an upgrade designed for proactive adaptation.

[TrickyPeach]

If the environment is setting the goal of natural selection, does this mean the evolution of the physical earth, is what has defined the path of evolution? In other words, if we could run a simulation and change the parameters of the earth's evolution, would the evolution of life just line up with that? The answer should be yes, using a meandering path to a well defined goal, which is the environment.

 

The present form of an organism was affected in two basic ways:

 

1. An acquisition of a random fluke that happened to be very useful, or more useful than not having it in the environment.

 

2. A modification in size, colour, or precision of an already existing organ to be more fine-tuned with the requirements for survival in the environment.

 

You can imagine that a fluke, so case 1, could be for example the presence of tiny little horns, so basically a mutation that seems to benefit the animal in fighting, finding a mate. And then the horns would be expanded, made bigger, stronger, branch outwards becoming antlers etc with case 2.

 

So it's not only the environment, it's also chance, random mutations happen over large chunks of time. The environment then kills off all the ones badly not fit enough for it, one way or another.

 

So rerunning the Earth in exactly the same way, would probably not produce the same organisms let alone rerunning the Earth with a few parameters modified. (That makes the Earth sound like a program, have you read Hitchhikers Guide? the Earth was a computer in that, which is a very interesting theory to ponder)

Edited October 2, 2008 by TrickyPeach