Beetle grows ‘termite’ on back to steal food(science.org)
science.org
Beetle grows ‘termite’ on back to steal food
https://www.science.org/content/article/beetle-grows-termite-back-steal-food
174 comments
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/
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/
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.
You can also evolve the ability to evolve rapidly, eg by having areas of "configuration" genes and then "code" genes with more error correction.
It's not exactly what you described, but there are a few weird things. For example microsatelites 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.
Or how GANs work, two networks competing between the generator and the discriminator.
> 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.
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.
It's important to keep in mind that selective pressure dictates how fast a beneficial mutation spreads in the population. If the terminte parasites were very rare, and there are only ever one or two per termite colony that eat a very small percentage of the food, any termite queen wo evolves the ability to recognize the parasite just a bit better would not have much of advantage compared to the other colonies. The positive mutation may be lost by chance again. However if the parasites were everywhere and take 50% of a colonies food, the small improvement in detection would lead to a significant advantage in reproduction of that termite colony, and thus the mutation would spread faster.
If you are curious, there is at least one bird species (the superb fairy wren) that has been observed to abandon its nest if a cuckoo chick hatches. They sing to their eggs, and fairy wren chicks later repeat a part of that song back to the parents, while cuckoo chicks do not: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/fairy-wre...
Only about 40% of fairy wrens abandon cuckoo chicks, which suggests that this may be a relatively new development in these birds' evolutionary arms race.
Only about 40% of fairy wrens abandon cuckoo chicks, which suggests that this may be a relatively new development in these birds' evolutionary arms race.
I am curious!
My understanding of the usual expression of cuckoos is that they hatch alongside the genuine nestlings and are then given all of the food, leaving the genuine ones to starve.
If that's right, abandoning the whole nest seems like a waste - it should still have viable wren chicks in it?
Particularly since the mechanism you describe involves recognizing the cuckoo as an individual chick (assuming there are also wren chicks in the same nest, they will repeat the song, so it's necessary to keep track of which chicks have done so and which haven't), it seems like a better approach would be to just kill it. Do you know if any wrens do that or might be moving in that direction?
(On second thought, I see that the National Geographic piece appears to say that the cuckoo chick will kill the wren chicks? That's not quite clear, since it also says the cuckoo will hatch first, so I'd expect it to be shoving "eggs" out of the nest rather than "siblings".)
My understanding of the usual expression of cuckoos is that they hatch alongside the genuine nestlings and are then given all of the food, leaving the genuine ones to starve.
If that's right, abandoning the whole nest seems like a waste - it should still have viable wren chicks in it?
Particularly since the mechanism you describe involves recognizing the cuckoo as an individual chick (assuming there are also wren chicks in the same nest, they will repeat the song, so it's necessary to keep track of which chicks have done so and which haven't), it seems like a better approach would be to just kill it. Do you know if any wrens do that or might be moving in that direction?
(On second thought, I see that the National Geographic piece appears to say that the cuckoo chick will kill the wren chicks? That's not quite clear, since it also says the cuckoo will hatch first, so I'd expect it to be shoving "eggs" out of the nest rather than "siblings".)
In many cuckoo species, at least, the cuckoo chick knocks the other eggs or hatchlings out of the nest. I'm not sure if that happens with this particular cuckoo species, but it seems likely. Fairy wren nests are absolutely tiny.
In any case, fairy wrens are very fast reproducers (raising 2-4 clutches per year), so I imagine they just start over with a new nest when this happens.
In any case, fairy wrens are very fast reproducers (raising 2-4 clutches per year), so I imagine they just start over with a new nest when this happens.
> 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-Da...
Nature eh?
(Apologies for the Daily Mail link)
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-Da...
Nature eh?
(Apologies for the Daily Mail link)
I can't make sense of what you're saying but I'm pretty sure the article you linked says the opposite
Quoting the article:
> Grown Albatrosses are unable to recognise their babies by sight and only know its [sic] them if they are settled in the nest.
> Grown Albatrosses are unable to recognise their babies by sight and only know its [sic] them if they are settled in the nest.
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.
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.
Are you fundamentally dissatisfied with the current limitations of our understanding and believe they need improvement or do you believe they ought to be abandoned? Just so stories can certainly be unsatisfying as they are insufficient pictures we feel compelled to create even when we lack too much in fine details like assembling bits of bone into fanciful and sometimes wrong creations that never walked the earth but consider that logically the fidelity of such pictures ought to improve over time as those fine details are studied. Changes even revolutionary changes in our understanding of the fine details are apt go go unnoticed by most until such time as they fundamentally alter large scale pictures people outside the sciences are apt to want to attend to.
Consider the wing there is reason to believe that it may have been beneficial before it was useful for flight.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/56/5/437/234719
Perhaps the canonical example of such a question oft popular with creationionists is eyes but proto eyes are apt to have provided value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Consider the wing there is reason to believe that it may have been beneficial before it was useful for flight.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/56/5/437/234719
Perhaps the canonical example of such a question oft popular with creationionists is eyes but proto eyes are apt to have provided value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
”there is reason to believe” is a very low standard that falls short of what most people use in life. When there is no proof one way or the other, belief is a personal choice. But when one theory is systematically pushed against all others, I think it is normal for thinking people to subject it to critical scrutiny.
In any other area of life, we’d require this if we wanted to be objective. For example, when solving murders, the idea that they can only be committed by men (ie random mutstion and natural selection) might lead to problematic cases (ie wings) where there is no clear scenario that fits all the data.
One might question the underlying premise (all murders have always been commited by men) and suspect a woman. Suppose this leads to a bunch of plausible hypotheses that a woman committed the specific murder in question. But a trained “detective” could concoct lots of plausible-sounding just-so stories of how various men did it, instead.
In this situation, let’s take a step back and see what we have. We have just-so stories, with some connection of reality, because they have been selected out of possible stories to have that quality. We also have evidence against each story. Let’s say that in a specific case, all stories about men doing murders have a lot more evidence against them than the woman stories. What then?
The situation here is actually more empirical than neo-Darwinianism because we have compelling evidence and argument for men committing murders which we have observed. We know we have been able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt many times. Whereas we have not been able to observe how speciation occurs in the vast, vast majority of (perhaps all) cases. We just know it occurs.
So to say that it occurs excludiveky by method X is simply a hypothesis. And you can’t prove the hypothesis by concocting fanficul just-so stories and claim victory because they have some connection to reality!
Perhaps the reason this isn’t scientific is because the stories have been selected to fit the conclusion, rather than being picked from the evidence in the environment. If you are exercising selection on the side of the story to such an extent, then you can find “reason to believe” anything anywhere. Just like a Marxist or a Freudian psychoanalyst. The theory is unfalsifiable!
In any other area of life, we’d require this if we wanted to be objective. For example, when solving murders, the idea that they can only be committed by men (ie random mutstion and natural selection) might lead to problematic cases (ie wings) where there is no clear scenario that fits all the data.
One might question the underlying premise (all murders have always been commited by men) and suspect a woman. Suppose this leads to a bunch of plausible hypotheses that a woman committed the specific murder in question. But a trained “detective” could concoct lots of plausible-sounding just-so stories of how various men did it, instead.
In this situation, let’s take a step back and see what we have. We have just-so stories, with some connection of reality, because they have been selected out of possible stories to have that quality. We also have evidence against each story. Let’s say that in a specific case, all stories about men doing murders have a lot more evidence against them than the woman stories. What then?
The situation here is actually more empirical than neo-Darwinianism because we have compelling evidence and argument for men committing murders which we have observed. We know we have been able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt many times. Whereas we have not been able to observe how speciation occurs in the vast, vast majority of (perhaps all) cases. We just know it occurs.
So to say that it occurs excludiveky by method X is simply a hypothesis. And you can’t prove the hypothesis by concocting fanficul just-so stories and claim victory because they have some connection to reality!
Perhaps the reason this isn’t scientific is because the stories have been selected to fit the conclusion, rather than being picked from the evidence in the environment. If you are exercising selection on the side of the story to such an extent, then you can find “reason to believe” anything anywhere. Just like a Marxist or a Freudian psychoanalyst. The theory is unfalsifiable!
Given how modern science is hyped up to the public, it's really hard to admit you don't know and _can't_ know.
And yet it's actually obvious to a careful thinker that we really can't know whether evolution occurs exclusively by established methods. We know we have CRISPR, so at least this hypothesis is not true today. How high is the possibility that CRISPR was performed by some mysterious entity in the past millions of years?
Not even talking about alien stuff -- is it really not possible at least that some other animal, eg. some form of dinosaur, had invented this technology and later got wiped out by some global cataclysm? They had hundreds of millions of years to do this.
Of course we don't have any evidence either way -- and for some reason Occam's Razor tells us that we can just assume the simpler story is the actual story. Even if, as mentioned, there's actually no evidence either way.
And yet it's actually obvious to a careful thinker that we really can't know whether evolution occurs exclusively by established methods. We know we have CRISPR, so at least this hypothesis is not true today. How high is the possibility that CRISPR was performed by some mysterious entity in the past millions of years?
Not even talking about alien stuff -- is it really not possible at least that some other animal, eg. some form of dinosaur, had invented this technology and later got wiped out by some global cataclysm? They had hundreds of millions of years to do this.
Of course we don't have any evidence either way -- and for some reason Occam's Razor tells us that we can just assume the simpler story is the actual story. Even if, as mentioned, there's actually no evidence either way.
It is without doubt that the earth is home to a wide variety of life that procreates similar but not identical forms. Those forms which are more suitable for the present environment are on average more successful in procreating while others have fewer or if their differentiation is particularly negative have none or even fail to launch as it were.
We can observe especially in simple life with short generations accumulating changes. Claiming small changes don't accumulate would be like claiming water drips in a bucket but never fills up. There are plenty of arguments to be had about details and mechanics but there is no competing alternative to evolution. Do you disagree?
We can observe especially in simple life with short generations accumulating changes. Claiming small changes don't accumulate would be like claiming water drips in a bucket but never fills up. There are plenty of arguments to be had about details and mechanics but there is no competing alternative to evolution. Do you disagree?
The most trivial bit of research would have given you an answer. I put in "wing evolution wiki" which got me a top hit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight, which has an entire list of hypotheses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight#Hypothe... including
Pouncing Proavis model
Cursorial model
Wing-assisted incline running
Arboreal model
Pouncing Proavis model
Cursorial model
Wing-assisted incline running
Arboreal model
Indeed. All these evolution-denying arguments have been repeatedly refuted in great depth.
I don’t think he was denying evolution. He was suggesting that maybe slow, random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.
I’m not saying there’s an intelligent creator (I personally don’t believe in one), but perhaps the way genes mutate is more “intelligent” than we think. In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. That seems kind of “intelligent”.
Maybe it’s kind of like the exploration/exploitation tradeoff in RN.
I’m not saying there’s an intelligent creator (I personally don’t believe in one), but perhaps the way genes mutate is more “intelligent” than we think. In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. That seems kind of “intelligent”.
Maybe it’s kind of like the exploration/exploitation tradeoff in RN.
> random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.
maybe. What is it?
> In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while.
Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.
maybe. What is it?
> In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while.
Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.
Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories
In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc.
Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns.
Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there.
But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest.
> maybe. what is it?
Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc.
Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns.
Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there.
But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest.
> maybe. what is it?
Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
> Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories
If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please.
> In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history
What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else?
> just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest.
Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself.
I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
(edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes
"and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please.
> In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history
What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else?
> just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest.
Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself.
I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
(edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes
"and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
>> Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries?
> Yes
The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”.
The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject.
I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something.
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions.
“Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence.
What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic.
But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.
> Yes
The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”.
The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject.
I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something.
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions.
“Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence.
What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic.
But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.
FYI https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weird-dinosaur-pr...
A newly described fossil is as old as the “first bird,” Archaeopteryx, and represents a birdlike dinosaur that might have specialized in running or wading instead of flying
.
edit: further https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-birds-evolved...
A remarkable fossil record of the dinosaurs that led to birds reveals how evolution produces entirely new kinds of organisms
This is not 'the truth!!!', it's just science's best shot at explaining. It will be wrong in parts, it could be wrong overall, but it's the best we've got.
A newly described fossil is as old as the “first bird,” Archaeopteryx, and represents a birdlike dinosaur that might have specialized in running or wading instead of flying
.
edit: further https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-birds-evolved...
A remarkable fossil record of the dinosaurs that led to birds reveals how evolution produces entirely new kinds of organisms
This is not 'the truth!!!', it's just science's best shot at explaining. It will be wrong in parts, it could be wrong overall, but it's the best we've got.
> The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information
You asked, I answered.
> The goal is to mutually improve understanding
Agreed. So what is your alternative? I am aware of the Lamarkian effect of methylation on DNA, and I'm vaguely aware that there might be another mechanism at the cellular level. I'm also aware of Darwin's gemmules theory which I understand is thoroughly discredited now. You seem very determined not to say what you're proposing.
> I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent
True. It was a course at school, and that was a long time ago. It was also rather Western-centric. Nonetheless, I did. As far as recommending a book, you clearly haven't even done a web search. There's plenty out there. Regarding my preference, there was a book (which I can't find now), an old Penguin book on the history of mathematics, but so old it's price was in pounds, shillings and pence. I wish I could find it, I'd love to reread it.
Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it https://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Bry...
> I think I have been quite clear
Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
> “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories
Nope. "In biology, evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations" (wiki)
If you disagree with that, please post some specific links, I would actually be interested.
> If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
Yes. It's a placeholder theory. When something better comes along we replace it with the better thing. What do you suggest?
What's weird about arguing with you is you say we should be using something better but do not say what that better thing is.
> My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
It's the best hypothesis. It may not be right, but we can never be certain of what is right. If something arrives that better explains, we accept that instead. That's how science works.
> I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms
You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
You come across as somebody who just wants to discredit science without proposing something better (or are you religious?, Or just a teenager looking for attention?). You are not arguing in good faith.
I am not wedded to a particular viewpoint within science. If you can propose something better, even as a link, please do. I like the idea of Lamarkian development, it's just that, excepting methylation, there is no evidence of it that I'm aware.
so WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?
You asked, I answered.
> The goal is to mutually improve understanding
Agreed. So what is your alternative? I am aware of the Lamarkian effect of methylation on DNA, and I'm vaguely aware that there might be another mechanism at the cellular level. I'm also aware of Darwin's gemmules theory which I understand is thoroughly discredited now. You seem very determined not to say what you're proposing.
> I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent
True. It was a course at school, and that was a long time ago. It was also rather Western-centric. Nonetheless, I did. As far as recommending a book, you clearly haven't even done a web search. There's plenty out there. Regarding my preference, there was a book (which I can't find now), an old Penguin book on the history of mathematics, but so old it's price was in pounds, shillings and pence. I wish I could find it, I'd love to reread it.
Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it https://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Bry...
> I think I have been quite clear
Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
> “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories
Nope. "In biology, evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations" (wiki)
If you disagree with that, please post some specific links, I would actually be interested.
> If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
Yes. It's a placeholder theory. When something better comes along we replace it with the better thing. What do you suggest?
What's weird about arguing with you is you say we should be using something better but do not say what that better thing is.
> My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
It's the best hypothesis. It may not be right, but we can never be certain of what is right. If something arrives that better explains, we accept that instead. That's how science works.
> I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms
You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
You come across as somebody who just wants to discredit science without proposing something better (or are you religious?, Or just a teenager looking for attention?). You are not arguing in good faith.
I am not wedded to a particular viewpoint within science. If you can propose something better, even as a link, please do. I like the idea of Lamarkian development, it's just that, excepting methylation, there is no evidence of it that I'm aware.
so WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?
>> The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information
>You asked, I answered.
Yeah, but saying "Yes". You want me to answer like that too?
> Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it
Thanks! I will take a look. I am interested in learning more about the history of science and how people got past erroneous theories.
>> I think I have been quite clear >Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
It's not about "my" alternative. Saying that something isn't scientific doesn't require me to come up with alternatives. For example someone could talk about spontaneous generation, and if I questioned it, coming up with a bunch of just-so stories about how spontaneous generation could be working, isn't doing science. It's just a narrative, same as Marxism or Freudian psychology etc.
If someone said "well what's YOUR alternative to Freudian analysis" that wouldn't require someone to come up with a whole other theoretical framework (e.g. behavioral psychology) in order to criticize Freud or Darwin or Marx etc.
> You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
All these just-so stories are problematic. The biggest problem is that they are just that -- stories. They are not testable. And if you debunk one, someone can just come up with 800 other ones.
It's a bit like the criticism people have of string theory not being testable. You could say "well, what's YOUR alternative to string theory?" But that is beside the point. Same with multiverse theory explaining fine-tuning etc.
And by the way, I don't see much difference between postulating a multiverse with no evidence, or theism, to explain fine-tuning. And similarly, if atheists believe we are living in a simulation, I don't see much difference between that and theism. In short, we just don't know, and most of these alternative theories seem to just reflect a psychological bias (e.g. towards an idea that we can explain everything using a small set of mechanisms that we have already discovered). It's similar to hidden variable theories favored by proponents of determinism, or interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causation or locality etc.
Scientists, for instance, are now increasingly finding evidence that the future might influence the past. Bem's psychological experiments were just the beginning (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/). And now we have this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvgjm/a-growing-number-of-s...
In all these cases, you may have a preconceived notion (e.g. in Darwinism) that biases what you could believe was the case. And in Darwinism, your notion is that all speciation comes about through random mutation and natural selection, so in every case you comfort yourself with stories of how it could have happened.
Anyway, my whole point is that concocting just-so stories is not a valid scientific approach to figuring out how things work.
Yeah, but saying "Yes". You want me to answer like that too?
> Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it
Thanks! I will take a look. I am interested in learning more about the history of science and how people got past erroneous theories.
>> I think I have been quite clear >Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
It's not about "my" alternative. Saying that something isn't scientific doesn't require me to come up with alternatives. For example someone could talk about spontaneous generation, and if I questioned it, coming up with a bunch of just-so stories about how spontaneous generation could be working, isn't doing science. It's just a narrative, same as Marxism or Freudian psychology etc.
If someone said "well what's YOUR alternative to Freudian analysis" that wouldn't require someone to come up with a whole other theoretical framework (e.g. behavioral psychology) in order to criticize Freud or Darwin or Marx etc.
> You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
All these just-so stories are problematic. The biggest problem is that they are just that -- stories. They are not testable. And if you debunk one, someone can just come up with 800 other ones.
It's a bit like the criticism people have of string theory not being testable. You could say "well, what's YOUR alternative to string theory?" But that is beside the point. Same with multiverse theory explaining fine-tuning etc.
And by the way, I don't see much difference between postulating a multiverse with no evidence, or theism, to explain fine-tuning. And similarly, if atheists believe we are living in a simulation, I don't see much difference between that and theism. In short, we just don't know, and most of these alternative theories seem to just reflect a psychological bias (e.g. towards an idea that we can explain everything using a small set of mechanisms that we have already discovered). It's similar to hidden variable theories favored by proponents of determinism, or interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causation or locality etc.
Scientists, for instance, are now increasingly finding evidence that the future might influence the past. Bem's psychological experiments were just the beginning (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/). And now we have this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvgjm/a-growing-number-of-s...
In all these cases, you may have a preconceived notion (e.g. in Darwinism) that biases what you could believe was the case. And in Darwinism, your notion is that all speciation comes about through random mutation and natural selection, so in every case you comfort yourself with stories of how it could have happened.
Anyway, my whole point is that concocting just-so stories is not a valid scientific approach to figuring out how things work.
"otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself"
That's evident ... his comment is wall-to-wall bad faith.
That's evident ... his comment is wall-to-wall bad faith.
Have you actually read it? What makes you think I haven’t looked into it? In fact your article just proves my point. It lists four hypotheses, ie just-so stories, each of which slavishly following the model of random mutation and natural selection. Not only does this not prove a theory, but even on their own terms they are highly problematic. For example to quote your own article:
Although the evidence in favor of this model is scientifically plausible, the evidence against it is substantial. For instance, a cursorial flight model would be energetically less favorable when compared to the alternative hypotheses. In order to achieve liftoff, Archaeopteryx would have to run faster than modern birds by a factor of three, due to its weight. Furthermore, the mass of Archaeopteryx versus the distance needed for minimum velocity to obtain liftoff speed is proportional, therefore, as mass increases, the energy required for takeoff increases. Other research has shown that the physics involved in cursorial flight would not make this a likely answer to the origin of avian flight. Once flight speed is obtained and Archaeopteryx is in the air, drag would cause the velocity to instantaneously decrease; balance could not be maintained due to this immediate reduction in velocity. Hence, Archaeopteryx would have a very short and ineffective flight. In contrast to Ostrom's theory regarding flight as a hunting mechanism, physics again does not support this model. In order to effectively trap insects with the wings, Archaeopteryx would require a mechanism such as holes in the wings to reduce air resistance. Without this mechanism, the cost/benefit ratio would not be feasible.
But consider even if the just-so stories were somewhat believable. What exactly does it prove? Isn’t it simply digging the heels in and doubling down on the original framework being the only one?
It seems Planck’s Principle is true for evolutionary biology like it has been for many other fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
The style of this comment is exactly the sort of religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter on this topic. Very low on substance, high on bluster. When the evidence or argument is not on the side of your dogma, is best defense is a good offense, eh?
This kind of passive-aggressive comment is oozing self-assuredness while clearly having never delved into the material, nor ever read the thing they linked to. It’s almost as if they have just googled it briefly, found a wikipedia article, and said “you are totally mistaken! See, just a minute of googling will have shown how deluded you are, you unbeliever / heterodox person / whatever.”
Except your article doesn’t do what you hope it does, and most of the substance of your comment is an adhominem swipe at whoever dared question the premises. You’re hoping there’s something in the article you barely read, to answer the major issue, without bothering to delve into it yourself. Or perhaps the person will be embarrassed enough by your bluster, to stop questioning. Either way, a win for the dogma.
Imagine in any other area of life (eg solving a murder) if you always drew the target around an arrow (eg assuming that murders are always done by men) and then in every tough case came up with a million plausible but problematic just-so stories that always follow the model. What would it prove? Rather, the fact that the you keep concocting problematic stories in itself may reveal a major bias towards your underlying hypothesis, which makes you less objective as a scientist (or detective, or whatever in other areas of life).
Read this essay by Karl Popper, called Science as Falsification, it’s not very long: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf
It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, ‘What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?’
To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those other three theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it that I merely felt mathematical physics to be more exact than the sociological or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as sciences, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy.
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment.
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper—and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their ‘clinical observations’. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. ‘Because of my thousandfold experience,’ he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: ‘And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.
That is what just-so stories are for adherents of neo-Darwinianism!
Although the evidence in favor of this model is scientifically plausible, the evidence against it is substantial. For instance, a cursorial flight model would be energetically less favorable when compared to the alternative hypotheses. In order to achieve liftoff, Archaeopteryx would have to run faster than modern birds by a factor of three, due to its weight. Furthermore, the mass of Archaeopteryx versus the distance needed for minimum velocity to obtain liftoff speed is proportional, therefore, as mass increases, the energy required for takeoff increases. Other research has shown that the physics involved in cursorial flight would not make this a likely answer to the origin of avian flight. Once flight speed is obtained and Archaeopteryx is in the air, drag would cause the velocity to instantaneously decrease; balance could not be maintained due to this immediate reduction in velocity. Hence, Archaeopteryx would have a very short and ineffective flight. In contrast to Ostrom's theory regarding flight as a hunting mechanism, physics again does not support this model. In order to effectively trap insects with the wings, Archaeopteryx would require a mechanism such as holes in the wings to reduce air resistance. Without this mechanism, the cost/benefit ratio would not be feasible.
But consider even if the just-so stories were somewhat believable. What exactly does it prove? Isn’t it simply digging the heels in and doubling down on the original framework being the only one?
It seems Planck’s Principle is true for evolutionary biology like it has been for many other fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
The style of this comment is exactly the sort of religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter on this topic. Very low on substance, high on bluster. When the evidence or argument is not on the side of your dogma, is best defense is a good offense, eh?
This kind of passive-aggressive comment is oozing self-assuredness while clearly having never delved into the material, nor ever read the thing they linked to. It’s almost as if they have just googled it briefly, found a wikipedia article, and said “you are totally mistaken! See, just a minute of googling will have shown how deluded you are, you unbeliever / heterodox person / whatever.”
Except your article doesn’t do what you hope it does, and most of the substance of your comment is an adhominem swipe at whoever dared question the premises. You’re hoping there’s something in the article you barely read, to answer the major issue, without bothering to delve into it yourself. Or perhaps the person will be embarrassed enough by your bluster, to stop questioning. Either way, a win for the dogma.
Imagine in any other area of life (eg solving a murder) if you always drew the target around an arrow (eg assuming that murders are always done by men) and then in every tough case came up with a million plausible but problematic just-so stories that always follow the model. What would it prove? Rather, the fact that the you keep concocting problematic stories in itself may reveal a major bias towards your underlying hypothesis, which makes you less objective as a scientist (or detective, or whatever in other areas of life).
Read this essay by Karl Popper, called Science as Falsification, it’s not very long: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf
It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, ‘What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?’
To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those other three theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it that I merely felt mathematical physics to be more exact than the sociological or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as sciences, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy.
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment.
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper—and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their ‘clinical observations’. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. ‘Because of my thousandfold experience,’ he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: ‘And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.
That is what just-so stories are for adherents of neo-Darwinianism!
I'm over here in my little corner of the world pumping my fists reading your posts in here.
>religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter
This describes it precisely. I'm sure it's partly rooted in a long history of disingenuous arguments starting in the same way, particularly those that jump from something that has any scientific basis at all right to full on metaphysical or spiritual explanations.
I'm sure it's also rooted in much of the same psychological underpinnings of evangelists allowing for thought tinkering at the edges of scripture but protecting the tenets of their faith quite literally with their lives.
>religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter
This describes it precisely. I'm sure it's partly rooted in a long history of disingenuous arguments starting in the same way, particularly those that jump from something that has any scientific basis at all right to full on metaphysical or spiritual explanations.
I'm sure it's also rooted in much of the same psychological underpinnings of evangelists allowing for thought tinkering at the edges of scripture but protecting the tenets of their faith quite literally with their lives.
See mah post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37418702
Yes. The author of Darwin's Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection agrees with you. The view that only natural selection determines evolution is the (neo-)Darwinism view, but there are more modern views as presented by Frank Ryan in aforementioned book.
if the main point is about speciation, mainstram theory is not just random mutation and natural selection. one of old typical theory is Allopatric speciation, just random mutation accumulate and then cause mating become imposible, so this is easier than random mutation and natural selection. in current 30 years, vast amount of possible mechanisms of speciation has proposed.
jakear(1)
Thank you for “umwelt”.
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.
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.
> It can just be translated to environment.
No, that's not at all accurate. From the dictionary: "(in ethology) the world as it is experienced by a particular organism."
Check out https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105793891/ed-yong-an-immense... for an in-depth discussion.
No, that's not at all accurate. From the dictionary: "(in ethology) the world as it is experienced by a particular organism."
Check out https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105793891/ed-yong-an-immense... for an in-depth discussion.
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.
"such as Fingerspitzengefühl, Wanderlust, Zeitgeist, or Schadenfreude, but why Umwelt?"
Wanderlust, zeitgeist and schadenfreude are all English borrow words. Fingerspitzengefühl isn't (too complicated) and umwelt might well have just started to wriggle its way in!
I love a good Germanic compound word as much as the next anglophone but it needs to be mostly pronounceable on sight to stand a chance of being co-opted. That's one reason why the delightful sounding gewerbegebiet won't replace industrial zone.
Umwelt is suitably short and subtly different from environment. I suggest we nick it.
Wanderlust, zeitgeist and schadenfreude are all English borrow words. Fingerspitzengefühl isn't (too complicated) and umwelt might well have just started to wriggle its way in!
I love a good Germanic compound word as much as the next anglophone but it needs to be mostly pronounceable on sight to stand a chance of being co-opted. That's one reason why the delightful sounding gewerbegebiet won't replace industrial zone.
Umwelt is suitably short and subtly different from environment. I suggest we nick it.
Okay I agree then on nicking Umwelt since it has a different meaning.
Since we’re discussing language and HN is a place to discuss, are you sure Fingerspitzengefühl is too difficult? The "ei" and "tz" sounds in Zeitgeist also make it a difficult word.
Since we’re discussing language and HN is a place to discuss, are you sure Fingerspitzengefühl is too difficult? The "ei" and "tz" sounds in Zeitgeist also make it a difficult word.
Yes I am sure! Zeitgeist: many (some) anglophones know that the German Zeit is "time" and geist looks similar to ghost and that riffs with spirit and off we trot. Besides it is generally pronounced (the spirit of the time) as something like "zyt'gyst". I lived in West Germany for a few years as a child so I go in with the tz sound on the initial Z. I have never heard anyone get the geist bit wrong. We are well used to weird diphthongs.
Fingerspitzengefühl suffers from being a bit much for us. We like it verbose but there is a threshold.
We have a word: floccinausillihillipillification (I may have misspelt it) which means something daft and was dreamed up by a Victorian gent. Can't be bothered to look it up. It was a bit silly (hilly etc) and was probably a response to a conversation like this 8)
OK lets have a go: finger (must be finger) ... spitz (I know that means point or peak - I've skied on a few - but most anglophones don't) ... engefühl (no idea). I'll guess at "fidget spinner"
... search ... how wrong can I be! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerspitzengef%C3%BChl and also that article is talking complete and utter bollocks when it states that word as an English borrow word. We love to pinch other languages words and concepts but Fingerspitzengefühl is too long, even for me.
Fingerspitzengefühl suffers from being a bit much for us. We like it verbose but there is a threshold.
We have a word: floccinausillihillipillification (I may have misspelt it) which means something daft and was dreamed up by a Victorian gent. Can't be bothered to look it up. It was a bit silly (hilly etc) and was probably a response to a conversation like this 8)
OK lets have a go: finger (must be finger) ... spitz (I know that means point or peak - I've skied on a few - but most anglophones don't) ... engefühl (no idea). I'll guess at "fidget spinner"
... search ... how wrong can I be! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerspitzengef%C3%BChl and also that article is talking complete and utter bollocks when it states that word as an English borrow word. We love to pinch other languages words and concepts but Fingerspitzengefühl is too long, even for me.
At 20 letters it's a suitably 'difficult' word even if it were actually an English one with familiar pronunciation. It being a German compound word makes it's usefulness to the general English speaking population highly questionable.
I would bet money that 2/3 or more of the people I know, keeping in mind that my technical acquaintances are only a small fraction, don't know Zeitgeist enough to pronounce it properly or even give a definition for it if asked.
Edit: Same goes for Schadenfreude
I would bet money that 2/3 or more of the people I know, keeping in mind that my technical acquaintances are only a small fraction, don't know Zeitgeist enough to pronounce it properly or even give a definition for it if asked.
Edit: Same goes for Schadenfreude
I believe loan words only happen when the word makes some level of sense to speakers of the new language. Like, wander lust is almost understandable as English.
Fingerspitzengefühl is complex enough that I'd assume people who never studied German can't even split it into the words it comes from, to guess how to pronounce it.
Finger spit zenge fühl
Finger spit zen gefühl
Finger spitz enge fühl
Finger spitz en gefühl
Finger spitz engefühl
Finger spitzen gefühl
Fingerspitzengefühl is complex enough that I'd assume people who never studied German can't even split it into the words it comes from, to guess how to pronounce it.
Finger spit zenge fühl
Finger spit zen gefühl
Finger spitz enge fühl
Finger spitz en gefühl
Finger spitz engefühl
Finger spitzen gefühl
In Dutch probably the most frequently used German loan-word is "uberhaupt"; it's probably used in the same connotation as "anyway" is in English, as in, "I wouldn't want to do that anyway".
Personal favourite is the compound word “Zeitlupe”.
how about "Zwitter", for an ion with both positive and negative charge, and for a hermaphrodite
(thanks Rammstein)
(thanks Rammstein)
I might instead translate Umwelt as "sensorium", although I don't think that's quite exact.
Seconded, have never run across that word in all my reading.
Here's where I encountered it: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1105793891/ed-yong-an-immense...
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
> 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
Just imagine the first rove beetle was adapted to be a predator of social insects. It runs to the colony and tries to grab some eggs. It's often detected and killed. So maybe by chance one beetle has a mutation that makes one of its pherhormones (or whatever) smell slightly more like termite. It's a bit less likely to get killed by the termites, so it has an advantage and higher reproductive success. The new genes spreads through the population. The another one gets a mutation that makes it's antennae just a bit more termite-like... You get the idea.
Why rove beetles? No idea, but maybe their body plan was for some reason more adaptible to change morphology? Also maybe because they were closely associated to colonial insects from the beginning as predators, and so had high selective pressure to avoid detection.
Why rove beetles? No idea, but maybe their body plan was for some reason more adaptible to change morphology? Also maybe because they were closely associated to colonial insects from the beginning as predators, and so had high selective pressure to avoid detection.
I’ve always had a notion that there’s some kind of gene theft with mimicry. The combinatorics of just rattling genes into existence that build a mock termite larva seem infeasible in the timescale involved.
What does the math look like? How many possible gene configurations are there that will build a mock termite on the back of a beetle? What’s the shortest random walk to get there from a beetle with no termite on its back and how does that compare with the total number of these beetles ever created in nature?
A single gene might have 4^300 configurations. Are there five genes or fifty or five hundred involved? How many of these beetles have ever been built? 10^20?
What does the math look like? How many possible gene configurations are there that will build a mock termite on the back of a beetle? What’s the shortest random walk to get there from a beetle with no termite on its back and how does that compare with the total number of these beetles ever created in nature?
A single gene might have 4^300 configurations. Are there five genes or fifty or five hundred involved? How many of these beetles have ever been built? 10^20?
The genome does not store a map of the final organism, so it seems unlikely.
As development works in stages based on the last one, I would assume gene theft just doesn't work on a beetle genome background. You would have to change development from the egg onwards to mimic the termite, essentially turning the beetle into a termite proper.
It needn't be perfect at first, just better than nothing (fool some of the eyes, some of the time e.g. in low-light conditions) and a gradient. See Richard Dawkins' chapter "Do good by Stealth" in River Out of Eden https://wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Out_of_Eden#Do_good_by_stea...
It’s not just the beetle that evolved but the termites as well. It probably started out with the termites being pretty bad at detecting their kind and becoming progressively better because of the pressure of that beetle stealing their food.
Since the discovery of DNA we build up the common knowledge that "it is all in the DNA", and the basis of evolution is a random change in DNA. It was due to a selection bias, DNA is a static structure that sits there and waits to be studied while the nano processes in a cell were impenetrable until fairly recently. DNA only contains templates for proteins. It does not contain informtion how to assemble the molecular machines from the proteins, or how "to be alive" in general. A cell is a fairly intelligent problem solver, that can adapt and chang during its lifetime, it does not need to wait for a mutation to occur. There is heritable information outside of DNA, that is epigenetic in its nature. In a multicellular organism this information is communicated and shared between cells. A beneficial DNA mutation is like a lottery win. It might be viable strategy in viruses an bacteria, who divide at an astronomical speed. A multicellular organism gametes divide only a handfull of times per generation. These need to put a more concerted effort, than a random chance, to score.
No, no, no. Explanation is inaccurate. The central dogma is the central dogma because information flow is primarily one way (yes there are exceptions i.e. epigenetics but primary information flow is from DNA to protein) and this is the fundamental tenet underpinning our current understanding of biology.
> A multicellular organism gametes divide only a handfull of times per generation.
That's what recombination is for during sexual reproduction.
> It does not contain informtion how to assemble the molecular machines from the proteins, or how "to be alive" in general.
Unless you subscribe to the creationist or Larmarckian schools of thought, this is flat out wrong. DNA polymerase and similar analogues like reverse transcriptase do not exist in a vacuum. There are entire branches of evolutionary biology dedicated to studying their formation. The main transcription proteins, helicase, polymerase, and ribosomes can all be assembled from the basic proteins they themselves transcribe. (Incidentally figuring out the ultimate structure that a protein chain assembles into is what AlphaFold does, bioinformatics and ML's crowning jewel)
> There is heritable information outside of DNA, that is epigenetic in its nature.
When biologists refer to epigenetics, they mean information carriage that's not strictly tied to the nucleotides. This doesn't meant DNA isn't involved. Most epigenetics I can think of off the top of my head all involve the DNA transcription mechanism in some way.
> A multicellular organism gametes divide only a handfull of times per generation.
That's what recombination is for during sexual reproduction.
> It does not contain informtion how to assemble the molecular machines from the proteins, or how "to be alive" in general.
Unless you subscribe to the creationist or Larmarckian schools of thought, this is flat out wrong. DNA polymerase and similar analogues like reverse transcriptase do not exist in a vacuum. There are entire branches of evolutionary biology dedicated to studying their formation. The main transcription proteins, helicase, polymerase, and ribosomes can all be assembled from the basic proteins they themselves transcribe. (Incidentally figuring out the ultimate structure that a protein chain assembles into is what AlphaFold does, bioinformatics and ML's crowning jewel)
> There is heritable information outside of DNA, that is epigenetic in its nature.
When biologists refer to epigenetics, they mean information carriage that's not strictly tied to the nucleotides. This doesn't meant DNA isn't involved. Most epigenetics I can think of off the top of my head all involve the DNA transcription mechanism in some way.
There's no incentive for termites to be good at distinguishing impostors before there are impostors. So they could get away with very bad disguise at first, then arms race started.
There's also the separate evolutionary axis of how the beetle behaves: they learned to seek out termites and collect food from them, exposing themselves to quick lynching if the disguise fails.
It's easy to imagine intermediate states where mediocre disguises work some of the time and the beetle is cautious because it occasionally needs to run away.
It's easy to imagine intermediate states where mediocre disguises work some of the time and the beetle is cautious because it occasionally needs to run away.
I’m willing to entertain a dash of Spontaneous Generation alongside selective pressures
God having fun with Blender
All the answers you got are fairly state of the art, but it’s mostly descriptive. Very little testable or otherwise falsiable information.
The more we learn about developmental biology the more baffling the origin of cellular behavior becomes.
The more we learn about developmental biology the more baffling the origin of cellular behavior becomes.
Totally unsupported hypothesis: They evolved first a big fat termite ass, that is much easier and it's probably good enough many times in the dark narrow alleys of a termite hive. Later they evolved the decoration. It would be nice to see how the beetle grows, because "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is not exact, but sometimes is a good approximation.
I don't believe that evolution is a random walk. There's clearly momentum based factors
I have the same questions, more so because if it happens over a long time it’s not sustainable. The beetle population can be in some weird in-between state which could be tough for their survival.
actually this is a cool question, biologists always try to reply these questions. but this is a new species...
Evolution is much smarter than just random mutations
Evolution is a population level effect and doesn't have a plan or scheme, it's whatever helps reproduction.
It doesn't stop it from being smart at solving problems.
But that's the point though, it's not trying to solve anything. The biological impetus to survive is individual, and we see some emergent property of survival instincts in the development and existence of groups, societies, culture, etc. In non-human animals, there are lots of example of cooperation and symbiosis. All this to say that problem solving is a biological problem, not an evolutionary problem. There are pressures that favor some traits over others, and then we have population level effects, but the development of traits is inherently random.
How?
Mutation is random, selection is not
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/teach-evolution/misconception...
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/teach-evolution/misconception...
I implicitly interpreted your statement as 'Evolution is much smarter than just selection over random mutations.'
It seems like a overinterpreted. If we stick to the strict wording, you are correct. Almost trivially so.
It seems like a overinterpreted. If we stick to the strict wording, you are correct. Almost trivially so.
The species co-evolved? I am assuming the early "I am a termite" mimicry wasn't very good, but neither was the termites 'not a termite' detection logic and so each incremental step of the way over 100,000+ years of evolution, they co-evolved to believe this mimicry, at a high level.
Neither party can entirely "win" in this model. At best, they get some marginal benefit in a predator/prey/host model which alters the cyclical swings of which species is higher or lower in the equipoised outcome. Over the next 1000 years, it swings the other way.
Neither party can entirely "win" in this model. At best, they get some marginal benefit in a predator/prey/host model which alters the cyclical swings of which species is higher or lower in the equipoised outcome. Over the next 1000 years, it swings the other way.
It's also worth taking the "Life/dinner principle"[0] into account. If the termites fail to detect the beetle, then they might loose a tiny bit of food or whatever. While if the beetle fails to deceive the termites it might get killed or starve. Hence the adaptive pressure is probably higher for the beetle than for the termites.
0: The name comes from the example: the rabbit runs faster than the fox, because the rabbit is running for its life, while the fox is running for its dinner.
0: The name comes from the example: the rabbit runs faster than the fox, because the rabbit is running for its life, while the fox is running for its dinner.
I'm not sure the "life/dinner principle" is always applicable.
A cheetah runs faster than a gazelle. And if you consistently fail to catch your dinner, you're probably going to lose your life.
A cheetah runs faster than a gazelle. And if you consistently fail to catch your dinner, you're probably going to lose your life.
The life/dinner principle doesn't work in absolutes, it just states that you would expect asymmetric evolutionary pressures from asymmetric stakes in interactions.
The borders between parasitism and beneficial symbiosis can be fluent. Maybe if another parasite arises (say, some mite), it's in the beetle's interest to defend "its" termine colony against it, and it may have better ways of doing it because the mite evolved only with termites as hosts.
Maybe the beatle gives its hosts good Yelp reviews in return.
> The termite “puppet” may help the beetle evade detection—though termites are blind, they sense one another through touch.
Something doesn't sound about right [1]. If termites are blind why would the beetle evolve to the point it replicates the look of the termite so precisely, down to the colour? There must be another advantage, possibly when interacting with another, non-blind species.
Update: Apparently another beetle has been successfully doing the same without needing to mimic the look, but only by secreting similar chemicals [2].
[1] Disclaimer: Layman comment
[2] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22526-zoologger-the-b...
Something doesn't sound about right [1]. If termites are blind why would the beetle evolve to the point it replicates the look of the termite so precisely, down to the colour? There must be another advantage, possibly when interacting with another, non-blind species.
Update: Apparently another beetle has been successfully doing the same without needing to mimic the look, but only by secreting similar chemicals [2].
[1] Disclaimer: Layman comment
[2] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22526-zoologger-the-b...
Perhaps blending in with termites helps it avoid being eaten by predators of termites to whom it would stand out.
Alternatively, perhaps termites are “legally blind” but not fully sightless.
Alternatively, perhaps termites are “legally blind” but not fully sightless.
Rove beetles also parasitize army ants. As soon as army ants existed these beetles we're building backdoors. Of course the ants want to recognize these cheaters and eliminate them. As ant genera diverged over time some relied more on tactile recognition of body shape ('touchers') and others not so much ('sniffers'). The parasites of touchers look like the ant but the sniffers not as much.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.030
Touch is dependent on dopamine but smell not as much. And dopamine producing cells are pigmented. Could improved tactility and pigmentation be linked?
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.030
Touch is dependent on dopamine but smell not as much. And dopamine producing cells are pigmented. Could improved tactility and pigmentation be linked?
Maybe the beetles don't know that the termites are blind?
The termites evolved that coloration for a reason, perhaps to avoid predators. It stands to reason that the beetle would also evolve avoid predators in the same way. That is, the mimic has two audiences: the termites, and the termites' predators.
Not necessarily, if the color doesn't matter it would evolve towards the one that is the least costly. Probably like not pigment at all.
Off-white is not a special colour, it's typical of biological material that is neither pigmented nor unusually transparent.
So it might be simply a non-evolved default that is good enough to fool blind termites, themselves similarly off-white because they don't care about the visual appearance of their comrades.
So it might be simply a non-evolved default that is good enough to fool blind termites, themselves similarly off-white because they don't care about the visual appearance of their comrades.
The colour replication might be a co-incidence?
Or alternatively, those colors are good for a beetle with a termite on its back for the same reason they're good for a termite. They help whatever the termite looks like blend in to the area where termites usually are.
Hey this fits my entirely unsubstantiated pet theory: evolution is not just partially Lamarckist, but there's also a purposeful mental component to it. Animals can -presumably subconsciously- partially pass on traits that they themselves think are advantageous. Eg, in this case, the beetle wants to look more like termites and so its offspring becomes more like termites as seen by the beetle even in ways that don't actually matter
I have no idea how such a mechanic may work, but there'd be a great advantage in success for animals that could develop such a style of evolution
I have no idea how such a mechanic may work, but there'd be a great advantage in success for animals that could develop such a style of evolution
Perhaps there's some other advantage to the termite puppet other than food stealing?
Maybe sexual. Other beetles think it's really attractive to mimicry termites.
I'm amazed that we're always only just finding out about this sort of thing... like today. the way it gets reported makes it feel like it's some sort of new innovation that the beetle just came up with, but it really impresses upon you just how much more weirdness nature must have in store for us just in our own backyard.
There really aren't that many people studying insects. Even fewer studying and cataloging plants.
Everyone assumes there's some large academic cohort of etymologists that are busy indexing and recording all natural insect life, but it's usually just some guy paying attention to one thing at a time. And sometimes there are whole families of animals or plants where there's no guy at all.
Everyone assumes there's some large academic cohort of etymologists that are busy indexing and recording all natural insect life, but it's usually just some guy paying attention to one thing at a time. And sometimes there are whole families of animals or plants where there's no guy at all.
I expect there are very few etymologists studying insects, but more concerningly there aren't enough entomologists doing it either [1].
[1] https://time.com/5144257/fewer-scientists-studying-insects-e...
[1] https://time.com/5144257/fewer-scientists-studying-insects-e...
oops
> Even fewer studying and cataloging plants.
Depends. Agriculturally important plants (and their pests of all kinds, including other plants) do get a lot of attention.
Depends. Agriculturally important plants (and their pests of all kinds, including other plants) do get a lot of attention.
Crime pays but botany and entomology don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFScyio4lwI&t=752s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFScyio4lwI&t=752s
Is it possible - and bear with me, here - that we humans have something similar in our midst? Something that has co-evolved mimicry over eons to bypass our "other" triggers. No uncanny valley or creepy vibe detected. A kind of Cuckoo bird for humans.
If evolution is just nature throwing dice, then it would take many, many generations to evolve something that complex.
I think we see more of these interesting finds in the world of small animals because they have a much higher frequency of turnover. Therefore a higher statistical probability to produce interesting adaptations.
I'm just a layperson so I'm using my own terminology here.
Then there's the other interesting possibility, that there is some way to consciously influence the evolution of DNA. I mean it's pretty freaky that this beetle evolved an exact replica of a termite, a creature it presumably spends a lot of time around. How did its DNA "know" to evolve in that diretion? Are there thousands of beetles out there with half assed copies of termites on their backs?
I think we see more of these interesting finds in the world of small animals because they have a much higher frequency of turnover. Therefore a higher statistical probability to produce interesting adaptations.
I'm just a layperson so I'm using my own terminology here.
Then there's the other interesting possibility, that there is some way to consciously influence the evolution of DNA. I mean it's pretty freaky that this beetle evolved an exact replica of a termite, a creature it presumably spends a lot of time around. How did its DNA "know" to evolve in that diretion? Are there thousands of beetles out there with half assed copies of termites on their backs?
> I think we see more of these interesting finds in the world of small animals because they have a much higher frequency of turnover. Therefore a higher statistical probability to produce interesting adaptations.
This is the best argument against so far. Still, if a species co-evolved alongside us since our ancestors were small furry animals, this would be quite a few generations.
This is the best argument against so far. Still, if a species co-evolved alongside us since our ancestors were small furry animals, this would be quite a few generations.
Interesting idea, of course it seems very unlikely, but running with it, what could potential tells be? I imagine there might be tells something weird is off if you got really close to them, so they may stay on the periphery of most humans lives and largely stick to their own (definitely at least for mating).
I'd bet you could tell with DNA analysis, or through other medical means such as scans since they wouldn't have had time to adjust for that. If even a single mimic was found the secret would get out, so they'd have to be very good at avoiding the medical world.
I guess you'd probably be looking at either small groups of particularly successful people who have the resources to keep their mimicry hidden and keep to themselves (nobility?), or at some societal outcasts that roam around, never getting close to anyone.
They'd somehow have to avoid their nature being discovered even after death which may be one of the harder things to believe, since presumably they could also die suddenly from accidents etc. which would often prompt careful medical examination which would then reveal the truth. Of course it's possible some individuals did discover the truth, but no one believe them, but it's hard to imagine that at scale. So if these mimics exist, we're probably talking a few hundred or thousand of them at most
I'd bet you could tell with DNA analysis, or through other medical means such as scans since they wouldn't have had time to adjust for that. If even a single mimic was found the secret would get out, so they'd have to be very good at avoiding the medical world.
I guess you'd probably be looking at either small groups of particularly successful people who have the resources to keep their mimicry hidden and keep to themselves (nobility?), or at some societal outcasts that roam around, never getting close to anyone.
They'd somehow have to avoid their nature being discovered even after death which may be one of the harder things to believe, since presumably they could also die suddenly from accidents etc. which would often prompt careful medical examination which would then reveal the truth. Of course it's possible some individuals did discover the truth, but no one believe them, but it's hard to imagine that at scale. So if these mimics exist, we're probably talking a few hundred or thousand of them at most
> If even a single mimic was found the secret would get out...
I'm imagining these creatures as something we do not have defenses against, so, given that this creature would have evolved alongside our social, language and analytical abilities, these would not be defenses.
I'm imagining these creatures as something we do not have defenses against, so, given that this creature would have evolved alongside our social, language and analytical abilities, these would not be defenses.
Hah! I was thinking something along those lines - in light of the recent interest in UAPs.
If NHI's do exist, one wonders if they could pull out such tricks as well in order to blend in and take over different biomes/planets.
If NHI's do exist, one wonders if they could pull out such tricks as well in order to blend in and take over different biomes/planets.
This is the core plot description of one of my favourite fictional vampires, Suzy McKee Charnas' "Dr Edward Weyland".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampire_Tapestry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampire_Tapestry
Charnas died recently, I was fairly sad about that. There's also overlap with The Hunger (the novel, not the film which was made from it) in terms of having a separate species. Or Katt Shea's Dance of the Damned.
The X-Files episode "Folie a Deux" featured an insect which "fit in" among humans. You might like that.
The X-Files episode "Folie a Deux" featured an insect which "fit in" among humans. You might like that.
> Charnas died recently, I was fairly sad about that.
Oh, that is sad news. She was very good, and somewhat underrated, I think. I thought her books vastly better than Anne Rice or even the fun Lauren Hamilton ones, for instance. I must admit I've never even read Stephanie Meyer or E F Leonard's ones on this theme but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say SMC was better than them anyway.
Oh, that is sad news. She was very good, and somewhat underrated, I think. I thought her books vastly better than Anne Rice or even the fun Lauren Hamilton ones, for instance. I must admit I've never even read Stephanie Meyer or E F Leonard's ones on this theme but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say SMC was better than them anyway.
I did them all, once upon a time.
Charnas was one of the last old-school s/f writers and the proof to it is that The Vampire Tapestry is what they used to call a "fix-up." She brought a certain psychological angle that was almost tender, I think, to the issue of being a predator (and worse, what appears to be a species of one!) embedded in a world of your prey.
Charnas was one of the last old-school s/f writers and the proof to it is that The Vampire Tapestry is what they used to call a "fix-up." She brought a certain psychological angle that was almost tender, I think, to the issue of being a predator (and worse, what appears to be a species of one!) embedded in a world of your prey.
Presumably you're referring to ChatGPT?
I would think that the evolution of the human mind (and with that technology) has been to fast for any such parasite to keep up. At least for hiding as a human-sized non-human organism.
Interesting thought. Not a different species, but think (highly intelligent) sociopaths...
That is an incredibly cool discovery. Another weird body hack in Northern Australia Hymenoptera is the honey pot ant. Their replete caste are passive food storage containers.
With things like extraterrestrial beings and ghosts and whatnot, we have no evidence of other examples. But mimicry like this is abundant in the animal kingdom. Who's to say that some "humans" walking among us are not just appendages of some other form of life that evolved here as well?
There's a PKD story about that:
Second Variety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Variety
The Father Thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Father-thing
The Hanging Stranger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanging_Stranger
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_...
Quite a few, actually! Fake humans were his specialty.
Philip K. Dick and the Fake Humans:
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/henry-farrell-philip-k...
>"the bombardment of pseudo-realities begins to produce inauthentic humans very quickly, spurious humans—as fake as the data pressing at them from all sides. My two topics are really one topic; they unite at this point. Fake realities will create fake humans. Or, fake humans will generate fake realities and then sell them to other humans, turning them, eventually, into forgeries of themselves. So we wind up with fake humans inventing fake realities and then peddling them to other fake humans." -PKD
Second Variety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Variety
The Father Thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Father-thing
The Hanging Stranger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanging_Stranger
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_...
Quite a few, actually! Fake humans were his specialty.
Philip K. Dick and the Fake Humans:
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/henry-farrell-philip-k...
>"the bombardment of pseudo-realities begins to produce inauthentic humans very quickly, spurious humans—as fake as the data pressing at them from all sides. My two topics are really one topic; they unite at this point. Fake realities will create fake humans. Or, fake humans will generate fake realities and then sell them to other humans, turning them, eventually, into forgeries of themselves. So we wind up with fake humans inventing fake realities and then peddling them to other fake humans." -PKD
Are you willing to bet?
I'd give you a million to one odds against that. More precisely to operationalise: against that being discovered to be the case in the next twenty years.
The way evolution and biology works, what you are suggesting is extremely unlikely. (See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pLRogvJLPPg6Mrvg4/an-alien-g... for a start of an explanation.)
I'd give you a million to one odds against that. More precisely to operationalise: against that being discovered to be the case in the next twenty years.
The way evolution and biology works, what you are suggesting is extremely unlikely. (See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pLRogvJLPPg6Mrvg4/an-alien-g... for a start of an explanation.)
I don't see anything in that article that challenges anything I said. If there was a mechanism by which mimicking humans helped this creature reproduce, then it would fit the scientific model of evolution.
Also, it was a bit of a whimsical fantasy rather than some serious theory I have about the world. In any case, even if such beings were to exist, I suspect we'd not be able to detect them any more than the termites would be able to detect the beetle. We probably wouldn't have the faculties to comprehend and apprehend the nature of the being, any more than an ant could understand general relativity.
It's kind of tiring having habitual iconoclast skeptics come out of the woodwork with some superficial dunk every time something out of the ordinary but also of no real consequence is said.
Also, it was a bit of a whimsical fantasy rather than some serious theory I have about the world. In any case, even if such beings were to exist, I suspect we'd not be able to detect them any more than the termites would be able to detect the beetle. We probably wouldn't have the faculties to comprehend and apprehend the nature of the being, any more than an ant could understand general relativity.
It's kind of tiring having habitual iconoclast skeptics come out of the woodwork with some superficial dunk every time something out of the ordinary but also of no real consequence is said.
Put me down for £2, and I'm pretty confident. I work with some characters who have evolved to mimic productive workers while never producing anything of any discernable value.
I'll take the bet.
This is really something. I can't begin to understand how a tiny insect can evolve a puppet that looks exactly like another insect.
It is quite common.
As the article says, other rove beetles evolved to be fake "stealth ants".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrmecophily_in_Staphylinidae
They don't look much like ants to humans but they do to ants, which is what matters.
Some spiders do the same:
https://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Ant-Mimicking_Spiders
In fact lots of animals do, on account of there are so many ants in the world and you can benefit from [a] living in an ant colony [b] not being eaten by ants or [c] eating ants yourself and getting away with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mimicry
Even plants imitate insects:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/sneaky-orchids-manipulate-bee...
One orchid imitates an extinct bee so we only know how the bee looked from the orchid's "artist's impression".
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2013/09/02/a-flower-hints-at-...
As the article says, other rove beetles evolved to be fake "stealth ants".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrmecophily_in_Staphylinidae
They don't look much like ants to humans but they do to ants, which is what matters.
Some spiders do the same:
https://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Ant-Mimicking_Spiders
In fact lots of animals do, on account of there are so many ants in the world and you can benefit from [a] living in an ant colony [b] not being eaten by ants or [c] eating ants yourself and getting away with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mimicry
Even plants imitate insects:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/sneaky-orchids-manipulate-bee...
One orchid imitates an extinct bee so we only know how the bee looked from the orchid's "artist's impression".
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2013/09/02/a-flower-hints-at-...
I addition to coming up with an idea of the steps involved you have to consider the time this takes. You always read about some millions years, but if you stop and think about how many generations of the beetle this is and how this is a really, really long time, it makes more sense.
The world is very old. Life is ancient. It took over a billion years just to invent photosynthesis, then another billion-odd to invent the efficient oxygen-generating kind of photosynthesis... then that killed almost everything and the whole thing sort of rebooted.
The world froze for a billion years, then thawed, and then another floating single celled bacterium-like thing invented the idea of enclosing another bacterium thing as its "lung", its power plant... then after another billion years, they somehow came up with the plan of sticking together in clumps.
And then, after 4 billion years of nothing much happening, but happening very slowly, half a billion years ago these clumps of cells started an arms race, and boom, in the blink of an eye, not that anything had come up with eyes or eyelids yet, there were millions of types of multicellular clumps growing in the sunlit water, or eating the growing clumps, and eating each other, and trying not to be eaten, and in a moment, there is an ocean full of squirming wiggling swimming fighting things.
Out of which, half a billion years later, we evolved. Then we killed everything else except for a handful of stuff we eat.
Then, we die.
The very sad, pathetic thing about religious "creationism" is that they think their version is more amazing, more beautiful, more pleasing... because they are ignorant of the size and scale and complexity of the real thing.
They are a small circle of people with their head down admiring a pebble that one of them is holding, exclaiming at its beauty, while they are standing in a building the size and complexity and wonder of a thousand cities -- that they have not noticed is there.
Then they press the plunger down on the detonator and blow the whole thing up, not realising it will fall on their heads and kill them because they didn't see it.
The world froze for a billion years, then thawed, and then another floating single celled bacterium-like thing invented the idea of enclosing another bacterium thing as its "lung", its power plant... then after another billion years, they somehow came up with the plan of sticking together in clumps.
And then, after 4 billion years of nothing much happening, but happening very slowly, half a billion years ago these clumps of cells started an arms race, and boom, in the blink of an eye, not that anything had come up with eyes or eyelids yet, there were millions of types of multicellular clumps growing in the sunlit water, or eating the growing clumps, and eating each other, and trying not to be eaten, and in a moment, there is an ocean full of squirming wiggling swimming fighting things.
Out of which, half a billion years later, we evolved. Then we killed everything else except for a handful of stuff we eat.
Then, we die.
The very sad, pathetic thing about religious "creationism" is that they think their version is more amazing, more beautiful, more pleasing... because they are ignorant of the size and scale and complexity of the real thing.
They are a small circle of people with their head down admiring a pebble that one of them is holding, exclaiming at its beauty, while they are standing in a building the size and complexity and wonder of a thousand cities -- that they have not noticed is there.
Then they press the plunger down on the detonator and blow the whole thing up, not realising it will fall on their heads and kill them because they didn't see it.
I wonder if it is possible an animal can edit its own DNA based on things it observed with its senses in the environment.
Eg Beetle observes kin dying via termite melee, encodes a potential solution in the DNA for the next generation.
Eg Beetle observes kin dying via termite melee, encodes a potential solution in the DNA for the next generation.
Read about epigenetics. It's not quite as magic as what you describe but it's in the ballpark.
This might (eventually, pending MAJOR ethics committee issues) be possible for humans in a lab.
It's not realistic for beetles.
It's not realistic for beetles.
Coevolution in an arms race for surface/tactile mimicry.
The basic blueprint of an insect is already present in the predator.
The first of their kind may have been deformed Siamese twins.
That is absolutely astonishing, but something bothers me, I thought termites were blind and it says they are and rely on smell:
> though termites are blind, they sense one another through touch. The beetle may also absorb unique chemicals called cuticular hydrocarbons from the termites or produce similar compounds in order to enhance the perception that it is a termite as well.
So I would have expected a fake termite to be just the crudest impression but with great odour mimicry, but this visual mimicry is so incredible it suggests termites visual perception is better than we expected, or perhaps something else is going on.
TL;DR something doesn't add up here
> though termites are blind, they sense one another through touch. The beetle may also absorb unique chemicals called cuticular hydrocarbons from the termites or produce similar compounds in order to enhance the perception that it is a termite as well.
So I would have expected a fake termite to be just the crudest impression but with great odour mimicry, but this visual mimicry is so incredible it suggests termites visual perception is better than we expected, or perhaps something else is going on.
TL;DR something doesn't add up here
They don't see. So they feel.
It has to feel right as well as smell right.
It has to feel right as well as smell right.
> It has to feel right
I'm not aware of any work/research on this. Does seem reasonable though. But the rest of the insect is much larger and non-termitey, so...?
(edit: so... why don't they attack/reject it?)
I'm not aware of any work/research on this. Does seem reasonable though. But the rest of the insect is much larger and non-termitey, so...?
(edit: so... why don't they attack/reject it?)
Well by way of a disclaimer, this isn't my research, and my biology BSc was more than a third of a century ago, so all I was offering was a general comment.
But if Animal A is mimicking Animal B, and B is blind but uses scent/taste and touch, then we can safely deduce that looking right is not important...
And we can safely assume that there is no miraculous intervention. (If someone can't safely assume that, then they're religious and no argument will dissuade them. If it were a deity, which it wasn't, then they could make a more convincing looking fake!)
So, aside from odours, pheromones etc., then we just have to consider what's left. And that is touch, so it seems probable that feeling right is important.
But if Animal A is mimicking Animal B, and B is blind but uses scent/taste and touch, then we can safely deduce that looking right is not important...
And we can safely assume that there is no miraculous intervention. (If someone can't safely assume that, then they're religious and no argument will dissuade them. If it were a deity, which it wasn't, then they could make a more convincing looking fake!)
So, aside from odours, pheromones etc., then we just have to consider what's left. And that is touch, so it seems probable that feeling right is important.
So, this is how termites see themselves...?
Wouldn't it be easier to just... look like a termite instead of having abdomen looking like a termite?
Maybe not! That would require changeing the whole development of the beetle, and maybe the intermediate stages would not be beneficial. To give a terrible example, if you have a car and need a camper, you could rebuild the car into a camper but you would have to change everything and would not have a useable car for a long time. If instead you bought a trailer with a tent on it, you could build a perfect camping trailer over time step by step and have still use the car.
Wow. Evolution is pretty amazing.
Oh those little mofos!
Gradient: Descended
Nice… hack.
And people tell me the universe is not intelligent. I think what scares us is that intelligence, like _real_ intelligence, is prior to thought and so it seems almost alien and incomprehensible to us. Yet these creatures clearly know what they are doing at some level. Just as we know what we are doing with our lungs, heart, nervous system etc. that evolved over thousands of years, but we don't know it in thought - so it eludes us as something external.
The universe indeed is not intelligent. Nor do these creatures know what they are doing. Nor did evolution know what it was doing when it created them -- evolution is not an agent or even an entity, its a description of a natural process of highly constrained brute force trial and error.
With a proper scientific and biological education these things are neither alien nor incomprehensible and the numerous conceptual errors above can be avoided.
With a proper scientific and biological education these things are neither alien nor incomprehensible and the numerous conceptual errors above can be avoided.
P.S. Both of the responses include additional conceptual errors (or worse: bad faith). e.g. one can always find someone with credentials (often irrelevant, as here) on YouTube in support of one's beliefs.
And as for "If you treat it as if it's is you get the exact same result though" -- this simply isn't true -- not yet, anyway. And if it ever is true, one would need extreme justification to claim the AI isn't conscious. In any case, this has nothing to do with whether the universe is intelligent--after all, we already know that it contains intelligent creatures (surely some humans are).
And as for "If you treat it as if it's is you get the exact same result though" -- this simply isn't true -- not yet, anyway. And if it ever is true, one would need extreme justification to claim the AI isn't conscious. In any case, this has nothing to do with whether the universe is intelligent--after all, we already know that it contains intelligent creatures (surely some humans are).
Well some very, very smart people would seem to disagree.
Cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman says fundamental physics is consciousness, spacetime is doomed and everything we know about physics is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVH8WhgBXCk
You're part of the old guard :)
Cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman says fundamental physics is consciousness, spacetime is doomed and everything we know about physics is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVH8WhgBXCk
You're part of the old guard :)
This reminds me of an AI that passes the Turing test. Of course it's not conscious. If you treat it as if it's is you get the exact same result though.
At some point the similarities between the metaphor "the Universe is intelligent" and the actual Universe are so small that there are effectively no conceptual errors.
At some point the similarities between the metaphor "the Universe is intelligent" and the actual Universe are so small that there are effectively no conceptual errors.
The universe is intelligent because we are part of the universe. And we are intelligent, given our current definition of intelligence.
Otherwise, a rock will not be intelligent by itself. Or a mountain. Or a star.
Otherwise, a rock will not be intelligent by itself. Or a mountain. Or a star.
"Where there are rocks... watchout!" - Alan Watts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZbThJg6ehU
> Otherwise, a rock will not be intelligent by itself. Or a mountain. Or a star.
Yes that is panpsychism. Otherwise you totally miss my point.
edit: a little less sarcastic perhaps, point being is that if consciousness is fundamental (which it increasingly seems to be the case according to most recent physics) - then the universe indeed KNOWS what it is doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZbThJg6ehU
> Otherwise, a rock will not be intelligent by itself. Or a mountain. Or a star.
Yes that is panpsychism. Otherwise you totally miss my point.
edit: a little less sarcastic perhaps, point being is that if consciousness is fundamental (which it increasingly seems to be the case according to most recent physics) - then the universe indeed KNOWS what it is doing.
Also why would rove beetles be better at this than others, like the army ant example? Do they just have an extra-evolutionary ability to mimic?