[Wanderer]

If we go back to the subject:

I really don't believe that we can even think this as a beginning of that ant species evolution. Even in the article the researches mentions having studied similar 'gardens' (which may be hundreds of years old) elsewhere in the South America, so this doesn't seem to be a new phenomenon. Rather only recently discovered (big difference). And just think about any species that grow to be dependant on other species (for example koala). What if the host plant is diseased and in some areas totally wiped out?

BTW. Different plants species have very different chemical compositions (in VOCs or volatile organic compounds, the ones which smell), how hard can it be for an ant to id different plant species perhaps by tasting or by smell? Even human can recognize certain odours (even when encountering these in extremely low concentration), so i would suppose that ants have evolved to recognize the host plants species also by these compounds, in other words like tuning their senses for the compounds that are most likely vital for their survival => if they take down a wrong plant, the whole ant colony might be destroyed (again, natural selection)...

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by BlackDove


That explains it then.

What explains it?

Originally posted by BlackDove


Great article.

Is there an original link though?

Nope, you won't be able to go on to the link if you're not the journal's subscriber.  I did enclose the date and publication info of the article at the beginning so people could refer to the hard copy if they wanted to.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Wanderer
If we go back to the subject:

I really don't believe that we can even think this as a beginning of that ant species evolution. Even in the article the researches mentions having studied similar 'gardens' (which may be hundreds of years old) elsewhere in the South America, so this doesn't seem to be a new phenomenon. Rather only recently discovered (big difference). And just think about any species that grow to be dependant on other species (for example koala). What if the host plant is diseased and in some areas totally wiped out?

[/b]

Well, to be completely crystal clear: You cannot really think of this as a "beginning of an evolution".
You can always backtrack and find small, clinal changes in the species. Over time these accumulate. Point being - species don't just pop out of nowhere, and this kind of wide behaviour suggests that this gene has been active in this ant specie's genome for a long time - maybe effectively preventing hybridization with other near relative ant species (where it would be yet another species mark..).
What we can observe, anyways, is how fast this changes the species. Some people have theoretized that the evolutionary unit in many social hymenopteron's is not an individual or even a queen. It's the hive. The same holds kinda true to ants which are pretty unique group. We can observe the evolution (usually indirectly), of course, but we cannot just sprout out: "This is the beginning of the evolution" - it's false.

edit: OK then.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

[Wanderer]

Well i tried to say that but in more polite manner

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by Wanderer


I really don't believe that we can even think this as a beginning of that ant species evolution. Even in the article the researches mentions having studied similar 'gardens' (which may be hundreds of years old) elsewhere in the South America, so this doesn't seem to be a new phenomenon. Rather only recently discovered (big difference). And just think about any species that grow to be dependant on other species (for example koala).

You don’t have to believe that it is the beginning of an evolution of that ant species.  No one claimed that as a fact in the article anyway.  The research has been conducted in the South America which is where the Amazon Rainforest is.  It was not the first time they encountered the phenomenon but no one could explain why the ‘Devil’s Garden’ contained only one type of plant when the garden was discovered.  But now, scientists have an explanation on how the ants are responsible and the gardens are being created.

Originally posted by Wanderer


What if the host plant is diseased and in some areas totally wiped out?

It would be bad for the ants of course.  They will probably go extinct because their habitat no longer available.  Take the Ivory-billed woodpeckers for example, they disappeared when their forest habitat was destroyed decades ago.  Another example, during the English Industrial Revolution in the 19th Century, soot and other industrial wastes darkened tree trunks and killed off lichens. The light-colored morph of the moth became rare.  Anyhow, if some ants do survive, they will probably evolve to adapt to something new.

Originally posted by Wanderer


BTW. Different plants species have very different chemical compositions (in VOCs or volatile organic compounds, the ones which smell), how hard can it be for an ant to id different plant species perhaps by tasting or by smell? Even human can recognize certain odours (even when encountering these in extremely low concentration), so i would suppose that ants have evolved to recognize the host plants species also by these compounds, in other words like tuning their senses for the compounds that are most likely vital for their survival => if they take down a wrong plant, the whole ant colony might be destroyed (again, natural selection)...

That’s the next thing scientists hope to find out.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by Janos


Well, to be completely crystal clear: You cannot really think of this as a "beginning of an evolution".
You can always backtrack and find small, clinal changes in the species. Over time these accumulate. Point being - species don't just pop out of nowhere, and this kind of wide behaviour suggests that this gene has been active in this ant specie's genome for a long time - maybe effectively preventing hybridization with other near relative ant species (where it would be yet another species mark..).
What we can observe, anyways, is how fast this changes the species. Some people have theoretized that the evolutionary unit in many social hymenopteron's is not an individual or even a queen. It's the hive. The same holds kinda true to ants which are pretty unique group. We can observe the evolution (usually indirectly), of course, but we cannot just sprout out: "This is the beginning of the evolution" - it's false.

But you can not ignore the facts that the ants have gained so much ‘control’ over their living environment and even some new plants have evolved to grow food for the insects.  Variants do not arise unless they are needed.  These phenomenons fits nicely as the beginner elements of evolution.

[aldo_14]

I think it's worth suggesting evolution doesn't exactly 'begin' as such, at least not in an easily quantifiable way, and is more of a constant process taking place since the first single celled organisms (and even the amino acids that formed them)

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Wanderer
And just think about any species that grow to be dependant on other species (for example koala). What if the host plant is diseased and in some areas totally wiped out?

Then the species is f**ked.

Thing is that is the sort of consideration that only an intelligent designer would care about. Natural selection can only work on what it has right in front of it. If tighter integration is good for the species for the next 10,000 years that's where it will go. It doesn't matter in the slightest that 15,000 years from now a new virus could arise and wipe one of the species out.
 We can all see that this could be a very bad thing for the ants but evolution simply doesn't care. If the selection pressure is rolling downhill towards a cliff then they'll all go off the edge.

Times like this that I'm really glad that humans are a generalist species rather than specialising.

EDIT : Actually I suppose any intelligent tool user is going to be a generalist to some degree. Lets say instead that I'm glad we evolved from a generalist rather than having as specialist traits still in us like a dependance on a certain kind of animal or tree.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by karajorma
Times like this that I'm really glad that humans are a generalist species rather than specialising.

[color=66FF00]Not to be intentionally funny but surely we specialise at generalising.

There's not a lot of creatures that can exist in all of the places we can.
[/color]

[aldo_14]

After all, you can't naturally select based upon what's not present......

Thinking about it, the dependency state is kind of another factual contradition to creationism;  it assumes species are (well, must be) designed to fail.  I kind of like an analogy I read in the paper today; he ID challenge to evolutionary scientists and evolutionary theory is not unlike a pacifist challenging the SAS to a game of tiddlywinks.

Although even having (or feeling we need to) to mention ID in this sort of a discussion is sort of an insult to proper scientific exploration.

Originally posted by Maeglamor

[color=66FF00]Not to be intentionally funny but surely we specialise at generalising.

There's not a lot of creatures that can exist in all of the places we can.
[/color]

No, we're generalized specialist generalizers.

Originally posted by Wild Fragaria

What explains it?
 

The username, presumably.  AFAIK most blokes wouldn't select 'strawberry' as an alt-name on the electroniinterweb.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think it's worth suggesting evolution doesn't exactly 'begin' as such, at least not in an easily quantifiable way, and is more of a constant process taking place since the first single celled organisms (and even the amino acids that formed them)

Actually that depends on how you're looking at it. Punctuationism  basically states that evolution isn't constant but instead has reasonable long plateaus where there is no change followed by sharp intervals where change occurs. The start of a period of change could quite fairly be described as the start of a period of evolution.


Incidentally there was a big argument about punctuationism in scientific circles a while back until the side that had proposed it realised that the other side had never said it didn't happen, they'd simply assumed everyone knew that it must be true

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


Actually that depends on how you're looking at it. Punctuationism  basically states that evolution isn't constant but instead has reasonable long plateaus where there is no change followed by sharp intervals where change occurs. The start of a period of change could quite fairly be described as the start of a period of evolution.


Incidentally there was a big argument about punctuationism in scientific circles a while back until the side that had proposed it realised that the other side had never said it didn't happen, they'd simply assumed everyone knew that it must be true

I dunno.  I knid of thought of the process of staying the same being part of evolution; I'd (personally) include the suppression of negative traits (which is still natural selection acting) as part of the process, although I guess it's not strictly or technically evolving if there's not a positive change.

EDIT; i.e. what I meant is that organisms are constantly undergoing natural selection.  I'm not sure if you define the start of an evolutionary process (i.e. from one species towards another) as when a natural pressure first exerts itself, or when the first beneficial traits under that pressure emerge and are selected.

[Grey Wolf]

Evolution is a dynamic process. The beginning is when basic amino acids formed in the primordial soup, and the end is when all terrestrial life dies.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I dunno.  I knid of thought of the process of staying the same being part of evolution; I'd (personally) include the suppression of negative traits (which is still natural selection acting) as part of the process, although I guess it's not strictly or technically evolving if there's not a positive change.

Actually I wouldn't agree with that. It's quite frequently stated that sharks for instance evolve slowly or that they've hardly evolved in the last 100 million years or so. The fact that any new mutations are selected against in sharks is actually stated as the reason why they evolve so slowly.

Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIT; i.e. what I meant is that organisms are constantly undergoing natural selection.  I'm not sure if you define the start of an evolutionary process (i.e. from one species towards another) as when a natural pressure first exerts itself, or when the first beneficial traits under that pressure emerge and are selected.

Doesn't really matter as both events occur so close together that on the timescale we're talking about they're virtually instantanious. After all if there is a selection pressure that suddenly arises then the selection of animals with benifitial traits will begin as soon as the next generation is born at the  latest.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Wild Fragaria


Natural selection is a mechanism of Evolution.  It is a process that occurs over successive generations.  ...  I like to think that in  way we are probably witnessing the 'beginning' of an evolution of an organism.

It drives me nuts when people point to something and say, "See! Evolution!" and what they're actually seeing is natural selection.

Natural selection is a short term observable (subject population X is in event Y. Subpopulation X' survives. Subsequent observation reveals a genetic trait that allowed X' to survive.) Evolution is the summation of all the short term observables that occured in the genetic history of a population with a particular genotype. Thus, evolution is an abstract that cannot be observed, but only inferred through induction.

That's why I say that this is an example of natural selection (the trees the ants 'like' are being selected for and the trees they 'dislike' are being selected against). In a million years, someone can look back and see this as a one point on the mathematical curve of evolution. This point is NOT evolution, but evolution is made up by many of these points. The point does not define the curve, but exists within it.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Maeglamor

[color=66FF00]Not to be intentionally funny but surely we specialise at generalising.

There's not a lot of creatures that can exist in all of the places we can.
[/color]

With the exception of Antartica and the Artic, ants exist everywhere. Everywhere humans have cities, there are roaches.

[Bobboau]

we are specalised tool makers, environment modifiers (we don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to us), and socal animal. we have a lot in common with ants actualy, the biggest diference is we aren't as socalised and are far more developed in tool makeing. ants are cool, one of my favorite animals.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
It drives me nuts when people point to something and say, "See! Evolution!" and what they're actually seeing is natural selection.

Natural selection is a short term observable (subject population X is in event Y. Subpopulation X' survives. Subsequent observation reveals a genetic trait that allowed X' to survive.) Evolution is the summation of all the short term observables that occured in the genetic history of a population with a particular genotype. Thus, evolution is an abstract that cannot be observed, but only inferred through induction.

That's why I say that this is an example of natural selection (the trees the ants 'like' are being selected for and the trees they 'dislike' are being selected against). In a million years, someone can look back and see this as a one point on the mathematical curve of evolution. This point is NOT evolution, but evolution is made up by many of these points. The point does not define the curve, but exists within it.

Actually I think you're making assumptions without the data to back it up.

Fact is that if there are other Myrmelachista schumanni who don't show this behaviour with the trees they nest in even if it's the same type of tree then there is a before and after you can point at and say See! Evolution!

If the ants that live in these gardens show a type of behaviour that other ants of the same species don't when placed in the same conditions then you definately have evidence of an evolutionary change.

You're making the assumption that all ants of this species show the same behaviour when you say that there is only one point on the curve. I've not seen you provide any evidence to back this up and none of the articles say anything about it in either direction.

[aldo_14]

http://mit.biology.au.dk/~biojmo/pdf/Olesen%20et%20al.%20duroia.pdf

[mikhael]

Originally posted by karajorma


Actually I think you're making assumptions without the data to back it up.

*** Much blathering about ants removed ***

Um, Kara, I wasn't talking about the ants. Go and reread what you quoted very carefully, with particular emphasis on the third paragraph there.