The next step

What do you think is our next stage in our evolutionary process? what evolutionary pressures do we or might we face that could select for certain traits?

Evolution: why does it really matter?

I think it's fair to say that most scientists "believe" in evolution, but looking at the big picture, why does evolution really matter? why is it important that we argue with those that oppose evolution? why has carroll written this incredible book that provides clear evidence in support of evolution?

The Uses of the Study of Evolution

What do you believe are the modern day, common man uses from the study of Evolution. Now this is not talking about the study of DNA, but simply evolution. For example, medical research leads to cures to disease. Technological research leads to new inventions. But whats the point of studying evolution? Is the endgame to convince everyone it exsists and that its happening? In general, what are the uses of knowing about the topic of evolution and how can it affect us in our world. After all we did fine without it as a civilization for a good 12,000 years or so, how will it help us now? Post your own opinions and use examples from the book to strengthen your argument.

Biological Themes

Choose two themes of biology. In detail, define what each of these themes mean. Next, relate each theme to an example from the book Making of the Fittest, and explain exactly how each theme applies. Finally, pose a question for the next commenter relating to one of the two themes you chose (Yes that means if you reply first you get to do less work).

For obvious reasons, I will not allow you to use the biological theme of evolution.

Diversity of Life

Write about you favorite evolutionarily significant organism. Explain why it is your favorite as it pertains to being a prime example of evolution having created a highly specialized set of traits.

For example, my favorite organism is the tardigrade because evolution has selected for it the ability to live in a dehydrated state for many years (anhydrobiosis) and then being able to transition into an active state upon receiving water. Tardigrades are really interesting because they can survive 1000 times the radiation that a human can withstand. These traits make it a polyextremophile that  can survive and reproduce in almost any condition.

Why the Genetic Perspective?

As we conclude this most amazing blog, I feel we should concentrate more on big-picture ideas and themes that Carroll has emphasized throughout his book, one of which is the genetic perspective on evolution.

Why is DNA, both new and old, critical to the explanation and support of evolution? In what way is a genetic perspective effective? Also, describe TWO examples in which Carroll uses DNA evidence to bolster support for evolution. (myriad examples of this are furnished in the book...)

Making of the Fittest Reflection

As the blogging window draws to a close, I think we should have a more book focused reflective prompt for us to focus again on the book and less on the whole Humans vs. World subjects we have been getting on to.

Looking back through the book, choose your favorite example that Carroll uses to explain evolution. Briefly summarize the example and explain why this example is your favorite. Next, give your overall opinion of the book. Explain your opinion.

Finally, write at least two discussion questions that you would ask Carroll if you could have a conversation with him.

The Cambrian Explosion

By the end of the Precambrian period (4.5billion- 543 million years ago) the fossil record consisted mainly of microscopic organisms (domain archaea, domain bacteria, kingdom protista), cnidarians, and chitons ( soft-bodied mollusks). However, most of the major groups of animal phyla appear in the fossil record only 20 million years after the Ediacaran, in the early Cambrian period. This rapid diversification of animals in a short period of geologic time is called the Cambrian explosion. Use your knowledge of evolution, specifically "evo-devo", to explain the possible environmental or genetic causes of this remarkable period of diversification.

The Theory of Evolution vs. The Theory of Economics

The theory of evolution states that the organism which is most adapt to acquiring its necessary resource will survive and reproduce, allowing it to pass down its DNA to its offspring and then the offspring gets to do the same thing unless its gets out done by some one else. But for us humans, through almost all of our history the resource we most valued is currency. In a sense, "money runs the world". But this becomes a problem when money, and the greed for it, counter common sense and biophilia. For example, the marine ecosystems were destroyed in the pursuit of profit. Rain forests destroyed for wood and land, which turns into profit. The cause of Global Warming? Thousands of factories and millions of cars producing Co2, so their owners can make profit. Even in the face of a possible world wide natural catastrophe because of global warming in the next 30-50 years, big business shies away from change all because of money. No matter your opinion on it, for us humans, money is the resource we all inevitably fight over. Even subconciously, one reason you are up reading this right now is because you want to out do your fellow stevenson classmates and make more money than them later on in life (and of course biophilia).

But in a sense, won't the world greed eventually destroy it? Already nature is being taken for granted in favor of profit, and we're growing nearer and nearer to the point where our natural resources our dwindling, destroying thousands of species and habitats daily. Is there any hope for a bio diverse future with nature in it, or will humans inevetibaly mechanize and over populate the world where there is no more room for other species and nature. Could common sense eventually slow down this steady destruction of the planet earth, or will we inevitably dig our own graves out of greed. Post your opinions, and if possible any examples of people countering this phenommenon on a large scale. ( You planting a cherry tree by your house doesn't count.)

"Preserve the old, but know the new"

Chapter four starts out with a Chinese proverb, "Preserve the old, but know the new." Why is it important to know and study our past, and how does studying our ancestors help us attain a deeper understanding ourselves? This concept not only applies to history, but it also applies to biology! What does studying the old species reveal about the new evolved species?

DNA and Evolution

Carroll refers to DNA to show support for evolution throughout the book. He repeatedly states that "our DNA shows our evolutionary history." If that's so, why can't we easily track the evolution of a specific organ or characteristic in modern day organisms? If all the answers are in the DNA, why don't we have them yet?

The Evolution of Eyes

Starting on pg 193, Sean Carroll first describes how there are many organisms, particularly in the Great Barrier Reef, that all have very specific structures. Some examples of what I mean are "the turtle's shell, the octopus's tentacles, and the crab's claws" (194). Its very possible that one can theorize that evolution has selected these particular structures because those structures are advantageous to those organisms. However, one point of contention comes up when discussing the eyes of each of those organisms. Is it possible that evolution is the reason for so many different eye-type variations of different organisms, or do the variations of eyes stem just a repeated mixing of scratch materials? Also tie into your response how the theme of heritable information pertains to this question.

Is Gene Splicing the Answer?

Animal populations across the globe are decreasing in numbers, with many at risk of extinction. Many animals that aren't even endangered have drastically reduced populations compared to one-hundred years ago. Possibly the gravest examples are marine animals.

The krill, Euphasia superba, "may be the most abundant animal on the planet." However, densities have declined by 80% in the last 75 years. Since krill is critical to the survival of many marine species such as whales, its decline has affected the entire ocean.

A possible solution may be genetic engineering: due to overfishing, hatcheries have been made to basically farm salmon. This article: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/calamity2004.htm  states that genes from ocean pout have been spliced into the DNA of salmon to trigger growth hormones, allowing the salmon to grow incredibly fast. 

Could genetic modifications be used to allow krill and other organisms to grow and multiply faster, and thus counteract our effect on animal population densities?

How is this counteracting natural evolution? Will this work well, and if not, what would be the negative side effects?

Consider what we learned in the ecology unit about carrying capacity.

Intelligent Design

On page 245, Carroll suggests that the idea of "intelligent design is a myth". What does the thoery of intelligent design state? What proof does Carroll use to make this conclusion that intelligent design is a myth?

Creating a Super-Human Race

Now, for a moment lets consider the possibility that even so evolution cannot be controlled, we can "push" and "nudge" it in the right direction, or whatever direction we would like it to go. For a second lets forget about past failed attempts at this, with Hitler and his Genocides, and take a more sane approach to the topic. Say the U.S. government funds an island, say, Super-Human Island, (SHI for short), where they take the people with the best traits in the U.S. and just fund their living standards and have them reproduce. This way they can pass their favorable genes down to their offspring. Now this is not so insane; we after all fund universities where only the smarter of us can get it in. You don't see many "red-necks" who do not know basic algebra hanging out Harvard, and not too many critics are yelling how horrible Harvard is for not letting in the "stupider" of us. Now back to SHI. Say on the island there were "intelligence" and "strength" requirements needed to be maintained to remain on the island, and all people who did not manage to meet these requirements were simply politely asked to leave the island and live with the rest of the "normies". In this sense, by "creating" evolutionary pressures, only the smartest and strongest would survive and pass down their genes by mating with other smart and strong people, and over time should in theory create a "super-race". By using facts from the book and your own knowledge, give an opinion on why this would or wouldn't work, and your own opinions if there is any benefeit for creating such a program.

Huxley quote

Carroll ends the book with a quote from the Huxley brothers stating that' "facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" and that we are now "determining the future direction of evolution on this earth" '(268). What is the message that Carroll is trying to convey? What does this have to do with the book as a whole?

Why so much homology ?

Homology is a fundamental theme of evolution and is ubiquitous in nature. Explain how homology relates to taxonomy, the evolutionary tree, an Darwin's "descent with modification". Many homologous structures exist as vestigial organs, non-functional or unimportant structures. If vestigial organs are essentially useless and thus a waste of energy why don't they disappear through evolution? Essentially, why is homology maintained? (Hint: chapter 22 of the AP Bio text book.)

Does ingenuity slow down evolution?

Humans and to some degree our hominid ancestors had the remarkable ability to cope with natural selections pressures using ingenuity. Natural selection did not produce more efficient bodies for our ancestors and us because we were smart enough to evade those selection pressures using tools. In fact we still have a knee joint and spine characteristic or four legged mammals. Homo-sapiens have not evolved in the last 30 thousand years in terms of anatomy. Has our ingenuity allowed us to bypass selection to the extent that our evolution has slowed down or ceased? Or are we just evolving in different, less noticeable ways? Try to use specific characteristics to develop your argument.