ants

~~jwb~~ · 05-28-2021, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guybrush

At least they didn't think it was thong theory

By the way, cool to have a physicist on board! I occasionally pretend like I know anything about physics. This is gonna sound stupid, but you'd be surprised at how often creationists bring up that evolution and the various molecules and so on that are shaped by that are a violation of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).. and so while trying to refute those kinds of arguments, I kinda wish I'd taken a course or three. Biology had maths and chemistry, but not much physics.

you're a biologist that works with insects right?

I was watching this video on ants and most of it was normal **** I already heard but towards like 18 minutes in she says the way ant colonies cooperate selflessly makes scientists question the way they look at evolution. I.E. the whole idea of the selfish gene type explanation of altruism in animals via kin selection and reciprocity. But since the colony is all essentially designed to perpetuate the genes of the queen... Even though you might have individual ants acting sacrificially, that doesn't really undermine the role of genetics in terms of selective pressure right? Because instead of each ant being selected for its genes the colony as a whole is selected for its genes and as a result the individual ants "cooperate" towards that end the same way cells in our bodies do... Right??

Tldr what's the actual beef between Dawkins and eo Wilson?

Guybrush · 05-29-2021, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Tldr what's the actual beef between Dawkins and eo Wilson?

I didn't respond to this part as I was a bit busy. I have seen some Wilson proponent ant hill selection arguments, but it was a long time ago and I cannot remember the details. Hence, I am quite ignorant on that subject and I will profess that I am generally more of a Dawkins student.

One thing that I feel sets biology apart from other natural sciences like physics and chemistry is there are ALWAYS exceptions to rules in biology. I'm sure there are even many exceptions to my statement just there. This sometimes leads to contention.

So take the unit for selection. In 1973, Dawkins proposed the gene as the unit for selection. It has a lot going for it. An important argument is that genes CAN be selected for. Individuals and populations can't, not in the same way. What is meant by this is that you yourself is made up of a temporary constellation of genes. You're the only jwb that has ever existed and will ever exist. You can be selected for - you get to reproduce - but you won't produce another jwb. Your kid carries some of your genes, but not all of them. Hence, when you reproduce, you might say we break the individual up into genes where some genes get lucky and are passed on and some not. Individuals die, but (some of) their genes live on.

Dawkins actually defined genes in his 1973 book a little differently than common use. What he meant by gene was actually just a length of DNA that tends to get passed down wholly. It's a replicator with a persistent evolutionary existence. Unlike us temporary individuals, these genes are comparatively immortal and exist across generations/individuals, making them a more permanent feature of evolution. Such genes could code for no proteins or several - this is not actually part of Dawkin's definition back then.

So the reasoning, to me, is quite beautiful to my thinking. But I'm sure as you've read this far, you've already come up with some scenarios where it isn't true. As I wrote, evolutionary history is very long and nature makes such a mess, there's bound to be exceptions. Take any clonal insect, like stick insects. There are species where we don't know of males and are a little unsure if they exist. Females reproduce clonally and so you don't really break the individual up into genes when reproducing. The individual is passed on, breaking the above logic. At least until a male comes along.

So it arguably breaks down at various places, but generally holds true. I can't quite remember the argument why we should invoke group selection for ant hills, but perhaps there could be some logical argument made. I may add, though, that when I studied biology, group selection was by and large considered to be dead. It was mostly considered to be an old-fashioned misunderstanding and didn't have much standing, but perhaps it's been reinvigorated since then. Hence, I am skeptical, but wanna remain open to potentially good ideas.

When I have the time, I will look into it and if you remember any specifics, feel free to inform me, of course.

Neapolitan · 05-29-2021, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Tldr what's the actual beef between Dawkins and eo Wilson?

Is that Darryl Dawkins of the 76er/Nets!? I too would also like to know what was his actual beef with Wilson basketballs.

The Batlord · 05-30-2021, 02:46 PM

Hey buddy wanna argue about cANTSel culture?

**Marie Monday** · 05-30-2021, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Are these really the best puns musicbANTer can come up with?

don't ANTagonise me pal

unrelated fun fact: the Dutch word for nitpicking literally translates as antf*cking and I think it's a shame other languages haven't followed that excellant example

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

I have to say I'm not that clear on the distinction between monogamy and polygamy in ants. As far as I understand one queen typically lays all the eggs so are you saying that in the case of polygamous ants she is impregnated by multiple drones and lays eggs from each of them??? Or how does that work?

so basically ant queens are huge sluts, which means they're also Queen of Thots? My cosmic connection to ants gets stronger the more I learn about them