This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Host's return (The Ancestor's Tale)

The Host's return (The Ancestor's Tale) - Comments

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 1 by Premiseless

Your point is a very interesting one. I noticed (on yesterdays BBC animal intelligence) animals in captivity can display enhanced skills at certain tasks when taught repeatedly, as in fact humans do to each other. It was also mooted that animals lose important traits like migration accuracy , when isolated from their flocks etc., indicating the apparatus they employ tends towards redundancy if not trained into regular behaviour patterns from young. This latter point seems very relevant amongst humans whom it seems are adept at pseudo psychological biasing sets of populations to function according to various mis-taught 'norms' as theisms myths through the ages well shows us. Maybe this part explains their brains reluctance/resentment/hippocampus failings to renetwork factual information in spite of the inputs suggesting it reasonable to do so?

Sorta, "If you practice using those eyes you could come outside more often?",

receiving a,

"Erm, no thanks we're good with the dark, why don't you lose yours?"

Fascinating arenas for study.

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:40:33 UTC | #915974

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 2 by Mr DArcy

For a cave fish living in darkness, eyes are unnecessary, and indeed as Richard points out "expensive" biological appendages.

I'm guessing that any life forms found under the ice sheet in Antartica, at Lake Vostok, will not display bird of prey type vision!

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:12:18 UTC | #916014

blitz442's Avatar Comment 3 by blitz442

From the OP

Essentially the researchers have determined that the various populations of blind cave fish are more closely related to the surface population than they are to each other. This is despite the cave populations looking the same - all having lost both pigment and eyes.

Which is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict, and is a great example of how the theory is falsifiable. Finding the opposite would probably be impossible to explain in evolutionary terms.

Comment 1 by Premiseless

I told myself that I would not pick on you any more, but this is one of the most convoluted posts I have ever seen. First, your post seems to suggest the entirely discredited use/disuse idea of evolution. That is not what is going on here with the cave fish.

Then there is this. I have no idea how you get from here:

Your point is a very interesting one

to here:

Maybe this part explains their brains reluctance/resentment/hippocampus failings to renetwork factual information in spite of the inputs suggesting it reasonable to do so?

Basically, "I really like your point about the cave fish. I too think that religion has negative effects on people's brains."

Are you this confusing when you speak, or just when you attempt to put your thoughts in writing?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:40:17 UTC | #916040

ccw95005's Avatar Comment 4 by ccw95005

I haven't read The Ancestor's Tale, but I suspect that evolution, starting with the same first DNA cell in 10 identical environments, would end up with tremendously different results, and in very different time frames. (And of course RNA/DNA isn't the only possible hereditary scheme, but let's assume that as a starting point.) The great breakthroughs in each evolutionary path - multicellularity, etc. - would send evolution in a completely different direction, greatly influenced by what that first life form happens to be like. The development of birds, mammals, reptiles, and so on probably wouldn't occur in other evolutionary experiments. Intelligence might or might not come about.

Further along - and maybe this is what Richard was talking about - once we had complex animal life, the same adaptations would mostly be tried in each environment, and the same advantageous changes would be likely to persist. But the species would of course look dramatically different in each, if we could magically visit them, one by one, depending at which stage we began the experiment.

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:06:17 UTC | #916088

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 5 by Premiseless

Comment 3 by blitz442 :

From the OP

Essentially the researchers have determined that the various populations of blind cave fish are more closely related to the surface population than they are to each other. This is despite the cave populations looking the same - all having lost both pigment and eyes.

Which is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict, and is a great example of how the theory is falsifiable. Finding the opposite would probably be impossible to explain in evolutionary terms.

Comment 1 by Premiseless

I told myself that I would not pick on you any more, but this is one of the most convoluted posts I have ever seen. First, your post seems to suggest the entirely discredited use/disuse idea of evolution. That is not what is going on here with the cave fish.

Then there is this. I have no idea how you get from here:

Your point is a very interesting one

to here:

Maybe this part explains their brains reluctance/resentment/hippocampus failings to renetwork factual information in spite of the inputs suggesting it reasonable to do so?

Basically, "I really like your point about the cave fish. I too think that religion has negative effects on people's brains."

Are you this confusing when you speak, or just when you attempt to put your thoughts in writing?

I stand by everything I said!!!

I have no real problem with evolution as an explanation for the biological.

It is striking how the biological informs the psychological about the physical world in many species.

This is my "interesting".

I suggest there is more linkage there than most will admit. For example I would say "Evil killer whales therefore absolute power corrupts - hence Murdoch and greedy bastards everywhere."

And I don't just mean this at the psychological. I propose a biological relationship. Physiological affectation.

I can see how you might have a problem with this but then I'm not trying to help you accept what I say.

I really think at some point links will be 'bleedin' obvious' between a brain prone to be 'on the prowl' and ones prone to be 'hid from the crowd' in the same way a caged bird might have no clue where to go when let loose with its migrating relatives, as if they could give a fuck.

On the writing note, I must say many 'respected authors' and for that matter posters, make inane points and mountains of drivel my mind frequently feels all the worse for having climbed. However I do find gems worth my consideration and ones I then see value in. A very subjective position no doubt but then I make no claims otherwise about myself - in fact quite the reverse - which frequently surprises me as to why people are aggravated to expect otherwise and more especially when they claim to know why due their grandiose hippo-camp variants acting out some superior bird of paradise representations.

Me being the minor bird - of course! I wouldn't have it any other way. I think this, and your 'pickin me' post doubles the potency of my point, for example.

About 'confusing speak'?

That's a fascinating arena too. I'll accept it as a direct insult rather than the satire I'm prone to think more pertinent. Few people I know get under the blankets of bullshit too easily to trek the terrain of meaningful and incisive conversation I desire. Maybe this accounts in part for why my 'migration' is less developed than I would have it be were I ever given the free will to have got to where Id like to have gone. Que sera!

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:39:30 UTC | #916120

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 6 by Alan4discussion

Comment 2 by Mr DArcy

I'm guessing that any life forms found under the ice sheet in Antartica, at Lake Vostok, will not display bird of prey type vision!

... But may well have enhanced smell, electrical sensitivity, or cetacean like sonar, or... they could be simple bacteria. If evolved from complex organisms which already had eyes, they could have bioluminescence. We will have to see what turns up!

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:12:54 UTC | #916143

Galactor's Avatar Comment 7 by Galactor

Comment 5 by Premiseless :

I have no real problem with evolution as an explanation for the biological.

"No real problem"? What on earth do you mean? You do, unequivocally, accept biological common ancestry don't you?

I can see how you might have a problem with this

That is a very interesting admission. You should try to get to the bottom of it and explain how you can see that others would have a problem with your beliefs. You seem to know why.

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:29:23 UTC | #916156

Galactor's Avatar Comment 8 by Galactor

Comment 5 by Premiseless :

I have no real problem with evolution as an explanation for the biological.

If someone understands how natural selection can have produced complex beings from more simple beings and accepts that there are reams of evidence to support it, then it's not too difficult to see how psychological behaviour can have arisen in the same way, is it?

Even self-deception, which enables us to believe all sorts of weird things, has an evolutionary pathway that can be easily explained by natural selection.

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:35:36 UTC | #916157

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 9 by DavidMcC

Comment 4 by ccw95005

The great breakthroughs in each evolutionary path - multicellularity, etc. - would send evolution in a completely different direction, greatly influenced by what that first life form happens to be like.

The difference wouldn't necessarily be that great, ccw, because multi-cellularity was partly an NS response to "snowball Earth", which would have to be repeated in the specified experiment. Also, the "invention" of eukaryotes was probably always going to happen at some point, as soon as there were mitochondrion-like cells around as well as prokaryotes.

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:42:15 UTC | #916158

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 10 by SaganTheCat

This is despite the cave populations looking the same - all having lost both pigment and eyes.

I think the isue of convergent evolution is an interesting one but it does say an awful lot more about how humans perceive patterns.

yes they look the same superficially if we take "look" to mean in macro conditions they are generally fish shaped (best for swimming) blind and colourless (unnecessary recources for signalling and signal detection diverted) but other than that it depends entirely on what we look it.

if we look at the genetic code of any two species they are almost identical in the list of chemicals that make up their replicators but different in their coding.

understanding genetic evolution is a bit of a challenge to traditional taxonomy which is based on what things "look" like. I remember reading, i think it was Bill Bryson, how an early museum curator was rebuffed for putting a stuffed dog in the same display as wolves and foxes when everyone knows a dog should be displayed with horses, cows and other farm animals.

genetics is the one great leveller that gets past our inate bias. the products of evolution develop to fill the niches available. how similar they are depends on how closely we choose to look (e.g. kangaroo are very similar to deer at some levels but not closely related, or at a less obvious level bison and iguanadon)

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:48:27 UTC | #916159

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 11 by Premiseless

Comment 7 by Galactor :

Comment 5 by Premiseless :

I have no real problem with evolution as an explanation for the biological.

"No real problem"? What on earth do you mean? You do, unequivocally, accept biological common ancestry don't you?

Conceptually, I can see enough mathematical progressions to discern it the best fit solution to us being alive.

I can see how you might have a problem with this

That is a very interesting admission. You should try to get to the bottom of it and explain how you can see that others would have a problem with your beliefs. You seem to know why.

Since we are often distracted by such interaction as this one we are having, and many infringements upon what we might consider 'normalised behaviours', as compared to the animal kingdom (we see animals and think, "Hey dude aint they amazing?", wherease for humans we say "Jackass, do you even know what your own brain is telling to your body parts, or do you defer to EVIL and your perverted obsessions which might also include myth?") it is often unlikely people go around saying things like, "My lover seems to be getting hot on this other guy and I, being a scientist, am interested in conducting a survey about how to understand the finer points of evolutionary psychology. My main problem seems to be their unlikely cooperation plus why it is they don't each feel the same about this as I do. Why can't they employ reason as deeply and meaningfully as can I? Where is the boundary at which love trumps enhanced orgasms? Or was it just me who felt there was one?"

Less of an admission and more of a perspective. I can see why people are perspectively challenged about all manner of detail, myself included, which I find as equally interesting when alone with my own conversation as I do about how someone can pray to what they think is an everlasting fixed point in space unaware it is forever changing due space and time. Making an ornament out of a variable is something the human mind considers itself particularly good at!

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:08:50 UTC | #916165

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 12 by DavidMcC

Comment 9 by DavidMcC

The difference wouldn't necessarily be that great, ccw, because multi-cellularity was partly an NS response to "snowball Earth", which would have to be repeated in the specified experiment.

OK, the snowball Earth scenario did involve large-scale biological oxygen production (by cyanobacteria), so, strictly speaking, it COULD have failed to occur in a re-run:

snowball earth culprit found

However, it doesn't seem very likely that cyanobacteria-like organisms would have completely failed to turn up in a re-run.

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:00:26 UTC | #916179

Roedy's Avatar Comment 13 by Roedy

I find it odd that animals seem to lose a characteristic no longer needed so rapidly. You might think having the ability in reserve might still offer some benefit, e.g. during a flood when fish are flushed out of the cave.

It suggests that medicine to patch up hearts for example could cause a deterioration in human hearts.

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:56:30 UTC | #916574

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 14 by Alan4discussion

Comment 13 by Roedy

I find it odd that animals seem to lose a characteristic no longer needed so rapidly. You might think having the ability in reserve might still offer some benefit, e.g. during a flood when fish are flushed out of the cave.

I seem to recall that an experiment was done where blind fish from two separate caves were crossed and this produced fish with normal eyes.

The reason given was that the eye growth had been disabled by a single mutation in recessive genes, but they were different recessive genes in the different caves. When they were crossed, the dominant normal genes produced normal eyes.

The mutated genes would remain suppressed in the background and only produce the occasional blind offspring when paired.

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:30:00 UTC | #916588

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 15 by DavidMcC

Comment 13 by Roedy

It suggests that medicine to patch up hearts for example could cause a deterioration in human hearts.

I don't understand. Can you explain?

I suspect that not all genetic traits disappear that quickly in any case, after they become useless. It probably depends on what other functions the genes involved might have. You can't let a gene become a pseudogene on the basis of one function becoming useless if its other function is still important. I can't give a specific example of this, but it is a suspicion I have. On the other hand some phenotypic traits might be able to come and go very quickly, without genetic change, once an epigenetic mechanism for that has evolved. (Guppy colouration might be an example, though I don't have proof.)

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:38:30 UTC | #916590

chris 116's Avatar Comment 16 by chris 116

Comment 14 by Alan4discussion

I seem to recall that an experiment was done where blind fish from two separate caves were crossed and this produced fish with normal eyes.

There is a link to a story on the Science News page above.The gist is: they created hybrids out of four cave fish populations and found that some hybrid crosses produced 40% sighted offspring. Their conclusion was that evolution has many ways of achieving eye loss: some populations deficiencies may be compensated for by remaining strengths in others.

Chris

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:27:18 UTC | #916600

chris 116's Avatar Comment 17 by chris 116

Comment 13 by Roedy

I find it odd that animals seem to lose a characteristic no longer needed so rapidly.

There is a link to a story on the Science News page above that suggests that they have been isolated in their caves for 1 million years.

Chris

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:33:54 UTC | #916601

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 18 by DavidMcC

Comment 14 by Alan4discussion

I seem to recall that an experiment was done where blind fish from two separate caves were crossed and this produced fish with normal eyes.

This 2008 article, or similar, may be what you were thinking of, Alan:

Scientists restore sight to blind fish

By creating hybrids of the different cave fish populations, researchers found that nearly 40 per cent of some hybrid crosses could see. The farther apart the caves of the hybrids' parents were, the more likely it was that their offspring could see. That backs up the theory that populations separated by greater distances are more distantly related and therefore have less overlap in the genes responsible for their blindness, said Borowsky.

However, complete eye loss isn't the only evolutionary effect of the dark caves, just the one that creationists seem to favour:

Wiki article

Blind cave tetras and creationism

... having a better olfactory sense by having taste buds all over its head, and by being able to store four times more energy as fat allowing it to deal with irregular food supplies more effectively.[7] However, it is the lack of eyes that has been at the centre of discussion of the Mexican cave tetras among creationists.

It doesn't really make sense, but creationists seem to love what they call "devolution". Anyone would think they understood it!

Clearly, the details of the blind form depend on which cave they live in. Most are more-or-less isolated from each other and from the surface, except, IIRC, in one particular cave, where there is regular mixing and hybridization between the scotopic and photopic forms, producing a phenotypically varied population, such as some fish with only one eye, and others with reduced or deformed eyes, etc. (Can't find the reference any more, unfortunately.) However, I have found this on varying genetic mutations for blindness in isolated caves:

Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Apr ;19 (4):446-55: Evidence for multiple genetic forms with similar eyeless phenotypes in the blind cavefish, Astyanax mexicanus.

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:01:56 UTC | #916610

nick keighley's Avatar Comment 19 by nick keighley

          [Comment 5](/discussions/644851-the-host-s-return-the-ancestor-s-tale/comments?page=1#comment_916120) by  [Premiseless](/profiles/172509)          :

[Comment 3](/discussions/644851-the-host-s-return-the-ancestor-s-tale/comments

[cave fish tend to be blind]

Maybe this part explains [cave fish?] brains reluctance/resentment/hippocampus failings to renetwork factual information in spite of the inputs suggesting it reasonable to do so?

the fish have no eyes because the genes for eyes have been disabled/removed. A cave fish doesn't choose not to have eyes. You could raise several generations of 'em in well lit tanks and they'd still have no eyes.

You seem to have some odd ideas about developmental biology. This is if I've understand your rather odd post. What's the hippocampus stuff all about, for instance?

Basically, "I really like your point about the cave fish. I too think that religion has negative effects on people's brains."

a rather strained analogy. Having no eyes is not a negative effect on the brains of cave fish.Its a perfectly good adaption to their environment.

Are you this confusing when you speak, or just when you attempt to put your thoughts in writing?

I stand by everything I said!!!

I gues that means you understood it!

I have no real problem with evolution as an explanation for the biological.It is striking how the biological informs the psychological about the physical world in many species.

striking to you but not to anyone else. I'm not sure cave fish have psychologies

This is my "interesting".I suggest there is more linkage there than most will admit.

could you give some examples?

For example I would say "Evil killer whales therefore absolute power corrupts

in what sense are killer whales "evil"? Are baleen whales evil? They kill far more life forms than killer whales. Or are seals worth more sympathy than krill?

  • hence Murdoch and greedy bastards everywhere.
  • Murdoch kills baby seals? So your evolutionary biology linkages to psychology is just strained analogy and shallow metaphor?

    "And I don't just mean this at the psychological. I propose a biological relationship. Physiological affectation.

    Murdoch is bad person because killer whales are evil? Sky viewers are baby seals?

    I can see how you might have a problem with this

    really?

    but then I'm not trying to help you accept what I say.I really think at some point links will be 'bleedin' obvious' between a brain prone to be 'on the prowl' and ones prone to be 'hid from the crowd' in the same way a caged bird might have no clue where to go when let loose with its migrating relatives, as if they could give a fuck.

    I'msure I'd disagree with this if I could understand it. Linkages between brains on the prowl and ones hidden from the crowd... You should get Terry Gilliam to illustrate the prowling brains.

    On the writing note, I must say many 'respected authors' and for that matter posters, make inane points and mountains of drivel my mind frequently feels all the worse for having climbed. However I do find gems worth my consideration and ones I then see value in. A very subjective position no doubt but then I make no claims otherwise about myself - in fact quite the reverse - which frequently surprises me as to why people are aggravated to expect otherwise and more especially when they claim to know why due their grandiose hippo-camp variants

    ah back to the hippocampus... What exactly is a grandiose hippocampus?

    acting out some superior bird of paradise representations.Me being the minor bird - of course! I wouldn't have it any other way. I think this, and your 'pickin me' post doubles the potency of my point, for example.About 'confusing speak'?That's a fascinating arena too. I'll accept it as a direct insult rather than the satire I'm prone to think more pertinent. Few people I know get under the blankets of bullshit too easily to trek the terrain of meaningful and incisive conversation I desire.

    few people get under the mound of bullshit?

    Maybe this accounts in part for why my 'migration' is less developed than I would have it be were I ever given the free will to have got to where Id like to have gone. Que sera!

    If you used a Markov Chain and a random number generator to produce your posts I suggest you turn down the randomiser a bit.

    Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:12:32 UTC | #916643

    nick keighley's Avatar Comment 20 by nick keighley

              [Comment 13](/discussions/644851-the-host-s-return-the-ancestor-s-tale/comments?page=1#comment_916574) by  [Roedy](/profiles/5418)          :
    
    
                     I find it odd that animals seem to lose a characteristic no longer needed so rapidly.  You might think having the ability in reserve might still offer some benefit, e.g. during a flood when fish are flushed out of the cave.
    

    evolution has no look-ahead capability. Evolution is like the proverbial general that is always ready to fight the previous war. If a population of cave fish were found that were regularly flushed out then they might retain some vision. I've always regretted we didn't retain prehensile tails to make it easier to operate complex machinary.

    It suggests that medicine to patch up hearts for example could cause a deterioration in human hearts.

    possible confusion between forces operating on individuals and evolution which happens to populations.

    If modern heart medicine was allowing young people to have more children then it might eventually have an effect on the population. But then so might treating a wide range of other conditions. I suspect diabetes might be more likely to have an effect on the population than heart medication (most heart medication is taken by older people)

    Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:23:46 UTC | #916648

    DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 21 by DavidMcC

    Comment 20 by nick keighley

    Having no eyes is not a negative effect on the brains of cave fish.

    To the extent living in total darkness would result in the transfer of some vision-related area functions to other senses, I agree. Also, most of the brain is not vision-related in any case, so these areas would, indeed, not shrink, and possibly expand, using some of the vision-related volume. However, to the extent that the brain's development is connected to that of the eyes, there is some doubt as to whether long term evolution in darkness would sustain its size, because they have clearly co-evolved since the origin of the vertebrates, whose brain expanded greatly after the appearance of imaging eyes . Given enough evolutionary time in total darkness, the brain could well evolve to be smaller, if it does not find a use for areas such as the visual cortices, the supra-chiasmatic nucleus, and other vision-related regions, because the brain uses a lot of blood for its size (as do the eyes) and this does not come cheap.

    In short, I am not quite as confident as you seem to be of the brain's evolutionary immunity to loss of vision. To a large extent it would depend on the species. Perhaps the replacement of eyes by eg, bat-like sonar would help "give it a job", but this would not be inevitable, depending on circumstances, I would guess.

    Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:57:09 UTC | #916676

    Premiseless's Avatar Comment 22 by Premiseless

    Comment 19 by nick keighley :

    I don't have the appetite for these endless meanderings.

    I accept we don't see eye to eye, end of.

    Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:31:57 UTC | #916769

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 23 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 18 by DavidMcC

    Thanks for the interesting links. This suggested that historic phenotypic features can be recovered even after many generations.

    Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:28:30 UTC | #916825

    DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 24 by DavidMcC

    Comment 23 by Alan4discussion

    This suggested that historic phenotypic features can be recovered even after many generations.

    Yes, but this does not mean that is necessarily going to be possible to recreate healthy birds with teeth, as that may be too many millions of years!

    EDIT: My guess is that the various forms of Astanyax still share the same kind of thyretin (the hormone transport protein that is highly conserved, but not completely so).

    Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:47:17 UTC | #916826

    AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Comment 25 by AgriculturalAtheist

    It depends on what you mean by "winding the clock back." If that simple meant hopping into a TARDIS and visiting the earth 2 billions years ago, then observing evolution without interfering, why would it turn out differently? If there were subtle changes in the environment then of course evolution, in response to it, would turn out differently. But if the earth were returned to the exact spot in orbit and every photon and proton hitting it were exactly the same, striking every DNA molecule causing a mutation, and the environment being such that it would be favored or disfavored as it had before, what exactly would make everything come out differently? Our evolution, though unpredictable, was not improbably, and certainly not random. The tricky thing is, would our evolutionary inevitability be the same as, say, the inevitability of Shakespeare's plays, word for word?

    Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:11:52 UTC | #916893

    DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 26 by DavidMcC

    MUMMYMONKEY

    Another point of interest about this study is that the underground populations remain distinct despite a regular inflow of genes from surface fish.

    I'm not sure that's true in the caves that have only eyeless fish. Some of the caves do allow for surface/cave hybrids, and IIRC, such caves contain a mixed population, with various phenotypes, as mentioned above. Completely isolated caves probably contain only the eyeless forms.

    Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:58:13 UTC | #916903

    DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 27 by DavidMcC

    Comment 25 by AgriculturalAtheist

    But if the earth were returned to the exact spot in orbit and every photon and proton hitting it were exactly the same, striking every DNA molecule causing a mutation, and the environment being such that it would be favored or disfavored as it had before, what exactly would make everything come out differently?

    The randomness of random genomic changes, such as mutations could, in principle, make things different in a re-run.

    Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:14:10 UTC | #916943

    raytoman's Avatar Comment 28 by raytoman

    Fish!

    Moles don't have much in the way of eyes. They don't need them since they live underground.

    There are 3 species of mole which are pretty similar in terms of adapation. The mole rat is not one of these. It has a similar lifestyle, underground, but is in fact a marsupial. It has actually lost it's eyes and has a backwards facing pouch to avoid infanticide.

    Natural selection is related to environment and not just genetic mutation. Completely different animals can fill similar niches with similar environmental adfaptions.

    In the Arctic there are White Wales, White Bears, White Hares, White Foxes, White Wolves, etc who of course are all more closely related to other Whales, Wolves, etc than to each other.

    It's not just fish.

    What may be more interesting is the relationship between adaption and genetic mutation (which presumably happens first) with the new animals being found around hydrothermal vents and the general populations in the various oceans. Anyone know the current thinking here?

    I was particularly interested in the 1kg prawn like creature, which was mostly armour, found recently in the trench near the Kermadic Islands. Maybe not even a mollusk or a crustation? An Armadillo?

    Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:29:29 UTC | #917005

    ptero's Avatar Comment 29 by ptero

    If he reversed his story , to the original , embryo gene . Y would ,X . change , man made conscious , back to one, micro condrial being .. Yes without a selfish nurture , mother nature could really begin .. To re solve, what we`ve all forgotten , yet pretend life , evolved from nothing ..

    Fri, 11 May 2012 20:03:43 UTC | #941079