Skip to main content

Is evolution in bacteria different to that in primates?


I got asked a question yesterday on Facebook on whether evolution in bacteria and primates differs. The short answer is no.

The long answer is that the process of evolution itself is so simple in a way that it really doesn’t matter what its object is, i.e. what it operates on. It’s easier to understand this if you think about atoms. The forces governing their behaviour are equal properties in different measures. Mass is mass, whether it’s zero or one hundred units. The slight differences in these properties can lead to huge noticeable differences in final products, just look around.

Natural selection isn’t something that can change depending on what it acts on, be it bacteria or primates. Natural selection is there, and any difference in products is just that. Bacteria and primates are different because of the different evolutionary paths their ancestors took, the different environments and selection pressures that led to their present day evolution.

Another question was whether increasing complexity of species was an inevitable result of evolution. I suppose this is a bit like the question “Can you return a fried egg back to a raw egg?” According to our current knowledge, the answer is no, we can’t undo the burning of an egg or piece of paper. It’s hard to imagine evolution working backwards, because it’s hard to imagine undoing evolution. The matter of fried egg can’t work its way to become a raw egg, it’s an irreversible reaction. In a sense, ancient species had the resources to evolve in certain ways, but that doesn’t mean the subsequent versions of themselves necessarily have the potential to reverse it. If anything, any further evolution that leads to a similarity to previous species would not be a reversal, but merely a continuation of the same evolutionary pathway. Strictly speaking, there is no reason why natural selection on its own couldn’t lead to future species looking more like ancient species rather than more recent past species on the same evolutionary pathway.
An example that springs to mind, although not on an interspecific level, but on an intraspecific level (that is, within one species), is one insect. This insect has switched its wings on and off repeatedly over a long period of time, depending on its environment. Would you call that backwards evolution? I wouldn’t. Evolution evolves one way, regardless of similarity between past and future species. A bit like time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Comment...

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it? The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?". Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about? CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan , which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why: 1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely ...
11 comments
Read more

By-products of Evolution - why not everything has a purpose

Last time we looked at how certain major adaptations such as hair loss have enabled humans to survive over the millennia in different conditions, and when faced with competition from other species. Not everything about the human body has a specific purpose, though, in the sense that we expect it to. One example of such thing is the philtrum - that little channel leading from the base of your nose to the upper lip. Recent research suggests that this development dates back millions of years, and has been inherited from fish. Apparently, when human embryos develop their face in the womb, all parts of the forehead, mouth, etc come together and fuse where the philtrum is located. Some adaptations, on the other hand, are no longer relevant not because of their nature, but because the environmental selection pressure for which they evolved has disappeared. For example, an East Asian's typical eyelid shape evolved as a result of higher light intensities in that area of the world, yet th...
Post a Comment
Read more

The "Purpose" of the Female Orgasm

I read on Wikipedia today that the female orgasm has no reproductive use, whereas the male orgasm does. Who the hell comes up with this bollo**s? Firstly, orgasms by themselves cannot be directly related to reproduction, since the vast, vast, vast majority of living things reproduce just fine without them. Secondly, there is no such thing as purpose in evolution. Our idea of purpose is something preconceived to serve a function. For example, a chair is made to be sat on. A typewriter is made to be typed with. A blog post is written to be read and shared. Evolution does not work that way. Nothing is ever made to serve any function because nothing is made according to a function, before that function exists. The concept of function itself is tightly dependent on the environment. A function is the relationship between two things which are connected to each other by cause, effect and time. The only reason most things have a function in living things is because those that did...
5 comments
Read more