Another Dawkins Row

[Griffin NoName]

Dawkins v. EO Wilson (of the Ants) - actual review is in Prospect magazine

All very silly. But still, genetic imprinting continues to puzzle me.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is an article in this month's Scientific American about the evolution of cooperation, that mentions how simulations have shown that cooperation doesn't have to help the immediate genetic pool or even kin to be beneficial. I don't know the details of Dawkins' argument but perhaps not all genes have to be selfish...

[Griffin NoName]

Objections to Dawkins seem to be about defining "fitness".

"To use a simple human example, someone with the perfect set of genes for walking with two legs might die early because they jump off a cliff," said Koentges.

Delay jumping off cliffs until you have had children?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That makes me think on roadkill, the butterfly/badger/doe that avoids the highway should be more successful having their genes passed on, the problem is that it takes a number of generations to create both the selective pressure and the right mutation.

[Griffin NoName]

Yes, I don't really see how they could achieve natural selection visa v. roadkill

[Swatopluk]

Now I feel reminded of Discworld swamp dragons

[Aggie]

[untaddy] Dawkins was certainly a formative influence on me, but the older we both get, the more I sometimes feel that he needs a daily cup of STFU with breakfast. He's far too fond of stirring up trouble, and seems to think he's done enough for his field that his word should be dogma, even in areas where he doesn't have expertise. [/untaddy]

Yes, I don't really see how they could achieve natural selection visa v. roadkill

It's a selective pressure, with a very specific stimulus attached to it (which is all it takes to evolve; mutations which result in an aversion to the sound of traffic or smell of asphalt, for example, would help).  Over a long enough timescale, I'm sure the numbers of roadkill for say, deer will decrease.  Mind you, some of the best feeding at certain times of the year (with reduced presence of predators) occurs along the roadsides, so there are selective pressures to stay near the roads but not on them.

For species like amphibians and turtles who must cross roadways in order to get to breeding areas (ponds, etc), the reproductive imperative is probably a bigger driving force than the roadkill effect. However, you could also presume that at least some of the ones who make it successfully across have a better strategy for doing so.  With squirrels, most seem to have the right instinct for dashing across before the vehicle comes, but tend to double back in panic when they hit the far shoulder. That bit might be easy enough to modify over a few hundred thousand generations.

The trouble with cars is that they haven't been around long enough to generate selection over many generations (even for many insects, it's been n<100 since the automobile has been going fast to splatter them on a windshield), and they don't act like a proper predator.  Because they stick to roadways and for the most part try to avoid collisions with wildlife, automobiles are hard for animals to read as sources of mortality, even though they are extremely easy to see, hear and smell.  For an animal that spends its time around roadways, these large, loud, fast objects are probably imposing, but because they don't stalk and pursue like a predator would, they seem relatively harmless.



What might be as interesting would be to look at whether the automobile is a significant selective pressure on human beings.  Why are us conducting a War on Drugs (17,000 deaths/year, data from 2000) but not a War on Automobiles (43,000 deaths) or a War on Tobacco for that matter (435,000 deaths)?

I suppose that the taxes on tobacco are helping to pay for the War on Terror^TM, which was more or less justified due to the 3,000 deaths of the WTC attacks (for the record, the US has lost twice that number in military personnel in the response; civilian and military casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq combined are likely in the hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million).

Where's that pot of STFU? Looks like I need a cuppa this morning, too.

[Swatopluk]

The question is, how much can be put into the genes?  Apart from that, although we have an innate fear of heights, there are still many cases of people falling off cliffs etc.

[Griffin NoName]

The question is, how much can be put into the genes?  Apart from that, although we have an innate fear of heights, there are still many cases of people falling off cliffs etc.

Depends which cliff. In England, if it is Beachy Head it's a suicide. Similar with bridges. The Clifton Suspension Bridge and the Archway bridge in London - it's suicide....... suppose your average bridge might be accidental?? 

[Swatopluk]

I think there a many accidental falls (balconies and open windows probably #1, natural steep places far behind).
It's often actually the vertigo that gives the final 'push' despite having evolved to keep people away from places where a fall is likely to be lethal.

[Sibling DavidH]

I've always wondered about that fear of heights, since we are not all that far from ancestors which used to live in the trees.

[Swatopluk]

I read that some peoples e.g. in South America in the Andes lack the fear of heights (mutation). They were at least in the past much sought after as construction workers fro skyscrapers (and afterwards window cleaners for the same).

[Sibling DavidH]

Yes, North American Indians too, I believe.

The fear gets counterproductive once you're high up.  Most people will easily walk along a twelve-inch-wide plank a foot above the ground, but if they tried it a hundred feet up, many would fall off from sheer terror.  That must kill a lot of the people it's meant to save.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Skunks.

Why skunks?  Because prior to human's invading the North American wilderness, skunks pretty much had it easy-- few predators would bother them.  The few that did, the skunks' rapid breeding strategy more than compensated for.

So most skunks were rather bold in their habits-- mostly moving about at night, but pretty much completely unafraid of what could happen to them.

Along comes humans-- who continued to ignore skunks.

Then:  the automobile.   Traveling in excess of 40mph, on roadways.  

Now, the building of roadways did not bother the skunk-- he boldly crossed these whenever it suited his needs, and without a second's thought.

Unfortunately, the skunk's primary mode of defense was useless to a 2-ton, speeding car--  **squash**.     With an ordinary predator, once they tangled with a single skunk, they typically left the species (and all that skunk's relatives) strictly alone-- lesson learned.

Cars?  Not so much-- cars cannot "learn", as it turns out-- cars are not really bothered by the smell, unfortunately for the boldly going skunks.

So, what happened?  Obviously, within any given population of skunks, there are the boldly-go ones, and then, there are some timidly go ones.   If the boldly-go skunks are being squashed in a greater proportion to the timidly-go skunks?  After a few generations, the timidly-go skunks will outnumber the boldly-go skunks.

In short?*

We are selectively breeding for timid skunks.


_______

*  (too late, right?)

[Griffin NoName]

Is there any evidence of unusually fearful skunks?

The car/vehicle angle can be applied to many species. eg. a toitorse is so slow the are bound to be hit crossing the road whether they shrink inside their shell or not. Would that lead to shell-less toitorses?