The phrase "survival of fittest" is widely misunderstood  Many wrongly
assume it means that evolution always increases the chances of a
species surviving.  Evolution sometimes results in individuals or
populations becoming less fit and may occasionally even lead to
extinction.

There are several ways in which evolution can reduce the overall
fitness of individuals or of populations. For starters, natural
selection can take place at different levels - genes, individuals,
groups - and what promotes the survival of a gene does not necessarily
increase the fitness of the individuals carrying it, or of groups of
these individuals.

For example, parasitic DNA elements, or transposons, can spread
through a population even though they make their host organisms less
fit. Transposons are one cause of genetic diseases such as
haemophilia.

Similarly, selfish individuals may thrive at the expense of altruistic
individuals in a group - making them the "fittest" - even though they
make the group as a whole less competitive. Such cheaters can have
disastrous consequences.

In 1932, J. B. S. Haldane suggested this could even lead to the
extinction of populations - a phenomenon called evolutionary suicide.
Models and some experimental evidence suggest he was right.

For instance, when nutrients run low, individual myxobacteria (slime
bacteria) may come together to form a fruiting body to produce spores.
Lab studies have shown that cheating myxobacteria that only produce
spores and never help form the non-spore producing parts of the
fruiting body can drive populations to extinction.

Genes capable of driving populations to extinction might have a
practical use, however. Biologists are exploring the possibility of
releasing engineered parasitic DNA into populations of malaria-
carrying mosquitoes.

There is concern that something similar could happen accidentally.
Fish that have been genetically modified to produce a growth hormone
grow faster and larger, mature earlier and produce more eggs. But they
are less likely to survive in the wild than unmodified fish. According
to the Trojan gene hypothesis, a gene variant that produces such
characteristics could spread rapidly through a wild population despite
reducing individual fitness, and eventually drive the population to
extinction.

Another way in which evolution can reduce a species' chances of
survival is through the accumulation of detrimental mutations.
Mutations provide the vital raw material for natural selection, so if
the mutation rate is too low a population will not be able to evolve
fast enough to keep up with environmental changes.

If, on the other hand, a population's mutation rate is too high,
detrimental mutations may accumulate faster than natural selection can
eliminate them. Eventually, the number of mutations can exceed the
"error catastrophe threshold", again leading to the extinction of a
population.

In theory, any species with a very small population could accumulate
deleterious mutations faster than it can eliminate them. The problem
is especially severe for asexual organisms such as the Amazon molly -
an effect known as Muller's rachet.

It is far less of a problem for sexually reproducing species because
the exchange of genetic material between chromosomes can separate good
and bad mutations. Some unlucky offspring get saddled with lots of
nasty mutations and die out, while the lucky ones get hardly any.

In theory, a mutation catastrophe can also occur as a result of
linkage. This refers to gene variants that are inherited together
because they sit next to each other on a chromosome. Suppose a
mutation that greatly increases the mutation rate somehow ends up next
to a new mutation that greatly increases fitness. The immediate
fitness benefits of the beneficial mutation will initially mask the
deleterious effects of the "mutator" mutation, meaning both mutations
will rapidly sweep through a population, ultimately with disastrous
consequences.

A few doctors hope to exploit mutation accumulation to treat diseases.
Certain viruses such as HIV are already close to the error catastrophe
threshold. Drugs that increase the mutation rate of the viruses still
further might push them over the threshold and drive a population of
viruses inside a person's body to extinction.

Finallly, it has long been recognised that the competition between
members of the same species to reproduce - sexual selection - can
favour traits that reduce a species' overall fitness. Male peacocks
with the biggest and brightest tails might get the females' attention,
but lugging around a heavy, conspicuous tail reduces their chances of
survival.

Studies of threatened bird species suggest that sexual selection can
indeed drive populations to extinction. Some biologists go so far as
to blame sexual selection for the conspicuous consumption that
threatens humanity's future.

According to the handicap principle, features such as peacocks' tails
evolve precisely because they are disadvantageous. Consider an
individual who is trying to signal to females how fit and strong he
is. If the signal is easy to make, weaker males can easily cheat by
making the same signal. But if making the signal is costly - such as
growing a large, clumsy tail or giving away food - there's no way to
cheat.

Proving that any of these phenomena have ever led to extinctions in
the wild is far from easy, because any species to which this has
happened are, of course, no longer around to study. The indirect
evidence is growing ever stronger, though.

The above is from this week's New Scientist.    I've come across about
20 misconceptions of evolution reading literature recently and, of
course, creationist myths are legion.  My interest is indirect - I'm
looking for examples of why our debates are so little evidence based
for a theory of language.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to