Are Fleas More Biologically Complex Than Humans?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:27 am

Apparently they in fact are.

This tiny, near-microscopic water flea has more genes than you. In fact, this freshwater zooplankton is the first crustacean to have its genome sequenced, and its 31,000 genes crowns it the animal with the most genes so far. For those keeping count at home, the average human has about 20,000 to 25,000 genes.

The translucent water flea is a Daphnia pulex, and lives in ponds and lakes throughout North America, Europe and Australia. It can also reproduce without sex, is the most commonly found species of water flea and is a “model organism”, meaning it’s studied extensively and provides insight into other, rarer species.

Tiny Water Flea Has More Genes Than You Do | Wired Science | Wired.com

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:50 am

Your thoughts, please, on the question that if all things living evolved from a lower life form why is the human DNA strand so much shorter? Like, it's about half of your Uncle Monkey.

How dat be? :yh_coffee

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:05 am

There is no such thing as 'lower life forms'. When considering Biological Evolutionary Theory, I find it helpful to put aside such values.

What's wonderful about Evolution is we can discuss it from any perspective, any category one wishes.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:25 am

I'm not at all surprised. I reckon birds have accumulated a damn sight more specific ability and aptitudes than humans too. I reckon that like the flea their brains run a lot quicker too. Stands to reason. It must be odd to be a flea or a bird and see how slow-witted and lumbering people are.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:29 am

Ahso!;1352862 wrote: There is no such thing as 'lower life forms'. When considering Biological Evolutionary Theory, I find it helpful to put aside such values.

What's wonderful about Evolution is we can discuss it from any perspective, any category one wishes.

If you want to equate your life with pond scum that's cool with me but you didn't answer the question of why my DNA strand is so much shorter. Did I evolve from a couple of rox "doin' it " a few millenia ago? (spare me the jokes like, "yeah, that's why there's rocks in your head".)

Thanx for sharing your vast knowledge!

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:30 am

spot;1352863 wrote: I'm not at all surprised. I reckon birds have accumulated a damn sight more specific ability and aptitudes than humans too. I reckon that like the flea their brains run a lot quicker too. Stands to reason. It must be odd to be a flea or a bird and see how slow-witted and lumbering people are.

So, I guess when ppl call you a birdbrain it's actually a compliment. WOW!

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:40 am

Always liked looking at those dainty little critters under the microscope, they flourish in our ponds.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 am

BaghdadBob;1352861 wrote: Your thoughts, please, on the question that if all things living evolved from a lower life form why is the human DNA strand so much shorter? Like, it's about half of your Uncle Monkey.

How dat be? :yh_coffee
It's not the length of the strand, it's what you can do with it.

Size doesn't matter. :yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:53 am

BaghdadBob;1352865 wrote: If you want to equate your life with pond scum that's cool with me but you didn't answer the question of why my DNA strand is so much shorter. Did I evolve from a couple of rox "doin' it " a few millenia ago? (spare me the jokes like, "yeah, that's why there's rocks in your head".)

Thanx for sharing your vast knowledge!You didn't ask why your DNA is so much shorter. Your question was premised on a value qualifier which was erroneous and was thus phrased "if all things living evolved from a lower life form why is the human DNA strand so much shorter?"

The fallacy in this post is similar in that in an apparent need to feed the ego one needs to assume all valid answers to any question need be complex - they don't, in fact some of the most profound answers in life are simple ones because they address hang-ups like egotistical need, which incidentally, also evolved

. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

To answer the more accurate question asked in this post of "why my DNA strand is so much shorter." The answer is (are you ready?): because it is.

It helps to try a little of that thing called humility to understand we're just another species. Even the bible encourages us to adopt a humble attitude, Baghd. Or am I wrong about that?

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:54 am

BaghdadBob;1352866 wrote: So, I guess when ppl call you a birdbrain it's actually a compliment. WOW!

Birds manipulate spatial, inertial and gravitational awareness in ways that make pilots seem inept. They don't, on the other hand, wonder what the moon's made of.

As for the number of genes in the chromosomes of different species and whether the count indicates a duration of the evolutionary process, I suggest you learn to program. The analogies are, I suspect, full of insight.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:54 am

Accountable;1352872 wrote: It's not the length of the strand, it's what you can do with it.

Size doesn't matter. :yh_rotflGood one.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:02 am

BaghdadBob;1352865 wrote: If you want to equate your life with pond scum that's cool with me but...I didn't, you did.

BaghdadBob;1352865 wrote: Thanx for sharing your vast knowledge!As far as I'm concerned, my knowledge is not vast, only adequate.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:09 am

Ahso!;1352876 wrote: As far as I'm concerned, my knowledge is not vast, only adequate.
Oooh, what I'd give for adequate knowledge...

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:11 am

spot;1352878 wrote: Oooh, what I'd give for adequate knowledge...I should have added "for me" to that sentence. Or "whatever gets you through the night."

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:13 am

Accountable;1352872 wrote: It's not the length of the strand, it's what you can do with it.

Size doesn't matter. :yh_rotfl

Don't believe everything that wimmin tell you. :yh_giggle

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:17 am

Ahso!;1352873 wrote: You didn't ask why your DNA is so much shorter.

Hmmm.

why is the human DNA strand so much shorter? Like, it's about half of your Uncle Monkey.

How dat be?

To answer the more accurate question asked in this post of "why my DNA strand is so much shorter." The answer is (are you ready?): because it is.

You have scientific data to back that up, right?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:32 am

BaghdadBob;1352881 wrote: Hmmm.

You have scientific data to back that up, right?Your DNA being shorter was your assertion, not mine. I assume you've had your Genome examined? Where's your data?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:35 am

BaghdadBob;1352861 wrote: Your thoughts, please, on the question that if all things living evolved from a lower life form why is the human DNA strand so much shorter? Like, it's about half of your Uncle Monkey.

How dat be? :yh_coffeeLook again, my friend. Though your rope-a-dope act is cute.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:37 am

BaghdadBob;1352880 wrote: Don't believe everything that wimmin tell you. :yh_giggleOnly the stuff that feeds the ego, right, Baghd?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:43 am

In my case....most probably.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:56 am

Nomad;1352896 wrote: In my case....most probably.Me too. I was looking for confirmation.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:28 am

Ahso!;1352884 wrote: Your DNA being shorter was your assertion, not mine. I assume you've had your Genome examined? Where's your data?

Human DNA strand shorter than ...

It be in the article you linked, no?

You brought a subject up I find interesting and made a declaration that it's shorter "because" and so instead of answering questions by backing it up with peer reviewed data, you avoid the subject at hand by asking questions.

Please try to stay on topic. I'm beginning to think you fear science.

Thanx.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:39 pm

Complexity is rarely a good thing in itself. Ten times the number of parts just means ten times the number of things that can malfunction. In engineering, making something simpler is often harder than making it more complex.

The notion that "more complex is better" is quite easy to see is false, given a bit of consideration. Would you rather drive a car with 4 wheels, or one with 4,000 interdependent wheels?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:54 pm

BaghdadBob;1352911 wrote: Human DNA strand shorter than ...

It be in the article you linked, no?.I'm not sure what you're asking and I don't see the phrase above in the article, nor am I a biologist. You seem to be saying that since the flea has a higher number of genes than humans have then the human DNA strand would therefore be shorter. I don't know that that is an accurate description, though it may be for all I do know. Perhaps someone who has studied biology can give you your answer.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:55 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352928 wrote: Complexity is rarely a good thing in itself. Ten times the number of parts just means ten times the number of things that can malfunction. In engineering, making something simpler is often harder than making it more complex.

The notion that "more complex is better" is quite easy to see is false, given a bit of consideration. Would you rather drive a car with 4 wheels, or one with 4,000 interdependent wheels?

Yer kinda answering my question in a round-about manner but I think I figured it out.

What yer saying is that man was 'designed'. He was created thru intelligent design rather than randomness.

OK. I understand this topic a little better now. Thanks!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:15 pm

BaghdadBob;1352932 wrote: Yer kinda answering my question in a round-about manner but I think I figured it out.

What yer saying is that man was 'designed'. He was created thru intelligent design rather than randomness.

OK. I understand this topic a little better now. Thanks!:wah:If that's what you need to hear, go with it. Have you seen the designer? You should have said this in the very beginning and saved us all the charade of pretending to actually want answers.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:42 pm

BaghdadBob;1352911 wrote: You brought a subject up I find interesting and made a declaration that it's shorter "because" and so instead of answering questions by backing it up with peer reviewed data, you avoid the subject at hand by asking questions.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences. This post contains 100 sentences.

Tell me when the penny drops, won't you.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:08 pm

BB, even if we assume a designer, it doesn't rule out human evolution. The modern religious point of view is realigning itself to the view that God designed the basic rules which allowed evolution to occur. The theory of a white-haired creator working with play-doh is not much of a compliment to the deity's intelligence.

With such direct involvement in creating an organism, it becomes more problematic to explain the bad designs created. Like why a "simpler" organism like fleas would require more genes than humans. Was the creator having a bad day, and couldn't figure out a simpler way to make a simpler organism? It just sounds like someone hadn't had their morning coffee.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:08 pm

Ahso!;1352936 wrote: :wah:If that's what you need to hear, go with it. Have you seen the designer? You should have said this in the very beginning and saved us all the charade of pretending to actually want answers.

How do you interpet his reply?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:19 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352944 wrote: BB, even if we assume a designer, it doesn't rule out human evolution. The modern religious point of view is realigning itself to the view that God designed the basic rules which allowed evolution to occur. The theory of a white-haired creator working with play-doh is not much of a compliment to the deity's intelligence.

With such direct involvement in creating an organism, it becomes more problematic to explain the bad designs created. Like why a "simpler" organism like fleas would require more genes than humans. Was the creator having a bad day, and couldn't figure out a simpler way to make a simpler organism? It just sounds like someone hadn't had their morning coffee.

Dood, the question is simple:

Why is this so?

In fact, this freshwater zooplankton is the first crustacean to have its genome sequenced, and its 31,000 genes crowns it the animal with the most genes so far. For those keeping count at home, the average human has about 20,000 to 25,000 genes.

Why isn't a life form with more DNA not more advanced? Are all forms of life on the same level? If so, then why the disparity in the gene count?

Anyone have any answer besides "because it is so"? Can you point to any scientific journal on the subject?

Thanks.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:35 pm

As an aside, anyone have thoughts of why we're more closely related to asho!'s avatar than to Neanderthal man?

Odd...

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:17 pm

BaghdadBob;1352953 wrote:

Why isn't a life form with more DNA not more advanced?

For the sake of argument, let's assume God exists. Let's get that obstacle out of the way. Your question still stands: Why did God require so many genes to make a flea?

"Advanced" is a value judgement. Humans like to think of themselves as more advanced than a flea, but fleas helped take out a third of the European population during the black death epidemic in the middle ages. Who was the advanced species in that round?

It's worth noting the fleas have been evolving roughly the same timespan that humans have been evolving. Humans didn't evolve from the modern fleas. Surely you know that. What you'd expect to see is a continuation of DNA from extinct fleas to the modern ones.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:24 pm

BaghdadBob;1352954 wrote: As an aside, anyone have thoughts of why we're more closely related to asho!'s avatar than to Neanderthal man?

Odd...

Not necessarily odd at all. As I understand it, the evidence at this point suggests Neanderthal shared a common ancestor with chimps, and that ancestor was more chimp-like than human-like. The same is also true of Homo sapien. Whether or not that species of chimp-like ancestor were the same, I don't know.

I believe the available evidence shows Neanderthal came along first and survived for about 450,000 years while Homo sapien has to date survived for about 200,000 years or so. Neanderthal seems to have become extinct somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 years ago. Of course time lines could change as more evidence is unearthed (incidentally, that's why Evolution carries the word Theory with it - because evidence is still being uncovered).

Evolutionary Theory can still be proven wrong at any time, though that has yet to occur.

Regardless what some religious individuals and organizations espouse, Evolutionary Theory by way of Natural Selection has to this point been proven to be accurate without exception to the scientific community in peer reviewed form, some of those scientists such as Ken Miller being theists.. Whether or not one wishes to believe a God directed the course of life via evolution does not bother me in the least, though I still challenge the notion of God itself when raised. Wikipedia has some information that is easy enough for the non-scientist to understand if you're actually interested in understanding Evolution and not just playing head games.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:48 am

My ancestors knew a dinosaur you know

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:23 am

Snowfire;1352967 wrote: My ancestors knew a dinosaur you know

And bred with one, if the result's anything to go by.

I think this thread's grown very confused by the slack use of the word "closer" and the term "more closely", myself.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:32 am

BaghdadBob;1352953 wrote: Why isn't a life form with more DNA not more advanced? Are all forms of life on the same level? If so, then why the disparity in the gene count?I thought my repeated-sentence was a fair answer actually. Using a sentence as a metaphoric equivalent for a gene, not all sentences carry as much information as others and in the case of your water flea the genome is packed with repeats to an extraordinary extent. What would be more telling would be a comparison between the overall information content of the water flea genome compared with that of other animals, yourself included.

As for "more advanced", I suggested earlier that birds, for instance, can be seen in many ways as more advanced than humans. The attribute you prize as "most advanced", presumably, is your higher ability to communicate logical deductions. I concede your ability when compared to a bird though not in more general terms. It is, however, merely one specialization out of nature's host of alternative marvels.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:07 am

Speaking of birds, has anyone ever checked out the respiratory system of birds? Talk about efficient.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:10 am

spot;1352969 wrote: I thought my repeated-sentence was a fair answer actually. Using a sentence as a metaphoric equivalent for a gene, not all sentences carry as much information as others and in the case of your water flea the genome is packed with repeats to an extraordinary extent. What would be more telling would be a comparison between the overall information content of the water flea genome compared with that of other animals, yourself included.

As for "more advanced", I suggested earlier that birds, for instance, can be seen in many ways as more advanced than humans. The attribute you prize as "most advanced", presumably, is your higher ability to communicate logical deductions. I concede that when compared to a bird but not in more general terms. It is, however, merely one specialization out of nature's host of alternative marvels.Also, wouldn't the fact that the flea reproduces without sex require it to have more genes?

Also this quote from the article. The reason for this little critters’ super-high gene count comes down to its rapid rate of gene multiplication. “We estimate a rate that is three times greater than those of other invertebrates and 30 percent greater than that of humans,” project leader and CGB genomics director John Colbourne said in a press release.

As well as having a massive number of genes, more than a third of them have never been seen before in other animals. “In other words, they are completely new to science,” says Don Gilbert, coauthor and Department of Biology scientist at IU Bloomington. Those previously unknown genes are due to the nature of the flea’s environment.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:13 am

Ahso!;1352983 wrote: Also, wouldn't the fact that the flea is asexual require it to have more genes?

I am, fortunately, completely inexperienced in all forms of asexual behavior[1] - you would need to ask a specialist.

[1] - Should anyone write my biography, I hereby recommend the title "Rampant Tiger, Hidden Mammoth".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:20 am

spot;1352985 wrote: I am, fortunately, completely inexperienced in all forms of asexual behavior - you would need to ask a specialist.You quoted me too quickly, I changed the post from "asexual" to "reproduces without sex".

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:20 am

Ahso!;1352986 wrote: You quoted me too quickly, I changed the post from "asexual" to "reproduces without sex".

Mrs. BB makes that claim about how we have kids but I haven't touched her since our wedding nite. :-3

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:32 am

BaghdadBob;1352995 wrote: I haven't touched her since our wedding nite. :-3I don't necessarily blame her.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:37 am

Ahso!;1352999 wrote: I don't necessarily blame her.

I axed her why she never talks to me after sex and she said, "because I'm never near a phone." :-3

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:32 am

Ahso!;1352983 wrote: Also, wouldn't the fact that the flea reproduces without sex require it to have more genes?

Also this quote from the article.

I thought that was interesting too. It sounds like it can reproduce with or without sex. So it's definitely not the case that humans can do everything the flea can do.

The only way I can see the notion of "advanced" could be objectively argued is if the set of all possible actions of one species was a strict subset of another. This criteria might apply to any form of technology.. one computer is "advanced" to another, only if both conditions hold: there is no action the machine can perform that the another cannot, and the reverse does not hold. Rarely in biology is this ever found though, since any mechanism will produce a wide variety of pros and cons relative to a given environment.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:35 am

yaaarrrgg;1353016 wrote: I thought that was interesting too. It sounds like it can reproduce with or without sex. So it's definitely not the case that humans can do everything the flea can do.Jesus!

Actually, and rare as it might be, it happens.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:39 am

spot;1352969 wrote: I thought my repeated-sentence was a fair answer actually. Using a sentence as a metaphoric equivalent for a gene, not all sentences carry as much information as others and in the case of your water flea the genome is packed with repeats to an extraordinary extent. What would be more telling would be a comparison between the overall information content of the water flea genome compared with that of other animals, yourself included.

As for "more advanced", I suggested earlier that birds, for instance, can be seen in many ways as more advanced than humans. The attribute you prize as "most advanced", presumably, is your higher ability to communicate logical deductions. I concede your ability when compared to a bird though not in more general terms. It is, however, merely one specialization out of nature's host of alternative marvels.

I thought it was a fairly good analogy. In software there's no necessary correlation between lines of code and what the software does. A short block of code can always be converted into a longer block of code, by running it through a obfuscater (several times if needed). A general assumption is that a given piece of software is written with the smallest number of lines of code, but in actuality, the risk of breaking something by cleaning it up may outweigh the lack of elegance. As a general rule, I'd think nature takes the "if it isn't broke don't fix it" approach.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:11 am

yaaarrrgg;1353021 wrote: A general assumption is that a given piece of software is written with the smallest number of lines of code

I've worked in environments where that was a prime consideration. I've also worked in environments where maximum throughput was the objective. Neither minimal footprint nor optimized speed leads to easily-modified robust systems.

The advantage of multiple copies of a given gene is clear though. With one unchanged working copy, mutations to the remaining copies can explore evolutionary avenues without leaving the organism dead. Incremental improvements from 1 to 9 can be made despite the intermediary conditions being otherwise lethal.

And with a hundred copies, parallel exploration can do things impossible in any other way. How else would evolutionary alternatives make comparisons "all other things being equal"? It appears to be a route that's led to the water flea, anyway.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:40 am

spot;1353030 wrote: I've worked in environments where that was a prime consideration. I've also worked in environments where maximum throughput was the objective. Neither minimal footprint nor optimized speed leads to easily-modified robust systems.

The advantage of multiple copies of a given gene is clear though. With one unchanged working copy, mutations to the remaining copies can explore evolutionary avenues without leaving the organism dead. Incremental improvements from 1 to 9 can be made despite the intermediary conditions being otherwise lethal.

And with a hundred copies, parallel exploration can do things impossible in any other way. How else would evolutionary alternatives make comparisons "all other things being equal"? It appears to be a route that's led to the water flea, anyway.So, is it accurate to interpret what you're saying as the Water Flea is actually better equipped gene wise than humans and whose long term prospects are better than ours?

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:07 pm

Ahso!;1353034 wrote: So, is it accurate to interpret what you're saying as the Water Flea is actually better equipped gene wise than humans and whose long term prospects are better than ours?

I've not yet read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins but it's relevant to the question. For a gene present in a given water flea (which will also exist identically today in lots of other tubs of aquarium food), are that gene's descendants more likely to be around in twenty million years than a gene present in, for example, me (which will also exist identically today in lots of other people, or even in lots of other mammals).

It may well be that half the genes present in me are also present in a water flea, that wouldn't surprise me in the least. There's a small subset of genes that have a disproportionate control effect on what you look like, how many antennae or eyes or limbs you have, and a host of assembly templates which can be called on by the control functions.

And it gets conserved for eons. Most of the time taken by evolution was the evolution of single-celled life, we multicellular forms like water fleas and giraffes and carrots are closely-related late arrivals, the hard work was long finished before the first worm turned. We've merely expanded into different environmental niches and specialized.

Those two genes in another twenty million years? I'd bet they'll both be going strong. Is it more likely there'll be an animal you can point at that looks like a person or one you can point at that looks like a water flea? The water flea, definitely, every time. Twenty million years ago you'd only just differentiated yourself from the rat.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:22 pm

Fingertip bar code scanners are definitely part of our future.