Evolution by Elimination - The Game

[Resha Caner]

The rules: You can pontificate as much as you please regarding each suggestion I post, but you must end with either "yes" or "no" regarding whether said suggestion is or is not evolution or your post doesn't count.

We'll begin with the absurd, and proceed from there ...

I have a population of ham, and I sample the alleles. I then spread some mayonnaise on the ham, thereby changing the allele frequency. Is this evolution?

 

[Chesterton]

Evolution at bottom just means "change", right? So, yes?

 

[Snappy1]

No...

 

[drjean]

Did you change the DNA of that? Was it an improvement? While it might be included in the myth of "evolution" do I believe it's evolution? No.

 

[DaisyDay]

The rules: You can pontificate as much as you please regarding each suggestion I post, but you must end with either "yes" or "no" regarding whether said suggestion is or is not evolution or your post doesn't count.

We'll begin with the absurd, and proceed from there ...

I have a population of ham, and I sample the alleles. I then spread some mayonnaise on the ham, thereby changing the allele frequency. Is this evolution?

What is a "population of ham"? Putting mayonnaise on ham doesn't change the ham - it's still ham but with mayonnaise on top, so NO, that has nothing to do with evolution. Genetically, the ham is unchanged - literally, it's the same ham as it was before and it will never have any offspring. This is up there with "giraffes are impossible" - no.

 

[DaisyDay]

Did you change the DNA of that? Was it an improvement? While it might be included in the myth of "evolution" do I believe it's evolution? No.

Improvement has nothing to do with evolution, but you're right about the "no".

 

[Paulos23]

This looks like fun. No.

 

[Anto9us]

No. But ham is better with mustard than mayonaise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The rules: You can pontificate as much as you please regarding each suggestion I post, but you must end with either "yes" or "no" regarding whether said suggestion is or is not evolution or your post doesn't count.

We'll begin with the absurd, and proceed from there ...

I have a population of ham, and I sample the alleles. I then spread some mayonnaise on the ham, thereby changing the allele frequency. Is this evolution?

So, there's no reproduction, no descend with modification, no natural selection, ...

So "no".

 

[Resha Caner]

No. But ham is better with mustard than mayonaise.

That depends on the brand of mustard.

What is a "population of ham"? Putting mayonnaise on ham doesn't change the ham - it's still ham but with mayonnaise on top, so NO, that has nothing to do with evolution. Genetically, the ham is unchanged - literally, it's the same ham as it was before and it will never have any offspring. This is up there with "giraffes are impossible" - no.

In statistics, whatever one studies is called a "population". Technically, I met the conditions of the definition I was given for evolution, which stated it is "change in allele frequency in populations over time".

But, as I said, I intentionally began with the absurd.

So, there's no reproduction, no descend with modification, no natural selection, ...

So "no".

I'm a bit surprised no one objected on the grounds that both the ham and the mayonnaise are dead ... though I could infer that as part of your objection. I also thought someone might mention the bacteria that would accumulate on the mixture.

Anyway, moving on ...

So, let's switch to a living population. We'll use the population of dogs in my neighborhood. So, I sample the alleles in the dog population. Then some of the dogs eat the ham sandwiches, and I sample them immediately afterward. The alleles have changed. Is that evolution?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, let's switch to a living population. We'll use the population of dogs in my neighborhood. So, I sample the alleles in the dog population. Then some of the dogs eat the ham sandwiches, and I sample them immediately afterward. The alleles have changed. Is that evolution?

No.

Are you sure you know what alleles are? And what ham sandwiches do to them when you eat one?

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you sure you know what alleles are? And what ham sandwiches do to them when you eat one?

My understanding of alleles is likely incomplete, but I think I get the basics. Time will tell. In the past when I've asked someone to define X, the result has often been unsatisfactory. Further, some of the conversations I've had regarding definitions of evolution leave me with an impression the person is saying "Everything is evolution." I don't think they intend to say that, but it often comes across that way.

I think what happens is the very issue pointed out by Ernst Mach. His version was more formalized, but it kinda boils down to the adage that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So, if all you have in biology is evolution, every change looks like evolution. I am pleased, though, that so far I'm getting "no" for an answer.

So, this time I'm not asking straight out for a definition of the word I'm interested in, but rather I'm taking a round-about route ... and having fun with it along the way.

You did see the disclaimer that I intentionally threw out an absurd scenario to start this off? Still, I do realize that if the questions remain absurd for too long, the game will lose it's appeal. So, we'll take another step toward a more reasonable scenario.

The definition I noted applies to a population, not a specific organism. Yes? It applies to a set of organisms - in this case the dogs in my neighborhood. So, suppose the ham sandwiches have become a bit rancid such that some of the dogs die when they eat them. A selective pressure has been applied to the population and the allele frequency likely changes, doesn't it? Is this evolution?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The definition I noted applies to a population, not a specific organism. Yes? It applies to a set of organisms - in this case the dogs in my neighborhood. So, suppose the ham sandwiches have become a bit rancid such that some of the dogs die when they eat them. A selective pressure has been applied to the population and the allele frequency likely changes, doesn't it? Is this evolution?

I think (not being a biologist) when we talk about allele frequencies changing over time, we're thinking about over generations. But if we think of this as a trivial, degenerate case, it might count. (I also think 'dogs in my neighborhood' is not a population in the biological sense.)

It would be slightly more interesting if the different allele variants had differential survival rates, so dogs with variant A died 50% of the time after eating a rancid sandwich, and those with variant B died 40% of the time. Or those with variant C could smell rancidity better than those with variant D, and would avoid those meals (but in other environments, they might starve, since they were too fussy about what they ate). And it would also help if there were a sufficient number of dogs in the neighborhood. If there are only two, and one dies and the other doesn't, it's almost a crap shoot whether the one with the 'better' variant survives. And not much the lonely dog can do to pass on his genes, no matter which variant it is. Though of course extinction is one evolutionary outcome.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ah, you've introduced some important elements to the conversation. Thanks.

I think (not being a biologist) when we talk about allele frequencies changing over time, we're thinking about over generations.

Is there a formal definition of evolution that stipulates generations, or is that an informal understanding?

But if we think of this as a trivial, degenerate case, it might count.

So, in the end, your vote would be a "yes". I could come at the same issue from several different angles, but note no mutation has occurred yet. So, we're limited to the existing pool and whatever is selected or produced by mix-n-match.

I also think 'dogs in my neighborhood' is not a population in the biological sense.

So what would count as a population? And, again, is that a formal stipulation or an informal understanding?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there a formal definition of evolution that stipulates generations, or is that an informal understanding?

I'll leave it to the biologists to comment.

So, in the end, your vote would be a "yes". I could come at the same issue from several different angles, but note no mutation has occurred yet.

Well, no mutations occur after you give them a sandwich, no. This is why focusing on an event in the life of a single generation is very limiting.

So, we're limited to the existing pool

Right, but it would seem that some portion of the variations in the existing pool come from previous mutations, since we know that every human, for example, has dozens of novel mutations.

So what would count as a population? And, again, is that a formal stipulation or an informal understanding?

In biology, a population is all the organisms of the same group or species, which live in a particular geographical area, and have the capability of interbreeding.

So, if your neighborhood has been fenced in to keep more than a few outsiders from mixing their genes in. And people who move into the neighborhood can't bring their dogs with them. And so on.

 

[Speedwell]

So, in the end, your vote would be a "yes". I could come at the same issue from several different angles, but note no mutation has occurred yet. So, we're limited to the existing pool and whatever is selected or produced by mix-n-match.

But random variation is occurring constantly, mutation or no. If any of the dogs survive it is because rancid-ham-sandwich-tolerating variants are already in the population.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I have a population of ham, and I sample the alleles. I then spread some mayonnaise on the ham, thereby changing the allele frequency. Is this evolution?

Evolution simply means change, and as mayonnaise on ham is clearly different from ham by itself, this is a change. As ham with mayonnaise tastes that much more delicious than ham by itself, this is clearly a positive change, as well as an increase in information. Ham with mayonnaise sandwiches are more likely to be eaten than ham only sandwiches, so these sandwiches will clearly make a profit for the sandwich maker, who will in turn produce more ham with mayonnaise sandwiches to increase his profitability, propagating the allele frequency of the ham with mayo. If the ham only sandwiches do not evolve another topping which can beat the ham with mayo (e.g. ham with tomato and onion, or ham with mustard and salad), the ham only species is in danger of extinction!

Yes.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evolution simply means change, and as mayonnaise on ham is clearly different from ham by itself, this is a change. As ham with mayonnaise tastes that much more delicious than ham by itself, this is clearly a positive change, as well as an increase in information. Ham with mayonnaise sandwiches are more likely to be eaten than ham only sandwiches, so these sandwiches will clearly make a profit for the sandwich maker, who will in turn produce more ham with mayonnaise sandwiches to increase his profitability, propagating the allele frequency of the ham with mayo. If the ham only sandwiches do not evolve another topping which can beat the ham with mayo (e.g. ham with tomato and onion, or ham with mustard and salad), the ham only species is in danger of extinction!

Yes.

I like your reply simply for the human element of it. I often get a sense that evolution is viewed as something that happens in "nature" apart from human interaction, and that any changes prompted by human interaction are interference. It seems more appropriate to say that whatever humans might do, it is merely one of many selective pressures. It also raises an interesting question about "life". If a living being actively pursues the proliferation of ham sandwiches, in what way is that different from the proliferation of life? I'm probably getting too philosophical.

Regardless, observing discussions on things like climate change can be entertaining. It doesn't seem people who want to limit human action to reduce climate change are really about "preserving the future". The material of the universe will survive regardless. Life will be what life will be. Maybe a different climate would produce a superior person. So, to me it seems more an effort to save what I have now. That's not a bad thing - just an observation.

 

[Resha Caner]

In biology, a population is all the organisms of the same group or species, which live in a particular geographical area, and have the capability of interbreeding.

Thanks. It does seem to me the capability to mate is the only viable means of defining a "species". There's an odd interplay here where the definition of evolution involves populations, but DNA is organism specific. As such, reductio ad absurdum makes it nearly impossible to set how much difference in DNA (or morphology) constitutes a different species.

The geographic area seems more to me a matter of practicality than rigorous definition. We often invoke the VonMises principle in engineering, whereby the precision needed to predict the durability of a machine precludes the need to consider flapping butterfly wings on the other side of the world. I would think geographic boundaries play a similar role in biology.

If that's not the case, I would say the definition is seriously flawed and would need to consider the allele frequency of all living things.

Right, but it would seem that some portion of the variations in the existing pool come from previous mutations, since we know that every human, for example, has dozens of novel mutations.

Sure, but that hasn't entered the scenario yet as a consideration.

I'll leave it to the biologists to comment.

Then I'll have to wait to see if any biologists cast their vote. It's kinda like Ben Franklin waiting for a stormy day.