On the Origins of species - Chapter 1

[Simon]

I invite you to read along with me, Darwin's, On the Origin of Species

Does anyone here recall reading, Chapter 1 - Variation under domestication ?

When it comes to understanding evolution, or at least the first chapter of Darwin's book, my confusion is related mainly to the factor of 'random variation'.

It seems that, in Chapter 1, Darwin is implying that variation is very minimal when a species if functioning in its natural environment, but when you bring a species into captivity, it generally produces offspring that show a great deal more of variation.

Am I on the right track here?

- Simon

[Katy]

Does anyone here recall reading, Chapter 1 - Variation under domestication ?

When it comes to understanding evolution, or at least the first chapter of Darwin's book, my confusion is related mainly to the factor of 'random variation'.

It seems that, in Chapter 1, Darwin is implying that variation is very minimal when a species if functioning in its natural environment, but when you bring a species into captivity, it generally produces offspring that show a great deal more of variation.

Am I on the right track here?

- Simon

Hi Aaron!

[Aaron Mathis]

Katy, you pesty little cricket!

What can I say?

appalling picture

[Simon]

Never mind this silly triviality people - please don't let yourself be taken over in astonishment by the dramatic unveiling.

Let's just get back on topic here.

[Simon]

And Aaron, I prefer a less asinine and more existential depiction of our man pinocchio:



But yeah, we'll still regard Katy as the Cricket.

[Katy]

It seems that, in Chapter 1, Darwin is implying that variation is very minimal when a species if functioning in its natural environment, but when you bring a species into captivity, it generally produces offspring that show a great deal more of variation.

Am I on the right track here?

- Simon

I haven't read it since high school. But if that is what he's arguing, he's wrong. Watch a group of monkeys they aren't all the same at all if you get to know them (says the anthropology major who has spent way too much time studying orangutangs). Humans can artificially breed for certain traits, but just captivity doesn't do it.

Unless what he is refering to is that groups of animals trapped in 2 different locations will be more different to eachother than animals that are together assuming they're all the same species?

[Simon]

It seems that, in Chapter 1, Darwin is implying that variation is very minimal when a species if functioning in its natural environment, but when you bring a species into captivity, it generally produces offspring that show a great deal more of variation.

Am I on the right track here?

- Simon

I haven't read it since high school. But if that is what he's arguing, he's wrong. Watch a group of monkeys they aren't all the same at all if you get to know them (says the anthropology major who has spent way too much time studying orangutangs). Humans can artificially breed for certain traits, but just captivity doesn't do it.

Unless what he is refering to is that groups of animals trapped in 2 different locations will be more different to eachother than animals that are together assuming they're all the same species?

Well, I don't think he is saying that creatures in the wild are not at all distinct and unique from each other. I think he is saying that the physical distinctions are significantly less pronounced between members of a group in the wild. The variety is not as obvious, much more subtle. You would have to be some kind of anthropology major studying a wild species closely to really appreciate differences.


A variety of monkeys in the wild, according to Darwin, will tend to appear more uniform then if you bred them in captivity for many generations. This might be because, in nature, the odd fellow gets rejected, muscled out, and perhaps murdered by the comformists who tend to be more attractive and supported by the other conformists.

Now, when you breed animals in captivity for many generations, you allow the odd variations a chance to survive and propagate with the other weird variations.

Lets take a look at Darwin's exact words in the first paragraph of chapter one:

When we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I think we are driven to conclude that this greater variability is simply due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent-species have been exposed under nature. There is, also, I think, some probability in the view that this variability may be partly connected with excess of food.

He doesnt really do too good of a job in saying it clearly, but I think what he means is what I said above. (and what I said above is inspired by what philosophaster pointed out to me over in FP)

That when animals are bred in captivity, the odds variations are able to survive and not get muscled out and murdered. This is due to a secure supply of food for all, as well as due to human interference when things get nasty between the critters.

[Simon]

I invite you to read along with me, Darwin's, On the Origin of Species

[Katy]

Well, your assertion about being murdered by the conformists can only be true in a collective society which really forms the minority of species out there. But the fact is that even that isn't overly likely or common. Animals want their own genes to survive. Killing their offspring isn't conducive to that desire.

Most species are solitary and other members of their species wouldn't know or care about their mutations. Unless the mutation specifically affects something that mates are looking for in one another it probably has little chance of being weeded out except by natural pressures for survival. Remember that most changes are likely to be internal and not noticed at all for several generations until the environment changes in some way and that mutation is more likely to survive.

[Simon]

Katy,

S: Well, your assertion about being murdered by the conformists can only be true in a collective society which really forms the minority of species out there.

A: But the fact is that even that isn't overly likely or common. Animals want their own genes to survive. Killing their offspring isn't conducive to that desire.

Hey, but I never said anything about a parent in the wild killing her own offspring. I'm more refering to what happens when the mother is done with her litter and the offspring are all grown up and forced to fend for themselves. The members of the litter that are both more uniform with each other and more uniform with their species as a whole, will be more successful at passing their genes on. The odd looking fellow will have a harder time finding a mating partner, he might find it harder to cooperate with others, he may even get in a fight out of jealousy, provoking his own death/murder.

Most species are solitary and other members of their species wouldn't know or care about their mutations.

Then why are species in the wild so uniform? Everyone, at least on the surface, practically looks identical.

Unless the mutation specifically affects something that mates are looking for in one another it probably has little chance of being weeded out except by natural pressures for survival.

What are these natural pressures that 'weed out'?

Remember that most changes are likely to be internal and not noticed at all for several generations until the environment changes in some way and that mutation is more likely to survive.

Well yeah fine, good point, but Darwin is commenting on the appearance of uniformity in a wild species. There may indeed be a lack of uniformity behind the viel of uniformity, but we are comparing variation as it is treated in the wild, compared to variation as it is treated in the domestic world.

Rearing plants and animals in a domestic world produce a great deal more variation in less time.

A group of Plants or animal in the wild world, when they are isolated in a particular zone, tend to become very uniform.

Variation is much less obvious and requires much more time to be expressed.

What do you think of the following:

1) The greater the competition and scarcity of food, the greater the uniformity (the species, or even the eco-system, has greater refinement, concentration and focus - less diversity).

2) The more that competition and pressure becomes eliminated, the greater the diversity that results. (the focus of the species/ecosystem begins to relax and break up into a more arbitrary and diverse expressions)

[Carl G]

Simon,

What interests you about Darwin's work? Do you think there's any truth in it? Of what use is it to you?

[Simon]

Simon,

What interests you about Darwin's work?

Well, for class, I have to read his book, write an essay on it and write an exam based on alot of it.

I'm also interested in truth, and so for that reason I am motivated to understand Darwin's work.

Do you think there's any truth in it?

Yes.

Of what use is it to you?

Well, aside from getting a good grade in class, I think Schopenhauer, at least in this fragment, might help you resolve this sort of question:

Genius is its own reward; for the best that one is, one must necessarily be for oneself... Further, genius consists in the working of the free intellect., and as a consequence the productions of genius serve no useful purpose. The work of genius may be music, philosophy, painting, or poetry; it is nothing for use or profit. To be useless and unprofitable is one of the characteristics of genius; it is their patent of nobility.

[Katy]

Then why are species in the wild so uniform? Everyone, at least on the surface, practically looks identical.

That's kinda my point - they don't look practically identical, and their genetics are certainly not practically identical. The reason you see it that way is that you already have a mental image in your head and you don't see enough examples to change that perception.

Also - I suspect the primary reason for many domesticated animals to have a bit more variety is first of all, we intentionally bred them to do so picking those with the same characteristics to create the differences which doesn't happen in the wild.

What are these natural pressures that 'weed out'?

If someone is immune to plague and the plague comes and destroys the village that person survives and has a larger chance of living while those without that mutation are largely weeded out.

If an elephant lands on an island where there isn't enough food to maintain its size, and another one lands there who is genetically smaller, the larger genes are gonna be weeded out by starvation (this actually happened in south east asia somewhere - they have these little pigmy elephants!)

What do you think of the following:

1) The greater the competition and scarcity of food, the greater the uniformity (the species, or even the eco-system, has greater refinement, concentration and focus - less diversity).

2) The more that competition and pressure becomes eliminated, the greater the diversity that results. (the focus of the species/ecosystem begins to relax and break up into a more arbitrary and diverse expressions)

Well, yes that makes sense - those organisms best equiped to deal with the ecosystem will survive while others won't. If there are specific things that make survival likely and fewer organisms surviving then they will likely be more similar.

[Carl G]

Carl: Of what use is it to you?

Simon: Well, aside from getting a good grade in class, I think Schopenhauer, at least in this fragment, might help you resolve this sort of question:

I didn't ask for "help" to "resolve this sort of question." I asked you personally, but fine, you defer to Schopenhauer:

Genius is its own reward; for the best that one is, one must necessarily be for oneself...

Two unrelated statements, but both essentially true. I take it you are equating knowledge of Darwin's theories of evolution with genius.

Further, genius consists in the working of the free intellect., and as a consequence the productions of genius serve no useful purpose.

Condradiction: being able to work one's intellect freely would comprise useful purpose. In other words, the second statement does not logically follow the first.

The work of genius may be music, philosophy, painting, or poetry; it is nothing for use or profit.

Not necessarily. The work of genius can be for profit, if it is sold. It can also serve to impart knowledge, or be simply a creative outlet, an alternate type of profitability.

To be useless and unprofitable is one of the characteristics of genius;

Patently incorrect; it is not true by definition: Genius does not equal uselessness and unprofitability.

it is their patent of nobility.

Nobility is also not necessarily useless.

So, Simon, basically your answer is, "Just for the heck of it?"

[Simon]

Simon: Then why are species in the wild so uniform? Everyone, at least on the surface, practically looks identical.

Katy: they don't look practically identical

I should have said, "why do species in the wild appear relatively more uniform compared to domesticated varieties?"

and their genetics are certainly not practically identical.

I never said they were, but I would say that the genetics of a particular variety in the wild, will appear to be much more uniform *relatively* than a sample of any given domestic variety.

The reason you see it that way is that you already have a mental image in your head and you don't see enough examples to change that perception.

Katy, a lack of refinement in my choice of words is causing the disagreement.

Let me try again:

When comparing variation as it manifests in the wild, compared to variation as it manifests in the domestic world, it is apparent that domestic conditions create greater variation in a shorter length of time.

A group of Plants or animal in the wild world, because conditions are relatively more hostile, tend to become very uniform and less diverse. This is apparent when you compare the vast diversity of creatures in the more abundant south with the much less diverse array of creatures further north. Conditions are more hostile as you move north, and thus the varieties are less diverse.

Variation amongst members of a wild variety is *relatively* much less pronounced than the variation we see amongst domesticated varieties.

Also - I suspect the primary reason for many domesticated animals to have a bit more variety is first of all, we intentionally bred them to do so picking those with the same characteristics to create the differences which doesn't happen in the wild.

In other words, human intervention creates less competitve conditions, where food is more abundant for the variety. This allows more pronounced variations of the variety to survive.

This has apparently resulted in a myriad of sub-varieties (poodles, pugs, boxer's, etc).

Domestication results in a great deal more variation in much less time.

In the wild, a variety of dog will not break up into such a diverse expression of sub-varieties.

The competitive and relatively more hostile conditions ensure that the variety remains concentrated, focused, and relatively more uniform than it would if the variety was treated domestically.

Simon: What are these natural pressures that 'weed out'?

Katy: If someone is immune to plague and the plague comes and destroys the village that person survives and has a larger chance of living while those without that mutation are largely weeded out.

If an elephant lands on an island where there isn't enough food to maintain its size, and another one lands there who is genetically smaller, the larger genes are gonna be weeded out by starvation (this actually happened in south east asia somewhere - they have these little pigmy elephants!)

Ok, I agree that those are definitely factors responsible for explaining why wild varieties are relatively more uniform with each other than domestic varieties. But there are other factors which include murdering and neglecting the odd eccentrics. What is your explanation for why monkey's and dolphins are known for murdering their own kind?

[Katy]

In other words, human intervention creates less competitve conditions, where food is more abundant for the variety. This allows more pronounced variations of the variety to survive.

This has apparently resulted in a myriad of sub-varieties (poodles, pugs, boxer's, etc).

Well, no. While I'm sure that's true too, my point was that we intentionally breed for certain traits, and breed for different specific traits at the same time. One breeder may be looking for the perfect pet to sit at the lap of the emperor while another is looking for the best hunter. We're not just allowing it to happen. We're causing it to happen.

Ok, I agree that those are definitely factors responsible for explaining why wild varieties are relatively more uniform with each other than domestic varieties. But there are other factors which include murdering and neglecting the odd eccentrics. What is your explanation for why monkey's and dolphins are known for murdering their own kind?

my guess would be competition over food/territory/mates... but I haven't studied the issue.

[Simon]

Simon: In other words, human intervention creates less competitve conditions, where food is more abundant for the variety. This allows more pronounced variations of the variety to survive. This has apparently resulted in a myriad of sub-varieties (poodles, pugs, boxer's, etc).

Katy: While I'm sure that's true too, my point was that we intentionally breed for certain traits, and breed for different specific traits at the same time.

We breed 'looking' for certain traits. This means: our human intervention creates less competitive, hostile conditions where food is more abundant for the variety. This 'allows' for more pronounced variations of the variety to survive, and thus greater variations occur in a shorter length of time than would occur in the wild.

One breeder may be looking for the perfect pet to sit at the lap of the emperor while another is looking for the best hunter.

In other words, intentional cultivation & domestication of a variety through human intervention, creates a less competitive, hostile condition where food is more abundant, thus allowing for greater diversity to survive. Variation amongst the variety thus happens more drastically, in a shorter length of time than in the wild. Yes, the motives of the domestication may be rooted in some breeders interest for peculiar variations, but the fact remains that the human intervention, the intentional cultivation/domestication is allowing for greater variation to occur. The breeder simply exploits this fact and looks for idiosyncratic variations in the variety to take advantage of.

We're not just allowing it to happen. We're causing it to happen.

There really is no significant difference. If we are interested in increasing variation in a wild variety, we should domesticate that variety by reducing competition by ensuring lots of food. By doing this, we allow greater variation to survive. We can then purposefully pick the new variations we wish to exploit. This logically involves further immersing these new variations in the same non-competitive environment, and this leads to more sub-varieties.

Domestication increases and acelerates variation.

Conditions decrease variation to the degree that they are wild, hostile and competitive.

Simon: Ok, I agree that those are definitely factors responsible for explaining why wild varieties are relatively more uniform with each other than domestic varieties. But there are other factors which include murdering and neglecting the odd eccentrics. What is your explanation for why monkey's and dolphins are known for murdering their own kind?

Katy: My guess would be competition over food/territory/mates

Yes, that's right, in the wild, things are much more competitive and ruthless - the eccentric variations that deviate too far from the ideal target do not survive as readily in the wild, keeping varieties as strong, concentrated and uniform as possible. The more hostile the environment, the more narrow the target, and thus the more uniform the variety.

Domestication results in the target becoming very wide, ensuring that all sorts of fringe mutations survive. And this is how we explain the incredible diversity we see in cats and dogs. The emergence of all these varieities of cats and dogs, due to domestication, happened in a remarkably short span of time.

[Jamesh]

When comparing variation as it manifests in the wild, compared to variation as it manifests in the domestic world, it is apparent that domestic conditions create greater variation in a shorter length of time

I'm certain this would be 100% true.

1. A higher number of adaptions, in certain pet type animals, would be valued by humans - and care would be taken to look afte them, whereas in the wild they would likely die.

2. Where humans found some adaption that was of benefit, then breeding outside of a small cell, as would occur in the wild, would occur significantly more often. Creatures would be bought from many areas, with the rich buying the best of the crowd and taking them home for breeding with their own stock.

3. THE BIG ONE. Conditions are markedly different in domestication. I'm a Larmarckian evolutionist, as i feel this plays as large a role as Darwinian evolution.

Quote:

"It proposed that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptative changes and pass them on to offspring."

With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws:

"In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young."

This is a theory that science does not pay attention to but should.

DNA is affected by lifestyles, not just genetic aberrations that occur during reproduction. A women on drugs can alter the form a child when born will have, due to hormonal fluctions and the like. So to can food and exercise. If this can happen during pregancy, it can also happen during one's lifetime. DNA is receptive and dynamic, not static.

[Simon]

Jamesh,

You may find this interesting, one of the reasons I'm analyzing Darwin so closely is that I have to write a paper called:

"Why Darwin felt he had to break away from Larmarkian theory."

Darwin originally had Larmarkian inclinations, but some evidence convinced him Larmark was wrong.

I'm very familar with Larmarkian theory, but I'm not clear about what the evidence is that has lead Darwin and most after him to not take the theory seriously. That is one of my goals here.

[Cory Duchesne]

Jamesh,

You may find this interesting, one of the reasons I'm analyzing Darwin so closely is that I have to write a paper called:

"Why Darwin felt he had to break away from Larmarkian theory."

Darwin originally had Larmarkian inclinations, but some evidence convinced him Larmark was wrong.

I'm very familar with Larmarkian theory, but I'm not clear about what the evidence is that has lead Darwin and most after him to not take the theory seriously. That is one of my goals here.

Darwin was lead to drop lamarcks theory simply because there was no evidence for it. (nor is there any to this day apparently). Believing in it is a violation of A=A.

After gathering an overwhelming amount of empirical data from his voyages, Darwin I think felt he had no choice but to develop the theory of natural selection & random variation. After all, the evidence for natural selection was apparent. Whereas the evidence for Lamarck's theory was nil.

[Cory Duchesne]

PS: Actually, I just found sources suggesting that Darwin spent a great deal of time, following publication of origin of species, trying to fit Lamarckian ideas of the passing on of acquired characteristics into his new theory, and its likely that Darwin never completely let go of Lamarkian possibilities.

Regardless, decades later Lamarck was put to rest.