Module 11: Time Magazine Who?

 Prompt: So, following up from career day, your alternative prompt is to flip Time's narrative on its head. What have you gained this year, either personally or professionally? What did over come that you didn't think you could? How has the past year changed you for the better? Essentially, for just a moment, look past the doom and search for the silver linings.

    I agree that Time is out of line with its magazine cover. I think it could be a bait thing to get a rise out of people and get them to read their content, but it could also just be their blatant ignorance. This past year has not been the easiest, but we all adapted and I think we have all done well keeping afloat. I learned how to take classes that are meant to be purely in person and learn them online, which was a very weird format for language classes and anatomy. Let me tell you, learning human body online was far from exciting or easy online, but it is definitely doable. 

    I have learned a lot more patience and learning how to deal with unique problems associated with distance education and isolation from social interactions. I had a lot of personal problems pile up on me on top of the frustrations of school, so learning to deal with all of that and the online stuff was both challenging but something that could be overcome. So, while the year was not my favorite, I would not call it a 'lost year.' A pain in the ass? Totally, but not a loss.

Female Sexual Dimorphism and Why She Look Like Dat

 So, our prompt is: The question for you to ponder is how does something like this evolve? With your knowledge of sexual selection theory, can you formulate a hypothesis that explains why female courtship might have evolved in this species? Is there anything about pipefish biology that might support your hypothesis?

    To start, pipefish are part of Syngnathinae family, which seahorses are also from, which makes seahorses and pipefish cousins. As we probably all know by now, the males of the seahorse world are the ones who carry the eggs and "birth" them when they're ready to shoot out, like a tiny baby cannon. 

(Pictured below: baby cannon engaged)

    Since we know that they're from the same family, we can dig deeper. According to the Great Google™, male pipefish are also the baby carriers. So, from this, we can assume that females are doing what males do during intersexual selection and are trying to court the males through their size, colors, and mating dance in order to get someone to carry and tend to their eggs. 

    This may likely have to do with the fact that, like the peacocks (but sex in reverse), the males might be looking for the female that displays the most color or the largest girth, as she might have greater survivability and, in turn, will pass that onto her young. The males are smaller and more drab in appearance, so they're probably ideal as carriers to protect the eggs.

    That all being said, that's probably exactly why it evolved in this species, but in the females instead of the males, since they're from that family that does things a little differently (but effectively, I guess). 

Sources: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2018.1335

https://www.britannica.com/animal/pipefish

Module 8: Genetic Variation

     So, we want to understand why selection hasn't wiped out genetic variation. Ignoring the fact that I'm months (months) behind in responding to this prompt, let's dive in to explore it more in-depth.

    Selection is a big part of fitness and mating. Different traits may be more appealing to others for enhancement. If we didn't have that variety and everyone had the same exact traits, that could be detrimental to a species/organism. Maintaining that genetic variation within populations will improve the chances for those species/organisms and others that are likely to be impacted by gene flow. We wouldn't have all of the variety we have today without genetic variation.

Kimura vs Darwin

 Wait, is that...? It is! It's JOHN CENA!

     If you heard his theme after reading that, I want you to know how proud I am of you. Brownie points if you pictured him doing his signature "You can't see me." Mustn't forget that. Now, moving on from that: Kimura vs Darwin vs John Cena. Who will win?

    If you guessed John Cena, please reward yourself with one of your favorite indulgences. You've earned it. It would be horrifically unfair to include him in the mix, since he'd obviously destroy them. So, we'll just look at Motoo Kimura's and Charles Darwin's theories to see similarities and differences.

    The neutral theory of molecular evolution argues that most mutations in DNA are selectively neutral and remain in the genome because they are not eliminated by natural selection. His theory emphasizes random fixation of nearly-neutral or entirely-neutral mutations and assumes that genetic variation results primarily from a mixture of mutation-generating variation AND its elimination by genetic drift.

    So, the long and the short of it: the theory of  neutral evolution suggests that genetic diversity is impacted more by genetic drift and mutations, NOT selection. The theory got its name because the allele and genotype differences at a gene are selectively neutral with respect to one another.

    The theory of natural selection is basically the opposite and NOT considered to be either random, nor neutral. Natural selection tends to zero in on what would be considered advantageous phenotypes and mutations therein in order to benefit that species over a period of time. There'd be no point in evolution if it doesn't benefit the organism/species in some way, right? This theory also has a focus of importance on fitness of select alleles and is part of the driving force for those changes that an organism/species will experience. 

    TL;DR: Both theories acknowledge that mutation is a driving force in evolution. They differ in how they address how the changes impact a species and how they come about. While natural selection focuses on (generally) advantageous phenotypes, neutral evolution doesn't care about phenotypes and is more random. 

    All the sass aside, neutral evolution has been beneficial for molecular biology. I think that Kimura's theory and Darwin's theory work well together for some things.

(Now, obligatory memes.)

Sources: Princeton Guide to Evolution

Inbreeding

 *Banjos playing in the distance*

 

    Inbreeding can have some desirable benefits. Inbreeding within small groups has the potential to fix desirable genotypes within that group. It can also help maintain a level of genetic "purity" in that bloodline that can pass on advantageous phenotypes or evolutionary traits. In an example of a hermaphrodite organism, it can fertilize itself (there's a joke here, but I'm not gonna say it) and has the advantage of passing on two copies of its genes into each of its offspring. Another impact it could have is mutations, which could be beneficial to the species. It's these kind of benefits that can lead to assortative mating among species. The big difference is that inbreeding will affect all loci, while assortative mating affects only those that play a role in similar phenotype characteristics.

    Downsides to inbreeding are many. Inbreeding impacts the allele combinations that are on the same locus of diploid individuals, and more inbred organisms are more likely to have two copies of the same allele at a locus vs if they were randomly mating. This creates a problem of them being more likely to be homozygous with an increased expression of the effects of the recessive alleles. Since many of those alleles are deleterious, the organisms' fitness level will be reduced. Inbred organisms can also develop mutations that aren't beneficial to them, creating health problems and impacting their fitness.

    It's also been found that inbreeding in smaller, isolated populations can actually increase their risk of becoming extinct, something they found out with the Glanville fritillary butterfly (oof). Another problem is the lack of genetic variation. Evolutionary advantages that they could receive through outbreeding are lost to them, whether it's by choice or force (i.e., isolated/cut off from other potential mates). There's also the problem of inbreeding depression, which gives a lower survival rate or fertility of progeny of inbred matings. This problem occurs when there's a high frequency of homozygosity in a population that comes from inbreeding and drastically cuts down on heterozygous organisms. 

    These reasons are what can lead to the disassortative matings. Disassortative matings can increase/improve heterozygosity, genetic variation, achieve evolutionary advantages, and have better overall fitness as a species.

    I could honestly probably list even more problems associated with inbreeding (and maybe some other benefits), but I'm not trying to bore you to death. 

(Memes ahoy, m'fellows)

(What a throwback, phew)

    Sources: The Princeton Guide to Evolution, 2013.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/assortative-mating 

Slithery, Sneaky Snakes

 Snakes in the Plains

    

        Starting from Ontario and going through the islands and mainlands therein, there's obviously very little change in the phenotype between Ontario and the Peninsular mainland, as there was likely little to no need for it. The snakes in those locations maintained their stripes as it was ideal for the camouflage of these locations. Kelleys Island, Bass complex islands, and the Middle and Pelee island all show greater variation.

     These distributions of variation in phenotype are likely due to the migrations of snakes from different islands going around to one another, as well as a need to maintain their phenotypic appearance in order to protect themselves. Since the animals are always moving about, whether for the food, curiosity, breeding, weather, or something else, there will likely always be variation and - equally likely - there won't be a phenotype that gets wiped out by selection or adaptation, since they probably won't stick around long enough for it to impact all of them.

    Consequences of migration for populations can be few or many depending on the organism and location. In general, I think resources, potential mates, predator/prey balance/imbalance, evolutionary disadvantage/loss, and space could all be consequences of migration. 

(As always: M E M E S)

First Milestone

 25%-ish Complete Already?

    A break-through that I think I  had was probably over last week's material, or more specifically, finding and witnessing examples of natural selection occurring without evolution taking place. It still surprises me that it's a thing that can happen, since I've always been taught the blanket idea that natural selection leads to evolution. I was never told anything to the contrary and I never looked into it further, it never interested me enough. Not until last week, anyway. 

    Honestly, I don't think I'd change how I phrased it. Could I expand on it more? Sure, probably. I could probably provide better examples and articulate myself more goodly, but I don't think there's anything wrong with my definition as it currently stands.

    I wouldn't say that I'm struggling with anything right now. I do occasionally have trouble on R, but I've found the discussion board and the Almighty Google™ to be exceedingly helpful in amending these issues. That being said, if there are concepts I don't understand, there's a multitude of resources to explore, including the Evolution team and my peers.

    This is going to be a terrible answer, but I'm curious about all of it. I don't have one particular subject that just jumps out at me, flailing its arms excitedly for attention. They're all interesting in their own way, and I'd like to see how each one unfolds and works out.

Obligatory memes, but they're random and only one is related to evolution.

I'm still not sorry.