Jolly Rodger,
I guess your asking for a thrashing?
I guess your asking for a thrashing?
Main Entry: 1thrash
Pronunciation: 'thrash
Function: verb
Etymology: alteration of thresh
Date: 1588
transitive senses
...
2 a : to beat soundly with or as if with a stick or whip : FLOG b : to defeat decisively or severely ''thrashed the visiting team''
3 : to swing, beat, or strike in the manner of a rapidly moving flail ''thrashing his arms''
...
Originally posted by curioucity
Where are the eyes located? Tip of tentacles?
Also, how do the rudimentary eyes work? do they only see things as blurry?
Originally posted by curioucity
One more thing about man-o-war: What creatures compose man-o-war? I particularly ask about the phylums.... for some reasons I doubt that man-o-war consists of merely small coelenteratas...
this is not true. it appears to be altruism and sacrificing for the good of the colony, but it is still individual selection because of inclusive fitness.Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Colonies are interesting because they completely release the pressure of natural selection on the individual.
Originally posted by curioucity
... is it ALWAYS true that the smaller the members of the colony are, the more members are in the colony? Ants are small, and they are numerous..
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
... Colonies evolve, individuals do not....
no need, i've spoken to him and he knows what i'm talking about, however you do not. the reason why it is still individual selection and not group selection is the amount of shared genes betwee the ants (inclusive fitness) where an individual ant's fitness is increased by sacrificing its reproducing and protecting those ants with whom it shares genes.Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I better go fill EO wilson (aka the antman) in on this new information
it appears you need to look up 'inclusive fitness.' and perhaps read Wison's book on ants. other colonial organisms like bees and termites share this same evolutionary trend (including the colonial mammal, the naked mole rat) where individuals give up reproducing for the sake of protection and care of their reproducing siblings due to inclusive fitness. some search terms 'kin selection' 'altruism' 'inclusive fitness'Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
It is not inclusive fitness because the fit are expected to sacrifice themselves, they would be unfit to not do so, and anyway they were never born to breed.
A breeding ant is born to be a breeder and stays within the safe confounds of the colony.
it is an excellent argument and is accepted by biologists now, your opinion notwithstanding.Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Ants and bees and other hive-type creatures are a bit of a special case for kin selection.
Kin selection is an attempt to explain altruism between dissimilar individuals, and is (in my opinion) not the strongest argument in the world. You probably share 75 percent of your genetic material with the cow that you eat, but that doesn't stop you from eating it.
bee and ant drones/workers (i.e. non-reproductive) are NOT clones of the queen! The reason hypothesized that they would forgo reproduction and sacrifice themselves for nest/hive defense is that they share 75% (on average) of their genes with their sibs (not 50% like other diploids). Its a reproductive strategy which only works because of the haplo-diploidy of the organisms.Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Ants however, have a slightly different take on things because the workers are all parthenogenic clones of the queen. Hence the entire colony - to some extent - is an individual. When an ant dies to save the queen ant from the same colony, that's a much closer kinship than if you die to save your child, since the two share pretty much the exact same genetic code, where your child only gets half of yours.