Which species's evolution is most successful?

[ElectricFetus]

paulsamuel,

The algae and fungi in lichen can be separated and grown separate, same for termites, legumes, ect. No mitochondria have been found living separate from their host; neither can one survive with out the other in any form. Mitochondial gene may not have moved specifically but gene from the host replaced the function of the mitochondria genes and the mitochondria genome shrank significantly. The smallest bacteria genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has ~580,000bp and over 400 genes, the mitochondria (humen) has only ~16,570bp and only 37 genes.

Also the mitochondia simple produces ATP and other energy storage molecules through crab cycles and electron transport, though we could not live without it.

Just because they were a species does not mean they can be included now. Many forms of bacteria are even more populated around the world then mitochondria, so the argument is null even if you included them.

Yes I do have references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11025528
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/031110/031110-17.html

What properties does a biological virus have other then physical form from from a computer virus?

crystals and prions are both made of raw molecules that simple change conformation and arrogate, crystals induce crystallization just as prions induce conformation changes and arrogate into prion crystals.

 

[paulsamuel]

The algae and fungi in lichen can be separated and grown separate, same for termites, legumes, ect.

The algae and fungi in lichen cannot and do not live separately in the wild.
I don't know what you're talking about, but it's irrelevant if they can be cultured in the lab. Are you saying that once the laboratory techniques are developed to culture mitochondria, that mitochondria are elevated to species level? Do you realize that logically that's invalid? Also, are you saying that once this technique is developed that suddenly I'm right and you're wrong?

Also, are you saying that there are NO instances in which there are obligate symbionts that are impossible to culture without the host.

If so, all I need do is find one case where the symbiont cannot live without the host and my case is proved?

Mitochondial gene may not have moved specifically but gene from the host replaced the function of the mitochondria genes and the mitochondria genome shrank significantly. The smallest bacteria genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has ~580,000bp and over 400 genes, the mitochondria (humen) has only ~16,570bp and only 37 genes.

This is irrelevant.

Also the mitochondia simple produces ATP and other energy storage molecules through crab cycles and electron transport, though we could not live without it.

What is your point. It appears you are confused. You are simultaneously trying to minimize the importance of mitochondria while acknowledging its importance, in fact necessity. Either you are confused, or you are trying to mislead the reader, hopefully it's the former, because if it's the latter, I'm done with you and you're ignored forever by me.

Just because they were a species does not mean they can be included now.

Nor can they be discluded.

Many forms of bacteria are even more populated around the world then mitochondria, so the argument is null even if you included them.

Are you saying that there is a species of bacteria more numerous than all the eukaryotes combined? I don't believe that. Show me.

There are NO species of bacteria more numerous than the number of mitochondria world wide.

Yes I do have references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11025528
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/031110/031110-17.html

You do realize that this is the antithesis of the point you were trying to make. The virus was not created. It required the host to make it.

What properties does a biological virus have other then physical form from from a computer virus?

There are many. One is that some virus species lyse bacterial cells.

crystals and prions are both made of raw molecules that simple change conformation and arrogate, crystals induce crystallization just as prions induce conformation changes and arrogate into prion crystals.

As I've stated, just because some entities share life characteristics, does not make them alive. Prions, perhaps because they live, can propagate and take over protein building processes in some cells.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yes but lichen can be separated in vitro (in a lab) and survive. Mitochondria can't. To culture mitochondria could be done by inserting the needed genes to survive, at which point it would be a separate species! But it still would not qualify since its now very distinct from is natural counterparts. That beings up another issue: mitochondria harbored by different species are different genetically, thus all mitochondria could never be place as one species, only as a genus at best, and the question "Which species's evolution is most successful?" does not cover genus.

I don't see why it’s irrelevant that the mitochondria has such a degraded genome, I think it applies well to my case that mitochondria are beyond symbiosis. If you could explain your point?

you said:

as we are completely reliant on their proteins and enzymes (which are the same thing BTW).

I corrected you; it does not have relevance to the central issue that is true.

I don't see why make a function synthetic genome and thus functional virus of synthetic genetics is void if a host is used to produce it?

and some computer viruses destroy computers, permanently, what your point?
a biological virus and computer both evolve and replicates via host, those a central characteristics that have been argued for reason to categorize biological virus as alive.

Prions don't take over protein building processes, a prion only converts proteins by conformational change, protein synthesis is un-affected. Just like a crystal which converts is molecular building blocks conformation and then binds to it, arrogating.

This issue of what alive and not is purely philosophical and I don’t think this belongs argued under this thread.

 

[paulsamuel]

Yes but lichen can be separated in vitro (in a lab) and survive. Mitochondria can't.

I guess you didn't understand what I meant. I'll try again. Your implication is that mitochondria will never be able to be cultured. That is speculation at best. If we lacked the techniques to culture algae from lichen, would that change its status? Say, 200 or so years ago, before humans had the ability to culture the algae from lichen, was that algae now relegated to the status of a mitochondria? And, when we did develop the techniques, this algae was suddenly elevated to species status? My point is that our technological advances may have very little to do with the status of mitochondria. Labs have been working very hard to culture mitochondria. What happens to your criteria if tomorrow a lab declares that it can now culture mitochondria. I could now say 'the mitochondria can be separated in vitro.' Therefore it's a symbiont.

That beings up another issue: mitochondria harbored by different species are different genetically, thus all mitochondria could never be place as one species, only as a genus at best, and the question "Which species's evolution is most successful?" does not cover genus.

That's true. But as a group mitochondria have been the most successful group in the history of the earth.

I don't see why it’s irrelevant that the mitochondria has such a degraded genome, I think it applies well to my case that mitochondria are beyond symbiosis. If you could explain your point?

because if an organism had only 10 genes and can replicate and survive, then that is all it would need. We, as biologists, have not said, 'all right, the minimum number of genes for an entity to be considered an organism is X thousand.' Mitochondria survive fine on the number of genes they have.

you said:

as we are completely reliant on their proteins and enzymes (which are the same thing BTW).

I corrected you; it does not have relevance to the central issue that is true.

I don't understand this passage. You were saying that mitochondria weren't real organisms becasue they rely completely on our genome, and I said yes, and we also rely on theirs. It is relevant I think.

I don't see why make a function synthetic genome and thus functional virus of synthetic genetics is void if a host is used to produce it?

All that was done was the synthesis of an oligonucleotide, not a virus. Both of the references you submitted (thank you BTW) explicitly stated this, almost verbatim. The bacteria made the virus. It would be analogous to saying you had synthesized a bacteria if you took synthesized bacterial genome and injected it into a cell which had its original genome removed. And if that was done, would you now say that bacteria were no more alive than a computer virus?

and some computer viruses destroy computers, permanently, what your point?

My point is that viruses have the necessary attributes to be considered life and computer viruses do not.

a biological virus and computer both evolve and replicates via host, those a central characteristics that have been argued for reason to categorize biological virus as alive.

a computer is not a host. it's a computer. computer viruses do not evolve.

Prions don't take over protein building processes, a prion only converts proteins by conformational change, protein synthesis is un-affected. Just like a crystal which converts is molecular building blocks conformation and then binds to it, arrogating.

This issue of what alive and not is purely philosophical and I don’t think this belongs argued under this thread.

prions take over the formation of secondary structure for some proteins, and this is part of protein synthesis, this is what I meant.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Paulsamuel,

My implications are not that mitochondria will not be able to culture, I even gave a example of how it could be done. I state only that mitochondria are beyond symbiosis: they have become so depend on their host, they can survive on their own, and they have lost most of their genetics. Even in a symbiotic relationship that can’t be separated, each individual organism still retains most of its genome, Mitochondria and Chloroplast are exceptions and thus are beyond symbiosis and not separate organisms. Biologists in general consensus have agreed the mitochondria are not separate organisms any more. And if odd exceptions are found then the categorizing of those exceptions can be argued.

by the way the algae in lichen is already labeled as a separate species.

Making the synthesis genome implanting it into a host and makes virus means the virus, as a whole has been synthesized.

Prions do not affect proteins synthesis which is its primary structure construction. Secondary structure changes happen to proteins all the time its not consider "building process".

My argument is strictly limited to the thread question: "Which species evolution is most successful? " mitochondria cannot be placed as the answer, they are not a "species", period. Even if you can group them by some philosophy of yours they simple do not qualify under the limiting terms of the question. But now this argument has become a pissing contest on all the things we interpret differently and differences in philosophy, I am not going to continue this, neither of us are going to change our minds on this issue and this is also not the thread to discuses this on.

 

[paulsamuel]

My implications are not that mitochondria will not be able to culture, I even gave a example of how it could be done.

You gave -not being able to live on their own in the wild or in the lab- as a criterea for not being separate organisms. I merely pointed out that this is not a valid criterea.

I state only that mitochondria are beyond symbiosis: they have become so depend on their host, they can survive on their own, and they have lost most of their genetics. Even in a symbiotic relationship that can’t be separated, each individual organism still retains most of its genome, Mitochondria and Chloroplast are exceptions and thus are beyond symbiosis and not separate organisms. Biologists in general consensus have agreed the mitochondria are not separate organisms any more. And if odd exceptions are found then the categorizing of those exceptions can be argued.

Lynn Margulis considers them symbionts and she's the one who discovered their symbiotic relationship. However, I'm not arguing that they be called organisms. They were once, and that's beyond doubt, and they chose a successful evolutionary strategy when they were a single species, that has turned out to be the most successful evolutionary strategy in the history of the earth. This is my point. It's a good point and entirely within the scope of this thread's topic.

by the way the algae in lichen is already labeled as a separate species.

I know that and I never said that they were not. However, at one time in the past they were undiscovered and lichen was considered a single organism, not a combination of fungi and algae.

Making the synthesis genome implanting it into a host and makes virus means the virus, as a whole has been synthesized.

i don't agree with that, and what of the point i made about the bacterium, would that have been synthesized too? i think even you would say no.

Prions do not affect proteins synthesis which is its primary structure construction. Secondary structure changes happen to proteins all the time its not consider "building process".

that's not true. protein synthesis is complete when the finished protein is complete including secondary AND tertiary structure.

My argument is strictly limited to the thread question: "Which species evolution is most successful? " mitochondria cannot be placed as the answer, they are not a "species", period. Even if you can group them by some philosophy of yours they simple do not qualify under the limiting terms of the question. But now this argument has become a pissing contest on all the things we interpret differently and differences in philosophy, I am not going to continue this, neither of us are going to change our minds on this issue and this is also not the thread to discuses this on.

I'll repeat; However, I'm not arguing that they be called organisms. They were once, and that's beyond doubt, and they chose a successful evolutionary strategy when they were a single species, that has turned out to be the most successful evolutionary strategy in the history of the earth. This is my point. It's a good point and entirely within the scope of this thread's topic.

I won't mind if you don't continue this discussion.

 

[Stryder]

Odd not even one mention of a spider.

Anyway, simplest way of looking at Evolution and it's successes is to understand which are the most evolved species. The most evolved are in fact those with short life spans and short gestation periods, This is why bacteria is mentioned first, since it's the quickest to reproduce through mitosis and uses an exponential growth curve.


Other creatures like worms, Insects, Aracnoids and rodents also have short life spans and short gestation periods. In fact with insects and notibly aracnids, they can produce hundreds of offspring in just one go. (Certainly puts a high number population on the Exponential curve, of course no where near the bacteria number.)

I would suggest worms are the most likely to be the next successful next to bacteria, Since they can survive being frozen, they can be cut into multiple segments with each segment surviving.

They have more Genes in their DNA than any animal on the planet, They are can be at the bottom of the food chain feeding either fish or birds, Or at the top of the food chain devouring wrotting carcasses. (along with bacteria)

There are parasitic varieties, although the earthworm is still out on top.

 

[Idle Mind]

In fact with insects and notibly arachnids, they can produce hundreds of offspring in just one go.

This does not lead to an exponential growth curve in populations of these organisms. The reason they produce such a high number of offspring is because the mortality rate of their young is so high. In order to ensure the survival of the species, they have to beat the odds.

can be cut into multiple segments with each segment surviving.

Only the segment with the neural ganglion survives. The rest die.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

If we were talking about the kind of success humans have had (we aren't but if we were), killer whales would have to be second.
They have spread all over the globe adapting to whatever was thrown at them. Not by natural selection changing them physically but simply by altering their own culture.
They can kill anything they set their mind to killing, including the largest animal to ever exist- the blue whale. Plus they are invulnerable to attack from other animals.
They are even at the stage where they can be environmentally harmfull, stripping regions of a species and moving on.
Of course they'd never be able to screw the whole planet up like us though, we maintain that title.

I think success is hard to measure, Animals you can imagine having a steady future are what i would call successfull. I think both humans and killer whales will be around untill there is absolutely nothing left to eat. Same goes for many other species. The ones it doesn't apply to are easy to spot.
Whats wierd about humans is they are actively making their future shorter. The human animal may be able to adapt to adversity, but they are constantly actively adding to their future adversities, and it might just build up into a roadblock impossible to overcome.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I didn't quite read all the posts so I may repeat something that has been said earlier. My apologies for that.

I would think that there cannot be something as a succesful species. What is a sign of evolutionary succes?

Species radiation!

A group that displays a great radiation into many species can be considered to be successful.

The big apes are rather unsuccessful.

Bats and rodents are megastars of evolution.

 

[paulsamuel]

I didn't quite read all the posts so I may repeat something that has been said earlier. My apologies for that.

I would think that there cannot be something as a succesful species. What is a sign of evolutionary succes?

Species radiation!

A group that displays a great radiation into many species can be considered to be successful.

The big apes are rather unsuccessful.

Bats and rodents are megastars of evolution.

for mammals, but they're nothing compared to the arthropods like insects and spiders.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

for mammals, but they're nothing compared to the arthropods like insects and spiders.

Yes, I just wanted to keep it fluffy.


Viruses and prokaryotes rock!

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Viruses aren't even living things are they?
I thought they were earth's magic pixie dust.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Viruses aren't even living things are they?

Depends who you ask. If you ask me I would say that they are alive.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

They can't move, breath, eat or reproduce themselves.
I think they should be in a seperate class to living organisms. I think they probably share a common ancestor with life(in some wierd way, like the basic building blocks of life branched into 2 things before 1 became life). When there were just single celled living organisms viruses were probably being engulfed and reproduced by them.
I assume viruses must change a little when they are reproduced by cells (which is how they have changed and how there are different ones)??
They are similar to life, but lack many of the traits we use to label something as living.
I agree they rock. They're a super genius... whatever they are.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

They can't move, breath, eat or reproduce themselves.

They move (passively)

They don't need to breathe

They reproduce.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

They don't move themselves, they are moved, at least thats my understanding.
And I thought the only way they could reproduce was by being reproduced by cells?
Thats not life-style reproduction, thats like the reproduction a movie does when it is pirated. Or am I wrong? My biology teacher does happen to be insane so I might be.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

They don't move themselves, they are moved, at least thats my understanding.

That is valid for many 'living' organisms.

And I thought the only way they could reproduce was by being reproduced by cells?

They are 'parasites' and need a proper environment to reproduce. The same can be said for every living organism. Is it really a qualitative factort that their environment is a cell? Many parasites need a specific living organism to reproduce. Are they not alive either because they can't reproduce without this particular organism? We can't reproduce without our specific ecosystem. Does that mean we are not alive?

Life is a hierarchical system. cell-tissue-organ-organism-ecosystem.

Can a dependence on any of these levels of enviroments mean that a organism is not alive? A virus needs a cell to reproduce. But it is clearly not part of the cell. It is a separate entity. It has its own genetic code. It is subject to evolution. It interacts actively with its environment. Does it really matter that it doesn't have a metabolism of its own? Does it matter that a intestinal parasite doesn't have a intestine of its own?

It is a matter of opinion of course, but if you do not classify viruses as alive you must classify them as not alive.

What are they then?

Thats not life-style reproduction, thats like the reproduction a movie does when it is pirated. Or am I wrong? My biology teacher does happen to be insane so I might be.

It is just what you want it to be. Ask yourself what you think is important for something to qualify as being alive.

 

[Starthane Xyzth]

By Spuriousmonkey's definition of species radiation as the indicator of success, the most class of successful multicellular organisms are insects - or possibly nematodes, which I think are a phylum rather than a class.

The apex of insect evolution would be, in turn, the largest order within that class - which are the beetles (Coleoptera).
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Coleoptera&contgroup=Endopterygota

I wouldn't presume to know the most populous genus or species of beetle!

 

[John Connellan]

i think successful evolution is about ensuring survival of the species, not spreading genes.

Wrong. Evolution does not give a crap about which species survives but it ensures that the genes will survive.

I agree with Spurious that a successful species cannot be considered successful evolution because that is not the goal of evolution or the goal of the genes.