Baby steps versus long jumps: The “size” of evolutionary change, and why it matters

Evolution can make leaps—but how frequently? Photo by Flavio Martins.

ResearchBlogging.orgDoes evolutionary change happen in big jumps, or a series of small steps? The question may seem a little esoteric to non-scientists—how many mutations can dance on the head of a pin?—but it has direct implications for how we identify the genetic basis of human diseases, or desirable traits in domestic plants and animals.

That’s because the evolutionary path by which a particular phenotype, or visible trait, first evolved in a population is closely related to the genetics that underlie the trait in the present. Phenotypes that arose in a single mutational jump will probably remain connected to one or a few genes with large effects; phenotypes that evolved more gradually do so because they are created by the collective action of many genes. So what kind of evolutionary change is most common will determine which kind of gene-to-phenotype relationships we should expect to find.

In an excellent recent review article for the journal Evolution, Matthew Rockman, a biologist with the Department of Biology and Center for Genomics and Systems Biology at New York University, makes the case that the era of genomics has, so far, been much too focused on finding genes of large effect. Fortunately, Rockman also sees the beginnings of a new movement towards acknowledging the importance of small-effect genes—one which may ultimately make genomic association studies more useful.

Continue reading

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense: Making sense of the origins of multicellularity

Experimental evolution of multicellularity. Photo by Nothing in Biology Makes Sense!

In this week’s new post at the group blog Nothing in Biology Makes Sense!, Sarah Hird discusses the recently published experimental evolution study that used laboratory yeast to tackle one of the biggest questions in reconstructing the history of life:

Some of the biggest questions in evolutionary biology deal with the origin of life. For example, if I go back one generation, I find my parents. Two generations, my grandparents. Ten generations are human beings who may or may not have looked like me. Five hundred thousand are, oh, I don’t know. Maybe a bipedal hominid? Anyway, if we continue going backward like this, we inevitably get to time zero and encounter some big-time questions that can really cause a brain to cramp up.

I promise you, if you read the whole thing, you will not experience brain cramps. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In other news, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense! has put out a call for guest contributors. If you work in biology—anything from medicine to plant breeding—and you’ve been thinking about giving this science blogging thing a try, send us an e-mail!&nbsp ◼

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense: Did humans send North America’s large mammals to extinction?

Are ancient humans to blame for mammoths’ extinction in North America? Photo by W9NED.

After a beginning-of-semester scheduling hiccup, the group blog Nothing in Biology Makes Sense! is up and running for the spring, starting with a great post by contributor Noah Reid. Noah breaks down a big, complex study that applied species distribution modelling, paleontological data, and ancient DNA analysis to try and determine whether humans were responsible for the mass extinction of North America’s ancient large mammals.

With the ending of the ice age, which began around 21,000 years ago, many of these species experienced dramatic declines or went extinct. Woolly Rhinos, Mammoths, Glyptodon, and Megatherium went completely extinct, while Bison, Reindeer, Musk Oxen and wild Horse went through serious declines and range contractions.

These population declines roughly coincided with another major event in earth’s history, the global expansion of modern humans. Because of this synchronicity, there has long been debate about whether either is the cause. Did humans fuel their global expansion by hunting these animals to extinction, were they victims of a changing climate, or was it some combination of the two?

To find out, go read the whole thing. ◼

Science online, missing #Scio12 edition

How many eggs shall I lay? I’ll ask the neighbors. Photo by yanajen.
  • Raise a glass (or two or three) for us absentees. I couldn’t make it to Research Triangle Park this year, but the #Scio12 hashtag is nicely busy.
  • With, hopefully, lots of extra lives. Why classes should be a little more like video games.
  • Keeping up with the neighbors. Flycatchers decide how many eggs to lay in a given season by watching other birds.
  • Awkward! Yes, that ostrich is indeed flirting with you.
  • Sound advice. When choosing graduate advisers, prioritize personalities over projects.
  • I am become life … One of the most enthusiastic funders of synthetic biology is the U.S. military. One goal: greener munitions.
  • The truth, putting its boots on. Assessing the fallout from The Atlantic’s bunk report on miRNAs and GM food.
  • Eureka! Yeast that clumps! Multicellularity, evolved in a test tube.
  • Boom. With citations. In which Kate Clancy and Scicurious bury Jesse Bering’s “deep-thinking hebephile” column under a great big pile of data.
  • For straight couples, that is. The per-coital act risk of HIV transmission, calculated.

 ◼

Shit scientists say

So this means the “shit X says” videos are pretty much done, right?

Also, for the record, it has been years since I’ve said or written the word “utilize” non-ironically. ◼

Self-deception

Over on the recently launched Queereka, an interesting discussion of cognitive biases in the context of life in the closet:

People who comment on how cute you look in that dress, for instance, would be confirming that you perform best as female. If, like me, you are convinced you should be and will be attracted to men, you will remember best the men you did like, ignoring the majority of men who were not sexually attractive to you. The important thing is that the people you try to like are in the arbitrary associative category, “men,” which overlaps somewhat with the category of “male.”

I also appreciate the comparison between the closet and the TARDIS. Both are bigger, and more impressive, on the inside. ◼

Science online, pseudonymous micro-RNAs edition

Embrace the mask. Photo by Annamagal.

 ◼

Fixing evolutionary psychology

Story time. Photo by McBeth.

Over at Neuroanthropology, Greg Downey’s launching an ambitious project: making evolutionary psychology less … shitty.

More specifically, and more politely, Downey thinks (as I do) that evolutionary biology can tell use some valuable things about human nature; but he’s concerned (as I am) that the most visible representatives of an academic field which takes the evolution of human nature as its central question often apply an impoverished understanding of evolutionary biology to telling titillating (and usually unsubstantiated) adaptive fairy tales. Which fairy tales all seem to take place in a sort of dark Lake Wobegon, where all the women are weak and choosy, all the men are strong and horny, and children are barely more than notches on the bedpost of natural selection.

Against the strong man/choosy woman story, Downey proposes the “long, slow sexual revolution.” The central idea is that, as our ancestors’ intelligence increased toward modern humanity, their interest in, understanding of, and uses for sex and sexuality changed:

The idea of the ‘long, slow sexual revolution,’ I think, provides a simple and balanced umbrella for pulling together contradictory elements of our sexuality, gender relations, and reproductive strategies. Everyone knows that the more recent ‘Sexual Revolution’ didn’t erase pre-existing sexual mores and patterns, but rather mixed with them, producing a conflicted, sometimes-unpredictable pattern of sexual expression. Starting with a ‘sexual revolution’ rather than the Men-are-from-Mars-Women-are-from-Venus story means less erroneous leaping to stereotypes to undo when we teach or communicate about human evolution. [Emphasis sic.]

In one of many insightful points, Downey draws in Emily Willingham’s recent post on family planning before the Pill—humans have had the intelligence, and the means, to use sex for more than making babies since (probably) before the dawn of recorded history.

That’s really only the jumping-off point of a post that delves deep into the problems of evolutionary psychology and what might be done about them. And it’s the first part in a promised series! So go read the whole thing, and keep an eye out for future installments. I’ll certainly be watching with interest. ◼

Science online, top speed edition

Running. Photo by Mark Sadowski.

 ◼

Carnival of Evolution, January 2012

Lignum vitae est. Photo by Niels Linneberg.

Whoops. I totally failed to point out that the latest Carnival of Evolution is up at The EEB & flow. With bonus historical perspective:

523 BCE
Anaximander: “Thales, my teacher, how is it that animals take their form?”
Thales: “Anaximander, all matter is an aggregation formed from a single substance, water, and qualities are obtained through need”
Anaximander: “Ah yes, water, I will now think about how air can be the primordial substance.”

Fortunately, there’s also lots of much more recent material, which is the whole point of a monthly compilation of all things online and evolution-related. Included are a couple of my latest posts, and Luke Swenson’s great post (for Nothing in Biology Makes Sense!) explaining how biologists can trace the evolutionary past of an HIV infection to identify its source. Go take a look, if you haven’t already. ◼