It's fries my brain to think about, but in a few hundred million years, we could have a Ladybug lineage that by pure luck evolved into an animal that is genetically identical, down to the last base pair, to a human. And it wouldn't be one. It would be a highly derived ladybug with an extreme case of convergent evolution. I'm aware that it's so unlikely that it might as well be impossible. But this is the logical conclusion of having a clade based system of taxonomy.

A few facts I've researched from what is known:

• The magnetosome is a simple structure used for magnetoreception in some bacteria. It's also used for this in a few aquatic unicellular eukaryotes (protists like euglenids and algae).
• It consists of a linear chain of ferromagnetic magnetite crystals linked to the cell membrane and cytoskeleton which orients the cells parallel to the Earth's magnetic field, used for passive alignment and navigation.
• The magnetite (iron oxide) is produced on iron uptake by biomineralisation.
• The core genes and operons for the magnetosome are conserved across all bacteria they appear in, most of which are in phylum Pseudomonadota.
• All known magnetotactic bacteria live in anoxic waters. The Great Oxidation event in the Archaean eon likely provided the selective pressure for magnetosomes, as a way to store reduced iron (Fe^(0)) to defend against reactive oxygen species (ROS).
• A few animals (e.g. migratory birds) have magnetoreception abilities too, but they work by a totally different mechanism (cryptochrome complexes). In the few multicellular eukaryotes where magnetosomes have been found (including humans, in our brain), they are all non-functional.

Why would we retain these magnetosomes? Could they really have stuck around for over a billion years since our days as a unicellular eukaryote or even a prokaryote pre-endosymbiosis, with no benefit? That seems extremely unlikely.

Thanks for any insights!

Wondering if this is evolution, a specific trait that a parent passed down, or rando mutation that’s stuck in this area. I recently built a greenhouse in my backyard in coastal North Carolina, it has become home for tree frogs rather quickly and now that it’s sealed and has a water element it’s almost an enclosed ecosystem with everything they need. At this point it’s at least teeny tree frogs and it looks like over half of them are being born with one eye. Is this common in nature to find a localized area with mutations staying consistent enough to view this often.

1. Walking with Monsters
2. Walking with Dinosaurs
3. Walking with Beasts
4. Walking with Cavemen

Takes you from the beginning of the Cambrian to "If I were to take this baby home with me and raise her as my daughter, she would be indistinguishable from anyone born in the 21st century".

I just want to check my answer to this common question is correct, which is as follows:

We did not evolve from current day monkeys but we shared a common ancestor with current day monkeys, ie. if you go back in the timelines of humans and current day monkeys, there was a point where we were all the same thing, which would have been a lot like a current day monkey.

Some of those old monkeys then became separated from the others. One group eventually evolved into humans and the other group evolved into current day monkeys.

So it's wrong to say "If Humans evolved from monkeys...". We didnt. We evolved from a mammal that highly resembled a current day monkey but not from current day monkeys themselves. So the premise of the question is wrong and humans and current day monkeys exist today because they branched off from a common ancestor.

Can I just double check this answer is correct? Also if someone can ELI5 this question better then please do so in the comments. I feel like this question is still so common and leads people to disregard the fact that is evolution so it's helpful to have a clear answer, hence the post.

What are some good books for the evolution of everything

Hey everyone. First time posting here so I admit I'm not even sure if I'm in the right subreddit.

I'm really interested in two specific things.

One is traits convergent evolutionary traits that happen as a result of the way physics work. A couple examples of this I've heard are the positioning of the eyes and ears near the brain so that electrical signals for vision and hearing can travel the fastest.

The other example is "universally recognizable signals in nature". I'm not sure how this is described academically so I'll give a couple examples.

There's a commonly trending video of an Owl's face changing from "friendly mode" to combat mode.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EP9XOvhZCD0

Humans will recognize this as a change from friendly behavior to aggressive behavior. It'd be easy to think that this is us anthropomorphizing an animal that isn't related to us, but aren't there some universal benefits here?

"Angry eyes" are the muscles around the eyebrows narrowing to protect the eyeball from harm right? Or it could have benefits like squinting to see slightly better, narrowing your field of vision so you're processing less information. In the case of the Owl, its face also changes to convey more "sharpness". Sharpness has to be a universally recognizable factor in nature, since animals have to avoid sharp objects like rocks and trees etc.

So the way that animals can mimic size to convey body weight, do they also mimic sharpness? Or is this incidental?

Another example is growing and hissing. Lots of animals make softer more delicate sounds around their young but make specific sounds for threat displays. Is there research on why this seems kind of universal? Is it a physics thing? Why do we perceive a hiss as more threatening than a coo?

I know I jumped around a bit but I hope this makes sense!

Imagine a far future in which all Mammals die out except for Bats, and sapient frogs develop a technological civilization and they start categorizing animals. They have Bats as an extant clade, but find the fossils of various ancient, now-extinct types of Mammals, including huge ones like the elephant and the whale, who have fundamentally the same skeletal configuration as Bats do.

Would they be right in saying that Bats are no longer Mammals because they evolved flight and a small size?

Maybe this is more of a history thing than evolution.

But assuming we consider all of the Homo species to be some form of human.
Why do we so strictly talk about human history as being the period where Homo Sapiens existing?

e.g. "we have been here for 200 000 years"

Sure, but Homo heidelbergensis could speak (as far as I understand), and if they are the common ancestor for us and Neanderthal and Denisovians, then I assume they also were very much like us.

Any speaking species of Homo really ought to be more included in our history IMO.

Why is it like this? why don´t we talk about humans in a more generic way, e.g. including all speaking species?

Vasovagal syncope is extremely common and can occur in virtually any human if provoked, so it makes sense that it's not a disease but an evolutionary trait. I wonder why did we evolve such a response it doesn't make any sense to be in front of a predator or attacker and be just like "Imma faint lol good luck with that" then become an easy meal or victim. This should be a huge disadvantage for the people with this response so how did it get passed down? Please be easy with me I am barely learning evolutionary biology.

So far, I have Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Proconsul africanus, Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Notharctus tenebrosus, Morganucodon oehleri, Thrinaxodon liorhinus, and Tiktalik. I'm trying to sculpt a Hylonomus, but there is not much fossil reference available. Are there any "must-haves" that I should be including? Different timelines seem to include very different species, so I'm looking for a consensus.

I want to make a YouTube video on hybrid animals for my YouTube channel. Does anyone have reputable up-to-date information on hand? If it helps the video will start with one unbelievable thing then switch to less boring but still interesting subjects and crescendo into another really exceptional finisher.

Edit: People are asking me to be specific. What I want to talk about is distantly related hybrids (separate genuses or higher).

Lately I’ve been having a reoccurring thought about how do certain species of insects learn to look or somehow know certain defense mechanisms and able to mimic other creatures or objects like the senses somehow told its own dna “hey we need to be like this to survive better” I always assumed insects were just creatures of habit and didn’t really have brains but when it comes to their relatively short lifespans and how they were able to adapt and survive in their ecosystems it somehow makes me think evolution is somehow conscious through the dna (sorry if this sounds uneducated I never really did good in school)

Hello! I'm from Turkey and come from a social sciences background; I studied History as my major, with minors in Anthropology and Political Science & International Relations. Recently, I've developed a strong interest in paleontology, inspired by my studies in anthropology, where I learned about human biology and cultural change. Now, I'm drawn to the idea of researching life forms that existed before humans. Where can I find a paleontology program that would allow me to build a foundation in evolution, given that it's not properly taught in Turkey?

This may not be the right subreddit, but what is the word for animals that don’t take care of their young? Like spiders or most snakes and fish. Only word I can think of is precocial, but I don’t think that’s fitting since horses are precocial, but moms still involved.

Such as two crabs but one is better in every aspect of survival/reproduction etc.

Hi. I’m a microbiology student and am 23 yrs old. I have always wanted to become a paleontologist (vertebrate). But I’ve heard that the job market for paleontology is horrible and most paleontologists teach biology or geology on the side. Plus, I’ve always been more interested in the biology side of paleontology than geology. I’ve always strived to look at everything from an evolutionary perspective. So here are my questions:

If I want to become an evolutionary biologist, do I have to follow a certain path (eg PhD of evolutionary biology) or do I have to choose any biology major (like zoology or microbiology) and then specialize later on? And also, what type of jobs are there for someone who is interested in studying evolution? What kind of activities they do? Where are they being hired? How much are they being paid? Do they have stable jobs? How much is evolutionary biology being funded, compared to other fields of biology? What are the best countries to get an education and a job?

Today, I was in my science class when I asked my teacher about red algae, since we were on the topic of plants and chloroplasts. I asked him, "Are red algae plants? They have plastids, but they're not chloroplasts." (I did slip up a bit there. Red algae do have chloroplasts, which I found out after a quick Google search.) But the thing that interests me the most is my teacher then replied, "Red algae have a mix of plant and animal features. You're not to that level yet." (Note: I am in Year 9) I know what he meant when he said "a mix of plant and animal features"- he meant some basal eukaryotes (used to be classified as "Protista"). Since he told me that he thinks my knowledge isn't to that level yet, I think he probably wouldn't explain much if I asked him again. So, I have come to this subreddit for answers on where the Plantae kingdom starts. I know it's a controversial topic. Some place it at embryophytes, some at chloroplastids, and some consider the entire Archaeplastida all "plants".

I have seen commentary on, and documentaries of various critters that have evolved to live in cave systems with no light, and a common theme is that the creatures "have lost all sight," and you see the remnants of their eyes are pale and dead-looking. The implication seems to be that eyes are useless in an environment with no light. Yet, deep-sea creatures, who also live in an environment with no natural light (?), do have eyes and can detect bioluminescence. I'm just wondering why such deep-sea creatues developed eyes at all. Was it specifically the presence of bioluminescence that made it advantageous to do so? Or perhaps they swim up to higher layers of water on occasion, where some light is present? Or what, precisely?

I understand that all life on Earth is supposedly all descended from a common ancestor, which is some microscopic, cell or bacteria-like organism caused by the right environmental conditions and concoction of molecules.

Why couldn’t there be multiple LUCA’s with their own biological family tree? Why must there only be one?

If conditions were right for Earth to spit out one tiny, basic, microscopic proto-life form , why couldn’t there be like 2 or 10 or even billions? It’s apparently a very simple microscopic “organism” made up of molecules and proteins or whatever where there are trillions of these things floating around each other, wouldn’t there be more likelihood that of that many particles floating around in that same place, that more than one of these very basic proto-organism would be created?

I’m not saying they all produced large and complex organisms like the mammals, fish, plants, etc . in our organism family but, rather, other microscopic organisms, that reproduced and have (or had) their own life forms that aren’t descended from our LUCA.

I believe there have been several posts like this before, but I feel like diving a bit deeper.

My creationist friends argued that there might've been more than one LUCA. Since the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that several abiogenesis events happened in different parts of primordial Earth, giving rise to multiple LUCAs, say, for animal and plant lineages.

My sources claim that genetic evidence points to a single LUCA for all extant life forms. But how? What kind of genetic evidence? If we were to assume there were multiple LUCAs, it's possible that they had the same genetic materials. Perhaps the conditions were the same during the abiogenesis events of their ancestors, synthesizing the exact same biochemicals.

(For more clarity, English isn't my first language) Assuming A and B are the oldest ancestors (perhaps protocells) of all plants and animals respectively. Current plants and animals may share genetic similarities and metabolic pathways because A and B emerged from the same conditions and had the same membranes, enzymes, and genetic materials consisting of ribose sugar, phosphate and A, T/U, C, and G bases organised in the same chirality, as one is more stable than the other. If it happened once, it could've happened twice.

P.S.: I understand the concept of LUCA. Please don't bother describing that.

I guess this could more broadly be "why do some species evolve an advantage and others don't, despite both needing that advantage" but I thought of this specifically.

I think most are aware of the maze-like vaginas of ducks, and there have already been posts here explaining how this is advantageous. However, I recently learned that dolphin vaginas have an almost identical structure, precisely for the same reasons.

This made me wonder, what do ducks and dolphins have in common that has made them develop this mechanism, while females of other species where coercion is common have not?

For example, orangutans are know for a very high rate of forced copulation, more so than other primate species, despite also having sexual characteristics meant to attract females (like the flanges on males). Considering pregnancy is quite costly for orangutans, it would be advantageous for the females to evolve such a thing so they can keep selecting the flanged males.

Of course, I know it's not enough for something to be advantageous in order to evolve, but I do wish to know if ducks and dolphins were any more likely to evolve this compared to orangutans for a reason. Is it simply a matter of luck?

I suspect it’s the latter because dogs seem happiest when ‘functioning’ with a human leader. But what would be the difference between the two explanations for dogs’ loyalty?

Apparently humans are the only mammal to always have their breasts presented, and the same goes for penises and testicles always being on the outside as opposed to being safely tucked away.

Is there any clear reason as to why this is?

Dogs can be as large as a Great Dane or as small as a teacup Yorkie. Yet cats are generally roughly the same size.

Why?

I'm not advocating that idea, but instead I'm asking how are we certain

Context - from 31:00 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Oa4Lp5fLE&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D&index=2 .

Doubt:

As far as I understand, as per the study if A can kill B, B can kill C and C can kill A then they all eventually evolve into ways that they stop killing each other.

This would happen only If Not all A are killing B and not all B are killing C and so on. And somehow the non attacking ones only remain, all the rest get rejected eventually to fade away in next generations.

I see two situations:

1. Bacteria are aware of their Prey's nature and strategically attack: For eg C is aware of A's nature and is strategically killing A, then they would kill all As that are not contributing to minimising B(C's enemy) population. This would result in eventually C winning the whole game. and eliminate B and then A as well or if it is coded in C to not kill A who kill B then A(with Killing instincts) and C will live. But we can't focus on just C being an actor, we can think the same from A and B perspective and this would result in Survival of only attacking bacteria, and chaos will continue, they will keep reproducing and killing each other in cycles.

2. They are not deciding whom to attack : Then they would be attacking at random, there will always be a mix of bacteria who attack and who don't attack. This would result in again the same story to continue till eternity.

I mean how does this play out?

The closest reason that I could think of was that somehow the attacking efforts result in the bacteria losing its energy or something resulting in skipping reproduction and eventually fading out in future generations, but that requires all three to have the same degree of losing out reproductive rates else one imbalance would result in elimination of one species.

People are using AI to discover many more species of viruses.

https://singularityhub.com/2024/10/23/scientists-just-discovered-over-70000-bizarre-new-viruses-with-ai/

Many of the species commonly listed as having the highest bite forces are mammals. The few non-mammals that also occupy a top spot on these lists are typically much larger/heavier than the mammalian species on the list. For example, the Spotted Hyena is typically considerably smaller/lighter than the Komodo Dragon but bites with roughly twice as much force on average. If this is the case, what features allow mammals to do this?

In early hominin evolution, there are milestones like physical traits, tool use and art creation that mark a major shift in cognition, yet the underlying cause is still debated. Some theories suggest dietary changes, including roots and fungi, played a role—possibly even involving psychoactive mushrooms that could have impacted neuroplasticity and behavior.

Could the shift (for apes with an already structurally developed brain) to a ground-based diet have altered gut microbiome in ways that influenced abstract thinking and social skills, given that gut bacteria affect mood and cognition?

I’m currently interested in new studies linking an altered gut microbiome with autism spectrum disorder. Autistic people often struggle with social skills, sensory input and speech patterns, where development in children does not occur naturally. Research shows transplantation of a healthy gut microbiome to the autistic person shows great improvement in those areas.

It may be complete nonsense but a thought occured to me that our cognition and speech may be affected by bacteria more than we know/acknowledge and have caused the relatively rapid and major shift between apes and purely human behavior/intelligence/cognition.

Are there studies exploring the role of the microbiome, or dietary changes in early hominins, in supporting this cognitive leap between apes and humans?