I hope this is the right sub for this. My question is basically what it sounds like - how is it some animals evolved so many instincts? Both those that they have at birth, and those they have well into adulthood? This is coming from a human perspective, where my understanding is we sacrificed most of these for the sake of having a larger brain (which replaced the need for them anyways as it enabled language-based communication and the ability to teach and be taught using it).

I guess I can understand instincts like “see this shape that looks like a predator = become afraid” because those types of instincts are easy for any human to notice in themself. But when it comes to animals that are born already knowing how to walk, or animals like birds, insects, whales etc having complex mating rituals (that at least seem to me to be) hardwired into their dna as opposed to operating more like ape “culture” does where it’s spawned by individuals and adopted by others not related to them - how does this type of thing work, evolutionarily and biologically speaking? I can assume it’s a matter of “individuals born with brains that contain this instinct are more likely to survive”, but 1) how is does that information get physically encoded in the brain? How is it animals that don’t think and process using language are capable of understanding complex concepts and rituals even human toddlers sometimes can’t? and 2) wouldn’t developing the instinct require a lot of different developments that aren’t immediately complete and therefore less useful? I can hardly imagine one day a horse embryo mutated the “know how to walk” gene, right?

Am I just anthropomorphizing this too much? Admittedly, I have a hard time conceptualizing from a human perspective how animals think and process information without language at all - at least, in terms of thoughts more complex than flashes of visualization and simple, immediate “if = then” scenarios. Also, if I’m wrong about assuming any of this is actually provably instinctual and not taught/observed from adults to children, let me know.

I'd like to start off with that I’m not a biologist or evolution specialist, but as a student archaeologist, I’ve been trying to wrap my head around some questions related to species interbreeding and classification. Specifically, I’m curious about why we consider ourselves Homo sapiens even though our genome contains DNA from other extinct human species, like Homo Neanderthalensis. I’m aware that there are several human species present in our DNA, but right now, I’m specifically focusing on the example of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. I'm also aware of that we consider ourselves Homo Sapiens today because the other human species went extinct.

I’m hoping someone can help me understand this better, as I’m struggling to see why we classify the offspring of a Homo sapiens and a Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Modern humans share DNA with other human species that are now extinct, yet we’re still classified as Homo sapiens. Is it because Neanderthals went extinct, and thus we’re just considered Homo sapiens?

Here are a few specific questions I’ve been thinking about:

1. If a Homo sapiens and a Neanderthal interbred in prehistoric times, what would their offspring be classified as? Would it be a Homo sapiens–Neanderthal hybrid, or just a Homo sapiens because Neanderthals are no longer around?
2. Why are Homo sapiens–Neanderthal hybrids considered Homo sapiens and not hybrids of both species? I understand that the other species went extinct, but it feels a bit limiting to classify all hybrids as Homo sapiens and not acknowledge the Neanderthal influence in our genes. It seems different from other interbreeding examples.
3. For example, chimpanzees and bonobos are very closely related, but they are different species. If they interbred, would their offspring be called a chimpanzee-bonobo hybrid or just a chimpanzee? Why don’t we use the same reasoning for Homo sapiens and Neanderthals?

I don’t mean to sound disrespectful; I’m just trying to understand this process better. It’s so fascinating that even though these other human species are extinct, parts of them still live on in our DNA. Any insights or resources on this would be really appreciated!

Thanks in advance for your reactions

Hello everyone, I have recently been interested in the topic of evolution because a family friend does not believe in it. I believe that evolution is undeniable but I am not very knowledgeable in this topic. Last year in school we briefly went over genetics and how mutations cause changes in species but that was about it. I want to do more research on evolution and how it works but I'm not quite sure how to go about it. What do you guys recommend?

This might be an odd question, but is evolution always forward-moving? Meaning, even though traits can be lost (and sometimes re-appear), is evolution itself a progressive process? Is there such a thing as "de-evolution," and if so, explain?

Related, but a follow-up question is whether evolution is beneficial to a species. (The snarky part of me wants to reply, "well clearly not to extinct species). Or is evolution objective in an of itself simply based on ecosystem pressures? I suppose this would differ depending on how far out you zoom.

In learning about evolution, I've been surprised that some traits will evolve, disappear, and re-evolve dozens or even a hundred times. Why is this?

I’m just wondering what is going on there. On a genetic level, is it understood what causes the sperms and eggs of two subspecies to no longer be able to fuse into a zygote when those subspecies could previously interbreed? Do we understand what changed/has to change at a genetic level for that incompatibility to occur? I’d like to learn more about this but I’m not sure what search terms to even use.

So, here's a question I've wondered about for a while, but haven't quite known how to get an answer.

As a preface, I'm aware that sex is a complicated matter in biology and even in cases where it's conventionally thought of as a binary, it can be closer to reality to think of it as a bimodal distribution of various traits. And of course many species are naturally hermaphroditic, change sex during their life cycle, and all sorts of other weird and wonderful things. This question is keeping that all in mind.

So, basically to what extent is biological sex homologous across life, and what is convergent evolution? Plants are said to be "male and female" are those the same "male and female" conditions that us mammals have, or are they merely convergent and named the same? I know even among tetrapods the mechanism of sexual differentiation (chromosomes, etc) can vary wildly. Is it still homologous?

Basically at what point or points did "male and female" sexes form, and are there multiple or one single lineage of organisms with that trait?

Relatedly, I'm curious of the homology of sex organs across taxa. I presume there's not much if any homology between the "penises" of mammals and insects, though admittedly I know nothing of what the genitals of our last common ancestor would be like, but I do wonder if the hemipenes of reptiles are homologous or convergent to the mammalian penis. Beyond of course stemming ultimately from the cloacae common acrross tetrapoda (and likely further, but admittedly I'm just a lot more familiar with tetrapods.

I was reading about Peking Man (homo erectus fossils in China from 780,000 years ago) which demonstrates that pre-human ancestors existed all the way from Africa to China long before civilization. My question is: how common is it to find species of land animals on different continents that are closely related enough that they are capable of interbreeding? I’m sure there are many examples of this but I’m wondering just how unusual (or not) it is. Relatedly, is it known which non-domesticated land animal species holds the record for the greatest geographic disbursement? In other words, the species where members that are capable of interbreeding can be found the furthest distance apart.

All the content is in the question. I also want tic to know if it’s assessed using the same set of rules and guidelines or are they different.

Edit: sorry for typo in the title. I meant distinguish and not extinguish

Do I have Lissamphibia and Batrachia in the correct places? (Less worried about contested placement after that). Thank you!

https://imgur.com/a/Wa5K9oL

I am not very knowledgeable in biology , just a layman intrested in evolution , tried googling it but couldn't get any answer for that .

Coyne, J.| Why Evolution is True |Oxford University Press (2011)|

Dawkins, R. & Wong, Y.| The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life (2nd Edition) |Weidenfield & Nicholson (2016)|

Carroll, S.| Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom |Quercus (2011)|

Roberts, A.| The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being |Heron (201)|

Davies, N.| Cuckoo, Cheating by Nature |Bloomsbury (2015)|

I’m not sure why I’m struggling so much to find an answer to this, perhaps it’s that the word “group” is pretty vague - but that’s why I ask for groups, plural. I’m mostly just looking for any group/clade that feels decently distinct from its closest relatives. I know all animals are “equally evolved” and the idea that a single species showed up forever ago and has remained unchanged since is largely false, but I’m referring to splitting from other mammals groups. Like, how it seems to be the consensus that monotremes were one of the first groups to split from the mammals that would become marsupials and placental mammals, which placental mammals would later split from, etc. Or how we can estimate that simians, for example, first diverged ~60 million years ago. At least going by our current knowledge/first appearance in the fossil record, which distinct groups are some of the newer ones to appear?

Hello smart people. After misreading a title on this sub, I was wondering if there were proofs, traces of failed evolution or is evolution is always successful? For instance, if there is a drastic change in an environment and one variant of one species tries something to adapt but fails. Like "I'll try this. Didn't work, oh well I guess I'll die 🤷). I guess, a better question would be : is evolution random or specific? Thx for your time!

I have been thinking about how humans have changed their environment to better suit their needs. In part this included taming or domesticating animals. Particularly in the case of animals I am wondering if the humans that were proficient at taming or working with domesticated animals might have had an advantage that would select for their success. Working with animals can be a taught skill, but if there was(or came to be) a genetic component wouldn't that continue to select for success?

Apologies if this has been posed before.

I was reading up on the species since they're my favorite non-dwarf crayfish species, but I don't understand Why being a triploid enables them to reproduce via parthenogenesis unlike their diploid crayfish cousins. Could someone explain?

Hello,

Theory of evolution is one of the most important scientific theories, and the falsifiability is one of the necessary conditions of a scientific theory. But i don’t see how evolution is falsifiable, can someone tell me how is it? Thank you.

PS : don’t get me wrong I’m not here to “refute” evolution. I studied it on my first year of medical school, and the scientific experiments/proofs behind it are very clear, but with these proofs, it felt just like a fact, just like a law of nature, and i don’t see how is it falsifiable.

Thank you

When did this dispersion happen? why are they geographically isolated from the rest of the hominids?

I don't know if I worded my question correctly. I'm wondering if evolution is just random or a direct way of a species to survive?

Why hasn’t natural selection eliminated genetic conditions like Type 1 Diabetes from the human gene pool over time?

I have a question which I have been wondering for some time now, how exactly did, for example, australopithecus, evolve into the more modern human forms, such as homo erectus, through reproduction. How did the gene pool change? I am still new to this topic, and so I might not be clear with what I am exactly saying.

Could a Cartilaginous fish ever get as big as a blue whale or even bigger?

hypothetically could the largest animal to ever exist be a toothless cartilage filter feeding fish that has left no fossils?

Recently, I’ve been watching a lot of animal videos, and one of a blue whale popped up on my feed. It was swimming next to a person, and I couldn’t help but think, “How and why are they so incredibly large?”

To reach the size of that whale seems almost impossible, but it’s obviously possible. I am amazed and wondering how this occurred.

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, and it presumably took millions of years to evolve features to the point where they could effectively fly, I don't understand what evolutionary benefit would have played a role in selection pressure during that developmental period? They would have had useless features for millions of years, in most cases they would be a hindrance until they could actually use them to fly. I also haven't seen any archeological evidence of dinosaurs with useless developmental wings. The penguin comes to mind, but their "wings" are beneficial for swimming. Did dinosaurs develop flippers first that evolved into wings? I dunno it was a shower thought this morning so here I am.

Or are amphibian gills just a result of convergent evolution?