Another stupid question from Raz!

[Malthus]

Max, I did my senior paper in college in evolution in eusocial species (though focusing on a rare species of spider that is one of the only eusocial species with "normal" sexual reproduction).

I don't remember all the mechanisms for bees and ants, but what is universal in eusocial species is very close kin relationships (generally through changes in the chromosome number for some members). It is also very common to have many members unable to reproduce.

The result is that the queen's DNA (in species with a single reproductive female) must support the creation of a new community. If the queen's DNA only supports a strong queen and weak workers, her offspring will fail, as the descendant communities will not establish themselves. At the same time, workers who are unable to reproduce are prone to work for the queen's success, because without a chance to reproduce otherwise their only way to spread their genes is through the success of their own kin, such as the queen.

A mutation in the queen that leads to strong workers is beneficial to the queen--her offspring will be better workers, and her fellow queen descendants will also produce better workers.

Sometimes ant communities (similar to some other eusocial species) are referred to as "superorganisms" because despite having many members they are genetically tied to a single cause (and from an evolutionary pov are similar to a single organism).

That's where sit gets wierd with these Argentine ants - they have many queens who are all very closely related genetically - forming, as it were, a single, globe-spanning mega-colony: in a sense a single organism (in that the individual ants treat each other as if from the same colony, rather than competitors).

Given the Argentine ant's aggressiveness towards other ants, it is possible that this single organism may displace most other ants - that is, until it is killed off by some disease. That's the problem with being TOO genetically similar.

[Maximus]

A mutation in the queen that leads to strong workers is beneficial to the queen--her offspring will be better workers, and her fellow queen descendants will also produce better workers.

But this was half my point. Only the mutations that hit the queen are going to matter. Only one in a million(or whatever rate) is going to even get a chance to compete. How could that not slow adaptation?

The other half of my point, that "worker" traits would not be selected, has been refuted and I withdraw it.

[Razgovory]

a mutation in the genetics in the queen may only manifest in the workers.

This is a good point though.

Still, the low number of mutations getting passed on would go a long way to explain the slow rate of adaptation.

I do remember reading an explanation of how genetics work with eusocial insects from one of Dawkins books (I think).  I'm on record here as a critic of the man, but his explanation of how natural selection worked impressed me.

[alfred russel]

But this was half my point. Only the mutations that hit the queen are going to matter. Only one in a million(or whatever rate) is going to even get a chance to compete. How could that not slow adaptation?

The other half of my point, that "worker" traits would not be selected, has been refuted and I withdraw it.

The male ants that queens mate with also can contribute to evolution. From that perspective it isn't any different than any other normally sexually reproducing animal.

[alfred russel]

That's where sit gets wierd with these Argentine ants - they have many queens who are all very closely related genetically - forming, as it were, a single, globe-spanning mega-colony: in a sense a single organism (in that the individual ants treat each other as if from the same colony, rather than competitors).

Given the Argentine ant's aggressiveness towards other ants, it is possible that this single organism may displace most other ants - that is, until it is killed off by some disease. That's the problem with being TOO genetically similar.

That sounds like a similar dynamic of the spiders I did my paper on...sexually reproducing, but considered eusocial. It seems it evolved because of massive inbreeding--even though each member of a community could selfishly go their own direction to the detriment of the others, they were actually so inbred they were more related than most haplo-diploid species that are more common eusocial examples (like ants). The thoughts were that this might be an evolutionary dead end. Inbreeding might be great for promoting teamwork, but over the long term has drawbacks.

Only your ants, rather than forming more normal eusocial communities based on inbreeding, seem to have squared the relationship, but compounding normal eusociality with the inbred version.

[Maximus]

The male ants that queens mate with also can contribute to evolution. From that perspective it isn't any different than any other normally sexually reproducing animal.

I was referring to the species that only reproduce asexually. None of this applies if there is sexual reproduction in the mix.

[alfred russel]

The male ants that queens mate with also can contribute to evolution. From that perspective it isn't any different than any other normally sexually reproducing animal.

I was referring to the species that only reproduce asexually. None of this applies if there is sexual reproduction in the mix.

I'm not aware of a species that only reproduces asexually.

[The Brain]

The male ants that queens mate with also can contribute to evolution. From that perspective it isn't any different than any other normally sexually reproducing animal.

I was referring to the species that only reproduce asexually. None of this applies if there is sexual reproduction in the mix.

I'm not aware of a species that only reproduces asexually.

Fags.