42 replies to this topic

[AnthonyP163]

Could ant colonies evolve in captivity?

 

I know it's a crazy scientist thing to ask, but It's kind of an interesting topic to me.

 

 

Just think, if you destroyed/killed half of your colony by flood (I know, it's a cruel thought) then the others would maybe start to learn to swim or evolve some way of escaping death by water. If you let the colony build back up repeatedly, and eventually they evolve underwater breaking or whatever, they could get alates. These alates could have the same DNA/gene coding, which could give future ant colonies the opportunity of making a whole new species, or simply evolving a species to a greater level of evolution.

 

What are your thoughts on this stuff? I think it'd be cool but could ruin the ecosystem. However, it could also help the ecosystem by being able to help the native ants modify to fighting with invasive species, giving some South United States ant keepers some diversity to be with.

 

Again, what are your views?

 

Please don't turn this into a flame war.

[thosaka]

I think it would take many many years, but certainly possible.

[AnthonyP163]

I think it would take many many years, but certainly possible.

Yeah, it might not actually take so long if its in a controlled setting by a human though.

 

If this stuff does work, I hope that ideas don't get to the wrong hands, it could ruin the ecosystem.

[MichiganAnts]

it would take many many generations of ant colonies

[Miles]

Hi Anthony,

 

Evolution doesn't really work the way you have described. I am linking a resource that may help you understand the concepts of evolution by natural selection and the process of speciation. Click --> Nature.com Evolution. Also, an article from HowStuffWorks on Evolution.

[AnthonyP163]

Hi Anthony,

 

Evolution doesn't really work the way you have described. I am linking a resource that may help you understand the concepts of evolution by natural selection and the process of speciation. Click --> Nature.com Evolution. Also, an article from HowStuffWorks on Evolution.

Hmm, I see your point, but isn't it just like with bacteria and viruses? If you kill off only half the virus with a medicine, that Virus becomes a whole new virus that is resistant to that drug. If the ants leftover notice why their nestmates are dying, wouldn't evolution eventually help them out? I'm not talking underwater breathing, (That was a joke ) but maybe evolving some sort of ability that could help them out in certain situations?

[MrPurpleB]

The problem would be that you would need to be doing this with many colonies simultaneously.  Many is an understatement, since the amount of colonies have to be so large that the gene that it would give ants from the same species or genera an advantage in their reproduction. Releasing the mutated alates from a few controlled colonies will not help wild colonies to survive if there no demand for this trait. 

[MrPurpleB]

 

Hi Anthony,

 

Evolution doesn't really work the way you have described. I am linking a resource that may help you understand the concepts of evolution by natural selection and the process of speciation. Click --> Nature.com Evolution. Also, an article from HowStuffWorks on Evolution.

Hmm, I see your point, but isn't it just like with bacteria and viruses? If you kill off only half the virus with a medicine, that Virus becomes a whole new virus that is resistant to that drug. If the ants leftover notice why their nestmates are dying, wouldn't evolution eventually help them out? I'm not talking underwater breathing, (That was a joke ) but maybe evolving some sort of ability that could help them out in certain situations?

 

The thing about bacteria is that they are able to grow and reproduce really quickly, while it can take years for a colony to reproduce alates. 

 

"If the ants leftover notice why their nestmates are dying, wouldn't evolution eventually help them out?"

This would be more an adaptive trait or behavioral change for that specific colony and it would most likely not be passed for future colonies if there is no demand for it. Also a species or an organism cannot just choose to evolve, genetically. 

[Cindy]

Totally possible. The length of time it will take is the real question.

 

Rate of evolution can be precipitated by a number of different factors-- artificial selection, massive extinction events, mutations, inbreeding and genetic drift to name a few. 

 

Artificial selection can lead to evolution and is actually the reason why we have domesticated animals. For example, long ago we selected and bred wolves based on a certain trait they possessed that we liked (i.e. friendliness, sense of smell, ability to track prey), leading to the cute doggos we have today.

Edited by Cindy, March 9 2017 - 9:43 PM.

[LC3]

Here's an analogy regarding how evolution works.

Evolution is more like random shuffling with factors involved, it's like repeating a blueprint design for a building over and over again, tucked that blueprint into the building and rebuilt each building if that one lasted for a certain amount of years. Over time whichever building survives the longest will get it's blueprints passed on. In this analogy no one is actively modifying them, nor are buildings modifying themselves, but because of the scenario it picks out traits that let the buildings last longer. 

There's no such thing as "greater level" of evolution either, if it survives it's good enough.

Selectively breeding ants sure, possible if anyone is willing to put effort into that, but to let ants evolve by themselves by indirect stress would be way too time consuming. It's not to say that native ants are incapable of adapting but if you want to bolster native ants immediately you would need direct involvement, the progress you create by selectively adding pressure to a few colonies wouldn't make much of a difference.

[T.C.]

Could ant colonies evolve in captivity?
 
I know it's a crazy scientist thing to ask, but It's kind of an interesting topic to me.
 
 
Just think, if you destroyed/killed half of your colony by flood (I know, it's a cruel thought) then the others would maybe start to learn to swim or evolve some way of escaping death by water. If you let the colony build back up repeatedly, and eventually they evolve underwater breaking or whatever, they could get alates. These alates could have the same DNA/gene coding, which could give future ant colonies the opportunity of making a whole new species, or simply evolving a species to a greater level of evolution.
 
What are your thoughts on this stuff? I think it'd be cool but could ruin the ecosystem. However, it could also help the ecosystem by being able to help the native ants modify to fighting with invasive species, giving some South United States ant keepers some diversity to be with.
 
Again, what are your views?
 
Please don't turn this into a flame war.

You have the basic idea, but that's really not how evolution works.

[JasonD]

While we are on the subject of genetic modifications, could you imagine if someone genetically engineered ants to produce GFP? We could get ants to glow green. That would be sick, but probably would stress them out!

[Serafine]

That only really works with ants that have very short-living queens and can produce new queens inside their nest (Monomorium, Pheidole - some of their species have queens that only live for 1-2 years). The problem however is, since these species are highly polygynous you need to find out which workers (that have the traits you want them to have) come from which queen, where it gets... difficult.

Most ants mutate at a much slower rate than for example rats do as ants need about 2-4 years to even start producing alates.

Edited by Serafine, March 10 2017 - 1:34 AM.

[Socalfireants]

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

[Batspiderfish]

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=20

[Socalfireants]

That type of stuff is just too open ended for me. I don't like cartoons in my science either, I like very detailed and LONG articles. The opposite of this. 

 

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=20

 

Edited by Socalfireants, March 10 2017 - 7:39 AM.

[Socalfireants]

Mutations can and will occur. To answer your guys questions , these things just won't happen in captivity. All the other stuff I said is little of topic 

[Batspiderfish]

 

That type of stuff is just too open ended for me. I don't like cartoons in my science either, I like very detailed and LONG articles. The opposite of this. 

 

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=20

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2935100/

Edited by Batspiderfish, March 10 2017 - 8:40 AM.

[Socalfireants]

 

 

That type of stuff is just too open ended for me. I don't like cartoons in my science either, I like very detailed and LONG articles. The opposite of this. 

 

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=20

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2935100/

 

http://www.viralnova...etic-relatives/

 

Suddenly apes arent the only thing that's 90% similar to us in dna. 

[Batspiderfish]

 

 

 

That type of stuff is just too open ended for me. I don't like cartoons in my science either, I like very detailed and LONG articles. The opposite of this. 

 

Most of you don't know much about how evolution works. Evolution of the type you say is not possible in captivity because first of all evolution has to do with the ENTIRE population of ants in an area, (not just one organism or colony) and has to do with "natural selection) among the entire population of ants that are continually growing side by side and are continually having sex. None of these things are really possible In captivity. Ants have "supposedly" been around for something like, 400 million years? I don't think they're going to change anytime soon. That is one reason why i personally don't believe in "progressive" evolution in the way that most people think. It is a theory. No one has lived the 50,000 years it takes to watch something evolve. It just hasn't been observed. Science needs to have been observed ten times over to be fact. 

http://evolution.ber...php?topic_id=20

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2935100/

 

http://www.viralnova...etic-relatives/

 

Suddenly apes arent the only thing that's 90% similar to us in dna. 

 

Kind of irrelevant to the evolution of HIV.