Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,804 Year: 4,061/9,624 Month: 932/974 Week: 259/286 Day: 20/46 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tardigrades (water bears)
Explorer
Junior Member (Idle past 5895 days)
Posts: 24
From: Sweden
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 1 of 13 (457678)
02-24-2008 8:31 PM


Searched for this little survivor on the forum but couldn’t find it so I start this thread about the water bears.
From wikipedia:
quote:
small, segmented animals, similar and probably related to the arthropods. The biggest adults may reach a body length of 1.5 mm, the smallest below 0.1 mm.
quote:
tardigrades can survive being heated for a few minutes to 151C or being chilled for days at -200C, or for a few minutes at -272C. (1 warmer than absolute zero)
quote:
they can withstand the extremely low pressure of a vacuum and also very high pressures, many times greater than atmospheric pressure. It has recently been proven that they can survive in the vacuum of space. Recent research has notched up another feat of endurability; apparently they can withstand 6,000 atmospheres pressure, which is nearly six times the pressure of water in the deepest ocean trench.
quote:
tardigrades have been shown to survive nearly one decade in a dry state
quote:
as shown by Raul M. May from the University of Paris, tardigrades can withstand 5,700 grays or 570,000 rads of x-ray radiation. (Ten to twenty grays or 1,000-2,000 rads could be fatal to a human). The only explanation, thus far, for this ability is that their lowered hydration state provides less reactants for the ionizing radiation
Tough little animals! What I wonder is this... how in the world are there logical explanations for the evolution of this kind of creature? Or is it time to consider "over-engineering" from an evolutionary point of view (of some reason freaking out with the positive mutations.. strengten already strong traits)? Under what conditions did the water bears evolve to bring forward this type of survival skills? These creatures must, from an evolutionary point of view, be the most perfect creature so far.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added wikipedia link.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-24-2008 10:17 PM Explorer has not replied
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 02-24-2008 10:56 PM Explorer has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2008 12:52 AM Explorer has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 13 (457699)
02-24-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Explorer
02-24-2008 8:31 PM


Promoting topic, with a little reluctance
Promoting a topic whose message 1 consists largely of little quotes from wikipedia somehow doesn't seem to be within the spirit of the forum guidelines. It, however, does look to be an interesting topic and I can't think of a better way to start it off.
Stand by for promotion.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Explorer, posted 02-24-2008 8:31 PM Explorer has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 13 (457700)
02-24-2008 10:18 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2668 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 4 of 13 (457704)
02-24-2008 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Explorer
02-24-2008 8:31 PM


I find all of this unremarkable.
Each of these evolutionary "feats" have been achieved by other organisms.
Small? Bacteria.
Survive temps near absolute zero? Bacteria.
High pressure? Vacuum? Bacteria.
Dessication? Rotifers, nematodes, angiosperms, bryophytes, lichen, yeast, algae, bacteria.
High radiation? Bacteria. Scorpions. Lotsa bugs.
I'm sure there are tons of others I missed. Point is. Water bears = nothing special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Explorer, posted 02-24-2008 8:31 PM Explorer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2008 12:10 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 13 (457711)
02-25-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by molbiogirl
02-24-2008 10:56 PM


I think it's more interesting than that ... more to follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 02-24-2008 10:56 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 13 (457718)
02-25-2008 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Explorer
02-24-2008 8:31 PM


Tough little animals! What I wonder is this... how in the world are there logical explanations for the evolution of this kind of creature? Or is it time to consider "over-engineering" from an evolutionary point of view (of some reason freaking out with the positive mutations.. strengten already strong traits)? Under what conditions did the water bears evolve to bring forward this type of survival skills?
As I take it, your point is that on the one hand these creatures are meant to be products of evolution, yet on the other hand they have abilities that can never have been selected for by natural selection.
(While I'm answering this, you might think about how we evolved the ability to click our fingers.)
---
Now, first of all, we can see how water-bears could evolve to survive dessication by going into anhydrobiosis. For clearly, in a creature that lives in shallow water with a possibility of it drying up (as water-bears do) an ability to shut down its metabolism and wait, in drier conditions, for a longer period of time will carry a selective advantage. You will note from wikipedia that the mechanism for doing so is not complicated. So we can see how they can evolve this trait.
Now, all the other traits follow from this.
If they can shut down their metabolisms, they can certainly survive ten years like that. Surviving ten years functioning is more of a strain.
Now consider their cold-resistance. Why would cold kill you? Well, the function of enzymes is temperature-dependent --- but the water-bear, in anhydrobiosis, has shut down its metabolism. It doesn't need functioning enzymes, it needs them all to stop what they're doing.
Another problem with freezing people and bringing them back to life is that in freezing, the formation of ice crystals damages the cell walls (hence the mushy texture of frozen vegetables). But the water-bear is dehydrated --- as the wiki article says, down to 1% of the usual water content. No problem there.
Heat disrupts organic chemicals much more when they're in solution than when dry, though unfortunately I am not enough of a chemist to explain why.
The wiki article you quote says of radiation, again, that "their lowered hydration state provides less reactants for the ionizing radiation". In short, it's again 'cos the absence of water changes the chemistry.
And the vacuum of space? Well, we've established that they should stand up to the cold, and they don't need oxygen 'cos they've shut down their metabolisms.
In short, they survive these conditions because nothing happens to them under these conditions: it's not that they fight off heat, cold, radiation, etc. And the reason that nothing happens to them is because they've shut down, and partly because of the way in which they've shut down (anhydrobiosis).
---
And the reason we can click our fingers is that we evolved a certain amount of manual dexterity for other reasons, and that the laws of physics say that if you strike your middle finger hard enough against the ball of your thumb, it'll make a noise. So in a sense, we evolved the capacity to click our fingers --- but not in the sense that this is a trait that was ever favored by natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Explorer, posted 02-24-2008 8:31 PM Explorer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Explorer, posted 02-25-2008 7:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Explorer
Junior Member (Idle past 5895 days)
Posts: 24
From: Sweden
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 7 of 13 (457749)
02-25-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2008 12:52 AM


Thank you for your answers!
Dr Adequate:
As I take it, your point is that on the one hand these creatures are meant to be products of evolution, yet on the other hand they have abilities that can never have been selected for by natural selection.
For an explorer-layman... it seemed quite amazing. Thank you for clarifying exactly what it is that makes all this possible... it is still hard to comprehend fully though. What I myself thought of was actually that the water bears had an ancestor that due to rough conditions here on earth a long time ago evolved these traits in response to that. Surely we have had rough conditions here on earth now and then. And surely we cannot rule out that an ancestor to these creatures did evolve these traits due to somewhat different conditions (not just lying in a swamp that dries up)? OR... would evolutions solution look completely different if a creature were confronted (over time) with all (almost all) the extreme conditions that the water bears can survive?
I do understand your point with the snapping finger and this, Dr Adequate. I feel lucky being able to snap the fingers for a reason not directly favoured by evolution... the water bears must however "feel" very lucky.
Edited by Explorer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2008 12:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2008 11:30 PM Explorer has replied
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 02-26-2008 10:39 AM Explorer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 13 (457861)
02-25-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Explorer
02-25-2008 7:33 AM


What I myself thought of was actually that the water bears had an ancestor that due to rough conditions here on earth a long time ago evolved these traits in response to that. Surely we have had rough conditions here on earth now and then. And surely we cannot rule out that an ancestor to these creatures did evolve these traits due to somewhat different conditions ...
Well, there are a couple of objections to this line of reasoning.
The first is that times have never been that rough. Sure, tardigrades have been exposed to cold, but not to one degree above absolute zero. So natural selection can never have favored the traits that enable it to survive under those conditions as such.
The other objection is that natural selection can not and will not conserve a trait that used to be useful. For example, there is evidence that the last common ancestor of all life lived in boiling water. But today, they only organisms that can live in boiling water are the organisms that actually do live in boiling water. In organisms that don't, the trait has not been conserved, because there is no selective pressure acting to conserve that trait.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Explorer, posted 02-25-2008 7:33 AM Explorer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Explorer, posted 02-26-2008 7:39 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Explorer
Junior Member (Idle past 5895 days)
Posts: 24
From: Sweden
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 9 of 13 (457900)
02-26-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2008 11:30 PM


That does make sense, Dr Adequate.
I am still baffled though. Is it possible that the sea bears were incredible lucky in the evolution process? So that some "over-engineering" (the just right mutations) made it just a little more tough than needed. And it surely is possible that some mutations, even though not directly needed, COULD stay in the species over a long time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2008 11:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 02-26-2008 9:26 AM Explorer has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2668 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 10 of 13 (457906)
02-26-2008 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Explorer
02-26-2008 7:39 AM


Since you were unable to grok the analogy Dr. A offered earlier, let me give this a try.
You didn't evolve to snap your fingers.
So were you over engineered?
No. It's a "side effect" of having evolved to manipulate things with your hands.
And it surely is possible that some mutations, even though not directly needed, COULD stay in the species over a long time?
Disuse = evolutionary withering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Explorer, posted 02-26-2008 7:39 AM Explorer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Explorer, posted 02-26-2008 3:20 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 13 (457917)
02-26-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Explorer
02-25-2008 7:33 AM


I would like to add to this bit by Dr. A.
quote:
The other objection is that natural selection can not and will not conserve a trait that used to be useful. For example, there is evidence that the last common ancestor of all life lived in boiling water. But today, they only organisms that can live in boiling water are the organisms that actually do live in boiling water. In organisms that don't, the trait has not been conserved, because there is no selective pressure acting to conserve that trait.
Sometimes, an absence of selective pressure for the trait is inherently a selective pressure against the trait. Just keep in mind that it requires energy to maintain a part of your body even if you don't use it. This part of your body in the long run could slow you down and even act as a diversion of precious resources from the necessary parts of your body. There would certainly be an automatic selective pressure against such traits that is useless and only slows down the organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Explorer, posted 02-25-2008 7:33 AM Explorer has not replied

  
Explorer
Junior Member (Idle past 5895 days)
Posts: 24
From: Sweden
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 12 of 13 (457963)
02-26-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by molbiogirl
02-26-2008 9:26 AM


molbiogirl writes:
Since you were unable to grok the analogy Dr. A offered earlier, let me give this a try.
On the contrary. I understood perfectly.
So were you over engineered?
No. I said:
I feel lucky being able to snap the fingers for a reason not directly favoured by evolution
I use the phrase "over engineered" with quotation marks to indicate that it is everyday-language I use... mainly due to a lack of a better word describing something that looks engineered OR a property that seems to good to be true for a creature (as in the case of water bears imo). Not to be taken literally as I do not support the idea of direct design in nature. I do however support the idea of design in a global perspective... as I write this I do consider to use another term than "design" in the future as the meaning of the word implies a designer which is far from what I believe in (this sentence should be read as OT in this thread).
Disuse = evolutionary withering.
That is a general statement. Shall I consider your answer to be a hidden "yes"?
Taz writes:
This part of your body in the long run could slow you down and even act as a diversion of precious resources from the necessary parts of your body. There would certainly be an automatic selective pressure against such traits that is useless and only slows down the organism.
That clarifies! That is something I didn’t think of before in the thought around why a creature shouldn't be able to carry around all sorts of incredible properties.
Edited by Explorer, : No reason given.
Edited by Explorer, : No reason given.
Edited by Explorer, : No reason given.
Edited by Explorer, : No reason given.
Edited by Explorer, : No reason given.
Edited by Explorer, : Is there a bonus-system for many edits...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 02-26-2008 9:26 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 02-26-2008 8:18 PM Explorer has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2724 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 13 of 13 (458012)
02-26-2008 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Explorer
02-26-2008 3:20 PM


Scorpions glow bright green under black light. I can't think of a reason for that, especially considering that UV light (the main component of black light) doesn't usually penetrate down to the earth's surface in quantities that actually produce this effect naturally.
It's just a random property that happened to be in the most recent common ancestor of the scorpions, and that was not selected against. This is likely the same explanation for Tardigrades' abilities.
For molbiogirl: what, exactly, does "grok" mean?

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Explorer, posted 02-26-2008 3:20 PM Explorer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024