Evolution of Altruism

Dawkins and Darwin both state that altruism evolves if there are not a lot of "cheaters" in the groups within a species and not.  Altruism can evolve through genes passed on by parents who are cooperativ, altrusitc, and "helpers", especially in meerkats.  Helpers that are in the meerkat social-group put off giving birth to most offspring while caring for its kin by the dominant Alpha female because they are safer from predation, may get more food supplies, and indirectly pass on their genes to their brother and sisters, half-sibs, and even cousins.  In other species that are not related but live in the same ecological niche, may give reciprocal altruism if they know the other species will pay back in return.  Another example, is the Vambire bats that will use reciprocal altruism by feeding a non-kin member if they have extra blood to give without to much cost to themselves; and the benifactor should return the favor the next time he or she feeds.

Evolutionary Medicine use with doctors/DarwinianTheory

"Does a mechanic need to understand the origins, history, and technological advances that have gone into the motor vehicle in order to properly fix it"?  Yes, absolutely the mechanic must know all the parts, and electrical sysyems of modern cars, in order to fix them.  The modern mechanic has engine scopes (computurized machine that diagnoses problems in the engine system, fuel injection system, and electrical-computer system) and various other tools at his disposal.  Thus, if the mechanic does not know how to properly fix on part of a modern automobile, then he doesn't know how to properly fix or diagnose the car!  This same analogy can also pertain to medical doctors and biologists too, because they must know the whole of their subjects that they either fix them or rely on past evolutionary data on all different fields of science in order to diagnose and cure the patient.

The Darwinian Theory can help the medical doctors how Homos sapiens past pedigrees or ancestral information on who had what disease (cancer, heart, and diabetes) or what not.  This can enable the doctor to investigate how to try to prevent the disease with the susceptible patient or find new treatments or cures (Nesse, Williams, 1998).

DNA and "Dawkin's views"

In Chapter I of "The ancestor's Tale, Dawkin's states that first we must not assume if a person is related to another person from the distant-past, that my neighbor is also related to the same distant ancestor as me.  Dawkin's notes, that there is no way of knowing how far back in time that when using "genetic trees" would still not lead you to the "most recent common ancestor" (MRCA); because you do not know how far to go back in time (Dawkin, p. 40-41).
Dawkin's also states, that we do not know how "ancient" is ancient enough, that an individual that has any human genes and offspring must be the oldest ancestor of all humans to come after (Dawkin, p. 39).

2.  Dawkin's refers to "mitochondrial Eve" is that all females have Eve's mitochondrial DNA (Eve is supposed to be the first woman of the Earth to those "faithful); and all female descendants bare her genes.  But, this can be misleading to assume because Eve could have had several lovers and many different genetic diversities of her offspring according to Dawkins (pp. 54-55).  Adam could also lived years after Eve passed away or he could have interbred with other individuals too; and Dawkin's states that all of Adam's male descendants will have all of Adam's Y chromosome information (because only a male has an XY chromosome).  In addition, Dawkin's states that male's do have mitochondrial DNA, but they do not pass it on to any male or female offspring (Dawkins, pp. 54-55).
The "Out of Africa" hypothesis or theory is that all humans came or descended from Africa, when the land continents were one-continous land mass (Pangea); and the humans' left Africa and migrated to distant lands and interbred with new populations, according to scientists 100,000 YA.  But, this theory is highly debated because of "population bottlenecks" and fossil evidence.

Bipedal Evolution

Natural Selection in my oppinion led to bipedality in our ancestral hominids due to changes in the environment over time.  The use of tools and counting found in caves fossils dated thosands and thosands of years ago, show that the environment made it necessary for our ancestors to stand upright, perhaps, to hunt because the foliage was too higher up in the tree canopies or to catch other vetebraes to eat.  For early hominids they needed for "Natural Selection" to make their brains larger to combat the elements, and perhaps because of "Sexual Selection" for monogamy among pairs of the opposite sex.
In Ar. ramidus, the earliest hominid recently discovered in 1994 in Eithipoia.  The scientists had to stop the digs for the fossil remains for years due to floods in the wash area and local warfare between tribes.  But, they went back to their dig for Ar. ramidus in the early 21st century and in the last year and half the scientists have made many concrete theories.  The test were conducted on the fossil remains of Ar. ramidus of jaw bone pieces and teeth, libs, and a partial femur.  The current studies have shown that this is the oldest most recent ancestor to Homo sapiens.  The scientists also believe that Ar. ramidus walked upright and that the current drylands where their remains were found recently used to be a forst-like and some grasslands (Lovejoy, and "Ardi" television show, 2009).

October 24,: Kin Selection in Queens and Workers

Kin Selection can cause conflict between queens and workers if the workers want to take her position or are not pulling their weight in the colony.  Most of the time the queen will win because of her dominance in the colony; but if she becomes weak and another female worker can take her place the selfish gene hypothesis may take over from the worker to the queen status.  Other conflicts are that some workers may not feed the larvae the correct types of food to ensure a new queen will be born or a haploid male for the existing queen to mate with; and this may lead to conflict between the queen and the workers.  The rogue worker or workers may not have an altruistic gene to participate in the colony and may wish to become a queen and start a new colony or take over the existing one.

Week 2

Dawkins states that the first "replicators" were made possibly from molecules that may have been created coincidently, and the "replicator" also learned how to clone itself into many more "replicators"(Dawkins, Richard, 1976-1999, p. 15). Dawkins also notes that it isn't hard to believe that a simple molecule from the "Primevil Soup" theory could become the first start of "living" things, because molecules are consistent in their matter (Dawkins, Richard, 1976-1999, p. 15). Dawkin's states too, that after many clones of the first "replicator" that perhaps more complex molecules were further added(Dawkins, Richard, 1976-1999, p. 15). Dawkins also suggests that "Natural Selection" kept the best "replicators" and the others went extinct, and as a result, the best "survival machines"(Dawkins, Richard, 1976-1999, p. 19). The author, Richard Dawkins stated that the "replicators" became the blueprints for "life" and that DNA is responsible for the more complex-organisms-humans(Dawkins, Richard, 1976-1999, p. 21). There are so many different combinations that occur during either mitosis or meiosis with DNA; that it's like a lottery of what genotypes any "organism" may inherit. Plus how new species evolved and emerged with crossing-over and "Natural Selection" makes better species(My Own Words). In comparison, author, Peter Mayhew states that from the very first organized molecule that led to "life" went through many baby-steps over evolutionary time, and made several modifications, too(Mayhew, Peter, 2006, 2009, pp. 14, 15). Mayhew also notes that over time that the "living" cell became more complex and thus led to "multicellular" organisms"(Mayhew, Peter, 2006,2009, p. 15). I beleive that peter Mayhew's theory is more probable but not by very much compared to Richard Dawkins theory of the first "replicators." Autotrophic life I believe is the first recipients from the first mollecular cell because they are the "primary producers" on our planet. With the creation of autotrophic "life" (plants), the primitive "cell-of-life", thus became more complex over evolutionary time to create animals that eat the autotrophs. Both Autotrophs and heterotrophs mutually benefit from each other in everu aspect of their "life histories."

Suzanne Wagner, Bio 419, Darwin domestication

I don't necessarily agree with "Charles Darwin" when he stated that all of the animals that man has domesticated and their original ancestral origin will remain "vague", because with the wolves are the direct ancestor to the dogs. Plus, there are also wild horses in the southwestern part of the U.S.A. that for the most part are in their "aboriginal" state and therefore they are ancestors to some of our race horses. Even over time the phenotypes of animals or plants may change and most of the genotypes may have been lost from the original F1 generation, but not all genotypes because of mitochondrial DNA will still exist. Natural Selection will weed out some of the bad genotypes and the organisms will pass on the best traits for survival to their progeny. But, this too is only seen in their phenotypes and not in their genotypes. "Dawkin" notes that to be "stable is to be like an atom," and that mutations of genes through many generations of a species life may cause the organism to become more "fit." Ecology in human beings "hunter-and-gather" time period may have led to the domestication of the wolf because the people did not have any place to put their food and, therefore it became an easy meal for the wolves. So over time the human and wolf would become more acquainted with one another and less afraid too that perhaps started the domestication of the dog.