Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Phylogeny
evolutionary history of a group of organisms, based on idea that organisms are related by evolution
phylogenetic tree
model of how group of organisms descend from a common ancestor, model consists of nodes, branches, and tips
nodes
where groups split on a phylogenetic tree
branches on a phylogenetic tree
where evolution occurs
tips on a phylogenetic tree
representing observed taxa, assumed to be monophyletic
taxa on a phylogenetic tree
the endpoints of the process we are trying to model
clades
group defined by single common ancestor, all descendants of that ancestor must be in it, can also be called monophyletic groups or taxa
sister taxa
useful way of thinking about the phylogenetic trees, two taxa that share common ancestor at any scale, and you would need to take the whole taxon
lineages on a phylogenetic tree
the tree indicates the pattern of these branching, the tree is a model of how evolution occured
equivalent for phylogenetic trees
trees that correspond to the same model, all same common ancestors, just telling us who split from who
order of species on a phylogenetic tree
we don’t interpret anything about the order of a tree, no species are higher or lower than others (according to tree), we’ve all been evolving for same amt of time
how closely related two organisms are
we look at common ancestor on tree
characteristics/ characters
the describing phenotypes that make species look/ act similar
morphological
physical or genetic, looks like, or blood, genetic sequence, etc.
phenetic approach
use measures of distance between organisms
cladistic approach
based on modeling how evolution occurs on the tree
morphological or genetic for phlyogenies
usually more info from genetic, and easier to measure precisely, but can use morphological when less resources like when genetic info is not available (most fossils)
cladistic analysis
makes use of phylogenetic model of organisms evolving from each other to infer phylogenies, making use of how we think evolution happened. preferred model
phenetic analysis
ignores phylogenetic model of organisms evolving from each other while inferring phylogenies, just using those that look similar. not preferred, we use thing when not enough time money etc, only distance info no genetics, not enough baseline info. looks at derived and basal characters equally
synapomorphies
has to be different as opposed to homologies, classical cladistic analysis is based on this; shared, derived characteristics, evidence that two clades are related
derived characteristics
character not shared by the common ancestor of the group that you are looking at
flight as evidence
oaks and fish don’t fly, but birds do. Does that make oaks and fish closely related? no, theres no evidence
basal/ancestral characters
the common ancestor, characteristics of the common ancestor
inferring common ancestor
want to know to tell what characters are derived vs basal. sometimes common sense, but difficult statistically, make use of outgroup
outgroup
organism closely related to, but outside, of group being studied, you have to be confident about what you call this. we assume that the root of the tree is where it branches from the group
convergent evolution
two species may have the same trait because the trait evolved twice independently
secondary loss
lack a characteristic that its ancestors had, can get confusing and make unsimilar organisms look similar
analogous
similarities that are not homologous
parsimony
fewest number of changes necessary, classical cladistic analysis is based on the tree that can explain this way
how to address convergent evolution and analogy
use as many different characteristics as possible and look at them, may also help to use many different taxa. modern approaches w genetic data use more sophisticated models
genetic vs morphological
genetic analysis more effective than morphological bc it can be hard to tell which traits are actually derived, genetic allows for greater trait analysis (more data)
limits of phylogenetic trees
cannot really summarize true history of life, different types of gene combination, our guesses change over time
the three domains
bacteria, archaea, and eukarya
bacteria as a domain
no nuclei, mostly small, most of the seen microorganisms, hard to tell apart from archaea even w microscope, need to see niche
archaea as a domain
no nuclei, mostly small, rare, live in extreme environments, hard to tell apart from bac even on microscope, need to see niche
eukarya as a domain
large, nucleated cells. plants, animals, fungi, and then all sorts of protozoa. seem to be sisters w archaea based on most key genes, characterized by nuclei & mitochondria (endosymbiosis theory)
web of life
if genes or even whole bacteria (like the mitochondria) can be transferred, as well as reuniting of species, life is not really a tree
the five kingdoms
an old approach to seeing life, does not describe the correct evolution, more useful for genera understanding of difference bw types of eukaryota.
when can trees be used to approximate
when pops are not mixing, we can do this by geographical separation, or otherwise make a tree of genes instead of traits
how fossils can form
compression squashes them into thin film, cast fossils from decomposition replacing minerals different from surrounding ones, permineralized if minerals infiltrate cells as they decompose
biases in fossil record
you can’t always rely on the given information of fossils. Habitat bia, taxonomic bias, temporal bias, abundance bias
habitat bias
things that live in swampy areas or underground may not fossilize, so we never knew they existed
taxonomic bias
hard things, or hard parts of things like microorganisms w shells harder to fossilize
temporal bias
things that lived more recently had less time to be destroyed, or to be buried too deep for recovery
abundance bias
things more abundant likely to be perserved, does that mean that something significant isnt important if there is less of it?
accounting for bias in fossils
just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. just because you see alot, doesn’t mean that there were alot (relatively)
how to put timeline of fossils together
dates can be inferred using radioactive isotopes, geologic inferences (one fossilized on top of the other), molecular clocks (how fast things evolve)
radiation events
dramatic diversity at one time (one species diverges into 10)
mass extinction
species that disappear dramatically
process of diversification
diversity can arise and decline gradually, or arise and decline dramatically
adaptive radiation
occurs when single lineage produces many descendant species in a short period of time. triggered by ecological opportunity, morphological innovation, and co-evolution. Makes their living different
ecological opportunity
organism arrives in new area w no similar organisms or competition drives or kills a species away
morphological innovation
new adaptive mutation can open up further possibilities for adaptation. legs in arthropods
co-evolution
evolution of one group creates new niches for another group and vice versa (insects and flowering plants)
gene duplication
one or more genes may be accidentally duplicated so that the genome has two copies of each gene (polyploidy is an example). could make organism less efficient and be selected against, but could also allow for innovation
innovation from gene duplication
one copy of the gene would continue to do the task while the copy can evolve to perform a new function
mass extinction events
five major ones so far, last one was the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, we could be in the middle of a mass extinction right now! (hunting/ exploiting/ overfishing, deforestation/ urbanization, introduction of species from one place to another, global warming/ pollution, water overuse, etc. (don’t need to be memorized, just some examples))
humans as an example of evolution
it is known that humans evolved from other primates due to our large similarities
what is different about people from other organisms
opposable thumbs + tool use, long development time, communication, culture, language, technology, complex thoughts
what is the same between humans and other organisms
genetic code, biochemical processes, common ancestor, successful reproduction, if our current reproductive success depends on heritable variation in traits, then were gonna keep evolving (smarter, dumber, bigger, smaller)
context for evolution
adaptations build on existing adaptations often in unexpected ways, evolution doesn’t know where it is going, it moves from one thing to the next as it reaches a “goal”
issue of a constant environment
species can only improve with gradual adaptations to the same environment and will be in danger of getting “stuck” (vertebrate eyes), a changing environment provides opportunities to try new combinations and build in unexpected directionss
physical changes
often provide species w new adaptive challenges and opportunities. global climate change, continental drift, geological changes, vicariance events
changing ecosystems
taxa can be dramatically impacted by changes in other taxa (flowering plants and their bees), co-evolution is a driver of diversity
therapsids
mammalian ancestors, radiated and dominated many environments before even dinosaurs, they were largely replaced by the dinosaurs during the age of the dinosaurs, but some survived and radiated after the mass extinciton
radiation and contraction
gain and then loss of species diversity. radiation gives chance for adaptation. contraction may occur due to changing conditions, competition from other clades and competition from same clade
interpreting patterns
we see many clades w history of radiation but we can’t confirm this because of bias of seeing what still exists (survivors bias)
survivorship bias
bias arises from the fact that we’re much more likely to observe successful taxa, unlikely adaptive radiation, weird speciation events like hybridization, polyploidy + other duplications, and combination of species (eukaryota absorbing mitochondria and choloroplast)
advantages of previous radiation
even if it contracts, they’ve explored a new environment, more chance to adapt (only few successful species)
primates
characterized by: highly developed stereoscopic vision, versatile limbs (grasping hands + feet, nails instead of claws), and large brains (compared to other mammals)
stereoscopic vision
eyes close together, face forward, used together, 3-d visualization
observer bias
since we are human, it gives us a particular perspective when studying humans
angiosperm explosion
flowering plants that diversified very rapidly around 100mya. radically changed ecology of the world, opened up new niches
primate adaptations
each step favoured adaptively by pressures: leaping from branches, climbing on trees, exploiting new resources, catching insects, adaptive foraging
adaptive foraging
ability to switch bw types of food and learn to use new types of food from others, then teaching that
adaptive looping
sometimes adaptions reinforce each other; bigger brain for adaptive foraging→ process more types of food for clever hands→ clever hands increase selection for stereoscopic vision→ ability to see and manipulate things may increase selection for bigger brains→ back to start
apes
more adapted for swinging through trees rather than climbing and leaping (monkeys). more upright, better at hanging, worse at sitting on trees
patterns of replacement
apes radiated into many habitats before monkeys did, many apes replaced by old world monkeys. this could have happened because of: competition w other taxa, changing environment, change in plants + insects, adaptive innovations by the monkeys
chimps vs humans
everything says 1%, but it is actually a 4% difference. This is because the different number of chromosomes is not accounted for. the 96% is probably metabolic function organs and cells
hominins
people and other upright ancestors, changes in jaw and chewing, more social. very specific splitting bw genus and species because of observers bias
upright posture
unknown for sure, but could have been due to: adaptation to walking on ground instead of tree swinging (climatic change, less trees), adaptation to keep cool (less sun on back, only on head), adaptation for harvesting and carrying food
Modern humans
probablyu replaced H. egaster through competition. characterized by: small face + mouth, less robust skeletal features, evolved in Africa around 200tya, took over most of world in last 50tya
complex foraging
our ancestors went beyond adaptive strategies of other hominins and found various ways to feed: cooking, tools for hunting animals and digging for tubers, selecting plants. likely built on existing traits of adaptive looping
brain and body size of humans
compared to graph showing what average human brain size should be, it is very large, this is part of the looping effect
new adaptive loops for modern humans
social interactions → big brains → communication → culture → long development period
slow rate of development for humans
could be due to many reasons: lots to learn, social skills are important to survive so those must be present, could also be a tradeoff for bigger brains
strategies for early primates for eating
frugivory, folivory, insectivory
frugivory
eating fruits and sometimes flowers
folivory
eating leaves
insectivory
eating insects
teeth
very important for food processing, they help scientists understand what extinct animals ate, often preserved and highly adapted
orbits
skeletal cavities where the eyes are, they tell us the size shape and position of eyes from fossils
advantages and disadvantages of forward-facing and large eyes
forward facing is good for 3D visualization and precision, but worse for predators as we cannot see around us. large eyes may be better for night vision but may be more costly and harder to protect.
sexual dimorphism
in species with more dimorphism there is more variation in male success and competition bw males for females
human sexual competition
compared to other apes, humans have big penises and small testicles. could be because less sperm is needed because less partners, and large penis because of larger competition for sexual success
population ecology
stage of evolution rather than evolution itself
defining a population in ecology
individuals of the same species living together, all individuals of a given species that live and reproduce in a particular place and time
Population size
can size be estimated if a population is not defined? When we're told a population is a certain number it is never exact because it can change from year to year
population range
the area in which a population lives, not proportional in all areas because of resources existing in different areas and climates best for certain members of the population
population density
We can do the math to give us the exact number, but this is not accurate because of the range