On my comfortable little niche

October 27, 2013 Leave a comment

So I’ve been skiving off this blog for over a year now, my excuse would be that I’ve been busy sorting out applications trying to secure my first position, but that would be a Lie. I’ve been skiving off out of fear and dullness, fear of doing badly and dullness that is such a part of me that anything I do or make will be incredibly dull and anyone reading it will die in such a dull way that it will cause the lights to dim and the colour to be drained out of the world. Keep reading, I get less depressing after the second paragraph.

Dramatic hyperbole aside, my life after university is exactly what it was before only now with even less purpose. I have no goal, life drifts by occasionally nodding significantly at those around me and how much they’ve achieved and how much I have failed to achieve. Such is my comfortable little niche. I am back at my parents house, unemployed and comfortably playing video games and watching television letting the days slip by with nothing more than a futile hand wave.

This post is going to be my rebirth. I will begin posting again. However, instead of my previously stated goal of putting lots of work out, I am instead going to concentrate on the amount of work I put in. This, and my previous plan, is because I am a firm believer in the notion that ‘you get out what you put in’ and to get a good blog you need to do a lot of work on it. Previously, the way that I tried to ensure I put work in was to set a target of amount of work put out. This is not the same though. I could write a blog a day but if each post is basically a tweet and with the same amount of thought that goes into the average tweet, I am unlikely to improve my blogging skills.

With this in mind, my new plan is that I am going to write often and a lot. To ensure that I actually post what I write, I will allow only 3 revisions of posts not including making a draft post containing the seed of an idea for a post. This is to prevent me from eternally editing and giving it ‘one more edit’. So that’s my new plan. I’ll not have an exact schedule I’m just going to work on posts and publish them as I finish them. One new thing I may do however is writing posts about things I come across, for example SciShow did an episode a while back about Resurrection Biology, so called de-extinction, which to my mind, left out some pretty significant topics of discussion.

So that’s what I’ll be working on in future. Hopefully I’ll be able to keep this thing going and actually do something of significance with it. Honestly I’ll be happy if I make a few more posts that get people commenting about how wonderful it is that I could explain something that they were struggling with. I’d like to say that’s because I’m such a nice person and I want to help people but I think I know it’s more that I like stroking my ego. So, eight revisions in, I think this post is ready. I’ll set it to publish next Sunday, giving me a week to work on the post after it. That way it’s a more delayed process but will allow me to potentially get in front of the schedule and have multiple posts ready to publish one after another. Ha, yeah that’s a pleasant fiction.

On spirals, stripes and zigzagging.

October 28, 2012 Leave a comment

So this week I thought I’d take the time to go into a bit of depth about what I was looking at for the dissertation I completed for my degree. If you’re not interested, I’m sorry to hear that, go be boring somewhere else. It’s all about moving, particularly, moving in ways listed in the title, spirals, stripes and zigzags. In order to understand this however, you need to understand the details of my dissertation.

Nah, just kidding, but it would be good for you to understand the background of my project because my work is based on the hypotheses of a few good men. It is based on the fact that in the fossil record there are remains of what was originally thought to be seaweed but which were later reinterpreted as the tracks, trails and burrows of ancient sea creatures. Think about the last time you were on a beach, you know that worm cast? Well that’s because of a ‘U’ shaped burrow of a worm which it uses to collect nutrients by passing water over it’s gills through the burrow.

Worm Cast: This stuff is the sand pushed out of the back (On the right) of the burrow (The front is the hole on the left) to make room for the worm. Source.

Okay, now imagine that worm lived millions of years ago and the sand it burrowed through was turned to rock and the burrow remains as an imprint in the rock. This is one type of fossil which has been studied, the types that I studied where probably made by a species which crawled across the ocean floor, grazing. These patterns changed of the course of history, the first recorded paths are quite ancient, I believe the earliest ones I found in the literature were from the Silurian period (in the region of 450mya, for contrast, humans diverged from chimps around 4mya).

The Silurian Period: This is the geologic time scale, Earth was fully formed by At the very bottom on the left. Animals evolved around the start of the Paleozoic (In blue) and all the time since then has been expanded on the right. The Silurian is the 3rd period from the bottom on the left, the dinosaurs fit into the pink section on the right; all of human existence fits into the Quaternary at the very top of the right. Source.

So these things have been around a while, but they’ve not been idle, oh no, there are several different groups of fossils, some with spirals, some with zigzags, but they didn’t start out that way: The first records are simple stripes which overlapped a lot. Then millions of years later, we find record of some with loose zigzags and some with loose spirals. Millions of years after that there is record of tighter zigzags and very tight, double spirals. Millions of years after that and we’re around the time when mammals are about to take centre stage as the largest animals on the planet, and we find tight corkscrews drilling into the ocean floor.

Trace Fossils: So called because they are the traces and tracks of animals rather than their bodies. This is from Raup and Seilacher’s original paper, the left side shows the fossils they based their model on and the right shows what the computer model did. Source.

My work was based off of this and the Prescott and Ibbottson paper I got the picture above from. Along with a paper with the wonderful title ‘In Search of the Optimum Scumsucking Bottomfeeder’. The question is: Why bother to make yourself able to develop such complex patterns as that double spiral? What is pressuring these creatures to develop the complex neural pathways required to make such patterns? Well Hayes in the paper named above suggested that the ocean floor is a uniform resource and the best tactic is to just munch on the resources as you move along it and the more efficiently you use up the space, the better off you’ll be.

Well I think that’s a good idea except I was convinced of the patchiness of the resources, the ocean floor isn’t uniform, far from it. In the end, I decided that a strong contender as one of the reasons for the behaviours would be competition from others. In other words, the population density within an area would mean that the organisms would be all crowded together to a certain extent. This crowding would mean they should watch out for where they move because if they move over an already grazed patch, that’s a waste of the energy used to move over that patch.

I tested the idea by looking at the various behaviours and how Raup and Seilacher suggested the decision tree would work. I built a whole bunch of different behaviour sets based on how they would move in a free environment without depleted areas getting in the way; I also behaviour sets based on how they would react to the path they were moving along being obstructed by depleted patch. The pictures below should illustrate what I mean:

Movement behaviours: The three different ways that the organisms would move, there was (a) the straight path (with a little wobbling because nothing in nature is perfect); (b) the curve, the organism would gently turn as it walked; (c) the zigzag, similar to the straight path but after a set number of steps, the creature would reverse it’s path. Source: Self.

Reaction behaviours: These three are how the organisms would react when they came across a depleted patch (Which if all the world is filled with food, would only occur if another organism has already grazed the area and represented by the horizontal arrow. (a) the simplest option is to do nothing about it and keep going with your movement behaviour; (b) a more complex choice is to look out for it and when you see a patch ahead, turn a fixed amount and then carry on with your movement behaviour; (c) this is the most complex choice, in it, the organism attempts to follow along the edge of the already depleted patch and graze alongside it. Source: Self.

The next step for me was to simulate what different populations would do given these behaviours, so if there where 10 in an area, how much food could each gather under each behaviour set (Each model organism is given one movement behaviour and one reaction behaviour to use and I chose to make each population run just one of each of the nine combinations) then compare that with 20 in the same size area, and 30, and 40 all the way up to 900 (Just looked that up in the file I used to record all of this and it turns out that the file was created 29/10/2011 what a coincidence). So because the size of the area was the same for each one, I was looking at population density and what happened to the benefits of each behavioural set.

The short story is that after I collected something in the region of 3.5 million data points, I used some basic statistics and discovered that the reaction behaviours that tried to avoid the paths did VASTLY better than the one which didn’t avoid the paths at all at high population density. So if there’s lots of competition about, it pays to be smart about where you’re going. But at low population density, the reaction behaviour of ‘keep doing your movement behaviour’ did at least as well and often better (Depending on the movement behaviour) than the more complex reaction behaviours.

The reason for this, I think is that when there’s not many organisms around, it doesn’t matter if you go over a track every now and then, if you try to ‘take evasive maneuvers’ you’ll end up staying nearby to an area which has already been grazed on whereas not reacting to the grazed areas, you end up heading out to ‘greener pastures’ and not running into the paths again. It also seems that population density did have a significant effect on these ancient animals’ behavioural effectiveness. As for why all this matters, well, that I think I’ll save to waste your time with on another post.

What is science? Part II: How do you know?

October 21, 2012 Leave a comment

This week I finally return to a task I set myself on my second blog post, to try to give a set of posts which cover the possible answers to the question “What is Science?”. This week I will attempt to blunder through my understanding of the differences between a scientific viewpoint, a religious viewpoint and philosophical viewpoints (plural because philosophy isn’t a single thing).

So, how do you know? How do you know anything? That is a complex question. How do we know some things? Some things such as our names and categories are simply identifiers we use, this blog is UrsusCetacea, but that isn’t necessarily *what* this blog is, it’s really an amorphous cloud of my thoughts ranted out of my fingertips onto the internet but it could just as easily be called “THE GREATEST BLOG EVER” but that would neither make the statement “The greatest blog ever is the greatest blog ever” true, nor would it make this blog any different besides the name at the top.

Bear whale (Ursus cetacea): The story of a bear swimming along capturing insects in it’s mouth inspired Charles Darwin to suggest (incorrectly) the origin of whales as a bear taking this strange behaviour to extremes. Source.

But there are things which we assume to be universally true, that are true regardless of what happens. I subtly and totally on purpose described one earlier, that my blog is an amorphous cloud et.c. et.c., it doesn’t really matter what I called this blog, it would still be what it is. Other things are also universally true, if I drop an apple it will fall towards the centre of the Earth (Unless I’m REALLY far away or going fast enough).

Still other things aren’t easily set into True and False categories, they may be simple explanations of True/False events, such as the answer to the question “Why does the apple fall towards the Earth’s centre?” we say the answer is because gravity pulls Earth and the apple together but the apple has a lot less inertia so it goes further towards the Earth than the Earth does towards the apple. How do we distinguish the difference between the gravitational explanation and, say, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster pushes objects back down onto the Earth“?

Intelligent Falling: The idea here is that the FSM pushes down on people keeping them attached to the Earth instead of floating away. Source.

What is the difference between such hypotheses (Quick note: A hypothesis is an expectation of what will happen in an experiment, a theory is a set of explanations, hypotheses and facts which fit together to provide a comprehensive understanding of the process described, such as Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Evolution, Genetic Theory, Big Bang Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Electromagnetism, et.c., et.c, all of these have the same level of strength, doubt one and you doubt them all.)? The difference is what makes science and what doesn’t. The scientific explanations quite simply may be tested by the scientific method and are abandoned if the method disproves the hypothesis.

Theories, hypotheses and facts: all neatly joined together, if only life was this easy. Source: me.

An important thing to consider here is that I have not mentioned when a hypothesis is accepted, nor when a theory is. This is because it’s unique for each hypothesis and theory. It’s also different for different sciences, for instance, in biomedical science it’s much more strict than any other biology, because human lives are at stake. As a general rule of thumb, when there’s a large body of testing and none of it has yet disproved the theory and/or hypothesis, then it is accepted to be true.


The scientific method according to UrsusCetacea: I had to draw this myself but it shows essentially how scientists fact check and develop our growing scientific knowledge.

Now, let us return to our example with the FSM vs gravity and take a look at what the scientific method can tell us about the two hypotheses. So, gravity predicts with great precision (through it’s use of mathematics) exactly what forces will act and the results will be under almost any circumstance. FSM intelligent falling makes no predictions (it’s not meant to, it’s not a scientific explanation). Ergo, gravity is a scientific hypothesis, FSM intelligent falling is a religious idea.

The fact remains that some things are beyond science, how should you behave in society? Is it morally acceptable to hurt another human? Another animal? Why does the universe exist? Why is the universe the way that it is? As yet, science has no way of answering these questions. Some may never be answered. I doubt there would ever be a way that we could determine morals from scientific truth, the old saying “You can’t deduce an ought from an is.”

These areas are were philosophy and religion develop their ‘ways of knowing’ as separate from the scientific ‘way of knowing’. Pre-emptive note to philosophers: Sorry I don’t do your subject proper justice, please comment with corrections/criticisms. So how do philosophers determine what truth is? Fundamentally, philosophical truth is based on reason. Does the internal logic of the statement work? Do the premises hold true under all cases? Do the premises actually support the conclusions? The reasoning is the path to truth and is how statements of truth are assessed.

How do religious leaders find truth? I would say that the religious truth is easier to describe, as religion gives it a word: Revelation. The divine gift of knowledge. The idea being that a supernatural being, a god say, implants the knowledge directly into a person’s mind. This sort of truth is difficult for a sceptical person, one who doesn’t believe in the supernatural being, to accept. Likewise, should a sceptic question the revelation, it would be impossible for the religious person to understand how the sceptic could doubt the revelation.

The difficulty of verifying the source combined with the fact that it isn’t based on reason but rather divine mandate dictating truth makes it difficult to trust without you being the individual who receives the revelation or it being revealed to someone who you would trust the authority of but the truth will not be a universal one that works for everyone.

To conclude, science is but one way of knowing and it is dependent on your own reasoning and beliefs to determine the truth of other ways of knowing. The fact that scientific knowledge is based on evidence however makes it unequivocal, it does no good to argue against what happens, nor does it make sense to argue against a reasonable explanation that has been shown to work. I don’t believe in any god, but I understand that people look for meaning where they will, if someone would choose to seek morals through a religion, that’s their choice. I myself would rather determine the moral action through my own thought and conversation with others. All I can hope is that I don’t come off too preachy in this post.

On shades of grey, be they fifty or infinite.

October 7, 2012 Leave a comment

There was a time when I believed in absolutes, the world was black and white, it was good vs evil, order vs chaos, school started here and ended there. Well, things have changed. The world is not so sharply defined today. This is not because the world has changed, but rather I have. I have learnt more about the world and I have explored more of it (admittedly still only a tiny portion of the whole, but come on, it’s early days yet).

The trouble with this is the difficulty it throws in making decisions. It’s easy to make a choice between one thing and another when it’s good against bad, but what about when the options are a mix? I’ve always had trouble making choices. I remember being paralysed by indecision when my parents gave me a 50p piece and I was allowed to buy a chocolate bar (Remember the days when 50p would but more than one chocolate bar?). Later I worked out the best method, Freddos, and lots of them (At least until they become 15p each, god dammed inflation). Anyway, decisions that were completely arbitrary such as choosing a chocolate to eat (I would be happy with just about any chocolate I was given, I was a child) but I couldn’t just pick one, it had to be the BEST ONE.

Freddo: The best damn solid chocolate bar in existence. Don’t know if America has these so thought it’d be a good excue to take some useful advice. Source

This determination to not make a decision unless it was the best one often left me with little or no time to make decisions. The trouble with life is there are a hell of a lot of paths to walk and a hell of a lot of decisions to make so if you worry about every little choice and which one is the best to make then you’ll go nowhere fast. Of course it’s all very well and good to state my philosophy, it’s quite another to put it into practice.

The trouble I found is that when it is black and white, the option is obvious, if you like black, pick black, if you like white, pick white and if you like arguments, troll away on the benefits of white over black, even without any evidence for such contentions. When it’s a grey-scale it’s a big mess and it isn’t clear which side to pick. It’s even less clear if there are sides. Having a grey-scale multiplies the choices to make but the grey-scale also makes it possible to pick more than one option there’s no us and them, so it’s not damming to pick both. No this little paragraph is not me subtly having a go at the pricks who think one race is superior to others, not at all. Excuse my preachiness, the rest of the post is 50% less preachy, I can’t remove more preachiness, otherwise you might not know it was me writing.

I’m not sure but it seems there’s a lot of resistance to the idea that the world isn’t black and white. Law for instance you’re either guilty or you’re not, there’s little gradation (Any experts feel free to explain to the ignorant exactly why I’m wrong, I’d genuinely be interested in examples of where this does not apply). I think this ideology fits nicely into the simplification of the world that comes with humans trying to understand it, as a computer modeller of biological systems, I can sympathise but we mustn’t then try to peddle our wares as if they are the real world, they are only reflections of it and ones in a rippled and dirty pond at that.

We draw arbitrary lines across the grey-scale and this makes the distinction between one and another. You are a child until you are eighteen, then you are an adult, despite being moral or ‘adult’ about things not being connected at any point (You know, besides brain growth during childhood) but even the point at which we become fully grown is not on the morning of our eighteenth birthday, but well before that we stop being a child. Mental growth however is even more arbitrary, I plan on continuing to learn for the rest of my life; I don’t want to stop learning, even if I went on to teach.

Mortarboard: Three Guesses what I’m going to talk about next. Source

These temporal gradations (GREY-dations, geddit? I’m all about the grey today) are the reason I’ve decided to write on this today. My graduation is this week, late for a graduation in my mind, I finished my course back in June. It seems I’m sort of in limbo at the moment, not fully graduated, nor a student. This originally disturbed me, it bothered me that there wasn’t a clear demarcation for when I was one and then the other. What I have to remember though, is that I’m never fully one thing, I’m reminded of Stephen Fry speaking in a debate on whether the Catholic church is a force for good:

Although they like to accuse people like me, who believe in Empiricism, and the Enlightenment of somehow, what they call ‘moral relativism’ as if it’s some appalling sin when what it actually means is Thought. They, for example, thought that slavery was perfectly fine […] and then with a wave of a hand and a stamp of a seal, it was no longer true, something which had been eternally, or at least true for 2000 years, suddenly wasn’t, because the truth is complicated, it’s hard.

We don’t have absolutes in our world of ethics, choices and societies. We define the limits of our own worlds but this does not mean we have to squash all human experience into a narrow spectrum. We are not photons, experience doesn’t vary like light on the spectrum. We are in a landscape of choice and making the decisions we do day in day out changes that landscape. It’s important, in my mind at least, to understand that; if we imagined the world as our simple version then we may make bad decisions for the future.

Norway’s Fjords: If you don’t get the joke, that’s ok, read on and then Google will solve your problems. Source

I have decided, in Slartibartfast’s word’s to “Hang the sense of it and keep myself busy.” I’ve decided this fuzziness is okay, how boring would the world be if we had just two options to choose from? It’s clear as black and white.

This rambling and preachy post brought to you (NOW WITH PICTURES) by UrsusCetacea, who knows all the answers, except to his own questions.

A Spartan Family Tree – An essay on inbreeding and cultural evolution

September 30, 2012 4 comments

Six whole weeks of bliss, a post week, like I promised myself and then… Oh dear, so two weeks ago I had my most successful post yet, most views and even before I’ve posted this one, then I go and miss a week due to being unprepared, and THEN, I go and leave it until now to finish this post from last week. I’m going to try to do a catch-up post before this week is out to make up for the lack of post last week. Any way, I’d been nursing a few thoughts for potential blog posts that I haven’t yet finished so I figured I’d put my thoughts into this one:

I thought I’d begin by prefacing the post with the statement that I was reading the Harry Potter series for the past couple of weeks, something which I started to do back in my early teens/late childhood (Note: I’ve finished them now and enjoyed them all, yes it did take me a couple of weeks, I’m bored okay?). Something I noticed is the amount of time given to the effects of cultural restrictions on breeding and the effects of inbreeding on populations and what happens when it is taken to extremes.

It is interesting to reflect on the wizarding world’s division into “purebloods”, “half-bloods” and “muggle-borns”, labelled “mudbloods” by purebloods who favour inbreeding. It is mentioned that few magical men and women aren’t halfblood or less. Why *must* this be so? Because genetics.

Well let’s begin with the assumption that the wizard population started small (I’ll cover what happens when a wizard population is large later), a reasonable assumption since populations have to begin and they don’t come into being as a fully formed population (Unless you believe certain ideas). In order for the population to be rebuilt with the genes of the surviving members, inbreeding between the wizarding families would have to happen, which inevitably creates the same problems as inbreeding does in other populations.

Small populations create problems such as the random loss of genetic information due to genetic drift. Basically, if a population is small, the chance that any particular gene does not make it through to the next generation is also small and so genetic variation in the population decreases. Think of it like this, you have a bunch of people, some blonde, some brunette and one ginger (I choose ginger because they *are* a rare allele, if you still don’t like it, I’ll change it the day that gingers outnumber any other hair colour).

If the chances of a child having their parents hair colour is 50-50, then to have a good chance of having a person in the next generation with ginger hair, then the ginger person needs to have at least two kids. But for the blondes and brunettes, it’s likely that some will have kids with their hair colour simply because of how many blondes and brunettes are in the population.

So back to the wizarding families, they’ll end up more genetically similar if they only breed within wizarding families resulting in oddities like the Weasleys (A bad example given their “Blood-traitor” status, but all that red hair, most likely they all carry only one copy of the genes which control hair colour) and Malfoys (Lucius and Draco are meant to be almost identical when compared adult with adult). But what happens if this is continued? There are numerous other problems: decreased fertility, increased risk of genetic disorders.

The continued inbreeding of the families creating greater and greater genetic similarity which would inevitably increase the sense of ‘otherness’ no doubt felt by the wizarding families. With the creation of the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy, this isolation would be even more marked. This social and cultural separation would compound the problems caused by the genetics. We can begin to see the full scope of the problem.

But wait, there’s more: Do you think a Malfoy would marry a Weasley? What about a Black marrying a Dumbledore? Families not getting along makes the pool of potential pairings decrease still further, increasing again the problems of the social, cultural and genetic isolation. And when families are openly hostile? If we look at the Black family, it’s clear, the family is all but annihilated, the only survivors do not carry the Black name and they are few in number (Tonks and Malfoy are the only ones mentioned as being related to the Blacks). Obviously, extreme views in the wizarding world such as the “purebloods are best bloods” will generate animosity hence why there aren’t any Slytherins, Blacks or Gaunts left.

What applies to the wizarding families, applies quite well to the royal families of Europe, I am speaking of course about the haemophilia which plagued the descendants of Queen Victoria and also, the house of habsburg which shows how this sort of family ties thing works at the grandest of scales.

For the difficulties of socially imposed rules on marriage and conflict, take a look at the vast and poerful Spartan army which has dominated the world since the ancient greek city-state seized power… oh wait, yes, the Spartans were the elite forces in their day, but clearly they are no longer. The rules in Spartan society made it inflexible and the depletion of the families’ sons meant that the number of Spartan families gradually declined and inbreeding resulted in the extinction of all those family lines.

This is my loose bag of thoughts that I’ve emptied onto the blog. Hopefully something of import can be found in there by those willing to dig around.

On life’s little boxes

September 16, 2012 Leave a comment

Ever noticed how life is just things in stuff inside other stuff… It just goes on and on: We have organelles which come together in cells which group into tissues which group into organs which group into organ systems which group into organisms which group into populations which group into ecosystems which group into biomes which group into planetary ecosystems. I find it very curious that we box things like this, is it a truth of nature which we have uncovered or a construct of our pattern seeking minds. I would cede the point that up until organisms it most certainly is the way that life has developed but we also box species and populations together as if they are also some ‘thing’ which we group as a unified whole.

I think I’ll start by criticising the ideal of species first put forward as everyone will remember from their school lessons, Carl Linnaeus created it way back when we were trying to understand nature as “God’s plan” which is to say the bible was considered literally true and species were permanent things created perfect for their place by God. This ideal makes species out to be something like a box which you can put organisms into, they go in one box or another, people still use this system because it’s a useful short-hand for working with them but it’s not so much a box as a series of valleys in the landscape of life and if a trough is quite shallow and close to other troughs then cross-breeding occurs and this is were things like Ligers come from.

But is a population a thing? That is to say does such a thing as a population exist? What is a population exactly? Is 50 elephants a population? What about if they all use the the same lake as a water source? What if 10 elephants use one side and 40 use another? Is that now 2 populations? You see how slippery the definition is. So, is population equatable to the organelle in an organism idea? If not, is there something which is?

I would argue that populations are not equatable, and here’s why: Organs work together to pursue a common goal: the survival and reproduction of the organism which the organs reside in. Few populations (If any) work to the same goal. Under this view, the colonies of ants as a super-organism makes sense while standard populations (Such as the elephant one above) do not. So are there large equatable structures that make sense as far as the organ/organism structure goes? I’ve decided that while I’d like to think further on this point, I’ll leave it to any readers that might drop by to decide for themselves, I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on the matter so anyone that does read this, please feel obliged to leave a comment telling me your thoughts (Even if they are just “F1RS7!!1!!!ONE!!”).

Now, back to this whole boxes in boxes issue. Endosymbiotic theory, ever heard of it? It’s AWESOME! The idea being that some ancient prokaryotes (like bacteria, best to look up the differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes if your unfamiliar) engulfed others but instead of destroying them, it kept them and used the things that it made, so  photosynthesising prokaryotic cell became the chloroplast. I recommend reading up on these because there is some striking things that define organelles which are explained rather wonderfully by endosymbiosis. So we have cells in cells and this makes the cells so different we put them in different domains (Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya are like the groups above plants, animals, fungi et.c. so think ‘more different than a plant is from an animal’ and you’re getting there). Then the next level of complexity is these cells working together in multicellular organisms (Which only happens in the more complex (DO NOT READ ‘BETTER’) eukaryota) but is this the same as organelles and cells?

It’s certainly quite similar, when you get to the cell differentiation of more complex organisms such as animals which aren’t sponges (Which are the mongols of Crash Course Biology) then different cells do different things and this specialisation makes the organism more able to do different things better. Yes this time better can be applied, it’s the old tenet ‘greater than the sum of it’s parts’; the team that gives each member a specific role allows the members to be really good at one thing and do it better than a member which does it all. Just as the golgi apparatus is good at making vesicles and the mitochondrion is good at making ATP (Quick joke: ‘I’ll have some Adenosine Triphosphate please.’ “That’ll be 80p please!”) they don’t have to worry about doing the other things because they help each other out. This is exactly the same as red blood cells being good at transporting oxygen and nerve cells good at carrying information it’s just that instead of them all being inside one giant cell (Which wouldn’t physically be possible) but instead they’re surrounded by a bunch of other cells which are built to be our very uber-‘cell membrane’.

I would argue the same principle is followed up to the level of organism with tissues in organs doing different things such as the medulla and cortex of a kidney functioning to clean the blood. Then you have organs which do different things like facilitate gaseous exchange (Lungs) or digest organic matter (The whole digestive tract). So where do organisms work together to make their super-organism which has specialists which promote the survival of the structure as a whole? In the Hymenoptera (Ants, bees and wasps) and Isoptera (Termites) you have a social contract generated by chemical control, the workers cannot reproduce and are held in place by the ‘Royal’ classes (though I have simplified things a bit, it’s clear that it is vastly more complex than that). It is also useful to note that some of these groups have specialisation of labourers such as Honeybees whose task is determined by their age.

What other groups do this? I would argue that societies and social groups of any kind do further the selectivity of any organisms involved in the same way that the union of cells into multicellular organisms, though it has not had quite the same amount of time to perfect as multicellularity and I would suppose that since the individuals have different genetics it cannot perfect (Which would explain why we see such brilliant altruistic behaviour in Hymenopterans and not so much in other groups) to the same degree.

I suppose the point in what I am trying to say is that the more complex life forms seem to be just combinations of the simpler things. Much like Eukaryotes are just prokaryotes that were hungry but couldn’t finish their meals. One thing I do want to stress is that complex != better and just because something is more complex doesn’t mean it’s any more evolved or any more selective than any other modern species. But ants are the best.