The Argument-
One of the methods that Shenk believes genius is cultivated very efficiently is through competition in close proximity. He talks about both the Italian Renaissance (149) and Silicon Valley (148), both examples of small areas where great achievements and innovations were made due to high competition in a very small and clustered area. It is clear that competition like this really brings out the best in human genius. However, can this same idea be related to evolution of species other than humans? Consider the different effects of competition in animals such as resource partitioning and character displacement. How might competition be a driving force of evolution? Does competition cause animals to evolve at a faster rate or more efficiently? Consider chapter 54 of the Campbell text and relate your answer to evolution as a theme in biology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs two people with the same skill set cannot share one job spot for a company as the two workers together would be redundant, this competitive environment causes the individuals to work harder to gain an advantage over the other. As Footnote 111 in Shenk’s book says, “[there] are participants in a culture of the extreme, willing to devote more, to ache more, and to risk more in order to do better,” it shows how people try to improve and gain an advantage (316). In the same way, two organisms cannot occupy the same ecological niche, or “the sum of the species use of abiotic and biotic resources in its environment” (Campbell 1199). Through competitive exclusion, an advantage for a competitor will lead to the elimination of the other, so for the weaker organism to survive, it must adapt. Because of this concept, the competitive environment that threatens the survival of organisms drives organisms to evolve through resource partitioning, “the differentiation of niches that allows similar species to coexist” (Campbell 1199), or character displacement, the characteristics of two species to diverge (Campbell 1200).
DeleteThe theme of evolution states that traits come about because they provide selective advantages for organisms to more easily survive and reproduce in their local environment. Thus, in this case, the theme of evolution is present as the competition between other individuals for the same niche in the local environment leads to one organism undergoing an evolutionary change or the elimination of weak genes. As no two organisms can occupy the same niche, competitive exclusion will eliminate the weaker organism leaving only the superior genes to be chosen through natural selection, unless the weaker organism finds a way to adapt, which includes resource partitioning. This one organism's adaptation allows the organism to gain an advantage by adapting its niche to be able to either out compete the other species or to allow coexistence by avoiding competition. This evolution is seen in the birds Geospozi fulignosa and Geospiza fortis, which have character displacement in the beak depth. G. fortis has a deeper beak and G. fulignosa has a smaller beak, allowing these two birds to eat seeds of different sizes without competing. This is also seen in lizards in the Lesser Antilles, as the lizards differ substantially in size, because “only different sized species can successfully colonize the same island together” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2409435). As a result, there is a gain in advantage that allows the organism that has undergone this adaptation to survive by needing different abiotic and biotic factors, such as habitat and prey, than those of competitors. Instead of being driven off towards extinction by not having the necessary environmental factors to survive, the adapted organism can now survive and reproduce, as its genes are passed down through offspring.
Pt 2.
DeleteBecause competition causes organisms to evolve, it can be assumed that animals evolve at a faster rate. Just as a person who has a secure job doesn’t need to work to improve his or her skills, an animal without the need to evolve won’t necessarily have to do so and won’t need to expend energy to change its niche. However, competition puts a demand on evolution, as the organism is close to being extinct and is fighting for survival. With an increased environmental demand, there is more environmental stress that interacts with the organisms genes, causing mutation, which creates variation, and if the variation is beneficial, it is passed down and chosen through natural selection, resulting in evolution. However, efficiency in evolution might not be necessarily improved, as not all mutations are beneficial, and there is no guaranteed way to improve one’s genetic make-up through change. Mutations are random, and they only create variation. Only if the variation is beneficial is the mutation kept and passed down through natural selection. Still, competition, by causing a demand for organisms to change, is a big reason, if not the biggest, reason why evolution occurs.
Matthew Yang (matt.y.yang2013@gmail.com)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCompetition indeed serves as a key catalyst for development and evolution amongst all organisms, including humans as Shenk discusses. The main difference, however, is that competition for humans encourages more intense motivation, desire, and devotion. Rivalries drive individuals to “compete with one another for affection, accomplishment, and resources” (Shenk 146), and in order to do so competitors find ways to improve themselves, most often by means of greater training. Other animals, contrastingly, cannot mirror the human capacity for self-growth in a specific area when isolated in a specific environmental context; if two related species vie with one another for food or a specific niche, the outcome depends not on which type of organism has the greater motivation, but rather which has the more advantageous genetics. Thus, when Shenk says that “it cannot simply be left to genes to foster greatness,” apparently in other animals it can.
ReplyDeleteOne such example can be found in the experiment performed by G.F. Gause, in which 2 species of genus Paramecium, Paramecium aurelia and Paramecium caudatus, were cultured together in the same growth medium. Ultimately, all of the Paramecium caudatus died out because Paramecium aurelia had a competitive edge over the other (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1145?uid=3739656&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56004235533). Genetics endowed P. aurelia with a more effective, efficient way to obtain food, and thus they out-competed the P. caudatus. Gause’s experiment illustrates the principal of competitive exclusion, in which “even a slight reproductive advantage will eventually lead to local elimination of the inferior competition” (Campbell 1199).
Yet, this is only assuming that the inferior competition has confined itself to one specific niche. As Matt mentioned, the idea of resource portioning allows an organism that does not have the greatest advantage in occupying a specific niche to instead pursue a different one. Using Matt’s job example, it’s possible for one of the competitors to essentially give up on vying for the job knowing that he or she simply cannot gain an advantage. Instead, that unemployed person decides to try for another job. Matt has already pointed out that competition can ultimately lead to coexistence as organisms begin to avoid competition in a specific area. Thus, competition not only highlights the most efficient genes fit for a specific niche, but also promotes greater diversity. Silicon Valley may be the hotbed for technical innovation, but notice how the technology varies from computers to phones to the internet. Innovators in the valley do not limit themselves to the specialties of their competitors, but can be motivated to blaze a trail in new and unprecedented fields.
Given this greater diversity resulting from competition, we can safely say that competition does indeed allow evolution to proceed at a faster rate, as Matt also said. The biological theme of evolution accounts for the varied traits of all different species as responses to the demands set by the environment. When we consider what Shenk means when he uses “E” in “GXE,” we can assume that the term environment can also include cultural factors such as competition. Thus, the environment (in this case competition) demands that organisms develop other viable characteristics that can provide selective advantages to survive and reproduce, or else succumb to the superior capabilities of the top organisms. Ultimately, these demands proliferate the variety of traits among all of Earth’s organisms and promote a greater diversity – a diversity inherent to the theme of evolution.
Mark Zhang (mzhang59@gmail.com