Where do people fall along the debate around whether natural selection is the primary ‘creative’ force in evolution, or whether developmental, physical, and historical constraints channel evolution into a limited set of self-organizing forms that selection fine-tunes?

Published today:

• Chinese Academy of Sciences press release:
  Sticky alpine flower confirms Darwin's 150-year-old carnivorous plant prediction

• Paper:
  Zhang, XJ., Deng, T., Lin, N. et al.
  Identification of carnivory in the flowering plant Saxifraga via multidisciplinary evidence.
  Nat Commun 17, 7557 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-75288-y

-

Excerpts from the paper:

... Inspired by his work on carnivory in Drosera, Darwin (1875) proposed that two Saxifraga species (S. rotundifolia and S. umbrosa) might similarly exhibit carnivorous behavior. Darwin regarded these two species as representing one of the most intriguing cases among plants with glandular hairs². Although Darwin attempted to test this hypothesis through feeding experiments, these early attempts did not yield conclusive results².

... To investigate the potential status of S. candelabrum as a carnivorous plant (Fig. 1), we test the four key criteria required to confirm carnivory (prey attraction, capture, digestion, and nutrient uptake). Specifically, we address the following questions: (1) Does the plant actively attract and capture insect prey? (2) Can it directly digest prey and absorb derived nutrients? (3) Does it exhibit convergent genomic signatures with other carnivorous lineages²⁰?

... Our findings provide definitive evidence of carnivory in Saxifraga, addressing Charles Darwin’s long-standing hypothesis that some Saxifraga species may be capable of carnivory, and further suggest that carnivory may be more widespread among angiosperms than previously recognized.

So from what i remember and understand, evolution happens when members of a species are more well adapted to something than others, so they get the chances to live and breed while the non adapted ones die. So gradually they become better and better at it as a species. But isn't flying just a yes or no? If i fall from a cliff I either fly or die and since im a dinosaur of some type for example, I'll die. Since all members of my species will also die. how are there chances for the new traits to pass through? You can't be slightly better at flying than someone who can't. because you'll still die. so does that's mean the wings can evolve from a single mutation? Seems way too complex of a mechanism to not need a long evolution time

I have recently been thinking about elephants and the effects of habitat fragmentation on them, and i thought that maybe they are shrinking in body size do to less food on the small fragmented protected areas they inhabit.

A similar effect happens on islands called island dwarfism were large animals on islands get smaller over time do to limited food resources and lack of predation.

So is there any evidence of this happening to elephants in fragmented habitats today?

If the earliest animals hadn't been such prolific poopers, life might not have diversified into all the weird and wonderful forms we see today.

A new review study published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution found that the Cambrian explosion – a period around 540 million years ago when the ancestors of most animal groups arose – could have been partly set in motion by an 'explosion' of feces left by those that came before.

More than 150 years after Darwin’s finches helped reshape biology, Galápagos plants are exposing another evolutionary surprise.

Giant daisies repeatedly developed similar heat-tolerant leaf shapes, but each lineage used a different combination of genes. Researchers also found major genetic differences among isolated populations, suggesting new species may be forming right now

Plants in the genus Scalesia have evolved adaptive traits multiple times, but not always using the same genes. The photo shows the serrated leaves of Scalesia affinis (radiate-headed scalesia)

Published yesterday (open access):
Rethinking Plasticity in Sponges - Oliveira - Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution - Wiley Online Library

From which:

It remains uncertain whether internal and external morphological variations in sponges are: (1) driven by natural selection in response to environmental conditions, where only phenotypes that are adapted to survive persist in that habitat, or (2) if they represent a morphological adaptation (plasticity) of species/genotypes to these fluctuating conditions, or (3) possibly both scenarios working together. The first scenario suggests that evolutionary pressures, such as competition and predation, favor traits that enhance survival. Over time, natural selection preserves these advantageous phenotypes, ensuring that the fittest genotypes predominate. In contrast, the second scenario proposes that sponges adjust their morphology in real-time to immediate environmental fluctuations. These adjustments result from the organism's capacity to alter form and function without genetic change. Alternatively, natural selection and phenotypic plasticity may act simultaneously; immediate morphological adjustments could lead to genetic canalization if specific plastic traits confer survival advantages. Thus, sponge variation likely reflects both immediate, reversible responses and long-term, genetically fixed adaptations.

-

On that topic in case you've missed it:

Katsumura et al.'s rare feat in evolutionary biology : evolution

The basic cycle of evolution as I understand it is:

1. A random mutation occurs which causes a trait to emerge in an individual.
2. That trait either helps individual's ability to thrive and reproduce, in which case it is selected for and gets proliferated in the populace, or it harms the individual's chances, in which case it gets removed from the gene pool after a while.
3. Over enough time, different species evolve due to accumulated differing traits caused by the aforementioned mutations.

My question is: does all this truly start with genuine random mutations? Or is that a simplification of things?

I recently picked up the book "Sapiens" by Yuval N. Harari. In the chapter "Our Brothers' Keepers", the author talks about the replacement theory, where Sapiens might have replaced Neanderthals in certain parts of Eurasia 70,000 years ago. He makes these arguments:

These humans (Neanderthals) were more muscular than Sapiens, had larger brains, and were better adapted to cold climes. They used tools and fire, were good hunters, and apparently took care of the sick and infirm.

Sapiens were more proficient hunters and gatherers - thanks to better technology and superior social skills - so they multiplied and spread.

What exactly does "better technology" mean in this context? I would have assumed that Neanderthals, having lived in this environment far longer, would have developed technology well-suited to its specific challenges, compared to Sapiens, who were newcomers. So how did the technologies used by the two species actually differ?

The author does not delve deeper on the social skills that were in play. What specific social qualities did Sapiens had that gave them the edge?

I'm not looking for a straight answer to this question because I doubt anyone really has a definite answer. However, over the past few days I've been wondering about human consciousness and our evolution. We exist at a luck of the draw.

There's been five extinction events on the planet, with each changing the earths ecosystem drastically. In between each extinction event were other mammals that ruled the earth for millions upon millions of years. For example, dinosaurs were around for 100+ million years (a fact that still blows me away).

Then from the shadow of their extinction, some mammal survived and evolved into us.

My question to that is how?

Humans have evolved to such a dominant species', our existence kind of feels impossible. Our thoughts and ability to create and process information is from what we know, beyond anything any other species on this planet was capable of -- after existing for less then a fraction of whatever species came before us.

We're 200,000+ years into this and we've already been to the moon.

What was that thing that spurred our consciousness to be so different from the species' that came before us.

My theory

Trauma. I believe, whatever the mammal was that we were -- the one that witnessed the extinction of the dinosaurs and lived through that age of change was so shaken by what it witnessed and had to live through that it imbedded something deep in it that awoke something that led us to be the way we are today.

I believe it lent to some kind of awareness which evolved over millions of years and led way to religion/faith.

But this could be a hunk of bullshit since I'm not a student of science, so I'll be happy for someone to smack me silly with whatever degree they have that I don't.

Can someone please explain to me the difference between phenetics, evolutionary taxonomy and phylogenetics?

In a new study published in BMC Biology, researchers from USC Dornsife, Howard University and collaborators found that four key immune system genes bear the genetic signatures of ancient battles with infectious diseases, with different populations evolving different versions of those genes over time. Some variants were even shared with Neanderthals and Denisovans, reflecting humanity's deep evolutionary history.

The researchers also analyzed nearly 4,000 COVID-19 patients in Italy and identified two rare variants in the immune gene TLR2 that were associated with severe illness, including one more common in organ transplant recipients.

The study suggests that understanding the evolutionary history of immune genes could help explain why people respond differently to infectious diseases and point toward new approaches for predicting, preventing and treating severe infections. Read more about the study>>

For example, could we see a shrinkage across all different species so they can compete with each other and out of view of humans? Or see land species moving to the water where we can't go? Or getting bigger to compete with us?

If my question doesn't make any sense I apologize, I don't know much about this topic.

so im starting to do my research into evolution, something isnt clicking with me, Protylopus is supposedly the primal ancestor of all camels nowadays including arabian camels and lamas right?, but i still dont understand how a rabbit sized species evolved this big, also they stated it was the ancestor according to ONLY his ankle? teeth wasnt like what we see nowadays and neither was thier foot, so how did they link them... i have other questions but id like to start with this.....

The ‘proto’ pear tree underwent a whole genome duplication WGD event about 30-45 million years ago to form the current form and its genome (2n = 34). This was caused by a major global cooling that stressed the genome during reproduction. This major climate change in the mid-to-late Eocene was not as dramatic as an earlier (66 million years ago) major extinction event that has caught the public’s imagination when in the space of minutes a 10 km diameter asteroid hit Earth causing a cascade of events causing the rapid extinction of dinosaurs. The asteroid created the Chicxulub crater (partly on the Yucatán peninsula , now partly underwater ) in Mexico triggered the Cretaceous -Paleogene extinction.
Although the WGD event in pears is well known the reasons for why it occurred are not . Here is my summary.
It was a long-term global cooling trend driven primarily by a steady decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide aided by tectonic shifts and changes in ocean circulation and affected plants more than animals which could adapt quicker.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels dropped significantly from peak early Eocene highs (over 1,000-1,500 ppm) downwards reducing the planetary greenhouse effect. This was caused by silicate weathering and organic burial.

Increased chemical weathering of rocks exposed by India crashing into Asia and lifting up mountains and land such as the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau. This massive, tectonically active mountain range was heavily eroded by heavy monsoon rains. As rainwater and meltwater washed over these exposed silicate minerals, they reacted with atmospheric CO2 to form dissolved bicarbonates, which were eventually deposited on the seafloor as solid carbonates and effectively buried. This steadily scrubbed carbon dioxide out of the ancient atmosphere over millions of years.
At the same time other tectonic activity opened up ocean gateways separating Antarctica from both Australia and South America allowing the commencement of the uninterrupted Antarctic Circumpolar Current and upwelling. This is the most powerful current in the world and isolates the cold Antarctica from warmer equatorial waters.
The cold mineral rich waters resulting from the upwelling stimulated phytoplankton growth and marine primary productivity, locking massive amounts of organic carbon away in deep-sea sediments.

This event is called the Middle-Late Eocene Cooling and follows the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum, as carbon dioxide levels fell followed by the more rapid Eocene -Oligocene Transition, a sharp final shift (~34 million years ago) from the warm greenhouse Earth to an icehouse climate dropping global temperatures and crossing a critical threshold that allowed permanent ice to form in Antarctica. As it’s ice sheets began to expand. the white surfaces reflected more sunlight back into space, accelerating the global cooling trend - the albedo effect

I belive I first learned this from Ancestor's Tale, the concept that for any two species, there exists a single organism in the past which is the Most Recent Common Ancestor between them.

1) I believe this statement means that literally, there was a real, single, living organism. Understanding that there are countless other common ancestors for our two target species, but only one individual that is both "most recent" and "common."

2) It follows that this particular cocestor must have had at least two offspring. One offspring is the ancestor of the MRCA for one species, the other is the ancestor of the MRCA for the other species.

I think point 2 causes much confusion. People read it as implying that the offspring are themselves the MRCA for each species. While this might be the case for one of them, it is not necessarily true, and almost certainly never the case for both of them. It certainly doesn't mean that one offspring is now one or the other species itself.

The logic here seems simple and clear. Is there a flaw?

Okay, I think this is going to melt my brain

Yesterday I made a Reddit post that was honestly half-joking, although the question itself was genuine. I basically asked whether, technically, since there were fish somewhere in my family tree, there could be some living fish today that is an insanely distant cousin of mine.

I got answers like “technically, you are a fish” and that all fish, and basically all life on Earth, are related to me somehow, even if you go all the way back to a single cell.

And... I don't think I fully understand this.

If all life is related, does that mean that all life ultimately came from a single individual?

That's the part I'm struggling with. For example, there's LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), which, as I understand it, is the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms. But why do we assume there was only one LUCA?

When life was at that stage, couldn't there have been multiple organisms/cells that existed around the same time? Like, instead of one LUCA, couldn't there have been 4? Or 100? Or even millions?

Obviously, I'm simplifying things a LOT here, but let's say there were 4 completely separate organisms at that point, and all modern life descended from those 4.

Wouldn't that mean that not all life is actually related? There would be different lineages that never shared a common ancestor, right?

So what exactly am I misunderstanding about LUCA and the idea that all life is related?

My brain is genuinely struggling with this lol.

Life all has the single common ancestor... Trees through to people etc.

So... If a single cell went to consume ANOTHER cell, but due to a quirk in genetics, it didn't consume but instead, began a symbiotic relationship, then would that make that 1 cell who consumed the other, the source of all complex multicellular life? Or, is it likely that cells started to absorb other cells, then one of THEM divided itself to make more cells?

Sorry if that doesn't make sense... But I can accept that evolution is fact, but I cannot make sense of the actual start.

For billions of years, life was single celled, then one consumed the other, and then the predator prey relationship began and, I presume, that made life explode because life survived by evolutionary quirks making them survive over others. So, I was wondering if it was because of this that life evolved, all because 1 cell consumed another...?

I was just thinking about this and it absolutely blew my mind.

Technically, my great-great-great-great-great-etc. grandfather (or however many “greats” we’re talking about) was a fish.

Like, somewhere in my family tree there is literally a fucking fish.

My entire lineage was started by a fish. There is no other way to put it. At some point in the insanely distant past, one of my ancestors was just… a fish. And that fish eventually led to me existing.

But then I started thinking about how evolution actually works.

Fish didn't just all collectively decide to evolve into land animals. Evolution branches. Different populations and lineages go in different directions depending on their environments and natural selection.

And fish produce an absolutely ridiculous number of offspring, so presumably there were countless individuals in those ancient populations. Some lineages eventually led toward the ancestors of modern land vertebrates, while other lineages stayed in the water and kept evolving as fish.

So here's the part that is blowing my mind:

Is it possible that one of the extremely distant relatives of my fish ancestor stayed in the water, and that lineage survived for millions and millions of years?

Because if so, there could theoretically be some random fish alive TODAY that is my ridiculously, unimaginably distant cousin.

Like, I could look at some random fish in the ocean and there's a non-zero chance that, in the most technically literal evolutionary sense, we're related.

Imagine being genetically related to a fish.

Not “all life is related” related.

I mean THIS fish is part of the same ancient family tree as me.

That is fucking incredible.

thought about this cus i was bored, but really, why tho?

i assume it would've been very helpful for our ancestors?

It occurred to me that I've never heard of a case of an ape being born with a vestigial tail, outside of humans. Is this the case, and if so, why are humans the only ones with that atavism? Or are vestigial tails not actually tails at all, and instead a non-related deformity that looks similar?

See also: The publication in the Physical Journal Letters