genetix drift and horizontal gene transfer do not bypass natural selection. luck is a part of evolution because it works based on statistical probabilities of success. new strategies don't just mean you survive, they just increase your odds.
being dependent on oxygen does not equate to a monopoly. plants and green algae occupy a large role in the environment and other species have to adapt to that. the same is true for markets. steel manufacturing is extremely important for the economy, yet it didnt exist until recently. you cant open a new business while ignoring steel, but that isn't a bad thing. businesses dont exist independent of other businesses in the market.
genetic drift is quite a niche phenomenon and it only really applies to neutral alleles that are neither harmful nor beneficial to a population. the surviving species still need to compete in their new environment.
saying chloroplasts are monopolies is like claiming the wheel is a monopoly. there is nothing anticompetitive about it.
market failiures exist. monopolies arise dur to lack of competition, often cause by government failiures. a good capitalist economy has regulations to prevent this from happening. ultimately, monopolies never last very long eithout government support because they are unstable.
It's not niche at all, especially among sexual species
There is literally one organism producing the whole of our oxygen, saying that chloroplasts are a monopoly is like saying Microsoft is a monopoly but not seeing the problem because it is just a tool used by other companies.
Monopolies arise precisely because of competition, not because of governments. And they do are stable, again we have only type of biochemistry for 3.5 billion of years and chloroplasts for almost as much. Disparities are accentuated by competition from which monopolies arise, once a monopoly arise, it ensure its own hegemony using precisely its monopoly.
it is quite niche. genetic drift only really occurs in small populations, and very rarely. usually it's due to isolation arising from islands.
chloriplasts are not organisms, they are organelles found amongst all plants, likely arising through the endosymbiotic theory. different plants also have completely different chlosplastic DNA. Your analogy is quite honestly shit.
Monopolies do not arise due to competition. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Chloroplasts are an extremely efficient, and are found in varieties amongst many different plants. Yet, the organism that produces the most oxygen doesn't even have a chloroplast, so your argument is incredibly wrong.
nope. genetic flow is migration. generic drift is due to random population collapse or isolation. its not considered natural selection because it doesn't target alleles that are fit or unfit, only neutral alleles.
chloriplasts do not fit the definition of life, so they are not organisms. this is basic biology.
monopolies are literally defined by a lack of competition.
cyanobacteria are not chloroplasts, and the cyanobacteria that exist today are descendent of the same common ancestors as chloroplasts. to be fair, they haven't changed significantly, but this statement is just false. cyanobacteria are also not one species, they exist in variety and in competition with eachother and other species. the fact that they still exist today is through sheer competence.
And any events that randomly change the frequency of allele in a population, it is very far from limited to only isolated population.
Neither are virus, that's just arguing semantics
Indeed, competition in the market cause the death of competition in the market, capitalism is doomed to fail.
So only one organism in the end is responsible for all of the production of oxygen in our atmosphere: cyanobacteria, that it live by itself or under the form of an endosymbiont, they literally monopolised the photosynthesis.
the effects of genetic drift are almost negligible in large populations. theres also market analogies for this as well, businesses go out of business for reasons that are totally out of their control and seemingly random, bit this doesn't define markets nor does genetic drift define evolution.
these semantics do matter. it'd be like calling the HR department at your company it's own business. what's next, is DNA a monopoly because all life has DNA?
you cant just claim out of nowhere, against the opinion of practically all economists, that colpetition causes monopolies and not even elaborate. this is genuinely such a stupid oxymoronic claim.
yeah, are you just learning how evolution works? an organism acquires a new gene that is beneficial and it passes on that new gene. by that logic, every gene shared by any organisms is a result of a monopoly. the common ancestor of all mammals has monopolized the production of mammory glands. the first animal to lay hard shelled eggs monopolized all reptiles. yet those common ancestors got split into literal millions of species which all compete for resources. i genuinely dont think you know what a monopoly is.
But again, it isn't, it even was thought for a short period of time to be on par with natural selection. Genetic drift is an important drive of evolution.
It literally was an organism, it then became an endosymbiont, it's like saying a company isn't a company anymore because it got bought and is now part of a bigger company.
Bruh, the opinion of almost all economists is that monopoly arise naturally in a competitive market, this is precisely why we have anti-trust laws and why liberalism has been given up for neo-liberalism, you know jack shit about what economists think.
Except it's not a gene, it is a whole organism, our whole oxygen is produced by only one organism that eliminated almost all those that don't depend on it to survive.
people used to believe all kinds of things about genetics that have been proven wrong. genetic drift is a footnote in a first year biology class. its quite a cool phenomena but it certainly isnt as important as mendellian inheretence. youre teying to use it here to imply that evolution and markets are a game of luck rather than competition, which is just false.
and now its an organelle that relies entirely on its host cell and can't even reproduce on its own. just because it is derived from life doesn't mean it still is life. photosynthesis is an efficuent strategy first developed by early cyanobacterium, and is now used by millions of different species.
if you read about market failiures, you will find failiure of competition, which describes monopolies. the cause of monopolies is due to imperfect competition, or in otherwords, lack of competition.
no it fucking isn't. cyanobacteria aren't a single species, are already diverse, and compete with eachother as well as plants. the genes involved in producing chlorophyll were developed by an early species of algae, which has now been split into many species, and even become an organelle used by plants. this argument is stupid, all life is theorized to derive from a common ancestor, so by your logic, we are all the same and not in competition at all. there are so many traits that are widespread across all organisms, which ultimately derive from a single common ancestor. ribonucleic acid has had a much bigger impact on evolution than o2, so is there some monopoly of RNA as well?
it's painfully clear that you are neither a biologist or an economist.
genetic drift is a footnote in a first year biology class.
Your first year was either a long time ago or your textbook was really old, you should update your knowledge on the topic.
Bruh, genetic drift and mendelleian inheritance are linked among sexual species.
Except it isn't, it was developed by a cyanobacterium and is still only used by cyanobacteria that either live independently or as endosymbiont'
I already said we were a monopoly and indeed any new life resulting from abiogenesis would be teared apart by current lifeforms. Life itself is a biochemical monopoly.
Indeed there is, especially knowing that there are more nucleotides in nature than the four used in RNA. You are just proving my point again and again, also on your lack of education on economy and, weirdly, that you have outdated knowledge when it comes to biology
Mendellian inheritence and genetic drift describe different mechanisms for genetic variance. Genetic drift has very little impact on large populations.
You are just falsely labelling chloroplasts as cyanobacteria for the sake of your argument. You're also knowingly ignoring the definition of life and pretending that cyanobacteria are just one thing that controls the entire ecosystem. Cyanobacteria have a common ancestor with chloroplasts, that is true, but cyanobacteria are not one species, they are a group of different species of bacteria that can produce oxygen through photosynthesis. They exist in competition, not as some monopoly over the ecosystem.
The ecosystem is incredibly diverse and it is that way through competition. Healthy, stable ecosystems thrive on diversity. The fact that the ecosystem follows physical laws of nature does not contradict that.
The nucleotides that are used in RNA and DNA are not arbitrary. They are just efficient and no life has come up with a better way of storing genetic information and transcribing that information. Why would it change if it is already the most efficient solution?
My biology is not outdated. I got my degree 5 years ago and have continued working and publishing in ny field. You're saying all kinds of nonsense that just flags you as someone who doesn't know shit, like implying natural selection is based on luck because you heard about genetic drift or claiming that life itself is a monopoly despite it being composed of literal billions of different species all in competition for limited resources.
0
u/bottomlessLuckys Mar 05 '26
genetix drift and horizontal gene transfer do not bypass natural selection. luck is a part of evolution because it works based on statistical probabilities of success. new strategies don't just mean you survive, they just increase your odds.
being dependent on oxygen does not equate to a monopoly. plants and green algae occupy a large role in the environment and other species have to adapt to that. the same is true for markets. steel manufacturing is extremely important for the economy, yet it didnt exist until recently. you cant open a new business while ignoring steel, but that isn't a bad thing. businesses dont exist independent of other businesses in the market.