So basically, 'natural selection' is being redefined? No wonder the comment, "It was a high-risk proposition. The expectation in the field was that the origin of species is principally driven by genetic changes in the nucleus. Our study demonstrates that both the nuclear genome and the microbiome must be considered in a unified framework of speciation," I like the risk takers, they are developing our sciences. How many had the idea of 'why didnt i think of that?' Since, it is basic common sense, that each of the higher evolves species are just organisms living together. It is almost like a voting right; each can have a say, the good (support life to continue), live longer.
Well, no. But the unit of selection is being expanded to include all of its symbiotic bacteria. Nothing really surprising here, I think. Speciation involves breeding isolation, which can apply to the whole population within each individual. Maybe this was high risk at some time in the past, but not too recently. I think it's being poorly presented here, perhaps for hyperbole. The unit of selection must be the highest-level breeding individual. To put it in classical terms, if speed aids survival, faster individuals will survive better regardless of their symbiotic bacteria. Instead, what the symbiotic community influences is the suitability of the environment. Eating different foods, being more resistant to heat or cold or parasites or diseases, etc. Reducing the viability of hybrids keeps animal lineages fairly clean. Plants hybridize much more readily.
Yes and no...... i dont get the tangent that you went on wow! Basic wiki might help. The hologenome theory of evolution proposes that the object of natural selection is not the individual organism, but the organism together with its associated microbial communities What the NEWS is sharing is that the individual life, aint so much evolving on its own intent to survive but the collective of the organism has value to be accounted, that can cause changes
My fairly extensive library of biology books might be even more help. I think this is being so poorly presented that we have to spend a while deciding what we're actually talking about. Yes, when you breed, your offspring requires an extensive zoo of symbiotic bacteria to survive. This happens in the womb, and it's very important. One of the causes of miscarriages is failure to properly develop alongside the appropriate mix of symbiotes. BUT surely you understand that if speed aids survival, faster individuals have an advantage, EVEN IF their symbiotic bacteria contribute nothing to their speed directly. So I think your bolded sentence is poorly phrased. Selection acts on the breeding individual. To the degree that the individual's microbiome enhances his chances for survival, it's important. The individuals who are most prolific breeders won't have much of an advantage if their offspring are unhealthy. So the microbiome is like having an edge at the gambling table. It might make you more attractive to potential mates, might increase the health and thus the survival rate of the offspring, etc. And to that extent, it's an intimate part of the individual on whom selection is acting. It really can alter breeding success and survival rates. I appreciate that at the bacterial level, there ARE no individuals. We are all colonies of symbiotes.
