# Evolution in the short run



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

If you'll forgive the bad pun...

Short Legs Win Evolution Battle - Yahoo! News


----------



## Azathoth (Nov 18, 2006)

I'm not sure where the article got that most people view evolution as an aeon-long process.  Certainly, evolution is viewed as a "macro" process spanning over several generations, but it's long been known (even by most high schoolers who've taken a biology class) that this can occur in a matter of years in species which breed rapidly.    

Still, an interesting article.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

Azathoth said:


> I'm not sure where the article got that most people view evolution as an aeon-long process. Certainly, evolution is viewed as a "macro" process spanning over several generations, but it's long been known (even by most high schoolers who've taken a biology class) that this can occur in a matter of years in species which breed rapidly.
> 
> Still, an interesting article.


 
I think the problem may be that people have trouble with the idea of evolution overall being (perhaps) an aeons-long process, but with periodic spurts of radical changes, due to any number of factors. It's viewed as either one or the other, not both. I did find it interesting that one type could replace another so quickly as this, though. And ... I must admit to not being able to resist the pun when I saw the subject of the article......


----------



## Urien (Nov 18, 2006)

Have humans stopped evolving?

There are a number of species that have stopped or appear to have stopped evolving. They have been in the same state for millions of years, these include certain types of crocodiles, sharks, and other fish. The reason given is that their environment has not pressured them to change and that they are perfectly adapted for the current niche, the current niche being fixed for millions of years. 

In essence the most successful breeder with the most successful survival traits, genes, had more offspring thus fixing that trait in the next and subsequent generations. In our case that trait was intelligence (in all its facets). 

In modern human societies being smarter does not necessarily mean having more children, in fact the statistics show the higher the level of education (even adjusting for education and intelligence not being the same thing) the fewer the children. 

So are we at a standstill? Or is the next leap forward in human society taking place in desperately poor countries were being the smartest really does up the survival potential?

This ignore (for the moment) direct intervention in the human genes controlling intelligence.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 20, 2006)

Actually, _he says pedantically (how else?)_ I don't see claiming that as "evolution" holds. If one investigated the gene pool of the surviving reptiles, and compared it to one of the control islands, the result would be essentially identical (unless, being isolated populations, they were different in the first place) If, after a few generations, you removed all the predators by some means, it would only be a few more before they'd be back to pre-interference variation. To lock in the favorable tendency, even with a ninety percent death rate each generation, would take fifty to a hundred extra generations, and even then I wouldn't be certain they'd truly speciated (incabable of crossbreeding with the unmodified strain; yes, I am aware that my definition of "species" is out of date. Lizards are inconveniently long lived and do not have enough offspring for these experiments; insects, where one can kill off 99.9% of a population twice a year, or better still bacteria, are much easier to see results.
An entomologist friend of mine (specialising in true bugs, Hemiptera, bloodsuckers in particular, and generally referred to as a "clever bugger") has described hot, when a population gives up its silvatic (treeliving) lifestyle and moves into a less challenging domestic environment, the tendency is for it to actually lose DNA mass in the cell nucleus (thus reducing the energy needs for reproduction, but also reducing adaptability) Presumably this occurs outside, but the death rate amongst those who try the strategy is high enough to eliminate the strain. Thus our little Tarzan bugs, installed in Greystoke, can produce more effete little offspring, not as good at surviving, but great at breeding; and this can take as little as ten to twenty generations, and there's no way they can reclaim that DNA and their lost diversity (genuine short term evolution) Neither, in all probability, can they crossbreed with their wild bretheren. This is helped by the tendency for a house to be colonised by a very small base population (frequently only a pair, or one gravid female) and breed up to capacity as fast as the food supply (the family and domestic animals) allows.
But even ten or twenty generations is long enough in human terms (five to a century; and we don't tend towards DNA reduction or, quite so heavily, towards inbreeding) for some stimulus to slow the degeneration of the species; if we acheive a "marching morons" scenario, it'll be through collapse of education, not genetic drift, and to acheive "Half past human" status would require deliberate genetic tampering (not impossible, either of them, but not due to evolution, either)
For a leap in evolution there has to be a change in conditions causing a big enough dieback (over enough generations) that certain characteristics become practically a survival nescessity. Moving indoors (for the bugs), resistance to an antibiotic (for a bacteria), resistance to said bacteria (for a mammal population; perhaps even global warming will manage (doubtful; I don't see it killing off nine tenths of the population, several times in succession) Otherwise, perhaps humanity can be the first species on this planet to raise itself by its own bootstraps (and won't that require some wisdom) There's a few thousand years before genetic degeneration becomes critical, anyway, and we could well have rendered ourselves extinct before then.


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 7, 2006)

Almost seems as if humans have stopped evolving....wonder why?


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 7, 2006)

What a fine example of scientific hypocracy!  Here we have Harvard biologists introducing non native (they weren't there already) species onto islands to perform an experiment that yields us knowlege any grammar school kid could tell you.  Now that the new lizards have been introduced who is going to remove each and every one of them in order to return the biosystem to its original order?  Can't be done with any degree of certainty.  This research could have easily been done in a controlled environment, say a lab with 12 seperate rooms each resembling the native habitat without screwing up the existing biosystems on the islands.  As soon as the grant money dries up the biologists will fly back to Boston and no doubt will later pen in some journal the horrors of how man is changing his environment and how it will be the doom of us all one day.


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 7, 2006)

Pointfinder said:


> What a fine example of scientific hypocracy! Here we have Harvard biologists introducing non native (they weren't there already) species onto islands to perform an experiment that yields us knowlege any grammar school kid could tell you. Now that the new lizards have been introduced who is going to remove each and every one of them in order to return the biosystem to its original order? Can't be done with any degree of certainty. This research could have easily been done in a controlled environment, say a lab with 12 seperate rooms each resembling the native habitat without screwing up the existing biosystems on the islands. As soon as the grant money dries up the biologists will fly back to Boston and no doubt will later pen in some journal the horrors of how man is changing his environment and how it will be the doom of us all one day.


 
Pointy....very very well said.....


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 7, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> Almost seems as if humans have stopped evolving....wonder why?


 Ignoring the fact that, for a species with a twenty - twenty-five year generation, a hundred generations is a couple of thousand years, for accelerated evolution you need :a high death rate, which eliminates the standard genotype, and a sufficiently improved characteristic that almost all of the adapted population survive. 
Assuming intelligence is the characteristic you're selecting for, a large majority of the normal or subnormal intelligence must die each generation, while the more intelligent not only survive, but produce more surviving offspring. Do you observe this situation? We're closer to a "marching morons" scenario. Fortunately, the death rate is low enough that the genetic diversity hardly shifts - if you want the human race to modify in a reasonable length of time, it's either deliberate genetic modification or massive slaughter.


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 8, 2006)

chrispenycate said:


> Ignoring the fact that, for a species with a twenty - twenty-five year generation, a hundred generations is a couple of thousand years, for accelerated evolution you need :a high death rate, which eliminates the standard genotype, and a sufficiently improved characteristic that almost all of the adapted population survive.
> Assuming intelligence is the characteristic you're selecting for, a large majority of the normal or subnormal intelligence must die each generation, while the more intelligent not only survive, but produce more surviving offspring. Do you observe this situation? We're closer to a "marching morons" scenario. Fortunately, the death rate is low enough that the genetic diversity hardly shifts - if you want the human race to modify in a reasonable length of time, it's either deliberate genetic modification or massive slaughter.


 
Crispy....I only thing I observe is the re-generation of the same stupidity in humanity, which means for humans...the theory of evolution is a fake concept born on limited scientific data which cannot be proven. Thus your comment regarding deliberate genetic modification equals genetic manipulation i.e. human species did not evolve here. This then leads to a question...how did the deliberate genetic modification and/or manipulation occur and how did it??????


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Dec 8, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> the theory of evolution is a fake concept born on limited scientific data which cannot be proven


 

And the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of cheese.


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 8, 2006)

Winters_Sorrow said:


> And the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of cheese.


 
Right...


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 14, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Have humans stopped evolving?
> 
> There are a number of species that have stopped or appear to have stopped evolving. They have been in the same state for millions of years, these include certain types of crocodiles, sharks, and other fish. The reason given is that their environment has not pressured them to change and that they are perfectly adapted for the current niche, the current niche being fixed for millions of years.
> 
> ...


 
It's funny that I stumble upon something like this two days after I receive evidence for it.  I'm only 17, and I don't know everything, but it seems that the middle eastern countries tend to have better doctors.

My friend told me why one of his fingers is totally screwed up at the tip.  He had been electrocuted by a vandilised light pole in Iraq, the finger in question was severely damaged, the third digit was partly melted off to where his finger bone was visible.  Months of cutting away dead tissue and grafting muscle, ligaments and skin onto his finger resulted in what he has now.  Upon a US doctor's observation when he got here, I'm guessing it was a sort of checkup, the doctor told him that any american doctor would have amputated the finger instead of re-building.

So, either american modern medicine has been twisted away from helping people and towards making money OR Arab (forgive the generalisation) doctors are smarter and have had more experience.

Either way, I spit upon my english roots.


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 14, 2006)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> It's funny that I stumble upon something like this two days after I receive evidence for it. I'm only 17, and I don't know everything, but it seems that the middle eastern countries tend to have better doctors.
> 
> My friend told me why one of his fingers is totally screwed up at the tip. He had been electrocuted by a vandilised light pole in Iraq, the finger in question was severely damaged, the third digit was partly melted off to where his finger bone was visible. Months of cutting away dead tissue and grafting muscle, ligaments and skin onto his finger resulted in what he has now. Upon a US doctor's observation when he got here, I'm guessing it was a sort of checkup, the doctor told him that any american doctor would have amputated the finger instead of re-building.
> 
> ...


 
Spit upon?....Don't you know that spreads germs? Don't worry you've got a long way to go before hypocracy sets in let alone understanding it. Ciao


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 14, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> Crispy....I only thing I observe is the re-generation of the same stupidity in humanity, which means for humans...the theory of evolution is a fake concept born on limited scientific data which cannot be proven. Thus your comment regarding deliberate genetic modification equals genetic manipulation i.e. human species did not evolve here. This then leads to a question...how did the deliberate genetic modification and/or manipulation occur and how did it??????



The key there was "a reasonable length of time" With enough time, a few tens of millions of years, even a small advantage can produce a change; presumably this was how the various factors came to produce humanity in the first place (presumably; there's a distinct lack of what you would consider conclusive evidence) When I commented on genetic modification, I was considering making a _fast_ change, say in a couple of thousand years; and was expecting those modifications to be done on humans by humans.
The fact that, in the five or seven thousand years for which we have reasonable information, human intelligence does not appear to have modified is not an argument against evolution; within measurement variations, it's the result you would expect to get. Sheep have evolved, relative to their wild ancestors; given protection from predators and heavy selection for certain characteristics (fleece, meat) they've lost intelligence and initiative. Protecting humans, and eliminating the aggressive ones will, in the long run, have the same effect. But it'll be an exceedingly long run.

The theory of evolution is not perfect; no theory made by man ever will be. Still, like Newtonian dynamics, it's a good, working base, until the more sophisticated information can be processed.


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 15, 2006)

chrispenycate said:


> The key there was "a reasonable length of time" With enough time, a few tens of millions of years, even a small advantage can produce a change; presumably this was how the various factors came to produce humanity in the first place (presumably; there's a distinct lack of what you would consider conclusive evidence) When I commented on genetic modification, I was considering making a _fast_ change, say in a couple of thousand years; and was expecting those modifications to be done on humans by humans.
> *The fact that, in the five or seven thousand years for which we have reasonable information, human intelligence does not appear to have modified is not an argument against evolution;* within measurement variations, it's the result you would expect to get. Sheep have evolved, relative to their wild ancestors; given protection from predators and heavy selection for certain characteristics (fleece, meat) they've lost intelligence and initiative. Protecting humans, and eliminating the aggressive ones will, in the long run, have the same effect. But it'll be an exceedingly long run.
> 
> The theory of evolution is not perfect; no theory made by man ever will be. Still, like Newtonian dynamics, it's a good, working base, until the more sophisticated information can be processed.


 
So Crispy then your not as smart as the ancient greek philosopher? Which is it then????


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 15, 2006)

Spartan, sometimes i wonder if your contributions were worth posting. And this is _me_ saying that


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 15, 2006)

It would be fun to go back in time and teach the greek philosiphers, who were the smartest men of their time, how the universe works, or at least what we know of the universe now, I think maybe a few ould die of sudden heart attacks


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 15, 2006)

Joel007 said:


> Spartan, sometimes i wonder if your contributions were worth posting. And this is _me_ saying that


 
Hey no problem...I guess your IQ is much hgigher than mine...That I doudt


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 15, 2006)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> It would be fun to go back in time and teach the greek philosiphers, who were the smartest men of their time, how the universe works, or at least what we know of the universe now, I think maybe a few ould die of sudden heart attacks


Admiral...you have much intelligence...and a good thought process.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 15, 2006)

^_^ woot, boredom-induced theories and philosophy are my thing


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 15, 2006)

Joel007 said:


> Spartan, sometimes i wonder if your contributions were worth posting. And this is _me_ saying that


 
By the way, where are your valuable contributions to this thread?

I was responding to Crispy' contradiction to another post. That's the reason for my post in the manner and fashion regarding evolutuion. Anyway, have a good one pal.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 15, 2006)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> It would be fun to go back in time and teach the greek philosiphers, who were the smartest men of their time, how the universe works, or at least what we know of the universe now, I think maybe a few ould die of sudden heart attacks


 
I have serious doubts about that last assertion, because of the way they thought of things; most likely, they'd find it utterly fascinating, once they had the grounding laid out for them so they could follow the concepts. After all, these were the people who reasoned out, with little even approaching the mechanical aids we have now, a considerable amount that lies at the base of our scientific knowledge; and the philosophers had very good minds, and were insatiably curious, to boot!


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 15, 2006)

so, back to evolution, I had another of my half-baked ideas while in my senior seminar class on WMD proliferation (spl?)

What if we created deadly things (toxins and viruses and other such nasty things) and administered low levels of non-lethal doses of the stuff to the general population, over generations humankind would (theoretically) develop immunities to it. I call this Forced Evolution.

The effect is to make everyone so hard to kill that waging war would be immposible unless you basically simultaneously fusion bombed the entire planet or something along that scale


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm not too fussy about evolution. People use the word to mean different things, such as what I like to think of as micro-evolution (adaptation, random genetic alterations, survival of the fittest), and macro-evolution (cross/new genus mutations). Personally I think that no matter how lucky the circumstances, and no matter how much time is given, fish could not evolve into birds, and asexual organisms couldn't be usurped by sexual ones. This is just a little glimpse into my view, not the whole thing of course


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 15, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> I have serious doubts about that last assertion, because of the way they thought of things; most likely, they'd find it utterly fascinating, once they had the grounding laid out for them so they could follow the concepts. After all, these were the people who reasoned out, with little even approaching the mechanical aids we have now, a considerable amount that lies at the base of our scientific knowledge; and the philosophers had very good minds, and were insatiably curious, to boot!


 
JD...nice!


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 15, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> JD...nice!


 
Thank'ee, sir!


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 15, 2006)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> so, back to evolution, I had another of my half-baked ideas while in my senior seminar class on WMD proliferation (spl?)
> 
> What if we created deadly things (toxins and viruses and other such nasty things) and administered low levels of non-lethal doses of the stuff to the general population, over generations humankind would (theoretically) develop immunities to it. I call this Forced Evolution.
> 
> The effect is to make everyone so hard to kill that waging war would be immposible unless you basically simultaneously fusion bombed the entire planet or something along that scale


 

There have been people who have tried this sort of thing on a personal basis. Most of them die of something unforseen. There are far too many ways to die, and some of them have no training or immunity recipie. 

for example, someone builds up an immunity to all known poisons over the course of a decade or so, and dies from metal poisoning (a dagger in the stomach).
sounds like a dangerous waste of time, some poisons even in small doses may cause unwanted side effects, not immunity.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 15, 2006)

that's my flaw, I don't get people, and I'm not much of a self-observer so I don't really evaluate my words in text or real-life, so I tend to ramble on or say one thing that makes no sense and is rude and incorrect while I'm raising a good point, maybe


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 15, 2006)

Joel007 said:


> There have been people who have tried this sort of thing on a personal basis. Most of them die of something unforseen. There are far too many ways to die, and some of them have no training or immunity recipie.
> 
> for example, someone builds up an immunity to all known poisons over the course of a decade or so, and dies from metal poisoning (a dagger in the stomach).
> sounds like a dangerous waste of time, some poisons even in small doses may cause unwanted side effects, not immunity.



yeah, you can never foresee everything, to bad we can't though


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 15, 2006)

Its a worthy theory, on a smaller scale the same thought created vaccinations.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 15, 2006)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> It would be fun to go back in time and teach the greek philosiphers, who were the smartest men of their time, how the universe works, or at least what we know of the universe now, I think maybe a few ould die of sudden heart attacks



Or even try the same with religious leaders of the middle ages. Wait we don't have to go back that far now do we?


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 15, 2006)

mosaix said:


> Or even try the same with religious leaders of the middle ages. Wait we don't have to go back that far now do we?


 
lawlz, no, I don't think we'd WANT to go back that far.  We'd probably get paraded around the streets hung by our entrails.  They were all pretty much fanatics back then.


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 15, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> So Crispy then your not as smart as the ancient greek philosopher? Which is it then????



The point being that the philosopher was one of the most intelligent men of his period, while I'm just a fairly average one of mine. The mean of the intelligence of the population, in both cases, is very much a guess. If we gave them IQ tests, the modern population would probably come out ahead, having more practice in tests. In a genuine survival situation, I wouldn't like to place any bets.

Sure, given time, and no change in the situation, I believe there would be a net loss of problem-solving ability (it no longer being a suvival enhancing factor); but the amount of time is a great deal longer than recorded history.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 16, 2006)

Nice straight bat there Chris.


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 18, 2006)

chrispenycate said:


> The point being that the philosopher was one of the most intelligent men of his period, while I'm just a fairly average one of mine. The mean of the intelligence of the population, in both cases, is very much a guess. If we gave them IQ tests, the modern population would probably come out ahead, having more practice in tests. In a genuine survival situation, I wouldn't like to place any bets.
> 
> Sure, given time, and no change in the situation, I believe there would be a net loss of problem-solving ability (it no longer being a suvival enhancing factor); but the amount of time is a great deal longer than recorded history.


 
Hi Crispy..statiscally speaking you are perhaps correct. However there are many intangbles..i.e. where would you set the delta on "fairly average"? And therefore what would be your mean based on your delta?...do you see what I am getting at now? Ciao


----------

