Has our BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ended?

[freeztar]

PS (Seriously) are you sure about evolution not going "backwards"?

 

Yes, but I guess it depends on what *you* mean by "backwards".

[Michaelangelica]

Yes, but I guess it depends on what *you* mean by "backwards".

Yes "fuzzy' terms aren't they.

I guess when I wrote that I was thinking of an organism loosing a sense or skill.

But you would say "So what does a fish 1mile deep in the sea need eyes for?"

"That is just evolution-responding to the stress" (or the Changes?-epigenetics rearing its ugly head again) in the environment (The sea got very deep quickly?):naughty:

 

But, you know, if you google hard enough, you can find support for almost any argument :phones:

 

Rapid, Dramatic 'Reverse Evolution' Documented In Tiny Fish Species

Rapid, Dramatic 'Reverse Evolution' Documented In Tiny Fish Species

just cause I'm being kind I'll quote this bit

"There are not many documented examples of reverse evolution in nature," said senior author Catherine "Katie" Peichel, Ph.D

:hihi:

 

Scientists reverse evolution

Scientists reverse evolution

 

This

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060306_reversfrm.htm

just seemed to way out to quote at first. then i read about the HOX genes in Turkey(above) and went back to it.

 

In the days before amniocentesis I worked in a babies ward in a psychiatric centre. There we fed, clothed and cleaned some very weird, some monkey-like "babies"- some who walked on all fours.

I hated the place, and avoided it as it disturbed and upset me greatly. Also there was nothing effective that you could do for the 'babies' (indeterminate age, some could have been 5- 10-20YO) except make them as comfortable as possible. I never saw a parent visit.

Unfortunately it adjoined my Great Crazy Kids Ward which I loved, so I often got roped into doing OT shifts there. (Others probably tried to avoid it too.)

 

You would think that after thousands of years of people like the Romans leaving strange babies on the hillside to die, you would not see any of this in the 20C. It was a very sobering place to work.(jumping genes at work?)

I guess it would have been a modern geneticists dreamland for research. But I probably saw the last of such wards. I wonder what we are losing?

[freeztar]

Yes "fuzzy' terms aren't they.

I guess when I wrote that I was thinking of an organism loosing a sense or skill.

But you would say "So what does a fish 1mile deep in the sea need eyes for?"

"That is just evolution-responding to the stress" (or the Changes?-epigenetics rearing its ugly head again) in the environment (The sea got very deep quickly?):naughty:

 

A better example might be the blind salamanders that live in caves here in the US. They have "eyes", but the eyes can not see. (isn't that a song?)

 

But, you know, if you google hard enough, you can find support for almost any argument :phones:

This is both a testament to the amazing resource all of us have before us and the tenacity with which you post, MA. :hihi:

 

Rapid, Dramatic 'Reverse Evolution' Documented In Tiny Fish Species

Rapid, Dramatic 'Reverse Evolution' Documented In Tiny Fish Species

just cause I'm being kind I'll quote this bit

 

Scientists reverse evolution

Scientists reverse evolution

It's still "forward" evolution. You can't turn back the clock and you can't make species de-evolve.

 

Reverse evolution occurs when an organism returns to the genetic state of its ancestors, said Crandall, who wrote a paper on the topic in the Oct. 2003 issue of the research journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution. In that work, he wrote that reverse evolution is documented in various organisms, such as fish that lose their eyes after living in dark caves for generations.

Reverse human evolution plausible, testable, U.S. biologist says

 

Fish in caves *evolve* to lose their eyesight. This may seem like a step back to a more primitive form, but it's still a forward progression of natural selection. Their eye sockets do not disappear. :kiss2:

You would think that after thousands of years of people like the Romans leaving strange babies on the hillside to die, you would not see any of this in the 20C. It was a very sobering place to work.(jumping genes at work?)

I guess it would have been a modern geneticists dreamland for research. But I probably saw the last of such wards. I wonder what we are losing?

 

I'm going to sound crass and apathetic here perhaps but the weak must perish. Barring some unforeseen genetic revolution, my lineage will likely end very soon (within a few generations, due to health problems including a history of diabetes, heart problems, etc.).

 

I'm frankly concerned for my kids, if I ever have any. And that's just the genetic aspect...

 

Edit: To repeat, human evolution has *not* ended! It never will, even in a utopian sci-fi fantasy such as that depicted in "A Brave New World".

[charles brough]

OK, so our biological evolution continues . . . My point really was, in starting the thread, that any such evolution that does occur does not explain human "progress" and that it would take a lot more than a mere 40,000 years to evolve us in any significant way! ---more like a million years. . .

 

And, incidentally, we don't have much time left anyway. I found this amazing economic look at what is happening in our now over-crowded world. It paralels what I have written in the social sciences:

 

Crash Course Chapter 8: The Fed - Money Creation - credit | Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - credit, Debt, Federal Reserve, interest, loans, money creation, perpetual expansion, the Fed, Treasury bonds

[HydrogenBond]

Human evolution appears to be characterized by the brain leading evolution. Humans can control the environment and therefore stack the deck for selective advantage. For example, if we decide race horses are important, we will selectively breed for these traits and give these horses a more optimized environment. We can fence them in and prevent cross breeding or natural competition with other horses. Natural selection may not give the same result, but humans can rig the natural drift of the DNA.

 

In modern times, the human brain has come up with ways to directly alter the DNA. It was not the DNA altering the brain and mind to alter itself. The brain started the learning process and evolved it own information matrix, to where genetics is now under conscious control, in an obvious way.

 

Even if human genetics was regressing, relative to natural progress, the brain via technology allows use to ignore this, by compensating with cultural prothesis. Once you add the prosthesis, it sort of looks better than natural. But if you remove the prosthesis it is more obvious. For example, if you did away with medicine, which is a product of the brain, many humans would drop like flies, because the brain has outpaced the natural genetics. But we are also learning to alter genetics directly so the DNA might someday be able to keep pace with the brain.

 

The brain is a product of genetics but it can be programmed in ways that are not limited by the genetic pre-programming. Maybe an loose analogy is a PC out of the factory is loaded with an operating system and some basic software we call instincts. It is not limited to this. We can add other programs beyond factory installed. Now the integrated body, based on DNA, has a location that is better than factory installed. One can also install conflicting software and stall the operating system. One can even install programming software than alters the operating system. The naturally integrated system, based on DNA, is off balance and will try to reintegrate. It is sort of an internal natural selection process spearheaded by the brain.

[freeztar]

OK, so our biological evolution continues . . .

 

Indeed.

 

My point really was, in starting the thread, that any such evolution that does occur does not explain human "progress" and that it would take a lot more than a mere 40,000 years to evolve us in any significant way! ---more like a million years. . .

But, if you look at our heritage, we've been around less than a million years. To say we haven't evolved in this time is overlooking the facts.

 

And, incidentally, we don't have much time left anyway. I found this amazing economic look at what is happening in our now over-crowded world. It paralels what I have written in the social sciences:

 

Crash Course Chapter 8: The Fed - Money Creation - credit | Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - credit, Debt, Federal Reserve, interest, loans, money creation, perpetual expansion, the Fed, Treasury bonds

 

It's been apparent since the beginning of this thread that your focus is on "social evolution". Don't you agree? Would you mind if I changed the thread title to reflect this?

[Michaelangelica]

OK, so our biological evolution continues . . . My point really was, in starting the thread, that any such evolution that does occur does not explain human "progress" and that it would take a lot more than a mere 40,000 years to evolve us in any significant way! ---more like a million years. . .

What do you call "significant?

We have developed --off the top of my head--I'm sure there are more the:-

Ability to resist diseases like measles mumps- some of us AIDs and Malaria, ability to digest lactose, alcohol (or not), ability to understand Linux and the ability to breathe at high altitudes (some of us).

 

40,000 years is well over 1,200 generations. A fruit fly can archive a lot in that time.

[charles brough]

if you look at our heritage, we've been around less than a million years. To say we haven't evolved in this time is overlooking the facts.

 

It's been apparent since the beginning of this thread that your focus is on "social evolution". Don't you agree? Would you mind if I changed the thread title to reflect this?

 

No one is saying the primate species that evolved into us perhaps less than 200,000 years ago did not evolve. They certainly did. That is not "us" however. We humans, or Sapiens, have not evolved since we appeared. In my work, I separate Ancient Sapiens, those who first appeared almost 200,000 years ago and 40,000 years when we evolved or developed a new ability that really started our social evolution and enabled change in our culture to take off and develop at a much faster pace.

 

Please do what you think is best. All I am trying to get across is that in the last 40,000 years, there has been no biological evolution capable of accounting for the growth of the human cultural heritage. Any little changes could even be epigenetic. No one has the faintest idea of what social evolution is, so they think civilizations rise and fall because we are still evolving!

[gregdevid]

Hi Friend,

 

It is not possible end of the Biological end, because of Evolution may take place at many different scales — and it may work differently in every one.

 

In biology, for instance, mutation and selection take place at the level of genes and organisms. But while cultural evolution also occurs at the individual level, the unit of selection — behavior — seems more susceptible to drastic change than a gene.

 

 

Thanks

 

Parkar

[carlton-temple]

How would one know if humans have or are evolving when as yet we haven't the least idea of how a cell "works" apart from some pretty pictures and a little chemistry. By what means does one evaluate a process one doesn't understand. How do pheromones function what do they "cause", what are neurotransmitters exactly, how do they effect cellular functioning and cellular differentiation and D.N.A. accentuations. What is the reason we have so much "junk" D.N.A. can the "environment" effect its expressions? I think its a little to early yet, considering how far the sciences have to go still, to make really meaningful remarks on the hows and whys that cause evolutive progressions and any postulates made in this area must be treated with the greatest caution.

[Moontanman]

A new human mutation? babies have been born with a mutation that causes them to have far more muscles than normal babies, the latest one I read about said the baby could stand two days after it's birth. The link I am providing is old but new info says more than 100 babies have been born with this mutation in the last decade. If this had happened in early times when food was scarce this mutation could have been fatal but now days a full meal several times a day isn't as difficult as it was 1000 or more years ago. The link is an old one, i couldn't find the new article i read but it puts the mutation perspective although the new article says that brain problems due to the lack of body fat could have been a problem as well as heart problems but the new article say s sufficient food will negate these bad effects.

 

Gene mutation makes baby super strong

[HydrogenBond]

The human brain, although a function of genetics, is able to create effects that are more than the integration of genetics. In other words, if we take any single cell, what it does and how it reacts can be traced back to genetics. But the brain, as a whole, can add memory and functionality, where there is no genetic association. This connected to the human feature called willpower, which may be genetic, but the effect can break away from genetics, due to the autonomy of the effect.

 

For example, the human body can not deal with exposure to cold for very long. The brain can add a coat. There is no coat gene already in place. If we waited long enough and continued to expose naked humans to cold, genetic changes might occur, to form a fur gene. But that is slow boat. The brain doesn't have to wait that long, and has taken over the leadership role. As the external conditions change, the brain doesn't wait for genetics to compensation with trial and error or drift. The brain does in years or decades what would take genetics to do naturally millions of years.

 

Let me give an analogy of the brain effect. The brain is not a computer but this example is easy to see. One can buy a computer off the shelf with basic software and the final hardware loaded. We can't change the hardware, since that is analogous the hardwire of the genetics. But we can upgrade the software to get more out of the hardware. I can add surround sound simulation software to make those cheap speakers sound better. Maybe we can alter the operating system to combine the video card and processor so we can get quicker operation for non video tasks. The genetic hardware is the same, but we have upgraded the system.

 

The genetic operating system may be a resource hog, due to many processes running in the background, some of which are not being used for all operations. We are ready for any task, But if we could write some software to shift the active process distribution, during simple tasks, we can have more resources for those tasks.

 

For example, the observational skills of the scientist is assisted by training the focus of concentration. It still uses the genetic eyes. This prolonged focus is not genetic, but takes training. It still makes use of the basic software and hardware but learns to shut off distractions due to peripheral processes. Some system shunts and active process changes could make the system unstable at times.

 

One of the major changes the brain did was alter the timing of the genetic screen saver or animal inert. Animals rest or when needs are met and go off into screen saver. Once civilization began, the screen saver timing was modified simply by sublimating natural need with synthetic need. We only need to move the mouse, right before energy saver and the screen saver is delayed. We didn't have to change the genetic hardware to alter the genetic control system. We just use it within genetics limitations but in a way it doesn't work naturally via its natural control system.

[carlton-temple]

A new human mutation? babies have been born with a mutation that causes them to have far more muscles than normal babies, the latest one I read about said the baby could stand two days after it's birth. The link I am providing is old but new info says more than 100 babies have been born with this mutation in the last decade. If this had happened in early times when food was scarce this mutation could have been fatal but now days a full meal several times a day isn't as difficult as it was 1000 or more years ago. The link is an old one, i couldn't find the new article i read but it puts the mutation perspective although the new article says that brain problems due to the lack of body fat could have been a problem as well as heart problems but the new article say s sufficient food will negate these bad effects.

 

Gene mutation makes baby super strong

I read the article with interest. An observation. As till very recently, most children were delivered "at-home" by a midwife with non or little medical follow up how would one know how common muscular-babies have been in the past? There could be distinct advantages in some conditions of children being "self-supporting" as soon as possible as indeed are many animals such as calve, lambs, deer ect.

[Galapagos]

I was just perusing some articles and stumbled upon a couple items of interest:

 

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution ? PNAS

 

Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.

 

Microcephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans -- Evans et al. 309 (5741): 1717 -- Science

The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage. We show that one genetic variant of Microcephalin in modern humans, which arose ~37,000 years ago, increased in frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift. This indicates that it has spread under strong positive selection, although the exact nature of the selection is unknown. The finding that an important brain gene has continued to evolve adaptively in anatomically modern humans suggests the ongoing evolutionary plasticity of the human brain. It also makes Microcephalin an attractive candidate locus for studying the genetics of human variation in brain-related phenotypes.

[Kayra]

The more I think on it, the more I come to realize that we effectively have ended our own biological evolution in any meaningful way.

 

The time scale that evolution works on is just too long. By the time that any changes are brought about to the majority of the population, we will have gained complete mastery (and hopefully adequate understanding) of genetic process to effectively ignore biological evolution.

 

While epigenetics appears to give vastly quicker adaptations, it is still limited to what the genome allows. Any adaptations to allow us to better suit an environment are already within the range that the genes can produce, and are simply controlled by the epigenetic machinery like a genetic plant manager.

 

Changes to brain size and wiring are again all within the range that our existing genetic machinery allows and do not truly represent "Biological Evolution".

 

I guess the remaining question in my mind is, does the evolution of our thought processes truly represent biological evolution?

 

Personally, I don't think so, and so I have to consider our biological evolution to have come to an end.

 

Our next evolutionary path is not biological, but technological. The fact that this coming technology will allow us to plasticize our genetic makeup allowing us to bend it to our whim and will is likely to be the only source of significant biological change humanity will ever see.

 

Unless we find the wisdom to instigate changes to ourselves not just to be stronger, smarter, and faster, but to ensure that we allow our offspring to be capable of making the genetic mistakes so necessary for biological evolution to occur, then if our future technology should ever fail us after this point then it is likely to be the end of humanity.

[charles brough]

What do you call "significant?

We have developed --off the top of my head--I'm sure there are more the:-

Ability to resist diseases like measles mumps- some of us AIDs and Malaria, ability to digest lactose, alcohol (or not), ability to understand Linux and the ability to breathe at high altitudes (some of us).

 

40,000 years is well over 1,200 generations. A fruit fly can archive a lot in that time.

Surely, genetic change is going on all the time, but it surely did even in the ancient Trilobite which survived without any "significant" evolutionry change for tens of millions of years.

 

What would be "significant" in human evolutionary change would be that it accounts for the vast change we have undergone in the last hundred or so thousand years and now dominate the globe (for good or ill). By stressing all the little genetic changes they find, the experts imply that biological evolution does explain the the changes in the way we live. They imply that it explains "human progress." That it explains "progress" is generally believed, and every effort I make to shift focus to SOCIAL evolution as the real and ONLY explanation for all that change is hotly and persistency resisted.

[charles brough]

A new human mutation? babies have been born with a mutation that causes them to have far more muscles than normal babies, the latest one I read about said the baby could stand two days after it's birth. The link I am providing is old but new info says more than 100 babies have been born with this mutation in the last decade. If this had happened in early times when food was scarce this mutation could have been fatal but now days a full meal several times a day isn't as difficult as it was 1000 or more years ago. The link is an old one, i couldn't find the new article i read but it puts the mutation perspective although the new article says that brain problems due to the lack of body fat could have been a problem as well as heart problems but the new article say s sufficient food will negate these bad effects.

 

Gene mutation makes baby super strong

. ..an interesting aberration! I looked at the link. (I also noted how magnificantly he was endowed!) . . . Seems to me a sort of Neanderthal-like mistake that won't spread.