Has our BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ended?

[charles brough]

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.

That's all very academic. You are saying that we know more and can do with our minds more than we could say 50,000 years ago. I don't thing anyone would disagree with that.

But if you explained how we did that, I missed it . . .

[charles brough]

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

 

WOW! That was a block of academic overload! The writer says brain evolution is going on, but how can any of us tell why or how or question in any way what his academeese unclearly states?

 

I think that a CroMagnon man sitting and flakeing razor sharp flakes of flint from a core can compare with many a welfare addicted Southern "cracher" red necks. What do you think"

[charles brough]

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.

 

we understand some of how a cell works but can never know it all and have a lot to learn. I think there is a lot of confusion in trying to differentiate between genetic and epigenetic change.

[charles brough]

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.

 

Yes, epitgenetic change is limited by the genetic code. I agree. It carries on for a few generations and then disappears.

 

In my work, I isolate the process of social evolution and show how natural selection operates on societies to bind us into ever more successful ones and explains the whole process pretty well. Civilizations rise and fall, and in each, when it declines, science ends in that civilization until it is replaced with a new society and civilization. Currently, our civilization is in decline and we will also experience a decline of science and technology.

We aren't even adequately maintaining the infra-structure our science produced and are been hammered with "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design."

 

Our biggest problem is the overcrowding of our planet and the growing difficulty in extracting the minerals, oil, and gas we need, even coal. We have used up so much that we are using ever more energy just in extracting it. This is a vicious circle, accelerating process known as "peak oil."

[Michaelangelica]

Surely any modern definition of "life" has to include the word "change"?

[charles brough]

Surely any modern definition of "life" has to include the word "change"?

see post #50

[Moontanman]

. ..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.

 

Neanderthal like? Mistake that won't spread? I don't think this can be dismissed in that way, more than just this one kid is involved, they are superior to normal humans in strength and display the same intelligence and other physiological factors. From what I've gathered it has already spread with more than 100 babies born so far. It's classic case of a good mutation starting to spread into the population. There are other "good"" mutations in the human genome, a family in Italy has a mutation that protects them from heart disease no matter how bad their diet is.

 

People's Daily Online -- Hainan sees a super baby girl

 

Myostatin-Related Muscle Hypertrophy -- GeneReviews -- NCBI Bookshelf

 

CTV.ca | Rare condition gives toddler super strength

 

Researchers at Johns Hopkins wanted to include Liam in a study of people with the condition. When they found 100 adults to participate, Liam was no longer needed. That was a relief for his parents, who did not want to subject Liam to the painful muscle biopsy that would be required of everyone in the study.

 

Yet another "good mutation"

 

Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information

 

In the 1980's a small Italian community was found to have a mutant version of a protein, called Apolipoprotein AI (Apo-AI), which is associated with a decreased risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke (1). The reduction in risk in these people has been attributed to the mutant protein (known as the Apolipoprotein AI Milano allele, henceforth referred to as Apo-AIM), and Apo-AIM has often been used as an example of a beneficial mutation.

[pamela]

posted by moon

Neanderthal like? Mistake that won't spread? I don't think this can be dismissed in that way, more than just this one kid is involved, they are superior to normal humans in strength and display the same intelligence and other physiological factors. From what I've gathered it has already spread with more than 100 babies born so far. It's classic case of a good mutation starting to spread into the population

.

I am not so sure on this being a good mutation, what about these kids hearts? as they age, i wonder what kind of effects will occur with this muscular organ.....

[Moontanman]

.

I am not so sure on this being a good mutation, what about these kids hearts? as they age, i wonder what kind of effects will occur with this muscular organ.....

 

So far the only one with heart problems was one who was born that way, he was cured and is fine now, the oldest is 16 or 17 and is female. No health problems other than being much less fat than others her age. Heart problems are feared and being looked for but so for it hasn't happened. It'll be interesting to see how they are 20 years from now or 40.another thing to see is if this mutation spreads through the population and if normal people accept some one who is much stronger and less fat than the normal population. Of course these people would have to seek each other out for the mutation to spread

[Michaelangelica]

Seen post 50

So what's "social evolution' when she is at home?

 

also

"good" is a human- anthropomorphic- value judgement. IM Understanding Evolution contains none.

There is survival or not-survival of the genetic package..

[carlton-temple]

Social evolution is when evolution socialises ! For example when every one, but every one, has the new big ears. :phones:

[charles brough]

Neanderthal like? Mistake that won't spread? I don't think this can be dismissed in that way, more than just this one kid is involved, they are superior to normal humans in strength and display the same intelligence and other physiological factors. From what I've gathered it has already spread with more than 100 babies born so far. It's classic case of a good mutation starting to spread into the population. There are other "good"" mutations in the human genome, a family in Italy has a mutation that protects them from heart disease no matter how bad their diet is.

. . . seems to me that the only reason is would spread is because it is a delitorious epigentic change that will die out as soon as survival gets brutal again as it is in really chaotic times. We do not need more muscle buik. It is a waste in us. Changes in our genome that generally seems beneficial usually comes at trade-off cost. Immunity to one disease usually results in more of another problem. There are several ways this plays out between Afro-American and Caucasian Americans, for example. A resistance to one disease in one race leaves it more susceptable to another disease compared to the other race.

All this should be no surprise because for some 40,000 years, human social groups have competed with each other and their "cultures" changed and progressed because of the natural selection processes the competition caused. That is social evolution. We have all that time had no need to evolve in any way. So, in the little way we have evolved since then, none of it explains how we got where we are in the last some 40,000 years.

[Essay]

. . .So, in the little way we have evolved since then, none of it explains how we got where we are in the last some 40,000 years.

[as an aside...] Wouldn't "social evolution" be defined as evolution of the society; to be contrasted with biological evolution that is affected (or directed) by social pressures?

Maybe there should be another name for that sort of socially-prompted biological evolution, but it shouldn't be "social evolution" should it?

===

 

Well, whatever....

I think I'm going to say "no" our biological evolution has not stopped.

I think to anyone who enjoys the insights that learning about evolution provides, that is an absurd question.

 

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9

I kept recalling this when I tried to reconcile the posted doubts about evolution continuing--and the grand scope, breadth, and depth of the picture that is the miracle of Evolution.

...and also recalling that verse when someone tries to judge a "mutation" as good or bad.

...but now I'm getting self-righteous; so carry on....

===

 

Speaking of enjoying the insights....

 

I think this may help answer many of the points brought up in this thread.

ResearchChannel - The Changing Human Genome: Implications for Disease and Evolution ...it's 1 hour.

 

I only caught the end of this broadcast recently, but....

I did jot down some quotes:

...something about a unique (to higher primates) gene "duplication architecture" especially as related to "hotspots that promote recurrent deletion events."

&

...something about a new view of that ~1% difference between us and chimps--along the lines of "but some regions have changed extremely rapidly." ...referring to that 1% --that has "changed extremely rapidly."

 

& something like: This unique "duplication architecture" allows for the original copy to function normally while the duplicate gene can mutate wildly (...who cares, as the original is still functioning normally, eh?)!

 

Also:

...it shouldn't be surprising that many of these duplicated genes (which mutate more) are associated with mental functions.

[lemit]

I once had a doctor who, waxing philosophical after treating my allergies, suggested that humans might evolve to meet the increasingly rapid environmental challenges we are creating for ourselves.

 

I didn't know what to make of his comment then and I'm not sure what to make of it now, but this seems the appropriate place to write it (after 40 years).

 

--lemit

[charles brough]

[as an aside...] Wouldn't "social evolution" be defined as evolution of the society; to be contrasted with biological evolution that is affected (or directed) by social pressures?

Maybe there should be another name for that sort of socially-prompted biological evolution, but it shouldn't be "social evolution" should it?==

 

Well, whatever....

I think I'm going to say "no" our biological evolution has not stopped.

I think to anyone who enjoys the insights that learning about evolution provides, that is an absurd question.

 

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9

I kept recalling this when I tried to reconcile the posted doubts about evolution continuing--and the grand scope, breadth, and depth of the picture that is the miracle of Evolution.

 

Evolution is no miracle, nothing is, but it explains human "progress," that is, the growth of our culture and numbers made possible by a growth in the accuracy with which we understand ourselves and our universe. But BIOLOGICAL evolution in the human being is now insignificant and SOCIAL evolution has mostly taken its place.

 

The definition of "society" is the all important key to this. You say that social evolution should perhaps be "the evolution of society." In my work, yes, that is part of it. Each society goes through a sort of life cycle process, but that is not evolution. Social evolution is the natural selection process going on BETWEEN societies.

 

I define "society" as the grouping of people into larger units than our millions of years of biological evolution has otherwise enabled us to tolerate. This bonding of us into such large units is made possible by the binding power of common world view and way of thinking belief systems poorly referred to by the public as "religions." After all, we evolved to live in small hunting-gathering size groups and our social nature is fitted to that.

When our groups got to large then, tension and hostility built up in the people---as it is doing now---and then the groups broke up into smaller ones.

[Essay]

Evolution is no miracle.... But BIOLOGICAL evolution in the human being is now insignificant and SOCIAL evolution has mostly taken its place.

 

Well, I'll grant that evolution is no miracle--in the same way that life is not a miracle--it's just the laws of physics and thermodynamics working on the elements; nothing magical or supernatural.

The vast diversity of evolutionary mechanisms--with complexities layered upon complexities--just makes evolution seem magical sometimes.

 

Anyway, I hope you get to watch that video. That they discovered another "complexity" layered within the already complex mechanisms for evolving diversity (& one that is unique to only a few higher primate species) opens up a whole new vista for potential human diversity.

AND this diversity-generating mechanism seems to be focused on cognitive functioning! Hello!?

 

Social interaction and social evolution, I would suggest, is exactly what this new "biological" mechanism is facilitating here.

===

 

I like your comparison of competing societies as being somewhat analogous to different species competing within a defined biome. Evolution is a wonderful analog for many comparisons, from the development of language to the development of corporations (from the alpha to the omega?), but I'm not sure I see how you can say "BIOLOGICAL evolution is now insignificant and SOCIAL evolution has mostly taken its place."

[but] At least this is better argument (more debatable) than the premise that our biological evolution has "ended."

 

For whom has biological evolution ended: the small percentage living as jet-setters or as the bourgeosie (for a generation or so), or would that be for the billions re-living subsistence, agrarian generations?

I would argue that domestication, and social pressures and accommodations have just added more (both additional and/or different) pressures or forcers to our biological evolution. One might expect that our biological evolution would speed up, I'd think--especially with the recent mixing of geographically-isolated, genetically-drifted, gene pools.

[Boerseun]

Humans experience genetic changes and mutations in each and every generation born. In this sense, "biological evolution" is continuing.

 

However, in order for beneficial mutations (by far the minority of any given set of mutations) to be selected for, and for detrimental mutations to be selected against, we would expect both individuals, one with a "good" mutation and the other with the "bad" mutation, to compete on equal terms in the same environment.

 

But this is not the case.

 

Humans spare no cost to ensure the survival of the genetically least fit. A newborn, fresh out the oven, will have his harelip operated on, his disfunctional heart fixed, all strange mutations like extra limbs and strange appendages amputated, and will then, when he's a bit older, have orthodontists straighten his teeth and optometrists fix him with inch-thick coke-bottle spectacles in order to see properly.

 

None of the above have done zilch towards repairing his explicit genetic "unfitness", which would, in any other circumstances, have spelled his end before he's even a month old. He is now let loose upon the world in order to procreate and propagate his defunct genetic material. Externally, after having been panelbeated by a host of medical specialists since his birth, there is no sign of anything wrong with him, and he will compete for the ladies' attention on an equal footing with another individual with more advantageous genetic material.

 

Humans have genetically grown dependent on their technology.

 

What we are seeing, with each passing generation of humans, is not so much "evolution" in the true sense of the word where both good and bad mutations are pitched against each other on equal terms. What we are witnessing, is the continuous degradation of our genome as we spare no cost to ensure the survival of those least fit for this or any environment.

 

I'm of the opinion that if we're to survive as a species, then genetic "inoculations" might be the ticket. Imagine if a virus is modified to deliver a genetic payload to remove the gene for hare lips. Then, much like the eradication of diseases, every newborn should be treated with it. As new discoveries about faulty genes are made, the process can then be repeated.

 

I think that whatever the future might hold for humans, evolution in the classic sense is a dead duck because of our misplaced altruism. Our "evolution" over the next millenium will be purely technology-driven. There is nothing "natural" in our current condition where we are the masters of our environment to suggest that "evolution" in the classic sense is appliccable to us. All other species are subject to the will and whim of the environment. We, as a species, are currently contemplating such grand schemes as "terraformation", where we mull over the technologically perfectly possible scenario of altering a complete planetary environment to suit our tastes. No other animal can do this. No other animal is such a master of its environment.

 

Also, as a point in case, sharks, for instance, haven't evolved much further for millions of years. In their current form, they predate the dinosaurs. All this points to, is that they are perfectly suited to their environment, and the odds of any genetic alteration to be beneficial is very small. Humans, in their current form, are adequate to invent stuff that negates the need for any additional change to be beneficial. With our current genetic issue, we are perfectly capable to walk on the moon. We devise incredible machines to pick up and move stuff around, negating any possible benefit that more muscle mass can have (as illustrated in the posts above). There simply is no need for it, nor benefit. An individual born with a brain capable of doing calculus on the fly will have no advantage over another individual who's brain only allows understanding how to use a calculator.

 

With our current genetic make-up, we're much in the position sharks are in. And I'm willing to bet that if we can somehow halt the propagation of defective genes (like going balls-to-the-wall to save every newborn's life), we will still be recognizably "human" in another 100 million years.

 

Much like the sharks.