Are we done evolving?

We may be devolving, at least when it comes to areas of common sense, but are we done evolving? No.

 

[attachmentid=7218]According to evolutionist the Coelacanth, thought to have died out 70 million years ago, remains largely unchanged over a 360-400 million year span.
So I would dare say that its evolutionary progress at the level of species change and at the level of adaptation has halted. Of course the halt as far as the adaptive process is concerned may only be due to it’s unwillingness to move to different habitats or remain in habitats that change from its preferred norms or the Coelacanth has a enormously wide envelope of habitats. I guess there is no place like home. So if evolution processes can be debunked or said to have stopped then this example would be a good indication, and if for one species why not others?


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Mar 30 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]415289[/snapback]</div>

Reminds me of the movie 'Idocracy', where 600 years in the future all the stupid hicks have outbred the smart people, thus lowering the average IQ of the human species down below 80.

Buut, if memory serves me right, there are some 8 conditions that must be met for evolution (according to my Bio Book, which I cant find). The most important of these is a small, isolated population (think galapagos). Our population is neither small nor isolated.

Furthermore, we are ADAPTING to all the things that would kill off the weaker people, and allowing them to pass their genes on, instead of dying and allowing the species to improve. People with tendencies for high cholesterol and heart attacks can take medication and go on breeding just fine. People with far below-average intelligence, instead of getting left behind to die, are being cared for and could conceivably breed as well. There is very little that links a persons physical fitness (outside of perhaps being more visually desirable) to their ability to produce offspring. If anything, we could be seeing a shift towards de-evolving, as individuals with undesirable traits are now more able to reproduce than ever; and also that people with higher IQ's tend to have less children (as in the previously stated movie, 'Idiocracy')

However, due to large amounts of breeding outside an individual’s race, as well as the high level of mobility our population enjoys, we are seeing alot of mixing, which will eventually (a LONG time from now) result in the elimination of recessive genes such as red hair or blue eyes, and cause a shift to a much more unified look for our species (probably involving black/brown hair, brown eyes, and brown skin).

-----

One interesting thought is: 'what would happen if the human race started to breed itself?'. I know this would be horrible, will never happen, and brings up alot of memories of Adolf Hitler, but still, what if? What if to reproduce you had to have an IQ over 140 and be able to run a mile in under 5 minutes? Although of course the fitness portion would be somewhat related to a persons level of excercise and age. While this would be artificial evolution, it would be very interesting to see how far we could go. Of course not every group of athletic and smart parents will have athletic and smart children, but if those children who dont meet the mark are prohibited from reproducing, we would see the bell curve start to slowly move up (err... to the right). Look at what we have done with dogs over the past few thousand years, we have everything from Chihuahas (sp?) to Great Daines, I wonder how far humans could eventually get?

*I would like to again note that I am not endorsing this, just 'throwing it out there'.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 30 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]415363[/snapback]</div>

What you're suggesting is logically equivalent to seeing a jar full of marbles of every posible hue and color, spotting a single crimson marble and concluding that ALL the marbles must therefore be crimson (despite the evidence right in front of your eyes that they aren't).

There's another fallacy at work here too. While a species of coelecanth exists today that dates back millions of years without discernible (or significant) biological variance from its ancient ancestors, that does NOT mean that a large number of different species haven't branched out from that common ancestor. Species evolution isn't always linear; the newly emerged variant does NOT always replace its progenitor but takes up parallel residence beside it. That would HAVE to be the case or there'd only a single specimen of lifeform extant today, the latest in a long line of replacement organisms. Instead there are billions of distinct lifeforms of immense diversity, all sharing the environment, every one the great-great-great (to the umpteenth power) great-grandchild of a common ancestor. The fact that ONE of those descendants still resembles its ancient ancestor only demonstrates the robustness of that particular biological configuration, NOT that evolution doesn't happen.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 31 2007, 01:56 AM) [snapback]415369[/snapback]</div>

Were looking for the nuclear wessels.. in Alameda..

NUKE-LEEE-AAR WESSELS!?!?!?!?!

10 points to whoever tells me what movie that quote is from.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Mar 30 2007, 11:08 PM) [snapback]415373[/snapback]</div>

Nuclear Weasels? I love Pavel and was a bit disappointed that in the end he did not get his own command. <_<

Wildkow

p.s. ST IV

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 30 2007, 10:56 PM) [snapback]415369[/snapback]</div>

There are no conclusions in my speculation and it is no different than the speculation that has been used for ages to form a hypothesis and thus a premise for further study. The Coelacanth has not, as far as I know or scientists know, evolved into another species or adapted significantly in 400 million years. That is enough evidence to question whether change in species evolution (CIS) or evolutionary adaptation (EA) in fact ever took place in the Coelacanth or more germane to this topic if it has in fact stopped.
Your argument is formed around the actual existence of (CIS) evolution where mine for the most part and this topic’s general premise is centered on whether or not man has stopped evolving, i.e. present day (CIS) evolution. I do not believe that (CIS) evolution has been observed in any organism present today, which is another reason to question whether the (CIS) process has stopped or in fact ever existed. Without further definition by the OP as to his understanding or definition of evolution, i.e. change in species (CIS) or evolutionary adaptation (EA), I would have to say that there is no evidence of the former and little if any of the latter going on in Coelacanth’s or Human’s at present. Since I provided at least one or two bits of evidence that brings into question whether or not it has stopped could you provide one that it (CIS?) is still on going? There is no sense arguing about EA as I believe in EA and a significant number of other believers in creation also believe in EA.
BTW your marble analogy is flawed and misleading, we are not talking about a multitude of colored marbles (processes) when we refer to CIS evolution we are talking about one. Therefore a better analog would be that we are looking at a jar full of marbles of every possible hue and color and you’re saying that all these marbles and colors came from one marble and one color and through some unexplainable mysterious process they evolved into all the different marbles and colors. I’m saying balderdash they came from the maker of the marbles and he used the basic primary colors to establish different hues and colors. You can only speculate as to the process of evolution and I can only speculate as to the existence of the marble maker other than the fact that the marbles are here.

Wildkow

p.s. I was polite in my first post and polite I believe in this post all I have done is expressed my POV lets try to keep it that way shall we?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 30 2007, 07:54 PM) [snapback]415280[/snapback]</div>

Simple: Scientists do not say this. The statement that "we use only 10% of our brains" is so phenominally stupid that it boggles the mind. Our entire brain is more or less active, more or less all the time. Every neuron. No scientist with half a brain would claim that "we only use 10% of our brains."

However, most of us do not reach our full intellectual potential, due to inadequate education.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 30 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]415363[/snapback]</div>

Please see my description of the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. To summarize: Most species spend most of their time on earth relatively unchanged. Evolution occurs in relatively short bursts when a small population finds itself in a different environment. If an environment remains unchanged, there is no selective pressure for the species to change.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Mar 30 2007, 10:55 PM) [snapback]415368[/snapback]</div>

Humans could be artificially bred just as plants and animals are. We breed farm animals and agricultural plants to have the traits we want, and we could do the same with people, as far as physical traits. We could breed stronger or faster humans. We could breed smaller humans (to require less food.)

Breeding for intelligence is a different matter because we do not properly understand intelligence or how to accurately measure it. Many people we judge to be unintelligent are merely uneducated. And IQ tests notoriously do not provide anything like an accurate measure of intelligence. However, if we ever did learn to measure innate intelligence, we could breed humans for it.

The only thing preventing us is the ethical consideration. Experience shows us that people who want to breed humans for "desirable" traits, usually have very perverted notions of which traits are desirable, and which are undesirable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Mar 31 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]415368[/snapback]</div>

they did that. it was called the eugenics movement, and was a pretty nasty blemish on the records of scientific ethics and the study of genetics. fortunately it was pretty much discredited before it became too much of a widespread policy. however, it was the model that the nazis got their disgusting ideas from...

"In the final analysis, the eugenic description of human life reflected political and social prejudices, rather than scientific facts."
-cold spring harbor laboratory, from the website linked above.

check it out. the more we know about the stupid things we've done in the past, the less likely we are to repeat them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 31 2007, 03:26 AM) [snapback]415411[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely, and I appreciate your sentiments very much. If you are making this statement because you feel my response was less than polite I apologize; I certainly intended no incivility.

Now to further respond:

The crux of your position seems to be that EA (evolutionary adaptation) is possible, but not CIS (change in species evolution). Since the only difference (that I can discern) between EA and CIS is merely degree, why would you allow one but not the other? A single mutation could so alter an organism it would no longer be regarded as the same species as its mom and dad. Such mutations may be rare (and rarer still that they would confer survival benefits advantageous enough to blossom into a sustained new species), but there's no probabalistic or biological reason such an event can't occur - and likely DID occur, thousands or millions of times across the vast reach of hundreds of millions of years and billions of species of lifeforms.

But even allowing the rather arbitray restriction that abrupt CIS aren't possible, the more important point is that 100 EAs = 1 CIS, so even if a CIS adaptation isn't attainable all at once it will certainly become a reality after a succession of EAs has made the descendant so different from its ancestor they can no longer be regarded as the same species. So whether all at once or gradually, CIS is a demonstrable fact - HAS to be a fact, else there would only be ONE species of life.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 31 2007, 03:26 AM) [snapback]415411[/snapback]</div>

Au contraire, sir. There's an extremely serious situation affecting medicine: misuse of anti-biotics has given rise to anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria: mutated bacteria whose mutation makes them immune to anti-biotics. There's EA by the bucketload and I'm sure some CIS as well right before our eyes, given the diversity of bacterial strains.

But if you're saying no one's observed a cow turn into a peacock in the present, you're right; and it's unlikely anyone ever will see that dramatic a change in their lifetime. A change on that order can only be observed in a fossil record spanning millions, or hundreds of millions of years. Most evolutionary change is via EAs, tiny ones, that over the course of time accumulate into CIS.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 31 2007, 03:26 AM) [snapback]415411[/snapback]</div>

Bingo - except the process is neither mysterious nor unexplainable: they're all the product of a trillion EAs - and the power of exponential growth. Keep in mind that the first marble ultimately gave rise to two marbles, via the 100 or so EAs it took to make them sufficiently different from each other to consider them as two marbles. But now the potential for change has DOUBLED, because there are two instead of one. And, ultimately, the two each give rise to yet another set of marbles, so that now there are FOUR, and the the potential for change is QUADRUPLED. Each successive CIS compounds the potential for change, not merely adds to it, so that the jar eventually overflows with immense diversity. Survival fitness moderates the process - it isn't raw exponential growth - once four marbles were reached one of the marbles failed to survive to there were really only three that carried on the evolutionary process enough to give rise to CIS via their EAs.

Understanding how it works, it's difficult to see any reason why such a process would ever stop. There's every reason to assume it's continuing, and immense evidence that is IS continuing. Just because most of the change happens in such a way we don't notice it unless we look for it does in no way justify an assumption that the process must have halted.

Thanks very much again for your courteous tone - I'm sure we still largely disagree, but that's just a trifle against the larger issue of widening our perspective by honest consideration of different points of view.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Survival goes to those that adapt.

If we've stopped evolving we've started the road to extinction.

Changes aren't just physical like pinky toes and wisdom teeth. (By the way I have no problem independantly moving my pinky toes. But all four of my wisdom teeth were impacted and had to be removed surgically.)

There are some that believe we are already evolving into a new species. Our children, who have never known a world without computers, video games, iPods, cellphones, etc., are being referred to as digital natives. Some studies have shown their brains are wired different. Their degree of multitasking is much higher than what used to be the average. They are highly visual and more technologically intuitive. A higher percentage test for ADHD as well. I'm thinking they're not so much ADHD as they are just different than the previous generation.

As more and more of these digital natives grown older and become a larger proportion of humans, we'll better see exactly what kind of change may be taking place.

Digital natives/ Digital immigrants

 

So if we start colonizing planets in the future, we can expect to evolve from the humans on Earth depending on the environment and being isolated from Earth for a long period of time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Mar 31 2007, 05:46 PM) [snapback]415653[/snapback]</div>

Yes. We've already done this.

Asians, Africans, Europeans all came from a common ancester. Our skin, hair, eyes are different shades of color. We have different shapes. The diseases we are prone to can also be cultural.

There's no reason to believe this won't continue if in the future gene pools are isolated by space colonization.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 31 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]415547[/snapback]</div>

If by "super-human" you were to mean, for example, the ability to hear sounds at a lower wavelength than we can hear today, that would certainly be possible, and could be called "super-human" since it is beyond the ability of humans today.

But if you are suggesting that we mught evolve supernatural powers, that is as preposterous as claims of the supernatural in any other context. Telepathy is bunk, just as religion is.

I am reminded of an incredibly stupid movie (though the female leads are extremely fetching) in which individuals have independent "mutations" giving each of them an entirely distinct supernatural power.

No genetic mutation will give anybody supernatural powers, but we may evolve the ability to see wavelengths of light slightly beyond the wavelengths we can see today. Over a much longer time frame, we might evolve a sinus system better adapted to our upright stance. Both of these would be "superhuman" in a manner of speaking

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 31 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]415659[/snapback]</div>

I do not know how valid this is but I believe I read somewhere that humans from 30,000yra had thicker bones and more robust jaws and teeth. Not to be confused with neaderthalensis.

Nevermind, I found something similar:

 

We've also gotten taller over the centuries.

Compare the average height of a male now with a male of the 14th century.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 31 2007, 07:12 PM) [snapback]415671[/snapback]</div>

That's a pretty strong statement for something you have absolutely no way of proving or disproving. I would contend that your stating that telepathy (or the possibility of it) is bunk is no less a belief than those that religions are based on. You could argue that there is no scientific proof that telepathy has ever been successfully performed, but that doesn't mean it won't ever be. Few words/concepts in the English language have been proven wrong more times than "impossible".