Genetic acceleration

[sunspot]

If we look at the evolution of animals on earth, the path was slow until humans came along. After that, only humanity has evolved at an accelerated rate. For example, just in the past 50 years life expectancy has increased considerably.

 

What makes humans different from animals are our minds. Animals reach a certain level of adaptation and don't progress their minds, unless there is a pertubation within the environment. New behavior and adaptation will eventually parallel with a genetic improvement. Humans, never stop adapting because we are always changing the environment, for example via culture.

 

For example, animal behavior was a gradual process. When animals are born they already exhibit behavior similar to their species, implicit of a genetic preprogramming. Since the preprogramming was a slow process, genetics only expressed modern behavior, fully, late in the evolutionary process. This implies the brain and behavior molding the genetics for the future generations. If one assumes that genetics is the basis for evolution, the quickening of human evolution, relative to the slow boat path of animals differs only by the rate of human adaptation. This strongly suggests the brain and the nervous system having an impact on genetics.

[Helix]

If we look at the evolution of animals on earth' date=' the path was slow until humans came along. After that, only humanity has evolved at an accelerated rate. For example, just in the past 50 years life expectancy has increased considerably.

[/quote']

 

The increase in life expectancy was due to medicine, not evolution. Our genes didn't go into overdrive and make us so much better adapted to living; our understanding of medicine led us to make breakthroughs in how to live longer. Evolution is more or less contant, the buildup of genetic mutations cause us to change and therefore that isn't going to fluctuate in speed spontaneously.

 

What makes humans different from animals are our minds. Animals reach a certain level of adaptation and don't progress their minds, unless there is a pertubation within the environment. New behavior and adaptation will eventually parallel with a genetic improvement. Humans, never stop adapting because we are always changing the environment, for example via culture.

 

You make it seem like there are animals and then there are humans. In terms of evolution we are the same, just humans are father "down the road" of evolution. Animals continue to develop just as humans do, and why shouldn't they? There is an inherent urge to survive in all animals, including humans, that compels animals to be continually responsive to their environment. You are right in saying humans are always changing, but so are animals.

 

If one assumes that genetics is the basis for evolution, the quickening of human evolution, relative to the slow boat path of animals differs only by the rate of human adaptation. This strongly suggests the brain and the nervous system having an impact on genetics.

 

Genetics is the basis for evolution. But, again, the only evolutionary difference between animals and humans is that we've been at this longer; it's not that we evolved faster. When were were at the stage of animals today, sometime in the age of mammals, we were on just the same clip.

 

I think you mean to say that the human's mind, over the past few hundred years, has taken in new information and done more impressive things than animals. After all, you don't see too many beavers surfing the web and debating particle theory, do you? But this isn't because we evolve faster, it's because we reached an intellectual plateau, and the animals haven't. We are able to advance at a breakneck pace, not due to evolution in overdrive but because our minds are in overdrive.

[ecoli]

It sounds to me, like you are saying the the brain and behavior is causing the evolution of species. But, isn't it really the other way around?

 

Or did I totally miss what you said.

[Sisyphus]

Helix is right about almost everything, but I would like to clarify one thing. Humans are NOT "farther down the road" than anything else. There is no "road" that is a set path for evolution, for which anything farther along that road is "more evolved." The only way something can be "more evolved" is if it is better able to produce a lot of surviving offspring. By that measure, there are many, many organisms more evolved than humans.

 

An increase in intelligence is not necessarily an evolutionary "improvement." It's only an improvement if it results in more or better offspring. Human intelligence might seem like a great thing, but it also has a huge cost. No species that I know of is more helpless or dependent on its parents for a longer period of time than humans, because all those complex neural pathways take a long time to develop. Even within our species, we see less intelligent people having more children sooner, because more intelligent people tend to find reasons not to have children. Therefore, the human race is evolving to become less intelligent.

 

And no, there's no such thing as "people" and "animals." We ARE animals.

[Helix]

Helix is right about almost everything, but I would like to clarify one thing. Humans are NOT "farther down the road" than anything else. There is no "road" that is a set path for evolution, for which anything farther along that road is "more evolved." The only way something can be "more evolved" is if it is better able to produce a lot of surviving offspring. By that measure, there are many, many organisms more evolved than humans.

 

Your right, that isn't the best analogy. What I meant was humans are more "advanced" in terms of neural capacity and dominance (not in numbers but in control). Evolution's goal is producing offspring, so by that beetles are far more "evolved" than we are.

 

An increase in intelligence is not necessarily an evolutionary "improvement." It's only an improvement if it results in more or better offspring. Human intelligence might seem like a great thing, but it also has a huge cost.

 

Well, in a way you are right. Evolution's ultimite goal is survival of the species and due to our intelligence we are very likely to keep surviving. But, as you said, that's not all good. Sure, maybe predators aren't a problem now but thermonuclear wars are. We need to worry about self-annihilation, something that evolution doesn't take into account.

 

I do disagree with you on one thing, and that's the point that we are evolving to be less intelligent. If that were true we would go extinct. Intelligence is all we have; we aren't as strong as lions, or durable as cockroaches or even as prolific as mosquitoes. Our collective intelligence and our ability to tame our surroundings is what has preserved us. Evolution wouldn't "want" that to reverse (want in "'s because it isn't actually a sentient being )

[Sisyphus]

Well, we may very well go extinct very soon. Or maybe non-genetic intelligence, in the form of AI or something, will save us. Or maybe future generations will embrace eugenics, or artificial genetic modification. But for the time being, if genetically dumber people are having more kids, then yes, we are evolving to be less intelligent.

[Helix]

Well, we may very well go extinct very soon. Or maybe non-genetic intelligence, in the form of AI or something, will save us. Or maybe future generations will embrace eugenics, or artificial genetic modification. But for the time being, if genetically dumber people are having more kids, then yes, we are evolving to be less intelligent.

 

But evolving to become less intelligent, which I agree is happening, is not good for us as a species. Intelligence is our only advantage over other animals and our environment. Take away are minds and were up the primordial creek without a paddle.

 

Yes, we may be too smart for our own good but that's better than the alternative. That alternative being us as smart as dolphins, leaving us vulnerable to predators that will expand their territory due to our decline. The animals kingdom as a whole will expand and try to usurp us as "dominent" if we become less intelligent and therefore less expansive (as in no more globalization) and without our ol' noggins we're not going to fare so well.

[Sisyphus]

But evolving to become less intelligent, which I agree is happening, is not good for us as a species.

 

I thought you said it wasn't happening. But yeah, I don't particularly think it's good for the species as a whole at all. But it is still "good" for individual members of the species, because being less intelligent tends to lead to having more children.

[Helix]

I don't think it's happening as a wide-sweeping change, but rather I agree it's a growing trend.

 

But it is still "good" for individual members of the species, because being less intelligent tends to lead to having more children.

 

I disagree with this, how is there a correlation between intelligence and the urge to produce children? If anything, smarter individuals will realize that having children is vital and will do so.

[sunspot]

If one bought a small kitten, and observed it, even though there was not sufficient time for it to be taught by its mother, it will still behave like a cat; not just any cat but a domesticated cat. It will also run around the house chasing imaginary prey practicing its hunting skills. On can probably assume that this brain software was induced by genetics. This modern state is the result of many years of evolution, where progressive behavior became part of the genetics. A mutation did not make it domesticated. It learned this from humans and this learning has become part of its genetics. Or the brain and nervous system leading the DNA to a more advanced state.

 

I have a niece, who instinctively knew how to read. At 4 she could read at a high school level. Humans, in general, didn't learn to read until the printing press about 500-600 years ago. Already her genetic based brain software has evolved to where reading is as natural to her as walking.

 

I am not saying the brain is changing all our cells. The only cells that the brain needs to impact are gamete cells, i.e., ovuum and sperm. The whole brain will send a nervous signal that can alter the DNA for progressive change.

[Helix]

If one bought a small kitten, and observed it, even though there was not sufficient time for it to be taught by its mother, it will still behave like a cat; not just any cat but a domesticated cat. It will also run around the house chasing imaginary prey practicing its hunting skills. On can probably assume that this brain software was induced by genetics.

 

I agree that cats, and all animals, show species-specific behavior at an infantile age. And I would even agree that it is due to evolution. But that doesn't give proof to your "evolution in overdrive" hypothesis.

 

I have a niece' date=' who instinctively knew how to read. At 4 she could read at a high school level. Humans, in general, didn't learn to read until the printing press about 500-600 years ago. Already her genetic based brain software has evolved to where reading is as natural to her as walking.

[/quote']

 

Your neice sure does sound gifted, but I don't think it's due to her DNA mutating at a breakneck pace, allowing her to read at an early age. In fact, I really don't even see the correlation. Your neice is smart and therefore can process and learn the task of reading far better than her peers. This is because of some random mutation and/or a good pedigree. It isn't, however, because evolution is going faster so as time goes on people will be smarter, earlier.

[sunspot]

Human accelerated evolution is no longer connected to the superfiscial evolution of the body. That still takes the slow boat path. Where humans are evolving is within the brain and mind.

 

A good experiment would be to go to a primative culture and teach them to read. Since there is little precident in their culture it would be harder than teaching childern where reading has been part of the culture. In the first group the brain did not lead genetic changes that make it easier, while in the second group it did.

 

Let me change directions and demonstrate the brain manipulating DNA. This is an experiment anyone can do. Think about your favorite food. If one does this long enough, they may become hungry. The hunger is due to chain of chemical events stemming from the hypothalamus region of the brain. This thinking about food has essentially alterred the genetic output of the hypothalmus so that all these cells initiate the needed chemical train for hunger, i.e., brain manipulating genetic expression. If the imagination made no difference, we could not alter the chemical output of the hypothalamus, rather its expression would remain on a genetic based schedule. Human willpower allows us to alter this natural genetic schedule.

 

If we look at nervous tissue it is at least a efficient as fiber optics for transmitting data and bandwith. As such, behavior/memeory, integrated within the brain, could theoretically be transmitted to the gamete cells during their halving of the DNA. This could impact the split that is forwarded to the next generation.

[Helix]

A good experiment would be to go to a primative culture and teach them to read. Since there is little precident in their culture it would be harder than teaching childern where reading has been part of the culture. In the first group the brain did not lead genetic changes that make it easier, while in the second group it did.

 

But you have absolutely no proof to back that up. What you're proposing is that Western cultures are inherently smarter than the other "primitive" ones solely because we've been reading longer. That's ridiculous. First off, even the "primitive" cultures have a spoken language, so then shouldn't they be on par with "us" in that regard? There is no proof behind your claim and there are no papers showing a correlation between culture and inherent ability to think.

 

Also, you whole idea centers around normal evolution taking, in your words, "the slow boat path" while the human mind accelerates exponentially. So I have a few questions for your theory, and I'm not saying it's incorrect, I just want to see some proof.

 

1) What is the difference between the "slow boat path" and our fast path? What is their relation to each other?

2) Do you have any proof for this claim, besides anecdotal evidence?

3) How does this fit into evolution, if it does at all? If not, what theory explains this acceleration?

 

I personally don't belive this idea, but if you could answer those questions I could better understand your reasoning. It is a good obervation, we seem to be getting more advanced every day. But if there is a scientific rule, as you assert, that can validate this, I am unsure.

[Sisyphus]

I think this thread should be moved to pseudoscience.

[Ophiolite]

Let me change directions and demonstrate the brain manipulating DNA. This is an experiment anyone can do. Think about your favorite food. If one does this long enough, they may become hungry. The hunger is due to chain of chemical events stemming from the hypothalamus region of the brain. This thinking about food has essentially alterred the genetic output of the hypothalmus so that all these cells initiate the needed chemical train for hunger, i.e., brain manipulating genetic expression. .

You do realise you are talking nonsense? Just what exactly is the 'genetic output of the hypothalmus'? The output is in the form of signals. There is absolutely no change in the genetic character of the cells involved, yet this is what you are stating. Provide a single shred of evidence to support such a ludicrous suggestion.

You will note that I have deliberately used emotive words (nonsense, ludicrous) in the above. If you have even a passing understanding of biology and genetics you will recognise that what you are proposing is at odds with just about all the fundamentals. If you are going to speculate so wildly, with no supporting evidence, then you must expect some vigorous criticism.

[insane_alien]

you could take a clone of an early modern human(homo sapiens) and teach him/her to read. we haven't evolvedd a lot over the last 20,000years

[sunspot]

When I mentioned the imagination manipulating the hypothalamus DNA, I was not saying that the DNA was altered in genetic content or that genes were shuffled, rather imagination led to the unpacking of some of the DNA, or in the very least, increased the transcription rate stemming from certain genes on the DNA within the hypothalamus. If it did not, there would only be a fixed amount of chemical output associated with the hunger instinct, and one could not get hungrier by thinking about food. That is how cells work. An external potential is met with the needed genetic expression to deal with the potential entering the cell.

 

The slow boat and fast boat was only an analogy. The body appears more conservative and has not change anywhere near as fast as human behavior. Human behavior, if often attributed to genes, i.e, smart gene, dumb gene, etc. The genes associated with brain software that underlies human behavior are changing faster than those associated with the body. All one has to do is dig up an ancient person from 10,000 years ago and compare their bodies and extent of their behavior to modern humans. The bodies have not changed much but behavior sure has.

 

One alternate way to interpret the rapidly advancing behavior is that humans, apart from culture, are much less than with culture. In other words, culture might be an intellectual/material prosthesis device that creates the illusion of higher levels of behavior. If we took away culture, maybe the 10,000 year old is actually as, or more advanced, since he had to do almost everything on his own. How many can keep their car running without culture doing it for them. I still believe that the cultural prosthesis has pushed the human mind making it easier and easier for each generation to perform fundamental and intermediate tasks. If innate behavior stems from DNA, than the DNA must have been alterred