Continued Human Evolution

[blackhole123]

Now that human intelligence has evolved to what it is now, will the evolution process for us slow? Think about it. Instead of survival of the fittest we are able to keep people alive that would otherwise die out in nature, and these people are able to reproduce. So while evolution won't stop it seems like it would slow down.

 

So if this is the case, would it be possible for a "super-species" to evolve? It would take so long that some natural event would certainly come around and make that species extinct long before it could evolve to such an extent.

[Sequence]

I think evolution will slow down now, like it has for a while, but eventually somthing huge will happen. Then it will kick start again.

[Dr. Dalek]

Now that human intelligence has evolved to what it is now, will the evolution process for us slow? Think about it. Instead of survival of the fittest we are able to keep people alive that would otherwise die out in nature, and these people are able to reproduce. So while evolution won't stop it seems like it would slow down.

 

So if this is the case, would it be possible for a "super-species" to evolve? It would take so long that some natural event would certainly come around and make that species extinct long before it could evolve to such an extent.

 

I don't think there will ever be a super-species blackhole, such seems too much of a second rate science fiction concept to me.

 

But I think you are right we are likly to slow down, if not totaly corrupt our genome out of excessive compassion and go extinct. Also there might be alittle more tha just brain power to our evolution, such as that new theory of humans being designed to be long distance endurance runners.

[JHAQ]

I think human evolution is retrograde as the normal processes of natural selection no longer exist . Modern medicine allows perpetuation of defectiver genes .

[jackson33]

no i disagree with most here. evolution will not slowing and inorganic life is evolving much faster due to man.

 

the use of what we already have or the is not part of evolution. that is we would seem to be super human to some human form of 60,000 years ago. certainly well beyond the apparent difference. the man or woman of 2300 would seem super human to us.

 

if there is a slowing, it would only be in humans since we medically maintain

life of what should fail. this would have been failed life, breeds and so on...trying not to be distasteful...

[insane_alien]

inorganic life

 

??? give us an example on inorganic life please, this is interesting.

[jackson33]

many plants are hybrids of the original, the original still existent but rarely used.

 

most all farm produced food has been increased or enhanced in some manner.

shorter time for maturity, more plants per acre, more seed or food stuff per acre and so on...corn not many years ago required a foot in all directions to produce. now 12 can produce in that foot.

 

seedless grapes and watermelons and many taste changes in a final product.

 

much plant life can now be planted in areas 100 years ago could not survive. further north, further south, dryer area or wet. primarily produce.

 

many products can be produced (grown) in colors not original in nature. many climbing vines have been been made from plants, never known to have been before.

[Dr. Dalek]

many plants are hybrids of the original, the original still existent but rarely used.

 

most all farm produced food has been increased or enhanced in some manner.

shorter time for maturity, more plants per acre, more seed or food stuff per acre and so on...corn not many years ago required a foot in all directions to produce. now 12 can produce in that foot.

 

seedless grapes and watermelons and many taste changes in a final product.

 

much plant life can now be planted in areas 100 years ago could not survive. further north, further south, dryer area or wet. primarily produce.

 

many products can be produced (grown) in colors not original in nature. many climbing vines have been been made from plants, never known to have been before.

Is this an answer to the inorganic life thing? Because if it is it dosn't make sense. Anything that contains carbon is organic, chemicaly, and all known life contains carbon.

[jackson33]

yes this was in response to a question on advancements of plant life or inorganic life.

 

on the organic side, evolution is not likely to slow because humans arrived.

[SkepticLance]

Evolution never stops, though it can change direction. Currently, due to our stirling efforts to preserve humans with defective genes, those genes are increasing in the human gene pool. We could call this devolution.

 

However, I do not believe this will continue for long. Our knowledge of genetics (both theoretical, and very, very practical) is increasing dramatically. It is only a matter of time till we manipulate human genetics in such a way as to simulate accelerated evolution. The hypothetical 'super-human' is very, very possible.

[psynapse]

I believe we are almost forcing our selfs to evolve. For instance over population will cause humans to at top level to perform better. We also have "smart" drugs like the one used to help memory development in the cure for Alzheimer's. Also as our society is gearing towards a more mental survival of the fittest, I believe we just shift the mode of evolution and the future human will have a photographic memory or another feature which will help said individual to perform better in school and life in general.

[Dr. Dalek]

yes this was in response to a question on advancements of plant life or inorganic life.

 

on the organic side, evolution is not likely to slow because humans arrived.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Last time I checked plants were not inorganic,

 

if I have mistook your statements please correct me or clarify yourself.

 

I believe we are almost forcing our selfs to evolve. For instance over population will cause humans to at top level to perform better. We also have "smart" drugs like the one used to help memory development in the cure for Alzheimer's. Also as our society is gearing towards a more mental survival of the fittest, I believe we just shift the mode of evolution and the future human will have a photographic memory or another feature which will help said individual to perform better in school and life in general.

Yes people who perform better because of intelligence, athletic gifts, etc would seem more likly to make more money, gain more fame, and therefore breed more. That is why I am a firm believer in capitolism, survival of the stingiest and most clever.

[jck]

Hi,

 

I have never posted on evolution as mainly I am interested in particle physics before big bang.

 

However watching the tv series "The Secret Life of Plants" something did not seem right, of course plants evolve but I never really thought about it before.

 

See the problem was with one plant in particular, a certain kind of butterfly would lay its egg on the plant leaves. The egg was like a small yellow berry and somehow the plant had evolved to grow a striking number of similar small yellow berries. Now the certain butterfly would always look over the plant carefully before laying the egg as it did not want too much competition from other eggs for the food the plant would provide.

 

There is a serious problem with this scenario.

 

I am sure those of you who understand plants and evolution far better than myself will have answers for how this evolved but right now I have a serious problem regarding the nature of how this was done.

 

I assume that the plant did not work out this butterfly was laying the small yellow eggs to eat it later. How did the plant know there was a problem that could then be solved by producing a berry similar to the small yellow egg and indeed whether this would be effective at all?

 

I mean this is a smarter solution than many humans would work out.

 

Plus how long a period would it take to mutate to produce the berries?

 

I have absolutely no prior ideas on evolution apart from what is in the general domain and it is only this problem that finally got me posting here.

 

 

Nice to get some views from those in the know.

 

best wishes,

john

jck

[insane_alien]

many plants are hybrids of the original, the original still existent but rarely used.

 

most all farm produced food has been increased or enhanced in some manner.

shorter time for maturity, more plants per acre, more seed or food stuff per acre and so on...corn not many years ago required a foot in all directions to produce. now 12 can produce in that foot.

 

seedless grapes and watermelons and many taste changes in a final product.

 

much plant life can now be planted in areas 100 years ago could not survive. further north, further south, dryer area or wet. primarily produce.

 

many products can be produced (grown) in colors not original in nature. many climbing vines have been been made from plants, never known to have been before.

 

This isn't inorganic life, this is just the effects of evolution. its completely organic. just had some evolutionary pressures applied from another life form. this is why EVERYTHING evolves. Foxes eat rabbits, rabbits evolve to be faster. Humans like <insert crop here> so they grow more of the type that tastes good. same thing.

[jackson33]

Dr. Dalek; i am wrong and stand corrected. inorganic life is none existent. in short i have used that phrase for ever in reference to things that do not eat breath or excrete and have no idea how it was not questioned before.

[insane_alien]

if it does eat breath or excrete then it can't be living since no chemical reactions could possibly be taking place. (plants do all three btw.)

[Dr. Dalek]

However watching the tv series "The Secret Life of Plants" something did not seem right, of course plants evolve but I never really thought about it before.

 

See the problem was with one plant in particular, a certain kind of butterfly would lay its egg on the plant leaves. The egg was like a small yellow berry and somehow the plant had evolved to grow a striking number of similar small yellow berries. Now the certain butterfly would always look over the plant carefully before laying the egg as it did not want too much competition from other eggs for the food the plant would provide.

 

There is a serious problem with this scenario.

 

I am sure those of you who understand plants and evolution far better than myself will have answers for how this evolved but right now I have a serious problem regarding the nature of how this was done.

 

I assume that the plant did not work out this butterfly was laying the small yellow eggs to eat it later. How did the plant know there was a problem that could then be solved by producing a berry similar to the small yellow egg and indeed whether this would be effective at all?

 

I mean this is a smarter solution than many humans would work out.

 

Plus how long a period would it take to mutate to produce the berries?

 

I have absolutely no prior ideas on evolution apart from what is in the general domain and it is only this problem that finally got me posting here.

 

 

Nice to get some views from those in the know.

 

best wishes,

john

jck

 

Evolution is a very lenthy process that happens as a result of guided accidents. The most likly scenario is that the plant was being eaten by the butterfly larvea, by sheer coincidence one plant either developed berrys, or the color of the berries it naturaly had, through a genetic mutation and the the butterflies became less likely to lay their eggs on it thinking it was already occupied. Thus this plant gained an edge and multiplied faster than its butterfly consumed neighbors.

Its all about the flip of a coin the plant didn't "know" anything about the butterfly in the strcitest sense of the word, but developed a mechanism for protecting itslef never the less.

As for how long a mutation would take, there are mutations happening all the time, but to come up with one that is benifical in the sense of one situation would take thousands of years of one or more mutations happening out of sheer coinincidence. In theory.

[jck]

Dr.Dalek,

 

Many thanks for your reply it is what I had orginally thought.

 

The problem in just this one case was the likelihood of anything remotely resembling the egg being a mutation nevermind a perfect replica, another species had egg like markings again exactly resembling the yellow butterfly eggs. If the original mutation was not a very good replication the plant then had to make the correct adaptations.

 

When you consider all possible mutations initially and the time taken to make that the main species of plant for that butterfly etc it leaves open a wider reaching consideration.

 

Like I said evolution was not my interest really but this situation I do find interesting.

 

john

jck

[psynapse]

If you know anything about evolution you would know that it is all by chance and changes. There are many great examples of fast changes, the most famous probably being the old English industrial moth. This moth was silvery, to land on birch trees and such, but as the industrial revolution in England turned everything sooty the hawks could pick out these silvery moths very quickly. This bottleneck effect , predation, put a stress on the species and killed many off as a result we have a founder effect where a very select few begin breeding again, only these ones were black and not silvery. The moths don't know they need to change their colour. It's the fact that the dark ones were harder to see so they could breed. thats all.

[jck]

psynapse,

 

I am less happy now after reading your post than I was before.

 

Silver moths dying out is logical.

 

Now as you say a few, not a lot, started breeding again and with the hawks still around the correct mutation had to be found quickly.

 

The vast amount of patterns and colours available but the correct one was chosen. Another problem I am having is why the change was not made earlier as the silver moths could have done with a colour change, almost as if they were left as a food source deliberately until the food source become at risk.

 

Anyway, it is plants that my concern really revolved around.

 

It is the genetics of the plants over the period they evolve that interests me.

 

All the millions of mutations are chance mutations?

 

john

jck

[Dr. Dalek]

I'm not sure where your confusion lies but I can answer this one.

All the millions of mutations are chance mutations?

In theory yes, but there are also mechanisms like transposons, or "jumping genes" that can cause localized mutations and also hypermutation which can happen in white blood cells.

Transposons more or less just activate or deactivate genes as neccissary over the course of a creatures lifetime whereas hypermutation is just a proccess of speeding up natural mutation in white blood cells so that antibodies can be created.

So mutations do have some controlls but they are essentialy random. (someone correct me if I'm wrong about the transposons)

[jck]

Dr.Dalek,

 

No confusion about anything you say, I agree that plants would be ideal for study of such things and I have no particular knowledge so was happy to accept the standard explanations whatever they happened to be.

 

The problem is more deep rooted, for example where are all the millions of mutations going on non-stop that will eventually prove to fail?

 

I mean all we see are correct mutations after the fact, plants must have the massive majority of such mutations that fail ongoing.

 

Yes, we have all seen the mutations in vegatables that happen along the way but they tend to be a physical abnormailty.

 

john

jck

[abciximab]

psynapse,

 

I am less happy now after reading your post than I was before.

 

Silver moths dying out is logical.

 

Now as you say a few, not a lot, started breeding again and with the hawks still around the correct mutation had to be found quickly.

 

The vast amount of patterns and colours available but the correct one was chosen. Another problem I am having is why the change was not made earlier as the silver moths could have done with a colour change, almost as if they were left as a food source deliberately until the food source become at risk.

 

Anyway, it is plants that my concern really revolved around.

 

It is the genetics of the plants over the period they evolve that interests me.

 

All the millions of mutations are chance mutations?

 

john

jck

 

The moths were not silver initially because the trees were initially the white birch trees that we are familiar with. It's not that easy to see a silvery white moth on this, so they were initially camoflauged. Then industrial soot started depositing on these same birch trees, and silvery moths weren't all that camo anymore against a black background. They stood out, and were quickly eaten up. If they happened to have a darker kid, though, it would survive to pass its dark genes on because the hawks wouldn't see it as fast. This would continue and over many generations the standard colour of the moths was black because that was (almost) the only gene left in the gene pool.

 

Your example about the plant and the berry is one of co-evolution; I thought I'd give you the official name because many books and essays have been written on it and it might interest you to read some.

 

Generally co-evolution occurs between species when there is either mutual benefit or an "arms war" in which one or both change to be able to better help or hurt each other. One thing I always try to remember is that there is no intention, force, desire, will, or anything else 'directing' evolution. It is all just a direct response to the ecosystem that makes certain members of a species more likely to be killed. By being killed before having kids, they don't get to pass on their genes.

 

Thus, the right colour wasn't "chosen" for the butterfly eggs, and in the case of the industrial moths there was no choice of when to change colour. All just response to environment.

 

In the case of the plant and butterfly, I'm going to assume that the plant had berries in the first place, because many do (it's how they spread their seed), but let's say they were large and red, not small and yellow like the butterfly eggs. Genes for colour are often determined by varying degrees of expression of a few colours that blend to make the colour we know.

 

Now, the butterfly starts landing on the plant and laying eggs - but they are yellow and small, not red and big. Regardless, other animals enjoy eating eggs because they provide nutrition. So animals start eating these yellow eggs on the plant, which is killing off the butterfly's eggs.

 

By chance, though, once plant may mutate to make a batch of berries that is very unusually small for that species, and perhaps a bit of a lighter red. The butterfly continues laying its eggs on, but when predators come to eat their eggs, some colourblind species might be fooled into thinking the berries are eggs, and eat them instead! This is awesome for both the plant and the buttefly, because:

 

1) Plants want their berries to be eaten. The whole reason berries taste good is so creatures eat them and disperse the seeds inside.

2) The butterfly doesn't want its eggs to be eaten. It means having fewer children.

 

So by having other animals mistaken the eggs for the berries and the berries for the eggs, that batch of berries and that batch of eggs is able to better pass its genes on, while the larger redder berries don't get eaten as much (thus don't pass on their genes) because other animals don't think they are butterfly eggs which are more appetizing.

 

So the genes that were involved in chance mutating the berries to be smaller get passed on and survive very well, and this happens again and again - when there is some mutation in either the eggs or the berries that makes them look more similar to each other, it will be preserved not because of any sort of design, but those genes survive the best, and eventually they will converge in shape and pigment to look exactly the same.

 

I hope this helps; these kinds of things are better explained in conversation but I hope you get the idea. Just remember that it's not force, will, or design, merely preservation of random genetic mutations because those members of the species survived a bit longer to pass genes on.

[SkepticLance]

abciximab

I think you may have misunderstood the moths eggs/imitation eggs deal.

 

As I understand it, the plant makes imitation eggs to STOP the moths laying their eggs on that plant - since the caterpillars that result eat the plant. The moth is not likely to lay its precious eggs where the offspring will face competition from caterpillars from another moth. Thus the moth looks for a plant with no eggs. The plant that has imitation eggs escapes being eaten by caterpillars.

 

On another front. Where do the mutations come from? In fact, most are already there. All life is 3 to 4 billion years old. Over that time, thousands upon thousands of mutations have accumulated in the genomes of the various organisms. Those mutations persist because they do not really do any great harm, and are thus not removed by natural selection. However, sexual reproduction results in gene shuffling, and these mutations can suddenly have an impact. This is the cause of a great deal of normal genetic variation. If two brothers are born - one with a short nose and one with a long nose - it may be due to a long nose mutation suddenly appearing due to gene reshuffling.

 

When a new characteristic is needed - say bumps on a plant to simulate moth eggs (probably initially a very bad simulation - but moths have lousy eyesight), then the mutation is likely to be one that pre-exists. In the normal course of events, one plant in 10,000 may appear with bumps. When the egg laying moth appears in that environment, suddenly the plant with bump making genes is advantageous. Bump making genes survive and become more common. Those that are associated with other mutations (which appear all the time due to gene shuffling) that make the bumps look even more like eggs are even more likely to survive.

 

etc.

 

And at the same time, new mutations are always appearing, albeit at a far slower rate. Those that do harm are selected out of the population. Those that are relatively harmless may remain.

 

An interesting variation on this is mutations that cause harm, but have their effect later in life.

A harmful mutation like progeria will kill those with that gene at a very young age. It is eliminated from the population within one generation.

Another mutation like haemophilia may not kill quite so young, and it may take a few generations to eliminate it.

Huntingtons disease is a mutation that kicks in middle to late middle age, and it takes a long time to be eliminated from the population by natural selection. Possibly hundreds of generations.

And then there are all the mutations that cause old age. They have their impact after the victim has completed the reproductive process, and raised grandchildren. These harmful mutations are never removed. And they have accumulated over many millions of years, so there are heaps of them. This is what gives us all our inevitable death sentence.

[jck]

Hi abciximab,

 

The explanations are fine and I am sure each particular plant evolution can be described along those lines. It is the mechanisim that allows millions of plants to mutate by accident that does not add up.

 

There is no suggestion of dna actively working out which mutation to initiate in the first place rather the number of perfectly adapted mutations that conveniently happen as a matter of course.

 

Imagine you were a blind plant, how many chance mutations do you get before being wiped out? Plus why not have as many mutations on the same plant as possible hoping one worked?

 

The plant with the yellow berries, where are the other mutations that did not work? No sign of any. So a plant makes one mutation and if that fails well its hard luck?

 

It is not that the plants cannot make the mutations exactly as you say, the numbers involved pose all sorts of problems.

 

Say we knew that all plants had to make one mutation over the next 1000years or it would be wiped out and it had to be deadly accurate in the form of the mutation?

 

Every single one need to make a different specific mutation and has only one chance to do it?

 

The numbers do not add up for me.

 

john

jck