Continued Human Evolution

[SkepticLance]

To jck.

 

Mutations may be classified in three lots.

 

1. Harmful. These are eliminated by natural selection.

2. Neither good not bad. These are conserved to a great degree, and remain in the population. However, they will most probably make up a tiny proportion of the total population genome.

3. Useful. These will increase in number, and become a bigger part of the genome, as a result of natural selection.

 

Most mutations are 1 or 2.

 

However, the classification of good or bad changes with changes in the environment. Genes that are rarely expressed may become common with an environmental change, as they change from neither good or bad to suddenly becoming advantageous.

 

The same thing happens with whole species. Most species are actually quite rare. Of the 20 million or so in existence, only a relatively few are classified as common. When the environment changes, rare species may become common and common ones become rare. This is natural selection at work.

[jck]

Skeptic,

 

An inherent mutation sleeper principle that performs at the right time with the correct mutation asks exactly how and when one is employed.

 

Are you implying that something like autisim is a trial and error mutation where some extremely advanced capabilities may eventually evolve into future humans?

 

Perhaps I am thinking the mutations are dormant but still cannot see how the trigger is pulled. I certainly consider the order for a plant or other no more than the simplist most economical answer nature follows.

 

I still feel something is missing from the puzzle.

 

Thanks again for the info which I can agree with as it stands while looking for a more basic fundamental cause.

 

john

jck

[SkepticLance]

jck

The masses of 'hidden' mutations do express themselves from time to time. This is due purely to chance. An organism is born which contains that mutation either in diploid, or accidentally as a dominant. The mutation expresses.

 

This is, of course, happening all the time. If we look at our fellow humans, we see enormous variation. Some of that variation is mutant genes expressing. Some such expressions are deformities, or handicaps. These would, in the normal course of events, slowly be selected out of the gene pool. However, mutations that cause characteristics that are not very harmful (eg more melanin in the skin of a pale Laplander) are not selected out, or at least only very slowly. Thus they are available as the source of evolutionary change if the environment changes. The Laplanders can evolve darker skins if climate changes, making Lapland exposed to more ultra violet.

[jck]

Skeptic,

 

I have now solved the numbers problem thanks to your replies.

 

The hidden mutations would be the deliberate way nature would ensure as many opportunities as possible can be tried in a short space of time.

 

Now with a crop of 5000 plants at one time each with a subtle mutation most would make no difference at all, the ones that were fatal would be small so no great loss and unlikely to replicate that mutation by chance again.

 

The chances of even two of the plants making the same chance mutation would be small.

 

The plants are actively mutating at every opportunity which is every plant in every crop. That is where the hidden numbers are.

 

Sharks and crocodiles have had the same hidden mutations but nothing has improved the current model so appear not to have evolved but the numbers have been operating all the time.

 

Natures answer, lets make every plant mutate every time only slightly from the original gene then let the numbers provide a better alternative simply because any improvement by chance will propogate.

 

The number of plants that fail using the method will become extinct but that is no great loss compared to the value gained by the majority of plants.

 

many thanks,

john

jck

[SkepticLance]

jck

Nice reply.

[Chupacabra]

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 thing, though, the main problem is the much higher bith-rates among less "successive" humans. Highly intellligent people often tend to concentrate on their career, they get married late in life, and have only one or two children, if any at all. On the other hand, people who procreate heavily often have lower social status and lower IQ. As a result, in ceveral generations humans will at average become less clever, there will be more alcoholics and drug-addicts, because they have more children now. Such devolution will destroy human civilisation long before any natural catastrophe could do it.

[Chupacabra]

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 thing, though, the main problem is the much higher bith-rates among less "successive" humans. Highly intellligent people often tend to concentrate on their career, they get married late in life, and have only one or two children, if any at all. On the other hand, people with a lot of children often have lower social status and lower IQ. As a result, in ceveral generations humans will at average become less clever, there will be more alcoholics and drug-addicts, because they have more children now. Such devolution will destroy human civilisation long before any natural catastrophe could do it.

[jck]

Chupacabra,

 

According to the mass mutations across the boards for plants and humans there is no difference between the so called intelligent minority and the others.

 

It is more likely due to numbers that the others will spring a far greater improvement through mutation than the select few. This would account for certain individuals without much background or education suddenly producing brilliant inventions and discoveries.

 

john

jck

[Edtharan]

I thing, though, the main problem is the much higher bith-rates among less "successive" humans. Highly intellligent people often tend to concentrate on their career, they get married late in life, and have only one or two children, if any at all.

There are 2 successful strategies for raising offspring so that they will produce the next generation. The first is having lots of offspring so that some of them survive, the second is having fewer offspring, but taking care of them.

 

The two strategies give advantages in different situations. In uncertain or hard times, the mass offspring strategy is better because you are more likely to have your offspring survive to reproduce.

 

In situations where the environment is more stable, investing a lot in a few offspring will yield better results.

 

now think about this. People living in poverty have more children, their environment is more "unstable". People in affluent societies are producing less children, but are investing more into them and are in a more stable situation.

 

Humans are a social creature, so having your offspring higher up in the social ladder (education, capital, peer attitudes, medical access, etc) is a desirable advantage. By investing in their children, the affluent people are attempting to increase their child's standing on this social ladder (a high social standing - money and that - means that the grandchildren will more likely survive).

 

SO what we see here is the exact same strategies employed by other animals, but as humans are generalists and have adaptable behaviours (we can learn), we are able to adopt both of these reproduction strategies depending on the situations.

 

It is not lower IQ that creates poverty, but poverty does not give the people the opportunity to develop their talents and exploit them for greater social standing.

 

This "poor people are dumb" attitude has been shown to be totally false. Children born to poor families, when given the opportunities and encouragement of the more affluent children, do just as good.

[jck]

I stand by what I said that the less well off will produce the evolution of the species to a greater extent than the so called intelligent educated affluent minority.

 

Those who control the masses at some point find the masses rebel overturning their status, those who simply inherit wealth find themselves at some point in difficulties keeping up the ever increasing burdons through generations. There is little incentive for those well off to struggle to find new ways or ideas to change anything.

 

In the past with extreme poverty the masses were kept in poverty and left with no means of improving their lot, this has not been the case for nearly 50 years and the result is across the board advances.

 

Strange that a massive increase in developement of advances in all areas coincide with the freedom given to the masses.

 

The numbers favour the less well off and the majority without a university education which questions exactly who is intelligent in the first place.

 

john

jck

[Chupacabra]

According to the mass mutations across the boards for plants and humans there is no difference between the so called intelligent minority and the others.

 

It is more likely due to numbers that the others will spring a far greater improvement through mutation than the select few. This would account for certain individuals without much background or education suddenly producing brilliant inventions and discoveries.

 

In animals, every successful mutation is settled because animals with such mutations leave more offsprings that inherit mutations. In humans, when genius emerges, it rarely leaves many offsprings, so favourable mutations just die out.

[Chupacabra]

There are 2 successful strategies for raising offspring so that they will produce the next generation. The first is having lots of offspring so that some of them survive, the second is having fewer offspring, but taking care of them.

 

The two strategies give advantages in different situations. In uncertain or hard times, the mass offspring strategy is better because you are more likely to have your offspring survive to reproduce.

 

In situations where the environment is more stable, investing a lot in a few offspring will yield better results.

 

now think about this. People living in poverty have more children, their environment is more "unstable". People in affluent societies are producing less children, but are investing more into them and are in a more stable situation

 

This is true for animals with a high infant mortality, and not true for humans. Presently, even for poor and uneducated, the child mortality is pretty low, so even when "investments" in children are low, they are nevertheless likely to survive and procreate. In wild animals, there is a direct relation between prosperity and procreation, and for modern humans such relation seems to be an opposite one.

[SkepticLance]

Chupacabra.

Your logic is sound, but only applies to the short term future, which is not important in terms of a long term process such as evolution.

 

The reason, at the risk of repeating myself, is that humans will (probably within 100 years) take control of their own genetic development. Advantageous genes will be inserted into the human genome. This will undoubtedly include genes for high intelligence. Harmful genes will be deleted.

 

Our descendents in a few centuries will doubtless be far smarter than we are. And stronger. Faster. Healthier. Longer lived. etc.

[jck]

Genius is the capability to arrive at the correct answer without doing all the work, genius has not died out as far as I can acertain.

 

Unfortunately humans taking control of their own genetic make-up would have the opposite affect, it would stagnate the species at a certain level. The crux of evolution relies on mutation at random in all genes across the species allowing for the good and bad so that any lucky guesses increase the species and any bad mistakes are quickly elliminated.

 

Humans are hardly likely to take any chances on random mutations to allow this process to continue.

 

john

jck