won't humans {and others} evolve to fit things like global warming?

[cameron marical]

Is global warming happening too fast for evolution to occur? Wont we and other life forms evolve to fit our environment?

[Kyrisch]

This may be true, but for evolution to occur, natural selection must take its toll. And that means death of the unfit. We should rather like to avoid that, so the better route is to cut down on emissions.

[GDG]

Is global warming happening too fast for evolution to occur? Wont we and other life forms evolve to fit our environment?

 

Nothing stops evolution from occurring. Unfortunately, sometimes evolution involves things like mass extinction.

 

Right now, we depend fairly precariously on the ability of modern agriculture to generate food -- far more food than sustainable methods would provide. We run the risk that our food supply will not be as viable under a different climate regime. Changing weather conditions can also affect the nutrition that food provides; e.g., you may find that wheat grows faster in a warmer climate, but is less nutritious.

 

Something will survive: it just won't necessarily be human...

[swansont]

For an event that's happening over the span of a generation or two, you can only select for existing genetic difference. So for some species there might not be an existing adaptation on which selection pressure can be exerted.

 

Humans already occupy diverse climates, so the threat to us is one of lifestyle rather than extinction, i.e. some lives threatened, but not all.

[Sisyphus]

Right now, we depend fairly precariously on the ability of modern agriculture to generate food -- far more food than sustainable methods would provide.

 

Just a nitpick. Modern agriculture is not necessarily "unsustainable" any more than a hunter gatherer society would be. In fact our hunting and gathering has arguably been a lot less sustainable - prehistoric humans hunted lots of things to extinction, but carefully moderated and rotated crops can produce food pretty much indefinitely. Hunter-gatherers are also tend to be a lot more "precariously" dependent on constant conditions, as they have no means to intentionally modify or increase their food supply. A farming society (particularly a modern one), OTOH, can just pick different crops in the even of climate change, or use more land. (Not to say that there's no such thing as unsustainable agriculture - "slash and burn" method is a good example.)

 

The rest of your post I agree with.

[cameron marical]

For an event that's happening over the span of a generation or two, you can only select for existing genetic difference. So for some species there might not be an existing adaptation on which selection pressure can be exerted.

 

Thats precisely what I ment when I asked if global warming was too fast for evolution.

[GDG]

Just a nitpick. Modern agriculture is not necessarily "unsustainable" any more than a hunter gatherer society would be. In fact our hunting and gathering has arguably been a lot less sustainable - prehistoric humans hunted lots of things to extinction, but carefully moderated and rotated crops can produce food pretty much indefinitely. Hunter-gatherers are also tend to be a lot more "precariously" dependent on constant conditions, as they have no means to intentionally modify or increase their food supply. A farming society (particularly a modern one), OTOH, can just pick different crops in the even of climate change, or use more land. (Not to say that there's no such thing as unsustainable agriculture - "slash and burn" method is a good example.)

 

The rest of your post I agree with.

 

I wasn't thinking of a comparison to hunter-gatherers, but since you bring it up, let me play devil's advocate.

 

I'm not sure I agree that hunter-gatherers live more precariously on a day-to-day basis, and are more at the mercy of their local environment. As they generally rely on a much greater variety of foods, they are less at risk of any one food going unavailable. Their food supply is no more susceptible to fire or flood than any farm. The main differences, I think, are that modern monoculture farming renders one's food supply susceptible to devastation by pests (e.g., locusts) or disease (think "potato blight"). What the hunter-gatherer lacks is the infrastructure to get food from another area in the case of disaster (fire or flood), or to migrate into an unaffected area. Hunter-gathering worked for several hundred thousand years before the advent of agriculture, which we've had for what, 20,000 years?

 

In my comments regarding modern agriculture, I was thinking more of the fact that it requires a fair amount of chemical supplementation (fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides) to make it work, most of which is derived from petroleum. As oil becomes more expensive, so does our food. When one factors in the fuel necessary to make, transport, and apply the supplements, and then the transportation from farm to city, well, the only reason it is profitable for farms is that it is government-subsidized in the US. Intensive agriculture extracts nutrients from the soil, causing nutrient depletion that must be corrected with fertilizers. Yes, well-designed crop rotation minimizes this, and restores some nutrients (mainly organic material and nitrates), but not minerals. Unless your fields are subject to periodic flooding by the local river, or to being covered with volcanic ash every now and then, you'll eventually have to replace the minerals in order to grow anything.

 

Perhaps we should split this into a separate thread, under "environment"...

[ecoli]

We already have evolved to fight global warming... we evolved the capacity for invention and social coercion. Those two things "created" global warming and they will also "fix" it.

[bassist118]

The time frame is far too short, you need a few thousand years for natural selection to take place by the time we evolve to the point to cope with global warming they may not be any of us left. Given a longer time scale then yes we would unless you're into creationist theory then we're all ****ed.

 

 

Andy

[Deko]

Humans are very, very resourceful and will not become extinct due to global warming. Many millions or billions could die millions more on the brink and its "the brink" that induces mutations and survival of the fittest and therefore evolution. Humans as you can see by looking at a map can adapt pretty well to different climates. Other animals, plants and bacteria will face these same challenges many will fare worse and many will cope better. As a civilization humanity would crumble long before the species dies out. We have had only a short and easy spell at being top of the chain. Something like a global ice-age for 300,000 years would be needed for adaptations to turn into a new species.

[john5746]

Is global warming happening too fast for evolution to occur? Wont we and other life forms evolve to fit our environment?

 

Evolution would come up with a solution by terminating those that could not cope with their new environments. Humans rely on their ability to control their environment, rather than to live comfortably in it. If we lost our civilization tomorrow, many would die just from natural exposure to the environment and competing with one another.

[Tolmosoff]

Global warming and depleated ozon levels will generate dark skin on the white fair complected humans.

Yes we will become as a dark generation will cause our DNA to produce more melanene to protect from cancers and tumors . We may all look like our president.

[Sisyphus]

Global warming and depleated ozon levels will generate dark skin on the white fair complected humans.

Yes we will become as a dark generation will cause our DNA to produce more melanene to protect from cancers and tumors . We may all look like our president.

 

That would only happen if global warming and depleted ozone levels somehow made fairer-skinned people significantly less fit, either by killing them off or making them have fewer children. I don't see that happening.

[Tolmosoff]

Noah had three sons and after the flood one son ( Japhet ) took his wife and migrated to northurn Europe causeing thier desendance DNA to have Light skin and became city builders, sky scraper, and bridge builders and inventors.

 

Shem and wife stayed and became the religious nations and wars.

 

Ham that laughed at his naked drunk father Noah was banished and took his wife into deep Africa and thier DNA caused them to have black skin to protect them from getting skin cancer.

 

I don't know if this is true but a logical answer I got on TV.

[Sisyphus]

Wow.

[Tolmosoff]

You ever put a plywood 4 by 8 on your grass and a week later your grass is white.

[Dudde]

I don't see the relevance between dead grass with no chance to photosynthesize and dark skin?

 

EDIT:

which is in no way an invitation to try to explain it, please don't. This thread was kind of interesting, don't kill it

[Tolmosoff]

I think our suns radiation has everything to do in the evolution of DNA melenie of skin coloring.

[insane_alien]

yes, it does. but it is not comparable to dead grass.

 

when you put plywood on the grass you eventually kill it(because it needs light to survive)

 

humans do not need light to survive.

 

when humans moved north(and it had nothing to do with japhet noah or the rest of them) the excess melanin humans had from originating in africa caused vitamin D deficiencies as the light was blocked by the melanin. those with lighter skin produced more vitamin D and were less likely to experience vitamin D deficiencies and hence fitter.

 

global warming will not change skin colours as skin colour is not temperature dependant(if you look at the inuit, they can have significant amounts of melanin) but dependant on how much light you recieve.

 

near the equater, it is direct light, at the poles it is light reflected from the snow makingit brighter than it would otherwise be.

[Tolmosoff]

So if you got deprived of total sun light for a year you will get sick and forget the ( dead grass sindrom ).

You will get very sick and need massive amount of iodin shots but you still live maybe eye sight will fade. And health not as good.

 

Lets not get off the original subject.

[insane_alien]

no, all you'd need is a vitamin D supplement and you'd be fine.

[Sisyphus]

So if you got deprived of total sun light for a year you will get sick and forget the ( dead grass sindrom ).

You will get very sick and need massive amount of iodin shots but you still live maybe eye sight will fade. And health not as good.

 

Lets not get off the original subject.

 

Skin under sunlight is not the only source of vitamin D. You can easily get all you need from diet, as well. You only really see vitamin D deficiency in places with malnutrition. You'd be pale, but that's the only effect it would have. And you'd get just as tan again as soon as you're exposed to UV light again. It's got nothing to do with evolution.

[bascule]

Is global warming happening too fast for evolution to occur? Wont we and other life forms evolve to fit our environment?

 

I would imagine that, much like the AIDS epidemic in Africa has provided immense selection pressure for acquiring some degree of HIV immunity (or the ability to live with the virus), there will be immense selection pressure to tolerate more toxins in drinking water as people are forced to turn to more contaminated sources, because those who cannot tolerate the toxins will die.

 

That is, unless technology steps in and saves the day...

[Deko]

I would disagree that the HIV virus puts immense selection presssure on any population. In some countries in Africa, where the virus is more prominent birth rates are not screeching to a halt. It is a factor, it does play a role in a small minority of humans and would take thousands of years for us to naturally fight it. In the time it would take us to evolve a more efficient immune response the virus could also evolve (and as we know viruses mutate all the time). HIV could effect millions more people if a parasite could transport it. Currently the mosquito's metabollism breaks it down, if the virus could figure that one out then HIV might cause a mass human wipeout the likes the world has never seen. And this could cause humanity to "fight" for species survival which is needed in order to evolve.

[iNow]

The larger point being, of course, that those who cannot cope with the changes will not survive. Those who have a mutation which helps them cope will reproduce more, and prosper. This will be true barring any large technological advance which makes the "playing field" more level.