Acceleration of Evolution

[Physman]

Is it possible or plausable that as evolution continues that it accelrates or speeds up? So could ti be that as we become more evolved that the process speeds up? This question is very similar to the philosophical theory of Singularity invlolving Artificail Intelligence.

[dr.syntax]

Is it possible or plausable that as evolution continues that it accelrates or speeds up? So could ti be that as we become more evolved that the process speeds up? This question is very similar to the philosophical theory of Singularity invlolving Artificail Intelligence.

 

My answer is that the record indicates evolution is speeding up. 3.8 billion years of prokariotes,3 billion years of photosythesis,2billion years of eukaryotes,1 billion years of multicellular life,600 million years of simple animals,550 million years of complex animals,500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,475 million years of land plants,360 millian years of amphibians,300 million years of reptiles,200 million years of mammals,130 million years of flowers,2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,200,000 years since humans started looking as they do today. Abreviated from source at : http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Timeline_of_evolution . I am sure evolution has had it`s setbacks such as the different catastrophic events that have occured. But from the record it appears to me to be acceleratating significantly. I have no idea about what you are refering to regarding: theory of singularity involving Artifitial Inteligence. Could that be something about an AI robot god of some sort ? Some Sci Fi writers have considered that. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 19, 2009 by dr.syntax
spelling, addition

[Physman]

Thank you ,those statistics are very helpful. The Ai arguement of singularity is simply that as we creat artificail intelligence that intelligenct form will create an intelligent form and so on as the process drasticly speeds up/.

[dr.syntax]

Thank you ,those statistics are very helpful. The Ai arguement of singularity is simply that as we creat artificail intelligence that intelligenct form will create an intelligent form and so on as the process drasticly speeds up/.

 

That creating AI is the worst idea mankind has ever come up with. If it ever happens there will be no means whatsoever of controlling it. It will be given robotic capabilities and there will be no way of stopping it from doing anything it decides to do. It will make other AI units capable of unlimited self improvement,self modification,etc.. Very bad idea, ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 20, 2009 by dr.syntax
spelling

[CharonY]

Actually the timeline itself is no indication of the speed of evolution as there is no measure in the amount of changes required. Moreover catastrophic events can actually accelerate evolution (founder effects and genetic drift). And finally what is considered speed of evolution? There are different frames of references out there and without a careful definition discussions usually end up to be meaningless.

[Physman]

Thank you all of this feedback has been very helpful. Although could you provide some examples?

Thanks again,

Physman

[cameron marical]

That creating AI is the worst idea mankind has ever come up with. If it ever happens there will be no means whatsoever of controlling it. It will be given robotic capabilities and there will be no way of stopping it from doing anything it decides to do. It will make other AI units capable of unlimited self improvement,self modification,etc.. Very bad idea, ...Dr.Syntax

 

And why is that a bad idea? Are we not different?

[dr.syntax]

Actually the timeline itself is no indication of the speed of evolution as there is no measure in the amount of changes required. Moreover catastrophic events can actually accelerate evolution (founder effects and genetic drift). And finally what is considered speed of evolution? There are different frames of references out there and without a careful definition discussions usually end up to be meaningless.

 

The timeline is an excellent record and measure of the speed of change occuring in the evolution of oeganisms. The fact that almost half of the history of life on Earth is the history of prokaryotes alone. They come about,appear 3.8 billion years ago. From then it took 1.8 billion years to evolve the simplest eukaryotes. From then it took another 1 billion years to evolve the simplest multicllular organisns. The first fish and proto-amphibians appear 500 million or .5 billion years later. From then another .14 billion years for true amphibians to appear. Reptiles appear .06 billion years later. Mammals appear on the scene .1 billion years later. Birds appear .5 billion years later.In another.020 billon years the first flowers appear. All non-avian dinasaurs die off .065 billion years ago. The genus homo appears .002.5 billion years later.Humans looking much the same as they do today.0003 billion years later.To me this timeline indicates a clear increase in the pace of evolutionary progression. It also seems likely this historical trend may have raeched it`s limits All the peices for a rapidly increasing rate of evolutionary progress may all be in place so to speak. Such things like sexual reproduction. And intra-species competition for mating privilages. Things like that. And who knows what effect human interference is likely to have on evolution. Any farming activity such as choice of seeds and all the breeding choices can be leading to all sorts of overall results related to evolution. But I stand by my original statement: that the historical record indicates a significant rate of increase in the speed [ acceleration ] of evolutionary change. Something like that. I also understand that the prokaryotes are still around along with other families of organisms that appeared early in the history of life on Earth. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 21, 2009 by dr.syntax
addition

[CharonY]

A timeline such as this has only a limited, if any use alone as it does incorporate the amount of change needed for a) the first occurence of each of this (more or less) arbitrary events and b) the time required before fixation of a given trait. Again, there is no frame of reference with which changes can be timed and hence just give the time between those events is meaningless.

Imagine this, how many changes, do you think, does it take from, say first reptile to first mammal. And how many changes from the first prokaryote to the first eukaryote.

[Skye]

Plus it doesn't take into account other forms of diversity or change, such as metabolism. Prokaryotes have much greatre diversity of metabolism, and much greater rate of change. See the ability of prokaryotes to rapidly evolve (over the lifetime of a human) metabolic responses to anti-biotics.

[dr.syntax]

A timeline such as this has only a limited, if any use alone as it does incorporate the amount of change needed for a) the first occurence of each of this (more or less) arbitrary events and b) the time required before fixation of a given trait. Again, there is no frame of reference with which changes can be timed and hence just give the time between those events is meaningless.

Imagine this, how many changes, do you think, does it take from, say first reptile to first mammal. And how many changes from the first prokaryote to the first eukaryote.

With a 3.8 billion year record of events there is no need to access the time required to fix any particular trait to answer the qestion asked. Is evolution speeeding up ? It seems to me any trait that helped an organism adapt faster would have to be a trait natual selection would select for as a positive attribute. And that as these traits that aided an organism`s ability change and adapt more rapidly were aquired and added to, these organisms were the ones most able to survive,compete, and reproduce.. Sexual reproduction is a good example of what I am talking about. The exchange of genetic information was a huge advantage for evolving new traits, some of wich proved adventagious. It seems to me you get so involved in the minor aspects of this that you can`t see the big picture, and that is what the original question was about. What is it with you ? You seem to have some need to somehow prove yourself intellectionaly superior to me any chance you can find. Why is that ? Is it something about me in particular or do you engage in these pointless arguments with many ? I avoid responding to your posts unless they are a response to mine. I have nothing I wish to prove to you other than that I will not take crap from you and defer to your selfpresumed superiority. Hope not to hear from you, ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 21, 2009 by dr.syntax
addition

[Ophiolite]

dr. Syntax, please confine posts to discussion of the topic and avoid reactions to the attitude and behaviour, real or imagined, of other posters.

 

Now, out of moderator mode, here are a couple of observations of my own.

 

When we are talking of evolution are we discussing changes in phenotype or changes in genotype? Evolution is traditionally defined as the change in the alleles in a population, so we are primarily talking genotype. The potential maximum rate of evolution is determined by the mutation rate. This is reasonably constant. On that basis I don't quite see why we should assert that the rate of evolution is increasing.

 

The examples you have given seem to be somewhat superficial, focusing on the macroscopic, rather than the microscopic. I agree these changes seem impressive, but do they represent massive changes in genotype? What do you think?

[CharonY]

Ophiolite does an excellent job to put my points succinctly. With the danger of fanning the fire, I feel compelled to address some of dr. Syntax' assertions regarding my person. First of all, I feel no need to assert superiority over anyone. Especially not some random poster on the internet.

The only thing I do is point out inaccuracies in posts here that may be misleading, nothing more. If I wanted to address your knowledge I would have said something in the line of "get a frakking clue what evolution is before posting some random shit about it." But hey, I did not. What I equally won't do however, is to stroke the ego of some random poster so that they feel good about their ignorance.

In fact, I even gave an example why the mentioned timeline of events is at best a superficial way for timing evolution. I even disproved the notion that disasters are setbacks to evolution. Both arguments just proof that the way you imagine evolution does not conform to what evolution actually is and hence, what means of timing may be appropriate. As Ophiolite mentions mutation rates are a factor and the second is whether those mutations get fixed within a population (or just vanish).

Instead of addressing those points, however you go ahead and use circular reasoning to try to prove your initial points correct without aiming for understanding. The question is: why? If you do not want to be corrected then you can only do two things: first, never engage in discussions or second, research your data so well that your reasoning is water proof.

Back to Physman's question. The question still remains on what level you are interested in timing of evolution. The easiest way to look at it is using molecular clocks (essentially the rate in which mutations accumulate). Generally there are varying speeds (e.g. associated with different selective pressures), yet no general trend of constant acceleration.

[Ophiolite]

CharonY,

my post contained some careful avoidance of saying certain things, because my biological knowledge is eclectic and consequently barren in many areas. It is my understanding that many organisms which have apparetnly maintained a stable phenotype for millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years, may in fact have experienced major changes in their genotype. The difference between them and a line which has changed significantly is that the mutations in the changeable line produce knew behaviours, structures, or biochemistries, while the changes in the stable line introduce slightly different ways of doing the same thing.

 

Is this correct, or have I skillfully misinterpreted what I imagine I might have read?

 

If it is, then I have some sympathy for dr.Syntax's position. Raised in palaeontology I have zero knowledge of an organism's genotype, but very good data on its phenotype. On that basis those pesky little prokaryotes did bugger all for three billion years, but since we came onshore we've had the pedal to the metal. So the trick is how we define evolution. To stand any chance of justifying your position, dr.Syntax, you need to use a definition of evolution that is not the generally accepted one within the life sciences. Is that what you would like to do? It would provide a point for debate.

[CharonY]

Well actually prokaryotes developed all metabolic activities that we can think of and are still doing it. The mere fact that they are a single cell does not mean that they have not changed. The adaptation to oxygen is probably one of the most defining events.

 

It is my understanding that many organisms which have apparetnly maintained a stable phenotype for millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years, may in fact have experienced major changes in their genotype.

This is correct.

 

The difference between them and a line which has changed significantly is that the mutations in the changeable line produce knew behaviours, structures, or biochemistries, while the changes in the stable line introduce slightly different ways of doing the same thing.

This is harder to assess. The thing is that while looking at an organism we are only able to perceive a tiny fraction of everything the organism consists of. Also, some phenotypic changes may appear to be enormous (as e.g. limb development) but on the genetic level they only consist of the deregulation of few genes. For all I know (maybe Mokele can shed more light into it) extant crocodiles may look similar to their ancestor but have significant changes in parts of their metabolism.

 

But the part about fixation is also important. Taking your example, it is possible that the seemingly unchanged group does not accumulate changes as fast as the other group despite having the same mutation rate. The reason is that new mutations vanish because the given environmental situation (including selective pressure) do not favor keeping the new alleles, whereas in the other they may. This, however, is dependent on the interaction of any given population with its environment and cannot be an intrinsic effect. As usual, there are exceptions to it, but I do not want to delve into it too much just by relying on my shaky memory.

[dr.syntax]

""

Ophiolite does an excellent job to put my points succinctly. With the danger of fanning the fire, I feel compelled to address some of dr. Syntax' assertions regarding my person. First of all, I feel no need to assert superiority over anyone. Especially not some random poster on the internet.

The only thing I do is point out inaccuracies in posts here that may be misleading, nothing more. If I wanted to address your knowledge I would have said something in the line of "get a frakking clue what evolution is before posting some random shit about it." But hey, I did not. What I equally won't do however, is to stroke the ego of some random poster so that they feel good about their ignorance.

In fact, I even gave an example why the mentioned timeline of events is at best a superficial way for timing evolution. I even disproved the notion that disasters are setbacks to evolution. Both arguments just proof that the way you imagine evolution does not conform to what evolution actually is and hence, what means of timing may be appropriate. As Ophiolite mentions mutation rates are a factor and the second is whether those mutations get fixed within a population (or just vanish).

Instead of addressing those points, however you go ahead and use circular reasoning to try to prove your initial points correct without aiming for understanding. The question is: why? If you do not want to be corrected then you can only do two things: first, never engage in discussions or second, research your data so well that your reasoning is water proof.

Back to Physman's question. The question still remains on what level you are interested in timing of evolution. The easiest way to look at it is using molecular clocks (essentially the rate in which mutations accumulate). Generally there are varying speeds (e.g. associated with different selective pressures), yet no general trend of constant acceleration.

 

insulting me again and asserting your self presumed superiority, by informing me of all the worse things you could have said about me. So you have contrived a method for insulting me that goes beyond what is normally acceptable here by telling what worse things you wanted tell me but did`nt. But of course now you just went ahead and said them. You have proved nothing. I also noted prior to you that prokayotes are still with us along with many other earlier life form groups. I pointed out how the adaptation of sexual reproduction and intra-species competition for breeding rights would speed the overall process of evolution up. The principal that as time went by organisms that evolved a trait that allowed and enabled them to change and adapt more rapidly was a huge advantage selected for by natural selection. And that these traits that allowed orgaisms to change and adapt more rapidly accumulated in the different species and over time speeded up evolution. The one time I acknowleged a correction on a posting of mine by you, in a previous thread, not this one,your response was to expand on how you found it particularily ironic and on and on. It was pure gloating on your part over some minor point. I had even thanked you and added to your reputation with some kind remark about you being so knowledgeable. What a mistake that was !! I expect Ophiolite is unaware of your consistant history of smarmy nasty responses to my postings. Ophioite`s support for you proves nothing regarding the original question. She simply more or less restated what you had previously stated. I stand by my original position to the original question. The historic record indicates evolution is speeding up. I have never suggested any new basic principal of physics at work here. I explained how adapting characterists such as sexual reproduction and intra-species competition for mating privileges aid in the ability of a species to change and adapt more rapidly. Speed up evolution. Also, I never suggested that the trend was constant. Once again you make a statement" proving me wrong " by making assertations about statements I never made. My entire agument has been as to the big picture, the 3.8 billion year history of life on Earth. And that when looking at that big picture the historical record indicates evolution is speeding up. ...Dr.Syntax Post Script You stated : that you even disproved the notion that disasters are set backs to evolution. I used the phrase: catastrophic event. I was refering to such events as the BIG FREEZE. Not some minor disaster. Again you alter my wording and it`s meaning. And you never disproved anything. Your opinion is not the equivilent of proof, or do you actually think it is ? Also my statement regarding catastrophic events illistrates how I never saw the trend as being constant. You contradicted yourself. You claimed I claimed the trend was constant. I did not. And here is a clear example of how I did not see the trend as constant. You cannot even keep your own BS consistant. Such are the workings of a neurotic brain in action. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 21, 2009 by dr.syntax
editing,additions

[Physman]

This has been a great discussion, and has answerd my question very well. Thank you moderator especaily you asnwerd my question with the most accuracy. But why would evolution speed up if adaption would not?

[dr.syntax]

This has been a great discussion, and has answerd my question very well. Thank you moderator especaily you asnwerd my question with the most accuracy. But why would evolution speed up if adaption would not?

 

That the moderator did not support the proposition that evolution is speeding up. She argued against it. It has been me,Dr.Syntax, who has stated that the historical record indicates that evolution is speeding up signifcantly. I explained the reasons why : An organism`s ability to change and adapt is in and of itself a very good reason to be selected for by natural selection. As the record shows, in the begining of life on Earth, 3.8 billion years ago this ability to adapt and change in ways that improved it`s chances for survival and reproduction were very slow in developing. But as they accumulated over time the changes enabling the different organisms to change and adapt more rapidly were selected for. The two examples I gave were sexual reproduction and intra-species competition for mating priveledges. Once sexual reproduction evolved the entire process of evolution really takes off. The speed of evolution increases. The reason intra-species competition for reproducing rights helps so much is that helps insure that the most successful genetic characteristics are passed on and propagated. Diversification is no longer such a random event. A new selector for successful organisms is added to sexual reproduction. Again speeding up the process of evolution by not wasting evolutionary time on less able organisms. You put these simple principals together and you begin to understand how evolution did indeed speed up through time. Are these ideas original to me ? Surely Darwin or someone else must have thought about it. Is there is no one else who proposed them prior to me ? If not, then I claim all copyright priviledges associated with them here and now to the extant that I be acknowledged as the originator. Anyone wishing to use my ideas on this has my permission to do so as long as I am the acknowleged originator, if I am. I never looked into it. I assumed others had. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 22, 2009 by dr.syntax

[Mr Skeptic]

Is it possible or plausable that as evolution continues that it accelrates or speeds up? So could ti be that as we become more evolved that the process speeds up? This question is very similar to the philosophical theory of Singularity invlolving Artificail Intelligence.

 

First of all, to clarify, when you talk about the speed of evolution in this context it suggests you are thinking of the generation of new information, correct? However by most definitions a change in allele frequency without any new alleles would still qualify as evolution.

 

It is definitely both possible and plausible that evolution is speeding up. Whether it's also factual is less clear but my guess would be yes. I think that you would have to define what you mean by speeding up though.

 

The way I see it, there seems to be a continuous increase in number of species in general, broken only by occasional mass extinctions (we are in one now due to essentially hogging earth's resources for ourselves). Even so an extinction event leaves a niche for the next species to occupy.

 

Now if the number of species is increasing, it is quite probable that the amount of variability is also increasing. More variability means that every mutation that occurs is that much more likely to be unique, so in general could mean that the generation of variability is likewise higher. I think this is a decent case for evolution speeding up due to an increase in variability. If this were the case there should be exponential growth in variability, which should be visible in the fossil record.

 

As for an individual organism's evolution rate, this could instead be decreasing. Increasing variability without commensurate increase in overall population would mean a decrease in an individual species population, which would mean that there is less new variability in that particular species.

 

On a different level, us multicellular creatures have longer lifespans and therefore a slower change in genetics. On the other hand, we have an entirely different level at which we can change -- how we arrange the cells we are composed of. A small change in development will result in a huge change in physical appearance. See for example how common the incidence of extra limbs is. So now we have organelles composing cells, cells composing tissues, tissues composing bodies, bodies composing social groups. Social groups can change an individuals behavior and physical appearance quite drastically despite absolutely no change in their genetics.

 

Now your comparison to Technological Singularity is quite interesting, and thank you for sharing it. Depending on what you count as evolution, you could say it is increasingly being separated from genetics. An increasing rate of evolution based on previous evolution (of either new variability or using previous building blocks) would certainly qualify for the same sorts of arguments as a Technological Singularity.

 

Interesting thoughts, but I am sleepy now and will revisit this issue after getting a good night's rest.

[Physman]

By speeding up, I mean to say that as new species are 'formed', the process wil become faster. To rephrase, the process will advance faster and faster as in continues. Thoughts?

[Skye]

The mechanism for generating a lot of the change is errors in replication, some of which are bad, and too many bad ones can't be tolerated. Also complex multicellular life control these mutations to prevent cancers. So the ideal state is a best compromise between the bad effects of some mutations and the need to adapt to a changing environment. And note that since the environment varies, then the ideal state isn't at a given rate of mutation.

[dr.syntax]

My answer is that the record indicates evolution is speeding up. 3.8 billion years of prokariotes,3 billion years of photosythesis,2billion years of eukaryotes,1 billion years of multicellular life,600 million years of simple animals,550 million years of complex animals,500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,475 million years of land plants,360 millian years of amphibians,300 million years of reptiles,200 million years of mammals,130 million years of flowers,2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,200,000 years since humans started looking as they do today. Abreviated from source at : http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Timeline_of_evolution . I am sure evolution has had it`s setbacks such as the different catastrophic events that have occured. But from the record it appears to me to be acceleratating significantly. I have no idea about what you are refering to regarding: theory of singularity involving Artifitial Inteligence. Could that be something about an AI robot god of some sort ? Some Sci Fi writers have considered that. ...Dr.Syntax

To the extentant that I be the acknowledged originator of the ideas I developed in responding to this thread. I did a web search and found no record of these ideas supporting the proposiion that evolution is speeding up. There were numerous ones discussing HUMAN EVOLUTION speeding up. None proposing evolution in general was speeding up. Until and unless someone shows me another article prior to mine supporting the proposition that evolution in general over the last 3.8 billion years has been speeding up I claim the copyright rights for those ideas. Only to be acknowleged as the originator. Permission is granted for use by any desiring to do so as long as I am acknowledged as the originator. The name:" Dr.Syntax " will suffice in that regard. Something like as stated by Dr.Syntax. Something like that. If you find a prior source tell me and that will be the end of that. At this time, as far as I know, these concepts are original to me and not general knowlege but new and cutting edge concepts. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 22, 2009 by dr.syntax
addition

[iNow]

This thread just keeps getting funnier.

[dr.syntax]

This thread just keeps getting funnier.

 

There is nothing funny about it. I have provided a well thought through concept as to how and why evolution has been accelerating through it`s long history. If I am the originator it will be very satisfying to me. ...Dr.Syntax

[Mr Skeptic]

There is nothing funny about it. I have provided a well thought through concept as to how and why evolution has been accelerating through it`s long history. If I am the originator it will be very satisfying to me. ...Dr.Syntax

 

Why, is Physman an alternate account of yours?