Acceleration of Evolution

[CharonY]

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?

 

First of all speciation does not equal evolution. It is but a consequence of it. This may sound trivial, but unfortunately it isn't. Second problem is that of the species concept itself. The most common one is that of reproductive isolation, but it is hardly an universal concept. For one, it is not really applicable to asexually reproducing species and second it is not necessarily based on the amount of genetic differences. For instance, a Chihuahua cannot reproduce with an Irish Wolfhound. Likewise behavioral traits can also contribute to reproductive isolation. For instance if a part of a population becomes strictly nocturnal and does not copulate with the diurnal population anymore. In both cases the genetic changes are minor, though both lead to reproductive isolation. If we take this as the foundation one can assume that species with a behavior and/or anatomy to speak of have a higher chance of reproductive isolation and thus may have a higher speciation frequency. But this is not a continuous process. After a given complexity of e.g. anatomy has been reached one would not expect a further increase in speciation events (if at all).

As already mentioned earlier, fluctuations in evolutionary rates are more often associated with environmental effects. Catastrophic events that destroys large populations, for instance can accelerate evolution as well as speciation due to genetic drift (especially if the initial population had a low diversity), or by freeing up ecological niches. If dinosaurs weren't dying out, mammals would have a hard time competing with them. In the end evolutionary rates (as based on genetic changes) fluctuate but are not constantly accelerating. Likewise for speciation events with the caveat of problems defining what a species is.

 

This thread just keeps getting funnier.

I would rather say "surreal". At least part of it is ripe for pseudoscience.

 

Trouble is that everyone thinks biology is easy. Well I thought physics was better in that regard until I accidentally stumbled into the pseudoscience threads. Though I still maintain (until proven otherwise) that in lecture halls it is harder to remove bad bio than bad physics,

/rant end

Edited September 22, 2009 by CharonY

[dr.syntax]

Why, is Physman an alternate account of yours?

 

Physman is not some alternate name of mine. He asked the question. Me, Dr.Syntax answered it and provided what just might be a new and original concept regarding the processes associated with the acceleration of evolution over the long term, when looked at in it`s entirety. It`s 3.8 billion year history. I`ve stated that any trait that helped an organism change and adapt faster would be selected for as a positive, desirable attribute. And that over time such attributes would be added to and accumulate within a given species. Those species that had these abilities to speed up change and therefore adaptability would be the ones selected for within many species. That these changes would accumulate within the different species over time. These organisms would have a very significant advantage to compete with other organisms less able to change and adapt. Sexual reproduction is a good example of what I am speaking about. Sexual reproduction was a quantum leap in providing for relatively rapid change and therefore adaptability. Intra-species competition for mating rights is another example of what I am talking about. Evolutionary time would not be wasted on the less able,weaker,slower,etc.. The aspects of evolution that produced inceasingly complex organisms is primarily what I have been talking about, but is not restricted to it. I have only been working on this concept for four days and have not thouht it through entirely. But from the 3.8 billion year long timeline of evolution it becomes very clear, at least to me, that the complexity of organisms has speeded up at an impressively accelerating rate. So make what you will of it. That timeline of evolution is available at: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Timeline_of_evolution. For interested people it`s worth looking at. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 22, 2009 by dr.syntax
addition

[foodchain]

I think the best you could do would be to make a mass extinction event and see if mutation along with radiation could increase the divergence of species. Mutation is really a biological constant, it gets acted upon by selection in the form of biotic and abiotic variables, such as resources or sexual selection. Mutations that are beneficial tend to persist while others that are not don't. I don't think there is any actual speed or velocity to this process overall, or more or less that its temporal. I mean what purely aquatic species would be supported in a terrestrial environment, or would the immune system look the way it does if viruses or bacteria did not exist, or if those were not harmful to some extent. What if the earths gravity were stronger or weaker, why do some organisms see ultraviolet light and others don't.

 

The only real lasting order to evolution and how it plays out is what traits happen to become "fixed" vs. those that don't. So going back to my earlier example if you happened to free up a bunch of niche via extinction, mutation in extant species might have a chance to thrive in those.

 

Using bacteria people tested selection over and over. In every case the mutations that came about did not come about in any predictable manner, and in some cases the populations simply did not survive.

[dr.syntax]

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?

 

Including Merriam Websters. The definition I consistantly find : the process of change from a lower,simpler,or worse, to a higher,more complex or better state. I have seen nothing about: the change in the alleles in a population. The definition I am using is the one about change from a lower simpler,or worse, to a higher,more complex or better state. It appears to me this the most common interpretation of what evolution means.

[JillSwift]

Including Merriam Websters. The definition I consistantly find : the process of change from a lower,simpler,or worse, to a higher,more complex or better state. I have seen nothing about: the change in the alleles in a population. The definition I am using is the one about change from a lower simpler,or worse, to a higher,more complex or better state. It appears to me this the most common interpretation of what evolution means.

Dictionaries do show common use definitions, true.

 

However, science tends to use very specific definitions that aren't in common use.

 

Within biology, "Evolution" tends to be a foreshortened term referring to "evolution by natural selection". The specific meaning being "changes resulting in phenotypes suited to the environment and the operation of the organism therein, unsuited to the environment and the operation of the organism therein, or irrelevant to the environment and the operation of the organism therein".

 

These changes could include, but don't necessarily include, more complex organisms, simpler organisms, organisms of similar complexity but changed phenotypes, etc.

 

Since speciation is a matter of this process of evolution within changing environments, it really can't be said to have a particular "speed" outside that context. If you study a time-line of the speciation of mammals you will find that the "rate" of speciation is highly variable, likely because changes in the environments for mammals have also been variable.

 

The numer of possible species grows, however, as each species represents the possibility of a new branch or two, so over time the chances of new variety increases.

 

Hope this helps.

[Mr Skeptic]

Another aspect that speeds up evolution is the evolution of sex. Sex allows evolution and natural selection to act on individual genes or even parts of genes separate from the entire genome. Since sexual reproduction is also a product of evolution, this is another example of evolution being sped up by previous evolution.

[dr.syntax]

Dictionaries do show common use definitions, true.

 

However, science tends to use very specific definitions that aren't in common use.

 

Within biology, "Evolution" tends to be a foreshortened term referring to "evolution by natural selection". The specific meaning being "changes resulting in phenotypes suited to the environment and the operation of the organism therein, unsuited to the environment and the operation of the organism therein, or irrelevant to the environment and the operation of the organism therein".

 

These changes could include, but don't necessarily include, more complex organisms, simpler organisms, organisms of similar complexity but changed phenotypes, etc.

 

Since speciation is a matter of this process of evolution within changing environments, it really can't be said to have a particular "speed" outside that context. If you study a time-line of the speciation of mammals you will find that the "rate" of speciation is highly variable, likely because changes in the environments for mammals have also been variable.

 

The numer of possible species grows, however, as each species represents the possibility of a new branch or two, so over time the chances of new variety increases.

 

Hope this helps.

 

to a point agrees with my use of the word evolution such as: evolution by natural selection wich could include more complex organisms. That is the definition I am concerning myself with and not the other possible ones. For me to be clear about this I am speaking of evolution by means of natural selection from the simpler to the more complex organisms. I understand that there are other aspects of evolution. But my entire argument is concerned with the evolution of the simpler to the more complex. If other people wish to discuss these other aspects of evolution I am not stopping them. But I refuse to allow myself to be sidetracked into a direction I don`t desire to go in. ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another aspect that speeds up evolution is the evolution of sex. Sex allows evolution and natural selection to act on individual genes or even parts of genes separate from the entire genome. Since sexual reproduction is also a product of evolution, this is another example of evolution being sped up by previous evolution.

 

Someone here who understands and agrees with me on some things. How anyone could seriously suggest that the evolution of sexual reproduction did NOT speed up evolution would or is it will be interesting to see. Regards, Dr.Syntax

[Physman]

Thanks, Dr, Syntak, but I still wonder about this: For the process of evolution to proceed in a faster manor, would the process of Muataion anda adaption have to speed up, and if so why and how would this be done?

[GDG]

* * * 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

 

Sorry, but copyright does not work that way. You cannot copyright an idea or a theory: copyright only protects the expression of those ideas or theories. In other words, copyright gives you the right to prevent others from copying your exact words, but not the meaning behind them: everyone is still free to paraphrase your words and still express the same idea. For example, even if Romeo and Juliet was protected by copyright, you could take the exact same plot (idea) and change the expression (say, by changing the Capulets and Montagues into rival street gangs, like Jets and Sharks) and not commit copyright infringement.

[Mr Skeptic]

Thanks, Dr, Syntak, but I still wonder about this: For the process of evolution to proceed in a faster manor, would the process of Muataion anda adaption have to speed up, and if so why and how would this be done?

 

It could simply become more efficient. As the example I gave, sexual reproduction allows it to act at a more local level rather than only on the organism as a whole. (Obviously it still acts on whole organisms, but their genes are being shuffled).

 

I think you are best off dropping the use of the word evolution or clarifying it, as you seem to be interested only in a subset of evolution, and measuring it in a different way.

[JillSwift]

to a point agrees with my use of the word evolution such as: evolution by natural selection wich could include more complex organisms. That is the definition I am concerning myself with and not the other possible ones. For me to be clear about this I am speaking of evolution by means of natural selection from the simpler to the more complex organisms. I understand that there are other aspects of evolution. But my entire argument is concerned with the evolution of the simpler to the more complex. If other people wish to discuss these other aspects of evolution I am not stopping them. But I refuse to allow myself to be sidetracked into a direction I don`t desire to go in. ...Dr.Syntax

Ok, just to be crystal clear: That "aspect" of evolution you're concerned with is called speciation.

 

The more species there are, the more opportunities there are for new speciation as environments change, k? That's why it seems to accelerate.

 

And on that, I think Mr. Skeptic is right, sexual reproduction does contribute to that.

[dr.syntax]

Thanks, Dr, Syntak, but I still wonder about this: For the process of evolution to proceed in a faster manor, would the process of Muataion anda adaption have to speed up, and if so why and how would this be done?[/quote ] ....to speed up the rate of evolutionary change. It seems to me it would tend to speed up evolution but not be a requirement for the speed up to occur. Mutation is a change in the genetic makeup of a particular organism. Most of these changes are not good ones but some are and that is a big part of how evolution works. And the mutations that lead to the ability of a species to compete in it`s evironment and reproduce more readily would be positve adaptations. There are means of adaptation that do not require mutation. Intra-species competition for reproductive rights is an example. Many species go through a rutting season where the males fight it out with each other for the right to mate. Also,the genetic makeup of lets say a frog, allows for frogs of the same species to be able to be born with different coloring variations. And if the environment changed in a way that changed the coloring of that environment from some what green to mostly darker colors the frogs that were more green would be more easily spotted by a heron and therefore easier to spot and eat. Whereas the darker ones would blend in better with the background and have a much better chance of survival. It would seem to me that the ability to adapt faster would speed up evolution overall. Also the natural selection pressures upon a given species or group of species would have a big role in all this. Perhaps we can discuss that at some other time. ...Dr.Syntax

[CharonY]

Actually sexual reproduction is quite controversial in this aspect. The reshuffling can actually reduce the chance that a novel mutation gets fixated, for instance. In fact one hypothesis explicitly states that sex may purge detrimental mutations (and thus reduce variation).

In addition, the often assumed benefits of sex to fitness are, as I have already mentioned in a number of posts, largely unproven. Though I have seen a recent paper in which a possible scenario was shown. Nonetheless the two-fold cost of sex appears to overcome the theoretical fitness advantage by increasing variation in most scenarios. Hence from the genomic side a number of more mechanistic notions have been put forward, including one in which genomic parasitism (by mobile genetic elements) plays a major role.

 

Edit to add: this is a comment to post 36.

[dr.syntax]

Ok, just to be crystal clear: That "aspect" of evolution you're concerned with is called speciation.

 

The more species there are, the more opportunities there are for new speciation as environments change, k? That's why it seems to accelerate.

 

And on that, I think Mr. Skeptic is right, sexual reproduction does contribute to that.

 

Not once did I mention the word speciation:" the process of biological species information" Now I`ll try again. My arguments are all concerned with: evolution from the simpler organisms to the more complex organisms. I continue to get sidetracted. You have forced me to confine my arguments to what has already transpired and in the geologic record. To open my arguments to possible future events that may take place through time on into future events I have no way of anticipating is beyond the scope of what I am trying explain and I can see no end to the ways I will become sidetracked. You brought up a valid issue and I am going to confine my statements to the history of evolution only. I already did state this evolutionary acceleration may have reached it`s limit at least for now. Whatever, Regards, ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually sexual reproduction is quite controversial in this aspect. The reshuffling can actually reduce the chance that a novel mutation gets fixated, for instance. In fact one hypothesis explicitly states that sex may purge detrimental mutations (and thus reduce variation).

In addition, the often assumed benefits of sex to fitness are, as I have already mentioned in a number of posts, largely unproven. Though I have seen a recent paper in which a possible scenario was shown. Nonetheless the two-fold cost of sex appears to overcome the theoretical fitness advantage by increasing variation in most scenarios. Hence from the genomic side a number of more mechanistic notions have been put forward, including one in which genomic parasitism (by mobile genetic elements) plays a major role.

 

Edit to add: this is a comment to post 36.

 

So all the evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction are of less value than reducing the chance some novel mutation becoming fixated, and also purging detrimental mutatations [ and thus reduce variation ]. How does purging detrimental variations aid in the evolution of any species ? Do you see variation to unwholesome traits as of evolutionary value ? The entire history of evolution says the opposite. Have you somehow forgotten all about natural selection ? You apparently believe variation is the primary purpose of evolution. I know,evolution has no purpose. But it does follow such natural rules as natural selection. ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Sorry, but copyright does not work that way. You cannot copyright an idea or a theory: copyright only protects the expression of those ideas or theories. In other words, copyright gives you the right to prevent others from copying your exact words, but not the meaning behind them: everyone is still free to paraphrase your words and still express the same idea. For example, even if Romeo and Juliet was protected by copyright, you could take the exact same plot (idea) and change the expression (say, by changing the Capulets and Montagues into rival street gangs, like Jets and Sharks) and not commit copyright infringement.

 

it is plagarism and I am not sure about the legalities and such. It`s a bit of a grey area in that regard. I guess the plagarism aspect does not concern some unless they get caught at it . Well , whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

 

All of my postings in response to entirely different posters concerning entirely different questions are now being merged at one location. I have a hard time finding them and I know that they exist whereas no one else does. This is not the usual way responses to postings are handled here. It makes it seem as though I did not dispute what some posters were saying and such. Will someone please correct this in the name of fairness and continuity of what has developed into an interesting discussion. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 23, 2009 by dr.syntax
Consecutive posts merged.

[GDG]

it is plagarism and I am not sure about the legalities and such. It`s a bit of a grey area in that regard. I guess the plagarism aspect does not concern some unless they get caught at it . Well , whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

 

Unfortunately, copyright does not provide a remedy against plagiarism (passing off the ideas of others as your own), only against copying your work of authorship.

[dr.syntax]

Unfortunately, copyright does not provide a remedy against plagiarism (passing off the ideas of others as your own), only against copying your work of authorship.

 

Thank you GDG , I expect you are right. I spent some time looking into it and found nothing to contradict you. It certainly does not seem fair, but the same can be said for so much of what goes on in this World. My guess is that once you achieve enough standing in the academic World there are many ways to ensure others don`t plagarize your work. I do appreciate your response. ...Dr.Syntax