Monkey to Man

[Sorcerer]

Which may also trigger responses in reproductive compatabillity right? I may have misspoken about the acceleration. I was basing that statement off of memory which I find to be lacking sometimes.

 

Hmm makes me wonder if the rhesus factor (rh+/-) would've caused speciation before modern healthcare intervened.

[questionposter]

Hmm makes me wonder if the rhesus factor (rh+/-) would've caused speciation before modern healthcare intervened.

 

It's fruitless to try to incorporate natural evolution into modern society because no matter how many times a civilization crumbles, it will rebuild because people want that, people want altruism and organization and etc.

[JustinW]

Hmm makes me wonder if the rhesus factor (rh+/-) would've caused speciation before modern healthcare intervened.

 

It does make you wonder if our modern medicine will have any affect on future developement and evolution. It's a kinda scary thought when you think about it, because evolution is a natural way to make something more compatible with it's environment. If things change for the worse we might medicate ourselves right out of existence.

[questionposter]

It does make you wonder if our modern medicine will have any affect on future developement and evolution. It's a kinda scary thought when you think about it, because evolution is a natural way to make something more compatible with it's environment. If things change for the worse we might medicate ourselves right out of existence.

 

If there's some giant super-catastrophe like maybe yellow-stone erupting and people with lung problems die even though you can use gas masks and etc, then maybe there would be a slight chance "medicating ourselves right out of existence" but even at that point it wouldn't even be half the human race. If you look at how things are already, most people who have severe genetic health problems that don't benefit them don't live long or don't reproduce.

Edited January 10, 2012 by questionposter

[JustinW]

If there's some giant super-catastrophe like maybe yellow-stone erupting and people with lung problems die even though you can use gas masks and etc, then maybe there would be a slight chance "medicating ourselves right out of existence" but even at that point it wouldn't even be half the human race. If you look at how things are already, most people who have severe genetic health problems that don't benefit them don't live long or don't reproduce.

Yes I can see what you're saying. When I wrote that post I was wondering what it would be like if our oceans and atmosphere changed its composition. Maybe we could adapt over time, but would we if we were treating the symptoms? It was just an imaginary scenario playing out in my head at the time.

[questionposter]

Yes I can see what you're saying. When I wrote that post I was wondering what it would be like if our oceans and atmosphere changed its composition. Maybe we could adapt over time, but would we if we were treating the symptoms? It was just an imaginary scenario playing out in my head at the time.

 

If the symptoms or the disease are/is easily treatable I don't even see this thing as a problem.

Edited January 10, 2012 by questionposter

[JustinW]

You don't see a problem with the NEED to be treated? Just because a problem is easily treated, it is still a problem. Would treatment in general override any possible evolutionary change that is needed? Could we have possibly already done so with childhood vaccinations and regular treatment of common situations? Would our bodies have adapted to some of the issues that we now commonly treat?

[Greg Boyles]

I had heard somewhere of a theory that said, the mutation that seperated humans from apes had something to do with a sugar produced in the body to fight off malaria. I can't, for the life of me, remember where I heard it though. But interesting non the less.

 

Westerners can't fight off malaria well at all.

[JustinW]

Westerners can't fight off malaria well at all.

Easy there DDT. Wrong topic to vent your anger in. Please read the thread and comment on the subject if you're interested. If there is no door on the right side of the room, then the first door on the right is always the last door on the left. My meaning is that it is all in where you're standing at the time.

[questionposter]

You don't see a problem with the NEED to be treated? Just because a problem is easily treated, it is still a problem. Would treatment in general override any possible evolutionary change that is needed? Could we have possibly already done so with childhood vaccinations and regular treatment of common situations? Would our bodies have adapted to some of the issues that we now commonly treat?

 

Yeah but simple things like penicillin could have potentially been used even in the stone age, and I bet people had asthma and other diseases like that too who did fine. If something is really really that bad to have, then you just die from it and you can't pass it on.

[beanieb]

For the evolution process of monkey to man (so to speak), some have mentioned if we could wait long enough, we should be able to see it happen.

 

However, we need to realise this could only happen IF..and only if the monkey's environment is a super isolated one.

ie, the monkey's environment must be SO cut off from the rest of the world such that its 1st baby (which is the 'mutated/improved' one better selected for the niche environment), could reproduce only within its community, to the eventual extent that we now have a pedigree homo sapien race within its environment.

There must not be contamination from outside this environment, else we should see gradualisation of man-ape species isn't it? (instead of complete, distinct man-species).

Also, before evolution branched from its common ancestor, breeding should be possible between the outside monkey and the 1 in the isolated area.

(the fact that now man and monkey couldn't breed anymore further supports this isolation concept in order the evolution proposition is possible).

 

So the questions are:

1) Was "intellectual advancements" the better key to survival? (such that it forced and provided the environmental pressure and natural selection to help monkey evolved to modern man..)

--> If intelligence was always universally better, why was it only a certain group of monkeys got to evolve in that direction? what about other species across the animal kingdom?

why is it only man is at the top of food chain (despite being physically weaker and less adaptable to the environment)?

 

2) If intelligence is not the better key to survival, we could say specialisation to niche environment is the next line of thought.

So what kind of environment did this special group of monkey had, that pushed it toward the direction of intelligence development? (it must have been a very special environment if there is one).

and if that was the case, how did this new breed of man eventually managed to "conquer" the rest of the world to be found everywhere (despite being handicapped by the environments he was not suited for)?

[Ophiolite]

There seems to be some misunderstanding on your part. Let me try to clarify a few points.

For the evolution process of monkey to man (so to speak), some have mentioned if we could wait long enough, we should be able to see it happen.

I think you have covered this point with your parenthetic comment, but let us be clear: man did not evolve from the monkeys. Man and monkeys evolved from a common primate ancestor.

 

However, we need to realise this could only happen IF..and only if the monkey's environment is a super isolated one.

ie, the monkey's environment must be SO cut off from the rest of the world such that its 1st baby (which is the 'mutated/improved' one better selected for the niche environment), could reproduce only within its community, to the eventual extent that we now have a pedigree homo sapien race within its environment.

There is absolutely no need that the ancestor's environment be 'super isolated'. All that is required is a degree of separation that allows a favourable gene to build up in one part of the community. Further favourable genes arise and the sub-community begins to isolate itself through behaviour, geography, or sexual selection.

 

 

There must not be contamination from outside this environment, else we should see gradualisation of man-ape species isn't it? (instead of complete, distinct man-species).

This is exactly what we see in the fossil record - a transition from more ape like forms towards more human forms. (Let's be clear, also - we are apes, so I'm using the word in the preceding sentence in the lay sense.)

 

 

 

Also, before evolution branched from its common ancestor, breeding should be possible between the outside monkey and the 1 in the isolated area.

(the fact that now man and monkey couldn't breed anymore further supports this isolation concept in order the evolution proposition is possible).

See my earlier comments to appreciate why this is wrong.

 

 

So the questions are:

1) Was "intellectual advancements" the better key to survival? (such that it forced and provided the environmental pressure and natural selection to help monkey evolved to modern man..)

--> If intelligence was always universally better, why was it only a certain group of monkeys got to evolve in that direction? what about other species across the animal kingdom?

why is it only man is at the top of food chain (despite being physically weaker and less adaptable to the environment)?

This is a good question. Perhaps the central point is that intelligence is extremely costly in biological terms. The vast majority of the animal kingdom manage quite well without it. (Plants don't even bother with the tiniest amount and most weeds in my garden outwit my intelligence every day.) It was likely chance that meant a small group benefited more with it, than without it. Chance.

 

 

2) If intelligence is not the better key to survival, we could say specialisation to niche environment is the next line of thought.

So what kind of environment did this special group of monkey had, that pushed it toward the direction of intelligence development? (it must have been a very special environment if there is one).

and if that was the case, how did this new breed of man eventually managed to "conquer" the rest of the world to be found everywhere (despite being handicapped by the environments he was not suited for)?

Intelligence begets adaptability and tool use. (Or did tool use beget intelligence?) I don't think there is any mystery here, just a lack of detail in which we can currently be confident.

[beanieb]

Hi there ophiolite,

 

On the point about the need for "extreme isolation".. i was considering along the following points:

1) how many generations will it take for the particular group of 'monkey' (of the common ancestor) to adapt/evolve until they can't breed with their cousins anymore?

my estimate is it would probably take at least more than hundred thousands of years (considering the fact that modern man has 6000-7000yrs of history and we are still pretty much the same in make up throughout.. and our life cycle is not as fast as say bacteria to achieve it within a short period..)

 

2) if there were possibilities to mingle with the "outside" group during the 'changing' period.. interbreeding would still be possible thus allowing crossbreeds (instead of distinct breeds of man)

 

3) considering geography and animal behavior.. animals are free to roam about and so the chances of mixing the genes will be high (that is so despite the best territorial habits of animals to separate themselves from each group)...

moreover, in terms of climate and other external factors, the natural environmental pressures for the environment of the"man" breed should not differ to much for his cousins living just around it too to cause such a drastic change..

 

-> thus unless we have extreme isolation (and for at least a few hundreds of thousand years)... the scenario of a distinct-man creature (which is so contrasted in appearance to the other members of his ape family) appearing on earth is quite a questionable mystery isn't it?

[JustinW]

This is what we hit on a little earlier in the thread about sexual compatibility with the sugar gene that possibly seperated our evolvement from that of apes you see today. Certain changes of that nature can make the reproduction of one species incompatible with the reproduction of another even though the two may be very closely related. Lets say on the topic of the sugar production. Even though it was the same species, one or more had a defect that the ape's ancestor didn't posess the reproductive ability to cope with, therefore making the two reproductively incompatible. I think this is correct, but I'm not an expert so if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

[questionposter]

For the evolution process of monkey to man (so to speak), some have mentioned if we could wait long enough, we should be able to see it happen.

 

However, we need to realise this could only happen IF..and only if the monkey's environment is a super isolated one.

 

 

I actually am pretty sure I viewed evolution in my own backyard.

I have a hand-mower, it's a fairly small yard, and one week I noticed there was a wheat-looking grassy plant that had such a flexible stem I couldn't cut it while all the others in my yard at this time could be cut. A few weeks later, I was able to cut all of those wheat-looking grassy plants except for two that were so flexible that they couldn't be cut. Another few weeks later, there were 4 or 5 of those wheat-looking grassy plants that were too flexible while the others got cut down, and just before the winter I counted 15.

Although I suppose if they were truly grass plants, cutting them at the stem wouldn't kill them and they would just somehow grow back more flexible.

Edited January 16, 2012 by questionposter

[beanieb]

This is what we hit on a little earlier in the thread about sexual compatibility with the sugar gene that possibly seperated our evolvement from that of apes you see today. Certain changes of that nature can make the reproduction of one species incompatible with the reproduction of another even though the two may be very closely related. Lets say on the topic of the sugar production. Even though it was the same species, one or more had a defect that the ape's ancestor didn't posess the reproductive ability to cope with, therefore making the two reproductively incompatible. I think this is correct, but I'm not an expert so if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

 

 

just a thought..

if the mutation rendered the "newer" offspring incompatible with the older one, how does the new offspring find another of its own kind to reproduce again to continue this new line? (enough to be of great size)

(i mean the theory did make it sound abit like it had to happen in 1 generation...)

[questionposter]

just a thought..

if the mutation rendered the "newer" offspring incompatible with the older one, how does the new offspring find another of its own kind to reproduce again to continue this new line? (enough to be of great size)

(i mean the theory did make it sound abit like it had to happen in 1 generation...)

 

That's a good point, but that almost never actually happens where something is directly mutated to the point where it can't reproduce with the same species that gave birth to it. It's more of "down the line" that things can't reproduce with. So something probably wouldn't reproduce with another thing that was like 10 major mutations away in the evolutionary line of that particular creature, but would be likely to be able to reproduce with something only 1-2 major mutations away in the evolutionary line because there wouldn't be too big of a difference.

[Ophiolite]

-> thus unless we have extreme isolation (and for at least a few hundreds of thousand years)... the scenario of a distinct-man creature (which is so contrasted in appearance to the other members of his ape family) appearing on earth is quite a questionable mystery isn't it?

No. You are mistaken.

 

You are under the false impression that isolation has to be geographic. It does not. It can be geographic, it is often goegraphic, but there are other options. I believe I already pointed these out, but you seemed to have missed them. The isolation may be behavioural. A mutation may lead to a creature spending more time on the forest floor than in the canopy, for example. Initially there will still be interbreeding between groups, but more inbreeding within groups. This will concentrate the different genes in their respective groups and increase the amount of separate behaviour. Or the isolation could be one of sexual selection.

 

There is no issue with some interbreeding occuring. It seems that at least some humans have Neanderthal DNA. The two species lived alonside each other for a time, interbred occassionally, yet still remained distinct species. I believe there has been a recent case of speciation of chiclids where the two groups are living in the same place, but have different behaviour patterns. I shall try to find you a reference for this instance.

[Arete]

No. You are mistaken.

 

 

The term you're looking for is "ecological speciation" - here's a review paper with a few examples.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.full

[Sorcerer]

If there's some giant super-catastrophe like maybe yellow-stone erupting and people with lung problems die even though you can use gas masks and etc, then maybe there would be a slight chance "medicating ourselves right out of existence" but even at that point it wouldn't even be half the human race. If you look at how things are already, most people who have severe genetic health problems that don't benefit them don't live long or don't reproduce.

 

And that makes me wonder about IVF, if people with acess to IVF reproduce and pass on the genetic mutations that led to the need to use IVF, aren't they just making trouble for their offspring. I mean if their offspring are going to need IVF to reproduce too, wouldn't they be causing harm to them (although I guess it could be ethically argued that any existence is better than none).

 

Perhaps if we become too reliant on modern health care we may become less adaptable, however at present there are pockets of humanity still effectively living in the stone age, makes me think. Next time I assume how "we" are so much more culturally(technilogically) evolved than "them", I will remember evolutionary theory, and remember "our" cultures are just differently adapted for OUR environments.

[Ophiolite]

The term you're looking for is "ecological speciation" - here's a review paper with a few examples.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737.full

Thank you Arete, unfortunately I do not have a subscription to Science.

[Sorcerer]

Ophiolite I think ur talking about sympatric and allopatric speciation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation

Edited January 17, 2012 by Sorcerer

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite I think ur talking about sympatric and allopatric speciation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation

Exactly. Beanieb has reached the faulty conclusion that only allopatric speciation can occur and only when there is total, extended isolation. Cichlids in the East African lakes have been shown to speciate in 10,000 years or less, despite still being in the same lake as their parent species. I think his difficulty may be is that he is thinking that speciation is something that happens to an individual rather than a population.

[Sorcerer]

yes cichlids are a good example of sympatric speciation.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Sorcerer

[questionposter]

And that makes me wonder about IVF, if people with acess to IVF reproduce and pass on the genetic mutations that led to the need to use IVF, aren't they just making trouble for their offspring. I mean if their offspring are going to need IVF to reproduce too, wouldn't they be causing harm to them (although I guess it could be ethically argued that any existence is better than none).

 

Perhaps if we become too reliant on modern health care we may become less adaptable, however at present there are pockets of humanity still effectively living in the stone age, makes me think. Next time I assume how "we" are so much more culturally(technilogically) evolved than "them", I will remember evolutionary theory, and remember "our" cultures are just differently adapted for OUR environments.

 

I'm sure that for every person with IVF there's a pretty healthy person, and if something is really that bad to have then you just die from it and you can't pass it on or there's some law. Besides, you can't determine how all of the mutations would play out. A lot of things like asthma wouldn't necessarily be a problem in the stone age where the longest your likely to live is like 30 years anyway.