Will evolution play a role in colonization of extraterrestrial planets?

[petrushka.googol]

I was reflecting on how evolution has adapted our species to our native planet.

From poorly adapted Neanderthals (for instance) we have progressed to a species that can reflect on its own purpose intelligently.

 

How will this continue if say, we colonize Mars?

 

Evolution has more or less stopped, as we know it, and the only immediate evolutionary progression (or regression) seems to be an atrophy of some organs (like arms), when we cease to use them as much, or the making of a more "android" oriented human with some bio-implants (for instance). We could have some new implants in our skin for instance that could be used for bio-ids (making our current system of id's redundant).

 

We visualize colonization of extra-terrestrial planets as an attempt to change the macro environment on that planet. Whether this is feasible is debatable but here we are trying to induce change rather than becoming a part of it.

 

On earth we have synergized with our environment and our productivity has increased.

 

How will we evolve on new extra-terrestrial domains?

 

Please advise.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited February 12, 2014 by petrushka.googol

[overtone]

 

 

From poorly adapted Neanderthals (for instance)

Neandertals were the dominant predator and species on the European continent for some 200,000 years - we have yet to make it a third of that time.

 

 

 

Evolution has more or less stopped, as we know it

Not at all. We are currently radiating and piling up genetic diversity in the aftermath of the bottleneck way back when, and await only the next major selection event to have taken a large evolutionary step(s).

[John Cuthber]

"Will evolution play a role in colonization of extraterrestrial planets?"

For a start, what could possibly stop evolution playing a part?

 

Also, there was a program I saw the other day which said that one of the most plausible ways we can get round the problem of radiation damage to people in space travel is to find genetic markers for people who are naturally more resistant so we can send them.

 

Your genes may already have decided whether or not your relatives are going to be among the first space travellers.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03vpc74/Horizon_20132014_Man_on_Mars_Mission_to_the_Red_Planet/

[delboy]

Also, there was a program I saw the other day which said that one of the most plausible ways we can get round the problem of radiation damage to people in space travel is to find genetic markers for people who are naturally more resistant so we can send them.

Unnatural Selection at work?

[Phi for All]

Unnatural Selection at work?

 

Only if you think we're NOT supposed to use our intelligence to find a way to colonize other worlds. Evolution doesn't have an ultimate goal, but it seems evident to me that humans are the only species on Earth that could lead the way off of it.

[Greg H.]

I read a book a few years ago about the advent of biotechnology and how it will play an increasing role in human evolution. In the future (and in some part, it already is), it may be us, not nature, that decide what the human race ultimately becomes.

 

For the interested, the book is Evolution Isn't What It Used To Be: The Augmented Animal and the Whole Wired World, by Walter Tuett Anderson. (link to amazon.com)

[chadn737]

I was reflecting on how evolution has adapted our species to our native planet.

From poorly adapted Neanderthals (for instance) we have progressed to a species that can reflect on its own purpose intelligently.

 

How will this continue if say, we colonize Mars?

 

Evolution has more or less stopped, as we know it, and the only immediate evolutionary progression (or regression) seems to be an atrophy of some organs (like arms), when we cease to use them as much, or the making of a more "android" oriented human with some bio-implants (for instance). We could have some new implants in our skin for instance that could be used for bio-ids (making our current system of id's redundant).

 

We visualize colonization of extra-terrestrial planets as an attempt to change the macro environment on that planet. Whether this is feasible is debatable but here we are trying to induce change rather than becoming a part of it.

 

On earth we have synergized with our environment and our productivity has increased.

 

How will we evolve on new extra-terrestrial domains?

 

Please advise.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Why do you think Neanderthals were poorly adapted? They were very well adapted for the environment in which they dominated. Nor did we evolve from Neanderthals. Anatomically modern humans evolved independently in Africa. Admixture between the two populations did occur in parts of Europe and Asia, but we did not evolve directly from them or derive the majority of our genetic variation from them.

 

Evolution has not stopped. I think this misperception commonly arises because many people equivocate between evolution and natural selection. While it is probably true that modern medicine and other advances has removed or lessened certain historical selective pressures, this does not mean that evolution has stopped. As the evolution of a species is the change in its allele frequency, the effect of removing strong selective pressure is to allow the proliferation and accumulation of new genetic variation that was historically would have been eliminated. This leads to altered allele frequencies and even altered phenotypes. More impactful, however, has been the fact that our technological advances has allowed explosive population growth which increases the number of rare variants:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6082/740

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6090/64

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7431/full/nature11690.html

 

Colonization of new planets will not stop evolution. In fact, it will most likely lead to the same sort of scenarios that have shaped individual human populations for thousands of years. Most importantly will be the founder effect. The colonization of space will most likely occur, at first, by a small number of select individuals. Even after that, migration between Earth and its colonies would be reduced. Thus the majority of the ancestry of individuals born outside of Earth would be derived from this small starting population. This will have a very immediate effect of creating a population of humans genetically distinguishable from that of Earth. Furthermore, with a smaller starting population, Genetic Drift will play a more prominent role and new/rare mutations could rise in frequency and dominate a population very rapidly, regardless of any effect of fitness, unless the selective pressure is very strong. We have numerous examples of exactly this scenario occurring time and again in the history of human evolution. Perhaps the best studied are the people of Iceland, where nearly the entire population can trace its ancestry back to a handful of founding individuals. The effect being a genetically isolated and distinct population.

Neandertals were the dominant predator and species on the European continent for some 200,000 years - we have yet to make it a third of that time.

 

 

The oldest anatomically modern human fossils date back ~190,000 years ago....

 

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

[delboy]

 

Only if you think we're NOT supposed to use our intelligence to find a way to colonize other worlds. Evolution doesn't have an ultimate goal, but it seems evident to me that humans are the only species on Earth that could lead the way off of it.

I didn't mean to imply I thought it was wrong, it was only semi serious. It's just that human activities are normally considered unnatural, which is perhaps not really true. But the idea of self imposed evolution is an interesting one.

[Phi for All]

I didn't mean to imply I thought it was wrong, it was only semi serious. It's just that human activities are normally considered unnatural, which is perhaps not really true. But the idea of self imposed evolution is an interesting one.

 

It's weird, isn't it? I blame the lazy media for making "chemicals" synonymous with "man-made abomination", so they can stir people up while pretty much telling the truth. They've helped foster this idea that man is somehow outside of nature and needs to get back in.

[julianm]

This is a fascinating question.

 

As chadn737 wrote colonisation will occur by a small group of people. Those might be picked by a government agency and match military requirements, be intelligent, athletic, of certain psychological profile(s) and screened for genetic diseases. The colonists may be children of NASA's astronaut selection process that one day could lead to a distinct group... homo astronautis?

 

 

 

Neandertals were the dominant predator and species on the European continent for some 200,000 years - we have yet to make it a third of that time.

 

The oldest anatomically modern human fossils date back ~190,000 years ago....

 

Still, Neanderthals were probably older than 200,000 years anyway, so they might still be winning the longevity race. And Homo heidelbergensis are ahead still of both.

[chadn737]

 

Still, Neanderthals were probably older than 200,000 years anyway, so they might still be winning the longevity race. And Homo heidelbergensis are ahead still of both.

 

Neanderthals probably existed for ~300-400k. My contention was with the idea that we homo sapiens hadn't made it even a third of 200k.