Originally posted by Stoic
Okay all of what Q99 said is really interesting, but is there any proof that modern human's will continue to evolve over time (if we truly ever have in the first place)?
Yep.
Think about it- DNA is being shuffled around every single generation.
What do you think is making it play within the lines?
That's something people don't think about much, you need a mechanism for not-evolution, since evolution is just 'stuff doesn't stay the same' and we know we don't stay the same.
We have a couple mechanisms for genetic change. Simple sexual selection. We also know genetic mutations happen every generation- radiation damage and such means there's some altered genes every single generation, they're just normally so insignificant or in places that don't matter so they don't really have an effect and often vanish quickly or hang around without changing anything, but literally every generation there's a few random alterations.
Now, it's a very slow process when you have a large stable population, but we've yet to detect a mechanism that'd keep up locked in the same box as it were.
Has there been any change in modern man in the past 4000 years?
Probably, yea, though not *quite* that soon. Lactose tolerance is fairly recent, 7,000 years, and still doesn't cover much of the population despite obvious benefits.
We're such a big species that even successful adaptations that young don't have time to spread to all of us.
Back when there were thousands of us, any change could spread much faster.
I for one saw pictures of a lot of extinct animals, but what about the animals that have continued to exist all the way up to present day with no visible differences to set them apart from their ancient ancestors?
Even sharks and crocodiles visibly change. When people talk about 'unchanged' lifeforms, they really mean 'something that retains the same basic outer shape,' but there's always some change.
Some stuff changes very slowly, some quickly, there's numerous traits and circumstances that affect that.
Note there's also changes that aren't visually apparent but are significant, like, say, alterations to the immune system. You could have two animals from 30 million years apart that look very similar, but their bloodtypes have changed and they can't interbreed anymore. If something's blood doesn't work quite the same, it may not look externally different, but it has changed in a very permanent and significant way.
Or intelligence and behavior. Something's brain could have changed some from it's ancestor and as long as it wasn't a big brainsize difference it'd look the same.
There are ancient aquatic creatures that have not changed one bit, and are still swimming around in the deepest parts of the ocean.
The Coelacanth is the most famous of those, and it's closest ancient, 80-million year old ancestor has been found to be about 2 feet long. Modern ones are five feet. I find being two and a half times longer to be a significant change, don't you? That it's otherwise so close is pretty amazing, but don't mistake that for no change.
Sharks, similarly, have gotten sleeker over time, their teeth have changed, and they've gained other adaptations- Hammerheads have superior senses and different headshape, nurse sharks give birth to live young, whale sharks filter plankton. I don't think we have a good idea when sharks gained the electromagnetic sense, and that's a major evolutionary change.
Sometimes stuff really doesn't change much- if changing gets you killed and staying doesn't, then evolution is gonna encourage you to stay looking pretty darn similar. And often while some of a species changes into something new, some don't change and last in their same niche. Circumstances vary, sometimes stuff looks the same, sometimes stuff changes, that evolution happens is not reliant on the rate of change.
What happened with those mosquitoes could be as easily called adaptation instead of evolution. Right?
I could also call dinosaurs becoming birds adaptation instead of evolution, it wouldn't change anything, that's just a semantic line.
They have a notable genetic difference that prevents breeding and results in noticeably different traits like breeding season.
If you removed their non-subway dwelling relatives from the warmer area of the range, some of them would no doubt spread from the subway once more... but even once re-adapted to the outside, the genetics have split, and would be no more able to breed with the original species than their subway dwelling relatives could. Past that point, only further divergence is possible. Once two groups don't interbreed, normal random genetic mixup will eventually separate them entirely, and that's already happened here.
Also, there's been stuff in labs where they managed to get bacteria to metabolish citrus when that type of bacteria had no evolutionary history of it. That's a completely 100% new trait, entirely new evolutionary development has been observed in lab conditions.
I was under the impression that evolution was a process that took centuries or longer to happen? How long has these man made subways existed?
Evolution takes how long it takes. Mosquitos have *very* fast generations, and the living in constantly warm conditions that always have food allowed for even faster ones.
The London Underground opened in 1863, so 150 years. Which in mosquito terms, who can have a life cycle of as little as 10 days, means thousands, possibly ten thousand generations.
Bacteria and viruses can change in very short times, because they are so simple (any change is noticeable fast) and their generation length similarly so short.
Something with a twenty year generation cycle and a complex genome, sure, it may get a few new genes each generation but it has such a large genome it won't show up, and a hundred fifty years is a mere 7 generations. Centuries for mosquitos is about as much 'evolution' time as hundreds of thousands of years to us.
I recall moving to Montreal as a child, and having a very difficult time with the cold weather in the winters, but after 3 years I adapted to the winters to the point that I was able to walk around for prolonged periods of time without a winter hat.
But your genetics didn't change, and if you moved elsewhere you'd adjust back, and none of it would affect what you passed on. I could not take a blood sample, look at your DNA, and see where you lived. Indeed, your genetics are written with the adaptations that let you adjust, I'd just see, "Oh, this species can handle a variety of temperatures with these traits."
There's a difference between adjusting and a genetic adaptation, and indeed, you have the genetic adaptation that lets you adjust.
Now, if you developed a single gene that turned your skin blue to help with the cold, that'd be evolution. You'd have it even if you moved to the equator, your kids would have it if they did the same, and so on until either it wasn't passed on, or everyone has it, or humans with blue skin diverged from other humans and started accumulating other specific traits and differences.
Oh and I have another question; Can we be certain that the fossils that were exhumed from that supposed ancient cavern wasn't a hoax?
There's been thousands and thousands of homo genus specimen found in caves throughout the world by many unrelated groups of researchers.
Researchers have also gotten pretty good at spotting hoaxed, after the early days had a few famous ones and the field is now very much into testing things to check and make sure.
So yes, it's almost certainly no hoax, because plenty of finds of similar sorts have been discovered in independently verifiable circumstances.
Originally posted by Surtur
Of course ancient aliens tells us the dinosaurs were specifically targeted for destruction so humanity could rise and evolve.
Ah, note, it's not a dinosaur at all. They just stuck everything with -saurus back when it was discovered ^^
A lystrosaurus is a synapsid / therapsid, closer to mammals than dinosaurs, but predating dinosaurs. Dimetrodon (the sail-backed species often alongside dinosaur displays) is another synapsid.
Synapids were dominant, some became therapsids which became dominant, then mass extinction happened and crurotarisans (crocs) took over and become dominant (while therapsids hung out for awhile).
Then mass extinction, and dinosaurs became dominant (and non-mammal therapsids went into final decline and finally died in the early cretaceous).
Then mass extinction, non-avian dinosaurs died out, and mammals became dominant (though it took awhile- at first avian-types were dominant in predatory and similar roles).
Did the aliens engineer the therapsid and crurotarisan extinctions too? 😉
(Also, as one can probably tell, I totally *love* this stuff ^^)
I'm sorry Q, but I just don't believe you. If we truly have evolved, why is it that we are still hung up on the very same things that we were hung up on thousands of years ago? It hasn't even been 30 years that people began killing each other over fashionable colors. Not to mention that racism is far from being a thing of the past.
If we somehow physically evolved beyond our ancestors, then I would also assume that our brains should have at least taken some form of a leap forward. However, I see the same politics used today as they were in the middle ages, we just got a little more sophisticated with them. Fashions change with the advent of technology, and in that perspective I can truly see a form of evolution in terms of practical thought patterns. What I have yet to see, is a change in our more primal thought patterns.
Your entire argument on proof of evolution appears to stem from mutation, which is not a true and neutral form of evolution, but instead it is something that should be considered to be an adaptation. Also, where is the 100% proof that mutation is a guaranteed avenue to claim evolution? Should we look closer at what occurred in Hiroshima or Nagasaki as a starting point to examine what a hostile environment's effects would have on humanity genetically? Did the Japanese families that have lived there over the past few generations somehow changed, or gained a stronger tolerance to radiation? Will Russians become more tolerant to radiation, or mutate over time because of Lake Karachay?
Evolvability Issues
Traditional theory assumes that all organisms possess the capacity for further evolution and that this capacity is a constant that does not vary between populations or species. There is growing evidence (much from recent genetics science) that this is not true leading to evolvability theories of evolutionary mechanics. If the ability of an organism to evolve can itself be affected by evolved design characteristics, then any valid evolutionary mechanics theory must explain why and how that situation affects or does not affect the evolution process. Proponents of traditional theory have not responded to this problem
Originally posted by Stoic
Evolvability IssuesTraditional theory assumes that all organisms possess the capacity for further evolution and that this capacity is a constant that does not vary between populations or species. There is growing evidence (much from recent genetics science) that this is not true leading to evolvability theories of evolutionary mechanics. If the ability of an organism to evolve can itself be affected by evolved design characteristics, then any valid evolutionary mechanics theory must explain why and how that situation affects or does not affect the evolution process. Proponents of traditional theory have not responded to this problem
[edit] I found your source:
http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html
The very first sentences:
"Darwin's idea that current species are descended from different earlier species is now overwhelmingly confirmed by steadily increasing observational evidence and no longer has scientific opposition. Darwin's evolutionary mechanics theory, essentially survival of the fittest or natural selection, also fits the vast majority of observations. His idea was that mutational changes occasionally occurred in individual organisms. Sometimes the changes were inheritable. Sometimes inheritable changes improved the ability of individual organisms possessing them to survive longer (and thereby reproduce more) or to otherwise reproduce more, thus propagating their altered design in a population. According to traditional mechanics theory, any evolved organism characteristic must therefore improve the ability of individual organisms to live longer or reproduce more.
However, the traditional evolutionary mechanics theory, now known as neo-Darwinism or The Modern Synthesis, conflicts with some observations as described below. Because such a large proportion of observations conform, Darwin and many subsequent theorists assumed that conforming explanations for the relatively few conflicts would eventually be found. As time passed that did not happen and additional issues and conflicts surfaced leading to development of the alternative evolutionary mechanics theories beginning in 1962"
So this source as well agrees that Evolution happens.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some of the terms in this don't seem clearly defined, can you link some papers or at least some popular science publications discussing the issue?[edit] I found your source:
http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html
The very first sentences:
"Darwin's idea that current species are descended from different earlier species is now overwhelmingly confirmed by steadily increasing observational evidence and no longer has scientific opposition. Darwin's evolutionary mechanics theory, essentially survival of the fittest or natural selection, also fits the vast majority of observations. His idea was that mutational changes occasionally occurred in individual organisms. Sometimes the changes were inheritable. Sometimes inheritable changes improved the ability of individual organisms possessing them to survive longer (and thereby reproduce more) or to otherwise reproduce more, thus propagating their altered design in a population. According to traditional mechanics theory, any evolved organism characteristic must therefore improve the ability of individual organisms to live longer or reproduce more.
However, the traditional evolutionary mechanics theory, now known as neo-Darwinism or The Modern Synthesis, conflicts with some observations as described below. Because such a large proportion of observations conform, Darwin and many subsequent theorists assumed that conforming explanations for the relatively few conflicts would eventually be found. As time passed that did not happen and additional issues and conflicts surfaced leading to development of the alternative evolutionary mechanics theories beginning in 1962"
So this source as well agrees that Evolution happens.
There's quite a bit to read here, but I found this to be very interesting. It delves into more than just the physical relationship that many animal species have. This is why I went into it on a different level earlier, but like I said, there is a lot more to it than I bothered to bring to the table. Put it this way, there are so many holes, and variations in the theory of evolution, that even what I am about to paste does not fully cover. Once you read it, you will have to read other takes on things. There are so many unknowns floating around, that one small unknown fact, could send all of this stuff back to the cutting floor.
Group/Kin Selection and Theories of Aging
Group and Kin Selection Theories - Alternatives to Traditional Evolutionary Mechanics
Group selection is one of the alternative evolutionary mechanics theories that have been developed in an effort to handle apparent observed discrepancies between observations of living organisms and traditional evolutionary mechanics theory (see Scientific Issues with Traditional Evolution Theory). The general concept is that benefit to survival of a group may offset some degree of individual fitness disadvantage and thus allow for the evolution of organism characteristics that are adverse to individual fitness such as programmed aging or animal altruism.
In 1962 British zoologist Vero Wynne-Edwards published a group selection theory in his book Animal Dispersions in Relation to Social Behavior. This theory was intended as an explanation for altruism and suggested that behaviors that improved group survival could evolve despite individual disadvantage. His theory was vigorously criticized by followers of traditional evolutionary mechanics theory particularly George Williams (author of a non-programmed theory of aging based on traditional evolutionary mechanics).
Critics suggested that group selection was motivated by anthropomorphism and that group selectionists were excessively ascribing human characteristics to animals. Human societies, civilizations, and religions are indeed greatly characterized by the concept of individual sacrifice for group benefit and this concept is certainly counter to the everyone out for himself, dog-eat-dog, situation described by Darwin and traditional evolutionary mechanics. Even though traditional Darwinists agree that humans are descended from prior species they think that humans have special properties, not possessed by animals, that lead to distinctly human (individually adverse) behaviors. However, most theorists now accept that there are many credible observations of animal behaviors that appear to be individually adverse and therefore conflict with traditional evolutionary mechanics.
Critics also raised mechanics issues. How does the genetic data that programs altruism propagate into a population sufficiently that the group benefit can be realized. There is a "cheater problem": Even if a trait benefits survival of the group, why wouldn't animals that did not possess the individually adverse trait be able to better propagate their non-altruistic design? This problem appears to become progressively more severe as the size of the group increases. Eventually this led to several variations of the group selection concept based on the size and nature of the group. Perhaps group selection only works for small groups, for isolated populations, for closely related organisms (kin), etc. For example, W. D. Hamilton is a major figure in development of the kin selection concept along with J. B. S. Haldane.
The mechanics issues depend on one's perception regarding the rapidity with which the evolution process responds to fitness advantage or disadvantage. Our collective experience with selective breeding suggests that enormous phenotypic change can be produced in a very few generations. Does this mean that an individually adverse trait would "select out" very rapidly and that therefore an individual disadvantage (even a very small one) would override a group benefit (even a large one)? Not necessarily. Selective breeders recognize that breeding for one property of an organism generally introduces changes to other properties. This is often inconsequential to the breeder. However, an evolutionary fitness advantage results from the combined net effect of all of an organism's design properties and evolution is therefore different from selective breeding. A mutational change that deleted altruism or some other individually adverse characteristic might well also negatively affect other individually beneficial characteristics. The evolution process, over a much longer period, can eventually sort out these issues producing a net benefit. This sort of analysis combined with recent genetics discoveries suggests that the evolution process is relatively slower and more complex than selective breeding and that therefore a group benefit my not be so different from an individual benefit. Modern genetics discoveries are adding to a mechanics basis for group selection.
Group/Kin Selection and Theories of Programmed Aging
The group selection concept has been applied to theories of programmed aging by Joshua Mitteldorf.
Giacinto Libertini is the author of a programmed aging theory based on kin selection. Libertini's concept, based on examinations of life span data gathered from many wild animals is that a shorter mean life span causes a quicker generational turnover and therefore a quicker diffusion of favorable genes within a species thus creating a competitive advantage.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some of the terms in this don't seem clearly defined, can you link some papers or at least some popular science publications discussing the issue?[edit] I found your source:
http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html
The very first sentences:
"Darwin's idea that current species are descended from different earlier species is now overwhelmingly confirmed by steadily increasing observational evidence and no longer has scientific opposition. Darwin's evolutionary mechanics theory, essentially survival of the fittest or natural selection, also fits the vast majority of observations. His idea was that mutational changes occasionally occurred in individual organisms. Sometimes the changes were inheritable. Sometimes inheritable changes improved the ability of individual organisms possessing them to survive longer (and thereby reproduce more) or to otherwise reproduce more, thus propagating their altered design in a population. According to traditional mechanics theory, any evolved organism characteristic must therefore improve the ability of individual organisms to live longer or reproduce more.
However, the traditional evolutionary mechanics theory, now known as neo-Darwinism or The Modern Synthesis, conflicts with some observations as described below. Because such a large proportion of observations conform, Darwin and many subsequent theorists assumed that conforming explanations for the relatively few conflicts would eventually be found. As time passed that did not happen and additional issues and conflicts surfaced leading to development of the alternative evolutionary mechanics theories beginning in 1962"
So this source as well agrees that Evolution happens.
Evolution happens only to an extent, and in many cases it is due to breeding out genes, or inheriting them. But is this truly evolution, adaptation, or mutation? What about many species that died off for various reasons? If we delved into what happened to that particular race of humanoid individuals that those fossils came from, could they have been victims of racism? Could there have also been other species that existed? Can we truly say that Ancient Alligators that died off weren't just cousins to the ones that we see today? How do we explain the fact that human DNA has more in common with trees? Why has there been no visible sign of physical change in several primates? in 200 years from now, could we discover a new insect that only lives in molten rock? This is what I mean about there being so many holes in the theory of evolution.
Here check this out as well
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/alien_watchers06.htm
Originally posted by Stoic
Evolution happens only to an extent, and in many cases it is due to breeding out genes, or inheriting them. But is this truly evolution, adaptation, or mutation?
What makes you think they're different things?
One new gene or gene configuration that sticks around is evolution, just a small amount of it.
Evolution can be called the accumulation of adaptations.
People unfamiliar with evolution sometimes draw weird boxes around what is and isn't evolution- that have nothing to do with the actual process.
What about many species that died off for various reasons?
What about them? When something dies, it stops evolving.
If we delved into what happened to that particular race of humanoid individuals that those fossils came from, could they have been victims of racism?
In that some of 'em were likely killed by other humanoids for being different, yes.
Could there have also been other species that existed?
We're entirely sure there is.
Can we truly say that Ancient Alligators that died off weren't just cousins to the ones that we see today?
Cousins is one descriptor that applies to some, though some are clearly direct ancestors to each other. There is often a clear progression of species and traits that develop and become more pronounced over time.
Is your great grandmother your cousin?
How do we explain the fact that human DNA has more in common with trees?
It doesn't, whereever you read that is wrong. Even our cells are designed different.
Why has there been no visible sign of physical change in several primates?
One, what makes you think there hasn't been?
Two, sometimes evolution happens slowly. This doesn't somehow make it not evolution.
Larger primates as a whole are a younger group as these things go. There was a lot of change to get where they are, but then once in a comfortable successful niche, that slows down.
in 200 years from now, could we discover a new insect that only lives in molten rock?
As far as I know, there's no gene configuration that'd allow that, since insects, like all animals, are made from proteins and minerals from their food, and those break down under high heat.
This is what I mean about there being so many holes in the theory of evolution.
What holes? You didn't mention any holes there, except for the tree one- which is simply wrong.
To go through your list, your statements are-
"What about these different semantic descriptors?" -a lingual question, not a problem with the theory
"Why do some things evolve slowly?" -Not a problem with evolution, rather, it's something that's answered by delving into how evolution works.
"Why are some species dead?" -nothing about evolution says species can't die.
"Could there have been other species we don't know about?" -Obviously not a flaw in evolution.
"Could you call ancient crocodiles cousins?" a linguistic question, and the answer is 'sometimes, but many are direct ancestors.'
"Is it possible for magma dwellers to exist?" a question of whether a particular trait is possible, which says nothing about whether or not evolution is happening.
How is any of that supposed to be a hole in evolution itself rather than just a question you personally don't know?
I'm sorry Q, but I just don't believe you. If we truly have evolved, why is it that we are still hung up on the very same things that we were hung up on thousands of years ago? It hasn't even been 30 years that people began killing each other over fashionable colors. Not to mention that racism is far from being a thing of the past.
I don't think you're entirely familiar with what evolution is.
Evolution is the change in species over time. It is not some 'you do this for awhile and you become all better all over.'
We've evolved a spine that lets us stand upright, a mouth that lets us speak language, arms that let us throw like nothing else, legs and lungs that let us walk further than 99% of other species.
Those are all changes, some of them quite recent.
A few thousand years? That's an eyeblink evolutionarily- and most of that stuff is society changes, not genetic changes.
My question for you is, why do you think evolution means we wouldn't have those things? I certainly haven't said that's the case.
If we somehow physically evolved beyond our ancestors,
Stop there. 'Beyond.'
There is no levels in evolution, or 'beyond'. There is the gaining or losing of traits, some of which we-as-humans may view as better or worse, but evolution is just about changing traits to survive.
Like, if there was an alien that showed up, and killed every human that spoke, stayed around for ten thousand generations, and then left, the humans remaining would likely be unable to make speech like we could now- it'd be an evolutionary response to 'aliens kill us when we talk.' That's not 'beyond,' that's just 'alive,' which is what evolution is all about.
then I would also assume that our brains should have at least taken some form of a leap forward.
We can talk, do math, etc..
Our ancestors didn't have any of those things.
That's a big leap.
However, I see the same politics used today as they were in the middle ages, we just got a little more sophisticated with them.
Ok, and genetically there's almost zero change between now and then, that's only a few hundred generations. Societally, we've changed much more rapidly than genetic evolution can keep up.
Are you under the impression that evolution has to be fast for it to be evolution?
Fashions change with the advent of technology, and in that perspective I can truly see a form of evolution in terms of practical thought patterns. What I have yet to see, is a change in our more primal thought patterns.
You don't think going from small groups that didn't speak, to groups of hundreds or thousands that use communication, tool use, grow their own food instead of simply hunting or gathering like every other species, etc. constitutes a change in thought?
Your entire argument on proof of evolution appears to stem from mutation, which is not a true and neutral form of evolution, but instead it is something that should be considered to be an adaptation.
What? Genetic evolution is the accumulation of genetic change. It's not only a 'true and neutral' form of evolution, but it's one of the most common causes of it.
Also, adaptations that are passed on is evolution. You're drawing a line here where there is none.
It seems to me you're arguing here "evolution isn't happening here because I'm choosing to define it otherwise," but of note?
That is not the scientific definition of evolution you're using. That's a you-definition. I can only tell you what the definition of the word that scientists use is, I can't tell you what you chose to make up for yourself.
Also, where is the 100% proof that mutation is a guaranteed avenue to claim evolution?
Evolution is "species change over time."
Mutation causes change.
Saying there's mutation but no change is like saying, "Where is the 100% proof that adding water makes the water level go up?".
Should we look closer at what occurred in Hiroshima or Nagasaki as a starting point to examine what a hostile environment's effects would have on humanity genetically?
Nothing about evolution says a species cannot do stuff that messes itself up bigtime.
That's you saying that.
Did the Japanese families that have lived there over the past few generations somehow changed, or gained a stronger tolerance to radiation? Will Russians become more tolerant to radiation, or mutate over time because of Lake Karachay?
The timeframe is way too short for that kind of adaptation. There *are* some species more resistant to radiation, so given a long enough time frame eventually radiation-survival mechanisms may develop, but for the most part, the effects are simply more people dying. And the easiest radiation-survival mechanism is 'move away.'
Evolutionary change of note normally takes place on a scale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Why are you insisting that if a change doesn't occur in 70 years that there must be no evolution?
Most of your arguments seem to stem from insisting on limitations or conditions on what to count/not count as evolution, or to insist that evolution implies stuff which it does not.
Which is one of the the harder things about teaching people about evolution, it's not rare that they have preconceived notions of what evolution is that are way off from how it actually works and how scientists and others who study it discuss it.
Mystery of our 145 'alien' genes: Scientists discover some DNA is NOT from our ancestors - and say it could change how we think about evolution
Study challenges views that evolution relies solely on genes passed down
Instead says we acquired essential 'foreign' genes from microorganisms
Originally posted by riv6672
Dang.
That was an interesting read. Thanks for putting so much thought into all this...👆
If you have any more questions about any old species or groups, feel free to ask ^^
When I look up references, it's not rare that I find new stuff myself.
And to post images of the Crurotarsans I was talking about:
I find it really fascinating how they started out in a river-ambush predator position, after a mass extinction spread out and got everywhere, but then another mass extinction happened and only ones who went back to the rivers survived. With dinosaurs becoming big, leaving the waters to compete on land became a dangerous and evolutionarily unsuccessful gambit from that point forward, but river crocodilians would become bigger, smaller, adjust their jaws, and etc., growing better adapted to their role as time passes and situations change.
And there's evidence of this period outside the river even in modern crocodiles- they have four chambered hearts, when almost all other reptiles have only 3, despite the fact that, obviously, other land reptiles are more active. There's truly no need for an ambusher to have such a sophisticated heart, but once you have one, well, there's no particular disadvantage to it either, so it stays around, a relic of their active period over two hundred million years ago.
Hey Q99, what do you think of this?