Scattered ideas on human evolution

[firewolfsm]

Got some random ideas last night and felt I should copy them down, if you think I'm completely wrong, tell me, if you want to add something, go ahead. Or just discuss it among yourselves, it's a good topic.

------------------------------------------------


Human development can be broken down into two essential categories: biological, and anthropological, that is, evolution of the population and of human expression. Each form facilitates, and, conversely, remains dependant on the other. In any given dilemma, both the social and biological aspects of humanity will strive to overcome it. Whatever happens is ultimately irrelevant, as any evolution in one form catalyzes the other to do the same. Take AIDS for example, will Africa tackle this problem with a new genetic immunity, with education and medication, or a symbiotic mix of the two, as was the case with Malaria 20 years ago. Already some HIV-immune hemoglobin mutations have surfaced in Africa and China, leading us to the biological solution.

Evolution builds on itself, as intelligence uses past ideas as a beginning it can achieve newer heights. Take, for example, our social evolutions, from the agricultural age to the scientific, the industrial, and finally, the digital, occurring in 12,000 years, 450, 180, and 30 years, respectively. With an increased population, the frequency of ideas increases not linearly, but exponentially, because we build on our past and ourselves. As intelligence builds on intelligence, this process continues until we reach a singularity, a time of infinite change and expansion. We?ll start to see ages pass with each generation, within each generation, until we transcend our own concepts of humanity. The concept of evolution then changes from our original theory, in which humanity unwittingly changes to fit the needs of his surroundings, to a new, active, self-driven evolution, fueled by internal desires rather than the passive external forces of nature. Whereas the old evolution imbues nature?s traits in us, war, selfishness, and the suppression of creativity, the new evolution uses our own input; war, liberty, and the expansion of thought. We can already see this happening with our global warming crisis, the first time where mankind will take the initiative and change. Of his own free will and because of his own past. This is where a turn in the evolutionary cycle takes place.

 

[Brutus04]

Random indeed.

I don't see the connection between AIDs and human development unless you are talking about man's initiative to oppress and/or eradicate the disease. I do not see Africa involved as much as the United States.
What about the Information Age? You would hope socially, morally etc we would learn from passed experience, not always the case. Chalk one up for intelligence. Not sure if I agree with the exponential increase based on our (man) past history. Evolution is evolution; is there some old version laying around somewhere? Will our social development change our existing concepy of evolution?
Are you saying that as millennium?s pass we will evolve into self-serving beings with no instinctive human nature?
Not sure I am seeing the global-warming connection either. This is not the first time the earth has come out of an ice-age.
Good thing you wrote all this shit down.

Ya have to ask yourself... Which came first... the chicken or the egg?

 

[firewolfsm]

With each "plague" man has evolved to overcome it.

How do you see America more involved than Africa? The problem is in Africa, almost half the people there have it. We're at...maybe 10%?

As for what we'll evolve into, no one knows, but it is fact that there are more genetic differences between us and the ancient Egyptians (5,000 years) then there are differences between the the Egyptians and the Neanderthals (25,000 years.)

 

[LittleNemoNES]

I think you're on to something...lets call it... Phrenology!

JK

meh, I don't think it's been as long to warrant any obvious change in intelligence. I don't think that putting someone born in this time 10,000 yrs ago would have made technological improvements to be reached sooner.

::is drunk::

 

[Nathelion]

There are some physical limitations that restrict (a human's) ability to learn and invent new ideas. The actual "information singularity event" won't actually happen in the presence of such limits, I'd think.

Besides, my personal observation over the years as I learn more about the past is that what's amazing is not how much we remember, but rather how much we've forgotten. As a society, that is.

 

[SunSamurai]

If you know what we've forgotten as a society, please share. Otherwise, cut the pseudo wisdom.

 

[firewolfsm]

He means we keep making the same mistakes as a society. Vietnam-Iraq would be one example.

 

[CycloWizard]

There has been extensive work done in this area by way of genetic algorithms for optimization. I know that the same stuff has been applied to true evolution, but I'm not as familiar, so I'll stick with what I know, which I believe is fairly true of evolutionary biological systems.

First, the idea of a fitness function: the fitness function is simply some formula that tells you the "goodness" of a point based on the values of its chromosome, and a "point" is a member of the population. So, for simplicity, let's say that the fitness function is income, which (as we all know) increases one's chances of reproducing. The higher the value of the fitness function, the more kids that point will have, most of which will also have high fitness values. The genetic makeup of each child point is somewhat randomly determined by crossing two randomly selected points based on the value of their fitness functions.

This very general algorithm was developed using nature as a model. Generally, it gives a very rapid improvement in the best (and average) fitness of each subsequent generation, then tapers off. There is another concept that comes from engineering optimization that seems appropriate. The fitness function may change depending on changing conditions. In the sense of biological evolution, the fitness function may change to immunity to ebola rather than income, since obviously anyone having ebola isn't going to reproduce much regardless of how many money bags they're sleeping on. Again, after the change in fitness functions, one would expect a rapid improvement in the fitness of future generations in terms of this new metric, which may also result in a decrease in the fitness based on the previous metric. How quickly these improvements are made depends on a few things, such as mutation rates, number of offspring from those with good mutations relative to those with unfavorable mutations, chance, and luck.

If you set your fitness function to simply intelligence, then I think you're not modeling reality very well. The fitness function definitely changes with time in the case of someone in Africa, as you pointed out, finding immunity to HIV through some mutation. Whereas 50 years ago, this allele wouldn't have given any added fitness value, it certainly would today.

 

[dkozloski]

Evolution had little to do with the supression of malaria. It was DDT and other methods of mosquito control pure and simple. At one time malaria was one of the major causes of death in the midwestern U.S. In many areas of the world malaria is coming back with a vengeance. It's either DDT again or something like it.

 

[HVAC]

There was no evolving to overcome bubonic plague (black death).

 

[perzy]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
He means we keep making the same mistakes as a society. Vietnam-Iraq would be one example.

That would be the USA. Most of Europe learned (the hard way) long ago that there is no way to civilize those people.

 

[Throckmorton]

Scientific, technological, and social advancement is not evolution at all.

 

[kyussinchains]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Scientific, technological, and social advancement is not evolution at all.

my thoughts exactly, perhaps societal evolution, but that is a completely different area to human evolution

in fact, I think certain areas of medical advancement actually restrict the opportunity for evolution, now treatment exists for various genetic conditions, those conditions are continually bred into new generations as people can survive and live relatively normal lives.

I'm obviously not saying let all the people with cystic fibrosis die, but I thought it merited comment.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Scientific, technological, and social advancement is not evolution at all.

Why not? Can't they improve our fitness in terms of survival or just about any other fitness scenario you can think of? There is no definition that says evolution can only occur due to random genetic mutation and mating of diverse genomes. It can certainly occer due to intended manipulation, which would likely increase the rate of evolution fairly dramatically.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Scientific, technological, and social advancement is not evolution at all.

Why not? Can't they improve our fitness in terms of survival or just about any other fitness scenario you can think of? There is no definition that says evolution can only occur due to random genetic mutation and mating of diverse genomes. It can certainly occer due to intended manipulation, which would likely increase the rate of evolution fairly dramatically.

That's not what evolution is. Evolution is change of a species and speciation due to selective pressures that favor certain genes. Evolution doesn't require mutation and evolution is not necessarily advancement.

 

[Brutus04]

In reference to Africa and America involvement in AIDS...I see America funding most of the education and necessary medication; more so than Africa.

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: HVAC
There was no evolving to overcome bubonic plague (black death).

Umm yeah there was. Ever wonder why the plague is not around anymore? That's right, people developed resistance. In the middle ages and up through the renaissance and age of enlightenment, you see a steady pattern of outbreaks with the early ones (late middle ages) being absolutely catastrophic but the later ones gradually reducing in severity and scope, until the plague eventually died out.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
That's not what evolution is. Evolution is change of a species and speciation due to selective pressures that favor certain genes. Evolution doesn't require mutation and evolution is not necessarily advancement.

You've described natural selection, not evolution. Normally this might not be an important distinction, but since we are now discussing the idea that the fitness of subsequent generations might depend on more than just genetics, it becomes important. According to Merriam-Webster,

Natural Selection:
a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment

Evolution:
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

 

[firewolfsm]

Cyclo...I love you, haha, my second thread you've saved.

and to Nathelion, I don't think we developed a resistance to the plague, it's just that simple antibiotics can cure it that they didn't have back then.

 

[Nathelion]

Well, the plague disappeared before we had antibiotics. Ergo, we didn't cure it with antibiotics.

 

[firewolfsm]

Can you prove that?

 

[Nathelion]

By bubonic plague, I'm referring to the black death. It occurs to me that you may be referring to a whole category of related diseases.
At any rate, from wikipedia:

"From 1347 to 1351, the Black Death, a massive and deadly pandemic, swept through Asia, Europe and Africa. It may have reduced the world's population from 450 million to between 350 and 375 million. China, where it originated, lost around half of its population (from around 123 million to around 65 million), Europe around 1/3 of its population (from about 75 million to about 50 million) and Africa approximately 1/8th of its population (from around 80 million to 70 million). This makes the Black Death the largest death toll from any known non-viral epidemic. Although accurate statistical data does not exist, it is thought that 1.4 million died in England (1/4 of England's 4.2 million people), while an even higher percentage of Italy's population was likely wiped out. On the other hand, Northeastern Germany, Bohemia, Poland and Hungary are believed to have suffered less, and there are no estimates available for Russia or the Balkans.

The Black Death continued to strike parts of Europe sporadically until the 17th century, each time with reduced intensity and fatality, suggesting an increased resistance due to genetic selection.[7] Some have also argued that changes in hygiene habits and efforts to improve public health and sanitation had a significant impact on the falling rates of infection."

 

[firewolfsm]

I did mean the black death.

and that doesn't really prove it. No gene has been found that fights it, I think it's hygiene and better medicine over time.

but this is getting off topic, and I don't really care.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Human development can be broken down into two essential categories: biological, and anthropological, that is, evolution of the population and of human expression. Each form facilitates, and, conversely, remains dependant on the other. In any given dilemma, both the social and biological aspects of humanity will strive to overcome it. Whatever happens is ultimately irrelevant, as any evolution in one form catalyzes the other to do the same.

Rightyo. That's the biocultural feedback loop.

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Take AIDS for example, will Africa tackle this problem with a new genetic immunity, with education and medication, or a symbiotic mix of the two, as was the case with Malaria 20 years ago. Already some HIV-immune hemoglobin mutations have surfaced in Africa and China, leading us to the biological solution.

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
No gene has been found that fights it, I think it's hygiene and better medicine over time.

Google CCR5 delta 32. Hygiene & the germ theory of disease certainly didn't hurt, but there are genes that confer resistance to the bubonic plague. Hell, the basic ABO blood groups each confer resistance to various diseases.

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Evolution builds on itself, as intelligence uses past ideas as a beginning it can achieve newer heights. Take, for example, our social evolutions, from the agricultural age to the scientific, the industrial, and finally, the digital, occurring in 12,000 years, 450, 180, and 30 years, respectively. With an increased population, the frequency of ideas increases not linearly, but exponentially, because we build on our past and ourselves. As intelligence builds on intelligence, this process continues until we reach a singularity, a time of infinite change and expansion.

You're being a bit optimistic here, hehe.

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
We?ll start to see ages pass with each generation, within each generation, until we transcend our own concepts of humanity. The concept of evolution then changes from our original theory, in which humanity unwittingly changes to fit the needs of his surroundings, to a new, active, self-driven evolution, fueled by internal desires rather than the passive external forces of nature.

This is illogical given your opening statement. The more we change our environments to suit ourselves, the more, not less, our biology will change to meet those new environments.

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Whereas the old evolution imbues nature?s traits in us, war, selfishness, and the suppression of creativity, the new evolution uses our own input; war, liberty, and the expansion of thought. We can already see this happening with our global warming crisis, the first time where mankind will take the initiative and change. Of his own free will and because of his own past. This is where a turn in the evolutionary cycle takes place.

Nah. Same story, new day. We effect change on our environment & the changed environment effects change on us.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
First, the idea of a fitness function: the fitness function is simply some formula that tells you the "goodness" of a point based on the values of its chromosome, and a "point" is a member of the population. So, for simplicity, let's say that the fitness function is income, which (as we all know) increases one's chances of reproducing. The higher the value of the fitness function, the more kids that point will have, most of which will also have high fitness values. The genetic makeup of each child point is somewhat randomly determined by crossing two randomly selected points based on the value of their fitness functions.

That's the selection coefficient. The concept can be boiled down to how many more offspring than average do carriers of allele x have?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This very general algorithm was developed using nature as a model. Generally, it gives a very rapid improvement in the best (and average) fitness of each subsequent generation, then tapers off.

Fisher showed a long time ago that the probability of what can be appropriately referred to as an "X-Men allele" is very, very small. In fact, the odds of a mutation even occurring are inversely related to its bestowed increase in relative fitness. Not to mention, mutations are much more likely to be deleterious than beneficial. Further, most mutations don't do squat, or have such small effect they pragmatically don't do squat. Even mutations of medium to large effect spend a long time mucking about at low frequencies before taking off.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
There is another concept that comes from engineering optimization that seems appropriate. The fitness function may change depending on changing conditions. In the sense of biological evolution, the fitness function may change to immunity to ebola rather than income, since obviously anyone having ebola isn't going to reproduce much regardless of how many money bags they're sleeping on. Again, after the change in fitness functions, one would expect a rapid improvement in the fitness of future generations in terms of this new metric, which may also result in a decrease in the fitness based on the previous metric. How quickly these improvements are made depends on a few things, such as mutation rates, number of offspring from those with good mutations relative to those with unfavorable mutations, chance, and luck.

Exaptation. Like CCR5 delta 32!

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
That's not what evolution is. Evolution is change of a species and speciation due to selective pressures that favor certain genes. Evolution doesn't require mutation and evolution is not necessarily advancement.

You've described natural selection, not evolution.

You're both wrong. Evolution is not necessarily speciation. It does not require selective pressures that favor certain genes. Evolution doesn't proximately require mutation, true, but it does require variation, & mutation is the ultimate source of variation.

All evolution can be succinctly defined as a change in gene frequencies in a population from one generation to the next. This does not always result in speciation. Drift can cause evolution without selection - but selection can't happen without mutation. Variation is required, because there can't be a change in frequencies if there's nothing different to change to!

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Normally this might not be an important distinction, but since we are now discussing the idea that the fitness of subsequent generations might depend on more than just genetics, it becomes important...

Err, once you invoke extra-genetic stuff, you're not talking about biological evolution. You're talking about cultural evolution. Which can affect biological evolution, but isn't biological evolution...

 

[Throckmorton]

I said change of a species AND speciation. I meant it's both of those things, not necessarily both at the same time.