Evolutionary Race

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

For Ed's sake, folks, there are thin spaces between the ellipsis points! Best we can do here, though, is regular spaces: . . .

~~ Paul

 

[wjousts]

So what do you think is in store with what is happening with us and the planet, etc? I can think of a ton of unspecialized creatures that are doing quite well, but they are so successful that they don't need to evolve much more.

Do you think we've reached that state? Crocodiles and cockroaches haven't changed much in eons.

What could possibly be the next step in evolution? What human trait could help us survive a certain scenario that would cause (survivors) us to have a primary trait that would lead us onto another evolutionary path?

I'm trying to envision some next step, but my mind just stalls.

My take is that baring major global catastrophe that wipes out a good 80-90% of the entire human race, isolates the few survivors in distance places and keeps them that way for several thousand years, we are pretty much done with biological evolution. Once we developed complex brains a new replicator entered the world, the meme, and is now the primary source of our "evolution".
Human society has made it possible for even the weakest, most mentally challenged, or just plain uglest people to survive and reproduce so there is really very little pressure to weed out any bad genes. In human society potential cripling or deadly conditions can be over come.

WRT the original question. I'm with Huntsman and Gould on this one. The idea of a race is all wrong and just a reflection of our own bias. There is nothing to indicate that the emergence of an intellegent speices on this (or any other planet) is a foregone conclusion of evolution. It also doesn't make sense to regard ourselves as winners either. If anybody has won, it's the bateria.

 

[whitefork]

For Ed's sake, folks, there are thin spaces between the ellipsis points! Best we can do here, though, is regular spaces: . . .

~~ Paul

gotta differ with you here, Paul

An ellipsis [ … ] proves to be a handy device when you're quoting material and you want to omit some words. The ellipsis consists of three evenly spaced dots (periods) with spaces between the ellipsis and surrounding letters or other marks.

The example from this page has no more space between the dots than it does between letters (of course, those are thin spaces, but....) http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm

Do you have another source?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by wjousts

Human society has made it possible for even the weakest, most mentally challenged, or just plain uglest people to survive and reproduce so there is really very little pressure to weed out any bad genes.

"...strong selection pressure, we could be forgiven for thinking, might be expected to lead to rapid evolution. Instead, what we find is that natural selection exerts a braking effect on evolution. The baseline rate of evolution, in the absence of natural selection, is the maximum possible rate. That is synonymous with the mutation rate." --Dawkins

 

[wjousts]

"...strong selection pressure, we could be forgiven for thinking, might be expected to lead to rapid evolution. Instead, what we find is that natural selection exerts a braking effect on evolution. The baseline rate of evolution, in the absence of natural selection, is the maximum possible rate. That is synonymous with the mutation rate." --Dawkins

I'm note sure if you quoted that to agree or disagree with my comment?
I don't think what I said is in anyway at odds with what Dawkins is saying. In the absence of strong selection pressure the genetic diversity of a population would increase. Without the pressure of selection slightly harmful mutations can be tolerated so the overall variance of the population will increase. But the average, in the absence of selection pressure, isn't going to go anywhere. Which I took as being what Eos of the Eons was getting at. Without strong selection pressure humans will continue to look pretty much like humans on average. It will take the introduction of a strong selection pressure (such as a global catastrophe) to push the average human to become something else.

 

[(S)]

My take is that baring major global catastrophe that wipes out a good 80-90% of the entire human race, isolates the few survivors in distance places and keeps them that way for several thousand years, we are pretty much done with biological evolution. Once we developed complex brains a new replicator entered the world, the meme, and is now the primary source of our "evolution".
Human society has made it possible for even the weakest, most mentally challenged, or just plain uglest people to survive and reproduce so there is really very little pressure to weed out any bad genes. In human society potential cripling or deadly conditions can be over come.

I'll second this sentiment entirely [kind of disappointed I didn't show up early enough to first it ... *sniff*]. I'll add to it first that I think your definition of a major catastrophe is too small ... 80-90 percent would still leave nearly a billion people left, more than enough to support an industrialized society, even isolated. I think you'd need even greater reductions, a full two or three orders of magnitude, as well as insanely harsh conditions [ice-age like scenarios] so that there wasn't enough time to devote to educating the young for a couple of generations, so that the knowledge of the survivors could be given a chance to essentially die out ... otherwise, you drop any one of us into a completely non-industrial society [real cavemen, not just fallen-us], with /favorable/ conditions, we could apply our knowledge to considerable gain, building irrigation and aquaducts, creating accurate calenders and good education systems, hydromechanical and electrical based industrialization. The development might be a bit rough around the edges, and it could easily take a few centuries to build back up to computers, but it'd be fast if you already knew roughly what to do.
For a second piece, I think the time issues make biological evolution, as a factor of development now, uninteresting. IF the elephants were to evolve to sentience, it would not happen in the next century or the next thousand years or probably the next hundred thouand or million. The evolution of human memes, on the other hand, happens Pretty Darn Quickly. It is inconceivable to me that we would still be confined to this planet in a thousand years; indeed, I can't even imagine how far technology will evolve in more than a hundred years. It just gets too fantastic for me to worry about.
This, incidentally, is why I get so annoyed at sci-fi which likes to talk about 'the next stage in human evolution' . . .

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Memes are the next stage in human evolution, silly.

Do you really think it's Homo Sapiens that will inherit the stars? It'll either be our mind children or no one at all.

 

[(S)]

Bah. I'll be damned if I'm going to get myself evolved out of existance.

 

[Dragonrock]

...Elephants, no language no hands...

According to this site elephants are able to produce and enormous range of frequencies and sounds giving them a very complex language. Also, their trunks are quite nimble and I'll bet that they would have been next on the sentience list if we hadn't been around to throw a monkey wrench in the works.

edited to fix speeling and leenk

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by wjousts

I'm note sure if you quoted that to agree or disagree with my comment?

I came here for an argument.

I don't think what I said is in anyway at odds with what Dawkins is saying.

I think this is:

"My take is that baring major global catastrophe... we are pretty much done with biological evolution."

Without strong selection pressure humans will continue to look pretty much like humans on average.

I still struggle with the concept that minimum selection equals maximum evolution. One reason I look for opportunities to bat this back and forth is the hope that I will eventually become comfortable with it. If I understand the implications of this correctly, then the opposite of what you say is true; it is selective pressure which would tend to keep humans looking pretty much the same.

I agree about the meme thing of course -- except that it isn't quite so clear how that constitutes us evolving.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I came here for an argument.

Oh... I'm sorry! This is Abuse!

I still struggle with the concept that minimum selection equals maximum evolution.

I think we need a clarification in terms. 'Evolution' is being used here in the sense of genetic change. Minimum selection equals maximum genetic drift. "Meaningful" change is maximized when there's a proper balance between mutation and selection.

Without selective pressures to maintain a genome, random mutation will eventually erase all traits not necessary for survival. Too much selection, and diversity enters a bottleneck (which isn't a good strategy in the long term); too much mutation, and the adaptive genomes are lost in static.

I agree about the meme thing of course -- except that it isn't quite so clear how that constitutes us evolving.

In terms of genetic change, we're still evolving: the genes that prove most successful at propagating themselves in our own, self-created environments will become more common. Unfortunately, I suspect the result will be similar to what happens when ideas aren't forced to be weeded out by conflicts with reality, and people are free to develop whatever nonsense they like in an artificially safe world: the genetic equivalents of woo-wooism.

Hopefully we'll reach transhumanity before that happens.

 

[(S)]

Transhumanization is overrated. I think it's inevitable, but overrated none-the-less. Something 'better than humans' is created. AI is the common bet. Something infinitely smarter than me, able to live forever [*] is created. So what? I just kill myself? I line up to be sterilized, so that no more generations of humans shall ever walk upon this earth, because, lo and behold, there's something better?
Yeah. I'm sure a nice group of cultists will be waiting to help me if I lose my nerve. I'm all for building something better; I'll be on the street campaigning for equal rights for man and AI, before and after the vast robot hoards crush us into the dirt. If there's a way to live forever, I'm in, and there are few catches that could dissuade me from it. But I don't think any sort of transhumanization is going to make humanity disappear.
Something better is created, sure, great, but humanity is going to keep on doing what humanity does, because that's what humanity does. It may be easier for our robot superiors to explore the universe, but I'll be right there poking them in the shoulder until they give me a ride to some interesting part of it.

[*] Well, forever if you assume that the AI itself wouldn't do as Vinge predicted, and devote itself to creating something more intelligent than itself, then kill itself when it was complete, since it was so obviously obselete.

 

[wjousts]

I think we need a clarification in terms. 'Evolution' is being used here in the sense of genetic change. Minimum selection equals maximum genetic drift.

Right, that is what I (and I think Dawkins) is trying to say.

"Meaningful" change is maximized when there's a proper balance between mutation and selection.

I not sure I'd quite put it that way. I'd say "meaningful" change (as in change enough that an alien visting the earth, observing a creature and then returning 100,000 years later would probably think the creature in question are two different beasts) requires a diverse genepool to start and then fairly strong selection (too strong could wipe the species out completely) to make the change. I don't think the rate of new mutations are all that important during a period of strong selection, since most of them will not be tolerated anyway.

Without selective pressures to maintain a genome, random mutation will eventually erase all traits not necessary for survival. Too much selection, and diversity enters a bottleneck (which isn't a good strategy in the long term); too much mutation, and the adaptive genomes are lost in static.

Sounds like a fair assessment to me.

In terms of genetic change, we're still evolving: the genes that prove most successful at propagating themselves in our own, self-created environments will become more common.

We are still evolving in terms of new genetic diversity is appearing (through mutation) all the time, but I don't think the genes that are most successful at propagating themselves in our environments are so much better than any alternatives (because the selection pressures are so low) that they will become significantly more common even over very long stretches of time unless the environment dramatically changes. Hence there is little or no "meaningful" change occuring.

Unfortunately, I suspect the result will be similar to what happens when ideas aren't forced to be weeded out by conflicts with reality, and people are free to develop whatever nonsense they like in an artificially safe world: the genetic equivalents of woo-wooism.

Hopefully we'll reach transhumanity before that happens.

An interesting take on the subject. I think I see what you're getting at. With little pressure to weed out bad genes, all kinds of genetic crap will accumulate and be tolerated within the population. I think in general for the survival of any species such periods are actually a good thing, because when the environment changes what used to be crap can suddenly become gold.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by wjousts

But the average, in the absence of selection pressure, [evolution] isn't going to go anywhere. Which I took as being what Eos of the Eons was getting at.

I agree. It isn't going to go anywhere interesting, anyway. (And welcome aboard, BTW).

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

Minimum selection equals maximum genetic drift. "Meaningful" change is maximized when there's a proper balance between mutation and selection.

Yes. And by 'meaningful', or 'interesting', what we are looking for is 'cumulative complexity' -- something which occurs only when selection is at work.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

An interesting take on the subject. I think I see what you're getting at. With little pressure to weed out bad genes, all kinds of genetic crap will accumulate and be tolerated within the population. I think in general for the survival of any species such periods are actually a good thing, because when the environment changes what used to be crap can suddenly become gold.

Exactly. You don't know what trait that may seem useless or even the opposite of beneficial at any given time will wind up saving your life.
Some traits that are seen as desirable will wind up being the death of you.

Diversity will be our saving grace when/if survival gets difficult at any point in time.

It helps that attraction is different for everyone. One person likes bald guys, another likes long hair.

Heck, some people like smoking, while others can't stand it. What is it about cigarettes are so attractive? Is it the susceptibility to addiction? What kind of addiction? A non-smoker may get addicted to gambling.

Some 'addictions' may be beneficial, although I can't come up with one right now. Maybe being prone to addiction could save someone one day. It could be a hidden grace.

All I can say is that humanity is poised for survival right now, no matter what is thrown at us, save for earth being engulfed in a fiery collision with some wayward ball of gas.

 

[(S)]

I think we're past the point that our genes will really be our saving grace.

Take what is probably the prime 'test case': HIV. Every so often, someone will muse that there might be someone out there that is 'immune' to HIV. That's all fine and lovely, but truth-be-told, it doesn't help us very much /unless/ our memes take over, find that person, and create an actual cure using their immunity as a blueprint.
I /suppose/ you might say that the natural immunity of a single person saved us, in that case, but I would not. I would say that the ingenuity of the scientists, to track down and extrapolate off of a natural immunity found in the vastness of first the gene pool and second the makeup of that individual. It's a collosal task, and it would have been carried out not by our genes but by human minds and technology. For our genes to really save us in this case, the natural immunity would have to spread through the gene pool by its own means, something which would take five hundred or a thousand years, optimistically.
In the end, a cure will likely be derived through work and technology, but without the good fortune of finding a magic cure in some corner of the gene pool. I do think humans are in the best position ever to survive anything, but I think our gene pool is incidental to this.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by (S)

I /suppose/ you might say that the natural immunity of a single person saved us, in that case, but I would not. I would say that the ingenuity of the scientists, to track down and extrapolate off of a natural immunity found in the vastness of first the gene pool and second the makeup of that individual.

Of course it might be argued that scientists are yet another ingenious innovation on the part of genes.

 

[Igopogo]

Wow, what an interesting thread. A couple things that come to my mind after reading it:

My own belief is that evolution doesn’t stop, and nothing humans do can stop it or alter it. We can see evidence of this all around us in the form of ‘superbugs’. I would argue that any engineering changes we make to life forms that are counterproductive to longterm species survival (without the protection of mankind from the wilderness), be merely temporary. I’ve had some arguments with friends that insist that breeding of animals has somehow changed their course of evolution – that we can steer life to our purpose. Take man out of the equation, and the traits we bred into our pets that are counter productive to survival will quickly vanish. The animals will quickly ‘evolve’ themselves into a surviving species in balance with the environment it finds itself in. Given enough time, it would be difficult for future scientists to find evidence of what animals were domesticated at one point, and which weren’t.


Getting back to elephants and gods, one of my beliefs is that the god meme has been beneficial in our past ancestors as a mental reminder that we as a people aren’t in control of our environment. This point of view helped us in our past to respect our food sources, and revere what is beneficial to our survival as sacred. I would argue that the proof of this success is found in the apparent fact that we have a ‘god’ component in our genes and memes – that which survived is the success story, which won out over - ???.

This has helped in our survival, as it gave us a perspective of how to view and adapt to our environment, but there is evidence of a limitation to this gene/meme. Ultimately it’s useless, or even counterproductive to us when our environment changes to become hostile to our survival.

It’s a often used environmental analogy that what happened on Easter Island is a case study of what can happen when people are unable to recognize real change to their lively-hood and adapt their reasoning to their fit the existing state of their environment. The countered dwindling resources on their isolated island with bigger displays of pleading to their gods, (which ironically may dwindled their resources faster). Ultimately, they disappeared. Could they have survived if they were able to ignore their god gene/meme, and rationalize what was happening to them, and adapt with this knowledge? Who knows -

One wonders if our particular species:

a) Will be protected by god for it put us here for a purpose
b) is a leap in evolution that can engineer nature to suit our purposes, and therefore will continue to prosper for a long time to come.
c) will be a short lived anomaly in the history of natural selection on Earth as we are unable to adapt to changes to our environment, brought on by over consumption of natural resources, and ultimately “Easter Island” ourselves out of existence.
or
d) will be forced from time to time into a balanced existence with our environment, (assuming that at anytime we push our relationship with our environment out of balance), and adapt to the new environments we find ourselves in.

I would argue the first two beliefs are products of the same ‘god gene/meme’, which can’t distinguish the real workings of nature from mythology. There is no evidence that either of these are possible.

 

[(S)]

Of course it might be argued that scientists are yet another ingenious innovation on the part of genes.

I'd agree, if the difference between a top-notch researcher today and a witchdoctor ten-thousand years ago were in the genes, and not in the ten-thousand years of social, scientific & technological growth.

 

[wjousts]

I think we're past the point that our genes will really be our saving grace.

Take what is probably the prime 'test case': HIV. Every so often, someone will muse that there might be someone out there that is 'immune' to HIV. That's all fine and lovely, but truth-be-told, it doesn't help us very much /unless/ our memes take over, find that person, and create an actual cure using their immunity as a blueprint.
I /suppose/ you might say that the natural immunity of a single person saved us, in that case, but I would not. I would say that the ingenuity of the scientists, to track down and extrapolate off of a natural immunity found in the vastness of first the gene pool and second the makeup of that individual. It's a collosal task, and it would have been carried out not by our genes but by human minds and technology. For our genes to really save us in this case, the natural immunity would have to spread through the gene pool by its own means, something which would take five hundred or a thousand years, optimistically.
In the end, a cure will likely be derived through work and technology, but without the good fortune of finding a magic cure in some corner of the gene pool. I do think humans are in the best position ever to survive anything, but I think our gene pool is incidental to this.

This talk of HIV reminds me of the begining of Steve Jones' book "Almost Like a Whale". He starts with a discussion of HIV and uses it as an example of evolution. He discusses how, when HIV first emerged, it was highly virulent and spread like wildfire by virtue of the promiscuous habits of certain homosexual communities. Once the epidemic was identified and moves where made to educate people on how best to protect themselves, the high virulent strains died out because they would kill their victims without getting passed on. So now, the most common strains of HIV are less virulent and people with the infection live longer even without the intervention of modern drugs. I like to think of this as a clear case of gene/meme coevolution. The genes of the virus had to adapt because the new memes regarding safe sexual habits entered the environment. So this could be considered a case where our memes have already saved potentially millions of people.
On the topic of people immune to HIV, IIRC there is a small subset of caucasians who appear to have immunity to the infection. But AFAIK nobody is entirely sure why at the moment. But even in leiu of our memes to help us adapt, it is still the case that HIV would most likely not be able to wipe out the entire human species even if it was highly virulent and highly infectious. Of course, that remains as cold confort to those who have died!