Evolution

[ydoaPs]

through all of human history we havn't seemed to evolve. is that because we are a sentient species?

[J'Dona]

Certainly humans have evolved; just look at the changes in human physical features between different areas on the planet, over only a short time since the first humans moved out of Africa. People might not be evolving toward anything particularly adapted to one area now that travel across the world is widespread, but they're still evolving. It's just not been very long.

I'm confused though, why would sentience necessarily stop that?

[ydoaPs]

that is just genetic varience. just different shaped eyes, different shades of the same skin pigmentation, and the placement of fat.

sentience would change things because we decide what we want to do. we use more than instincts.

[JaKiri]

that is just genetic varience. just different shaped eyes, different shades of the same skin pigmentation, and the placement of fat.

sentience would change things because we decide what we want to do. we use more than instincts.

Are you using some kind of bizarro definition of evolution?

[ydoaPs]

how have we evolved at all in history?

[JaKiri]

how have we evolved at all in history?

By changing in traits, both internal and external?

[ydoaPs]

specifically. "by changing traits" is a lame answer that doesn't say anything

[Skye]

The eyes, pgmentation and fat you mentioned previously?

[ydoaPs]

that isn't evolution, we have had those traits thoughout all of history. try again.

[Skye]

Well ok, for evolution to have occured what must happen, in your opinion?

[ydoaPs]

there has to be a change in the species

[LucidDreamer]

I would agree with yourdadonapogos that we have physically evolved very little in the course of human history. But human history spans no more than about 6,000 years, which is a very short time compared to the eons that life has been evolving on earth.

I would also argue that although man has not physically evolved much in the last 6000 years he has in fact evolved more than any other organism in the history of earth in that time. Before man and civilization the only way a species could pass the information that it had accumulated for millions of years about how to survive was through its genes. Since language was developed and writing was invented the amount of information that is passed down through the human species has become almost unfathomable.

We are no longer constrained as other organisms are to the information in the genes. We are no longer restricted to one form of existence that takes millions of years to remake. Our existence is no longer dependent upon the whims of nature. We fly higher than any bird, dive deeper than any marine animal, and run faster than any land animal. The burden of evolution has been taken off the shoulders of natural selection and placed on the beams of libraries and the infrastructure of the Internet. With a huge and ever increasing population with limitless combinations of alleles and modern medicine to ensure that most combinations survive there will be little natural physical evolution that is not orchestrated by our own hands.

[Skye]

And assuming that the races we have today didn't exist at some point in the past, doesn't that mean there's been change?

[ydoaPs]

See, i was right. It was sentience

[JaKiri]

See, i was right. It was sentience

No you weren't, he said precisely the opposite to you. The fact that the justification was the same is hardly supporting your cause.

Can you please define what exactly you would class as evolution, or changes to the species? Recent examples of evolution, for instance, would be growing immunity to certain forms of illnesses. Does this not count in your eyes? What about the other changes that have been mentioned?

[LucidDreamer]

90% of an augument is in the definitions. I'm afraid this argument will go nowhere because evolution is such a broad term. Lets start with a definition then restate the question. Lets define evolution as the change of a species to the extent that they are no longer able to procreate with the original and with a DNA change of 1%(about the same amount of difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees). If there was no genetic engineering and no separation into isolated groups for long periods of time would man evolve into a new species in 2 million years according to this definition. Lets also pretend that his civilization grows and experiences no major disasters with no major depletions of population.

[Radical Edward]

One aspect of evolution is change in allele proportions within the population. This has definitely changed, for example the rise of sicke cell anaemia in malaryial areas of africa. note also that human history is very short, evolution takes place on much longer timescales, and is the result of selection due to the environment. the thing about humans is that we control the environment, so there is much less in the way of selection pressures on us, since we can do things on historical rather than evolutionary timescales now. One example of this is the appendix. prior to surgery and antibiotics, appendicitis was pretty much 100% lethal. this would have selected for people with different shaped/absent appendices, however surgery has removed this selection pressure.

[Radical Edward]

Lets define evolution as the change of a species to the extent that they are no longer able to procreate with the original and with a DNA change of 1%(about the same amount of difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees).

what is your justification for this? are you saying that Homo sapiens are the same species as H. neanderthalis or H. erectus?

[Skye]

This thread better not be about why we haven't speciated since we last speciated.

[Sayonara³]

/obligatory "This thread is stupid" comment


Plenty has changed in humans over the millenia, but to answer this - at the very least - "all of human history" needs to be defined.

[J'Dona]

Lets define evolution as the change of a species to the extent that they are no longer able to procreate with the original and with a DNA change of 1%(about the same amount of difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees).Interestingly enough, they think that humans and chimpanzees can procreate. It's just that nobody will, although there have been rumours: http://www.rotten.com/library/cryptozoology/humanzee/

If they did, then they'd produce a human-chimpanzee hybrid, thus leading to another form of evolution by introducing a new species.

[admiral_ju00]

But human history spans no more than about 6,000 years,


6,000 years?

Check your dates pls.


Our existence is no longer dependent upon the whims of nature.

You think so? Why?

We fly higher than any bird, dive deeper than any marine animal, and run faster than any land animal.

These help, but do not use them as the sole predicament of evolution and it's forces.

The burden of evolution has been taken off the shoulders of natural selection

To a degree, yes, but Natural Selection is still at play, every day and all around you.

[JaKiri]

If they did, then they'd produce a human-chimpanzee hybrid, thus leading to another form of evolution by introducing a new species.

Hybrids are sterile..?

[J'Dona]

Erm, yeah... I noticed that after I found the link and posted it. :/ I forgot to change the post...

[LucidDreamer]

My requirements for evolution were chosen so there would be no argument over whether that degree of change actually constituted a new species. To answer radical edward, I did not pick the amount of difference between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man because its anyone’s guess as to whether Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man could produce viable offspring and I don’t believe we have the genetic code from them.

"6,000 years?

Check your dates pls."

Ok, I did. Recent evidence shows the most ancient writings to be from around 3100-3300 BC. Doesn't seem like enough to quibble about and I really don’t disagree with the rest of your post.

Yes the frequency of alleles has shifted some in human history. But will this fluctuation actually bring about the creation of a new species in time. If you took a man from 40,000 years ago and dressed him up in a suit and put him on wallstreet, noone would look twice.

[Solaris]

It looks pretty simple to me : Human history means evolution and evolution is our history.

[ydoaPs]

well, getting immunity isn't evolution it is the product of your immune system. the genes for sickle cell and malaria immunity have been in the human genome throughout all of history.

correct me if i am wrong, but isn't surgury due to our sentience?

what needs to be defined in the word history? history is a standard term that everyone older than five knows.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How long are you saying humans have been around? 5-6 thousand years is nothing on an evolutionary scale. Plus there's a lot less natural selection, because of advanced medicine that means the slow and stupid won't die but instead can have kids and pass their traits on.

[ydoaPs]

that's what i said in the first post.

[JaKiri]

well, getting immunity isn't evolution

Ah. The No True Scotsman fallacy.

Very good, move along.

[NavajoEverclear]

6,000 years Lucid? Your not a literal bible believer are you? One thing, many bible stories are MEANT to be symbolic, rather than actual history, two, lots gets misunderstood in the translation from the original, three, priests and such have changed portions of the Bible, ommitted parts, added parts--- to suit their 'needs'.

Hybrids are sterile..?

Is that true in all cases?

ALSO i was wondering, i know our difference between our other primate cousins is very small, just wondering, is that difference comparable to the difference between a chiuwawa and a wolf? I heard that all dogs and wolves can interbreed (tho size difference prevents major extremes from choosing to breed). Could this be the same type thing with us and other primates? Do the other primates have the same amount of chromosomes as us? (come to think, they most if the genetic difference is so little)

[ydoaPs]

we are two different species, so they would be sterile.

[LucidDreamer]

First of all, no I'm not a creationist; I'm an evolutionist. I believe the world is billions of years old and that Homo sapiens is tens of thousands of years old to hundreds of thousands of years old (allot of dispute over exact time). When I spoke of human history being about 6,000 years old I was referring to the earliest recorded writing, which I think is relevant because its both the beginning of the point at which we can say for sure just how much we have changed up to now and its an important point for the technological advancement of humans.

Let me make my argument as clear as possible. I believe that the pressures of natural selection have become increasingly diffuse from the moment of Homo sapiens arrival. With his increasing ability to change his environment the pressures of nature no longer affect him to the extent that it did when it brought about his conception.

One only need to look around and study a few textbooks to realize that mans physiology has always been and currently is in a state of change. By this I mean there is a change in the amount of people that have blue eyes or dark skin, or the amount of people who inherit the gene/genes that cause muscular dystrophy. Some would define this change as Evolution while others would reserve the definition for the actual creation of a new species. What I am suggesting is that this change, this shuffling of the frequency of expressed specific genes, will not result in a the creation of a new species of human, even given millions of years.

I believe this because man's technology and most importantly his medicine will not allow the elimination of genes to the extent that it will cause the creation of a new species. So your stress out huh, well here’s some Valium. Hypertension, here’s some medicine. So you’re as fat as a house, lets just staple your stomach. Inability to deal with heat-turn on the air conditioner. Born with out legs, here’s a wheelchair. Etc. These natural disadvantages would normally be weeded out by natural selection but they no longer are as a result of modern technology. As medicine and technology advances this trend will have an even greater effect.

In addition to this, new potentially beneficial mutations are lost among the crowd. The only thing that matters is how many offspring inherit your genes and intelligent and successful people don’t tend to reproduce any more than others do.

The population is too large, the combinations of genes too diverse, the pressures of nature too slight, and the isolation of a group among the species is all but eliminated, so there will not be enough natural selection to create a new species if the trend continues. Some animals have been around for tens of millions of years if not longer virtually unchanged. These creatures accomplished this through evolution brought about by natural selection but then stooped evolving (changing their DNA dramatically to create a new species) when they found a niche that they were supremely suited for. Sentience is man's niche.

Of course I am only saying that we are currently standing on an evolutionary plateau now. If this trend continued we would stay on the plateau. However any form of major disaster that destroys a large portion of the population and then allowed a small group of humans to survive but barely survive over millions of years could result in a new species. Personally I believe that man will create his own evolution through genetic engineering.

[NavajoEverclear]

But when was that line drawn? Is it as simple as some switch? I know its true cause other animals that are indefinately sterile if bred hybrid, i just want to identify what it is that makes the difference.
The Dog example again, far as appearances go, our relationship with apes seems very similar, and yet all dogs, despite breed, are the same species and capable of procration . . . . . . I think. Noone has yet set me straight if that's not correct.

[ydoaPs]

a chihuahau is a dog and a wolf is a dog, but an ape is not a human.

[J'Dona]

The difference between humans and chimpanzees is roughly equivalent to the difference between horses and donkeys. The latter can breed to creates a new species; they're called mules. Mules are sterile, as are human-chimp hyrbids, or "humanzees" (I forgot to mention that in my earlier post, so that would obviously have an effect how evolution progresses after that point, i.e. it stops). It has something to do with the number of chromosones, but I'm not at all informed in genetics so I don't know why.

Also, according to the link I gave, humans have 46 chromosones whereas chimpanzees have 48. I'm not sure how a difference of two can still allow for a genetic makeup that is thought to be 99% similar, so I'd imagine that the chromocones are just slight variants.

[Sayonara³]

I believe this because man's technology and most importantly his medicine will not allow the elimination of genes to the extent that it will cause the creation of a new species. So your stress out huh, well here’s some Valium. Hypertension, here’s some medicine. So you’re as fat as a house, lets just staple your stomach. Inability to deal with heat-turn on the air conditioner. Born with out legs, here’s a wheelchair. Etc. These natural disadvantages would normally be weeded out by natural selection but they no longer are as a result of modern technology. As medicine and technology advances this trend will have an even greater effect.
The changes in the way we live that you mentioned have changed the way selection occurs in our population, but they have in no way stopped it and never will.

There are a few threads on this knocking around the evo forum.

[Radical Edward]

a chihuahau is a dog and a wolf is a dog, but an ape is not a human.

not nescessarily no, humans are apes though.

[Radical Edward]

Also, according to the link I gave, humans have 46 chromosones whereas chimpanzees have 48. I'm not sure how a difference of two can still allow for a genetic makeup that is thought to be 99% similar, so I'd imagine that the chromocones are just slight variants.

The difference in chromosome munbers is due to a fusion event that occured sometime after the homonid lineage split off from the chimp lineage. the chromosomes that are now Chimp c2p and c2q fused into human c2. this is quite evident from the existance of telomeres in the centre of the human chromosome (where telomeres are normally only found on the ends of chromosomes) and also observation of banding patterns.

H= Human
C= Chimp
G= Gorilla
O= Orang Utan.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

and of course we can also see the similarity looking at the entire karyotype

http://webpages.charter.net/rufusatticus/YunisFig2.GIF

[admiral_ju00]

The difference in chromosome munbers

Bah, looks like you beat me to it. :D

But yes, what he and the pictures said.

[ydoaPs]

we have differnt number of chromosomes. the zygote would be missing one. it would be sterile and retarded or something

[admiral_ju00]

we have differnt number of chromosomes. the zygote would be missing one. it would be sterile and retarded or something

If you're going for the same stubbornness and or ignorance as you've showed in a few other threads then, be my guest. ;)

However, all the evidence of chromosomal fusion that we have can not, nor should not be ignored.

[Jonfraz]

You have to be pretty full of yourself to think that humans are above evolution just because we're smarter than everything else. We may be able to manipulate how we evolve in some ways, but we are still governed by our environment.

Also, defining evolution as a 1% change in genetic makeup is stupid as implies that any organism with less than that 1% difference would be considered the same. There'd only be one type of monkey and one type of pine tree etc. Evolutions is far to delicate to de defined with such a solid border.

[ed84c]

You have to be pretty full of yourself to think that humans are above evolution just because we're smarter than everything else. We may be able to manipulate how we evolve in some ways, but we are still governed by our environment.



sadly a rule missed by most people today :-(

[LucidDreamer]

If you're going for the same stubbornness and or ignorance as you've showed in a few other threads then, be my guest. ;)

However, all the evidence of chromosomal fusion that we have can not, nor should not be ignored.

I'm confused. Is everyone that disagrees with you ignorant or just yourdadonapogos when he disagrees with you? I hardly think that arguing that a hybrid between humans and chimpanzees will be retarded is bad argument.

[LucidDreamer]

You have to be pretty full of yourself to think that humans are above evolution just because we're smarter than everything else. We may be able to manipulate how we evolve in some ways, but we are still governed by our environment.

Also, defining evolution as a 1% change in genetic makeup is stupid as implies that any organism with less than that 1% difference would be considered the same. There'd only be one type of monkey and one type of pine tree etc. Evolutions is far to delicate to de defined with such a solid border.

My argument has nothing to do with ego. There are many other creatures that have gone millions of years relatively unchanged and I don't think they are the greatest things since sliced bread. They have simply found a niche, which they are well suited for that reduces the pressures of natural selection. I am arguing that man's intelligence is his niche.

My definition of evolution was purely for the sake of the argument. I am in no way suggesting we should change any textbooks. Nor am I suggesting that there are no creatures with less than 1% that should not be considered a different species. "Evolutions is far to delicate to de defined with such a solid border" I agree with that 100%. That’s why you must define it for the argument otherwise the argument becomes a debate about the definition.

[Sayonara³]

otherwise the argument becomes a debate about the definition.
But we're all really, REALLY good at that.

[ydoaPs]

they still have more chromosomes. that would make the hrybid having an extra or missing a chromosome (depending on which way you look at it). and it would have redundant information. that would be like down syndrome.

[admiral_ju00]

I'm confused. Is everyone that disagrees with you ignorant or just yourdadonapogos when he disagrees with you?

Since new members have a habit of NOT checking old threads before making new ones on the same exact matter, it will be my privilege to point the aforementioned threads for you.

You be the judge of that, just make sure to read them all the way through.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4772
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4773&page=3&pp=20

On a side note, the answer to your question is No. However, the path to enlightenment is a two way highway. Not only do you have to talk(present your self and defend your self), but you also have to listen and consider the info given to you before try debunking as useless. ;)

[admiral_ju00]

they still have more chromosomes. that would make the hrybid having an extra or missing a chromosome (depending on which way you look at it). and it would have redundant information. that would be like down syndrome.

No it wouldn't.

Well, don't just take My word for it, here are some papers for ya:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=52649

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/11/1663

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chimp_chromosome.html

http://medind.nic.in/imvw/imvw7438.html

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/launchpad/chrom02.shtml#anmod

{edit}

I feel the need to mention this:
The problem with the mule is that when the horse and the donkey mate there is a reduction in their Sex chromosome. They are perfectly healthy, except when it comes the time to breed. That rules out issues with Imprinting, recombination, etc. They end up with an Odd number of total chromosomes in their total genome. That being 63.
Horses have 64 Chromosomes and Donkeys have 62 chromosomes(or 32 and 31 Haploid chromosomes respectively).
The fusion in the Ape or better yet, the CA's chromosomal fusion occurred at a Non sex chromosome(X or the Y). Yes, that added stuff to the total junk DNA, so on and so forth, but if it had any detrimental elements to it, this new animal with the fused chromosome would have been dealt with by the Natural Selection. Since it hadn't, and we now exist, that means that there were no major problem after the event. But, I'm not going to do All of your homework for you, so if you still have doubts on this, research.