[edan123]

Hi
I was thinking about how animals evolve to suit their environment. It seems like humans have evolved with no threat from the environment. Without using the environment humans have no resistance to weather, no way of hunting, no defence against larger creatures, takes a long time to travel compared to the speed of most other animals etc, other animals generally have ways of surviving built in.
If animals change to suit their surroundings then how could humans have evolved the way we have?

[John]

There are a variety of ways in which species can evolve to suit a particular environment. In the case of human beings, intelligence was apparently advantageous, and was selected for over other traits that might have been beneficial in other ways.

I think I read that humans are superb long-distance runners, for what it's worth. But, ultimately, our intelligence has allowed our species to adapt and thrive. Of course, evolution continues to act on all species, and human intelligence may eventually be selected against for whatever reason.

[iNow]

Humans also evolved with the ability to alter the environment itself.

[CharonY]

Also, the premise is flawed. Our ancestors did have to cope with a lot of environmental pressures. Tool use is only one of the ways to cope.

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, we humans are not helpless without our toys. Well, posting from the US but I meant our species. Even without much intellect, a heavy stick or a long stick (natural objects) combined with our teamwork and cunning are enough to take on any animal. Unlike most animals, we can throw stuff. Even throwing little pebbles is a skill appreciated by the bad-mannered dogs in any country where dogs are allowed to roam free. And that contest grows more unbalanced as technology and intelligence improved. (Also note that all animals require their environment, so it would be quite unfair to pretend we had to do without any of it) Physically, we are also good long-distance runners. We can beat a horse, for example, and rough terrain would tip the balance even more in our favor compared to a horse. http://news.bbc.co.u...id_/3801177.stm We should also be able to beat a cheetah or lion at long distance, those cats may be quick but they overheat easily. You might not appreciate your sweat glands, but few mammals have them. If you go to the tropics, tribes there have little in the way of clothing, often with the children wearing nothing at all -- we don't die of exposure without clothing, not in our home environment.

Now throw in our real talents -- language and technology -- then we're real dangerous. Even so, we've always suffered from famine, disease, and violence. Even if we eliminate these, we will still have to compete with other humans.

Though I believe if we let genetic engineering grow to become a proper field, natural evolution will become nearly irrelevant to us.

[CharonY]

Quote

Though I believe if we let genetic engineering grow to become a proper field, natural evolution will become nearly irrelevant to us.

Highly unlikely. Even with sci-fi genetic engineering, we as organisms are confined to certain biological realities. In fact, only a perfectly static equilibrium would essentially be free of evolutionary inputs.

[Moontanman]

Animals other than humans change their environment to suit them instead of the other way around. Beavers, ants, and termites come to mind.... oh yeah, elephants...

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 23 November 2011 - 03:37 AM

[Wing0125]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought humans did evolve somewhat. Darker skin for those who live in areas with more intense light, single versus double eyelids for more sandy areas, more body hair for those in colder climates, etc.
Intelligence and adapting to environments would play a part, but physical changes seem to be evident.

[technie]

Humans did evolve, but with our superior intellect, as compared to other animals, we alter our environment to suit us instead, to tamper with nature. However, this process is carried out over an extremely long period of time, and humans slowly evolve from being normal animals to intelligent creatures, hence altering the environment to suit their own needs

[Ringer]

technie, on 23 November 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:

Humans did evolve, but with our superior intellect, as compared to other animals, we alter our environment to suit us instead, to tamper with nature. However, this process is carried out over an extremely long period of time, and humans slowly evolve from being normal animals to intelligent creatures, hence altering the environment to suit their own needs

We are still normal creatures, we just have different specializations than other animals. There are also other animals that are very intelligent in ways we are very dumb, natural navigation over long distances comes to mind, but that's because they evolved and specialized in different ways.

[mississippichem]

Ringer, on 23 November 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

... natural navigation over long distances comes to mind, but that's because they evolved and specialized in different ways.

Namely the ability to make GPS systems .

[Ophiolite]

Ringer, on 23 November 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

We are still normal creatures,

On the other hand, while many species have been capable of destroying their own local environment, we may be the first that has had the ingenuity to rape the entire biosphere. Credit where credit is due.

[Ringer]

mississippichem, on 23 November 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

Namely the ability to make GPS systems .

I'm certain birds launch nano GPS systems before we even made fire, that's why we never see their systems. I mean, how else could they fly that far and not get lost.

Ophiolite, on 23 November 2011 - 04:41 PM, said:

On the other hand, while many species have been capable of destroying their own local environment, we may be the first that has had the ingenuity to rape the entire biosphere. Credit where credit is due.

Given.

[Dekan]

Ophiolite, on 23 November 2011 - 04:41 PM, said:

On the other hand, while many species have been capable of destroying their own local environment, we may be the first that has had the ingenuity to rape the entire biosphere. Credit where credit is due.

I agree with you, only in this sense: humans are indeed the first species, with the power to make environmental changes on a planet-wide scale. These changes will affect the way the biosphere is now set up. But perhaps the biosphere could do with changing for the better.

Why use negative emotional expressions like "rape the entire biosphere".

Look back at our human progress. We created civilisation. When ingenious humans started to build the first towns and cities, would you have started a protest movement, crying "They're gonna rape the entire countryside - stop 'em!"

I don't deplore the human species' capacity to change things in a big way - I rejoice and glory in it. Shouldn't you be more proud of your species?

[Phi for All]

Dekan, on 23 November 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:

I agree with you, only in this sense: humans are indeed the first species, with the power to make environmental changes on a planet-wide scale. These changes will affect the way the biosphere is now set up. But perhaps the biosphere could do with changing for the better.

Why use negative emotional expressions like "rape the entire biosphere".

Look back at our human progress. We created civilisation. When ingenious humans started to build the first towns and cities, would you have started a protest movement, crying "They're gonna rape the entire countryside - stop 'em!"

I don't deplore the human species' capacity to change things in a big way - I rejoice and glory in it. Shouldn't you be more proud of your species?

We're too concerned with short-term economic costs and not enough with long-term resource costs. To me, the "rape"comes from not being as efficient as we can. We'd rather the gasoline and automobiles be cheap and pay for the pollution in terms of our health and disaster cleanups than require more efficiency to begin with. We have this mentality that five $20 shirts that last two years are better than a single $100 shirt that lasts four years. We trade the luxurious feel, durability and obvious aesthetics of the higher quality garment for the cheap variety and convenience of the lesser.

We consume too much of the environment in the name of commerce and don't require that our resources be carefully husbanded. Perhaps our pride could come from a judicious use of our fair portion of the planet. Maybe other species could survive with us if we weren't burning up their habitats while we rejoice and glory in ourselves.

[Mrs Zeta]

Mr Skeptic, on 21 November 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

Though I believe if we let genetic engineering grow to become a proper field, natural evolution will become nearly irrelevant to us.

Really? When I suggested something similar some months ago, you were... skeptical.
http://www.sciencefo...on/page__st__40

[Mr Skeptic]

Dekan, on 23 November 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:

I agree with you, only in this sense: humans are indeed the first species, with the power to make environmental changes on a planet-wide scale. These changes will affect the way the biosphere is now set up. But perhaps the biosphere could do with changing for the better.

Actually, the first species to change the global environment were the first oxygen releasing photosynthetic bacteria. Oxygen is of course a highly toxic substance, so this change caused massive extinctions -- even to this day there are bacteria that can't survive an oxygenated environment, and though we ourselves need oxygen to live the levels of it are tightly controlled and we have all kinds of chemicals to negate the toxicity. On the other hand, that change allowed for terrestrial plants and creatures due to the ozone layer, and for our more improved energy storage where much of the weight is stored outside of our body as atmospheric oxygen, and for easily built fire and the technologies that came from that.

Mrs Zeta, on 23 November 2011 - 07:23 PM, said:

Really? When I suggested something similar some months ago, you were... skeptical.
http://www.sciencefo...on/page__st__40

I'm just saying that natural selection can't be bypassed, nor evolution negated due to our technological toys, nor that evolution has already been made irrelevant. However, I also think in the future the majority of our genetic change will come from genetic engineering rather than as dictated by mutation and selection. Sorry if I seem rather confusing, I'll be glad to clear up anything that remains murky.

[Dekan]

Mr Skeptic, on 23 November 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

Actually, the first species to change the global environment were the first oxygen releasing photosynthetic bacteria. Oxygen is of course a highly toxic substance, so this change caused massive extinctions -- even to this day there are bacteria that can't survive an oxygenated environment, and though we ourselves need oxygen to live the levels of it are tightly controlled and we have all kinds of chemicals to negate the toxicity. On the other hand, that change allowed for terrestrial plants and creatures due to the ozone layer, and for our more improved energy storage where much of the weight is stored outside of our body as atmospheric oxygen, and for easily built fire and the technologies that came from that.

Yes, after posting, I thought of the early Earth bacteria, and expected a swat! But those dumb bacteria weren't consciously changing the terrestrial environment. So they aren't in the same class as humans.

We humans have the power to intelligently re-design the Earth's biosphere. We can make it more humane, and likeable.

Does anyone really like the horrible, cruel way nature operates? Don't we all feel that it's not right? Humans are here with the power to put things right, and make the Earth closer to our heart's desire.

[Ringer]

We didn't make a collective decision to do what we did to the biosphere either. We just happened to notice it.

[Ophiolite]

Dekan, on 23 November 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:

I agree with you, only in this sense: humans are indeed the first species, with the power to make environmental changes on a planet-wide scale. These changes will affect the way the biosphere is now set up. But perhaps the biosphere could do with changing for the better.

Why use negative emotional expressions like "rape the entire biosphere".

Look back at our human progress. We created civilisation. When ingenious humans started to build the first towns and cities, would you have started a protest movement, crying "They're gonna rape the entire countryside - stop 'em!"

I don't deplore the human species' capacity to change things in a big way - I rejoice and glory in it. Shouldn't you be more proud of your species?

No frigging way. Proud of our initiation of the fifth great extinction event in the Earth's history? Proud of our willfull destruction of species for sport, or pseudo-medicinal benefits, or because they are in our way? Proud of our destruction of multiple environments? Proud of our inane messing with the balance of the Earth's climate? Proud of our reduction of biodiveristy? No frigging way.

You ask me why do I use an emotional expression like "rape the entire biosphere".
The answer is simple, if you are not emotionally, intellectually and logically opposed to that rape then you are a massive part of the problem and a serious threat to life on the planet, including all human life.