Luminal

East Africa was volcanically active, but I think that begs the question. Why were the australopithecines so weak to be knocked off from a super-volcano (really that would be two super volcanoes a million years apart) in the first place?

During bottlenecks, I think that sometimes it just comes down to luck.

Let's say that australopithecines and an early homo species were both reduced to numbers under 1,000 during a supervolcano event (which can erupt anywhere on Earth and cause global catastrophe). At these levels, random events such as one of the last surviving herds of Wildebeest seeking shelter near the homo species' last habitat and providing ample food could be the difference between extinction and survival.

Of course, that's just one of many possibilities. A strong possibility, in my opinion, though.

When you look at the human fossil record it seems remarkably "progressive." Species further back in time are more like apes and they are "replaced" by species looking remarkably more and more like humans. That seems a problem to me. Why wouldn't some ape-like hominids continue into the "human period," like there are still proper apes around today? Even with environmental change, were there not forest edge environments remaining in Africa for them?

 

Australopithecus and Paranthropus were long lived genera, wide spread, and by all indications well suited to their edge environment. So why was Australopithecus gone after 2 million years ago and Paranthropus after 1?

 

The idea that it was because of competition with Homo doesn't hold water for me. The australopithecines were ecologically seperated from their Homo cousins. It's become something of a cliche, but the the australopithecines had much larger and more robust dentition, in line with a diet heavy in vegetable matter, where Homo was undoubtedly more omnivorous, even occassionally and with increasing frequency exploiting meat. The only substative ecological similarity between Homo erectus and Paranthropus that the two didn't share with every baboon and vervet monkey was that they were both bipedal. Did that really entail an ecological specialization so exclusive that one had to compete the other out?

Perhaps a supervolcano such as the Lake Toba eruption that nearly caused homo sapiens to go extinct 75,000 years ago.

I'm not going to try and match known major eruptions with the timeline of australopithecines, but I wouldn't rule out that as a major factor.

I think the effects upon evolution of supervolcanoes are greatly downplayed or even ignored. They are like minor Mass Extinction events that happen literally all the time on a evolutionary scale, pushing previously weak or borderline species into extinction.

Well, I do believe my idea is unique because is it highly cross-discipline.

I believe research in single disciplines has been performed far too extensively, primarily because of the effects of job specialization in the modern world. For example, the amount of education required to receive a doctorate in both Biochemistry and Computer Science is daunting, to say the least.

Thus, modern science has created a massive wealth of information in each respective field, just waiting for people to come along and combine information from multiple fields to produce novel technology.

And the crossover that I'm most interested in is bewteen Genetic Algorithms (along with other common Machine Learning algorithms), Neuroscience, and Chemistry. In a sense, the entire brain is a large GA, strengthening certain synaptic connections while weakening others. Yet as I said, I don't want to get overly specific for the remote chance that I have a unique idea.

And humans have an ancestry going back billions of years. Evolving strong AI from scratch isn't exactly a feasible idea.

 

The dead simplest approach would be to use computational biology to grow a human from a fertilized zygote inside a computer.

It is a feasible idea.

1) Generations are arbitrarily short in a computer. Generations in mammals are measured in years, not microseconds.

2) Natural evolution had no guiding hand or designer.

3) Evolution also had no purpose or "means to an end". If something survived, it survived. Within computers, humans can program evolutionary purpose and even sustain generations that are evolving toward something intelligent yet have severe limitations in their current form. How many species that were evolving toward intelligence went extinct because their heads were too large or their brains consumed too much energy? Perhaps dozens; we shall never really know.

4) Most importantly, humans have a highly effective intelligent system on which to model their computers: themselves. Natural evolution had no model to work from.

It's a far cry from working from scratch.

I have some fairly solid ideas on how to generate human level intelligence in modern computers, and having read up extensively, have not seen similar veins of research taking place in any companies or universities.

Hence the whole reason I'm majoring in computer science, to give myself the practical skills to implement such concepts.

On the small chance that I've arrived upon something truly unique (I won't get my hopes up ), I try to avoid explaining my ideas online, but suffice to say that researchers are not utilizing genetic algorithms in conjunction with neuroscience half as much as they should.

Human intelligence was not programmed; it was evolved.

So anything that exists is made of matter and can be explained.

 

I agree.

 

From there I suppose the leap is that: If something already exists than we should be able to replicate it.

 

That I don't think is necessarily true, just like the silly elementary school saying of "anything is possible" isn't true.

 

Can we create AI or conscientiousness? It might be possible, but I don't think it is a given.

 

And what numenta has released doesn't even approach true AI.

 

Pattern recognition and expert systems can do some incredible things and provide some very sophisticated automated processes but that is still deterministic.

 

It is so annoying when I read articles that were obviously written by people outside of the field predicting silly things like, "By 2010 computers will think like humans" etc....

Well, computers could think like humans given technology at this very moment, if people could understand the human brain well enough to replicate it.

Remember, as Hawkins said, human intelligence primarily stems from the neocortex, a relatively small structure compared with other structures such as the cerebellum.

Strip from the brain all structures for emotions, desires, sensation, body/organ regulation, motor skills, and you can still have the core of human intelligence.

In other words, one needs not replicate the entire human brain to achieve human-level creativity.

In addition, the brain is chaotically organized in comparison to a computer. Organization in a computer allows it to have massively repetitive information (such as inheritance) that a human brain cannot achieve.

To summarize my post, it is up to programmers to generate AI, not chip developers or supercomputers. We have the power, now we need the finesse.

I think several assumptions are being made here:

1) That humans will not understand how the Big Bang started in highly precise detail and not have the technology to replicate it in 'sub-Universes' or on the fringes of the existing Universe. In 100,000 years of technological progress equal to the 20th century, I would marvel if humans were not capable of this. Not to mention, 100,000,000,000 years, or longer.

2) That technological progress will not lead humans to the capability of manipulating the laws or constants of physics themselves.

I believe the primary question is whether humans will continue to progress. If we hinder ourselves with sufficient violence at the hands of new technology, then the answer will be 'no'. If we do continue to progress, it is quite probable that we can extend the lifespan of this Universe as long as we wish, and the lives of anyone inhabiting it.

That may be, so it would probably be a good idea to agree upon a definition of intelligence before using it in an argument or stating that "we have more of it" than other life on Earth.

 

 

What Lassie? Timmie fell down the well? No? Oh... So, who the hell is Flipper, and what do I care about the whales and the ants and the bees?

I do not think it is beneficial to need to define or redefine commonly understood words in each conversation.

Obviously, the way I use the word intelligence in this conversation is to refer to the ability to understand reality around us accurately at more thorough levels and be able to use that knowledge to increase our chance of survival.

The word intelligence obviously encompasses many things (abstraction, association, prediction, art, motor skills, and so forth) but it is understood which way I'm using it when talking about evolution.

Then you're wrong. What is favored under natural selection is what correlates with higher numbers of viable offspring. That's it. Sometimes higher intelligence is favored, and sometimes it isn't. If it always was, every single species would steadily and rapidly get smarter and smarter. This doesn't happen.

 

For some idea of why this is so, think about what humans pay for their intelligence: our big brains are huge nutrient sponges, and they take incredibly long to develop, resulting in by far the longest period of childhood dependency, among other things. If being dumber means we can have kids sooner and more often, and the lack of intelligence doesn't hurt their survival chances much, then THAT is favored by natural selection.

Well, intelligence has sure given humans a survival advantage, has it not? So much survival that at this rate humans might cause every other species on earth to go extinct if our population keeps increasing. I'd say that was a successful species.

As for why not all species evolve toward greater intelligence, I couldn't honestly say.

Obviously, the "price" of our big brains is easily paid back hundreds of times with the advantages it gives us to produce food, defend against predators, work together in very large groups (up to nations), make tools, and so on.

So, the price of intelligence cannot be the only reason other species do not evolve toward it.

Do you have any suggestions?

It might have to do with the emergent nature of brain structures, in which a larger brain or more neurons do not correlate to greater intelligence unless every other structure meshes perfectly with the changes. This makes for an even greater challenge for it to evolve.

 

We as a society have come to deem certain traits, like high intelligence, as "positive."

 

Note that societally-deemed "positive" and evolutionarily "positive" need not be the same.

I believe high intelligence is greatly favored under normal natural selection, not simply by society. Intelligence can enable a human with a tool (like a gun) to kill other animals ten times their mass with ease.

The problem is, the most intelligent in developed countries aren't necessarily the ones most likely to reproduce. In fact, those that pursue high academic achievement are probably less likely to have a large family due to the demands of obtaining advanced degrees well into his or her 20's (or perhaps even into the 30's). And if they continue their line of work into research, the pressure does not shrink, but grows.

And at the same time, the two high school graduates settle down with a $15/hour wage and begin raising a family at the age of 20.

Who would have assumed the technical definition of a science related word on a science forum?

Well, I would assume it was the same until I was told otherwise.

Why assume the word "yes" means "yes" in science? Because you haven't encountered people using it otherwise.

Yet I now know better. But I would think it wise for scientists to use words that are most similar to their normal meaning. Perhaps Evolution should be called "Genetic Change" or some such.

That is correct, iNow.

At any point I used the word "evolution" at the beginning of this thread, assume I was referring to "beneficial evolution" on the long term.

You must understand my confusion with the terminology considering the word "evolve" by itself has clear implications of progress (or at least non-negative change) when used in normal conversation. Hence why the word "devolve" is used to describe the reverse of the process.

Anyway, you summed up my point quite well.

Without strong selection pressure, negative mutations are free to be passed on rampantly. Eventually, either larger scale natural selection will step in and slow down our species or genetic engineering will repair our damaged genes.

Do you believe it possible for human technology one day in the distant future to be capable of preventing the heat death of the universe?

I personally see no reason why we could or would not. Likely, humans will eventually understand how/when/why matter and energy initially originated from without breaking the first law of thermodynamics (perhaps by starting their own Big Bangs in sub-universes).

Well at some point you change so much that you cease to be regarded as the same species (retrospectively). That's called pseudoextinction.

 

Obviously the sun is going to go kaput at some point. If we don't get out of the solar system by that time, then we're pretty much done for. The universe is going to end at some point too, theoretically. That's all a bit pedantic, though.

If human technology continues to progress at only a linear rate equal to that of the 20th century, I could not even imagine what a few billion years would result in.

Of course, technology increases exponentially the more humans there are, the more information there is accessible, the faster communication is, and (of course) as computers increase in intelligence and take over the repetitious and mundane activities, and even as computers move into the non-mundane areas of creativity eventually.

So, I'd say short of killing ourselves with our own technology or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe doing us in, we are almost certain to never go extinct.

In fact, I believe far distant humans will probably figure out how to prevent the universe from ending by its own accord.

Just how likely is it in this day and age? Though I've read up on several possible scenarios, I find that most of them are at very best far fetched, and and most they seem more like doomsday prophesies or other kinds of baseless paranoia and nonsense.

 

The only scenarios that I have found that are plausible are either technological (e.g. nukes, maybe genetics, etc) or that of an asteroid impact, or the end of the universe. Environmental damage may pose some pretty hefty problems too.

 

But seriously, how critical is our condition really? Though, personally I do think there is a 100% chance that humanity will become extinct in some time in the future, but what I am wondering is is it anything to really worry about (other than asteroids or nukes). Or is it more along the lines of the belief that civilization is the end all and be all of the human species, because I know those usually collapse on a regular basis anyways...

The only plausible way for humans to become extinct that I could see: an engineered disease. I suppose all it would take is someone of a certain mindset with an academic background in microbiology or genetic engineering. Or military testing gone awry (think "The Stand" by Stephen King).

Anyway, within several centuries, humans might also use technology to put their "consciousness" into a longer lasting non-biological body, in which biological homo sapiens would in effect be extinct.

I want an invention making machine.

Aka, the technological singularity? Oh wait, wrong discussion.

Before rebutting any points, I do want to make clear that I am not claiming natural selection or evolution does not occur, yet the role of natural selection is extremely small in evolution upon a postindustrial, developed society. Without strong selection pressures, evolution is freed to drift in any direction, even right into the jaws of extinction.

No. Natural selection occurs when offspring are had. Whatever led to their successful birth was selected (or conversely, whatever prevented them from being killed or made sterile prior to reproducing was selected). Simple really. The selection will then continue if those offspring are able to successfully procreate.

The best way to understand what I am saying is through an example.

In a preindustrial society, a person is born with a severe lung defect (a deleted gene, say) and cannot contribute to society in any meaningful way. A harsh winter falls upon this society, and many die. The weakest are the first to go, including the individual with the poor respiration.

In our modern society, this person could live a long and prosperous life, be taken very good care of, and even make a living in a non-manual labor job that did not stress his breathing. He could pass his genes on many times to children.

Please tell me how natural selection acted in the second situation to the same degree as the first. Remember (if you read my post), I am not saying natural selection does not exist whatsoever (obviously there will always be factors that even humans cannot avoid), yet that it plays a role very rarely in a society in which we take care of our sick, disabled and poor.

This is also an incorrect statement. If you claim otherwise, please support your assertion.

How can you possibly dispute that statement? Are you telling me that most selection pressures that actively affect the passing of genes still remain in modern society from early in our evolution? Some will always remain, but the average age of death is well beyond reproductive years and usually occurs from poor cardiovascular health or cancer, not from being preyed upon, freezing to death, or starvation.

Simply put, selection pressures that actively affect the transfer of genes to offspring have diminished drastically and very little has come to take their place (perhaps car wrecks are an example of a replacement, but they account for less than 3% of the deaths in developed countries).

That is correct, but does not support your point that natural selection no longer occurs in "developed countries."

First, I did not say it no longer occurred, but that it usually occurs well beyond the point of having any effect upon evolution. If I'm addicted to horribly unhealthy food, yet have 12 children (whom I also feed unhealthy food) and die from a heart attack when I'm 58, how did natural selection play a role in evolution? Please explain.

Repeating yourself does not make your comment any more accurate or valid. Natural selection is always occurring, and definitely exists. Evolution and natural selection are interconnected at a most profound level, and, as mentioned above, there are just different selection pressures in different regions and epochs.

There are different selection pressures, of course, but the role of natural selection is nearly non-existent in evolution if people who would normally perish before reproduction are sustained indefinently by technology and pass on harmful genes to numerous offspring.

Just because we don't die as often from starvation and disease "in developed countries," nor as often as we did in our ancestral past, you cannot in any valid way claim that natural selection is not occurring. We have different pressures, like cancer, or automobile traffic, or electrocution, or choking, or ad infinitum... but selection itself still occurs.

Again, I did not say natural selection is not occurring; its role is greatly diminished in evolution. And if natural selection is not strong enough to weed out harmful genes before an organism has a chance to pass them on, then evolution as a whole cannot benefit a species on the long term, unless sheer luck intervenes (or genetic engineering, that is).

We are still evolving, natural selection is still occurring, there are just a different set of selection pressures. As stated above, the subjective "improvement" or "regression" experienced by future generations is not a determining factor.

 

Selection happens when copulation happens and an offspring is born. Natural selection is always happening, but again, what is selected for or against "in developed countries" is what you are truly discussing here.

Natural selection takes place after the child-rearing age in the vast majority of the population in developed countries.

There are not a "different set of selection pressures"; most of the selection pressures are simply gone.

The few examples I can think of in which selection pressures still exist would include drunk driving and general foolish behavior as a teenager; infectious and/or terminal diseases that kill children; depression leading to suicide in youth; and perhaps a few more.

However, the overwhelming majority of humans do not die in adolescence, and most do not die during the child-rearing ages either. Most humans die after the age of 60.

To be specific, natural selection and evolution have parted ways in developed countries. Perhaps both still exist, but they are not greatly affecting one another.

It is impossible to remove selection pressures. If you're born with no head, you are gonna die, no getting around that. At most the selection pressures will be reduced. Whether that is a bad thing is not as clear cut as you may think. During mass extinction events, the selection pressures were much harsher, was that a good thing?

It was, at least for us. Mammals and birds would not have arose without an extinction event.

As for being born without a head, of course natural selection still acts on an extreme where you are born dead already. But a baby born with no limbs... could very well live to pass on genes in our society.

It just means more variability, which is often a good thing. It may allow changes that would have been impossible before. However, it could also make us temporarily weaker. That weakness would be eliminated very quickly in a few harsh generations though.

It will not be eliminated, though. Humans will make sure to take care of the disabled. Again, I'm certainly not advocating we don't, but the genetic implications are worth noting.

Regardless, the point is moot since there is no way we are going to wait around for evolution to do its thing. Genetic engineering > evolution.

Agreed.

Exactly, I think Luminal is under the impression that humans, or more specifically intelligence is somehow what evolution is converging to. Which, not only being an anthropic view (which isn't scientific), also shows a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.

No, this is not what I am saying, and I believe it is also unscientific to put words in another's mouth.

When natural selection is removed, beneficial evolution cannot take place, except by sheer randomness (the kind that creations mistakenly refer to in normal evolution).

Since benign and negative mutations occur more often than beneficial mutations, and without natural selection to do the picking, evolution that degrades a species is the natural course.

ah so they have only stopped evolving if you discard the accepted scientific defnition of evolution and use YOUR definition.

 

see you've been following scientific method there.

Which is still evolving, if this is indeed so... Its not regression, it is adapting to a change in environment - evolving !

 

By your rational, would you say the Sloth has regressed, because it has become slow and lazy? Or would you say it has refined its efficiency to living in an environment lacking predation?

To respond to both, natural selection, the fuel of evolution, is missing in developed countries. Humans are not "adapting to change." Even sloths have natural selection.

I think the point is being missed by semantics, which my least favored part of science.

With natural selection missing, beneficial evolution cannot occur. Will you dispute this?

With nothing to remove the unfavorable traits (which I am certainly not advocating), there is nothing to drive progress toward survivability, which humans have historically found through intelligence.

And these sick people live longer(say, long enough to reproduce more often than without being in a developed country). Now, some percent of these sick people are suffering from GENETIC diseases. Since they, on average, live longer and are more likely to reproduce than before, they are also more likely to pass on these defective genes to offspring. Thus, the number of defective alleles in the population is greater than that of a third world country. So, there is an allele shift, and thus evolution.

I guess that depends if your definition of evolution includes changes that increase the survivability of life.

If your definition is simply any changes whatsoever, negative or positive or benign, then sure, evolution is still taking place. At looking at the definitions in several dictionaries, it would seem "evolve" tends to mean progressive changes in other fields, yet in biology it tends to be intentionally vague in regards to progress.

Either way, my point stands. Humans in developed countries are not genetically progressing toward survivability, and in fact, are regressing toward traits that do not favor intelligence, motivation, and responsibility.

In developed countries, the sick, poor, and disabled are taken care by means of the great excess those nations have at their disposal. The poor or sick may or may not lead happy or fruitful lives, but their survival is not at stake in any significant manner.

Success in a developed countries is defined by material belongings, academic achievement, and emotional factors such as happiness, satisfaction, and contentment. These do not drive natural selection.

In fact, those that devote their time to material or academic success have less time to raise a family as those that focus on a "social life" or "family life" and do not pursue a high status.

So, in one sense, those that are less successful in society usually have more children.

---------

Another major factor is that most people in developed countries die after they've had all of their children, the average life span being in the 70's (soon to be in the 80's).

Factors such as heart disease and lung cancer which would normally favor the survival of those who thought high fat food tasted bad and those who are not easily addicted to nicotine, do not have any effect because the deaths occur well past the point of passing on genes. Thus, evolution does not occur and people keep on loving high fat food and being addicted to nicotine.

---------

In fact, evolution might even be going backwards because those that focus less on success and more on rearing a family (such as a couple of high school dropouts who had two children before they were 20 and three more later) have more children in the end. The offspring of the "non-motivated" will exponentially outnumber those of the "motivated" in as little as several generations, even if the ratio of child bearing is as small as 1.2:1 (which I believe it is actually much more than that).

Over numerous centuries, the effect could be quite dramatic, to the point where intelligence and motivation for success become extremely rare in a society and having numerous children is the naturally favored course for humans in developed countries.

Thankfully, I believe genetic engineering will advance and intervene before this becomes a severe threat to our species, but it is very interesting to consider, as the effects are even evident today in our society.

Right, that is a low possibility, because it doesn't happen that way. We don't just randomly sprout bumps. We do, however, have arms. Some of us have arms that make us slightly better swimmers. If our environment changed such that swimming well became very important to survival, those people would have a slightly better chance of surviving to produce offspring.

 

But what makes an arm better or worse? Thousands and thousands of different genes, all working together. Some of those genes will mutate. Most of those mutations will be neutral. Some will be harmful. Even less will be beneficial, but in all those thousands, eventually, there will be some. Most likely you won't notice its effect in one generation (no magical bump!). But that new set of genes is a new starting point, from which new mutations can be neutral, harmful, or beneficial. If (using your example, for argument's sake), you have a race with stubby little fin-like things, what would be a beneficial mutation? Whatever makes them more fin-like. So it's not just a coincidence that those particular mutations are passed on, it's selected for, and not unlikely in the least.

I believe he's asking how entirely new parts arise, without a simpler part.

Considering our ancestors transitioned from microbes to complex fish, this had to have happened a number of times, including, as in his example, the evolution of fins. Wikipedia says the fossil record for the evolution of fish is not very clear, so I could not link you to a particular species.

The point being (which I'm interested in myself), is how microscopic species repeatedly gained entire new systems and parts from no existing mold, a process that turned them into macroscopic creatures with dozens of systems.

Perhaps DNA wasn't as stable at that stage as it is today, such as in viruses today, due to the lack of a process that checks for errors in the DNA? This would cause a higher rate of mutation and a rapid evolution of complexity.

Then calculus is surely in big trouble, if there is "no evidence" infinity actually exists.

This must mean that an indefinite integral is impossible (except I do it all the time, so do lots of other people, what do you think they should be told about this stunning revelation?)

 

Really? Does it include a definition of, um, an infinite series, by chance?

What brought you to the conclusion that I am saying subtraction and integration are 'connected'?

And why is there no response to my query about infinite series that converge (which must be impossible, according to your objections)?

And you appear to be saying that [math] (2-1) -(3-2) \neq 0 [/math]

Math is a collection of symbols used to represent something (hopefully something in reality) to humans or human devices. It doesn't actually exist.

Because infinity can be represented in mathematics is not somehow evidence that it exists.

Integrals... let's use those as an example since you mentioned them.

Those are approximations to the area under a curve. If you kept making rectangles smaller, even with unlimited technology at your disposal, they would reach a physical barrier (such as the Planck length) in which nothing could be broken down further and everything was discrete. This would be where you had a inconceivably large number of small rectangles, not an infinite amount.

Thus, as I said, no evidence for infinity has even been brought forth; it is only a concept to help approximate solutions to near perfection. If an experiment has ever been performed that relies on an infinite number of anything in reality, or an infinite span or measurement of any kind, I'd be greatly interested to hear about it.

"Approaching" infinity being the key word in all of these calculus concepts.

No evidence for the infinite has ever been brought forward to the extent of my knowledge.

Everything is finite in reality, and infinity is just a tool that humans use to approximate trends (such as a series).

Sure, you could say that traveling on a circle is infinite, but the circumference is finite and no traveler could ever travel an infinite period on that circle.

In short, infinity does not exist, but it is useful to extend our calculations to trends way beyond what would be feasible to manually measure.