Evolution Accelerating?

[BaldEagle]

There are many things that used to have made-up "religious" answers that we now have definitive scientific answers for. "Where does disease come from?" is a good example. People used to think they were curses and the like (there are also a number of incorrect sanitation guidelines in the bible. ex: menstrual fluid will not make people sick any more than the person in question would normally despite the bible repeatedly claiming otherwise). It's really better to just admit when you don't know than fight over religion I think. Fanatic religion is a convoluted way of saying "I don't know" only being pretentious and ignorant about it at the same time.

How did we get here? Well, I don't know. Neither does anyone else. *Scientists* are working on it but really... I don't care. It doesn't really matter and we're all stuck here for now so we should stop fighting about it already Maybe in 1000 years I can launch inter-planetary nukes at people who annoy me with nonsense like this but until then I'm really all about harmony. It's pragmatic!

(fyi: slight amounts of sarcasm sprinkled in there. And I'm really not trying to pick on BE specifically, I promise... even though it is like the 3rd time today, sorry. Hopefully we can get back to agreeing on something back in the economics thread soon buddy. )

I don't see it picking on me so not to worry.

We do agree religion has made up answers to many questions that science has answered the ones I cited are what science has not which was the point sort of I think? That's what happens when you go back and add things to a sentence and not read it back though.

See now I think of fanatic religion as a way of saying "I don't think, I just follow, moooooooo" while being pretentious and ignorant about it at the same time. Pretty much the same thing

How did we get here? Well, I don't know either. I'd like to know but if I don't find out it's no worse than back in my youth when they ran out of tickets for the STYX concert 10 people in front of me I'll still survive.

You don't have to agree and as things stray into social issues people do tend to disagree more based on their socioeconomic and theocratic values (Gotta you love when they invent big words for things).

So your the guy that's wipes us out with the nukes......

As for the sarcasim love it, I think everyone should use it makes things less serious.

[djgandy]

I don't think we can evolve all the time we protect and help people who left to their own devices would otherwise die. Evolution has never worked like that.

I'm refering mainly to stupid people and the way the law in general works. Every day you see someone on the news or hear of something that has happened, and someone has come rescue then someone will get sued. I just bang my head on the wall. Left to their own devices and without being nannied with other peoples tax money I don't know how a lot of people would survive in the world.

[verndewd]

This example is flawed, and here is why:

Dogs did not exist more than 2000 years ago. They were selectively bread from wolves over that time-frame to select for certain genes.

Technically speaking, they are still essentially the SAME genome (same EXACT number of genes, and use of those genes, just different phenotypic variants and expression).

Wolves and dogs can interbreed because they are genetically the same species (even if man feels like he must sub-divide them into 50 million named "breeds")


BTW, the logistics of a Chiwawa and something the size of a wolf breeding are mind boggling.

You missed the study they recently did that shows the possibility that wolves DNA was changed by their relationship to humans via the food that humans would feed them.
What we are looking at is wolves having ingested food that was left or thrown out and through the ages having deactivated certain elements of the DNA. A study was done in russia on this very Idea and it produced a non standard coloration in the wolf offspring.

selective breeding wasnt a concept until society decided it would make use of the phenomenin of what they didnt know was changing the DNA. And it was done not only from breeding but with diet as well.

IMHO evolution is nothing more than a byproduct of the affecting chemicals from food water and environment.

[brentpresley]

You missed the study they recently did that shows the possibility that wolves DNA was changed by their relationship to humans via the food that humans would feed them.
What we are looking at is wolves having ingested food that was left or thrown out and through the ages having deactivated certain elements of the DNA. A study was done in russia on this very Idea and it produced a non standard coloration in the wolf offspring.

Link please.


Also, DEACTIVATING DNA is NOT a genetic change. It is what we call an EPIgenetic change. You turn off a gene, but you don't change the underlying function of what that gene does when it is on (which is basically what a CHANGE is - aka a mutation).

[verndewd]

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog
for starters

How and when this domestication happened has been a matter of speculation. It was thought until very recently that dogs were wild until about 12,000 years ago. But DNA analysis published in 1997 suggests a date of about 130,000 years ago for the transformation of wolves to dogs. This means that wolves began to adapt to human society long before humans settled down and began practicing agriculture.

Lesson Plans - The Human Role in Dog Evolution

Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of Dogs @ nationalgeographic.com

The Evolution Dogs from Wolves - How could Wolves be tamed and Why?
We will never now exactly why or how wolves were tamed by man, but remains of dogs dating back 10 to 15 thousand years have been found, so we at least have a "ball-park" figure of when which helps to build a picture of the History and Evolution of dogs. The wolf and man had several important things in common, we were both hunters and also hunted in packs. It is certain that during our history our paths would have regularly crossed, we would have even hunted and eaten each other! The most likely scenario is that a human hunting party came across a very young Wolf Cub and decided to take it with them. The Wolf Cub would have been very puppy like at an early age, when grown although far less trustworthy than a dog of today, would not have been quite as dangerous as a wild Wolf. A semi-tamed Wolf would probably have had considerable value to a hunter gatherer group, lending its superior hunting senses to the group. This would have helped not just in hunting but defensively as a warning system as well. The evolution of the wolf to the domestic dog began.

The History & Evolution of Dogs

There is alot more.

Puppy saving is likely an early cause of wolf human inter relationships and the programming of dogs co dependance on humans. It makes sense that 10- 15 k years ago the tamed wolf diet probably consisted of alot more vegetable foods than is natural to a wolfs diet in the wild, That one change probably had the most profound impact on the evolution from wolf to dog IMHO.

[HotFoot]

I asked this in the box, but I'll put it out there to anyone that wants to ponder it. With regards to survival of the fittest, if this theory is indeed true, how does one explain natural law, and the pervelance of morality and a sense of right and wrong? If DNA is constantly driving us to go one up on one another, how does this mesh with the quality of humanness?

Not taking a side, just putting out a view point question.

I believe the scientist will tell you that we are predisposed to be social creatures (not the most social, but somewhat social), as that is beneficial to survival. Our senses of right and wrong may just be our instincts for survival in terms of staying within the protection and other benefits of the community. As intelligent and adaptable as humans are, I don't think we'd get far if we were all lone-wolves. Anyway, in this case, survival of the fittest may be applied to groups as a whole, not just individuals. There may be many layers and complexities that can all be counted within the survival of the fittest reasoning.

On the other hand, I also have this sense of wanting to be able to live with myself, and I don't know if that's something taught or bred into us for the sake of group cohesion, or if it's something indicative of having a soul.

[hergieburbur]

Brent, Dogs (Saluki's specifically), have been around for over 4,000 years, and have been found represented in Egyptian art since at least 2100 B.C.

Dingoes, which are kind of in-between wolves and dogs, have been around over 5,000 years.

From Wikipedia:

Modern dogs are believed to be the result of artificial selection of various traits from a single domestication of the grey wolf about 15,000 years ago[7]: the modern dingo appears to be a relatively pure-bred descendant of one of the earliest domestications.

Perhaps European dogs are only around 2000 years old?

I'm not really sure how close Saluki's are to wolves though. And it doesn't really affect what you said, just wanted to clear that up.

[Clue69Less]

Dingoes, which are kind of in-between wolves and dogs, have been around over 5,000 years.

Isn't a Dingo a crossbreed of a Hyena and a dog? Fortunately, they can't reproduce. They sure can run though.

I prefer Django to Dingos

[hergieburbur]

No, I think that is something else. Dingoes are wild Australian and South East Asian dogs.

[Clue69Less]

I'm stumped about the hyena crossbreed, I'll keep looking.

[hergieburbur]

Here's a question along the lines of what Ninja asked. I've always wondered, whats the evolutionary explanation for individual peoples' various "god given talents"? Variation just doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation to me.

[tool_462]

Here's a question along the lines of what Ninja asked. I've always wondered, whats the evolutionary explanation for individual peoples' various "god given talents"? Variation just doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation to me.

How isn't variation an explanation? Mutations and selections over generations can yield positive gains and negative gains. If a catastrophe wiped out everyone in the world except central Europians, 94-96% of the human genetic variation would still remain. That shows that there is a hell of a lot of genetic variation between individuals in perceptively similar populations.

You can't discount brain development and learning at a young age as a strong factor in "god given talents" though either.

[Clue69Less]

You can't discount brain development and learning at a young age as a strong factor in "god given talents" though either.

Absolutely right! Environment is a key component like a multiplier. I taught technical climbing to hundreds of kids over a 20+ year window and I saw the mutants come and go. But as I learned to teach better, I saw the effect on all of the kids.

[DaSickNinja]

So when exactly does nurture take over from nature?

[Clue69Less]

So when exactly does nurture take over from nature?

There was a Nova or some similar program that addressed that. Really interesting stuff. It talked about the kinds of transitions that have been observed over the last few decades. For most kids in the US, the bulk of the parent's influence ends in grade school. I found that sobering.

[tool_462]

So when exactly does nurture take over from nature?

Monozygomatic (or monozygotic, depending who is writing it) twins seperated at birth prove to be remarkably similar in intellectual abilities at the lowest levels (such as spatial relations and aptitude tests) but can vary greatly in skills developed beyond the age of 4 or 5.

Interestingly, at the same point in the brain development, kids can start being able to put their minds into the perspective of another person's mind. Chimpanzees and orangutangs cannot do this.


Example: A child watches doll X put an apple in a basket. Doll X leaves the room. Doll Y comes in and moves the apple from the basket to under the table. Doll Y leaves the room. When doll X comes back in to get the apple, very little children will say "X will look under the table to get the apple" while children around 4-5 will be able to realize that, no, doll X still thinks the apple is in the basket, therefore doll X will look there first.

[hergieburbur]

How isn't variation an explanation? Mutations and selections over generations can yield positive gains and negative gains. If a catastrophe wiped out everyone in the world except central Europians, 94-96% of the human genetic variation would still remain. That shows that there is a hell of a lot of genetic variation between individuals in perceptively similar populations.

You can't discount brain development and learning at a young age as a strong factor in "god given talents" though either.

To me, that explains genetic traits, but it doesn't explain inborn talents. Even among identical twins with essentially the same nature and nurture, you end up with very different personalities and talents. I've taken psyche and bio classes, and I've heard the theories, but I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation for these types of things. It seems like science has yet to explain this. I would love to know what it is if I have missed it.

Note, I am not trying to be argumentative here, I am merely curious as to what peoples thoughts and explanations are.

[verndewd]

I think natural talent could be an effect of DNA; where some dna is switched on and added to by other switched on elements of the DNA. And that has or can have a global effect on the entire bieng. I do believe that even IQ is controlled at this level. Just because your parents are talented or not doesnt mean you will be the same due to the apparent random nature of how a persons DNA develops. I am sure nutrients play a big role in that as well as other environmental factors.

altering DNA can produce fur color changes and disease immunity variants and I think intelligent capacity as well.

[DaSickNinja]

So there are probably recessive and dominant genes for the skills necessary for talent. Add that to what you develop loves for...