Reverse Evolution

Ever since Prometheus discovered fire, we have worried about outsmarting ourselves into oblivion. Maybe cats die prematurely from a diet too rich in red meat, but they probably don't die from the stress of worrying about it.

Doesn't really work that way. Many species match their reproduction rate to the food available. Many or most of a population will die off during hard times only to come back when food is plentiful again.

Mice or bunny rabbits are easy examples but happens with most wild animals.

Sure it works that way. I was talking about survival of species...........not individuals. I can't help but wonder if your statement will ultimately apply to humans as well.

Remember the dot com bubble?

Given the age of the planet, I'm wondering if humanity itself isn't experiencing a bubble. One that will eventually bust. The more I think about it, the more it seems that it has to be that way.

"Given the age of the planet, I'm wondering if humanity itself isn't experiencing a bubble. One that will eventually bust. The more I think about it, the more it seems that it has to be that way"

Very good way of summing up our current times as far as I am concerned.

I have often pondered the same thought.

Humans may have some chance to survive a mass extinction event because of our large numbers and wide distribution. Although we may well go extinct afterwards anyway, after spawning some other critter.

Interesting read about mass extinction events here, in the "Here There and Everywhere.." section.

"Studies of mass extinctions have uncovered facts that are predictable when considering the possibility that there are events with increased levels of ionizing radiation. Mass extinctions are not random and are not related to an organism's ability to survive. Unlike other (background) times of extinction, mass extinctions are abrupt at the family level. Those species which have a broader geographic dispersal and few species within a group (low speciation rates) have extinction resistance during mass extinctions."

Interesting read. It sounds very likely that another one of these extinction events is going to occur at some point, regardless of what we do. The last sentence is very interesting. Science that flies in the face of Darwinism.............Wow!

I would say though, it would be nice if we didn't destroy ourselves, and were able to live in relative stability until it gets here.

A can of worms?

If all living creatures are a product of re-circled biological material? That which we eat, then survival is a matter of the right biological material, So? Is it instinct or opportunity that puts food on the table? Does intelligence over ride our instincts (providing food), resulting in us eating all the wrong foods? Then again does eating all the wrong foods extend our life cycle when instinct would provide none?

A can of worms?

Regards JD

Because despite what many peorle think, animals don't choose their food on TV or other ads. S.M.

Au contraire.
Humans are very adaptable and can survive and even thrive in quite harsh conditions, which to them soon become 'normal'.
Unfortunately the pressure of increasing population is reducing the number of such 'unspoiled' peoples.
Doubtless a nuclear war/asteroid strike or other global catastrophe would redress the balance.
We are a rather agressive species, but that aids our proliferation.
I don't necessarilly view a simple 'stone age' existence through rose tinted glasses, although the paperwork burden would be wiped out at a stroke.
Del

I got to thinking about this after reading the blog about the bacteria that bloomed after the gulf oil spill.

Given a massive supply of food, the bacteria flourished. Now that the oil/food, for the most part is gone, we now know that the bacteria are there, and that their numbers will depend upon the amount of food available.

I can't help but wonder if this concept will ultimately apply to humans as well.

I don't think we are at any risk of going extinct, but as we use up our finite supply of everything, I wonder if a mass die off isn't inevitable. The strongest and most adaptable will survive.................the rest won't.

Just kind of stepping back and thinking of humans as just another biological entity that happens to inhabit the earth, rather than the greatest thing ever to live.

If we look to nature, it seems like it almost has to go that way at some point. There is no way we can just keep reproducing indefinitely. At some point, something has got to give.

Well, that's pretty much what Malthuse (sp?) said quite a while ago (100+ years). Lots of people disagree. I tend to agree, just not sure what the limits are--we've extended them several times.

As sort of an aside, I ran across another guy's writings about a year ago. His theory (iirc) is that man simply cannot control himself--our population will always expand to use up any surplus food (with a lag of whatever number of years)--thus, (again, iirc) when we do have food production problems of whatever sort, we will have famines / starvation. (I should try to remember the guy's name or website.) (He seemed a little out of the mainstream for some of his other ideas--iirc, he wrote a book that were the (fictional ;-) observations of a gorilla in a zoo cage (or something along those lines).

Just for the record, the guy's name is Daniel Quinn, the book is "Ishmael" (, and it was more like 4 years ago that I came across it).

Kramarat;

'...the oil/food, for the most part is gone...'

Out of sight, out of mind? Even though it is no longer as visible on the surface or beaches, copious amounts of oil remains in the gulf in a very unnatural state brought about by the use of vast quantities of Corex

'...I don't think we are at any risk of becoming extinct...'

Sure we are at risk of becoming extinct. There is a small yet very real risk our species becomes extinct. The continual extinction of numbers of species as time progresses is something upon which you can rely. It happened before humans were having a pronounced effect, and will occur after we cease to have any effect. There are numerous small but real risks that could lead to our demise.

That's not good. Hindsight is always 20/20. I'm pretty sure that there are no bacteria that feed on the massive amount of chemicals that were dumped into the gulf to disperse the oil.

Hopefully if there is a next time, we'll know better.

True. I was just saying, that had we known that the oil munching bacteria were going to proliferate so quickly, and work so efficiently, we could have skipped the chemical dispersant part, (which, from what I understand is not harmless), and just let the bacteria do the job.

I don't know about the dispersants but I suspect that was more green whining rather than a knowledge based reaction.

It would have been nice to know there was help on the way!

Doctors, today, for a physical run all of their tests and then make a wild assed guess as to what is wrong or right with you. In the future people will look back and wonder how anyone managed to survive such primitive practices.

We understand as much about most of nature as doctors do of the human body.

"You" - as in the US government - should have been fully aware that dispersant's are harmful to "oil munching bacteria" - as of the Torrey Canyon experience.

That "you" - as in the US government - went down this path, is one of the mysteries of "Fox News runs the US".

"You" - as in "had we known" - were told this Day 1 in 'blowout'.

Or basically the problem is; "you" suffer hysterical deafness when it comes to "you".

Forget to take your meds this morning?

Your imagination is in overdrive!

Maybe go back and read

"I" - as in - me - Didn't like the idea of the massive amounts of dispersants, or the type of dispersants, that were being dumped in the gulf, from the time they started. I think it was a decision by BP, that was agreed to by the government, in which the potential public perception/relations nightmare was the prime consideration........................."If we dump dispersants on it, they won't be able to see it as well, and it'll make us look like we know what we're doing."

It looked like a knee-jerk, panic reaction to something that no one understood, to me.

I don't get the, Fox news runs the government part. I don't think we get the truth from any media outlet. I don't even know if they know the truth. I don't think it matters to them. They all report according to their own bias.................the truth isn't really part of the equation.

I probably shouldn't have written that in that manner* - but every now and again I get a little frustrated when governments are run by 'the need to appear to be Acting', so endorse, or allow; known fraught solutions - instead of standing up and insisting on the correct approach.

This dispersal history/outcome was discussed at the time on CR4 and 'rejected' by you as-in-you, and I as-in-I, and just about everyone else.

"I don't get the, Fox news runs the government part"

It's more or less what you expressed in:"potential public perception/relations nightmare was the prime consideration"

Fox News, at the time, in my opinion, was hell bent on manufacturing a public relations nightmare for the new administration, so forcing 'action'.

The administration was no longer in the position to say no to any action, including dispersant.

Fox squawked about employing 'foreign' cleaner ships and instead promoted every Hobbit with a bale of hay.

So if they have the power to create a climate where the 'correct decisions', by government are no longer a choice, to me, that equals "they" as-in-Fox, are running the place, not "you", as-in-government.

_{*[less scotch was harmed in creating this post]}

Been there done that. Hey, who else are you going to shoot the breeze with when it's late and had a few sips?

I agree, but like I said, they are all guilty. When Bush was in office, the nightly news on the networks gave a nightly rundown of US casualties in the wars...............now, nothing..............you'd barely know we were still at war. It runs both ways, and unfortunately it just leads to a very confused and uninformed public.

I think most western governments run on polls and public perception. It's a shame.

isn't the chemical coctail spewing from ocean vents just as toxic as an oil spill, and presumeably spewing for billions of years... and that live prevails around them anyway?

Yep, I read recently about constant, (natural), oil seepage off the coast in southern CA. Life does just fine. It's not caused by man, therefore it doesn't fit the template of what we need to hear about.

Of course nobody can drill there.

###'...the 'massive' amount of oil and chemicals were a drop in the bucket compared to the water volume of the gulf....'###

.

. Do you really see the 'drop in the bucket' comparison as useful in the context of evaluating the risk of introducing unwanted contaminants into a system? A few grams of hydrogen cyanide would be drop in the bucket compared to the volume of blood in your body, would you then be fine with the prospect of having it introduced?

.

.

###'...Noticable only because they don't mix well....'###

...Well that and

the massive fish kills,

the new appearance of Corexit chemicals and oil in seafood from the area,

growing oxygen depleated dead zone in the gulf,

as well as Corexit chemicals showing up in a random sample of residential pools near the Gulf.

....yeah, except for things like that, the spill, the lingering effects and any lessons that might be learned are very easy to forget.

I read about the bacteria, too, and wondered how much of it was BP trying to white-wash it.

We are nekked and will shiver with cold. The mere need for shelter, clothing, and the associated tools, fire, and so on is enough for us to require a culture with accoutrements and the mindset to develop em.

I went through a phase where I tested my ability to survive from the land on the sweat of my brow. Enter the wickedest winter lasting six months and 19 feet of snow. I did survive it, but with one thing learned. The chance of a lone person surviving in this climate by themselves is slim. The need for groups of people to survive adversity and to prosper is another factor that explains why we don't just wander like the moose or the lynx. Culture, gotta have it to get by and also to get along. Lovely mannered critters that we are. So create, innovate, trade, barter, share, marry, raise kids, invent farming, get drunk with your father in law. All that's missing is a TV... eureka! It has begun...

Does it really matter in the long run. Live each day as it was your last, treat each other with respect and enjoy what you have, because you just might wake up dead the next day. Life is to short to worry about the little things.

I guess it doesn't matter. Just some food for thought.

I can't really live every day like it's my last.........................I just end up drunk and broke.

_{And a wife that's threatening to make it my last day.}

Do you mean our "need" for vitamin supplements and medicines?

I'm pretty sure:

• we don't need all that we're told we need (on TV, or even by doctors (with respect to medicines))
• some of those vitamins and medicines may indeed increase our lifetimes (or improve our quality of life) (others, not so much)
• some of the flavors added to foods (sugar, especially, maybe salt as well) I think confuse our body's natural ability to pick foods that our healthiest for us
  

There are things in processed foods that present far larger long term health concerns than sugar or salt. Sugar and salt look wholesome in comparison.

Most of us are able to learn how. We just have not been put in that situation. Here is an example of a people that do. I chose this picture to note the fact that civilization has even touch here. That's no animal skin parka.

Progress and civilization have caused the loss of knowledge for most on how to live off the land as wild animals do.

It is because we are the smartest that we think ourselves into stupid mistakes. That a wild animal mother defending her young there is a point when self preservation takes over. Not in the human they will defended their young to their own demise. The wild mother lives another day to have more young to perpetuate the species. We as humans go even farther as a group in this. It's called welfare. Where wild animals have to live off what ever nature provides them as individuals. When there is not enough food they starve or their birth rate is control by the available nutrition. Not humans we have decided(smartest?) even to the detriment of the general population that our young and old are more important. So we provide for them. I say we loosely as those that wrote those laws the majority in my opinion would not survive if they had to live off the land. Maybe not survive if they had a real job.

I myself would find it very hard to refuse a staving child a meal. But how many of us have been put in the situation where our own survival depends on the choice of giving up the meal before us to another so they can survive. For that you need to ask a portion of the population that is not here. The homeless! They have to some extent learn to live off the land. So we can and do!

We as a species live all over the world at great extremes. If necessary people could move to climates and areas that would support us. Nature slowly adapts to areas and extremes. Thats why you won't find scorpions in Antarctica and penguins in the Sahara.

Might cause a bit of friction with the people already living there.

It invariably does!

Hey guys,

Thanks for the great posts.

When I started this thread last night I was thinking about a lot of things at once, and my brain popped a little...............I was thinking about different threads on here, different articles I've been reading, population growth, global warming, future energy needs, our future as a species..........on and on, round and round.

I've always been amazed by how animals survive by their wits/instinct alone, without any of the trappings that we humans lust for, crave and need...............not just enough, but always more. We, as a species, never seem to have enough.

On that note, I started wondering what human life would be like in a thousand years. I realized that it's not going to be what a lot of people imagine, wonderful dwellings, flying cars, planetary travel and the like. I envisioned a human species that is much smaller than it is now.........................and, I'm not getting into anything religious, but a species that lives way more in balance with the planet. A species that has the things that they need to live comfortably, but also a species that is accustomed to hard work to make that existence possible.

There is, IMO, just no way that we can keep multiplying, using up resources, and expect that one day everything is going to be fine with sunshine and windmills, and double our population. Since we are a part of nature, it seems like a, "correction", to put us on a sustainable path as a species is inevitable. So, like some of you said, worrying about it is pointless.

I thought of this today and found it. I'll put it up, not to tweak anybody, just what I consider an interesting point of view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozO4YB98mCY

Thanks for jumping on my crazy-go-round. Nothing harmful, just random thoughts from a guy with a thinking problem.

I have many times wondered why humans evolved like we did. It seems that what we evolved FROM was much more suitable for an Earth environment than we are. With the exception of brain size/ability, we seem like a downgrade. I saw an artist/paleontologist conception of what would have possibly happened if the dinosaurs had not been destroyed. He estimated that humanoid beings would have evolved from birdlike dinosaurs. Oddly enough, in his depictions, they looked like our current versions of alien beings (big eyes and heads, skinny frames, very strong).

I'm running the risk of going into dangerous territory here. And I realize that species do indeed evolve.

The problem I have with evolutionary theory, is that, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

The evolution of different species arises from a need to adapt to different circumstances.......................improve if you will. Once the improvement is made, that's how the species goes, from there on. The old, weaker version doesn't just hang around and keep going.

I reckon this thread can go anywhere. In my convoluted way, I was thinking more along the lines of energy, our use of it, and my realization that there probably will be no magic bullet to meet our ever growing demand....................we will have to evolve into a species that requires much less of it if we expect to continue in anything that resembles a civilized manner.

Evolve this much? S.M.

Re: I'm running the risk of going into dangerous territory here. And I realize that species do indeed evolve.

Yup, me too, by attempting to respond. I'd like to, I'm not sure I can carry it through all the way...

Re: The problem I have with evolutionary theory, is that, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

And: The evolution of different species arises from a need to adapt to different circumstances.......................improve if you will. Once the improvement is made, that's how the species goes, from there on. The old, weaker version doesn't just hang around and keep going.

Well, aiui, scientists talk about two levels of evolution. Maybe they call one macro and one micro?? (I forget.)

Anyway, I'll talk about the small one first. But, neither type works from a plan. The way it works is, there are mutations due to various causes. When a mutation occurs, sometimes it is a good mutation, that gives the new whatever an advantage, and sometimes it is a bad mutation.

The bad mutations (for a variety of definitions of bad--read mutations that don't help the whatever survive or out-compete its "brothers") tend to die out.

The good mutations (mutations that help the new being survive or out-compete its "brothers") tend to thrive and tend to drive out its brothers.

But nobody goes back and kills the brothers. They might or might not die out.

On a different tack, this is an interesting time to consider evolution. The ability to map genomes (i.e., the DNA) lets (or should let--I don't know how far its gone so far) people track there ancestry with great accuracy. (I'll let that one hang here for a bit--I might or might not come back to it--my next point is similar, but I don't want to build that one off this one...)

Scientists are able to look at the genomes of humans and other animals lets them see how much similarity there is, and also lets them see when (to some degree of accuracy--not so much in time but in terms of sequence) when one or the other (or both) of the genomes diverged from each other, or from some common ancestor.

I wish I could say more--I'm stretching myself to say this much--I want to try to stay on fairly solid ground.

I'm sure others will chip in with knowledge they can add (or to correct things I've said).

I'd venture to say that we here on CR4, regardless of our spiritual beliefs, definitely have an appreciation for science. For me, there's no reason they can't coexist.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070718-african-origin.html

Man is still evolving. womens hips have gotten narrower in the "industrialized" world is one example. And yes we will have a human "die off". In "industrialized" countrys the sterility rate in men has been climbing for generations. A little research will show you that the folks in the movie "WALL-E" is actually a pretty good indication of where we are heading.

"The old, weaker version doesn't just hang around and keep going."

Oh, Grasshopper, you are thinking in terms of generations, not millennia.

So that's my problem..........................I'm a grasshopper.

I do have long legs.

I do tend to hop around, looking for something I can't quite put my finger on. Once my appetite is satiated, I keep on hopping.

Hmm.............................I'm okay with it, but I don't think the wife is going to be very pleased.

But seriously, I was focused on energy. Just 200 years ago we had no cars, no electricity, no light bulbs...............................and yet over thousands of years, large civilizations have flourished. The reason for the title of the thread, is that I don't think most modern humans have the survival skills to make it under the circumstances that existed just a few hundred years ago.

I think it can be said that technology is causing humans to evolve, but I don't believe that our evolutionary track that we're on is necessarily a good thing...............hence the term reverse evolution. For all other species, that haven't come to depend on the things that we do, every day is just another day. No oil or electricity required.

Does that make any sense?

Did you ever hear the story of Dick Proenneke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJKd0rkKss&feature=related

We all make choices! One of the things as humans we have the ability to think these choices through. As far as going back to a more primitive life style those that adapt will make it. Those that make the choice to learn how to survive will just do fine.

If you read the comments on Yahoo news stories (or any other) you will soon be convinced mankind is going backwards.

Furthermore, those same comments make you wonder if there is any reason to hope mankind continues.

Maybe 10% of mankind is progressing while the remainder is either sitting still or sliding backward.

A person's choice is whether to be in the 10% or the 90%.

Is that 10% taking humanity in the right direction? Fuel by mankind's inherent greed are they not the ones that have given us the high cost of energy source prices, green house gases, contaminated the environment and cause much distress as markets collapse. Of the other 90% can they all be wrong?

No a person's choice should be what ever makes life worth living and makes them happy! Not what the 10% or the masses think it should be.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

The mass of the worlds population have never and will never accomplish anything.

They are just along for the ride.

Unless you would enjoy living in a cave wearing skins - then you let the 90% govern.

Quote; 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' end quote - What in the world does this have to do with anything?

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness has every thing to do with it.

It means they can choose to ride or not! They can make the choice whether they want to follow the 10%. A 10% that may lead those whom follow or are along for the ride down a path to destruction. Those that choose that alternate path maybe the ones that survive.

Sometimes living in a cave wearing skins don't sound so bad with some of the stupid stuff the 10% that govern does. Most of which is for personal greed not for the progress of humanity.

Looks nice!

I've got a brother that lives a pretty simple life in the high desert in New Mexico. Not quite that simple. He does have a truck, and the little house that he built himself, he cheated on and used power tools, but, he's a pretty happy guy. Got himself down to just a few of the modern essentials......................and a wife that thinks the same way. That's a biggie!

In the 1850's the largest land migration in history occurred as people from all over the world flooded into California seeking gold. The stories of the journeys that some of these people undertook are amazing in themselves. Try crossing the Rocky Mountains without a road. Ever cross a river while its raging? Sorry, no 7-11 to stop in to get a Slurpee on a hot day. Forget about sleeping overnight at a Comfort in and complaining about how few channels there are on the cable. Those people were tough! By the 1970's their great granddaughters had to make an appointment with their therapist if they broke a fingernail. That's evolution?

On a bit more of an esoteric note I do think wars will be fought in the future over clean water and food. Speculators will make fortunes as others starve to feed their profits. There's only so much to go around and when people get hungry civility evaporates. Our future does hold great promise but it wont necessarily be pretty along the way.

".. why are there still apes" Evolution isn't about stronger evolving from weaker, it's about fitting into any available environmental niches.

If, say, a new bitter food resource becomes available then any animal that can tolerate the bitterness (perhaps by having less of the relevant taste receptors) can start eating it. Those individuals with high tolerance levels will be eating in the same physical area and so tend to mate, their offspring will tend to have increased tolerance. It's not about being better, but being adapted to the resources available.

There's no reason the old group need to die out. After all (in a similar way) White Americans are related to Europeans, but Europeans still exist.

Finally, there's no Micro or Macro evolution, the big changes between species are due to the small changes wrought by evolution over huge periods of time.

Thanks for the post.

I was more or less referring to our future evolution, as opposed to where we came from, but what the heck, none of my threads have any rules, so anything is good to go...........at least as far as I'm concerned.

I don't really agree that saying that white Americans being descended from Europeans, and humans being descended from apes, is an apples to apples comparison. I've been to the zoo, apes don't look or act anything like Europeans.

That said, I'm not some fanatic that is going to attempt to deny science. The fact that we have shared DNA with apes and monkeys is undeniable. I will say though, that I feel as if a specific event took place that brought on modern humans, as opposed to a slow evolution from monkeys. Of course I can't, (and won't), argue that, because I have absolutely nothing to scientifically back it up with.

I will always be fascinated with whatever it is that science brings to light...........whether it's human anthropology, deep ocean life, planets that are many light years away..........just about everything. It's all cool and amazing stuff to read about.

No rules! Well then, for the record I did descend from Europeans, but most definitely did not descend from apes. But then no evolutionary theorist would say that I descended from apes. They would say that apes and I had a common ancestor. But then they would also say that I had a common ancestor with earthworms too. How convenient. The shared DNA is undeniable, but we also share DNA with porcupines and probably trees too.

Years ago I learned a bit about the theory of evolution, but it's probably changed by now. (That's like a joke only smaller) But seriously, Darwin's voyage to the Galapagos, natural selection, survival of the fittest, all make sense. We see it today in different characteristics of the same species based on geography (humans included), natural selection working in the genes, evidenced by Sickle Cell Anemia and likely many other genetic conditions. And it's pretty obvious the fastest cheetah gets dinner and lives another day to reproduce. But that's all we see. Where are all the evolutionarily advantageous mutations? Surely we've screwed around with the environment enough we ought to have seen a few by now. "Well it takes time," the evolutionary theorist might say, "these things happen over millions of years."

Time has always been the evolutionary theorist's hole card. "Given enough time 'anything' can happen." But I think time is the one thing they don't have enough of. After all, the earth is only 4.54 billion years old.

By now you probably think I'm "some fanatic that is going to attempt to deny science." That's simply not true. I'm to apathetic to do anything fanatically! And I'm almost done, here's my point.

The earth is 4.54 billion years old and the human genome has about 6 billion pairs. That's about 1.3 genome pairs per year. That's not allowing much time for natural selection. Or even the earth to cool. And not the kind of time the evolutionist needs for "anything" to happen.

Re: The earth is 4.54 billion years old and the human genome has about 6 billion pairs. That's about 1.3 genome pairs per year. That's not allowing much time for natural selection. Or even the earth to cool. And not the kind of time the evolutionist needs for "anything" to happen.

I'm looking forward to somebody who knows more about genomes than I do (that wouldn't take much) to respond to this. I'm sure I (and maybe others) would learn something.

I started to do a little research, but haven't found anything that directly addresses this point. I have a vague recollection (from past reading) that mutations don't always (or usually?) affect only one gene pair, but instead can affect many.

Maybe this is based on my (perhaps faulty) recollection that there is a fair amount of redundancy in genomes--multiple occurences of similar sequences, of which, in the end, only one is "effective" in terms of controlling the development of the life form containing that DNA.

Can someone clarify, or point me to a good (i.e., short ;-) explanation. ( I did find this which sort of looked promising, but stopped short of addressing the points I was looking for: Module 12: Bio-Inspired Problems and Algorithms: Genomics: A (Really) Short Primer

Re: The earth is 4.54 billion years old and the human genome has about 6 billion pairs. That's about 1.3 genome pairs per year. That's not allowing much time for natural selection. Or even the earth to cool. And not the kind of time the evolutionist needs for "anything" to happen.

I was hoping somebody would chip in with a more knowledgeable response, but, in the meantime I tried to do some research on my own.

I've sort of run out of time and urgent interest. I have found a few things that make me less concerned about the 1.3 genome pairs per year. Enough to make me feel comfortable that such an overall average is reasonable, but probably not enough for me to convince many others.

The actual rate fluctuated quite a lot--a much higher rate than that in small one-celled life forms with short reproductive cycles, and a much smaller rate in life forms with longer reproduction cycles. Here are some of the things that make me feel more comfortable:

• I forgot about one-celled and other small life forms and how quickly they reproduce--some yeasts split every 15 minutes in the right conditions. The point being, I can imagine times when possible mutation events (changes in the genome pairs) occurred much faster than even 1.3 events per year. (This even with the caveat that, iiuc, the earliest forms of life did not have DNA and genome pairs.)
• There's an experiment (with E.coli bacteria) I'll cite with respect to that--I'll put that and some other quotes below this list.
• As I mentioned in my previous post, not all mutation events involve just the change of a single genome pair--I can't recite them all, but there are "mutations" that involve a gene moving from one chromosome to another--if you're trying to count genome pair changes and aren't clever about it, that would be quite a few changes.

I was uncertain whether evolution was an acceptable topic on CR4, but I found several threads on the subject over in the BioMech & BioMed forum. If nobody chimes in here to confirm, reinforce, or clarify, what I say here, I might repost this particular point over there in a few days.

Some quotes:

From Wikipedia: E. coli long-term evolution experiment:

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.^[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010^[update].

<that's 50,000 generations in 22 years, the following mentions hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations>

Of the 12 populations, 4 developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains. Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with less than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.[2]

From Wikipedia: Speciation:

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.

<and later>...

Gene transposition as a cause

Theodosius Dobzhansky, who studied fruit flies in the early days of genetic research in 1930s, speculated that parts of chromosomes that switch from one location to another might cause a species to split into two different species. He mapped out how it might be possible for sections of chromosomes to relocate themselves in a genome. Those mobile sections can cause sterility in inter-species hybrids, which can act as a speciation pressure. In theory, his idea was sound, but scientists long debated whether it actually happened in nature. Eventually a competing theory involving the gradual accumulation of mutations was shown to occur in nature so often that geneticists largely dismissed the moving gene hypothesis.[31]

However, 2006 research shows that jumping of a gene from one chromosome to another can contribute to the birth of new species.[32] This validates the reproductive isolation mechanism, a key component of speciation.[33]

From Wikipedia: DNA repair:

DNA damage, due to environmental factors and normal metabolic processes inside the cell, occurs at a rate of 1,000 to 1,000,000 molecular lesions per cell per day.[1] While this constitutes only 0.000165% of the human genome's approximately 6 billion bases (3 billion base pairs), unrepaired lesions in critical genes (such as tumor suppressor genes) can impede a cell's ability to carry out its function and appreciably increase the likelihood of tumor formation.

Very informative comment! Thanks for the "6 billion bases (3 billion pairs)" comparison. I phrased that incorrectly in my post.

Good post.

I'll have to come back and follow the links.

I think most people know that there is evolution within species, and won't argue it.

It's when a conversation breaks down into creation vs evolution of humans from pond scum, where things go awry. Both sides are passionate in their beliefs, and neither side can prove them, so it becomes pointless. Otherwise, I think a discussion is okay.

Re: Good post.

Thanks!

Re: I think most people know that there is evolution within species, and won't argue it.

And: It's when a conversation breaks down into creation vs evolution of humans from pond scum, where things go awry. Both sides are passionate in their beliefs, and neither side can prove them, so it becomes pointless.

Proof--probably not, or not what some would like to see. But, convincing evidence? An awful lot of that. And, the links I cited take you to much of it--I was focused on considering whether the 1.3 genome pair changes per year was reasonable in the links I cited.

If you really want to discuss it, or research it, I could prepare a long list of links. I'd rather have somebody who knows what they're doing do that. ;-)

Some things (off the top of my head) that I'd point to and then try to support:

• speciation events do occur (that is, new species come into existence with concomitant changes in DNA), usually recognized as such because the new species can't interbreed with the old
• when you look at the fossil record (or have somebody guide you through the fossil record), it is almost amazing to see how features start in get refined in future generations
• I don't understand the details, but the investigation of DNA seems to show commonality of (certain) DNA among different species

Maybe we should start a thread on the BioMech & BioMed forum to get some more qualified people involved. (I looked at a few older threads over there--I didn't have (or take) the time to look at them all.)

Maybe so. I'm interested in this stuff and freely admit that I know next to nothing about it.

Plus, I should have named my thread, Reverse Evolution of Human Consciousness, which is what I was thinking about, but an entirely different topic. What can I say, hindsight is 20/20.

Re: And, the links I cited take you to much of it--I was focused on considering whether the 1.3 genome pair changes per year was reasonable in the links I cited.

Oops, I meant to say: "the links I cited don't take you to much of it".

"The problem I have with evolutionary theory, is that, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

-This is because we didn't evolve from THOSE apes! The apes we evolved from are long gone.

"The evolution of different species arises from a need to adapt to different circumstances...."

-There are many reasons for evolution, not just "need". Some male birds are more colorful because the females desired the more colorful ones even though it would make them more vulnerable to predators.

"we will have to evolve into a species that requires much less of it if we expect to continue in anything that resembles a civilized manner."

-I've given up hope of humans ever acting civilized to each other.

"The evolution of different species arises from a need to adapt to different circumstances...improve if you will. Once the improvement is made, that's how the species goes, from there on. The old, weaker version doesn't just hang around and keep going."...Kramarat............................................ In many instances the original species does hang around. Not in the same area perhaps but in other geographical areas where the conditions are better suited for the original species. Witness Darwin's animals on Galapagos. The "original" species were still in other parts of the world, but in the Galapagos they had evolved to another level. Sure, you can have apes and humans that evolved from them at the same time. Perhaps not in the exact same place at the same time but both variations will be still present in the world.

It's just our egos that cause us to believe we have evolved to a higher plane and I don't mean to belittle the 'advances' of the human race.

Even my dog Buck prefers my leather LazyBoy to the floor, steak to Purina Dog Chow and rainwater to toilet water but he will settle for the lesser three if the finer three aren't available.

All the other species of animals in the wild spend most of their time looking for good food and sex.

I'm not sure we are any different !

Ok, that's oversimplifying it but even our toys we collect and play with are there just to take our minds off primal urges and give us an outlet for all that pent up energy.

What does make us different is our ability to manipulate our environment in such a way that we are more comfortable, have food stored, and permanent shelter from the elements. And that opposable thumb helped out a lot too.

'Humans' have been around for quite a few thousand years. The population living today is equal in numbers to the entire population of people who have ever lived and died so even the casual observer should be able to surmise that the human race should now be able to escalate it's condition in one lifetime equal to the rest of the history of the human species.

When the Earth has had enough of us it will kick us off just as it has with 99.9% of the species before us.

Yeah, I guess there's not much point in worrying about it.

As a species though, as we become more and more dependent on our own inventions and the fuel that it takes to run them, while at the same time practically doubling life expectancy in the past 100 years, I can't help but think that we are headed for an eventual big fall. Which just reiterated what you said, but I think that we are contributing to that point in our future and that we are also accelerating towards it.

I'm not a big greenie or anything, but little things will set me off on these thought patterns. Like the other day, I was in the grocery store produce section. I noticed that the latest and greatest thing was little plastic bags that had about four little red potatoes in them, touting, "microwave in the bag", right next to individual plastic wrapped baking potatoes. It doesn't take a greenie to realize just how stupid and wasteful things like this are.........................and there is always more of it.

It's stuff like that that makes me shake my head and wonder, "What's wrong with us?"

I had also had read an article in Popular Science that morning regarding the potential scarcity of some of the critical elements that we're going to need to build the next generations of things like solar collectors and battery storage.

Normally, I wouldn't really care about any of this stuff, but with a four year old daughter, it's becoming impossible to envision her life 20-30 years from now, being anywhere near as good as ours have been.

In my line of work I spend almost all of my time alone..............which I like, because it gives me a lot of time to think.............maybe too much.

I also see a lot of conspicuous consumption..............big time! Which is also fine. People should be able to spend their money any way they want to. However, when I see the amount of resources that we use and fuel that we burn on things that aren't even remotely necessary for our comfortable survival, it does worry me, and I would like to see a shift in the way people think, in terms of what they need, as opposed to what they want. I think we could stretch our resources much farther than we will on our current path.

Combined with the fact that we've got two massive emerging markets coming up in India and China, in which the citizens are looking to emulate the middle class lifestyle that has existed in the western world for some time, (which I don't blame them for in the least), we're going to be running into some real problems.

Like another poster alluded to..............we'll only remain civilized as long as our basic needs are met. Take clean drinking water and a regular food supply out of the mix, and all bets on civility are off.

I don't know if you've seen any of these documentaries, where people, either by choice or not, are massively downsizing, and living with as little, "stuff", as they need.....................the thread is always the same............they are amazed at how much freer and happier they feel once they are unencumbered by big houses, cars, and all of the other junk that goes with them. It's inspiring.

Probably shouldn't confuse biological evolution with mental evolution.

We still haven't changed much in the last few millennia physically except we are taller and better looking but we still haven't grown a third arm in the middle of our chest or an ability to live only on air.

What has evolved exponentially is our tool making abilities.

I'm not actually from this planet so I have no comment.

Thanks for one of the most enjoyable can-o-worms in a while. I hope I am wrong, but based on current trends and our inhumanity to each other, I believe we will probably destroy ourselves long before nature has a chance.

Was it not the Romans who proposed "live for today, for tomorrow we shall die".......and so they did?

I'm pretty sure there are still Romans in Rome...

Couldn't help thinking of this on this topic.

Thanks for that! His perspective on just about everything is right on the money.

Kramarat -

I think it was Ernest Thompson Seton who said that the story of a wild animal never has a happy ending. All animals eventually die of predation, starvation, injury, illness, exposure, drowning, infection, etc. As long as some of the species survive long enough to reproduce, we call that species "successful"!

An interesting fact: animals in zoos live longer than in the wild, and therefore die quite differently. A zookeeper told me that virtually all zoo cats develop arthritis. In the wild, their impaired hunting skills would kill them very quickly; in the zoo, they live on for years and die of something else.

Similarly, we modern humans live a lot longer than our ancestors did, and we die of very different things. In ancient times, very few people had enough food to worry about obesity; very few lived long enough to worry about cancer; and I don't think ANYONE had to worry about the effects of a sedentary lifestyle.

Yeah, we humans are smart! Smart enough to live longer and more comfortably, and die in very expensive hospitals.

Oh, I agree completely. There are more humans than ever before in history living what, by historical standards, would be considered a very cushy lifestyle.

It's not ever going to happen, but what I'd like to see, is that as a species, we give up some of the frills and tone down our consumption, without having any truly painful impact on our lives.

The way I see it, and I suppose I could be wrong, is that there is just no way we are going to be able to replace, (at our current and escalating rate of use), fossil fuels with solar, wind and hydro power. We would still use fossil fuels, but much less of them. That would both prolong the ultimate crash we are headed for, and cushion the blow when it happens.

It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but if humans one day find themselves having to go cold turkey, off a major addiction to everything they are used to, it's gonna get pretty ugly, pretty fast.

I hope I'm not here for it.

I always think of a passage from the book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson who was remarking that it is quite a miracle that you are on the Earth today. When you think of all the perils, starvation, wars, diseases and disiasters that could have terminated any one of your ancestors before they reproduced over the last ten thousand or longer years , you would not be here today. Not even to mention the billions of possible combinations of marriages that would have resulted in you not being the you that you are.

Yep. On an individual basis, the odds of us not being here are way, way greater than us being here.

The fact that we're the only species on earth that can even have these conversations is pretty amazing too.

"The fact that we're the only species on earth that can even have these conversations is pretty amazing too."

We don't really know that yet...I have five dogs, all mutts and most of them related in a complex sort of way which is another story, but they definetly conspire together in a very organized sort of way.

The second youngest is a female named Velvet. Some mornings when I'm sitting on the front porch nursing that first cup of coffee they will all gather at the other end of the porch making all sorts of noises and jumping around and seemingly being playful.

Then after a couple of minutes, Velvet will come trotting down the porch, bow down, jump up and distinctly say "MILKBONE" in a kinds gravelly sort of dog talk way. (I taught her this when she was six months old by giving all the other dogs milkbones but not her until she repeated after me.)

Then when I grab the box off the end table next to my porch chair they all come running down for a milkbone party, happy as all get out.

This little song and dance conference they do at the other end of the porch occurs about 3 days a week in exactly the same way right before they send her down to ask for treats...but my point is, we aren't the only 'thinking' species, we are the only one that has opposable thumbs which gave us script, the printing press and rest is history.

Read 'Wolf Totem' if you have time. People have always found a way to be comfortable in all kinds of life situations.

Back to my original post on reverse evolution.

I realize that there are many indigenous populations that haven't been corrupted by, "popular", culture, and are able to live and thrive with what the earth provides. But, they are getting fewer and fewer.

I'm not suggesting that everyone go back to that.

I do feel though, that over time, humans, (the general population......and in general terms), are getting dumber, lazier, weaker, etc., to the point that future extended power disruptions, etc., will result in utter chaos and mayhem. An example of this would be, while watching news footage of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, and, as their city was flooding, people were breaking into stores and stealing television sets..........................very disconcerting to say the least.

In fact, the entire Katrina episode exemplifies what I'm talking about...................A large population of people, (most of them able bodied), that had completely lost the instinct for survival and self preservation. All they knew to do, was sit and wait for someone to come and help them.

I'm not judging the individuals, but I think I can say that the society that created them, brought them to this point, and continues to create more of them, needs some fixing.

I've got more on this, but I'd like to read some comments from anyone that's interested.

Re: I'm not judging the individuals, but I think I can say that the society that created them, brought them to this point, and continues to create more of them, needs some fixing.

So what would you suggest be done to fix society?

Glad you asked.

For starters, I think that a government that actively cultivates a culture of dependency is way, way on the wrong track. This is not necessary, nor is it healthy. Putting programs in place that strip people of their self respect and any idea that they can make it on their own is a mistake. I believe it's a mistake that is eventually going to come back and pay dividends on society. Not good ones.

That is not to say that government doesn't play a role. I was thinking about this thread the other night, and I remember seeing this commercial in the 70s. It had a profound impact, (I think), on how, many members of society in the US viewed themselves, and how they conducted themselves. There was a campaign to clean things up, and it filtered down, (and worked), to people taking a personal responsibility for their actions.

Many on here have seen me argue about intrusive government blah, blah, blah. I don't like reckless new mandates, laws, and rules put in place to control us and stop us from doing things. However, the link above provides an absolutely perfect example of how government can work in a passive manner to change the way people think and act.

These methods, that have been shown to work, should be employed more often. They would cost much less money than mandates, and the true beauty is, that the changes that would take place would be voluntary and permanent, not forced and vilified or ignored.

Heck, that commercial is still powerful. I hadn't seen it in years and I just about started welling up with tears watching it again. _{And I'm not a greenie.}

Everyone can't be at the top of the chain.

Most of the people trapped in the stadium after Katrina didn't own cars. They depended on public transportation and lived in neighborhoods that allowed them to shop close to home for all their necessities.

By one way of thinking, environmentalists who are pushing for less dependance on Big Oil and preach less travel distances to work, play, shopping, etc. may be forgetting about the need for evacuation capabilities in the face of natural disasters.

Many Big City residents like New York City residents find it impossible to own a car but due to the City's public transportation system they don't need one. One of the stark visual images from the 9/11 event was vast numbers of people walking across the bridges to get home from work because everything was shut down.

Personally I keep bicycles, a canoe, motorcycle, motorboat, cars and a truck so no matter what, I can get out of the way of hurricanes here if I need to, come winds or high waters. Ironically, i've never evacuated, even through Hurricanes like Donna in 1960, Andrew and Charlie and Wilma but that's because my house even now is built in such a way that it will take the beating even though it is a wooden piling house.

Kind of my point. The workers in NYC, being accustomed to being self reliant, figured out that they could simply walk out of there..............whether they had a home to go to or not. The survival/self preservation instinct was still intact.

By contrast, the Katrina victims, many of whom had grown accustomed to a multi generational dependency on the government for everything from housing to food, showed no signs of having those same instincts...............they simply sat, laid down, and in some cases died, waiting for help to arrive.

I think many, who otherwise would have been fully capable of walking out of there, had lost the ability to even recognize that as a viable option.

... misplaced the life owners manual.... rtfm.

Kramarat, I think you missed an important element here. The people of New Orleans could not simply walk out! Flooding was very deep and extended for great distances. New Yorkers had intact streets, intact buildings, and a working police force; Katrina victims had none of these. The fact that so many of them made it to the stadium is pretty amazing. People didn't die because they "laid down" but because the water rose so rapidly, trapping them in the upper stories of their houses. If the 9/11 tragedy had flattened scores of city blocks and filled all the streets with meters of rubble, *then* we might have an accurate comparison.

Actually the better comparison there was to compare Mississippi to New Orleans.

Statistically proven, Mississippi got hit harder and suffered more destruction in Katrina. But unlike NOLA, THe People of Mississippi picked themselves up and took care of business. NOLA is still expecting someone else to come do it for them.

I have good friends in that area.

Re: Statistically proven, Mississippi got hit harder and suffered more destruction in Katrina.

Can you cite the statistics? Were they normalized on some basis, like destruction per acre, per person, per building (and type of building)?

I can easily imagine there was more destruction over the area of Mississisppi that was affected by Katrina than over the (presumably) much smaller area of New Orleans, but an acre of cropland is rather easy to fix. (Or, not fix, but wait until the land drains and replant the following year.)

Contrast that with the cost and effort to fix a multistory office building, of which I assume (I know) there were more of (and taller of) in New Orleans than in most areas of Mississippi.

Similarly, congestion would be a factor. Reconstruction in New Orleans might often have been limited by congestion, less so in the state of Mississippi.

What I meant was not Mississippi as a whole (but reffering to the costal population centers)...but there were several towns that were litterally scoured off the map. While Mississippi got hit worse as a whole...they didn't have the sympathy of the left leaning media....and the news coverage reflected it heavily.

I would have to look up the stats, if I can find them....I had last seen them in the year following Katrina. Also a Personal friend in the area I got much info from was someone of importance in the region who shall remain nameless and wasn't pyhsically far from NOLA in Mississippi. They had a hand in the recovery and cleanup and saw everything without the bias of the media, unlike those of us NOT from that area.

RH, you have a rigorous and analytical mind! Must be an engineer, eh?

Yes. But I also have a deep and abiding distrust of statistics and the people that create or use them. They (almost?) always have an agenda. And, if you want to get closer to the truth, you have to find the agenda and filter the statistics appropriately.

Or, if the raw data is available, and been properly collected and labeled, one might create their own (biased? ;-) statistics.

I'm looking for those stats between my work duties....I don't remember where they were but I'll recognise them when I see them. That assumes they are still online years later. If I can find them I will post a link. I just haven't as yet found them.

Just get irritated by people who were renters in the first place whining about it. And if they owned the property they should have paid for insurance.

But that whole thing can easily devolve into a political argument because it is highly politically charged in the first place. And I think that would take the discussion off-topic. And I won't be the one that does that.

But without pointing fingers etc.....there was the people that believed in picking themselves up with their bootstraps (the survivors)....and then there was those that had an entitlement mentality that someone else should do it for them ( the people that don't usually survive).

I'm of the opinion....its been years...if you was going to get help...you would have gotten it. If you can't make a living to survive there any longer, pack up and move someplace else where you can. I've done it to chase work. So can they.

Don't look for the stats on my account. ;-)

I agree with the rest of your post, except maybe I'm unclear about the renters. Presumably (at least in most cases?) they were renters rather than owners because that is the best they could do. And they lost their place to live and other possessions, something worthy of some whining before getting on with things.

If they never get on with things, well I guess that's another story. But, an awful lot of people (like you mention) don't know how to get on with things without the grid and such. (I'm afraid some of my family is among them.)

I think I'll try to drop out of the discussion, before it goes to far towards political OT.

On final word on the Renters.........two actually "Renters Insurance" $100 a year covers a LOT of personal property of value....and few renters get it. I was amoung them before I became a property owner.

I have a busy schedule but I'll look for the stats a bit longer tonight. But you are right....there are stats, and there are stats.... many of them with an agenda behind them. And they can be skewed easily to suit a desired appearance.

I also take many things I find on the internet with a grain of salt as well. Actually a healthy dose of salt. Just because you find it online does mean its accurate or factual unless you analyze the sources.