Evolution in 100 years?

Hey DV, I was just thinking... if our population is so much larger then it ever was in the past... couldn't evolution happen in a much shorter time frame?

Here are some number for you to consider:

homo habilis (ape people, for those of you who don't recognize the name) existed 2,000,000 years ago.

Their population was somewhere in the range of 100,000 to 1,000,000.

Today we have a population of about 6,600,000,000

Today about 2,000,000,000 people live in conditions where natural selection would still be prominent.

Doing quick math, that means there are 20,000-2,000 times as many people undergoing natural selection now then back then.

If we divide 2,000,000 (length of time to go from homo habilis ---> homo sapien) by the difference in population we get 100-1000 years.

Thus, just as we went from homo habilis --> homo sapien in 2 million years, we might be able to evolve from homo sapien --> (largely different species) in 100-1000 years provided we keep this sudden explosion of population...

Discuss.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html

And also Nylon-digesting bacteria. Nylon has only been around for 60-70 or so years and is completely synthetic, and yet bacteria have been found to have evolved the ability to digest it.

Also, new species of plants can be easily created in short periods of time, thanks to polyploidy.

So yes, Speciation can happen in short-time frames (though this depends on the reproduction rate of the organism). However, Evolution occurs all the time.

Also, Evolution occurs more rapidly in smaller, isolated populations rather than large ones, due to Gene Flow. This has the inherent effect of keeping any major changes in check due to the interbreeding of the potentially divergent population with that of the main population. If the two populations were to be separated and isolated, then the divergent population would eventually evolve into another species.

Its called punctuated equilibrium

Evolution happens within weeks in insect populations. Notice how insect sprays become less effective each time you use them? Also look up peppered moths.

So you're saying that this is evolution?

http://www.theanthonyking.com/archiv...reearmbaby.jpg

It's a part of the process, yes.

Called mutation.

I'm not buying it. Evolution is being used as a cover for irresponsible chemical use.

Human being have the lowest natural mutation rate of any animal on the planet. We're not evolving into anything new anytime soon.

By the way, that baby grew up to have a successful martial arts career in the Mortal Combat tournaments.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/3...1ba82c.jpg?v=0

the evolutionary process happening today, right now, is not about our bodies. it is a completely mental process

natural selection is whose beak works best for what type of environment. since man has been a creative being creating tools, we have not needed natural selection to evolve. survival of the fittest today is, who is going to continue their education. not whose muscles are bigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

I'm not buying it. Evolution is being used as a cover for irresponsible chemical use.

Human being have the lowest natural mutation rate of any animal on the planet. We're not evolving into anything new anytime soon.

By the way, that baby grew up to have a successful martial arts career in the Mortal Combat tournaments.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/3...1ba82c.jpg?v=0

---

A change to the Genome is mutation. Mutation is--

Oh forget it. You won't read it, and if you did you wouldn't understand it. I give up on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

the evolutionary process happening today, right now, is not about our bodies. it is a completely mental process

natural selection is whose beak works best for what type of environment. since man has been a creative being creating tools, we have not needed natural selection to evolve. survival of the fittest today is, who is going to continue their education. not whose muscles are bigger.

---

Problem with that idea:

Bacteria evolve, so do viruses, etc. Bacteria don't have minds, and viruses cannot really be considered alive, and yet both evolve without conscious thought.

And technically, human bodies are evolving as well. We develop natural immunities to diseases on occasion through inherited traits, and these eventually propagate in a population if there is a large enough benefit for that trait.

Rather than accelerating evolution, I would imagine that it might slow down. If you look at how late in life people are having children compared to a hundred years ago, it's a big difference. Having fewer generations across any amount of time would mean that there is a lower probability for variation to arise from recombination, and mutation. You're also looking at fewer opportunities for the evolutionary mechanisms like natural selection to work on.

I think at the level our society is with its capacity to take care of those who have negative mutations, we have sort of stopped evolving and at this point are just diversifying more and more. Mutations that render people repulsive so no one wants to date them is the only natural selection that seems to still be taking place, but aside from that with each generation human DNA becomes more and more varied. Not necessarily better, at least not on a noticeable level, but certainly different.

One thing that could be considered evolution is being born without wisdom teeth, it's a mutation that doesn't make one get their genes in faster or more abundantly into the pool, but it is certainly more suitable for the environment.

I agree, though, that there is ALSO a lot of very irresponsible chemicle usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Problem with that idea:

Bacteria evolve, so do viruses, etc. Bacteria don't have minds, and viruses cannot really be considered alive, and yet both evolve without conscious thought.

And technically, human bodies are evolving as well. We develop natural immunities to diseases on occasion through inherited traits, and these eventually propagate in a population if there is a large enough benefit for that trait.

---

bacteria evolve so rapidly - it actually contradicts natural selection. from what I've heard, a single bacterium has been observed rearranging its own DNA to survive some outer condition.

natural selection means traits that survive some sort of outer condition evolving a species. but this hardly applies to mankinds evolution. because as far as natural selection is concerned, we already have the tool to survive any outer condition. that is, our mind. since our beginning, we have been using our mind to survive.

what effect did our ancient knowledge over herbs have in allowing a human to survive something, like the cold? *which was once DEADLY* how did our knowledge effect our bodies? did it give our bodies the time it needed to evolve over such illnesses, to develop the right immunity?

when the mind is the greatest tool that man uses to survive, our evolutionary process IS mental

think of this way.

lets go back in time, the stone age. who is more likely to die? the idiot who runs into a dark cave screaming madly, blindly swinging his arms in dark in case of a bear? or the smarter man who lights a torch and approaches cautiously with a spear? even in the stone age, it was still our brain that pushed us forward.

today we have conquered nearly all wild animals. what was that joke? coconuts kill more people than sharks? we fear no bears, wolves, or even lions. even lions in the wild have showed a fear of humans. we have built cities meant to survive hurricanes, earthquakes, even tsunamis. our process is a thousand times more mental than physical. and even then, our physical body has grown better because we took control of nature through agriculture.

and even then, we didn't stop there. and continued to control the food we produced. creating and obtaining more nutritious food than the wild was providing. nutrition, needed to advance our immunities to disease and illness. its so easy to take all that we have done from our mind for granted. if we saw another animal accomplish the same, we would shit our pants.

everything we do and create is a self expression of ourselves. our cities, a self expression of a people. look at how much has changed in just a hundred years!! what does that say about humanity?

if we can imagine ourselves as ants, and our cities as ant hills. and observe the ant hill a hundred years ago, and observe it today. would we not say, the ants have evolved?? why then, is it so hard, to pass the same judgment we would onto ants for ourselves?

We better get some wings in the future that can make us fly or I will be mad!

Well I'll probably be dead anyway, but still!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

bacteria evolve so rapidly - it actually contradicts natural selection. from what I've heard, a single bacterium has been observed rearranging its own DNA to survive some outer condition.

---

No it does not contradict Natural Selection (as bacteria can reproduce quite quickly, therefore mutations spread through a population much quicker. Which in turn drives variation in a population and thus makes it easier for Natural Selection to act), and also citation with that last part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

natural selection means traits that survive some sort of outer condition evolving a species. but this hardly applies to mankinds evolution. because as far as natural selection is concerned, we already have the tool to survive any outer condition. that is, our mind. since our beginning, we have been using our mind to survive.

what effect did our ancient knowledge over herbs have in allowing a human to survive something, like the cold? *which was once DEADLY* how did our knowledge effect our bodies? did it give our bodies the time it needed to evolve over such illnesses, to develop the right immunity?

when the mind is the greatest tool that man uses to survive, our evolutionary process IS mental

think of this way.

lets go back in time, the stone age. who is more likely to die? the idiot who runs into a dark cave screaming madly, blindly swinging his arms in dark in case of a bear? or the smarter man who lights a torch and approaches cautiously with a spear? even in the stone age, it was still our brain that pushed us forward.

today we have conquered nearly all wild animals. what was that joke? coconuts kill more people than sharks? we fear no bears, wolves, or even lions. even lions in the wild have showed a fear of humans. we have built cities meant to survive hurricanes, earthquakes, even tsunamis. our process is a thousand times more mental than physical. and even then, our physical body has grown better because we took control of nature through agriculture.

and even then, we didn't stop there. and continued to control the food we produced. creating and obtaining more nutritious food than the wild was providing. nutrition, needed to advance our immunities to disease and illness. its so easy to take all that we have done from our mind for granted. if we saw another animal accomplish the same, we would shit our pants.

everything we do and create is a self expression of ourselves. our cities, a self expression of a people. look at how much has changed in just a hundred years!! what does that say about humanity?

if we can imagine ourselves as ants, and our cities as ant hills. and observe the ant hill a hundred years ago, and observe it today. would we not say, the ants have evolved?? why then, is it so hard, to pass the same judgment we would onto ants for ourselves?

---

Actually, Natural Selection favoured a larger brain with humans, and thus we evolved to have our mental capacity. It allowed us to communicate more efficiently, to organise cohesive and complex social groups, and generally allowed us to be able to adapt quickly to changes to the climate. We are unique in the sense that whilst normally evolution favours more efficient and specialised bodies, our brains underwent an evolutionary path in becoming bigger and more complex.

Stuff like technology (even flint spears and rock tools can be classified as technology) arose with the ever complicated mind. We aren't the only species to have been observed to use tools, but we have gone far far along the road in order to achieve the civilisation we have now. Evolution is not in our minds, Evolution produced our minds through natural selection.

As for lions. No... they still remember that we are tasty, soft-skinned snacks. We may not be on their usual menu, but if they are hungry and see one of us in the vicinity.... lion goes "OM NOM NOM NOM NOM...".

Once upon a time earth had no life on it and then one day something made a random mutation.

http://www.teenhollywood.com/wallpap...-wallpaper.jpg


And we have being like that ever since.

Heh, to those of you screaming "TOO MANY PEOPLE TO EVOLVE" I didn't mean the whole population would evolve. I was thinking more like a handful of evolved persons.

To those of you claiming that "we don't need no more evolution". No, we don't but that's almost insignificant. The important thing is competition. Who can compete to survive and who can compete for mates? Many people say "oh, but we don't let bad mutations die off". We don't, but outside north america and europe in places such as the poor sections of china and africa... if you can't compete you die. Thus the number I used was 2,000,000 instead of 6,600,000.

Quote:

---

if you can't compete you die

---

You die anyway so competition was not real.

yeah but you die without passing on your genetic material and the like( SEXUAL-INTERCOURSE) so there is at least some competition. Anyways tbh we all know there are people with cool powers, have you not watched Heroes?

!NS

Punctuated Equilibrium.

Look it up.

Quote:

---

you die without passing on your genetic material and the like( SEXUAL-INTERCOURSE)

---

If you're not going to be here passing anything on won't help you. Not only that it doesn't stop whoever you pass the genetics on to from dieing either. Always the concept of competition can exist but you don't have to make it real unless you're focused on that as a reality. Someone wouldn't exactly see their wife as a trophy from a competition unless they are shallow enough to see it that way. But that's very shallow and it's not all about sex. It's not all about genetics either unless you're hitler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

!NS

Punctuated Equilibrium.

Look it up.

---

Hmm... I think seis wins this thread =O

EDIT: oh wait.. wendy mentioned it first. Sorry, I don't often don't pay too much heed by posts by certain people... =P

Although, I don't claim to understand that theory completely, Wouldn't there still be the higher chance for singular favorable mutations even though the population as a whole wouldn't progress quickly due to this effect?

Now you're getting into probablity, so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

If you're not going to be here passing anything on won't help you. Not only that it doesn't stop whoever you pass the genetics on to from dieing either. Always the concept of competition can exist but you don't have to make it real unless you're focused on that as a reality. Someone wouldn't exactly see their wife as a trophy from a competition unless they are shallow enough to see it that way. But that's very shallow and it's not all about sex. It's not all about genetics either unless you're hitler.

---

Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Minervas has just lost the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Now you're getting into probablity, so...

---

I never moved away from probability =P