Slashdot Mirror
Chimps Evolved More Than Humans
jas_public writes "Since the human and chimp families split about 6 million years ago, chimpanzee genes seem to have evolved more than human genes. The results, detailed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, go against the conventional wisdom that humans are the result of a high degree of genetic selection, evidenced by our relatively large brains, cognitive abilities, and bipedalism. The researchers found that 'substantially more genes in chimps evolved in ways that were beneficial than was the case with human genes.'"
I work in a closely related field, and it's very hard even for those who work on evolutionary biology to hold in our minds the idea that things don't evolve towards greater complexity (with human beings at the pinacle), they evolve towards whatever works.
Often people giving scientific talks about some detailed aspect of evolutionary biology slip into terms like 'primative' and correct themselves with 'simple'. I think part of this is because we tend to organize organisms by appearance, and before the genomic era this was the only thing we had to go on. We now know that many of the organisms that seem simple have the same or greater gene complexity as ourselves.
Sometimes I think Evolution needs a better iconic image than the ape to man progression
Well, that explains the creationists, anyway... I think Darwin stated that domestication causes more variation. Therefore humans should have more variety in the genes than the chimps.. But were different genre. This is true when looking at things like genetic disorders anyway, things that would otherwise be killed in the wild, but under domestication can survive and create offspring.
Why UNIX?
Back in time, the intelligent ones were more able to survive and raise their children to breed, whilst the less intelligent perished or killed their children because of their own stupidity. Nowadays, however, too many of the more intelligent and able dedicate most of their efforts to help the less intelligent ones to survive instead of breeding themselves. Intelligence has become a handicap in building a society that's intended to live off the intelligent and able. As we get higher on Maslow's Pyramid, our efforts become less egoistical.
There will be the inflection point, however, where the less intelligent outbreed by far and even destroy the most intelligent out of plain envy (seen in cases such as Pol Pot's Cambodia). Then the lack of intelligence will again play against the group and roll the changes back to the point where the intelligent (and egoistical) will prevail again.
Think about it. If you can be an Alpha Male without even being able to stand then genetic features become less relevant in determining who reproduces. Dramatically slowing the process of human evolution.
Your selecting for different genes. Instead of beign faster, stronger, tougher. You get smarter, craftier, less moral, hornier, and better looking. Since these tend to be the features that get you more kids. Although the pressure in those direction would be weaker because you dont' get killed if your below a certain IQ. The pressure is weaker.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
If you consider that humans are to the "society" what cells are to the human body, it makes sense. Humans get specialized, and brain cells don't reproduce (much*) either. It's also probably better because they use a lot more energy and live longer.
* (IIRC it has been found a few years ago that they can duplicate, though at a slow pace, while before it was believed they didn't)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Are you seriously going to suggest that pro athletes don't have physical gifts superior to the average person, or that a significant factor in that superiority is their genes?
--Drive carefully. 90% of people are caused by accidents.
The traits that our capitalist society rewards (excellence in a field gives extreme wealth, and competence in certain people oriented skills trumps competence in technical fields, etc.) is the appearance of socially what we want. If the pay is better, the supply should increase. However, if you look at birth patterns, things that correspond with higher birthrates are: religion (more => more children), region of country, etc. Traits that are NEGATIVELY correlated are education (more education, for women especially, lowers birth rates), income, etc.
:) But seriously, if you think that the religious right is bad now, well in 50-60 years, if they continue to have double the birth rate or more as secular America... well they WILL be the majority in time...
Even MORE interesting is the rate of genetic diversity. The crew most decried by the family values crew (the single mother with multiple children from different fathers) has interestingly creating more genetic diversity. Gentlemen like "K-fed" are producing multiple offspring with multiple women, ensuring their genetic diversity.
This is interesting because after generations of decreasing religiosity, increasing education, and healthier people living longer, it looks like those same biological forces are shrinking those characteristics. There was an amusing editorial a few years ago suggesting that Roe v. Wade destroyed the Democratic party, NOT because abortions were unpopular, but because they were popular. Because of the high correlation of political views with those of the parents, the the correlation of being a Democrat with abortion (roughly 2-3 times more likely to have an abortion if a Democrat than a Republican), then 18 year after Roe v. Wade we found a shrinking pool of Democrats.
Similarly, the higher birthrates of fundamentalists of all religions is causing a slow reversal of post-enlightenment reforms and changes in religious communities. The "mainstream Protestant Churches" are losing numbers, the Catholics are holding steady overall, but their growth is in South America and Africa, while their presence in Europe shrinks and American Catholics are increasing of Latin origin, Judaism has watched a growth of its Orthodox wing (from about 8% 20 years ago to close to 15% of Jews), which itself has been shifting rightward, and Muslim growth rates are outstripping everyone.
Basically. out secular atheistic culture has reached such a pinnacle of self indulgence and freedom that it might actually shrink itself. The American Left is constantly blaming the Bush administration, but the cultural shifts underneath America demonstrate that demographics and not demagoguery is actually causing the reactionary political pull.
It's very interesting, but I find it the HEIGHT of irony that the bible-thumping anti-evolutionary wings of all religions, that were marginal a generation ago, are suddenly making gains, while the secular, science and reason based culture with decades of dominance after WW2 finds itself on the retreat, and the REASON is that the anti-evolution crew is spreading their genetic material and creating offspring to advance their agenda, and the pro-science pro-evolution crew is cutting off their genetic material with families of 0-2 children.
In fact, most disturbing is that the men that engage in the most socially irresponsible behavior -- serial cheating, divorce, etc., are generally fathering many more children than those that "play by the rules." So with whatever genetic material influences behavior, we're going to find each generation a little more adulterous...
If current trends continue, which of course they will NOT, things will swing the otherway, but amusingly, in 4 or 5 generations, we'll have a general population of non-white, deeply religious Americas who going to Church/Synagogue/Mosques regularly, while engaging in adulterous relationships during the week.
Amusing amateur demographic observations...
Alex
A chimp with the physical limitations of Stephen Hawkins would be lunch. As a human he not only survives but has managed to reproduce and even maintains high ranking in our social order.
As for direction. Our professional athletes, scientists and Engineers produce far fewer children than those at the bottom of our social order. For the sake of our species, I would advise you all (Creationists and Evolutionist) to pray (To Jesus or Darwin) that human intelligence is not seriously impacted by our genetic makeup. If it is our society will collapse when we are no longer able to maintain what our parents built.
I know people are going to bust my balls for totally agreeing with this & stating my deeply held beliefs. The reason...I had a sibling with a genetic defect & this was the NUMBER ONE reason I got a vasectomy & never had children. Having lived through this hell & wishing that this sibling would've died at birth all my life...don't see any reason for couples to have & keep children with genetic defects...except for selfishness & mistaken beliefs about abortion & such. Not only that...but I firmly believe that my problems with depression & such have been passed down from bad genes. Who am I to keep broken genes in the pool...rather than helping the human animal by making sure that these genes die with me.
I fully understand that many of you will not understand what I have written. You may even call me inhuman...but I have had to live with the choices that parents have made by their mistaken beliefs.
I am not a neo-anything. I don't have historic flags/artifacts or belong to any hate groups you may be thinking of. Have lived this & WOULD NEVER wish this choice on anyone...no matter how much you incorrectly believe helping this child live is the correct choice. My only question...how much more difficult will it be when that child dies in the future from this defect?
Forge has hit it on the head. When this society does collapse...where will we find the resources to provide for those who with genetic defects when the resources need to be used for those with the best chance of surviving to be able to breed...if this would even be a possibility.
I think they're spot-on, if a bit verbose.
Summary:
Reactionary and generally stupid people mate more, and thus have more offspring. This is a system with a positive feedback loop since the next generation of K-Feds and Britneys will also likely get pregnant and work shitty jobs (moreso than make it to Harvard).
Whereas, progressive and generally smart people may fuck as much (or more) but do not mate as much. This system also has a feedback loop.
Note that it is the PROGRESSIVE attitude towards sex (whatever, whenever) coupled (heh) with STUPIDITY that leads to the dumb outbreeding the smart.
It's not the slowest gazelle that ends up being a lion's dinner. Predators single out individuals from the herd. Anything that makes one gazelle stand out from the herd is enough. Some guys got a grant to go and paintball herd animals in Africa. Predators went unerringly for the paintballed zebra or antelope. It's not that the lions single out the old, weak, sick or the slow, they single out the one that stands out from the rest and remain focused on them in the mass of other moving animals.
There is a certain irony to it in the human case. Since the first replicators appeared they have been engaged in mortal combat for survival through the phenotypes they build. In most cases the greedy nature of the algorithm has meant good short term solutions but catastrophic long term ones - as evidenced by the fact that >99% of all species that have existed on Earth are today extinct. The genes available today in the gene pools of all organisms are the elite - unlike countless other genes, they have survived so far.
The big mistake our gene dictators made was the development of our human brain. Sure, it was an excellent short term solution - it clearly had its advantages. But now when that big brain thing has led to the development of bio-tech, the phenotype will rule the genotype. The survival machines that were built to protect and propagate the genes have revolted and are seizing power. Sure, natural selection will always exist, but it is way too slow. By giving us too much control they've sealed their fate. The genes that gave us our large brains may still be around for a while - but they too are at our mercy. Not that they could have foreseen it in any way, but still, it was certainly the wrong way to go from the selfish genes' point of view.
Fleshy feet that cant walk along most surfaces without shoes
Bull *shit*.
Maybe your pansy, city-slicker feet are too soft and lily-white for you to stand to walk barefoot long enough for you to adapt but I've lived barefoot a fair bit in my life and a LOT of people walk barefoot on surfaces which you may not think possible.
There are a couple of factors which contribute: the toughness of the soles of your feet will improve quite a lot and the way in which you walk counts for a lot as well. Then theres being observant.
Most people going barefoot for the first time over rough or sharp surfaces, such as rocky coastlines or dirt roads, try to walk in the same style as they walk when wearing shoes; this is going to lead to pain and injury. They are also used to being able to walk pretty much without looking where they are going.
After watching how 'native' people walk barefoot I realised that it helps a lot to put the foot down fairly flatly, not heel first but as if you are trying to plant the whole surface of the foot on the ground at the same time.
Then you have to look ahead of yourself and get used to having a view of the world which includes the surface of the ground which you are about to step on. People in 'civilised' parts of the world are *incredibly* unobservant and self-absorbed. *INCREDIBLY*. Walking barefoot with your head in the clouds is going to get you hurt.
I've found myself able to walk on sharp, bare, volcanic rock with no pain or injury even with deconditioned (ie: softened) soles of my feet (after not going barefoot for a long time) merely by looking where I'm going and treading properly.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
...and very astute ones at that. I've been "wondering" along the same lines for years now.
It makes more sense to me by viewing intelligence as the servant of reproduction, rather than the other way 'round.
In "intelligent society" (with which I'm quite familiar and which much Western secular media essentially defines itself as representing, if not defining), people generally assume reproduction is all about making sure future generations are at least as intelligence as the current one. "Civilization" is, itself, another (very important) means to transmit intelligence to future generations.
From that point of view, the most important reproductive organ in the human body, especially the female's, is the brain. While other reproductive organs are necessary to make a baby, the parents' (especially the mother's) intelligence and other mental qualities will exert much more influence on how the child "turns out" than the physical aspects of reproduction.
However, the "Universe" (or Nature) itself really doesn't care about intelligence per se. Entropy guarantees an overall increase in disorder, so, for information (such as DNA) to survive the corrupting effects of being in this universe, it must reproduce, either directly or indirectly.
From that point of view, "intelligence" evolved merely to improve the odds of DNA surviving. That it currently happens to be primarily human DNA isn't (according to modern science) the "point" of the Universe, neither does the Universe care that the human species has suddenly exploded in population to several Billion and might actually be causing another extinction event, just as the Universe doesn't care that the human species is probably the first to appear on this planet, if not in the entire Universe, that is actually capable of preventing a much more severe extinction event (such as an asteroid hitting the planet, or a supervolcano erupting).
Meanwhile, until a potential extinction event, threatening the human species itself, is on the horizon and requires extraordinary intelligence and coordination to detect and prevent it, the sheer success of the human species prevents the usual evolutionary pressures compelling continued "progress" towards increased intelligence.
That means people who reproduce even somewhat more "vigorously" than the rest of the population will ultimately become a majority of the population, even if they're "not as smart" as those who reproduce less vigorously.
And, socially and culturally, it certainly seems that "intelligence" is now widely viewed as corresponding to "global awareness", including of such concerns as overpopulation; women's reproductive rights (which almost always means less reproduction, as men are almost always willing, especially in a time and place of plenty, to reproduce more, given their substantially lower personal investment in the process); and "quality of life" (including its length as well as the overall "expense" a life is deemed to be worth society's provisioning), which typically includes enjoying the fruits of sexual desire without necessarily having to bear any of the responsibilities for fulfilling those desires (such as bearing and raising actual children).
These views themselves can be viewed as somewhat akin to DNA that has an anti-reproductive component, and that therefore tends to not flourish or even survive in the long run.
And these views are not necessarily correlated with religion so much as with whether they view sexual reproduction as low or high cost (corresponding roughly with the masculine versus the feminine outlooks on sexual reproduction). For an extreme example, the Shakers were successful in many ways by "modern" intellectual assessments, but they viewed sexual reproduction as extremely high-cost, the result being that they are no longer "reproducing" except via prop
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
If anything, it hints that life does not generally evolve towards big intelligence like ours, even when it gets the chance (there was after all 500+ million years of complex life prior to us, none of which could start a fire)-
.. K
We may be specialists, evolved to think great thoughts since that was advantageous for our context at the time. Since it appears evolution does not favour philosphers, it might means we're an accident, and pretty alone in the cosmos.
Would be kind of sad if we made our own extinction then, wouldn't it.
While not remotely scientific, the comedy Idiocracy is based on that idea; eventually the stupid, through massive reproduction, will be the next step in human evolution.
Which is why we need to send a few thousand of our best and brightest into space once we find a habitable place to go.