Interestingly enough- far before DNA testing, Darwin had predicted that mankind had evolved in Africa- noting that gorillas and chimpanzees seemed to be the closest relatives to mankind- and that someday fossils might prove this. And Darwin turned out to be right. There is also a very interesting research on finches in the Galapagos regarding adaptive evolution over short time periods, regarding sizes of beaks. Cool stuff.
I suggest the available evidence, considered altogether, doesn't quite lead to that conclusion, and Gould remains most probably correct. Anole lizards had a common ancestor, itself an Anole Lizard. Should we be surprised that in radiating out to 119 species, Anole lizards retained enough common characteristics so that they would most easily adapt to similar environments? And it's probably worth noting that the Cichlids radiated from a common ancestor that was itself a Cichlid. These fish have similar characteristics as would be expected. But move up the Linnaean taxonomy a bit, and things are quite different. Why did all tetrapods have 5 toes/fingers (though in hooved animals, those toes have fused)? Could it have been four or six? No reason it couldn't, and it it had been, then today we would have six fingers and so would toads and rats and bats. So evolution is indeed predictable at one level - we can predict that the descendent species of any current species (if any), will be much like their ancestors for quite a long time, and for many subsequent speciations. We can also predict that SOME offspring species in some lineages will radiate out in some strikingly new direction, and look very different in a few million years. But bilaterals will remain bilateral, and radials will remain radial. About 600 million years ago, these body plans seem to have been part of considerable experimentation. An interesting period. As for "this" happening to mankind, I'm not sure what "this" refers to, but clearly mankind is a single species. We can confidently predict that as a species, we will remain a species until we go extinct.
Well, if we step back a bit, it HAS happened. Our nearest living relatives are the other great apes - chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons. All but one of these species suffers a dwindling population in a limited habitat. Our species by contrast is (temporarily) highly successful, and that success is due to an accidental and contingent sequence of changes to our brains. Rewind the tape to the common ancestor of all apes, there's a good chance humans would never appear - and a good chance ALL of the apes would be extinct by today.
In terms of the question he asks I disagree. Humans are in a position now where they adapt their environment .We as a species no longer adapt to the environment. Therefore there is no need for radial development. No need for niche driven adaption
I noted that his question is ambiguous. The article is talking about speciation. In the case of Anoles or Cichlids, into hundreds of species. But humans haven't speciated even once. So I looked back into our clade history, where speciation has happened. I don't think we can predict what future human speciation would look like. I don't even think we can predict whether it will happen at all.
I think the only way speciation will occur will be when we settle other planets. At the moment, in our current form we have an amazing ability to exploit any niche we encounter. The other issue is we have not had any isolated populations long enough to allow for speciation to begin. We are a species completely unstopped by bio-geography. In a sense we are the ultimate mongrel. I love watching programs where they genetically test peoples ancestory, the true nature of our sexuality and adventurous spirit become overwhelmingly obvious.
you've never met a southern california beach bunny have you. far evolved and way up the latter as far as 'selection' goes. (think haul'n azzz) .may i ask if you comprehend that knowledge evolves? .
No the Doma tribe only proves how artificial we have made our environment. In the wild, those with that genetic deformity would die long before they were able to breed and hand on their genes
Not biologically. Biological evolution is simply offspring not being identical to their parents for some reason. Evolution requires generational change, which means breeding. Now, we could say that knowledge evolves meaning it increases over time. We can say that stars evolve meaning they change from gas clouds to various stages of fusion to post-fusion states. But these are not biological evolution.
And the fact I can find a California beach bunny in multiple locations all over the world proves my point. - - - Updated - - - And the fact knowledge is such an abstract concept would further count against the posters initial point
What? That the beach bunnies are highly prized and get to travel a lot more than most. ie... a so cal beach bunny, is an evolution from the parents copulating. Each child will look a bit like the parents, or perhaps me. Not really. Flintc knows, that in all cases, (most) any life that you can witness, was born and raised right here on earth, and evolving naturally! That includes every human being, you've ever even heard of. ie.... all of us came from the oooooz (sperm/egg; single cell combining of our parents) Nothing magically about the evolution of mankind. I was thinking if perhaps by the separation of land masses, could man have evolved into the four colors that we call races, red, yellow, black and white? .
wow. They live in a treed environment, in which the 2 toed folk can whoop the others in gathering. It's an evolution! they are in the wild geeeze and in a society, the So cal beach bunny was the other example of 'natural selection' ie... the doma folk, CHOOSE and mankind can CHOOSE, while morons think a 'god did it' .
Interesting that you percieve discussion in terms of win and lose. In this particular case you suffer from premature ajudication. A small isolated population with a higher incidence than the normal distribution within the entire human genome of a specific mutation is "evolution"? Nice fail there bish. A substantial minority of this tribe has a condition known as ectrodactyly in which the middle three toes are absent and the two outer ones are turned in, resulting in the tribe being known as the "two toed" or "ostrich footed" tribe. This is an autosomal dominant condition resulting from a single mutation on chromosome number seven.[1] It is reported[1] that those with the condition are not handicapped and well integrated into the tribe. While possibly an aid in tree climbing the condition prevails because of a small genetic pool among the Vadoma and is propagated by the tribal law that forbids members to marry outside the group. Due to the Vadoma tribe's isolation, they have developed and maintained ectrodactyly, and due to the comparatively small gene pool, the condition is much more frequent than elsewhere.[1] The Kalanga of the Kalahari desert also have a number of members with ectrodactyly, and may be related.[1] Ectrodactyly appears throughout the world. It is caused by various human gene defects. It is also associated with hearing loss. It occurs in 1 out of 90:000 births while limb defects occur in roughly 1 in 1000 births, which by comparison is slightly less than the occurrence of identical twins.
This could be a thread all unto itself but I disagree here. I believe we most certainly will split into two or more species with the advent gene and DNA manipulation. Where first world peoples will be able to afford such procedures and breed babies with better hearing, sight, intelligence and better or altered immune systems and poorer counties and peoples will not. Also, considering un-contacted or minimally contacted tribes will probably never have access to such procedures and you could very well have two or more human species whiten a few hundred years.
I agree there is enough there to warrant its own thread. But musing out loud, one would wonder where intentional gene manipulation would fit in. Obviously it is an un-natural action, but it could be argued Man's natural habitat is actually an un-natural one...if that makes sense. Though the look on a naturalist face in a 100,000 years when he tries to puzzle the pattern of man's speciation would be a real Kodak moment to say the least lol
I am not oooosually like that but like you, some try all day to discount what i have to say? For that environment, you bet.
absolutely on both of your ascertion. Very interesting to muse over. ie... creating a 'god' is unnatural, unless a dog looking up to a human is honoring a 'god' (his creator). oh, sheet! Hang on, we got a bridge building here: The dog; begs, required to submit, has commands and can often be just a silly goof, just for attention. Oh my 'god', my dog is almost just like a religious wingnut, but a lot quieter.
I don't believe in evolution for one simple reason. There has been life on this planet for over 3 billion years and yet in all that time.......in all the BILLIONS of years, not one single miserable life form has evolved laser eyes. How can you not evolve laser eyes as the perfect hunting and utilitarian tool not to mention practical applications like not having to bother with discovering how to make fire as you could just laser any old piece of wood lying around with your eyes. The best that lazy ass mother nature comes up with is crappy electric eels and the sonar blast that dolphins have, neither of which is really of any use outside of the water. Evolution is a myth nothing more and nothing less. The lack of laser eyes also disproves the creationist or intelligent design theories as well because why wouldn't God or some alien species create some animals with laser eyes.
The energy requirement for any laser capable of damaging flesh or heating cellulose to combustion levels would require metabolism so far beyond that any creature that has existed that it is impossible. Also, no existing or imagined biological system is capable of focusing a photon stream or projecting energy outside the body. Had there been an advantage to early lifeforms, perhaps these limitations would have been removed through mutation but the cost seems too high.
You know those aliens that people report seeing with the big black eyes and grey, hairless skin? Maybe they're not aliens. Maybe they're space-faring time travellers from the distant future, adapted to a life of low gravity and limited light. I don't know a thing about evolutionary biology, but I do know enough physics to know that actual time travel is considered a theoretical possibility.
Not if life forms that were nuclear powered had evolved. What is more efficient than a life form that only has to eat a small amount of isotopes every 10 years or so...........and has laser eyes. There is no logical reason for an organism not not evolve with nuclear powers and laser eyes.
Had DNA developed with the ability to survive radioactivity without damage such a thing is plausible.....however this was not the case.
