Reverse Darwinism, aka hyper-adaptability

[john]

All -

Been pondering the threads about dispersal, outofafrica, hyperdiffusion etc., etc., for a while.

So let's start with Darwin's Galapagos finches. At the beginning there was one lonely flock of finches that fetched up on the Galapagos islands
(gotta have procreation, here). Probably seed eaters, as is the normal finches wont. Finch tribe grew, normal food got thin, so over a period of time finch tribe found other foodbearing niches to occupy, and, in time, finch morphology changed at the species level so they were physically different, depending on what food niche they occupied. So, genetically, their capability to interbreed ceased.

All this is good Darwinism: the finches successfully adapted to their environment, and prospered.

There are thousands of examples of this kind of adaptation to environmental niches.

Now, Homo sap.

I will make the argument, now, that the diaspora of Homo sap. depended directly on their ability to modify their environment rather than adapt to it. As further proof, because they could modify their environment to their needs, there was no morphological adaptation which led to speciation. To my knowledge, there is no speciation (inability to interbreed) among humans. Call this hyper-adaptability.

Additionally, if you have the ability to modify your environment to suit your needs, you have a vast freedom of movement, which I believe was the natural and inevitable source of the spread of Homo sap. across the continents. Call this reverse Darwinism.

As far as I know, this paradigm exists to this day, although we have modified our environment to the extent that it not only threatens our existence, but the existence of all the other species which are dependent on environmental adaptation.

But that is a different subject.


John

[Forum Monk]

Interesting.
So is it fair to conclude that a hyper-adaptable species is the final "goal" of evolution? In other words, if every species learned to control their environment, evolution as we know it would cease?

[Beagle]

John I think you make some very valid points. About a million years ago man learned to make and control fire. He also had the ability to kill animals and take their hides to use as clothing. At that point, man had a "ticket to ride". He could go anywhere that other animals could.

I don't know when the knowledge to tan hides was acquired, but it would have to be early for the clothing to be effective.

I agree that changes over time are more a result of adaptation, rather than mutation. (somewhere in this forum, I posted my thoughts about the changes in skull and dentition relating to the use of fire and how cooking changed our diet).

I still believe that environmental stress has caused particular groups of humans to adapt radically and quickly. I'm thinking of H. Ergaster who arrived in Europe via Gibralter around 700,000 ya. Pretty quickly he became known as H. Heidelburgensis and later H. Neandertal.

You make an interesting statement regarding the ability to interbreed. I don't know. You could be on to something however.

[Charlie Hatchett]

I still believe that environmental stress has caused particular groups of humans to adapt radically and quickly. I'm thinking of H. Ergaster who arrived in Europe via Gibralter around 700,000 ya. Pretty quickly he became known as H. Heidelburgensis and later H. Neandertal.

That reminds me of the "junk" DNA Cog was discussing in another post.
He feels, from his research, that "junk" DNA, or mutagens/ transposons, may have enabled the very rapid adaptations of Homo in the past, when facing radical climate changes.

Built in variability/ adaptability?

[Cognito]

That reminds me of the "junk" DNA Cog was discussing in another post.
He feels, from his research, that "junk" DNA, or mutagens, may have enabled the very rapid adaptations of Homo in the past, when facing radical climate changes.

Yes, Charlie. And they can work in either direction ... based on John's approach to the subject I would expect to see devolution today.
In other words, we are developing Homo couchpotato stupiditus.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Homo couchpotato stupiditus

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

[Beagle]

That reminds me of the "junk" DNA Cog was discussing in another post.
He feels, from his research, that "junk" DNA, or mutagens/ transposons, may have enabled the very rapid adaptations of Homo in the past, when facing radical climate changes.

I've thought that very thing for a long time Charlie. I couldn't agree with Cogs more.

[john]

Interesting.
So is it fair to conclude that a hyper-adaptable species is the final "goal" of evolution? In other words, if every species learned to control their environment, evolution as we know it would cease?

Nope.

But let me back up here a few 100k years. I would argue that the Neandertals, despite their techne, were an environment-reactive species, and therefore became genetically distinct from Homo s.. There was a horizon, which is being fiercely argued now, in which their ability to interbreed with Homo s., was diminishing from something to none. They followed the Darwinian path.

Point 2. I doubt we will ever be able to control mutation. Hyper-adaptability is just another mutation, and it may just be one which leads to the extinction of our species. Reason: we are clearly destroying the environment we depend on. Or, there may be other mutations, happening now or resulting from what we are doing to the environment which will result in - for lack of a better term - Homo s. version X, or something even entirely different.

So Homo s., regarded from the standpoint of geological time, may just be another genetic sport which the next intelligent species - not us - may look at 500k or 5 million years from now and develop arguments regarding our demise. Much like the Neandertal.

cheers

john

[Forum Monk]

I think your original point is good but I wonder if you may of faultered a bit with the HSN comments. If they were indeed reactive rather than adaptive they would not have lived in europe during the ice age. They would have migrated like the animals.

The engine of Darwinian evolution is selection pressure. Without pressure, mutations occur at some unknown intervals which obviously are not frequent enough to ensure survival. Unless as you say, the species is adaptable apart from selection pressure.

In any case, it is an interesting thought.

[john]

I think your original point is good but I wonder if you may of faultered a bit with the HSN comments. If they were indeed reactive rather than adaptive they would not have lived in europe during the ice age. They would have migrated like the animals.

The engine of Darwinian evolution is selection pressure. Without pressure, mutations occur at some unknown intervals which obviously are not frequent enough to ensure survival. Unless as you say, the species is adaptable apart from selection pressure.

In any case, it is an interesting thought.

They migrated WITH the animals and the weather (the animals being driven by the weather), and as the animals died, they died. On the Iberian peninsula, I believe.

john

[Forum Monk]

Here is an interesting article about HSN and a proposal about how he went extinct. Some of the random comments at the bottom are interesting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066363/posts

[Beagle]

They migrated WITH the animals and the weather (the animals being driven by the weather), and as the animals died, they died. On the Iberian peninsula, I believe.

I agree with the migration john. Mankind always has and always must follow the food. But about HNS - some facts:
A skeleton was found, obviously Neandertal, in Spain.
It dated to 24,000ybp.
No earlier speciman has been found to date.

That's all john. Those are the facts. One would think that would be good enough to report in a scientific journal. But noooo. It must be more than that:

"Neandertal Man ended his existence gazing desperatly at the warm shores of Africa, just out of reach across the impassable Strait of Gibralter. With that in sight - he breathed his last."

Do you not see a certain disconnect with science? I have been folowing the HNS story for many years. He first went extinct in 36kbp. Then 30kbc.
Then 28kbc. And now finally at 24kbc.

Keep watching the story john. You may be surprised.

[Charlie Hatchett]

I agree with the migration john. Mankind always has and always must follow the food. But about HNS - some facts:
A skeleton was found, obviously Neandertal, in Spain.
It dated to 24,000ybp.
No earlier speciman has been found to date.

Something I've been toying with is the possibility that Solutreans and Neanderthals are somehow related. I've been combing through papers and can't seem to come up with a Solutrean skeleton, though Neanderthal skeletons have obviously been found in Iberia. Just brainstorming...

[Charlie Hatchett]

"Neandertal Man ended his existence gazing desperatly at the warm shores of Africa, just out of reach across the impassable Strait of Gibralter. With that in sight - he breathed his last."

[Cognito]

"Neandertal Man ended his existence gazing desperatly at the warm shores of Africa, just out of reach across the impassable Strait of Gibralter. With that in sight - he breathed his last."

Charlie, who in the hell wrote that piece of crap? We'll need to perform a lobotomy on that retard with a dull paleo scraper.