Chimps Evolved More Than Humans 541
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.'"
Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [google.com]
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:5, Interesting)
In reality, there is no "evolution" in the way that people understand it. There is natural selection, which results in changes that create animals that are more adapted to their environment. In this sense, it doesn't matter that chimps' genes have changed more than ours, because by developing a sophisticated brain capable of reasoning we have sidestepped the need for much of the adaptations chimps may have had to undergo. Once we learned to shape our environment to our tastes, rather than change ourselves, the game was over.
Re:Creationists (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, that explains the creationists, anyway...
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Devolution (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh for the love! I was going to say something witty here, but everything I came up with could be countered by pointing out people that act worse than chimps. Maybe they are better than humans. I quit. I'm going to go live in the trees and see if I can catch up to them evolution-wise.
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no necessity built into evolution that makes it true, because it is a scientific claim. There could be a counterexample tomorrow that refutes evolution completely, and if we accepted it we'd have to abandon evolution and form a new theory. Evolution is not a true theory unless it is backed up by experience.
Now of course there is so much experience(evidence) supporting evolution that it has the status of objective fact and it would be foolish to withhold assent from it, at least its essence. But still, any belief about the world is subject to doubt - at the very core because our experience is mediated by our fallible senses - and thus evolution and every other scientific theory can always be disputed.
Re:Evolution vs Intelligence (Score:3, Interesting)
* (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)
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not entirely sure where intelligence fits into that. Like you said, it really moves us out of that system. In a lot of ways, the ability to create technology allows humans to "cheat the system". We can thrive in a lot of climates that our bodies are not really suited to by significantly manipulating the environment, or more commonly, creating little pockets of more comfortable climates in which we spend most of our time. Then you figure we've created lots of ways to easily kill each other, methods so destructive and pervasive that evolution couldn't possibly hope to keep up.
All that being said, in our world at large, evolution still needs to be a consideration for humanity, not because of our own DNA, but because of things like the emergence of drug resistant bacteria and such.
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:3, Interesting)
That may not be true. Suppose that "success" is evenly distributed over the full range of complexity. To define this more concretely, suppose that the probability that a particular DNA sequence codes for a "successful" organism is independent of the length of the sequence, except for some minimum limit.
Now, suppose that the first organisms were very simple (had short DNA sequences).
Finally, suppose that mutation is a random walk (something like the stepwise mutation model).
In this scenario, the trend will be towards more and more complicated organisms. The reason is that the starting point is a very small region of DNA state space (short DNA sequences), and most of the state space consists of very long sequences. This is a property of random walks, and is related to the second law of thermodynamics.
It's true can raise all sorts of objections to this simplified example, such as pointing out that longer DNA sequences don't necessarily translate into more of what we commonly recognize as complexity (there are plants with way, way more DNA than us), that "success" may not be evenly distributed, or objecting to mutation as a random walk. Even given these objections, I expect the basic idea may still hold.
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amount of Evolution? (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolutio (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's not "lesser/greater" its the strange evolu (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Difficult concept: that more complex != better (Score:3, Interesting)
This is totally divorced from reality, where a prehistoric cave man would have been genetically identical to a modern human, thier lack of technology was simply cos the never had a reason to develop it much until about 6000-7000 years ago when groups of people started making civilisations and developing tech at a ever incresing rate, when in the past few million years, humans didn't develop much tech at all. Whatever caused them to start developing new technology then, who knows, but it wasn't evolution, a million year old human was just as smart as a 6000 year old human, who is just as smart as a modern human.
The Theory of Trekolution (as I choose to dub it), haas a distinct racist undercurrent to it, no doubt if the enterprise had arrived on earth in the 18 - 19th century, they would have declared white people more evolved than black people, tho conversely, if they had shown up about 3000 BC, they would have declared that the white people were less evolved.
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:2, Interesting)
The genes' final mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
can't walk without shoes????? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Intelligence vs. Reproduction (Score:3, Interesting)
...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
Might point to us being alone in the universe (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:can't walk without shoes????? (Score:3, Interesting)
It hardly takes "all your energy" and being aware of ones surroundings is healthy, no?
I tend to think that the great achievement of the human being -- self awareness -- is also the greatest trap; because self awareness is so captivating, most people are seldom aware of anything else...
Re:Evolution vs Inteligence Re:Creationists (Score:1, Interesting)
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.