Is Evolution Speeding Up?
....
....With the entire human genome mapped, among evolutionary biologists the concensus is more that our evolution has been accelerating with the rise of culture and civilization. It's well known that many genes are selected (so they survive and become part of the genome since they have a survival advantage) with changes caused by civilization. For example no one on earth had blue eyes before 10,000 years ago because blue eyes traveled with light skin with the invention of fire so we could live farther north. People with dark skin have trouble making vitamin D from ultraviolet light there, so people who live in the north have two dozen mutations that decrease production of melanin. Evolution by other measures has been accelerating at 150 times the rate of natural selection. The independant way to the same conclusion by computer simulation was that if the current rate was constant between the time when we seperated from other anthropoids, we would be 100 times more unlike the them than we are if the speed had not been boosted by civilization after 10,000 years ago.
....Other evidence of higher speed evolution by way of the genome map are in other realms. Once cattle were herded for milk, it was of worth to be able to drink cow's milk so 80 percent of Europeans have the gene for lactose digestion, but just 20 percent of Asians and Africans (because they often had other food in the tropical belt). Malaria is about 35,000 years old, yet in Africa and other areas people have already developed 25 new genes to protect against malaria. If evolution is about survival of the fittest, why are older people or those with deficiencys not selected out? Research with older people shows they would seem to be the same, children who are doted on by grandmas are more likely to survive and grandmother's genes to be selected in. In truth evolution wouldn't seem to always favor extreme change, so many traits like the hand's 5th digit which seem to have no use would have not been selected out immediately. Even down to the atomic level life is made of more smooth elements without sharp jumps in the orbits of the electrons like metals. Evolution for millions of years was both death and life, and there is no sharp distinction, or we wouldn't sleep "as if watching TV" for much of our life. A cell or a life form like a mite is both alive or dead if you can dry it out for 20 years and then add water and it revives. It would seem the cause of evolution of allowing older people their say is not because evolution was based on survival alone, it was based not just death and was based on life also, both fights with wild animals and gossip with sweet women who live up evolution's superhighway were common. Darwin himself didn't believe in survival of the fittest, he uses the word love 87 times in his memos and, "Survival of the fittest" just once. In truth survival of the fittest was a 20th century promotion of Spencer, so the idea that evolution was unkind only might not be called Spencerian, not Darwinianism.
...If evolution allows old people their rights this would seem to be evidence something would be incomplete about the basic mechanics of evolution if survival of the fittest were only part of evolution, not disproof of Darwin's evolution itself. This could be like Eisenhower who would say America's power is the sum of all weaknesses subtracted from the sum of all overall strengths. Action that improves the world is more of worth than just life, the doers and the do nots are more of worth than the haves and have nots. Evolution incorporates behaviour, certainly behaviour was common in evolution. If in ancient times you whiffed a flower and it made you feel good and this increased your survival rate over others, or if you saw a vision of beauty, even if you share no DNA with the flower or the land and ocean you saw, the increased fitness would make you want more. And when many over thousands or millions of years were made stronger by the power of the flower it became part of our genome. Our DNA is stored enviroment. Evolution would be Survival of The Fittest, in a more general and roundabout way.
....Other evidence of higher speed evolution by way of the genome map are in other realms. Once cattle were herded for milk, it was of worth to be able to drink cow's milk so 80 percent of Europeans have the gene for lactose digestion, but just 20 percent of Asians and Africans (because they often had other food in the tropical belt). Malaria is about 35,000 years old, yet in Africa and other areas people have already developed 25 new genes to protect against malaria. If evolution is about survival of the fittest, why are older people or those with deficiencys not selected out? Research with older people shows they would seem to be the same, children who are doted on by grandmas are more likely to survive and grandmother's genes to be selected in. In truth evolution wouldn't seem to always favor extreme change, so many traits like the hand's 5th digit which seem to have no use would have not been selected out immediately. Even down to the atomic level life is made of more smooth elements without sharp jumps in the orbits of the electrons like metals. Evolution for millions of years was both death and life, and there is no sharp distinction, or we wouldn't sleep "as if watching TV" for much of our life. A cell or a life form like a mite is both alive or dead if you can dry it out for 20 years and then add water and it revives. It would seem the cause of evolution of allowing older people their say is not because evolution was based on survival alone, it was based not just death and was based on life also, both fights with wild animals and gossip with sweet women who live up evolution's superhighway were common. Darwin himself didn't believe in survival of the fittest, he uses the word love 87 times in his memos and, "Survival of the fittest" just once. In truth survival of the fittest was a 20th century promotion of Spencer, so the idea that evolution was unkind only might not be called Spencerian, not Darwinianism.
...If evolution allows old people their rights this would seem to be evidence something would be incomplete about the basic mechanics of evolution if survival of the fittest were only part of evolution, not disproof of Darwin's evolution itself. This could be like Eisenhower who would say America's power is the sum of all weaknesses subtracted from the sum of all overall strengths. Action that improves the world is more of worth than just life, the doers and the do nots are more of worth than the haves and have nots. Evolution incorporates behaviour, certainly behaviour was common in evolution. If in ancient times you whiffed a flower and it made you feel good and this increased your survival rate over others, or if you saw a vision of beauty, even if you share no DNA with the flower or the land and ocean you saw, the increased fitness would make you want more. And when many over thousands or millions of years were made stronger by the power of the flower it became part of our genome. Our DNA is stored enviroment. Evolution would be Survival of The Fittest, in a more general and roundabout way.
..
...Charity in general would be because doing good would increase fitness more than evil. In the evolution of the math of the evolution of behaviour Von Neumann thought the most important type of behavoiur is about good and evil, not just smart and dumb or rich or poor. This is because a carnivoir like the boss or a bear has the most power to cause the most harm and with fewer carniviors than or bosses than herbiviors or employees found most people would try to avoid what the boss favors or more evil. There are fewer bosses and top carniviors in evolution good for business not to run but to be a good laborer! So healthy people wouldn't mostly sympathisize more with the boss as much as the poor or the elders. By the programming of evolution, the people who were moral would survive more often even if they share no DNA with the image or whiff. Evolution wouldn't always be about selfishness. How to labor and how to love are both of worth. This is why those who offer sympathy often don't tend to need love.
~~~
....In other words what evolution is or was was moral because disease was mostly absent so it was easy to be forgiving, good, and moral, and because those who were moral had higher fitness.
~~~
....Experts disagree regarding the cause of the acceleration of evolution now proven (or mostly proven at least for resistance to many diseases and changes like blue eyes) by the mapping of genes. It's in dispute if the increased rate is caused by more options when we removed from the evolutionary labor of other life without civilization, or by more adaptations needed to evolve to fit the sometimes drastic enviromental or cultural situations that arose with the rise of civilization. It's the consensus that the cause of the higher speed evolution is itself the increased world population with civilization on the increase. With more people alive, like a cyber machine with number crunching there are more traits caused by random combinations, so more options of evolution to solve any problem. It would seem more problems and more solutions both would be the cause of the high speed of evolution. Not only would there be more enviromental change, there may also be more adaptation to it. The change in enviroment was achieved with changes in genes, with more of both with each life cycle of our ancient ancestors. More selection and mutation both are needed for any change in evolution.
~~~
....To prove if both or one or neither is true we would expect there to be slower evolution of people who live in areas of low population and with a simpler lifestyle, and faster evolution in the cities. If it were caused by more people and not culture, more people with longer urban historys with the same culture as their rural cohorts would evolve faster, and if it were more about culture and not increased population the change in culture would go with the change seen in the genome.*
....The many not one causology about evolution is highly controversial. With the blending of cultures and worlds, even if the higher speed evolution causology may be proven, by the time it becomes well established may not be controversial. With transportation science we may all be one. And there are many advantages the idea of people being "many not one" may have in the meantime. Because of evolution each person may have his own particular power and genius others don't to improve the solution of a given problem in many ways by way of their special perspective.
....There is the other boost to evolution of ways we can change out genes based on evolution, so our children might be more a music hero, of math! Or strong and good at science. The new improvements where the cell of your hand is morphed to another cell like a stem cell to make an embryo would seem to be highly dissaproved of by evolution (not being in evolution for millions of years so foreign to evolved life). If this was like the older cloning (even if this may be "new" and improved so "more of worth") or changing snips of genes so the whole set of genes is used with higher speed improvement than gene by gene it may still be harmful. The idea is to see if any harm occurs with just a few people who would have "improved" DNA. The problem is that some genes "might be" simple and code only one change, others are polygenic, like for intelligence, which has more than one gene. Even so it's well known in GE that if you change one gene you know about, you often change 5 more you don't know. Many bright machines you may have seen on the web say that if you have the option of knowing what you get for the same action or not knowing, the machine has been programed to act like it's smarter generally always choose to be wise with the option. It's been said that "Wisdom is never by Chance". Caution would seem to be be advised beyond just the basic simple genes. There may be no way to know beyond this level. It might harm the gene pool much with more complex genes, us and the harm might not be proven for generations after the pool was permanently damaged. The word pool might be literal because of complex ripples in the other genes and physiology that may be unforseeable, with each ripple having important worth, if even one gene is changed, the whole pond of the standing wave may have an entirely unevolved (weaker) meaning. Science can't prove that when you take two elements like liquids and gasses, that you can combine them to always make a solid in a reliable way, there's a lot science can't achieve. Because of the ripple of the pool, many goals may be so unviable if the only way to win the prize may be by changing all the other genes, they would be changed so much they would be so unrelated they would be harmful. Genes may be like vitamins that are of worth only if taken with the other vitamins and herbs found in evolution's breadbox except more complex, if you take them out of the realm of evolution it may cause more harm than good.
....The many not one causology about evolution is highly controversial. With the blending of cultures and worlds, even if the higher speed evolution causology may be proven, by the time it becomes well established may not be controversial. With transportation science we may all be one. And there are many advantages the idea of people being "many not one" may have in the meantime. Because of evolution each person may have his own particular power and genius others don't to improve the solution of a given problem in many ways by way of their special perspective.
....There is the other boost to evolution of ways we can change out genes based on evolution, so our children might be more a music hero, of math! Or strong and good at science. The new improvements where the cell of your hand is morphed to another cell like a stem cell to make an embryo would seem to be highly dissaproved of by evolution (not being in evolution for millions of years so foreign to evolved life). If this was like the older cloning (even if this may be "new" and improved so "more of worth") or changing snips of genes so the whole set of genes is used with higher speed improvement than gene by gene it may still be harmful. The idea is to see if any harm occurs with just a few people who would have "improved" DNA. The problem is that some genes "might be" simple and code only one change, others are polygenic, like for intelligence, which has more than one gene. Even so it's well known in GE that if you change one gene you know about, you often change 5 more you don't know. Many bright machines you may have seen on the web say that if you have the option of knowing what you get for the same action or not knowing, the machine has been programed to act like it's smarter generally always choose to be wise with the option. It's been said that "Wisdom is never by Chance". Caution would seem to be be advised beyond just the basic simple genes. There may be no way to know beyond this level. It might harm the gene pool much with more complex genes, us and the harm might not be proven for generations after the pool was permanently damaged. The word pool might be literal because of complex ripples in the other genes and physiology that may be unforseeable, with each ripple having important worth, if even one gene is changed, the whole pond of the standing wave may have an entirely unevolved (weaker) meaning. Science can't prove that when you take two elements like liquids and gasses, that you can combine them to always make a solid in a reliable way, there's a lot science can't achieve. Because of the ripple of the pool, many goals may be so unviable if the only way to win the prize may be by changing all the other genes, they would be changed so much they would be so unrelated they would be harmful. Genes may be like vitamins that are of worth only if taken with the other vitamins and herbs found in evolution's breadbox except more complex, if you take them out of the realm of evolution it may cause more harm than good.
..
....Even so there may be more allowed by evolution than the rate we're evolving now. Breeding of animals like the sheep in history shows room for higher speed evolution. DNA is not copied exactly. This was proven in 2008 with twins. With GE we may be able to add in a certain level of GE without too much damage if evolution is able to absorb it. While random mutation is almost always lethal, without some mutation we couldn't have evolved, so there would be more allowed, like how with better medical care more of us live to 75. Who we are is much about only us so a rate more than this higher speed of evolution may actually be of no worth. I believe the promise of GE is much like cloning, for much the same reason; while it seems simple to achieve, because it's so unnatural it would be more and more harmful and complex beyond simple changes.
I can't swim Why? In this room? No, I'll swim in heat waves!
MORE ABOUT EVOLUTION
OVERPOPULATION And EVOLUTION.
...
SYNOPSES of THE ABOVE LINK
"Perhaps because as some biologists think we may have evolved like the manatees, dolphins, whales and other mammals at one time in our evolution into the water from the land to walk upright, then returned to land, then later only by luck millions of years we evolved our hands to be the genius of evolution we are. This third stage by definition may only have evolved without the other steps because evolution into the water was presumably to escape from wolves and other predators. If we stood higher in evolution for more vision, and then after returning to land in our evolution, our hands may have evolved in a seperate step, by way of the advantage of being able to reach up for a branch that had little to do with the first and second stage. In this causology even though we got our higher vantage point in the water, the water was mostly seperate from the branches, and like other mammals we might just as easily have evolved out into the ocean or deeper shores."
(Not guaranteed because we're smart)
~~~
Evolution And Aging
~~
Evolution of Complexity (Why Can't We Type out Words on the Typewriter At Random? Because Evolution is Speeding Up...).
Health and Evolution.. .
~~
Evolution of Complexity (Why Can't We Type out Words on the Typewriter At Random? Because Evolution is Speeding Up...).
Health and Evolution.. .
*Evolution and extinction of the Dinosaurs, Why not the birds and mammals? Click Here for what may be what I think might be seen, on an old old weather map!
..
