semi-idle question

[Prof David West]

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Hack the germline. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair

On Apr 23, 2021, at 6:12 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Merle Lefkoff-2]

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

--

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[thompnickson2]

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few. The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved. 
Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.   

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[thompnickson2]

Well, as Sociobiologists are wont point  out, the best out come for a male is to sire many more offspring than he is burdened to raise.  I don’t know whether this accounts for the low but steady prevalence of psychopathy in human populations as an alternative reproductive strategy, but it might. 

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 12:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few. The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved. 
Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.   

 

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

 

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few.

Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man?  Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming significant levels of monogamy).   Nutrition and health care (and stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 on average?

The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved.

Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some genetic feature?  Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good?

I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth).  e.g Genghis hisself

Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.  

With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone is/has/will".   The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy.  

https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php

and we DO have the Raëlians and Clonaid.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/

my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

" Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man? "

Good question, maybe my assumption is wrong? 

It's not so much about the siring of the children as about the successful raising of many children in the past.
My assumption is based on the fact that food was scarce and relatively expensive. Poor families' children were malnutritioned and died more easily from many types of illnesses. I'd love to find numbers to see if this is true or false. I did a quick google search and found nothing.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 21:43, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few.

Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man?  Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming significant levels of monogamy).   Nutrition and health care (and stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 on average?

The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved.

Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some genetic feature?  Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good?

I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth).  e.g Genghis hisself

Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.  

With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone is/has/will".   The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy.  

https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php

and we DO have the Raëlians and Clonaid.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/

my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

I'm not sure I did much better in finding (with trivial effort) relevant data but:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

provide some framing.  It seems in the present/industrial societies, the correlation is inverse

"Development is the best contraceptive." - Karan Singh

I was shocked that our (USA) Rnaught had dropped to 2.06 in 1940.  My father was 1 of 2 but my mother was 1 of 5 (all born in the 20s).   I was skooled by my betters in the equal rights movement that it was not until oral contraception (circa 1960) that fertility/reproduction rates dropped.  The chart above suggests (acutely) otherwise.  I'm assuming my grandparents must have relied on (male) barrier methods *or* they had just enough Calvinist in them (which they did by my 60's ideals) to rely on abstinence?

In all cases, I think the number of generations implied even by the last 2000 years might not be enough to obtain significant change?   Or is speciation more of a punctuated equilibrium event with abrupt environmental changes (including migration to new landscapes) are what drive rapid change by selection?   Or gradualism?  Or both:

    https://necsi.edu/gradualism-and-punctuated-equilibrium

- Steve

On 4/24/21 3:10 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

" Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man? "

Good question, maybe my assumption is wrong? 

It's not so much about the siring of the children as about the successful raising of many children in the past.
My assumption is based on the fact that food was scarce and relatively expensive. Poor families' children were malnutritioned and died more easily from many types of illnesses. I'd love to find numbers to see if this is true or false. I did a quick google search and found nothing.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 21:43, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few.

Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man?  Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming significant levels of monogamy).   Nutrition and health care (and stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 on average?

The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved.

Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some genetic feature?  Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good?

I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth).  e.g Genghis hisself

Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.  

With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone is/has/will".   The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy.  

https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php

and we DO have the Raëlians and Clonaid.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/

my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Let me rephrase it so that the point I wanted to make is maybe more clear.

I conjure that today in the developed world evolution by means of natural selection is at most very weak.  Although I don't think it's zero I only argue for the case that it is at least significantly weaker than a long time ago.

Why?
In the developed world today the conditions are not very conducive for natural selection. If there is a mutation making an individual slightly more fit for the environment, there is no mechanism for that person to have more descendents, so a crucial component of natural selection is missing. There is no correlation between having genes making you more fit for the environment and the number of descendants you have, so the genes making a person more fit for the environment do not spread through the population. I'm excluding the harm we do to the environment, but humanity is kind towards those with traits making them less fit for the environment. We care for the weak, we allow them to have as many descendents as the strong. I think this is unique for all species since life began. 

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 23:46, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure I did much better in finding (with trivial effort) relevant data but:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

provide some framing.  It seems in the present/industrial societies, the correlation is inverse

"Development is the best contraceptive." - Karan Singh

I was shocked that our (USA) Rnaught had dropped to 2.06 in 1940.  My father was 1 of 2 but my mother was 1 of 5 (all born in the 20s).   I was skooled by my betters in the equal rights movement that it was not until oral contraception (circa 1960) that fertility/reproduction rates dropped.  The chart above suggests (acutely) otherwise.  I'm assuming my grandparents must have relied on (male) barrier methods *or* they had just enough Calvinist in them (which they did by my 60's ideals) to rely on abstinence?

In all cases, I think the number of generations implied even by the last 2000 years might not be enough to obtain significant change?   Or is speciation more of a punctuated equilibrium event with abrupt environmental changes (including migration to new landscapes) are what drive rapid change by selection?   Or gradualism?  Or both:

    https://necsi.edu/gradualism-and-punctuated-equilibrium

- Steve

On 4/24/21 3:10 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

" Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man? "

Good question, maybe my assumption is wrong? 

It's not so much about the siring of the children as about the successful raising of many children in the past.
My assumption is based on the fact that food was scarce and relatively expensive. Poor families' children were malnutritioned and died more easily from many types of illnesses. I'd love to find numbers to see if this is true or false. I did a quick google search and found nothing.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 21:43, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few.

Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man?  Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming significant levels of monogamy).   Nutrition and health care (and stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 on average?

The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved.

Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some genetic feature?  Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good?

I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth).  e.g Genghis hisself

Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.  

With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone is/has/will".   The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy.  

https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php

and we DO have the Raëlians and Clonaid.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/

my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Frank Wimberly-2]

I wonder how birth control methods play into this.  Are the strong (e.g. affluent) more likely to use them?

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 11:15 PM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Let me rephrase it so that the point I wanted to make is maybe more clear.

I conjure that today in the developed world evolution by means of natural selection is at most very weak.  Although I don't think it's zero I only argue for the case that it is at least significantly weaker than a long time ago.

Why?
In the developed world today the conditions are not very conducive for natural selection. If there is a mutation making an individual slightly more fit for the environment, there is no mechanism for that person to have more descendents, so a crucial component of natural selection is missing. There is no correlation between having genes making you more fit for the environment and the number of descendants you have, so the genes making a person more fit for the environment do not spread through the population. I'm excluding the harm we do to the environment, but humanity is kind towards those with traits making them less fit for the environment. We care for the weak, we allow them to have as many descendents as the strong. I think this is unique for all species since life began. 

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 23:46, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure I did much better in finding (with trivial effort) relevant data but:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

provide some framing.  It seems in the present/industrial societies, the correlation is inverse

"Development is the best contraceptive." - Karan Singh

I was shocked that our (USA) Rnaught had dropped to 2.06 in 1940.  My father was 1 of 2 but my mother was 1 of 5 (all born in the 20s).   I was skooled by my betters in the equal rights movement that it was not until oral contraception (circa 1960) that fertility/reproduction rates dropped.  The chart above suggests (acutely) otherwise.  I'm assuming my grandparents must have relied on (male) barrier methods *or* they had just enough Calvinist in them (which they did by my 60's ideals) to rely on abstinence?

In all cases, I think the number of generations implied even by the last 2000 years might not be enough to obtain significant change?   Or is speciation more of a punctuated equilibrium event with abrupt environmental changes (including migration to new landscapes) are what drive rapid change by selection?   Or gradualism?  Or both:

    https://necsi.edu/gradualism-and-punctuated-equilibrium

- Steve

On 4/24/21 3:10 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

" Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man? "

Good question, maybe my assumption is wrong? 

It's not so much about the siring of the children as about the successful raising of many children in the past.
My assumption is based on the fact that food was scarce and relatively expensive. Poor families' children were malnutritioned and died more easily from many types of illnesses. I'd love to find numbers to see if this is true or false. I did a quick google search and found nothing.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 21:43, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few.

Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man?  Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming significant levels of monogamy).   Nutrition and health care (and stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 on average?

The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved.

Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some genetic feature?  Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good?

I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth).  e.g Genghis hisself

Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 
But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.  

With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone is/has/will".   The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy.  

https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php

and we DO have the Raëlians and Clonaid.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/

my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.
Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.
Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Prof David West]

Pieter is exposing the 'hidden' premise behind my question.

Natural evolution is veerrrrry slooowwwww when it comes to long lived creatures such as ourselves. But culture provides a much quicker form of "evolution" allowing our species to adapt and thrive in all kinds of niches: e.g. wearing the pelts of animals instead of growing our own in order to survive in the Arctic.

Then, our tech gives us the ability to shape the niches, creating new ones and destroying old ones. It seems that what was always a kind of co-evolution of environment and entity, with the entity"s adapting to the environment being more obvious, has or will become non-evolution of the entity and solely alteration of the environment.

Humans will no longer evolve.

So the future is extinction or some kind of "space parasol" to ameliorate the climate crisis?

davew

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, at 6:42 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

I wonder how birth control methods play into this.  Are the strong (e.g. affluent) more likely to use them?

---

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz,

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 11:15 PM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Let me rephrase it so that the point I wanted to make is maybe more clear.

I conjure that today in the developed world evolution by means of natural selection is at most very weak.  Although I don't think it's zero I only argue for the case that it is at least significantly weaker than a long time ago.

Why?

In the developed world today the conditions are not very conducive for natural selection. If there is a mutation making an individual slightly more fit for the environment, there is no mechanism for that person to have more descendents, so a crucial component of natural selection is missing. There is no correlation between having genes making you more fit for the environment and the number of descendants you have, so the genes making a person more fit for the environment do not spread through the population. I'm excluding the harm we do to the environment, but humanity is kind towards those with traits making them less fit for the environment. We care for the weak, we allow them to have as many descendents as the strong. I think this is unique for all species since life began. 

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 23:46, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure I did much better in finding (with trivial effort) relevant data but:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

provide some framing.  It seems in the present/industrial societies, the correlation is inverse

"Development is the best contraceptive." - Karan Singh

I was shocked that our (USA) Rnaught had dropped to 2.06 in 1940.  My father was 1 of 2 but my mother was 1 of 5 (all born in the 20s).   I was skooled by my betters in the equal rights movement that it was not until oral contraception (circa 1960) that fertility/reproduction rates dropped.  The chart above suggests (acutely) otherwise.  I'm assuming my grandparents must have relied on (male) barrier methods *or* they had just enough Calvinist in them (which they did by my 60's ideals) to rely on abstinence?

In all cases, I think the number of generations implied even by the last 2000 years might not be enough to obtain significant change?   Or is speciation more of a punctuated equilibrium event with abrupt environmental changes (including migration to new landscapes) are what drive rapid change by selection?   Or gradualism?  Or both:

    https://necsi.edu/gradualism-and-punctuated-equilibrium

- Steve

On 4/24/21 3:10 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

" Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man? "

Good question, maybe my assumption is wrong? 

It's not so much about the siring of the children as about the successful raising of many children in the past.

My assumption is based on the fact that food was scarce and relatively expensive. Poor families' children were malnutritioned and died more easily from many types of illnesses. I'd love to find numbers to see if this is true or false. I did a quick google search and found nothing.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 21:43, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few.

Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man?  Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming significant levels of monogamy).   Nutrition and health care (and stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 on average?

The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved.

Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some genetic feature?  Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good?

I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth).  e.g Genghis hisself

Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 

But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.  

With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone is/has/will".   The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy.  

https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php

and we DO have the Raëlians and Clonaid.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/

my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff

Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.

Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.

Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.

Center for Emergent Diplomacy

emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]

skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

"Humans will no longer evolve."

I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 16:21, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pieter is exposing the 'hidden' premise behind my question.

Natural evolution is veerrrrry slooowwwww when it comes to long lived creatures such as ourselves. But culture provides a much quicker form of "evolution" allowing our species to adapt and thrive in all kinds of niches: e.g. wearing the pelts of animals instead of growing our own in order to survive in the Arctic.

Then, our tech gives us the ability to shape the niches, creating new ones and destroying old ones. It seems that what was always a kind of co-evolution of environment and entity, with the entity"s adapting to the environment being more obvious, has or will become non-evolution of the entity and solely alteration of the environment.

Humans will no longer evolve.

So the future is extinction or some kind of "space parasol" to ameliorate the climate crisis?

davew

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, at 6:42 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

I wonder how birth control methods play into this.  Are the strong (e.g. affluent) more likely to use them?

---

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz,

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 11:15 PM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Let me rephrase it so that the point I wanted to make is maybe more clear.

I conjure that today in the developed world evolution by means of natural selection is at most very weak.  Although I don't think it's zero I only argue for the case that it is at least significantly weaker than a long time ago.

Why?

In the developed world today the conditions are not very conducive for natural selection. If there is a mutation making an individual slightly more fit for the environment, there is no mechanism for that person to have more descendents, so a crucial component of natural selection is missing. There is no correlation between having genes making you more fit for the environment and the number of descendants you have, so the genes making a person more fit for the environment do not spread through the population. I'm excluding the harm we do to the environment, but humanity is kind towards those with traits making them less fit for the environment. We care for the weak, we allow them to have as many descendents as the strong. I think this is unique for all species since life began. 

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 23:46, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure I did much better in finding (with trivial effort) relevant data but:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

provide some framing.  It seems in the present/industrial societies, the correlation is inverse

"Development is the best contraceptive." - Karan Singh

I was shocked that our (USA) Rnaught had dropped to 2.06 in 1940.  My father was 1 of 2 but my mother was 1 of 5 (all born in the 20s).   I was skooled by my betters in the equal rights movement that it was not until oral contraception (circa 1960) that fertility/reproduction rates dropped.  The chart above suggests (acutely) otherwise.  I'm assuming my grandparents must have relied on (male) barrier methods *or* they had just enough Calvinist in them (which they did by my 60's ideals) to rely on abstinence?

In all cases, I think the number of generations implied even by the last 2000 years might not be enough to obtain significant change?   Or is speciation more of a punctuated equilibrium event with abrupt environmental changes (including migration to new landscapes) are what drive rapid change by selection?   Or gradualism?  Or both:

    https://necsi.edu/gradualism-and-punctuated-equilibrium

- Steve

On 4/24/21 3:10 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

" Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man? "

Good question, maybe my assumption is wrong? 

It's not so much about the siring of the children as about the successful raising of many children in the past.

My assumption is based on the fact that food was scarce and relatively expensive. Poor families' children were malnutritioned and died more easily from many types of illnesses. I'd love to find numbers to see if this is true or false. I did a quick google search and found nothing.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 21:43, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/24/21 12:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

Up to maybe hundred years ago, a rich man could sire and raise ten children or more and many poor men none or at the most a few.

Why would a poor man sire significantly fewer children than a rich man?  Polygamy might have tipped the balance of available mates in favor of the rich and powerful, but otherwise war and other violence was tipping the balance toward every man having an opportunity to mate (assuming significant levels of monogamy).   Nutrition and health care (and stressors) might reduce the number of children a woman could (live) birth and raise to reproductive age, but I don't think the bias is less than 2:1 on average?

The key point is that genetic differences influenced the number of descendants a person had with the result that the conditions were there for natural selection and undoubtedly human beings evolved.

Does this mean you believe that wealth was a direct correlation to some genetic feature?  Within strict class and even more acutely, blue-blood nobility/caste reproductive contexts, there is *some* correlation, but I think the unrecognized effects of over-inbreeding did more harm than good?

I am willing to believe that high aggression may still have been selected for reproductively up into the industrial age, but I think that got sublimated into wealth and power collection more than reproductive fecundity (though I grant up to 2:1 advantage *through* acquired wealth).  e.g Genghis hisself

Today however, genetic differences between people have very small influence on the number of their descendants so the conditions are very weak for natural selection. I conjure that if natural selection is happening today it is very small, maybe negligible? 

But if you look beyond natural selection and include gene editing, humans can of course evolve. I would be very surprised if there are not already some filthy rich people doing it in secret.  

With the ?8.6B? people on this planet, I suspect "if we can, someone is/has/will".   The previously linked article on Texas Ranchers cloning prize Bucks suggests to me that up to the practical challenges imposed by broad ethical concerns that human cloning has to be (nearly) as easy.  

https://www.deerassociation.com/action-alert-texas-captive-deer-cloning-h-b-1781/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deer-Clone-4542735.php

and we DO have the Raëlians and Clonaid.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/05/dolly-cloning-sheep-anniversary/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/

my kids are too much like me already, we can barely get along as it is!

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 20:32, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

DaveW -

I think the eugenics movement(s) of the last century as well as the many clan structures in indigenous peoples and royal bloodlines throughout history have been structured with the aspiration of either inducing genetic drift in a desired direction, or (in the case of clan structures and incest taboos) perhaps mute it's worst outcomes.

The divergence of Neandertalis/Devonisis/Sapiens presumed to have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago and the reconvergence/subsumption roughly 40,000 years ago seem to represent the most *significant* evolution we know of among "modern" humans...    The time-scales I consider in your questoin are on the order of hundreds of years, not tens or hundreds of thousands.   That alone suggests to me that we will not see anything we can measure as "evolution".   The divergence of traits we identify as "race" seem to have happened over tens of thousands of years as well.   From our experience with domestic animal breeding, we probably have (refer to Eugenics literature) some sense of how many generations it would take us to "breed in" or "breed out" various traits.  

As Marcus and other technophile/posthumanist proponents have indicated, it seems that germline modification (e.g. CRISPR) is likely to become acutely more significant (for the first world?) than any natural "drift", much less evolution by natural selection.

And then all the ways we might entirely stunt/block evolution:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-rancher-cloned-deer-lawmakers-want-legalize_n_607ef3e0e4b03c18bc29fdd2

Who knew we had come this far from Dolly?

Can species NOT involved in deliberate breeding programs (e.g. wild things) evolve quickly enough to stay ahead of the anthropogenic changes afoot?   I think the simple answer is "hell yes!" but the more interesting relevant answer is sadly more like "barely" or "probably not hardly" if we are talking about our favorite or photogenic species (large mammals, colorful birds, ...  in particular).

For better or worse, the large mammal strategies including high mass/surface ratios also yield longer dependency and reproductive lags, so while the bacteria might achieve population doubling in tens of minutes, Whales, Elephants, Polar Bears and Humans have reproductive periods on the order of decades.

I think the Big Green Lie thread is asking if human *cultural* or *social* evolution can be quick enough to avert the disasters we think (some of us) we see looming on the near horizon.   A very specific (engineered?) pandemic might yield a very acute selection pressure.

In the wild, maybe in the niche areas where conditions are going out of human survival range (e.g. dewpoint too high for human sweat-cooling to maintain a temperature below the threshold for breakdown of enzymes (and other metabolic macromolecules) will uncover/select-out those with metabolisms more able to skirt that hairy edge...  but how many generations of that kind of selection (without significant mixing with other populations) would be required to see a coherent gene pool reflecting that survival trait?   And with modern knowledge/travel/technology, the chances of humans staying put and enduring those conditions and NOT creating/importing some form of mechanical/chemical refrigeration (or just moving into pit-houses coupled to the much lower temperature earth?)

I'm definitely not going to depend on it!

- Steve

On 4/24/21 10:50 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Well, it’s obviously both/and with trade-offs between. 

 

Please see attached.  It’s short.  

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff

Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:21 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question

 

Dave, I found this in Wikipedia:  "The social brain hypothesis was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather as a means of surviving and reproducing in large and complex social groups."

 

That might explain why we are now leading our species off the cliff. 

 

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can human beings evolve?

Was reading about Pepper Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. (population genetics)

Population was white with dark spots and the occasional dark colored moth was easy prey.

Pollution killed lichen and caused the trees (moth's habitat) to be covered in soot, turning them dark.

Population of black moths went from 2% in 1848 to 95% by 1895.

Is is possible for humans to evolve in response to climate change in a similar way? more general prevalence of melanin, craving for spicy hot food?

Of course moths used many generations to achieve their change and their lifespan is a fraction of a humans, so extinction is more likely than adaptation. But, is it at least possible in principle?

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.

Center for Emergent Diplomacy

emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  [phone]

skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

Pieter said:

"Humans will no longer evolve."

I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future?

I take your point, but insist that gene editing is not evolution, it is engineering.   If gene (esp. germline) editing were widely available and as freely accessible as say tattoos or piercings, then I might concede that we might see some "evolution" with the intentional editing itself representing the "mutation" and "popularity" being the fitness function.  I'm seeing a scene from the Quark's Bar or Men in Black about now.

My neo-luddite paranoia makes me expect something more like a Star Wars "clone-army", "supersoldiers" or *worse*?  Welle's Eloi or Atwoods Crakers to happen at the hands of "those in power" which weaves this thread back into the one(s) about power, wealth, etc.

DaveW:  If you were a chemtrail conspiracist you would believe that the gubm'tn (and elitist ???s) are *already* experimenting with building a mega-parasol in the upper atmosphere.  Maybe Elon Musk will announce an exaptation of his Starlink arrays to have larger and larger solar panels that are orientable like mini-blinds.   The amateur (and professional) astronomers will *really scream* about that?

My problem with engineering vs evolution is that *at best* we bring our best *systems thinking* to understanding the  systems in place which we are mucking with and then our best *design thinking*  and then build episystems on top of the last system we built, iterating asymptotically toward some recognized/stated/desired goal.   And THAT assumes we know what a good goal is, and that there are not unintended consequences, etc.  

Of course, evolution is nothing if not "unintended consequences" by some measure (up to "what means intention?").  

I don't know if it is utopian or dystopian to imagine a planet paved over entirely with golf courses and PV panels... maybe some would need a few WestWorld Adventure Parks to satisfy everyone?

Engineer on!

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

Pieter said:

"Humans will no longer evolve."

I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future?

And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[jon zingale]

I pressed a similar argument for CRISPR on vFriam this week. If the socially
responsible thing to do is to vaccinate for COVID-19, then perhaps it is
even more socially responsible to CRISPR away all potential to contract the
virus for future generations.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Frank Wimberly-2]

And I wondered why the impulse to develop contraception and vaccines, for example, and social welfare programs aren't elements of the environment.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:13 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

I pressed a similar argument for CRISPR on vFriam this week. If the socially
responsible thing to do is to vaccinate for COVID-19, then perhaps it is
even more socially responsible to CRISPR away all potential to contract the
virus for future generations.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.