Evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe our mind is evolving.

Albert Einstein once said “That if we could use our mind to its full potential, we would be pure energy.

Who’s monitoring our evolution anyway? Nobody has worked out how our mind works up to present date. We are certainly different from everything else on earth.
Have you ever seen anything else other than human beings that can smile? Forget the thumb; (Expression) is the greatest difference between mankind and all the other animals and creatures on earth.
The way we communicate is unique, we express what we think with words.
Words mean everything, giving everything with meaning, a better understanding...

I pondered evolution the other day, and I wondered why a horse and a donkey could reproduse to create a mule(who can not reproduce), but a dog and a wolf can reproduce to make offsprings that actually can reproduce. The reason, it seems, is that mules have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

Horses and donkeys are different species, while wolves and dogs are both from the same species and diverged relatively recently, around three to four million years ago, and they both have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs.

So..if chromosomes are such an important factor in evolution, how does a species split to a big enough extent that the mutated offsprings are fertile?

If number chromosomes are a defining characteristic in evolution, are people with Down's syndrome an attempt to create a new species from an evolutionary viewpoint with their one lacking chromosome?

Evolution has no intelligence behind it. There's no entity called evolution that tries to accomplish anything or improve a species. Random mutations happen every time a cell divides. It's dumb luck. If the trait is practical, it survives easier, if not, it slowly dies out.

I was just trying to say that no condition is an attempt to create a new species.

One thing I know about evolution is that it always has a purpose.

So, what could our purpose in the world be?

I find some comfort in the thought that I am different for a reason. Meant for something more than just being considered weird and feeling awkward most of the time. Yes, this could be an illusion, but at least it makes me feel better

I highly doubt Asperger's is an "evolution" if anything it's just like different skin colors, different hair colors, and the like. A likely genetic mutation. Does there have to be a purpose? No there really doesn't have to be one. Also if we were the next wave of evolution I don't know what'll happen to the human race lol.

Oh ffs, how many times?!

Short answer, no!

Your thoughts on 'evolution' stem from from watching too many marvel comic geek turns super hero films instead of actually putting the effort in and studying some bleedin biology.

What if we aren't even human to begin with? Alien minds, implanted in human bodies to observe and analyze humanity, and then report back our findings to the others.

Yes, it sounds pretty silly, but isn't it cool to know that there might be a mothership out there waiting for your return?

The word "mutation" is a word that often triggers an emotional response, as people like to ascertain a value to it. "Mutation" means "defective" to many...when, in fact, it doesn't. Same as "theory." Laymen misinterpret the actual meaning of the words.

Dos comments:

I pondered evolution the other day, and I wondered why a horse and a donkey could reproduse to create a mule(who can not reproduce), but a dog and a wolf can reproduce to make offsprings that actually can reproduce. The reason, it seems, is that mules have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

Horses and donkeys are different species, while wolves and dogs are both from the same species and diverged relatively recently, around three to four million years ago, and they both 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs.

So..if chromosomes are such an important factor in evolution, how does a species split to a big enough extent that the mutated offsprings are fertile?

If number chromosomes are a defining characteristic in evolution, are people with Down's syndrome an attempt to create a new species from an evolutionary viewpoint with their one lacking chromosome?


**Fertility has a number of factors...chromosome pairing during meiosis is one...though not the definitive. Xenopus laevis (2n=36) and Silurana tropicalis (2n=20), which diverged about 60 MYA (million years ago), can produce fertile offspring of both sexes. However, Xenopus laevis (2n=36) and Xenopus muelleri; Xenopus borealis; Xenopus gilli (all also 2n=36), which diverged <40 MYA can not produce fertile male offspring, only females. The reason for this appears to be a phenomenon called Faster Male Evolution...the factors of male fertility, from the timing and duration of mitosis in primordial germ cells (e.g. the initial cell population from which all sperm/egg will be derived from for the life of the organisms) up until the point where a sperm is actually able to fuse with the nucleus of an egg, is much more complex than female fertility. The more complex something is, the more ways it can get f*cked up. So...FME is something we see all the time in nature (so, in case you wonder...this is what I do. My research is the intersection of reproductive biology, evolution, and genomics: I investigate properties of the genome (genes plus other stuff) associated with fertility, and apply these to the context of lineage diversification (e.g. speciation)).
And downs syndrome is due to something called aneuploidy. Basically, there is an error during meiosis, where a chromosome pairs incorrectly and you end up with an imbalance. One gamete (ova) gets an extra (trisomy...downs syndrome) and the other has a deficit. Due to there being critical genes on EVERY chromosome, the gamete lacking the chromosome is inviable (can not survive)...but the other is viable. However, due to an improper balance of protein products (e.g more from that given chromosome, as there is an extra copy), the affected individual has an abnormal phenotype (how genes are expressed; often thought of how something 'looks'). **


Evolution has a purpose/direction.

**Absolutely NOT. Mutation is entirely random. And, while Darwinian selection tells us that new alleles increase/decrease in frequency due to selection, Darwinian selection is not the rule. Small isolated populations are subject to an incredible amount of stochastic variation (e.g. random variation) in population sizes (e.g. small populations are highly impacted by weather, population demography (sex ratios, age structure, etc.)), thus making is so that the number of individuals that breed in any given year can dip as low as zero. Anyhow, because these populations are so small, it's something called "genetic drift" that is the dominant force in evolution...and deleterious (e.g. harmful) alleles can become fixed (meaning everyone has it) pretty rapidly. Because of this, small populations are much more likely to go extinct. This is exactly why there are breeding programs set up with zoos (San Diego Zoo has one, for example)...to help keep the genetic integrity of a species on the brink of extinction strong, it is necessary to make sure that deleterious alleles DO NOT get fixed (this 'branch' of biology is called 'conservation genetics'). **

isnt Evolution just infact random mutations that happen. Like say some birds are born with a longer beak if that longer beak is advantageous, then that bird over longer time will get more offspring and suddenly that becomes the norm.

Thats how ive always seen evolution, is just totally random, and those random fact that do well are promoted well.

Im sure we would still have our tails today, if they were useful,

Its like the fact that we are getting taller, if people prefer tall people, in the end they will end up with more kids, thereby increasing height.

Ofcourse that will take longer, because the how many people there are on earth, not to mention that nothing is really about advantage we can survive any way luckly in modern society.

But yeah i would imagine if say there was another ice age, and there wasnt many people left, how would normal people deal with the isolation ? from what i hear, most normal can barely go a week without being in the city and drinking or not seeing another person for a week they are starting to loose is.

I could go years if not rest of my life no problem, atleast easier then they could, because they are so dependent on social thingy.

There was along time ago something with nasa they were paying people some money to study the effect on people being alone or in small groups or something, think it was for a year, i wouldn mind getting payed alot of money for being alone for a year. But then again, it was probably effects on being alone on normal people, not one like me hehe.

Like say some birds are born with a longer beak if that longer beak is advantageous, then that bird over longer time will get more offspring and suddenly that becomes the norm

Darwinian selection. And, in large populations, this is the dominant force. But, genetic drift dominates in small populations. So, assuming that the individual with the long beak, whether or not it has a selective advantage, can live long enough to reproduce, the genes for that beak will be passed on. If, for whatever reason, that same individual happens to have been on the other side of the island when a storm blows through, killing off all the others of its sex (or a big chunk of them), irregardless of whether or not it's beak has advantageous properties, there will be a larger proportion of the next generation with that trait simply due to chance (e.g. chance that the others died, and this one was among the only left to reproduce). Assuming the offspring who also have this trait live to reproduce, the allele will persist in the population. If there is another event where an individual with this trait contributes a larger number of offspring to the next generation, the frequency will again increase. A few cycles of this, and you can have this long beak become fixed. Anyhow, note that the opposite can also happen. The beak, advantageous or not, can also get purged from the population by the same mechanism.

Evolution isn't about choosing mates or choosing a characteristic one doesn't like. The evolving system doesn't consciously pick and choose what it wants nature to change about it. Regardless of how smart the system thinks it is. Nature changes the mold, according to need, not the casting.

I think "autism" is much further along than people think. By the time a change would be recognized and named, it would have to have been well underway for quite some time. I think there are some particular "autistic" aspects, present in most of the current world's population, in varying ratios with the "old" mechanism.

We don't exist outside of nature. Our "higher intelligence" and even our emotions are governed by the same laws that govern the rest of the universe. We do not exist outside of this universe - religion not-withstanding.

From what I've observed, it appears that NTs are becoming quite weary of the very "game" autistic individuals are unable to play (without a great deal of effort). I spent 50 years on this planet as "odd" but not known - by myself or any other - to be "defective". The consequence was that I didn't think of myself as "autistic" and, so, it didn't affect how I see people as it would have if I had known that they would have viewed me as "defective". My primary reason to avoid contact, quit jobs and move was that people tend to "cling" to me. Granted, I had the additional oddity of being exceptionally "smart", but I suspect it is because I don't waste "brain time" on "the game" and that it feels good to them to get something done without all of the social rigamarole.

It stands to reason that there would be members of a system that would have varying ratios between the "old" and the "new", at the same time there would be members with aspects of the "old" completely changed, or deactivated or replaced with something new. And it stands to reason that pervasive, "in your face" constructs - like politics and social structure - would have an effect on the mind and a physical effect on the brain.



It is thought that the limbic system - in those with "autism" - is immature. There isn't anything "wrong" with it, everything is where it should be and fires properly, it's just viewed as "immature". But it is ALSO viewed as "primitive", which, in scientific terms, often means "of a lesser value" than other systems.

Both constructs - political and social - have their basis in deception. One must be able to hide what one feels or pretend one feels nothing. In other words, one is taught (and often forced) to do one's best to disregard the processes of a rather significant portion of one's brain.

Now, one might think that "evolution" would simply turn that part of the brain off - but what if it turns off the part that interferes with it, instead? What if the limbic system isn't "primitive" but, rather, "fundamental" and necessary to a specific, evolutionary transformation? What if the perceived "maturity" of that portion of the brain is actually an "aggravation" or "inflammation" created by man's constant attempts to override it?

The general population, as I perceive them, are quite weary of the "pretense" involved in playing "the game". Things are very different, even from when I was a child. "NTs" appear to be more intelligent, less social AND more agitated about the "old ways". And things are moving much, MUCH faster, so when things go "wacky", they go VERY wacky, very quickly and the people grow even MORE weary of the "foot-dragging", old way of "solving" problems with politics and social subterfuge.

I think an evolutionary transformation is well underway. Far too many have cleared the hurdle of killing or locking away those who display flagrant differences and it appears to be speeding up, quite nicely. In other words, I think we passed "the point of no return", long before we stopped killing and/or locking away those who are different. It makes perfect sense - from my point of view - that as the general population gradually changes, it would become less and less likely to destroy those in whom they recognize "something" - even if they can't "name" it, they would almost certainly sense a familiarity and change their approach to the examination of such individuals - seeking similarities rather than differences.

It's like a new world out there and it is becoming more and more recognizable as "our" world rather than "their" world. And by "ours", I don't mean an "autistic" world. I mean mankind's world.

To clarify - when I say NTs are becoming "less social", I don't mean that they are becoming introverted - I mean they are not as social in the "old" manner of being social. With the internet, people are able to "gather" more naturally, according to one's interests and beliefs and as little or as often as one likes. As opposed to the "unnatural" form of gathering according to "social" rules and for the purpose of socializing, itself.